Should blind testing discussion be banned on CA? POLL

[YashN]

interesting stuff

 

Thanks.

 

I think I wrote a lot more about these in that DDR3 bit-flipping thread.

 

The things revolving around Sense Amps for instance.

[BobSherman]

Comments like this, for example:

 

Jim,

 

I have a couple of questions... I picked the following quote from your site;

 

"In 1998, we began doing a music player called Media Jukebox, just as MP3 started to be popular. We're now in version 17 of its successor, called JRiver Media Center."

 

Can you please give us some insight in to the the Audiophile history, background and foundation of JRiver? Who are the JRiver "Golden Ears" and how did they develop them? How do they utilize them?

 

Regards

Bob

[jriver]

Bob, I can't imagine that your interest is genuine, but ok.

 

We've put about 150 man years into JRiver Media Center. It supports a seven person development team. The company is profitable and has always paid its own way. We've watched many other digital media companies raise and burn tens of millions of dollars, then disappear. We compete with free products from companies like Apple and Microsoft.

 

About half our business comes from people who are audiophiles. The rest is a mix of general audio and video enthusiasts.

 

More than a few of them have golden ears.

[esldude]

 

Dennis, I agree that McGowan presented his view as more factual than interpretation based.It is however in my opinion evidence based.For example The MIT paper (which you endorse ?), although not directly addressing the same topic, does IMO support the blog which is why mmerrill posted it I believe. It simply points out that hearing perception goes beyond the cochlea and indeed as pointed out by the MIT paper is the job of the brain. It is highly probable IMO the McGowan is right in saying perceptual abilities can adapt to changes in hearing acuity. The McGowan blog mentions *some* of the relevant physiology and focusing on the memory and training aspects relevant to his post. It wasn’t meant to be an MIT paper or thesis. You can take a cynical view that this is all a ploy to sell a product if and because there was no disclaimer about motivations and bias mentioned. However it doesn’t invalidate the general principles he was espousing. I believe you were overly critical in dismissing it and more likely need to revisit your *motivation*. That doesn’t discredit you but the ad hominem attack on AlexC IMO does…I would need to reread this but my pc is playing up making that difficult to verify. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.Firefox keeps on for some weird reason defaulting back to "page 10"of this post.

 

 

I do not dispute much processing creates perception in the brain. I not so long ago made some comments of a good illustration that neatly bisects the ear mechanism and the brain. It was in regard to hearing a sense of height. We hear height using the outer ear's oblong shape. It creates a deep notch in frequency response because the reflection off the outer ear and the ear cannel opening cause a comb filtering effect. The frequency at which this notch occurs varies from about 6khz to 12 khz depending on the upward angle and is somewhat different from person to person. The acuity for locating height of a sound can be as good as 4 degrees. Though this response anomaly is caused by the physical structure of the ear, it is the brain that interprets that as how high something is. There is no height sensation intrinsic to the physical ear mechanism.

 

When people had inserts added to the outer ear which reshaped the exact response notch vs height angle their perception of height became erratic and inaccurate. With enough time, the brain recalibrated its sense of height, and those test subjects heard it normally with normal accuracy. One surprise was literally in a minute of having inserts removed the brain switched right back to the old calibration and sense of height was immediately as good as ever.

 

The processing done by the brain on perception of sound beyond the most base level is less well understood. I see too much of those willing to use that gap and jump right in saying the brain processing we don't understand is how this or that unlikely effect (according to conventional knowledge of hearing) is what is happening. Audiophiles are sensitive and their claims are real people just aren't giving credit to the perceptual processing in the brain. With some issues it is a possibility. With some things claimed it is nothing of the sort. Again the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further.

 

So McGowan goes on about how fantastic our brain and our experience, and people with lots of exposure to live music like Nudell have the ability to discern incredibly small differences. That hearing takes place in our brain, and you don't even need great hearing to do it.

 

A short sentence from the McGowan quote:

 

The point is you capture an enormous amount of timbral, spatial, textural, tonal, dynamic and phase information for all that you hear.

 

Okay fine, but your hearing limits how well those things are captured by your ears. We can trivially measure all of those things at levels far exceeding anyone's ears. If something differs enough to be heard or upon being heard to be perceived in the brain, we can see that difference in measured response of reproduction equipment. The excuse that brain processing finds differences not measured doesn't pan out. That ignores the physiology of the hearing mechanism as it has limits.

[mmerrill99]

I do not dispute much processing creates perception in the brain. I not so long ago made some comments of a good illustration that neatly bisects the ear mechanism and the brain. It was in regard to hearing a sense of height. We hear height using the outer ear's oblong shape. It creates a deep notch in frequency response because the reflection off the outer ear and the ear cannel opening cause a comb filtering effect. The frequency at which this notch occurs varies from about 6khz to 12 khz depending on the upward angle and is somewhat different from person to person. The acuity for locating height of a sound can be as good as 4 degrees. Though this response anomaly is caused by the physical structure of the ear, it is the brain that interprets that as how high something is. There is no height sensation intrinsic to the physical ear mechanism.

 

When people had inserts added to the outer ear which reshaped the exact response notch vs height angle their perception of height became erratic and inaccurate. With enough time, the brain recalibrated its sense of height, and those test subjects heard it normally with normal accuracy. One surprise was literally in a minute of having inserts removed the brain switched right back to the old calibration and sense of height was immediately as good as ever.

Great stuff, thanks for that - do you have further links to this information?

 

The processing done by the brain on perception of sound beyond the most base level is less well understood. I see too much of those willing to use that gap and jump right in saying the brain processing we don't understand is how this or that unlikely effect (according to conventional knowledge of hearing) is what is happening.

No, I believe you misunderstand what is being stated. What is being stated is the possibility of an explanation being found in these mechanisms & a willingness to see that things might not be as black & white, cut & dried, & binary as is being put forth.It's just a pause for thought based on real research & the findings from auditory perception. To ignore this & not consider it's relevance would be a very blinkered view. As you said yourself, we know quiet a lot about the basic level of operation of hearing but not too much about the higher levels.

Audiophiles are sensitive and their claims are real people just aren't giving credit to the perceptual processing in the brain. With some issues it is a possibility. With some things claimed it is nothing of the sort. Again the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further.

I'm afraid you keep falling into this trap - in what way are you deciding that there is nothing being passed by the ear to the brain?

 

So McGowan goes on about how fantastic our brain and our experience, and people with lots of exposure to live music like Nudell have the ability to discern incredibly small differences. That hearing takes place in our brain, and you don't even need great hearing to do it.

Yes the perception of hearing takes place in the brain - it's odd that you seem to understand & then you lapse into statements like this.

 

You understand that the signals coming from the ears are just the pieces of the jigsaw that the brain processes into a composite picture that makes sense of the world. Here's a quote from a paper I already linked to which might give you another angle on this - it's talking about the McGurk effect:

This effect is taken by advocates of the “motor theory of speech perception”as showing that the speech recognition system does not use soundto recognize speech directly, but to infer the talker’s vocal tract activity;then it hears the sound that this activity would have created. This iswhy the visual evidence can so strongly influence what is heard.

 

A short sentence from the McGowan quote:

 

The point is you capture an enormous amount of timbral, spatial, textural, tonal, dynamic and phase information for all that you hear.

 

Okay fine, but your hearing limits how well those things are captured by your ears. We can trivially measure all of those things at levels far exceeding anyone's ears.

Yes, but the important aspect might not be what level of detail is being captured but rather what might be important to our perception is the mapping of the intricate relationship between these elements, not necessarily their finer details. Remember our auditory perception, like all our perceptions exists to serve a purpose - to make sense of the world. In all thing physiological, it seems that there is a built-in efficiency - we seem to have evolved to deal with the limitations of our physiology & compensate in many ways. One of the results of this is that our senses work together, not in isolation - they are not instruments, they are mutually reliant & supportive functions which together with the central processing capabilities do a great job of making sense of the world

If something differs enough to be heard or upon being heard to be perceived in the brain, we can see that difference in measured response of reproduction equipment. The excuse that brain processing finds differences not measured doesn't pan out. That ignores the physiology of the hearing mechanism as it has limits.

Do you know what measurements to make & to what level? Do you really know the limits of the hearing mechanism?

 

For instance how many dB can we hear below the noise floor?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I do not dispute much processing creates perception in the brain. ….We hear height using the outer ear's oblong shape……When people had inserts added to the outer ear which reshaped the exact response notch vs height angle their perception of height became erratic and inaccurate. With enough time, the brain recalibrated its sense of height, and those test subjects heard it normally with normal accuracy. One surprise was literally in a minute of having inserts removed the brain switched right back to the old calibration and sense of height was immediately as good as ever.[/quote

 

The processing done by the brain on perception of sound beyond the most base level is less well understood. I see too much of those willing to use that gap and jump right in saying the brain processing we don't understand is how this or that unlikely effect (according to conventional knowledge of hearing) is what is happening. Audiophiles are sensitive and their claims are real people just aren't giving credit to the perceptual processing in the brain. With some issues it is a possibility. With some things claimed it is nothing of the sort. Again the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further.

 

So McGowan goes on about how fantastic our brain and our experience, and people with lots of exposure to live music like Nudell have the ability to discern incredibly small differences. That hearing takes place in our brain, and you don't even need great hearing to do it.

 

A short sentence from the McGowan quote:

 

The point is you capture an enormous amount of timbral, spatial, textural, tonal, dynamic and phase information for all that you hear.

 

Okay fine, but your hearing limits how well those things are captured by your ears. We can trivially measure all of those things at levels far exceeding anyone's ears. If something differs enough to be heard or upon being heard to be perceived in the brain, we can see that difference in measured response of reproduction equipment. The excuse that brain processing finds differences not measured doesn't pan out. That ignores the physiology of the hearing mechanism as it has limits.

 

Dennis

If we take this sentence " the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further. "

 

IMO that is correct in part, as we have discussed before. If the signal is not passed on to the brain it doesn’t have info to interpret. What you are not perhaps understanding is that the McGowan blog (and what I and others have mentioned also in the past) is that the brain can adapt to the changed signal. This might occur due to an alteration in the pinna (as you accept seemingly as it is a more concrete example) that modifies the incoming signal or alteration in the transduction of higher frequencies, for example with presbycusis, that alters the incoming signal. Either way, the signal reaching the brain has changed and either way the brain likely adapts. Now this is not law but it is consistent with at least some known neuroplasticity and neurophysiology that have been more widely.It is also consistent with that MIT paper suggesting to stop looking at this as a simple transduction/transcription issue (which IMO is exactly what you are doing).

[esldude]

Dennis

If we take this sentence " the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further. "

 

IMO that is correct in part, as we have discussed before. If the signal is not passed on to the brain it doesn’t have info to interpret. What you are not perhaps understanding is that the McGowan blog (and what I and others have mentioned also in the past) is that the brain can adapt to the changed signal. This might occur due to an alteration in the pinna (as you accept seemingly as it is a more concrete example) that modifies the incoming signal or alteration in the transduction of higher frequencies, for example with presbycusis, that alters the incoming signal. Either way, the signal reaching the brain has changed and either way the brain likely adapts. Now this is not law but it is consistent with at least some known neuroplasticity and neurophysiology that have been more widely.It is also consistent with that MIT paper suggesting to stop looking at this as a simple transduction/transcription issue (which IMO is exactly what you are doing).

 

All well and good. But this adapting to the changed signal is often talked about with signals that we can't find having changed. Until the signal is known to be changed, the rest is a presumption of something that can't be found. Such times are when blind tests are called for. Simple transcription is the first hurdle. The brain processing can only come after that.

[mayhem13]

Gosh Anthony, no offense to you or any actual sufferer, but sometimes I think you are bi-polar. You can go from spewing vulgar insults to posting intelligent and thought-provoking arguments in a calm and polite manner. My way of saying thanks and trying to put the other things behind us. [\QUOTE]

 

In all honesty Alex, I've never considered you disingenuous in your approach to audio, posting or your work.......anything but as your passion for good music and sound is obvious. You're not here to dupe anyone into experiencing something than you don't believe you've experienced yourself. Hopefully my posts have never conveyed that message.

 

Nobody get's into the career of HiFi for the money these days. You gotta love what you do.

 

That being said, I also don't believe in the discussion of one's own commercial purpose or property within the context of a public enthusiast type forum. Unintentionally under the guise of experience or knowledge comes a development of trust misunderstood within the content of open discussion or instruction. Again, nothing underhanded from you and probobly unintentional, but a conflict of interests where the fora is a recreational activity. I've never ONCE brought any ill activity or posting to Chris' attention through PM or reporting and I've been on the other end of same thrashing that I've dished out myself. I don't suggest you tone down your subconscious marketing for the sake of Chris or myself, but the integrity of the CA community itself. The choice is obviously yours.

 

So please accept some of this honesty and clearing of the air as an apology for what may have been misinterpreted by you or others reading and reacting to my posts.

 

Now on to the topic.......Motivation as a mechanism for developing perceptive experience. This is a great example of how you might be bias as to my motivation in your response where you developed a possible conclusion where I'm indicating an unethical approach by a developer when in designing audiophile grade product. Outside of that bias or suggested conclusion, motivation is a precursor to all of the remaining mechanisms and can be suggestive of multiple agendas . We all desire to 'do well' in whatever purpose or effort we undertake. In the case of audio, the designer or developer wants the design to be successful, whether it a measure of his or her individual body of work. But it's equally important to understand the remaining mechanisms at work here in the perception of the designer. Like a parent, teacher or medical practitioner, the moral inference of the event (developing, teaching, healing, etc) is for the action to be beneficial and in such, a natural and powerful defense of the action and it's application to be successful. In such, one cannot exclude the overwhelming power of bias as it is somewhat guided by one's own moral compass. In reverse, even the most immoral motivations and behaviors can suffer the same bias that defends the action or behavior. While somewhat disturbing when given considerations of immoral behavior, the same powerful bias exists for the moral behaviors, this being the greater indicator as this bias is more likely to be repressed.

 

Enough on that but the moral here is to understand that each perspective mechanism is subject to influence from each and every other. Sadly within the human condition, none can be practically isolated from another. So when I suggest MOTIVATION as a factor in designing a piece of audio equipment, try and isolate the interpretation from bias.....let me know how that works out for ya! Lol.

 

I'd like to place the same importance as you on the similiar findings or experiences of others when all are trying to share the same experience or achieve the same goal. But in reality, when the activity becomes socially based, the results are predicated on the acceptance of others which can be categorized as cult in some cases. Individuality is not a strong suit worn by social human beings sadly. Thank god for the few that wear it proudly!

[mayhem13]

Dennis

If we take this sentence " the distinction is whether the ear physically responds to feed info to the brain. If it does not or can not respond, then there is nothing passed on for the brain to process further. "

 

IMO that is correct in part, as we have discussed before. If the signal is not passed on to the brain it doesn’t have info to interpret. What you are not perhaps understanding is that the McGowan blog (and what I and others have mentioned also in the past) is that the brain can adapt to the changed signal. This might occur due to an alteration in the pinna (as you accept seemingly as it is a more concrete example) that modifies the incoming signal or alteration in the transduction of higher frequencies, for example with presbycusis, that alters the incoming signal. Either way, the signal reaching the brain has changed and either way the brain likely adapts. Now this is not law but it is consistent with at least some known neuroplasticity and neurophysiology that have been more widely.It is also consistent with that MIT paper suggesting to stop looking at this as a simple transduction/transcription issue (which IMO is exactly what you are doing).

 

I believe it is you in fact who is both misinterpreting Dennis' explanation and quoting the observations and musings of McGowan as fact. You're only entitled to your interpretation, and Dennis his.

 

Also, I thought the subjective audiophile has already conceded that there is much to be learned in the study of the ear/brain mechanism and how we translate physical stimuli into psychoacoustic response? Sounds to me like you and Mr. McGowan have filled that void. How convenient?

[mayhem13]

Great stuff, thanks for that - do you have further links to this information?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our auditory perception, like all our perceptions exists to serve a purpose - to make sense of the world. ?

 

You suggest an instinctual behavior here to 'make sense of the world'. That's an enormously broad generalization that suggests learned social behavior which is neither evolutionary or instinctual. Take away learning or social activity and you're left with sensory perception with one instinctual drive.....survival.

[BobSherman]

Jim,

 

What you have done is very impressive, and I really do respect that. You are very smart and very successful.

 

But...

 

You do not have an audiophile pedigree. More than 20 years before your release of your music software I was building amplifiers, preamps and speakers. Owned a Linn turntable, a reel to reel tape deck owned hundreds of albums and hundreds of tubes. Spent time listening to some of the best audio systems in NYC enjoyed many hours listening in the back room in Lyric Hi-Fi with Mike Kay.

 

By 1978 I had been listening to live music two to three times a week for years already. The NY Jazz scene was amazing. I was a bit to Young to enjoy the heydays of Slugs which closed in 1972, but my musician friends would tell me stories about how all the greats would go there after their gigs and would just jam. It is hurtful when you are so flippant about people's passion.

 

The problem I have is that you are not an audiophile. When you try to address subject, you really do not have the same experience that many of us do have. This concept becomes very troublesome.

 

Maybe you should not be so sure about things that you actually have not lived through yourself. Try having an open mind.

 

Try telling a women what the feeling of childbirth is like and see what happens...

 

Regards

Bob

[Paul R]

Those who can, do.

Those who merely want to, complain.

Those who think they can but fail, try to be experts.

Real experts run like the wind from pseudo experts.

 

True in every hobby I guess.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

All well and good. But this adapting to the changed signal is often talked about with signals that we can't find having changed.

 

Dennis now you are talking about a different issue entirely. Can I assume then you agree in principle at least with what we recently discussed about the brain being the organ of perception, it can adapt to changing incoming information, the McGowan blog (political affiliations and biases aside) talks about enhanced perception through memory and training as well as reasons why anyone might retain perceptual skills despite changes/deterioration of the incoming signal, that the MIT paper exemplifies work done in the areas of neurophysiology and neuroplasticity, that said neurophysiology and neuroplasticity is consistent with all of the former?

 

Conversely by the same principles anyone can be influenced by brain processes to degrade the perceptual experience, perceive changes that are not related to the incoming signal, not perceive actual changes to the incoming signal, color their experience with their unique emotional frame of references and biases ?

 

Until the signal is known to be changed, the rest is a presumption of something that can't be found. Such times are when blind tests are called for. Simple transcription is the first hurdle. The brain processing can only come after that.

 

Ahh Dennis, like mmerrill I think was trying to tell you ( I havent reread his post, forgive me if wrong) you keep on returning to this model. The brain can process the signal differently whether the signal has changed or not. Someone can be more skilled in processing the same signal and actually perceive more than the next guy or alternatively they will be perceiving the influence of non-signal factors.I think this is your bug, that audiophiles hear stuff which may or may not be related to changes to the incoming signal. Either way it can not be proven or disproved, blind testing included.I humbly suggest you move on from letting it bother you. As previously said, if those audiophiles posit that the perception has changed *because* of changing x factor of the incoming signal, we get it, its up for challenge. Honestly though its as if you have a chip on your shoulder, a crusader against the audiophile conspiracy that they have better hearing than you. Given that burden of bias you seem to see every neuroscience discussion as a threat.

 

Well, no doubt you will heartily disagree.You are a smart guy and I hope you can help unravel the mystery for the benefit of us all. But for now I am through debating this topic with you on an agree to disagree basis :-)

 

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I believe it is you in fact who is both misinterpreting Dennis' explanation and quoting the observations and musings of McGowan as fact. You're only entitled to your interpretation, and Dennis his.

 

Also, I thought the subjective audiophile has already conceded that there is much to be learned in the study of the ear/brain mechanism and how we translate physical stimuli into psychoacoustic response? Sounds to me like you and Mr. McGowan have filled that void. How convenient?

 

Clearly you have not been listening, if listening not understanding......in an irrational mood I guess atm ;-)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Jim,

 

What you have done is very impressive, and I really do respect that. You are very smart and very successful.

 

But...

 

You do not have an audiophile pedigree. More than 20 years before your release of your music software I was building amplifiers, preamps and speakers. Owned a Linn turntable, a reel to reel tape deck owned hundreds of albums and hundreds of tubes. Spent time listening to some of the best audio systems in NYC enjoyed many hours listening in the back room in Lyric Hi-Fi with Mike Kay.

 

By 1978 I had been listening to live music two to three times a week for years already. The NY Jazz scene was amazing. I was a bit to Young to enjoy the heydays of Slugs which closed in 1972, but my musician friends would tell me stories about how all the greats would go there after their gigs and would just jam. It is hurtful when you are so flippant about people's passion.

 

The problem I have is that you are not an audiophile. When you try to address subject, you really do not have the same experience that many of us do have. This concept becomes very troublesome.

 

Maybe you should not be so sure about things that you actually have not lived through yourself. Try having an open mind.

 

Try telling a women what the feeling of childbirth is like and see what happens...

 

Regards

Bob

 

I also respect Jim as I have said before. For the reasons you have said and also the strong impression he is a very loyal individual with an an enormous work ethic and other stuff. Re his pedigree you never know Jim might come back and say he was part of that music scene back in the day and plays 6 instruments and regularly attends audiophile listening sessions and jam sessions with fellow musos.

 

What gets up my nose is (IMO) his ownership of the truth. But I do have to take my own advice and move on ( I can hear the snarky remarks coming...who will write them hmmmm)

 

It also kind of strikes me as disappointing that JRMC can *never* improve its sound quality. What we have now is the best it can be - bit perfect - no attempt even at a systems synergistic approach. I apologize to Jim if I have misread this.

 

Cheers

David

[Superdad]

In all honesty Alex, I've never considered you disingenuous in your approach to audio, posting or your work.......anything but as your passion for good music and sound is obvious. You're not here to dupe anyone into experiencing something than you don't believe you've experienced yourself. Hopefully my posts have never conveyed that message.

 

Nobody get's into the career of HiFi for the money these days. You gotta love what you do.

 

That being said, I also don't believe in the discussion of one's own commercial purpose or property within the context of a public enthusiast type forum. Unintentionally under the guise of experience or knowledge comes a development of trust misunderstood within the content of open discussion or instruction. Again, nothing underhanded from you and probobly unintentional, but a conflict of interests where the fora is a recreational activity. I've never ONCE brought any ill activity or posting to Chris' attention through PM or reporting and I've been on the other end of same thrashing that I've dished out myself. I don't suggest you tone down your subconscious marketing for the sake of Chris or myself, but the integrity of the CA community itself. The choice is obviously yours.

 

So please accept some of this honesty and clearing of the air as an apology for what may have been misinterpreted by you or others reading and reacting to my posts.

 

Thank you very much Anthony.

 

I recognize that this place I enjoy spending so much time at (mostly because the people are sharp, literate, and fun) is not the best forum from a commercial standpoint. The are no manufacturer/sponsor sub-forums as there are most others, this site has but a fraction of the traffic of Head-Fi.org, and possibly not as affluent a membership base as someplace like WhatsBestForum. Yet I don't even have account log-ins at those sites and don't find the discussions there very stimulating. So, like Miska, Peter, Jesus, and others, I sort of skim the line and generally bring up what I'm producing or what I'm privy to with Swenson only in passing as it seems relevant (except of course in the threads where people are talking and asking about my products--in those I believe I am permitted to answer questions, post pictures, and provide information).

 

I look forward to the day that Chris offers a small commercial sub-section where small vendors like myself can be more free to engage with potential clients. Regardless, I will continue to hang out and contribute my thoughts and experiences as they seem fit. The fact that you recognize my passion for good music and good sound (a lifelong journey really) is gratifying to me.

And I hope you also recognize that I never report based on anything but my own first-hand aural experiences. Despite our differences with regards to what factors we believe have audible affect, I hope you can accept the fact that I truly abhor conjecture and snake oil in audio. I'm not nearly the subjectivist that some believe me to be!

 

Have a nice weekend everyone. Don't forget that tomorrow is Valentine's Day (mustn't deprive the florists and greeting card companies their special day).

 

Peace,

--Alex C.

[esldude]

Ahh Dennis, like mmerrill I think was trying to tell you ( I havent reread his post, forgive me if wrong) you keep on returning to this model. The brain can process the signal differently whether the signal has changed or not.

 

Agreed. It can process a signal better upon repitition or upon learning between repititions. It can learn more than the initial perception. There are still limits to what can be perceived set by what is possible to hear.

 

Someone can be more skilled in processing the same signal and actually perceive more than the next guy or alternatively they will be perceiving the influence of non-signal factors.I think this is your bug, that audiophiles hear stuff which may or may not be related to changes to the incoming signal. Either way it can not be proven or disproved, blind testing included.I humbly suggest you move on from letting it bother you.

 

Yes there are differences in perceptive ability thru experience, training and other factors. For whether it can be proven it will be one of the things we will be agreeing to disagree upon.

 

As previously said, if those audiophiles posit that the perception has changed *because* of changing x factor of the incoming signal, we get it, its up for challenge. Honestly though its as if you have a chip on your shoulder, a crusader against the audiophile conspiracy that they have better hearing than you. Given that burden of bias you seem to see every neuroscience discussion as a threat.

 

No it isn't a threat they have better hearing than me. At my age there are surely people who do, as well as having training or experience beyond my own. Neuroscience is no threat either. It is necessary for full understanding. It simply shouldn't be used as an excuse to kick the can down the road.

 

Actually Jud's recent simple test had an appalling result to me. I would have expected people who frequent this forum to have obtained better results. I won't discuss this much further in that vein as I don't think that was Jud's wish.

 

Well, no doubt you will heartily disagree.You are a smart guy and I hope you can help unravel the mystery for the benefit of us all. But for now I am through debating this topic with you on an agree to disagree basis :-)

 

Cheers

David

 

Well enough then. I agree.

[alfe]

Again not sure exactly what you are asking about. Are you asking if I had a rip of my own and I had an Alex rip and they sounded different would I be curious and try to figure out why? The answer is yes I would. So far all bit identical rips I have tried from any source when played back on the same equipment sound the same.

 

Alex at one time sent me two files that were different. One had been reduced something like 40 db, delayed a few milliseconds and added back to the original. One was clean. Those sounded different, and I described them as such. Not exactly news that two different files might sound different.

 

As I have tried to make clear, I am not an uncurious person. But being curious based upon differences I don't hear, and have tried to hear isn't very effective.

 

As I said let's forget about identical files:

If the checksum is different try to slice the song to sections check the value of data and if they are the same this section should sound the same.

Check the wav header if the difference is small you know it's the same recording.

After this two test if the sound of your rip in this section is different to Alex one.......

If you share one album with Alex just do the experience which I did with Sumiyaki coffee.

[sandyk]

If you share one album with Alex just do the experience which I did with Sumiyaki coffee.

 

Alfe

I have previously reported that several years ago,(21/08/2009) NYC member "siverlight" and myself ripped the track "Feelin' The Same Way" from a Norah Jones Hybrid SACD. We both had the same disc, and after ripping the track I sent my rip via Filemail to Geoff. He verified that both rips still had identical checksums, but reported that my rip sounded better than his done on his Mac. Mine was ripped using a Teac writer with strips of 3M 2552 aluminium anti vibration tape on it's case, and was done on a Windows XP machine..

I have made further improvements in ripping since back then, and use the LG GGW H20L BR writer which sounded better than the Teac. (I had both writers in the PC for a while.)

 

Regards

Alex

[mmerrill99]

Until the signal is known to be changed, the rest is a presumption of something that can't be found. Such times are when blind tests are called for. Simple transcription is the first hurdle. The brain processing can only come after that.

Ahh Dennis, like mmerrill I think was trying to tell you ( I havent reread his post, forgive me if wrong) you keep on returning to this model. The brain can process the signal differently whether the signal has changed or not. Someone can be more skilled in processing the same signal and actually perceive more than the next guy or alternatively they will be perceiving the influence of non-signal factors.I think this is your bug, that audiophiles hear stuff which may or may not be related to changes to the incoming signal. Either way it can not be proven or disproved, blind testing included.I humbly suggest you move on from letting it bother you. As previously said, if those audiophiles posit that the perception has changed *because* of changing x factor of the incoming signal, we get it, its up for challenge. Honestly though its as if you have a chip on your shoulder, a crusader against the audiophile conspiracy that they have better hearing than you. Given that burden of bias you seem to see every neuroscience discussion as a threat.

Yes, David that's one aspect that I feel Dennis is overlooking but another one is that he says there is no change between the files that the ear can register for the brain to process & I keep asking him where he is establishing this.

 

Fact of the matter is that even when using Diffmaker (one of the favoured tools of objectivists) there is a limit to the null achievable & so the ASSUMPTION is made that if this is below the established JNDs then it is CONSIDERED inaudible.

 

One has to look at the assumptions underlying this conclusion. Firstly, what the null is saying is that either the test has this limitation below which it cannot resolve differences or that there are differences below this level. AFAIK, the test doesn't have this limitation so there are differences but these differences are considered inaudible. So what is this inaudibility based on - JNDs which have been established with simple test tones, clicks etc. - test signals designed to measure the mechanical properties of the ear & NOT the auditory processing properties of the brain. So, given a complex signal, such as music, have the JNDs been established for what is audible? No, they haven't & yet people apply one set of JNDs established with simple tones inappropriately to JNDs for complex sounds. This is the mistake that I see esldude & others make

 

We see this mistake in esldude's conclusion about Amir's hearing a difference between RB & high res files. Even after the files were resampled with a modern SRC & esldude ran a null test on them (which, to him, showed any differences were inaudible) Amir was still able to positively ABX them. esldude's conclusion was that Amir was able to do this by turning the volume up unnaturally high & listening to the background noise difference between the tracks - this is just a convenient way of denying the evidence which I don't accept & Amir denies that he did this.

 

So do we have an example of a trained listener (Amir) being able to "hear" more in the two files than most others. What would this ability be down to - his training obviously as he admits his hearing tests are normal for a man of his age - he's limited to about 15 or 16KHz HF. So his auditory perception is where the difference lies & this gives him the ability to interpret the SAME signals as everybody else hears & yet pay attention to areas of difference better than most - areas that are considered by esldude's null test to be below audibility. Are these signals low level - yes, but in combination with the other signals in the sound the auditory processing system is able to make more inferences (hear more) than if the signals were heard solo.

 

That's why I continually ask him on what basis he makes the statement "Until the signal is known to be changed" - he knows the signals are different - it's just that he interprets that difference as inconsequential.

 

So, can I ask him to stop making absolute statements like this when in fact they are qualified statements - it's just misleading to readers

[jriver]

What gets up my nose is (IMO) his ownership of the truth. But I do have to take my own advice and move on ...

Probably good advice. You've mentioned this a few times now, so I'll address it.

 

By arguing that I'm speaking as if I know the truth, you're implying that I don't, and that others do. Do you have that right, any more than I do?

 

And

 

I do my best to talk about things I know. You may disagree, but please believe me when I say that. I don't venture into questions like how you isolate a DAC from outside noise, for example. I do point out the flaws that people post about how computers work. I taught myself to program on an Osborne in 1981, the year I began the software business. This is something I do understand.

 

I only play 5 instruments, but you wouldn't want to hear it.

 

Like Bob Sherman, I have also heard live music. My Junior High Orchestra, Senior High Band, Orchestra Hall concerts, small venues in San Francisco and New York. And the guys from the original Powdermilk Buscuit Band (Prairie Home Companion) used to hang around my old wood stove store and play music by the fire. Nice times.

 

I don't think my work ethic is as good as a lot of people I've known, but I learned that and a lot of business ethics from my dad, who started Cliff's Notes in 1958. He was Cliff Hillegass. I owe him a lot.

 

And Now My Story Is All Told.

[mmerrill99]

Listen to this sound sample & see how what we hear is a function of the context of the signals & not just the signals alone. Are we "hearing" a continuous signal through the noise bands or is our auditory processing interpolating this signal? We know the signal is actually not there in those gaps but our auditory processing changes the signal at the ears into a "Perceptual continuation of a gliding tone through a noise burst" Does this distinction matter?

 

Another one I already gave was what is called comodulation masking release which is a fancy way of saying we can "hear" much lower into a noise floor if there are other signals present which modulate with the signal formerly buried in the noise floor. Try this example . Are we now actually "hearing" the tone signal formerly buried beneath the noise or is the comodulating signal doing a perceptual trick as in the above sample? Does this distinction matter?

 

Is this just the biological example of signal interpolation - you know the reconstruction filter we accept in digital audio? BTW, these are no interesting auditory illusions - they are found in nature all the time. In fact comodulation masking release is derived from the fact that in nature pure tones are very seldom heard - complex, co-modulating harmonics are the norm & animals, including ourselves use this fact to our advantage in our auditory processing system.

 

Anyway, the point is that the accompanying signals effect the perception of the primary signal & derive a real example of the old adage "the sum is greater than the parts".

 

Hence my reluctance to accept JNDs established using simple test signals & have been calling for more sophisticated JNDs

[mayhem13]

Probably good advice. You've mentioned this a few times now, so I'll address it.

 

By arguing that I'm speaking as if I know the truth, you're implying that I don't, and that others do. Do you have that right, any more than I do?

 

And

 

I do my best to talk about things I know. You may disagree, but please believe me when I say that. I don't venture into questions like how you isolate a DAC from outside noise, for example. I do point out the flaws that people post about how computers work. I taught myself to program on an Osborne in 1981, the year I began the software business. This is something I do understand.

 

I only play 5 instruments, but you wouldn't want to hear it.

 

Like Bob Sherman, I have also heard live music. My Junior High Orchestra, Senior High Band, Orchestra Hall concerts, small venues in San Francisco and New York. And the guys from the original Powdermilk Buscuit Band (Prairie Home Companion) used to hang around my old wood stove store and play music by the fire. Nice times.

 

I don't think my work ethic is as good as a lot of people I've known, but I learned that and a lot of business ethics from my dad, who started Cliff's Notes in 1958. He was Cliff Hillegass. I owe him a lot.

 

And Now My Story Is All Told.

 

Sorry you had to succumb to the pressure of providing credentials to the heirarchy. It's amazing how some feel they hold books for enrollment to audiophilia.

[mmerrill99]

Probably good advice. You've mentioned this a few times now, so I'll address it.

 

By arguing that I'm speaking as if I know the truth, you're implying that I don't, and that others do. Do you have that right, any more than I do?

The point is that nobody has the full truth - getit? That's what's being told to you over & over again

And

 

I do my best to talk about things I know. You may disagree, but please believe me when I say that. I don't venture into questions like how you isolate a DAC from outside noise, for example.

Well you stated that this wasn't rocket science - so are you now saying that statement was made about something that you don't know about and you wish to withdraw it?

I do point out the flaws that people post about how computers work. I taught myself to program on an Osborne in 1981, the year I began the software business. This is something I do understand.

 

I only play 5 instruments, but you wouldn't want to hear it.

 

I also, like Bob Sherman, have heard live music. The guys from the original Powdermilk Buscuit Band (Prairie Home Companion) used to hang around my old wood stove store and play music by the fire. Nice times.

 

I don't think my work ethic is as good as a lot of people I've known, but I learned that and a lot of business ethics from my dad, who started Cliff's Notes in 1958. He was Cliff Hillegass. I owe him a lot.

 

And Now My Story Is All Told.

Thanks for your story - it is interesting but I noted when Bob asked you what golden eared people you used in your company you avoided the question & cited your customers instead. I take it that you have no such people in your company then?

[PeterSt]

We see this mistake in esldude's conclusion about Amir's hearing a difference between RB & high res files. Even after the files were resampled with a modern SRC & esldude ran a null test on them (which, to him, showed any differences were inaudible) Amir was still able to positively ABX them. esldude's conclusion was that Amir was able to do this by turning the volume up unnaturally high & listening to the background noise difference between the tracks - this is just a convenient way of denying the evidence which I don't accept & Amir denies that he did this.

 

Excuse me, but, Amir ?