We don't need no stinking hi-rez

[Jud]

I once listened this way too. Felt it reliable enough. In time with some experience of surprising situations I came to distrust it. My current opinion is the method is very, very satisfying and wrong about as often as right.

 

I think you may have described these situations before. If so, I would appreciate being reminded. If not, I would appreciate your describing them now.

[Jud]

(notwitstanding Karl and falsifiabilty issues, not our fault that it is hard to do) :-)

 

 

While the validity of Karl and his falsifiability criterion as a measure of what is truly scientific have come under some criticism in the past few decades, for our purposes I think it will serve just fine. But further to your comment above, in order to state a falsifiability scenario, what you have to do essentially is design an experiment, something many non-scientists aren't accustomed to doing.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I agree. The really difficult part though is finding and agreeing on a test to measure the outcome of the experiment.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

Since most of my music library is comprised of classical music, I have been quite satisfied with the sound and hardly ever felt the need to look for better mastered versions.

 

 

R

Wow i must say the main reason i tend not to listen to classical music is my perception that it is so hard to reproduce a big orchestra and venue...in my living room.i tend to prefer smaller ensembles but that can include chamber music.

[Don Hills]

... The MSB has massive soundstaging and resolution of space between instruments. It was enough to literally attract the attention of my cat!I have never seen that before. The cat on occasion would look around into the soundscape to "see" what was making the sound. ...

 

It's just as likely that the DAC was generating spurious ultrasonic noises that the cat thought sounded like prey...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Let's take one example from your list, tone. I'm not sure whether you mean pitch or timbre, so I'll discuss both.

 

Pitch: Imagine listening to a series of notes in a musical selection, perhaps as little as a few seconds. Then you go through a process, say 10-15 seconds, of switching sources, and you play the same series of notes again, except this time the pitch is just very slightly higher - say, A at 450Hz rather than 440, all relativities between pitches preserved. (See Pitch to Frequency Mappings and A415: The Story of "A:" More about Baroque pitch.) How sure are you that you would recognize the difference? Now the same experiment, except A at 440Hz is in the left channel while A at 450 Hz is in the right channel simultaneously. Do you think the pitch difference between the two would be recognizable when hearing both simultaneously?

 

Now timbre: There was a reasonably famous experiment many years ago where university music students tried to distinguish instruments based on harmonics (overtones). That is, the instruments played identical notes, and the attacks and releases were removed so only the harmonics were left to evaluate. The notes were heard sequentially. The students did surprisingly poorly; some of the guesses were frankly comic.

 

I don't recall whether you participated in my little listening test in the winter/spring of this year, which involved distinguishing between two guitars playing simultaneously (so two different models of the same instrument - one a 1930s archtop, the other a more classic-looking 1950s acoustic), one primarily in the right channel, one primarily in the left. The overwhelming majority of people participating were able to clearly describe to me the distinctions between sounds of the two.

 

So yes, I think simultaneous comparisons may be quite helpful in perceiving distinctions in the types of qualities you mention.

 

(See also my blog post on a simultaneous comparison of capacitors installed in my DAC, same specifications, one brand in the left channel, the other brand in the right - Semi-Customized DAC, Part V: Rollin', rollin', rollin'... - Blogs - Computer Audiophile. The post contains the image below, which came to mind as I listened, and will give you some idea of the degree of difference I heard between these identically spec'd components.)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22611[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks Jud i will take a look at the references when i get home. My misunderstanding was that you were relying on the formation of the stereo image as the sole differentiator.

[Jud]

It's just as likely that the DAC was generating spurious ultrasonic noises that the cat thought sounded like prey...

 

You think either one is subject to that much aliasing? (He asked only half seriously.)

[Jud]

Thanks Jud i will take a look at the references when i get home. My misunderstanding was that you were relying on the formation of the stereo image as the sole differentiator.

 

Well, that's an interesting topic. Formation of a center image (called "fusion") will occur even where there are significant differences between the channels. But it may be unlike any such image in nature or regular audio because it can be disjunct (perhaps considerably so), like TwoFace the Batman villain in the picture above. So yes, such a comparison can highlight phase-driven differences like soundstage height (unless phase is muddled sufficiently by processing for both channels), but it also aids differentiation of other qualities.

[esldude]

As I mentioned, there are not tests for many conditions, even today. Dennis, I am convinced you are convinced of your blind belief in blind audio tests.I am different in that I remain a little more objective....okay I am chuckling as I write, dont take it seriously.

 

No I am not blindly believing in blind testing. However, I find the blind tests more convincing than results of sighted listening in evaluating very small to possibly non-existent differences.

 

Now, DBT's in medicine are used to try and eliminate the influence of placebo, not to measure whether something is real or not, exists or not. For the latter, you must have a test of known quality with measurable parameters. Yes, measurable. When you give me those measurements I will tell you how good BT's are at declaring whether or not audio differences exist.Somehow I know you will just keep conveniently ignoring this ( and you may prove to be right) but at the moment your approach is unscientific.

 

If a DBT in medicine can't show an approximate 30% difference between treatment and control group most people would claim that the result may be due to placebo.It in no way means there is not a real response for the treatment group just that a real placebo response may be responsible for others. The concern is not to potentially do harm with the treatment.

 

Well listeners have shown about a 30 to 40% rate of indicating a difference where none existed. How is this different than medical placebo effects?

 

In audio a 30% difference in perceived SQ would be huge. It is one of the reasons that I believe blind testing is likely way too insensitive to use as a conclusive test of perceived musical differences. The false negatives would be unacceptably high.The negative predictive value,poor. Both real and placebo/biased results can be buried in that 30%.

 

And what can you offer that would be better? You seem to agree with the long term listening paradigm. Am I wrong about that? You certainly can't offer any useful information of the same kind you are asking for in that methodology.

 

Now where are those references to MEASUREMENTS you keep on skirting for the sensitivity,specificity,reliability,validity,false/neg outcomes and positive/negative predictive values of using BT's for the existence of perceived differences in music? I need objective measurements please ! I need data, not opinion (yes I am chuckling).

 

Well chuckle on.

 

 

Bunch of crap! If I hear something I dont have to prove it to anyone ! Those that say "that's impossible" have to prove their claim, and with real scientific tests ! (notwitstanding Karl and falsifiabilty issues, not our fault that it is hard to do) :-)

 

You don't have to prove it to anyone. You also may not be able to convince anyone you can actually hear such things except as a result of placebo.

[esldude]

You think either one is subject to that much aliasing? (He asked only half seriously.)

 

Depends on which filter of the MSB was being used. One or two of them do indeed have considerable aliasing. The Kalliope according to articles about it have a slow and fast roll off filter. Don't know in this case which were in use.

[Jud]

Depends on which filter of the MSB was being used. One or two of them do indeed have considerable aliasing. The Kalliope according to articles about it have a slow and fast roll off filter. Don't know in this case which were in use.

 

Ahh, interesting. Here, kitty kitty!

[PopPop]

It was John Cage symphony that was scored for dog whistle.

[esldude]

I once listened this way too. Felt it reliable enough. In time with some experience of surprising situations I came to distrust it. My current opinion is the method is very, very satisfying and wrong about as often as right.

I think you may have described these situations before. If so, I would appreciate being reminded. If not, I would appreciate your describing them now.

 

Won't go into much detail here.

 

Trying a new expensive digital cable between transport and DAC with several friends. We agreed upon the improvement. I left it in and continued listening over 10 days being very happy with how much better it was, appreciating it more as I got time to listen to a wider variety of music. It has seemed putting in new equipment the difference might not be great at first, but after several days taking it out was the real test. Doing so could reveal a bigger difference than you thought when you heard the old less good stuff again. So after 10 days I wanted to go back to the old digital lead which was simple RG6 I made up. What I found was somehow in the switching around, the RG6 is what I was listening to those 10 days. oops!

 

A similar experience with two DACs. I and a friend listened to and were very happy with how good the new one was over 3 days of auditioning. I went to his house the 1st and 3rd day. We had the opinion it need a couple days to fully settle in. Only to find somehow, the first day we had left the old DAC in place after brief initial comparisons and listened to it for two full evenings over 3 days. Very happy with the result of improvements wrought by the 'new' DAC. Another one of those sinking feelings you get in the pit of your stomach.

 

I have recounted before my belief in the fidelity of vacuum tube amps that SS couldn't hope to match only to find if you series a pair of each, the result always sounded like the tube amp which was obviously colored.

 

Difference testing of interconnects which are far more similar to each other from disparate design and costs than are two channels of very expensive DACs. Yet so many, including me at one time, could hear 'interconnects' while no one is complaining about the good and bad channel of their DACs.

 

There are others not coming to mind. The big deal is how any one of them should have given pause for reflection on the premise of auditioning components. While it took quite awhile to actually change my opinion. In each of the earlier instances, it was no trouble to ignore the mistake, and never think of it. Even though it was a mistake accompanied by very deep obvious perceptions and feelings that just went up in cloud of smoke "poof" once the mistake was seen.

 

The one with the tube and SS amps was probably the one that actually did stick in my mind from a variety of viewpoints one might take. That what sounds better might actually be a coloration, and therefore judging progress in fidelity via preference is a road to becoming lost. And this from something that actually genuinely did sound different for reasons that can be determined. How much worse when you take this approach with things that don't actually sound different.

 

One important one I forgot. Getting an ADC to digitize analog signals in my otherwise all digital to the amp output system. I found inputs from ADC to DAC could sound the same as straight wire.

[sandyk]

One important one I forgot. Getting an ADC to digitize analog signals in my otherwise all digital to the amp output system. I found inputs from ADC to DAC could sound the same as straight wire.

 

And of course, you were only using 16/44.1 as you believe that is all that is necessary ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

No I am not blindly believing in blind testing. However, I find the blind tests more convincing than results of sighted listening in evaluating very small to possibly non-existent differences.

 

I respect your opinion but many people have different opinions. This is precisely why if you wish to rely on BT's, you must have the measurements on the test's reliabilty et al.

 

Well listeners have shown about a 30 to 40% rate of indicating a difference where none existed. How is this different than medical placebo effects?

 

It isn't. Like I said,both real and placebo/biased results can be buried in that 30%. You dont know which is which. It doesn't help you unless you have a gold standard test with measurable parameters for comparison. perhaps even worse, with blind listening tests, you are using a listening test as a test of listening.

 

 

 

And what can you offer that would be better?

 

As I have repeatedly said, I don't know of anything better. My point as always is don't rely on an unproven test that you cannot verify. Its like going out with your long stick placed on the ground and saying see, the world is flat. When someone challenges the test you say, well I can't think of a better test so I still think the world is flat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to prove it to anyone. You also may not be able to convince anyone you can actually hear such things except as a result of placebo.

 

Yes I completely agree, but I am fine with that. The corollary is that nobody can with any scientific validity say that what people are hearing is anything but absolutely real.Both propositions are equally valid whether we favour one or the other is scientifically not important. It comes down to interpretation of available evidence and personal opinion/belief.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Depends on which filter of the MSB was being used. One or two of them do indeed have considerable aliasing. The Kalliope according to articles about it have a slow and fast roll off filter. Don't know in this case which were in use.

 

 

Ahh, interesting. Here, kitty kitty!

 

I blinded the cat and didnt let her see which filter I used. For the record I trialed all of the filters on both units. I think if anything the cat preferred the slow roll off kalliope ! More pleasing ultrasonics no doubt.

[esldude]

And of course, you were only using 16/44.1 as you believe that is all that is necessary ?

 

Actually I was using 24/48 as the DAC I had topped out at 48. The ADC would do 96.

[esldude]

I blinded the cat and didnt let her see which filter I used. For the record I trialed all of the filters on both units. I think if anything the cat preferred the slow roll off kalliope ! More pleasing ultrasonics no doubt.

 

If you were petting or touching the cat, then it was only a single blind comparison. You knew the filter settings and could have unconsciously transmitted those feelings to the cat. I am assuming your cat isn't telepathic.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

If you were petting or touching the cat, then it was only a single blind comparison. You knew the filter settings and could have unconsciously transmitted those feelings to the cat. I am assuming your cat isn't telepathic.

 

 

A Cambridge scientist believes we have only seen the beginning of animals' telepathic powers

 

• Ability of animals to seemingly anticipate disasters is ignored by Western scientists
  
• But could monitoring their behaviour help to save lives?
  

By Dr Rupert Sheldrake

One of my former neighbours in my home town of Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, was a widow whose son was a sailor in the merchant navy.

He did not like to tell his mother when he would be coming home on leave because he was afraid she would worry if he was delayed on the way. But his mother always knew anyway — thanks to the family cat.

This pet was very attached to this young man and, an hour or two before he arrived, it sat on the front door mat and began miaowing loudly as if equipped with some sixth sense which told it that he was on the way.

 

Mystic mutt: Some animals seem to sense when their owners have had accidents or have died in distant places

The cat was never wrong and this early-warning system gave our neighbour time to get her son’s room ready and prepare him a meal in the certainty that he would turn up soon afterwards.

This is just one of many examples of animals displaying the apparently psychic tendencies more normally associated with some of their human counterparts.

Many cats seem to know, for example, when they are going to the vet’s — hiding away in the hope that their owners might get bored of looking for them and give up on the idea.

Read more: A Cambridge scientist believes we have only seen the beginning of animals' telepathic powers | Daily Mail Online

[esldude]

A Cambridge scientist believes we have only seen the beginning of animals' telepathic powers

 

 

Well to be honest, I stopped reading when I saw the name of Rupert Sheldrake.

 

Now I did have a good shepherd dog that would know when my Mom was coming home from work. He would go and sit at the edge of the drive several minutes before she got home. It seemed like one of those things of special knowledge or something.

 

I started timing how long from his positioning himself beside the drive and her arrival. It was reasonably consistent. Working backwards, we determined it was near a railroad crossing. We lived on a hill, and weren't quite line of site to that crossing from about 1.5 miles away. This was around 3 miles of roadway however. The railway ran on to pass about 2 blocks from our house at the bottom of the hill. So for three days I got some binoculars, and went to a place I could see the railway crossing. Sure enough just after my Mom crossed the railway my dog would go to the end of the driveway. Still don't really know what he heard though hearing something was my best guess.

 

Only then did I notice if she came home from another direction he didn't know it, and if she drove a different car he didn't know it. So not telepathic after all. Still pretty good hearing and pretty smart to put the two together.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Now I did have a good shepherd dog that would know when my Mom was coming home from work... So not telepathic after all. Still pretty good hearing and pretty smart to put the two together.

 

We owned one for 10 years. They are beautiful animals.We used to live at the top of a long driveway and he would be there sitting and waiting when we got come. I also assume he heard the car coming.

[esldude]

xkcd: Human Subjects

[Sal1950]

A Cambridge scientist believes we have only seen the beginning of animals' telepathic powers

 

 

Well to be honest, I stopped reading when I saw the name of Rupert Sheldrake.

 

Now I did have a good shepherd dog that would know when my Mom was coming home from work. He would go and sit at the edge of the drive several minutes before she got home. It seemed like one of those things of special knowledge or something.

 

I started timing how long from his positioning himself beside the drive and her arrival. It was reasonably consistent. Working backwards, we determined it was near a railroad crossing. We lived on a hill, and weren't quite line of site to that crossing from about 1.5 miles away. This was around 3 miles of roadway however. The railway ran on to pass about 2 blocks from our house at the bottom of the hill. So for three days I got some binoculars, and went to a place I could see the railway crossing. Sure enough just after my Mom crossed the railway my dog would go to the end of the driveway. Still don't really know what he heard though hearing something was my best guess.

 

Only then did I notice if she came home from another direction he didn't know it, and if she drove a different car he didn't know it. So not telepathic after all. Still pretty good hearing and pretty smart to put the two together.

 

Trained as a scout dog handler at Fort Benning GA before Viet Nam. We used German Sheps and they could alert on a trip wire from a quite a distance from hearing the vibration of the wind passing over the wire. Their abilities in sight, scent, sound, and sensing vibrations is incredible. He may have been either hearing the car pass over the tracks or feeling the ground vibrations.

[semente]

I once listened this way too. Felt it reliable enough. In time with some experience of surprising situations I came to distrust it. My current opinion is the method is very, very satisfying and wrong about as often as right.

 

I guess you are lucky because I have never found any pleasure in comparing equipment or recordings and would be immensely happy if some piece of software or gear would do that for me.

In fact, I hate it.

 

 

Won't go into much detail here.

 

Trying a new expensive digital cable between transport and DAC with several friends. We agreed upon the improvement. I left it in and continued listening over 10 days being very happy with how much better it was, appreciating it more as I got time to listen to a wider variety of music. It has seemed putting in new equipment the difference might not be great at first, but after several days taking it out was the real test. Doing so could reveal a bigger difference than you thought when you heard the old less good stuff again. So after 10 days I wanted to go back to the old digital lead which was simple RG6 I made up. What I found was somehow in the switching around, the RG6 is what I was listening to those 10 days. oops!

 

A similar experience with two DACs. I and a friend listened to and were very happy with how good the new one was over 3 days of auditioning. I went to his house the 1st and 3rd day. We had the opinion it need a couple days to fully settle in. Only to find somehow, the first day we had left the old DAC in place after brief initial comparisons and listened to it for two full evenings over 3 days. Very happy with the result of improvements wrought by the 'new' DAC. Another one of those sinking feelings you get in the pit of your stomach.

 

I have recounted before my belief in the fidelity of vacuum tube amps that SS couldn't hope to match only to find if you series a pair of each, the result always sounded like the tube amp which was obviously colored.

 

Difference testing of interconnects which are far more similar to each other from disparate design and costs than are two channels of very expensive DACs. Yet so many, including me at one time, could hear 'interconnects' while no one is complaining about the good and bad channel of their DACs.

 

There are others not coming to mind. The big deal is how any one of them should have given pause for reflection on the premise of auditioning components. While it took quite awhile to actually change my opinion. In each of the earlier instances, it was no trouble to ignore the mistake, and never think of it. Even though it was a mistake accompanied by very deep obvious perceptions and feelings that just went up in cloud of smoke "poof" once the mistake was seen.

 

The one with the tube and SS amps was probably the one that actually did stick in my mind from a variety of viewpoints one might take. That what sounds better might actually be a coloration, and therefore judging progress in fidelity via preference is a road to becoming lost. And this from something that actually genuinely did sound different for reasons that can be determined. How much worse when you take this approach with things that don't actually sound different.

 

One important one I forgot. Getting an ADC to digitize analog signals in my otherwise all digital to the amp output system. I found inputs from ADC to DAC could sound the same as straight wire.

 

Thank you for reporting on your past experiences.

Now I can understand your suspicion regarding sighted listening evaluation.

In your case, it seems that some of your past decisions have been strongly influenced by expectation bias.

I, and surely many here, have also been through similar experiences at one point or another.

 

After some 10 years without practicing audio, the birth of my first son prompted a move to a larger apartment and this in turn rekindled my interest in the hobby.

My first step was to update myself on the subject by reading reviews in "specialised" magazines; it seemed like a logical thing to do at time.

But most magazines no longer care about high fidelity, they publish infomercial descriptions tinted by writers' personal taste and views on the subject instead of reporting about the performance; benchmarks and accuracy are no longer goals, audio has become a matter of taste.

I can't say that it wasn't an educational experience for I had a taste of single-driver speakers, NOS D/ACs, opamp chip amps, the lot, but I ended up wasting a bit of money which could have been given better use.

Fortunately I was never lured into the cable band wagon.

Nowadays I have a very strong parti prix against audio magazines, just as you have against sighted listening.

 

A short time after my return to audio I signed into a local forum, and made friends with a group of audiophiles whose interests mostly focused in accuracy to the signal and one in particular has been developing solid state amplification and digital sources on a non-comercial basis from many years.

My first audition of his playback system was a tremendous, mind-shatering experience: I wasn't prepared for such a combination of "softness", "clarity" and dynamic realism that made the sound unbelievably natural.

One thing that is still stuck into my mind after all these years is how we were able to talk and understand each other without apparent effort when the system was blasting away the Scherzo of Bruckner's 9th.

I had been listening to the usual "high-end" suspects at shows but this audition was a much more marking experience and set a benchmark which I now use as reference.

 

Anyway, since then I have been making an effort to educate myself both technically and sonically, pay close attention to measured performance and have also been perfecting my listening method in order to make it more discriminating and effective, and as fail-proof as possible.

I think I have also made a good job at making myself immune to "hypeness", "blingness" and "expensiveness" factors.

Despite the excitement surrounding the new USB data signal regenerators (for want of a more appropriate name) I am still waiting for a few more technical assessments before I decide whether or not to give one of them a try...money easy to spend but hard to produce.

And as I have mentioned earlier, I definitely don't take any pleasure out out tweaking my system; I much prefer to spend time listening to music.

 

Even though I understand and value the merits of blind testing I am convinced (though not certain) that you could be missing some of the fine nuances that distinguish one equipment from another; and if you add a few tiny gains in performance the overall result will surely materialize as a noticeable improvement.

Once, when talking to a high-performance turntable craftsman, he compared the design of a turntable to the tuning of a formula 1 car, where a minuscule adjustment might only produce a 0.017 second gain, but this could be enough to take pole position.

 

R

[Jud]

Very interesting story, Ricardo. There's much I agree with, including that I would rather listen to music than do comparisons.

 

Softness and clarity are very good qualities to be able to have together, I think.

 

Speaking of softness, and regarding immunity to hype, etc.: What I think it is impossible to make oneself immune to is loudness. You want to be extremely careful that what you are evaluating and what you have been using as a baseline, or any two things you are comparing, are volume-matched very, very closely (within ~.1dB if possible).