Blue or red pill?

[Ralf11]

I just want to mention that this thread goes really well with 1968 era Feedback tracks from the Grateful Dead...

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Why don't you give it a break for a while ?

I didn't say that the uploading caused the differences they reported hearing.  They were sent to them because they did sound different here, and all 3 participants confirmed that they did hear differences between both versions of " Ein Straussfes-Erich Kunzel  - Unter Donner und Blitz Polka,Op.324"

 

I will give it a break...because you aren't stating specifically the scenario in which case they sound different...and i hope you do stop, as i really don't think it is worth a debate....there is enough going on in this thread already without trying to complicate it (grin).

[fas42]

I haven't the time right now to read all the posts from overnight - but will just throw in, yet again, that the more one works towards getting optimum replay, the more one discovers that, yes, everything matters - and quite often it's seemingly "crazy" things that have some effect. I've worked in a number of areas investigating this, and, say, PeterSt has worked on another set of factors - they're all part of the big picture, and can become relevant, depending upon whatever, in a particular set of circumstances.

 

The real end goal is to make the complete audio chain fully robust - when the rig is properly sorted that nothing that you do further causes any significant changes in the quality of the sound.

 

The handicap that most people are working under is that the sound they currently experience is so far short of what's possible that almost "everything matters" - alter some parameter, in any area relevant to the subjective experience, and the sound changes, significantly. One has to push past this 'range'; get the quality in the zone where it's always a buzz to listen to - then further refinements are cream on the top, rather then altering the basic ingredients of the dish.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I suspect this is all expectation bias-driven. Having gone through multiple tests of Wi-Fi -> USB -> DAC, Ethernet -> USB -> DAC, USB directly, and USB over Ethernet -> DAC, I can't tell the difference between them unless there's not enough bandwidth.

I said:

 

 

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I suspect this is all expectation bias-driven. 

 

So this is what this test with Mani and Mansr is all about IMO.

 

Yes!

 

To clarify; my comment "So this is what this test with Mani and Mansr is all about IMO. " was aimed at you not being able to hear differences.

 

Expectation biases may or may not come in to it but either way should be controlled for.

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I suspect this is all expectation bias-driven. Having gone through multiple tests of Wi-Fi -> USB -> DAC, Ethernet -> USB -> DAC, USB directly, and USB over Ethernet -> DAC, I can't tell the difference between them unless there's not enough bandwidth.

I said:

 

 

 

To clarify; my comment "So this is what this test with Mani and Mansr is all about IMO. " was aimed at you not being able to hear differences.

 

Expectation biases may or may not come in to it but either way should be controlled for.

Best to use a measuring device then.

 

Which takes us back to......

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

Best to use a measuring device then.

 

Which takes us back to......

 

...are you measuring what you think you are measuring....and how accurate is your test.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

...are you measuring what you think you are measuring....and how accurate is your test.

I measure everything I can think of.  And every measurement will be far more accurate than any ear, human or otherwise.

 

So I miss something. But I won't do that as if I could hear it I would measure it. 

 

And all this stuff about humans being able to hear   'impulses' better than some other things is is nonsense.  If you can hear one you can her lots of them close together, which we perceive as a continuous sound. . Anyway, proper impulses  don't exist in 'reality' though things that are close to them do,  and can be measured much better by instreuments than by ears.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

I measure everything I can think of.

 

..and what of the things you can't think of

 

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

So I miss something. But I won't do that as if I could hear it I would measure it.

 

So, provided you can perceive it and provided your test is up to the task.Two possible failures right there.

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

And all this stuff about humans being able to hear   'impulses' better than some other things is is nonsense.

 

If you say so we should believe you, because you say so

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

Anyway, proper impulses  don't exist in 'reality'

 

I have an impulse. it says you are wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

proper impulses  don't exist in 'reality'

 

perhaps Einstein said it best.

<quote> Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one </quote>

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

I measure everything I can think of.  And every measurement will be far more accurate than any ear, human or otherwise.

I had a phase of doing that. I remember, it was 7 inches and a wrinkle, but given my age, it's now 7 wrinkles and an inch.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

I had a phase of doing that. I remember, it was 7 inches and a wrinkle, but given my age, it's now 7 wrinkles and an inch.

 

You should be beaten within an inch..I mean wrinkle, of your life! What is the SI unit of wrinkle anyway?

[Spacehound]

31 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

..and what of the things you can't think of

 

 

So, provided you can perceive it and provided your test is up to the task.Two possible failures right there.

 

If you say so we should believe you, because you say so

 

I have an impulse. it says you are wrong.

 

 

perhaps Einstein said it best.

<quote> Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one </quote>

Einstein was wrong. Reality will remain even if the human race (or any life)  never existed.

 

There's one I like. If the universe is infinite (which of course it may not be) everything possible will exist.

So:

The Americans land on Mars. They find a Nikon camera.

"The Russians must have got here before us"......"No, it's too expensive" 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Einstein was wrong.

 

between Einstein and yourself, let me see, yep I'd rather believe Einstein.

Quote

Reality will remain even if the human race (or any life)  never existed.

 

How would you know it existed if you never existed?

Esse est percipi !

 

off topic- the end

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

I haven't the time right now to read all the posts from overnight - but will just throw in, yet again, that the more one works towards getting optimum replay, the more one discovers that, yes, everything matters - and quite often it's seemingly "crazy" things that have some effect. I've worked in a number of areas investigating this, and, say, PeterSt has worked on another set of factors - they're all part of the big picture, and can become relevant, depending upon whatever, in a particular set of circumstances.

The other way of looking at this is that if one is committed to the "human sound quality device" model of audiophile hearing which attributes all fluctuation in listening experience to physical effects in audio equipment then one "discovers" that one "must" be hearing increasingly subtle effects beyond what can be measured (but are apparently easy to identify intuitively). One also "discovers" that returns do not necessarily diminish: three usb reclockers can be better than one; the cable loom must be coherent. Oh yes everything matters, even the psu on the router (what am I thinking- of course the psu on the router matters).

 

Peter belt discoverd this decades ago. Putting a piece of paper on the back of the cd player matters, freezing the cd matters. Aligning the screws on the plug matters. 

 

With an integrated sensory system everything matters, but the mechanism does not necessarily operate through sound pressure waves.

 

Another way of looking at this is that we can experimentally determine the audiophile noise level, like the "monkey average" which can be deducted from the score in a multiple choice test.  If something gains around the same level of enthusiasm as green cd marker pens then that's an adjusted score of 0

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

To clarify; my comment "So this is what this test with Mani and Mansr is all about IMO. " was aimed at you not being able to hear differences.

 

Expectation biases may or may not come in to it but either way should be controlled for.

 

There are two participants in this test, and their aims are not the same.

 

And by the way, I've been in Mani's shoes for many years. Spent a ton of money on digital clean-up equipment, cables, etc. Until I decided to seriously test what I was hearing. I've done the proposed blind test many times over, and no, personally I can't hear the difference.

 

I'm fully open to Mani proving his point. And if he does, just like Mans, I'd like to try to understand what caused the audible differences even if PeterSt thinks that's impossible to figure out. An objective outcome, positive or negative is something I would welcome, unlike all the subjective reports that dominate this topic.

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

How would you know it existed if you never existed?

 

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. No amount of argument or even a blind test will prove to me that I don't exist  You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... perhaps you're just a figment of my imagination.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There are two participants in this test, and their aims are not the same.

 

Who said they were?

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

And by the way, I've been in Mani's shoes for many years. Spent a ton of money on digital clean-up equipment, cables, etc. Until I decided to seriously test what I was hearing. I've done the proposed blind test many times over, and no, personally I can't hear the difference.

 

You are not alone in your inability to hear differences but that is not everyone's experience. Again, IMO, this is the essence of Mani's 'offer'.I think 'offer' possibly better describes the scenario rather than test or challenge. It certainly may progress beyond that but lets wait and see.

 

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm fully open to Mani proving his point. And if he does, just like Mans, I'd like to try to understand what caused the audible differences even if PeterSt thinks that's impossible to figure out. An objective outcome, positive or negative is something I would welcome, unlike all the subjective reports that dominate this topic.

 

I am also open to Mani or Mans finding whatever they find ie I really am interested in the result either way. I am less convinced about "proving his point" as, previously stated, IMO we are likely talking probabilities still at this stage not proof. But lets wait and see what happens.I too would like to understand more about the causes of hearing differences.

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. No amount of argument or even a blind test will prove to me that I don't exist  You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... perhaps you're just a figment of my imagination.

 

 

 

I have no quibble with Descartes Cogito ergo sum as I do for some of his other ideas. I would just say that the dictum does not seek to prove existence of anything other than self. Descartes indeed , to my understanding, noted the seemingly illusory nature of existence but comforted himself that at least he must exist if he could ponder such things. The illusory nature of things, as in the senses, is very much on topic for this thread, thus my reply here. The 'conversation' with Spacehound was more a tongue in cheek dig at Ontological materialism/realism vs Ontological idealism. But paraphrasing yourself...if you have to explain it,...... I would say this, if I'm "just a figment of your imagination" that you have been discussing this with, would that mean you are having an illusion or delusion?

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

But paraphrasing yourself...if you have to explain it,...... I would say this, if I'm "just a figment of your imagination" that you have been discussing this with, would that mean you are having an illusion or delusion?

 

I have an extremely vivid imagination. It encompasses all of reality. And since, as far as I know, I'm the only one who actually exists, it's entirely possible that all of it is a grand delusion

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

I have an extremely vivid imagination. It encompasses all of reality. And since, as far as I know, I'm the only one who actually exists, it's entirely possible that all of it is a grand delusion

How can you be sure you exist? See also Cotard delusion.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, adamdea said:

The other way of looking at this is that if one is committed to the "human sound quality device" model of audiophile hearing which attributes all fluctuation in listening experience to physical effects in audio equipment then one "discovers" that one "must" be hearing increasingly subtle effects beyond what can be measured (but are apparently easy to identify intuitively). One also "discovers" that returns do not necessarily diminish: three usb reclockers can be better than one; the cable loom must be coherent. Oh yes everything matters, even the psu on the router (what am I thinking- of course the psu on the router matters).

 

 

All of what you say would make sense, to me, if I had had the usual set of experiences that most audio enthusiasts have over the years - that is, subtle changes, after doing "big things". What happened to me, was getting a "big change in sound" after doing lots of little things - the difference between listening to live sound, and just a "hifi rig"; that's how much of a jump it is ...

 

And every audiophile system, of others, that I listen to is different - meaning, they have had all sorts of changes made to them, to get a "certain sound" - but they're all wrong ... because, they don't sound like what's on the recording; the latter is masked to some degree by the "signature" distortions of the particular playback setup. Only recently have I come across other rigs that get key attributes in the sound right- and this is a good sign of course. Unfortunately, these have typically been pretty expensive components - but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

The "increasingly subtle effects" are the steady removal of all the distortion anomalies - or should be!! The cause of audible degradation can be hard to pin down, and doing "silly things" may 'fix' issues for reasons that one doesn't understand at that moment - but there will always be a straightforward technical explanation, if one chooses to pursue finding out "why".

 

The reason for chasing down every last one of the issues is that the rewards are great - the SQ finally gets to the point where the human mind takes on board the presentation as matching how live sound is; and a convincing illusion snaps on, inside our head. The downside is that a great deal of fussing around may be needed, including using "three usb reclockers" , etc - every situation will be different; you do what it takes to get the system to the required level, in ways that make sense, or work.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

And by the way, I've been in Mani's shoes for many years. Spent a ton of money on digital clean-up equipment, cables, etc. Until I decided to seriously test what I was hearing. I've done the proposed blind test many times over, and no, personally I can't hear the difference.

 

I'm fully open to Mani proving his point. And if he does, just like Mans, I'd like to try to understand what caused the audible differences even if PeterSt thinks that's impossible to figure out. An objective outcome, positive or negative is something I would welcome, unlike all the subjective reports that dominate this topic.

 

Again, the word used is "different" - for me the important word is, "wrong" - does the sound have some quality about it which strikes you as not being how 'natural' sounds are, is the question to ask; is there an "uncomfortable" factor, no matter how tiny, in the listening? Chasing whether something is merely "different" is a huge waste of time, in my world.

 

The causes of audible difference are not impossible to work out, just mighty, mighty difficult at times - I say, who cares, so long as the work is done to eliminate those factors ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

35 minutes ago, mansr said:

How can you be sure you exist? See also Cotard delusion.

 

Well because @pkane2001 "grand" delusion applies to others not self.He therefore doesn't qualify for Cotard's delusion.

 

I have never seen a case of Cotard but have seen many times where people do not perceive/recognize body parts in various post stroke neglect/extinction/inattention phenomena. It extends to say neglecting everything on one side of a meal plate and only eating from the other side. I know you're not as interested as much to what occurs to the signal from tympanic membrane to brain but different sensory processing pathways maybe explains why some people hear things that others do not. It could be pathological or physiological but I would ague not an 'illusion' in the sense we talk about in audio fora whereby the assumption by some is it is all psychological or "nuts". "Nuts" is also a possibility.

 

Have fun with the 'testing'

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, the word used is "different" - for me the important word is, "wrong" - does the sound have some quality about it which strikes you as not being how 'natural' sounds are, is the question to ask; is there an "uncomfortable" factor, no matter how tiny, in the listening? Chasing whether something is merely "different" is a huge waste of time, in my world.

 

Frank, in order to be wrong or right, they must first be different. If you can't tell two playback methods apart, then they can't be audibly "wrong" or "right", whatever that means.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Well because @pkane2001 "grand" delusion applies to others not self.He therefore doesn't qualify for Cotard's delusion.

I mentioned it as a contrast to pkane2001's solipsism.

 

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I know you're not as interested as much to what occurs to the signal from tympanic membrane to brain but different sensory processing pathways maybe explains why some people hear things that others do not.

That may be, but in the construction of audio equipment our first goal is to create precisely the intended sound wave entering the ear. What happens beyond that is irrelevant. Measurement equipment is far more sensitive than our ears, so if it can detect no difference, then neither can the ears. If someone still hears something differently, the cause must be outside the audio gear. That doesn't mean it is uninteresting, but it does make it somebody else's problem.

[Spacehound]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Frank, in order to be wrong or right, they must first be different. If you can't tell two playback methods apart, then they can't be audibly "wrong" or "right", whatever that means.

Correct. People often get confused about this.

 

And as you don't know how your imitation music is supposed to sound there is no right or wrong as there isn't a reference.

 

So 'improvement' is also pointless. .

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Frank, in order to be wrong or right, they must first be different. If you can't tell two playback methods apart, then they can't be audibly "wrong" or "right", whatever that means.

 

This will vary between people, but I have found personally that hearing two sets of sound which are both "wrong" just starts building a sense of irritation with the listening - and I lose motivation, and interest, in deciding whether the irritation is identical between the two - so, will probably get that, wrong ... .

 

Audibly "wrong" means that one can hear clear artifacts in the playback - the distortion is distinctive, and describable. If car A has rattle type 1, and car B has rattle type 2 - I'll take car C, which has no rattle, at all.