Blind tests can be unreliable.

[STC]

Here are two audio files recorded using simple binaural microphones.  One file is with much higher room RT and another one by almost 6dB lower. The difference can be readily audible when heard in the listening room. However, I find using quick AB method usually would not reveal the difference readily when the change is from long RT to shorter RT. This temporary inability can be explained by how our ears adjust to filter out extra reverbs and takes time to adjust when a sudden reduced reverbs takes place.

 

Anyway, this is to show that there can be some unique occasions where ABX cannot prove that you could hear the difference.

 

I did a quick ABX and didn't score 100% although I believe I could after some familiarizing which would defeat the purpose. Here are the results:-

 

foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4.2
2019-02-03 17:43:03

File A: H1.wav
SHA1: ef46572d386babadd4778a6c68bd45ae253dc94f
File B: H2.wav
SHA1: 194befda5dfb19e8b0038934bb3a089a489c1e70

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

17:43:03 : Test started.
17:43:44 : 01/01
17:44:01 : 02/02
17:44:20 : 02/03
17:44:31 : 03/04
17:44:49 : 04/05
17:45:08 : 04/06
17:45:27 : 04/07
17:45:55 : 05/08
17:46:11 : 06/09
17:46:22 : 07/10
17:46:38 : 07/11
17:46:53 : 07/12
17:47:13 : 08/13
17:47:26 : 09/14
17:47:40 : 10/15
17:47:52 : 11/16
17:47:52 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 11/16
Probability that you were guessing: 10.5%

 -- signature -- 
1e52e772f5c3f51a05af4556b5f149b54121fe7c

 

 

Difference between the two files.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And samples here.

 

H1.mp3

 

H2.mp3

 

Let me know if you need the WAV.

[STC]

Only when you smoke the right stuff. 

[STC]

Not them. Only you who without even a proper playback hardware which you admitted deficient in every sense could recreate the real sound in head. 

[STC]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

Only a Porsche could deliver Porsche performance type of thing

 

Did Kingswood also believe this? No wonder they disappeared!

 

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Having heard many systems with impressive subwoofers do a poor job of creating the sense of a pipe organ playing, I prefer my methods.

 

Don't bluff. Your Sharp cannot even touch 60Hz without loosing few dBs. Stop dreaming about pipe organ accurate reproduction via your speakers.

[STC]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

My initial response to the thread as far as it is currently, would have been this (and then I got diverted):

 

When this would be about the level (like the 3dB of difference here), contrary to what everybody says, I would not have a problem with that. I may not even hear the difference (which is important, read on). I may need an absolute level in relation to reality (like a piano plays at 90dBSPL) but usually that works out too loud anyway.

 

I don't think it is possible to level match binaural recordings. 

 

 

This is someone response in ears at different degrees. They are unique to each individual and cannot be reproduced accurately. So level matching is impossible...

 

Quote

 

 

 

Similar again could be the hall. I know how my room "halls". It does a little. But if I listen to the music as how it currently is reproduced ? it seems too much. It just can't be. But at least I can check it with some reference (the room itself). Not so with headphones ...

 

I hope I make sense somewhat.

 

Please don't judge the sound quality. All I wanted to emphasize is ears supress mechanism can make instantaneous blind test can give false negatives at times.

 

BTW, one of the track cannot be distinguished from the original in blind tests. However, if you take your own sweet time and just state your preference without AB comparison you will invariably pick one over the other.

 

[STC]

39 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I wasn't talking about your two tracks. I was talking about my own means of reproduction lately (through speakers, and I listened to your tracks only through headphones).

 

Ok. Anyway, those were meant to be listened with headphones only.

 

39 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

I understood that.   What I tried to contribute is that nothing which is (somehow) fake(d) will adapt. With closed eyes it can, though. So it is all about consistency. If no low frequency is felt, no faked base tone will work out. If no 100% glass surrounds my room, no hard-hall will work out.

 

I am not very clear about this, but I believe you are trying to explain that we will able to know a fake sound no matter how well it is reproduced and this got something to do with low frequency. On this premise, I will share my thoughts on real and fake sound. To judge sound reproduction, I often use plain vocal. I am not sure how low frequency is relevant here. IMHO, I think we have reached high fidelity to reproduce the vocal as accurate as possible. The emperor penguin experiment showed that a mono sound from a single transducer was real enough to fool the chicks

 

For audiophiles, vocal and piano are usually the ultimate references for accuracy which can be anything. A real piano can sound different depending on where you place the microphone. You may prefer the sound of a Steinway, but in a recording, a Feurich could sound more accurate to your ears depending where the microphones were placed which depends on the speaker. You may also prefer the sound of Steinway with speakers A but probably prefer the sound of the Feurich with speakers B. There are too many variables for us to pass a judgment that a recording to be real enough and another is not. (provide both were made with utmost care as to their fidelity).

 

Firstly, I now believe that we have three different auditory scenes that we are familiar with. The first is the live sound. Natural sound which originates from  a single source. Then we have stereo which is a crude method to reproduce the sound field of the real performance. Lastly, we have headphones. These three are not the same but IMO we have learned to recognize them separately and identify them for what they are. What we are trying to do now is associating real sound within the realm of what you are familiar with. How real or fake they are is how well they fit into your preferred domain.

 

But we have now learned to associate a sound with three different auditory scenes. Real natural sound, stereo and headphones. The difference between fake and real depends on how to sound is perceived. A real sound originates from a single source. Cues to the pinna, the delays of left and right ears plus the reverberation AND your visual cue identify them to exist. In sound reproduction, via loudspeakers and headphones, we do not have a visual cue. Sound exists in space where the brain tells them that it should be there as sound emitting from the phantom center is fake. How are we ever going to overcome the fundamental difference that distinguishes fake and real? I am afraid the fakeness of sound reproduction is just not a matter of how accurate the original sound is reproduced but more importantly how well it stimulates the natural hearing HRTF fully.

 

 

@sementepost on Rumsey's talk made me think that we could be chasing the wrong thing after all. The uncanny valley mentioned there was something that I came across quite often and it could well be true. 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is not. At least not "generally". However, in say 50% of tracks/songs not high-passed for LP it is in there as part of what happened for real. If only the recording space was not deadened to death. But for example (and IMHO) a church' response is not about hall or reverberation as such but about LF roll which is sub 24 or so Hertz (OK, which *is* reverberation but which I envision can not be mimicked by DSP or something).

 

Peter, no offence here but you have to give me some examples. As far as I know, church or hall response is all about the frequency roll-off. The ideal hall response is to have the roll-off equally for all frequencies. Physically this is impossible to achieve and most research accept a good hall's response as the ideal reverberation.

 

If there are no sub 24Hz frequency in the direct sound then you are unlikely to hear the harmonics of them in hall due to masking. I have a real sound samples of a concert hall and will check them. But I have my doubts.

 

A DSP can and cannot reproduce them. It depends on how you are going to use them. I know a so called audiophile recording which supposedly was made in a church contains artificial reverbs. No one could tell them apart.

 

Are we confusing reverbs and their purpose? I think we are probably talking at cross purposes.

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Anyway my subject is not about sub-low (although easy to make it that), but I reject that it is sub-relevant like Frank's stance. Actually it is crucial. Regarding your thread, STC, it may be important because the perceived reverb is not really that but is the LF roll which implies it by perception. This "roll" can be seen by observing the real time FFT of music with kick drums (or kettle drum in a church much better) which expresses as a kind of oscillation (back and forth front-backwall bouncing) going from right to left observing the FFT (higher to lower frequency) at fairly equal level until it quickly dies out. Just observe the roll "crawling" like you observe thunder in real life and how your mentioned RT is really in order but multiplied by several lengths of the space/room. Meaning: this goes lower than you'd think.

But use the real m2 of surface including the excursion to imply the pressure level because that can't be faked (in my thinking).

 

 

Just a quote to emphasize a great post.

 

[STC]

 

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the lowest frequencies can be accurately reproduced, .

 

Meaningless statement for someone who couldn't produce them via their Sharp mini combo speakers.

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Of course it doesn't reproduce low bass frequencies well!

 

Drop the "well". It won't able to produce the LF. Don't bluff unless you are imagining.

[STC]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Can't you get out of here ?

 

Nope because 

 

 

Generally, a gentleman can sense  what others think about him and take the necessary steps to address or avoid them. Here, we have Fas who got nothing. Not even a proper working  low fi set but talks about getting the sound right simply by repeating the same old mantra quoted from somewhere. In the end, the thread often gets hijacked and as usual none of his stuff would not have anything to do with the OP. 

 

Then suddenly something popped up in my head.  Maybe he is a she.

 

Edit:- Sorry Teresa. I hope you dont read this post.  

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, KingRex said:

Then I listen for a couple days.  Then I take it out and listen for a couple days.  You find there is a lot to be learned from living with something for a while.  Over time some definite opinions of whether you like it or not form. I feel over time I have a better understanding of clarity and tone extension improvements or detraction .

 

It is possible provided you do this blind.

 

My example is about hearing suppression and short term memory where it is possible for the brain to fill in the missing the information.

[STC]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The more transparent a rig, the more sensitive it typically is to making changes.

 

Which you do not have. A Sharp mini combo speaker is not transparent. 

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

wait for the old buggers to drop off the perch, because they refuse to change their position.

 

It has been 30 years for you to see the light.

 

Don't rely on your brain to do the job because it doing rather poorly here. It can't even keep on topic and starts to pollute this thread with your fantasy. This thread is not about your brain or your imaginary tweak. But then I feel sorry for you. What can a man with no working audio system could contribute other than hijacking others thread. 

[STC]

48 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Too late. However, I forgive your dip into misogyny. 🙂

 

But we have to accept we do think differently. We means male and female. 

[STC]

39 minutes ago, KingRex said:

Why does it have to be blind.  I come home, fire up the system. 

 

That’s acceptable too if you are judging your system on other criterion. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you want to judge them based on one criteria only, like sound quality alone, then you have to eliminate other factors from

influencing your preference. 

 

Right now, I have the opportunity to test for four almost identical players. One is Ki and modified by CherinAudio. What will be the best way to pick them based in sound quality only?  

 

[STC]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

care to know what it was?

 

Nothing you could show that i am not aware of. 

 

 

You want more? 

 

Btw, are you now bypassing the SOTA Sharp speakers?  Connected the wires directly to your ears?

 

Frank, please dont hijack this thread with your fantasy. 

[STC]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Sadly the woman is generally better at it (audio). IME.

 

Sadly?  I will be happy if I could find more like them. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 Plus generally I like women better than men. 

 

Don’t we all?  OTOH, maybe not.  

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

If one actually applies a little bit of intelligence to the situation, then one can do the experiments to find out what really matters

 

Yes!!!! Please apply little bit of intelligence and bring your hallucinations to your own thread. 

[STC]

23 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Talking about IQ again (ref. 4 months or so ago) and

 

 

you 100% exactly arrived at what I expected you to. But this went unconsciously for you (this is the power of influence). If all is right, excluding me, two persons understand the underlaying subject. You (STC) are the third but you are not aware of it yet.

Maybe my adrenaline plays up. Haha.

 

 

Not following....

[STC]

48 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Leave it be at the 10-20 it was set to and use the new 12-24 as a 10-20 right from the start ?

 

Maybe what i am going to say is irrelevant but my understanding is to avoid multiple cores when it come to audio processing which I think becoming impossible nowadays. 

[STC]

37 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

The contrary. But control them ...

 

I think the general rule is that audio processing involves a single core only. DAW software designer usually would state the minim required thread.  According to the Reaper forum the recommended core is not more than 8. It is about threads and plugin or  something like that. 

 

I am no expert and was just asking based on what  i was advised to do. 

 

Cheers!

 

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

That's simply wrong, and you haven't demonstrated to me that you have the intelligence to know the difference.

 

 

Corrected.
 

Quote

"Edit:- Sorry jabbr. I hope you dont read this post."

 

 

For such an intelligient man you ended up in a hifi forum replying to a not so intelligent guy's post. Must be very lonely where you belong. Perhaps, you should go and read up the main difference between male and female brains and how they function. It is in no way was a reference to the intelligence difference among the different gender.  But I guess you get small thrills by posts such as these. 

[STC]

Here comes the one liner of the group of 14 self blowing trumpeters lending moral support to their peers.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I would like to read up the main difference between male and female brains and how they function, as my current knowledge is apparently insufficient.

 

If that is so then what are you disagreeing to?

[STC]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Your brain needs help with prepositions.

 

Now, put up or shut up.

 

Or what? You admitted you do not know.

 

  Read up! and then shut up!