red or blue pill - Part II?

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

The ability to replicate - whether it proves or disproves ultimately - is important when doing any kind of scientific "study" which I presume was the intent from the beginning???

 

Obviously there were enough major concerns and uncontrolled variables that a more thorough investigation seems fair, right?

 

Yes, replication will indeed need to play a part. Uncontrolled variables have to be completely eradicated, but this is the hard part ... I did a post some time ago. derived from Bob Katz?, that a truly useful ABX requires a great deal of effort to set up.

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Intense desire to disprove is what scientific review process is based on, Frank. This is what allows for a proper review of new, unproven claims. Imagine the process where everyone is always willing to accept any new claim without questioning. But, then again, I think you might prefer it that way 

 

 

So you can say, hand over heart, that the world of scientific research has never suffered from "tribal behaviour" ... 😜 ?

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, STC said:

 

1) Randomly pick 10 tracks from different albums. Good quality recording but hopefully not something you are familiar or previously used by you. 

 

 

Bad move. You should know the recording intimately, every tiny crevice of it. Which means that you can trigger on the slightest variation of some obscure aspect of it.

 

58 minutes ago, STC said:

 

2) Play each track only once at a randomly chosen setting. Do not play the same track again with other settings. 
 

I don’t believe whatever difference you hear would not be identifiable when heard in isolation without comparisons. 

 

The listening brain will work hard to 'synchronise' slightly different versions of a recording - it knows that it's "the same track". So, you need to do things which thwart that innate listening behaviour ...

[fas42]

A system when good enough "always works" - the "zone" that you're in personally is irrelevant - someone playing the real  piano really well in your lounge never sounds 'wrong', no matter what mood you're in.

 

But to do a serious test, well, you need to be at complete ease with the situation.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Either way. One to find the minimum standard for high fidelity and the other is prove a difference exist. I am just a small person after high fidelity music reproduction. Ignore me. 

 

There, there ... if you want a hug, just ask ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

The previous 10-run ABX took nearly 20 minutes to complete. Each A and B sample lasted for about 20 seconds, and then another 20 seconds for the X. So you're concentrating hard for over a minute for each run. I can tell you, doing 10 runs back-to-back was exhausting.

 

Probably why I got #9 wrong .

 

Mani.

 

The huge failure of the "scientific method" with many of things it tries to test about human behaviours is that it doesn't want to know about human adaptability, loss of interest, and fatigue levels - the obsession with deriving numbers is so strong that it attempts to push through with getting this data, no matter what; and ends up with results which are largely 'tainted', or are shown to have poor relevance in the long run.

 

Personally, I rely on the coming to a situation in a refreshed, "will now turn my attention to this" state, and see what my immediate, 'gut' reaction is telling me - this has always worked out, in that it allows me to make decisions which I am satisfied with, long term.

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ah, yes! Scientific studies obviously have completely failed us, which is why all of science is now done by gut reaction 🤣😂

 

Ah, yes! It helps to doctor the quote, to improve the "funniness" of the response - and completely lose the point of the original ... 😉

 

I could point to the medical trials that 'proved' that certain treatments were effective, a decade or two ago - but now, for some bizarre reason 😊, no longer show the same results ... but I won't ...

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

When you were making the statement earlier about:

"The huge failure of the "scientific method" with many of things it tries to test about human behaviours is that it doesn't want to know about human adaptability, loss of interest, and fatigue levels...".

 

And then that:

"Personally, I rely on the coming to a situation in a refreshed, "will now turn my attention to this" state, and see what my immediate, 'gut' reaction is telling me..."

 

I'm curious as to what failure in the the science of audio you're referring to? And what answers have you been able to ascertain that is based on the advice of your "gut"? Are these answers that you found generalizable to everyone or are they your own? I've also seen your blog... Have you been able to succinctly document your principles in any specific post?

 

The failure as I see it is to appreciate that human hearing is far more acute in its ability to detect conflicting or disturbing anomalies in what it hears, than is generally accepted by the audio researchers - in simple terms, it's what always "gives the game away" when you can hear sounds somewhere, and you have to decide "Is it real, or only a hifi?" That it's only reproduction is clearly picked up by the listening mind, because either there is extra content that shouldn't be there, or something is missing - or both.

 

In these situations it is a gut reaction by the individual that causes him to decide one way or the other, and that's the sense that I'm using that term. I have learned to use this approach every time I experience some new audio reproduction situation - and it's served me well. It won't tell me whether the sound is as good as it could be, or what exactly is incorrect with what I'm hearing, unless I listen further - it's a Yes/No trigger as to whether the sound is in the "right zone" of accuracy.

 

What I've found is that if I manage to evolve the SQ to the level that I find acceptable, that other people find it engrossing. In particular, people who are not interested in the technical aspects of audio, typically women, enjoy the experience.

 

I have made many posts over the years, describing my approach from various angles ... a basic principle is that one has to become aware of deficiencies in the sound in a way that allows one to modify or improve the system, while being acutely aware of whether deficiencies are being reduced, hopefully to the point of inaudibility ... if one can't hear whether what one is doing has true value or not, then you're working blind.

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I would only ever do an ABX if I were confident that I could still hear audible differences with the final setup. For example, before the previous ABX, I tried putting a preamp (a Pass Labs X1) into the chain to give us the option of taking analogue captures in real time. But it totally screwed up the sound, so I insisted on a direct DAC -> power amps path for the ABX.

 

Mani.

 

Which is what makes understanding what's going on so difficult - the very presence of additional circuitry in the environment, to facilitate "taking measurements", can be a confounding influence which destroys the integrity of what is being measured. I have noted this myself when attempting to record some audio output - the ol' observer effect emerges to bite you, when it's least wanted! 😉

[fas42]

And thank you, for your detailed response, Archimago ... 🙂

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Thanks for the response @fas42. Let's perhaps get a bit more specific and work up to your perspective.

 

While no doubt human hearing (ears+mind) is good, we always need to remember thinking back to first principles that:

 

1. Hearing / perceptual resolution is not infinite - we can easily see the frequency-domain limits for hearing on the Fletcher-Munson curve and in the time-domain, humans are not that sensitive to phase anomalies.

 

2. Psychological effects are strong which shapes so much of perception - especially auditory perception which is the weaker compared to vision. Whether it's something like the McGurk Effect, or thinking something sounds "better" because it's slightly louder... Or of course seeing a fat fancy cable vs. flimsy cable and forming a bias.

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Given the above, which is the basis for where science typically would like to find the thresholds of hearing (1) and use controls to rule out external variables (2), I'm not sure I see any specific instance where we can see a failure of science as you suggest. In your statement "Is it real, or only a hifi?", is there an example you have come across where scientists actually say "This will sound real!" but we know to be untrue or incomplete?

 

I don't think audio scientists ever say "This will sound real!" - they're aiming for a best fit, as far as I can see. What happened is that I experienced reproduction which sounded "real", which was completely unsuspected by me as a possibility - but I didn't see anyone else say similar things - so, I started to explore what was going on ...

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

From what I have seen, I'm not sure any scientist has thus far claimed that sound systems today, especially 2-channel rigs sound exactly like the "real" thing (even though certain golden-ear subjective audiophiles believe this is possible with $$$ products probably, and advertising departments have been claiming such things for years).

 

Agree.

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

 

Sure. We all have our ways of doing things and we can all tweak our room, equipment, etc. to hit some kind of threshold of "this is good", or "this sounds more real", or "this sounds natural", to the satisfaction of the gut. 😉

 

 

Okay. So what sounds good to you has utility to others as well and probably gets within the "normal curve" of what is "good sound" for most people with adequate hearing, including the women you come across. Great! But we can get there as well with instruments and room measurements.

 

Instruments as in measuring what it is specific about the sound in that instance, that is "guaranteeing" that it is going to be "good sound"?

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Hmmm. Okay. So that sounds like you've had enough experience with probably some typical musical tracks that you would use for system evaluation, coupled with the technique above developed over time. I assume the "basic principles" you speak of would correlate to the science of acoustics? Reasonable frequency response, low noise, watch for room issues like reflections and resonance if we break down the elements of what you're listening for.

 

To the science of acoustics as currently used, only partially. It turns out that frequency response is of low importance, because the listening brain unconsciously compensates, if the SQ in other areas is sufficient. Low noise, in the sense that anomalies in the sound that correlate with the music playing should be reduced to an absolute minimum is critical. Room issues are not important, the brain automatically compensates, I find.

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

So going back to what seems like your core belief as per your first sentence:

 

"The failure as I see it is to appreciate that human hearing is far more acute in its ability to detect conflicting or disturbing anomalies in what it hears, than is generally accepted by the audio researchers..."

 

You basically believe that "accepted audio research" at this point in history has not fully figured out all that the ears/mind is capable of perceiving. That at least in part it's because researchers have been underestimating the ear/mind's ability to figure out "conflicting or disturbing anomalies". And that your technique and "gut" have the ability to relatively consistently perceive and neutralize these anomalies.

 

Yes.

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

While I don't know what your specific technique might be (as I said earlier perhaps a succinct link would help), isn't that what I and probably everyone else in these forums are doing? We're all trying our best to understand the limits and "anomalies" in our systems? All developing the technique to make the system sound "real"? While I wouldn't put any special recognition of my "gut" being important, I'm guessing this is the same thing as emotionally feeling (perhaps to use a less somatic description) like the system is "dialed" in to my taste for what the "real" performance could sound/feel like.

 

The techniques are a variety of methods which all overlap what at least a decent number of people have used over the years ... the short and sweet version of the story is that with the first rig that attained the right SQ I merely was doing the same sort of things that thousands of enthusiasts have done since the dawn of audiophilia - except I struck it lucky. "Realistic" sound emerged one day, and almost literally floored me - one of the most obvious aspects of it is that it becomes impossible to "force your mind" to grasp that the sound is coming from drivers which could be literally inches away; the illusion of what you are hearing always maintains its integrity.

 

It's not the actual what's done that matters; rather, it's the consistent and continuing attention to very fine detail in locating areas in the system where the SQ is being degraded too much - because the engineering just happens not to be sufficient, to eliminate the problem.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

From my perspective, it's a bit presumptuous and dramatic to claim that science has "failed" unless you have some specific examples to mull on...

 

"Fail" is just a strong word to describe the situation 😉 ... to this day, science has "failed" to explain how the universe works, to everyone's satisfaction.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hey Fred,

 

Fred, where's "Fred" come from ... ?

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

Well there are certainly times when I listen to my system and am surprised by how "real" the sound can be. At times with non-musical sounds, wondering if what I heard came from the system or maybe my wife and kids in the house. I suspect many of us would have similar occasions and stories where the illusion seems very real.

 

Also happens with musical sounds.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Frequency response is absolutely important - some headphones sound terrible with bad treble roll-off, likewise, it's hard to believe that one is listening to an organ without the lower registers! How can one possibly feel that a system is reproducing a "real"-sounding facsimile of music and musicians if it's missing chunks of frequencies!?

 

That's the general thinking in audio - but IME the better the accuracy of the sound in key areas, the more the hearing mind is able to compensate, by "filling the gaps". I was intrigued by this, and then discovered that instrument makers have known for centuries that one can trick the mind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental.

,

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

No other SQ quality is going to be compensating for those losses and my brain ain't going to make up for the experience of those bass drops in some dubstep that went missing!

 

Extreme, synthetic bass won't make the cut, but most conventional instrument bass sends out the right messages when the overtones are well reproduced ... I normally find most audiophile bass to be quite unrealistic; lacks 'tightness', is overblown.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Room issues not important!? Again, since we're talking "real" sounding audio, even if I could squeeze my system in the bathroom, how am I supposed to consider that as sounding "real" with all the echoes, perhaps vibrating shower door, and poor representation of low frequencies!?

 

Well, we'll try not to get silly about it, perhaps 😉 ...in any sort of reasonable room, where one is comfortable having an extended conversation with someone, then there shouldn't be an issue ..

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hmmm.. Okay, still would love to see that summary blog post Fred! And maybe some pictures of what was done, maybe a before and after of what the components and room looked like. If what you've accomplished in creating "real"-sounding hi-fi is something that can be taught, I'm sure many audiophiles across the Interwebs would be very thankful for your helpful blog post. If however, it can't be summarized or taught, then I guess there's no point saying too much.

 

If I had a dollar for every time that sort of thing has been said to me ... 😁

 

The method can be taught, but it takes time! Some years ago, a keen audio enthusiast, living local, turned up for a listening session, and I've remained friends ever since - steadily 'mentored' him for years, and regularly visit his place to check progress. Hardest thing was to shake him out of the normal trains of thought that audiophiles always fall back on - but he's got the bug now ... delights in using bargain basement solutions, and has a collection of "terrible" recordings to check how he's progressing, 😁.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

For example, even if I'm able to convert lead to gold, what's the point in me speaking about it if it can't be taught to those I wish to share the knowledge with? Might as well stay quiet and just enjoy the result for myself...

 

There have been a good handful of people I've found over the Internet, who understand almost exactly what I'm talking about. It's out there, but it's rare - each person who has come across it has a different slant on how to achieve it; what they all understand is that it is far from trivial to make happen ...

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

 

Fair enough Fred... Let's still focus on that idea of whether the system sounds "real" though. Because I have some concerns about your perspective on what is needed and what isn't! 😲

 

The system sounds "real" in that the message it sends to your brain is never detected as being a deception - let's say I put on some intense, solo piano music at a realistic volumes - if I listen to it from outside, at a distance, through an open window, it gets a tick; if I listen, inside, at the other end of the house, it gets a tick; if I walk into the room where the speakers are, and am only inches away from one of the speakers ... it still gets a tick. An illusion is created which is never broken - because the SQ is good enough in key areas; enough for the brain to remain convinced, that it knows that it can't be a fake.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, STC said:

A sound is real when it confirms with the psychoacoustics principles. Practically all demos about how real the high end system can sound usually confined to solo or two instruments. 

 

The more complex the recording, the greater the need for the playback to be pristine - to "conjure up an illusion". There is a path of steadily improving the capability of a system so that more and more unlikely recordings "come good" - a rather nifty in between example is a defence forces band, with bagpipes, brass and drums - simple recording techniques mean tremendous transient bite, plenty of reverb from the recording space, "big" sound ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

FYI, and just in case you didn't know it yet: I can show you and everyone the most easily discernible differences between whatever dozens of means, all leading to bit identical looped back data, those means including USB cables. It goes from, way too wide sound stages, to way to flat ones, compared to narrow and deep. Don't ask me why you and so many others have difficulties with getting that. All I know myself by guarantee, is that somehow we all (!) are not able to find test means showing it. So ... let's have it puuulease ?

I am sure Mani will hand you the files, if you don't already have them.

 

Peter and I live in the same world here ... I have no difficulty making a very slight alteration to a seemingly trivial area of a system, and hearing the presentation dramatically change.

 

Why this occurs, to me, is quite obvious - the qualities of the low level information embedded in the obvious stuff change quite significantly, in comparison to the strength of that part, if you could separate it out, of the waveform. The change is tiny with respect to the primary information, but not with respect to that component of the sound. A real world example, that recording studios constantly deal with - a musician plays with a certain arrangement of acoustic materials and treatments in the room; the producer is not happy, and very slightly readjusts one piece of that acoustic material - "That's it", he says, with a grin ... now, how easy do you think it would be to see in the waveforms of the before and after what he was triggering on ... ?

[fas42]

Gee whiz ... the technical, measured accuracy of a piece of hardware dramatically changes, just by altering a setting or two of how it works ... guess that proves that all one needs is dig out of a set of numbers from somewhere, to be fully assured "how good something is" ... 🙃.

[fas42]

Which underlies the problem with taking measurments in audio, in general - unless one has absolutely full understanding of every detail that may be pertinent to the numbers derived, then it is Russian roulette, often times, whether they have any bearing on "what it sounds like" ...