ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[Rexp]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The headphones to ear interaction is no less complex than speakers to room and in some ways more.

And? 

[pkane2001]

Just now, Rexp said:

And? 

Try to hear what a mastering engineer heard, even with the same electronics and headphones he used.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Like what? 

This:

 

 

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The headphones to ear interaction is no less complex than speakers to room and in some ways more.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Try to hear what a mastering engineer heard, even with the same electronics and headphones he used.

We should also get hearing test results from all engineers, compare them to our own results, and make appropriate compensation DSP to hear exactly what s/he heard. 
 

Preposterous. 

[Rexp]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Try to hear what a mastering engineer heard, even with the same electronics and headphones he used.

We would be listening to exactly the same sound. We would hear it differently but that is irrevalent. 

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We should also get hearing test results from all engineers, compare them to our own results, and make appropriate compensation DSP to hear exactly what s/he heard. 
 

Preposterous. 

Indeed

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Rexp said:

We would be listening to exactly the same sound. We would hear it differently but that is irrevalent. 

What about the shape of your ear canal and pinna?

 

This is really an angered on the head of a pin argument. 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Rexp said:

We would be listening to exactly the same sound. We would hear it differently but that is irrevalent. 

 

How do you listen without hearing?

 

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How do you listen without hearing?

 

Late there is it? 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How do you listen without hearing?

 

 

My wife says I do it all the time...

[Rexp]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

My wife says I do it all the time...

My ex boss did it all the time. 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Late there is it? 

 

Just curious why it's important to reproduce a sound that you can listen to but can't hear.

[Rexp]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just curious why it's important to reproduce a sound that you can listen to but can't hear.

I'm curious to know what you're smoking? 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Rexp said:

I'm curious to know what you're smoking? 

Why, you want some?

[Jud]

5 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I'd have to be convinced it wasn't a placebo effect.

 

Couldn't be, the subjects weren't consciously aware of the stimulus causing the effect (breaking out in a cold sweat as measured by galvanic skin response).

 

You can read a summary at the link below, and there are academic papers with more detail.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gambling_task

 

Edit: By the way, in the audio sphere there are also academic papers regarding training effects, where phenomena that people tested as not hearing or hearing unreliably are after training able to test as hearing or hearing more reliably.

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Couldn't be, the subjects weren't consciously aware of the stimulus causing the effect (breaking out in a cold sweat as measured by galvanic skin response).

 

You can read a summary at the link below, and there are academic papers with more detail.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gambling_task

 

Edit: By the way, in the audio sphere there are also academic papers regarding training effects, where phenomena that people tested as not hearing or hearing unreliably are after training able to test as hearing or hearing more reliably.

I’m not sure what the IGT experiment means to audio testing or listener training, Jud. Can you please explain how it’s applicable?

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I’m not sure what the IGT experiment means to audio testing or listener training, Jud. Can you please explain how it’s applicable?

 

Happy to explain how it *may* be applicable, Paul.  (You'll note I've been saying things like "I wonder" in connection with this.)

 

- We know there are audio phenomena subject to a training effect.  You didn't think you heard the phenomenon; you were trained; now you "hear" it.  Of course you were able to hear it before in the sense of the sound waves stimulating cochlear cells; but now you *notice* it.

 

- We know there are stimuli that people do not consciously notice, yet produce surprisingly powerful emotional effects (elevated galvanic skin response - literal "cold sweat"), as shown by the Iowa Gambling Task experiment.

 

- Are there such stimuli in audio?  We would intuitively think if something doesn't even rise to the level of conscious notice, it can't possibly cause any significant emotional response.  But are there audio stimuli analogous to the subconscious stimulus in the Iowa Gambling Task?  Are there things we in fact hear (again in the sense of stimulating cochlear cells) but do not consciously notice, that nevertheless wind up having a significant emotional impact?  Is your DAC making you break out in a cold sweat, but you don't notice? ;-) Are there digital filters that you couldn't pick out in a blind test without training, but you nevertheless somehow find yourself tapping your foot and smiling when they're used?

 

I wonder. 

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

- We know there are audio phenomena subject to a training effect.  You didn't think you heard the phenomenon; you were trained; now you "hear" it.  Of course you were able to hear it before in the sense of the sound waves stimulating cochlear cells; but now you *notice* it.

 

 

 

I have noticed that audiophiles can put up with remarkable levels of obvious distortion, many times 😝 ... they are so fixated on listening for some telltale, that they are completely obvious to the "huge elephant in the room" ... 🤣

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

How do you listen without hearing?

 

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

My wife says I do it all the time...

 

Think you it backwards: You hear without listening...

[fas42]

You "hear" enough to supply the requisite "Yes, dear", or "No, dear" - right on cue ...

[Miska]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

This was so obvious on an ambitious rig I listened to - changing the filters changed the nature of the SQ degradation - the only setting that 'worked' was bypassing that filtering circuitry, altogether 🙂,

 

D/A conversion without filters means massive amounts of distortion, because you are not getting anywhere close to the waveforms the digital samples are trying to represent (in response to sinc function)... :D

 

[Miska]

11 hours ago, lucretius said:

I thought when they playback in the studio, they use headphones.

 

Mostly with loudspeakers, rarely through headphones.

 

[Miska]

11 hours ago, lucretius said:

Actually, I was expecting there to be a difference but I could not point it out in blind testing.  Maybe, it I had used a leaky filter the result would be different?

 

I use different filters for different material because some filters sound better than some others with given material. With a lot of RedBook content, also apodizing filter is needed to clean up the source from the ADC's or production SRC's faults. Otherwise there's the annoying messy etched-on glare. Also different analog reconstruction filters sound different.

 

In addition different delta-sigma modulators sound different.

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

D/A conversion without filters means massive amounts of distortion, because you are not getting anywhere close to the waveforms the digital samples are trying to represent (in response to sinc function)... :D

 

 

Ignore what I said - my memory played tricks on me; what the unit I heard had was variable dithering - the Rotel RCD-991.

[pkane2001]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Happy to explain how it *may* be applicable, Paul.  (You'll note I've been saying things like "I wonder" in connection with this.)

 

- We know there are audio phenomena subject to a training effect.  You didn't think you heard the phenomenon; you were trained; now you "hear" it.  Of course you were able to hear it before in the sense of the sound waves stimulating cochlear cells; but now you *notice* it.

 

- We know there are stimuli that people do not consciously notice, yet produce surprisingly powerful emotional effects (elevated galvanic skin response - literal "cold sweat"), as shown by the Iowa Gambling Task experiment.

 

- Are there such stimuli in audio?  We would intuitively think if something doesn't even rise to the level of conscious notice, it can't possibly cause any significant emotional response.  But are there audio stimuli analogous to the subconscious stimulus in the Iowa Gambling Task?  Are there things we in fact hear (again in the sense of stimulating cochlear cells) but do not consciously notice, that nevertheless wind up having a significant emotional impact?  Is your DAC making you break out in a cold sweat, but you don't notice? ;-) Are there digital filters that you couldn't pick out in a blind test without training, but you nevertheless somehow find yourself tapping your foot and smiling when they're used?

 

I wonder. 

 

Thanks, Jud. I see. I believe subconscious processing of senses is not only significant, but is the bulk of our brain perception processing. We become conscious of only a tiny portion of what our brain is doing.

 

The IGT experiment didn't demonstrate (at least based on my reading) that "normal" people experienced cold sweat and trepidation due to some sort of psychic ability to predict which deck is good and which is bad, without ever seeing it. That's not what they were "trained" to do. What the experiment showed was that "normal" people were easily trained to be afraid and to anticipate a poor outcome, regardless of what's in the deck, i.e., when the real outcome is unknown. That's no different than one learning not to put a hand into a fire, or maybe not to touch a hanging power-line. It's not that we can sense whether the wire is live or not, it's that most of us are afraid to touch it because it might be.

 

Learning to expect certain things and being subconsciously afraid of the unpleasant outcome isn't something that applies to audio, at least in any obvious way that I can see. (Except, maybe, when a tube lover is going to be listening to a solid-state device, and is breaking out in cold sweat in anticipation) :) 

 

In a way, IGT describes a subconscious bias against things we found unpleasant in the past that affects us in new cases, where the outcome may or may not be unpleasant.