Jump to content

Audiophile Neuroscience

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Audiophile Neuroscience

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    having another look

Recent Profile Visitors

4567 profile views
  1. Alex, I think DeoxIT Contact Cleaner spray and DeoxIT Gold spray is the answer.
  2. Thanks Archimago I have the Floyd Toole publication. Thanks for the semantic scholar PDF, I will take a look. I am likely going to disappoint you now by declaring I'm not a fan of the reliability of blind testing in the audio setting. I would never argue against the necessity of eliminating the obvious bias, just the problem of introducing interdependent variables in the process, thus making the test unreliable. I believe there is a propensity for false negatives and this has been borne out to some extent in the literature. However, let's certainly not go into the pros and cons of blind testing. At the end of the day I am basically reinforcing what you said that this kind of research, including properly conducted blind testing, is best done in the academic domain. I think it is very difficult to do properly conducted blind testing. The problem here is that it is unlikely that academic institutions will be interested or have funding to do such research. All that said it still surprises me that we haven't been able to come with more measurements that correlate to subjective listening impressions. Apart from some speaker examples I can only think of one other example off the top of my head. That would be the various measures of dynamic range and correlating that to descriptions of "compressed sound". Cheers David
  3. Hi Frank, your "MO" is well known and i dare say not dissimilar to what most other audiophiles do. I agree that if you can fix the cause of the problem then probably no need to measure it. I already do this by placing for example tube traps in corners of the room. I could measure the resonances but I already have a fair idea of what they will be and where they will be and a number will not likely change where I locate a tube trap. None of this however addresses the OP question.When (and what) measurements correlate with subjective listening impression? I would love to know the answer. My crude impression is that measurements tell us that the item is operating to spec, whatever those parameters are.They tell us how they will interact and may be suitable to perform with other devices, like is there enough current to drive difficult speakers or will there be impedance mismatching etc etc. No doubt these things have impact on SQ. But still, what are the measurements that correlate with perceived sound characteristics?
  4. I think the OP poses one of the great perennial questions in audio/music perception……when do measurements correlate with subjective impressions? I think if we knew the answer to this it would solve a lot of disputes. More importantly, I'm just plain curious to find out the answers. I could be wrong but what I have so far taken from this thread and several others like it, is that there is no firm objective scientific rules that apply. At the heart of the question of any correlation is whether there is an association or link between the level or magnitude of measurement/variable A and the magnitude of measurement/variable B moving in the same (or reverse) direction. If you chuck in concordance which is basically the extent of how the levels of the two measurements match i.e. their agreement or sameness between levels and/or their reproducibility, you then have a meaningful association. This of course does not mean a causal relationship necessarily. So, where I am leading with this is, is there any measurement that correlates and is concordant with a particular sensory audio perception? We know for example (or at least I have read and have had some experience) that speaker directivity and room reflectiveness will affect imaging in certain predictable ways for most observers. There are measurements for these things but are there predictive values that will hold true for most people? There has been some talk of degrees of various distortion measurements, jitter, which may be perceptible and at different sensitivity levels for different people and different levels of training etc. Again, are there predictive values that reproducibly hold true for most people about what the subjective correlate sounds like? Is it just that it somehow makes things sound irritating in ways that are hard to define? Somehow a little less natural, organic or less "real". On the other hand some distortions appear to make things sound subjectively better, at least to some. In the case of tube distortions at least there seems to be some reproducible and shared subjective correlate, namely "warmth" or similar description. To paraphrase the OP question, what do any of these measurements tell us about what the music sounds like? Do any of them have predictive value for perception and in what way?
  5. To those who know me it will come as no surprise that I applaud the recent change in the rules - Edit, new sub forum (the rules, as I understand it are much the same). No doubt there will be some teething problems working through the gray zones but IMHO, it will only be the 'usual suspect offenders' that will find the adjustment difficult or struggle to navigate the gray zones in good faith. Basically those who want to be snarky, sarcastic and confrontational will not like this change in direction. Where's the sport and entertainment in belittling people if you can't be snarky about it ? I never understood how supposedly "saving people from themselves" mutated somehow into putting them down. I submit the worst offenders will self-identify and likely leave in a flurry of indignation, true-to-form sarcastic barbs, and with cries of "censorship", or even worse, being marginalized into "ghettos". The thing is that most already 'get' the rules, the offenders just choose to ignore the rules to push their agendas and/or they simply enjoy the conflict. It is a conduct issue, not a censorship issue. Many left AS in the past fed up with the poor behavior of a minority of loud and rude people pushing their dogma in places where it was neither requested or welcomed.The negativity and abrasive tone stripped the joy out of the hobby. This came from both sides of the camp but IMO there was a preponderance of inciters from those that insisted on telling people what they couldn't hear. The hobby, if it involves listening and PERCEIVING pleasant sound and sublime music, IS inherently subjective. It doesn't follow that measurements are therefore not useful, I am not saying that. The General forum in many audio fora becomes the same thread repeated endlessly. Irrespective of the title there is the same arguments by the same people who hijack every thread....Typically it goes like this. I hear a difference....No you can't, prove it.....No, you have the burden of proof.....and for a fun additional 30 plus pages, arguing the merits of DBT's. Hearing a difference in sound quality is an *observation*, spending money on gear is a choice. Sharing a hobby with like minded enthusiasts is fun, so is learning through robust helpful discussion. Listening to great sound in the service of beautiful music is a joy. YMMV. David
  6. This is an outrage ! How can you be more infallible than infallible. Logic, man, please !😀
  7. You're on a roll ! 🤣 Can't wait for 11-20 . Bill, going out on a limb here but just perhaps , I'm guessing "Audiophile Style" is not your first preference for naming an Audiophile forum. I kinda like it .🥰
  8. Where did you hear that? Where did you hear that? Are you by any chance related ?
  9. Um, the psychologists might send him packing to the science forums, or even worse to audio forums where science, psychology, and engineering are misrepresented in equal measure ! We show no favoritism 🤣
  10. It was likely the Bricasti M1. Dennis eventually changed to Rockna DAC (bad move IMO). Dave kept his PWT and bought my Bricasti (which he modified) when I changed to Kalliope.
  11. I think I like you Mayfair: you give statistics; judging by your avatar you take blind testing seriously; and you are a fan of looney tunes' Sam Sheepdog !
  12. What should I build that wall out of [for stopping neutrinos]? let's see concrete is first choice but steel is second choice. Pesky neutrinos can still slip through since they only interact via a weak nuclear force. Therefore I propose build it out of North Koreans !
  • Create New...