Auditory Scene Analysis

[Thomas savage]

Worse fools are the many - rejecting this solid scientific research.

But that is exactly the problem - who ever said that it was "suddenly realising all that we thought we knew was wrong." It's the constant habit of approaching things in such black & white terms that bears witness to the underlying non-scientific approach displayed on this forum. I do often wonder if there is a genuine interest in scientific truth here or just an interest in a particular aspect?

What ASA should do is give some pause to those who are so sure of & argue that if it isn't shown in current measurements then it isn't audible. This has always been my position & it has been interpreted as being anti-measurement. I'm not anti-measurement, in fact I want real measurements that aren't a myopic use/interpretation of the same set of typical audio measurements. What I am anti is the mindset that insists these measurements define what we hear & what can be heard.

The issue as I see it with ASA is that it is still an emerging area of research - it isn't yet advanced enough in understanding to translate the learnings from it into new, more relevant measurements. But, to my mind that is no reason to think of it as bollocks. In that case all emerging scientific research is consigned to this same bollocks bin. On the other hand it is advanced enough for most people to realise that there is far more to auditory perception than the signal analysis that currently is the norm.

Hey they might not think that but that's my perception as to why you don't see many here.

It's not my thinking else I would not waste my time reading through all this. It's my job to read your posts but it because of my intrest I click on the links.

How this subject relates to the practically of achieving high fidelity playback in the home might be another stumbling block for some.

Ultimately that's what we are about rather than science per say.

 

[John Kenny]

Hey they might not think that but that's my perception as to why you don't see many here.

It's not my thinking else I would not waste my time reading through all this. It's my job to read your posts but it because of my intrest I click on the links.

How this subject relates to the practically of achieving high fidelity playback in the home might be another stumbling block for some.

Ultimately that's what we are about rather than science per say.

OK, then you agree with my previous suggestion that this forum was misnamed - it shouldn't be called audio science - its members are oblivious to or uninterested in this scientific aspect & more interested in measurements

 

[Thomas savage]

OK, then you agree with my previous suggestion that this forum was misnamed - it shouldn't be called audio science - its members are oblivious to or uninterested in this scientific aspect & more interested in measurements

It's a hard one, for me the name is too academic but it was born out of a desire to look into audio reproduction in a more constructive and reasoned way.

i can understand why amir chose the name, the scientific element is more about the processes of argument than pure deeply academic 'science'.

It sets the desired tone, the defining tone amir wanted.

If you don't like the forum, after all it's much more than just a name and don't like the members then possibly this is not the place for you.

To use amirs favourite analogy, if your a guest at a party and you don't like the food, the music, the other guests, the bedrooms, the beer and the host...TAXI

 

[John Kenny]

It's a hard one, for me the name is too academic but it was born out of a desire to look into audio reproduction in a more constructive and reasoned way.

i can understand why amir chose the name, the scientific element is more about the processes of argument than pure deeply academic 'science'.

It sets the desired tone, the defining tone amir wanted.

If you don't like the forum, after all it's much more than just a name and don't like the members then possibly this is not the place for you.

To use amirs favourite analogy, if your a guest at a party and you don't like the food, the music, the other guests, the bedrooms, the beer and the host...TAXI

Don't worry, Tom, I picked up that message a long while ago

 

[John Kenny]

Exactly what I'm talking about is the attitude in evidence on the latest Audiostream Intona thread - particularly your reply "It simply can't be true! If it were,once you took all these things out you would be left with rubbish sound and that's simply not the case."

I mean, really, Tom- this is a ridiculous statement & even if you don't comprehend what ASA is about you.

Have you listened to an Intona inline?

 

[Thomas savage]

Exactly what I'm talking about is the attitude in evidence on the latest Audiostream Intona thread - particularly your reply "It simply can't be true! If it were,once you took all these things out you would be left with rubbish sound and that's simply not the case."

I mean, really, Tom- this is a ridiculous statement & even if you don't comprehend what ASA is about you.

Have you listened to an Intona inline?

It's more a comment on the nature of audiophile reviews and listening impressions than the device itself. Though given the MSB dac should have adequate usb implementation I am extra sceptical.

Really John, if the noise floor gets any lower we all will be hearing angles sing!

Though a real drop in system noise floor is very measurable, I did not see any such information in the "review " .

What's this review got to do with ASA

ASA seems to be a stick you use to beat us with... Sad misuse of a interesting subject, as I though. Totally undermining the subject in the context of the forum by using these ideas this way.

Bit of a wait on taxis John?

 

[John Kenny]

It's more a comment on the nature of audiophile reviews and listening impressions than the device itself. Though given the MBS dac should have adequate usb implementation I am extra sceptical.

Really John, if the noise floor gets any lower we all will be hearing angles sing!

Though a real drop in system noise floor is very measurable, I did not see any such information in the "review " .

What's this review got to do with ASA

That's exactly what I'm talking about, Tom - if you read any of the ASA material or what Frank & I have been talking about on this thread, your simplistic view about noise floor & how it is "very measurable" is myopic & rooted in the traditional approach to hearing & measurements or "if the noise floor gets any lower we all will be hearing angles sing" A lower perceived noise floor does not mean that there is a system wide decrease in the noise floor which is measurable as a wideband increase in system noise. We have spoken before about the possibility that noise floor modulation may be a factor here i.e. in the presence of a music signal that the noise floor is fluctuating. Opus has pointed to this & shown measurements which demonstrate this. But of course these have been rejected by members here for various incorrect reasons.

What ASA teaches us is that there isn't a simplistic correlation between signal characteristics & perception - something that goes against the grain here

ASA seems to be a stick you use to beat us with... Sad misuse of a interesting subject, as I though. Totally undermining the subject in the context of the forum by using these ideas this way.

What I do is use the broader perspective of auditory perception & ASA to point out the possible flaws in the thinking here. If you call that a stick that is being used to beat the members with, that does demonstrate the bias with which you (& I presume those on whose behalf you speak) enter into dialogue with me.

Bit of a wait on taxis John?

Did I hear you just whistling one down?

 

[Thomas savage]

So you think basically every time some one disagrees with you their argument is nullified by ASA further more you justify the total delusional nonsense often spouted out by audiophiles by saying it's all valid by the latest research in ASA.

Really?? Jesus Christ John that's bonkers. While I conced a trained listener might be able to interpret some of the ideas of which you speak, jo blogs self trained audiophile is not one of them.

There are psychological forces at play during critical listening, the different contributing factors are to various to mention. To add to these variables of mind you have variables in your physical hearing system that effect how we perceive sounds.

All adds up to us being a little unreliable John. To deny this fundamental truth both physical and psychological is... Unfortunate

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What ASA should do is give some pause to those who are so sure of & argue that if it isn't shown in current measurements then it isn't audible. This has always been my position & it has been interpreted as being anti-measurement.

Oh we know, and understand well that your interest in ASA is driven by your desire the justify what you "hear" that cannot be measured. A successful AB/X would do that. ASA won't.

The issue as I see it with ASA is that it is still an emerging area of research - it isn't yet advanced enough in understanding to translate the learnings from it into new, more relevant measurements. But, to my mind that is no reason to think of it as bollocks. In that case all emerging scientific research is consigned to this same bollocks bin. On the other hand it is advanced enough for most people to realise that there is far more to auditory perception than the signal analysis that currently is the norm.

I wouldn't call it bollocks, emerging is probably better. And I don't think anyone here thinks audio signal analysis, or even carefully-designed blind listening defines perception. That they do not is rather obvious.

Tim

 

[John Kenny]

So you think basically every time some one disagrees with you their argument is nullified by ASA further more you justify the total delusional nonsense often spouted out by audiophiles by saying it's all valid by the latest research in ASA.

No, Tom, that's your very one-sided, biased interpretation used as a well known forum debating tactic.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with me, I've said what I think backed up by an understanding of ASA & pointed out what I think are the flaws in your arguments. As I have seen stated here often by mods - it's best to address the points of the debate rather than attack the debater or try to misrepresent their viewpoint in order to score a point.

Do you have anything to say about the points I raised?

Really?? Jesus Christ John that's bonkers. While I conced a trained listener might be able to interpret some of the ideas of which you speak, jo blogs self trained audiophile is not one of them.

Tom, you have the wrong end of the stick entirely - it's not about being "trained" to hear distortions - Jo blogs knows what sounds natural & what sounds more natural or less natural. The Harmon speaker preference test shows that Jo bloggs ordered the speakers in exactly the same order as the trained listeners & Toole stated that we all tend to gravitate towards the same better sound i.e we have an inbuilt understanding of what sounds best - this is what's being researched in ASA

There are psychological forces at play during critical listening, the different contributing factors are to various to mention. To add to these variables of mind you have variables in your physical hearing system that effect how we perceive sounds.

All adds up to us being a little unreliable John. To deny this fundamental truth both physical and psychological is... Unfortunate

Sure we are unreliable, nobody said otherwise but then we are also all capable of recognising better sound when we hear it.

I have repeatedly challenged people to borrow or buy an Intona & listen to hear what may or may not be real as far as noise is concerned & it's influence on auditory perception.It would seem that people are more interested in denial than in any experiments that might reveal uncomfortable truths i.e that something is heard but not currently measurable.

 

[Thomas savage]

Are the buses still running?

 

[John Kenny]

Oh we know, and understand well that your interest in ASA is driven by your desire the justify what you "hear" that cannot be measured.

Again, Tim, an attempt at misrepresenting my position in order to win a forum debating point. I have said current measurements but you admit to being inexpert at measurements & technology so maybe you missed this difference (it's not a subtle difference, mind you)?

A successful AB/X would do that. ASA won't.

I don't know what your point is except a cry for blind ABX testing

I wouldn't call it bollocks, emerging is probably better. And I don't think anyone here thinks audio signal analysis, or even carefully-designed blind listening defines perception. That they do not is rather obvious.

Tim

So your statement about blind ABX testing above is not a direct contradiction of this statement?

 

[Sal1950]

Need fare, I'm available to PayPal.

 

[John Kenny]

Are the buses still running?

Oh dear, I'm demoted to public transport now - being ejected to sit with the great unwashed

 

[John Kenny]

Need fare, I'm available to PayPal.

Just send me the password & I'll withdraw what I need

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, Frank, thanks for the posting that link paper that is the number one concept that needs to be grasped & ASA research is delving into - the fact that we don't actually "hear sound", vibrations at the eardrums that give rise to nerve impulses are then interpreted in various parts of the brain into auditory objects & auditory scenes.

So the core concept of ASA is that our brains are required to turn the vibrations that reach our ears into hearing? A revelation. Here's the thing though, John. What we talk about here is audio reproduction systems and components, and what they reproduce is the vibrations that reach our ears, not the processing in our brains. That's why you boys are alone over here. ASA hasn't reached any conclusions that are applicable to the subject of the conversation. How do I know this without reading every post and link in this thread? Because I know you'd be all over the forum with it if you actually had something substantial.

this concept is truly understood & absorbed we realise a number of things:
- that auditory perception is the outcome of the computation of the signal, not the signal itself

Yep.

relevant measurements of the signal need to be similar to how the brain computes what we perceive if we want measurements that have any correlation to what we hear.

I seriously doubt it. The measurements are relative to what the systems being measured are doing, which is creating the vibrations that reach the ear. The more accurate they are, the more the brain will interpret them as the original sound, not a reproduction.

This is what this whole thread is about but apart from you Thom, there seems to be little interest in facing up to these & many more other questions that arise as a result of ASA & auditory perception research.

No one needs to be facing up to anything, John. They're not particularly interested in this conversation because it's not relevant. It's really that simple.

Tim

 

[Thomas savage]

Need fare, I'm available to PayPal.

Can you stretch to a taxi(cab) or are we putting John on public transport?

 

[John Kenny]

So the core concept of ASA is that our brains are required to turn the vibrations that reach our ears into hearing? A revelation. Here's the thing though, John. What we talk about here is audio reproduction systems and components, and what they reproduce is the vibrations that reach our ears, not the processing in our brains. That's why you boys are alone over here. ASA hasn't reached any conclusions that are applicable to the subject of the conversation. How do I know this without reading every post and link in this thread? Because I know you'd be all over the forum with it if you actually had something substantial.

Well, Tim, you have taken the listener out of your description & if the listener has a way of analysis (ASA) that is not yet understood & far more sophisticated than current measurements, how do you know what aspects of the signal & correlations between aspects of the signal are of importance? In other words, the current set of measurements are restricted to simplistic signal analysis & yet ASA is a very sophisticated signal analysis.

I don't know if you will understand this but let me use this analogy - auditory perception analysis is somewhat like FFT analysis - it is applying a sophisticated technique which results in aspects of the signal being magnified, just like FFT analysis (simplistic as it is) can reveal signals which are below the noise floor. I'm not saying that ASA is FFT - it's just an example of how processing of the signal can reveal aspects of it that seem impossible.

Yep.

I seriously doubt it. The measurements are relative to what the systems being measured are doing, which is creating the vibrations that reach the ear. The more accurate they are, the more the brain will interpret them as the original sound, not a reproduction.

I don't disagree. What I think you & I disagree on is what defines "accuracy" of the signal

No one needs to be facing up to anything, John. They're not particularly interested in this conversation because it's not relevant. It's really that simple.

Tim

Sure Tim - sorry to disturb you - as you were

 

[John Kenny]

Can you stretch to a taxi(cab) or are we putting John on public transport?

Ah, come on guys, you can have a whip around & do better than that, surely

 

[FrantzM]

Because, I can hear improvements sighted & blind. Others hear the same qualities I hear which confirms my evaluation.

What has this got to do with ASA?

Hello John

Any peer reviews? Any AES references to the works of Bergman? Some metrics, measurements? Anything more substantive?