Can we trust our ears?

[Blumlein 88]

Not sure what you mean? The authors wrote their paper referring to decades of research in the field of information theory which explains how we hear things and what’s happening in the brain when we process what we hear at the max. speed of 40bps. They just applied all those findings to subjective listening tests and made their conclusions. That’s how I understood it.

Yes, but they didn't present any new information at all. Just a new conjecture on what it might could mean. No tests, no research on their part to test the hypothesis. Really little more than "a maybe it could be" opinion piece. Plus some leaps of logic. The conscious bit rate is slow, but this has been known for decades. They seem to be peddling the idea since this bit rate is low it takes a long, long time and lots of consistent exposure for enough bits of information to reach the brain for it to perceive what is going on out there. Where is the supporting research on that?

Several of their references are fringe new age stuff, like:
[6] K. Wilber, Sex, Ecology and Spirituality. The Spirit of Evolution (Shambhala Books, 1995).
And links to the quantum brain which is also not a well supported idea.

They cite "Measurement without theory", which is an economic paper about cyclical information. The link is very tenuous to their paper. This paper is more like theory without measurement or corroboration. They never close the loop about how they think it might work. They just suggest it could be so like some other stuff. There are lots of gaps in their thinking. That is okay, but they need to do some testing, measuring, comparing and flesh things out more. I wouldn't have presented such a thing if this is all I had. I've seen better more rigorous effort than this in forum posts.

In a few sentences what do you think they have shown?

And btw, about the slow conscious bit rate, the brain uses roughly 1 mbps for hearing. Yes far less makes it to a stream of consciousness, but the info makes it from the hearing mechanism to the brains processing center's prior to consciousness. To pretend we are only getting 40 bps of info and therefore long, long listening will tell us more is a strange idea that doesn't fit the facts.

This is the final paragraph in the conclusions:
We must therefore now consider if a more prominent role should be systematically granted to that elusive quality— time–also in pro audio evaluation and testing. To that end, our society should also prevent the proliferation of timefrozen algorithms with a bearing on human perception and sentience from taking hold in production or distribution.

I'm sorry, but that isn't a conclusion it is asking time be given more consideration. And they haven't made their case for it very well imo.

Addendum: Here is a percentage of total bandwidth by the 5 senses.
83.0% – Sight
11.0% – Hearing
03.5% – Smell
01.5% – Touch
01.0% – Taste

Particulars of research gives slightly varying numbers, but somewhere around 11 mbps are taken in by all the senses together. A good book oriented toward laymen about the subject is "the User Illusion". It is somewhat dated, but most info in it has held up. Another good book that explains how the brain pattern matches and whittles that down to 40-60 bps is "Reading in the Brain".

 

[pkane]

Yes, but they didn't present any new information at all. Just a new conjecture on what it might could mean. No tests, no research on their part to test the hypothesis. Really little more than "a maybe it could be" opinion piece. Plus some leaps of logic. The conscious bit rate is slow, but this has been known for decades. They seem to be peddling the idea since this bit rate is low it takes a long, long time and lots of consistent exposure for enough bits of information to reach the brain for it to perceive what is going on out there. Where is the supporting research on that?

Several of their references are fringe new age stuff, like:
[6] K. Wilber, Sex, Ecology and Spirituality. The Spirit of Evolution (Shambhala Books, 1995).
And links to the quantum brain which is also not a well supported idea.

They cite "Measurement without theory", which is an economic paper about cyclical information. The link is very tenuous to their paper. This paper is more like theory without measurement or corroboration. They never close the loop about how they think it might work. They just suggest it could be so like some other stuff. There are lots of gaps in their thinking. That is okay, but they need to do some testing, measuring, comparing and flesh things out more. I wouldn't have presented such a thing if this is all I had. I've seen better more rigorous effort than this in forum posts.

In a few sentences what do you think they have shown?

And btw, about the slow conscious bit rate, the brain uses roughly 1 mbps for hearing. Yes far less makes it to a stream of consciousness, but the info makes it from the hearing mechanism to the brains processing center's prior to consciousness. To pretend we are only getting 40 bps of info and therefore long, long listening will tell us more is a strange idea that doesn't fit the facts.

This is the final paragraph in the conclusions:
We must therefore now consider if a more prominent role should be systematically granted to that elusive quality— time–also in pro audio evaluation and testing. To that end, our society should also prevent the proliferation of timefrozen algorithms with a bearing on human perception and sentience from taking hold in production or distribution.

I'm sorry, but that isn't a conclusion it is asking time be given more consideration. And they haven't made their case for it very well imo.

This paper is similar to the claims often made by audiophiles: just because something can be imagined, it must necessarily be considered a scientifically valid theory. All this paper presents is a hypothesis with no experimental support and reaches conclusions that are not justified by the facts presented. I.e., it's pure speculation.

 

[amirm]

I have not read the papers but the low bit rate relates to long term retention as the brain throws out most of it hears. It will remember a violin a year from now, not some "micro dynamics" in a song. The bit rates for short term memory are quite high and hence the reason it is more valid than long term.

JJ covers this well in his presentation: http://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/highlevelnobg.ppt

And this slide:

So if this is the thesis the authors want to use, they best use short-term listening.

Indeed, that has proven time and time again to be far, far more revealing than long term. See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

I live this every day as I evaluate audio. There is no way, no how longer term listening is useful for hearing critical differences.

The only thing long term uncontrolled listening does is to ignite the imagination to invent audible differences that are not there!

 

[Blur]

Would be interesting to import the two files into an audio processing software suite and subtract the two signals from each other. This way you would be left with the only audible differences. Might be revealing to some what is left.

 

[Julf]

Would be interesting to import the two files into an audio processing software suite and subtract the two signals from each other. This way you would be left with the only audible differences. Might be revealing to some what is left.

You would be left with the difference. Is it audible or not is a different question.

 

[Blur]

I've done some basic tests with different sample rates and found that to my ears I cannot tell the difference in "hi-rez" audio. That is why most of my stuff is 24bit / 192kHz.

 

[Julf]

I've done some basic tests with different sample rates and found that to my ears I cannot tell the difference in "hi-rez" audio. That is why most of my stuff is 24bit / 192kHz.

So because you can't hear a difference, you want 24/192?

 

[Blur]

No, just convenience for me and my setup. It was a middle ground of sorts.

 

[Julf]

No, just convenience for me and my setup. It was a middle ground of sorts.

I would have thought 16/44.1 would be most convenient.

 

[Blur]

That was for ripping from CD. With the hi-rez craze it's easier to find 24/192 many times.

 

[Spocko]

At the Stereophile site, reviewer Jim Austin argues against ABX testing because, in his words, "testing takes time".

Subjectivist audiophiles have long maintained that long-term listening is necessary to assess the quality and character of an audio component. Scientific testing methodologies such as ABX, which require quick and conscious evaluation of a change in the sound, have long struck many of us as insufficient, seeming to miss much that affects our enjoyment of music.

Could someone over @ Stereophile clue Jim in that an ABX comparator test allows one to listen as long as they like before switching? And then, after switching, one can take as much time as they want in order to determine whether X is A or B? Interesting how these 'subjectivists' can describe every little detail in the sound of amps/preamps/CD players, with utmost precision, but when asked to simply tell us which is which, they get all confused and wind up guessing.

Citing some or another 'study' he writes: Based on a limited perceptual bandwidth and 8 hours of dedicated listening per day, getting to know a room and equipment in any detail would take at least a week, but assuming years would be safer...

So let's break this film down. It takes a minimum of a week of listening to reliably tell these 'sonic' differences, but a year is better? Is he shilling for long term loaners? And if that's the case, why can their 'reviewers' immediately tell the difference among components? I mean, one guy's wife was able to tell differences in gear from the kitchen, when the reviewer swapped out components in the living room. I think they let that guy go, though. Maybe he wanted his wife to get paid for her contributions, and the editor said no. LOL

How anyone can take these folks seriously is something serious people seriously can't.

To be fair, many of these reviewers have these speakers for several months before writing the review in order to "live with the speakers". Yes, there are reviewers who literally listen for 1 to 2 days and it's done, while others spend significantly more time with the speaker. Also, I do believe that magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound do a great service for the audio community in general because it creates a sense of romanticism for the hobby. This is supposed to be a fun journey, and subjectivists add the color and flavors necessary to make it fun. More often than not, audiophiles with some spending money are just looking for an excuse to upgrade, and if that excuse comes in the form of a review on Stereophile, why not?

 

[Julf]

That was for ripping from CD. With the hi-rez craze it's easier to find 24/192 many times.

You might find stuff in a 24/192 container. The source material probably isn't...

 

[Blur]

Very true my friend. I never claimed that so no need to attack me or my methods. :-}

 

[Julf]

To be fair, many of these reviewers have these speakers for several months before writing the review in order to "live with the speakers".

Indeed. having their ears get used to the sound helps them write positive reviews, and that is what keeps advertisers happy.

Also, I do believe that magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound do a great service for the audio community in general because it creates a sense of romanticism for the hobby. This is supposed to be a fun journey, and subjectivists add the color and flavors necessary to make it fun. More often than not, audiophiles with some spending money are just looking for an excuse to upgrade, and if that excuse comes in the form of a review on Stereophile, why not?

Great, if nice, warm and fuzzy fairy tales is what you like (as opposed to actual reality).

 

[Julf]

Very true my friend. I never claimed that so no need to attack me or my methods. :-}

No attack, just clarification for the benefit of others as well.

 

[Blur]

I remember getting flack at meets if my stuff wasn't .wav or better. They would come over, listen to my setup, go "Wow" and then see the bit depth and rate and go "oh, you're not using hi-rez?" I mean, what precedent does that set? "Your gear sounds great, but clearly you have no idea what you are doing with those low-res files?" This is in part why I at least use higher rez files...just so people don't question the files themselves. Which is odd because they always love what they hear.

I'll even throw some lower res stuff at them and they still love it.

 

[NTomokawa]

Fun experiment: Upsample some 16/44.1 to 24/96 and see how they react.

Nobody would know unless they hook up a spectrum analyzer to see whether there's anything beyond 22kHz in that file.

 

[Julf]

I remember getting flack at meets if my stuff wasn't .wav or better. They would come over, listen to my setup, go "Wow" and then see the bit depth and rate and go "oh, you're not using hi-rez?" I mean, what precedent does that set? "Your gear sounds great, but clearly you have no idea what you are doing with those low-res files?" This is in part why I at least use higher rez files...just so people don't question the files themselves. Which is odd because they always love what they hear.

I'll even throw some lower res stuff at them and they still love it.

Ah, yes. If you really want to screw with them, take some 96 kbps mp3 files and convert them to 24/384, or even better DSD512...

 

[Blumlein 88]

To be fair, many of these reviewers have these speakers for several months before writing the review in order to "live with the speakers". Yes, there are reviewers who literally listen for 1 to 2 days and it's done, while others spend significantly more time with the speaker. Also, I do believe that magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound do a great service for the audio community in general because it creates a sense of romanticism for the hobby. This is supposed to be a fun journey, and subjectivists add the color and flavors necessary to make it fun. More often than not, audiophiles with some spending money are just looking for an excuse to upgrade, and if that excuse comes in the form of a review on Stereophile, why not?

At one time this may have made a more sense than now. You took time to find the good spot in the reviewer's room, and most speakers were poor off axis so you spent time tweaking toe in for best balance. The result was only good for the reviewer's room or similar, but it prevented a speaker getting a poor review due to poor setup. There were people who developed pretty good setup protocols using your ears and a few test recordings.

Of course now, one can use a test mic and REW to find where the speaker works pretty well in the lower 500 hz in an afternoon. REW may even help with toe in on some speakers. Then a few days listening is plenty. I would say it still has some merit even after that for longer term listening. Because the result of some speakers is far enough from optimum you find out that your hearing can't ever quite accommodate it. Or obversely that it can be musically satisfying long term once you re-train your ears a bit. Better speaker designs need less accommodating in the first place if you can get the lower 500 hz right. There is still some utility in long term living with speakers, but it has many drawbacks.

Now as for anything other than transducers, long term listening is pretty much a big waste of time. Speakers vary enough, rooms vary enough there is some utility. Everything else should work right out or it is a lousy design.

 

[IndividualWay7]

What about Grado labs?, there stuff is pure subjective and in objective terms mesure like crap even there GS2000e has very high THD. Yet they have a quite a fanbase.