• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

I Finally Confirmed It’s Not All in My Head…With Graphs!

Mike Hanson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Messages
9
Likes
45
Location
Canada
I’m posting today to share a major personal triumph: I have confirmed—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that I am, in fact, listening to music.

Allow me to elaborate:

I’ve been having these moments of sheer panic where I ask myself: “Am I truly hearing the majestic crescendo of Beethoven’s 9th, or am I just imagining random sine waves because I secretly crave the smug sense of audiophile superiority?” So I decided to put an end to this existential crisis once and for all.

First, I dusted off my UMIK-2 microphone, positioned it exactly where my ears would be located (after measuring the angle of my ears with a protractor to ensure maximum positional accuracy). Then I fired up REW (Room Equalization Wizard) and meticulously took a series of extremely controlled measurements while streaming some high-resolution FLAC tunes.

To ensure I wasn’t faking it, I also streamed a recording of complete silence (you know, for baseline). Here’s an overview of my procedure:
  1. Impulse Response – I recorded the moment the music started. The impulse plot showed a satisfying peak at 0.045 seconds, so-unless my dog suddenly started playing a trumpet-I'm confident something in the audio realm actually happened.
  2. Frequency Response – I analyzed the frequency range from 20Hz to 20kHz. Yes, I got the usual mid-bass hump around 80Hz that indicates some real music content. If my ears were tricking me, I'd expect a flat line or maybe a random glitch from a truck driving by. But no! The sweet, sweet humps (and subsequent dips) are consistent with actual music, folks.
  3. Waterfall Plot – Ah, the majestic waterfall! Music notes linger in the time domain, creating that tail-off effect. If I was just imagining things, I'd see nothing but a big old block of colorless data. Instead, I see descending ridges that practically sing to me. Well, as far as graphs can sing.
  4. Distortion Analysis – My REW readouts showed THD+N at a level that is consistent with equipment that's been used to play… you guessed it… real music. If I were just hallucinating, I'd expect total silence or a big red line with the words "HUMAN IMAGINATION" stamped all over it.
Despite all these tests, I still had a small niggling doubt-maybe the microphone is in on the conspiracy too? But after reading the manufacturer's literature on calibration accuracy and verifying my microphone is a "trustworthy auditory witness," I feel pretty secure.

Conclusion: The data confirms that these waveforms correspond to actual, legitimate music. I am not merely tricking myself, nor am I the victim of some cunning placebo effect. My ears are hearing real waveforms that align nicely with what the graphs say should be happening. Take that, audio illusions!

Anyway, this is a huge relief. My only concern now is that maybe I'm hearing better music than I deserve. I'll be running additional tests soon to see if my enjoyment factor is spiking above normal levels… you know, in case I need to re-EQ my satisfaction curve.

Hope you enjoyed my findings. I'll share the graphs below. Cheers to objectively proving we actually are listening to music!
 
Here are graphs. They're totally legitimate, scientifically vetted ASCII approximations. Enjoy!

1. Impulse Response
Code:
   Amplitude
       ^
       |      Peak @ 0.045s
       |           /\
       |          /  \
       |         /    \
       |--------/------\------------------> Time (seconds)
       |      0.04   0.045   0.05
       |

Interpretation: The spike around 0.045 seconds confirms that something musical happened. Obviously not the dog playing trumpet! Totally real data right there!

2. Frequency Response (20Hz - 20kHz)
Code:
Amplitude (dB)
      ^
  +10 |          ___
   0  |  ___    /   \
  -10 | /   \__/     \__
  -20 |/                   \
  -30 |---------------------\------------------> Frequency (Hz)
      20         1k         10k      20k

Interpretation: Notice the oh-so-audiophile mid-bass bump around 80Hz (peak labeled as "Definitely Real Music Hump") and the subtle dip at 4kHz. Perfect proof we're not just imagining things.

3. Waterfall Plot (Frequency vs. Time vs. Decay)
Code:
          Amplitude
             ^
             |     ridges represent real
             |     lingering musical notes
   20k Hz ----+--------.````...         
             |       .'            `.
             |     .'                `.     
             |   .'                    `.
   1k Hz  ----+--'----------------------`------
             | 
             |
    20 Hz ----+---------------------------------> Time

Interpretation: Look at those luxurious ridges showing how the sound decays over time. A figment of the imagination wouldn’t produce such fine ASCII detail (obviously).

4. Distortion Analysis
Code:
THD+N (%)
    ^
5   |       * A few spikes, but
4   |       * none indicating
3   |   ***   that we’re delusional
2   |   | | 
1   |___|_|____________________________________> Frequency (Hz)
      20   100  1k       5k     10k    20k

Interpretation: This shows a modest distortion profile typical of a real audio system playing real music. If it was all in your head, you’d expect zero or 100%—since illusions come in extremes, right?

Disclaimer:
These ASCII “graphs” are wholly authentic, patented, triple-blind tested (where even the data wasn’t sure who it was). Any resemblance to real REW plots is purely coincidental, obviously.

Enjoy, and happy measuring—because if you can’t see it on a graph, it might as well not exist… right?!?
 
Welcome Aboard @Mike Hanson . With that sense of humor you should fit in like a glove. Or a mitten at first, maturing to a glove.

Going to leave the thread where it is for now. Let’s wait and see Jim :cool:
 
I enjoy your sense of humor! :p:p
You might ask the mods to transfer this post to the "A Call for Humor" thread.
And ... welcome to ASR! :)
I looked around for a suitable spot for this, and didn't spot that subforum. That does sound like a better place for it. :)
 
I remain skeptical. Did you perform any double-blinded testing between the supposed "music" and the silence to confirm you could hear a difference?
 
Data is a singular grouping of datums, and thus it is right and proper to use singular rather than plural verb tenses!

Or you can just listen to Mirriam-Webster:

1734988050557.png
 
Yes Data did have an evil twin. So it’s plural in a devilish sense… ;)
 
A microphone is far from sensitive enough to small differences, to measure the electronic differences.
It's also more subject to overlooked uncontrolled differences.
Try measuring voltages at the speaker terminals.
 
A microphone is far from sensitive enough to small differences, to measure the electronic differences.
It's also more subject to overlooked uncontrolled differences.
Try measuring voltages at the speaker terminals.
But that doesn't take the speakers' reactance into account. Therein lies the problem.
 
Did I tell you all that, when she was in grad school, my wife's oral comprehensive exams (in Human Genetics at a rather prestigious private university that's not Ivy League, but likes to think it is ;)), included a series of singular/plural "questions" (e.g., Singular form of bacteria... that sort of thing). They apparently thought it was very important at that University's School of Medicine. :cool:
 
Here are graphs. They're totally legitimate, scientifically vetted ASCII approximations. Enjoy!

1. Impulse Response
Code:
   Amplitude
       ^
       |      Peak @ 0.045s
       |           /\
       |          /  \
       |         /    \
       |--------/------\------------------> Time (seconds)
       |      0.04   0.045   0.05
       |

Interpretation: The spike around 0.045 seconds confirms that something musical happened. Obviously not the dog playing trumpet! Totally real data right there!

2. Frequency Response (20Hz - 20kHz)
Code:
Amplitude (dB)
      ^
  +10 |          ___
   0  |  ___    /   \
  -10 | /   \__/     \__
  -20 |/                   \
  -30 |---------------------\------------------> Frequency (Hz)
      20         1k         10k      20k

Interpretation: Notice the oh-so-audiophile mid-bass bump around 80Hz (peak labeled as "Definitely Real Music Hump") and the subtle dip at 4kHz. Perfect proof we're not just imagining things.

3. Waterfall Plot (Frequency vs. Time vs. Decay)
Code:
          Amplitude
             ^
             |     ridges represent real
             |     lingering musical notes
   20k Hz ----+--------.````...      
             |       .'            `.
             |     .'                `.  
             |   .'                    `.
   1k Hz  ----+--'----------------------`------
             |
             |
    20 Hz ----+---------------------------------> Time

Interpretation: Look at those luxurious ridges showing how the sound decays over time. A figment of the imagination wouldn’t produce such fine ASCII detail (obviously).

4. Distortion Analysis
Code:
THD+N (%)
    ^
5   |       * A few spikes, but
4   |       * none indicating
3   |   ***   that we’re delusional
2   |   | |
1   |___|_|____________________________________> Frequency (Hz)
      20   100  1k       5k     10k    20k

Interpretation: This shows a modest distortion profile typical of a real audio system playing real music. If it was all in your head, you’d expect zero or 100%—since illusions come in extremes, right?

Disclaimer:
These ASCII “graphs” are wholly authentic, patented, triple-blind tested (where even the data wasn’t sure who it was). Any resemblance to real REW plots is purely coincidental, obviously.

Enjoy, and happy measuring—because if you can’t see it on a graph, it might as well not exist… right?!?
I love ASCII technical drawings. I once planned an Apr 1 Informational RFC on Emergent Genres in ASCII in IETF Documentation. Idk if it is still the case but the IETF had the most unbelievable retro style requirements for documents. For an organization developing standards for new tech they were supremely conservative on style, presumably to show how long they've been in the business (kinda line in Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL). If there were a portable teletype available some of them would have been proud to use it at the meetings to show how old-school they are. But in all honesty, I did enjoy the ASCII drawings.
 
Data is a singular grouping of datums, and thus it is right and proper to use singular rather than plural verb tenses!
Data is plural except when it is used (incorrectly) to mean information.

One of my favorite philosophical questions: What is the difference between data and information?
 
one datum, two data... or maybe that's zero-one, base two data.
 
Data is a singular grouping of datums, and thus it is right and proper to use singular rather than plural verb tenses!

Or you can just listen to Mirriam-Webster:

View attachment 416066


There are no such things as 'datums' in the general sense you mean for any collection of data points; the correct word is 'data'. 'Mirriam' argues that 'data' can be plural or singular, but as she :) notes, the 'house style of several publishers' favors the plural, which she infers to be the reason it's more common in print.

I can't be sure which publishers ol' Mirriam is referring to, but 'data' is usually a plural noun in scientific and academic work.
 
Back
Top Bottom