• 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!

Measurable aspects of sound perception

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
But can you rely on those tests that try to measure perception? Even strictly controlled DBTs cannot provide an absolute truth. Couple quotes to keep the thread going:

What 'truth' can be or not be provided ?

Most folks here are way past the 'all amps sound the same' routine. We know this is not the case. That's why measurements exist to show certain performance.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
This whole thread is a couple audio creationists telling a bunch of audio scientists to provide the missing link otherwise audio evolution is just a bunch of BS. It's an audio scopes monkey trial! :facepalm:

Here's the deal. If you subjectivists are going to make the claim that by changing the cables in your system (or any other element of your system) and then listening for a bit you note a "definite" improvement in sound quality - such that dropping however many hundreds of dollars on said cables was "well worth it" - those differences should without any doubt be easily evident in a side by side, blind A/B test. I don't mean you can pick out the expensive cables 60% of the time. I mean you should have no problem at all picking them nice new cables out 90-100% of the time. It should be that easy. If under blind test conditions you are actually unable to distinguish ANY difference in sound quality, then no difference exists. Its really that simple. There is no magic. There is no hidden aspect of sound that we don't yet understand that is allowing you to distinguish a difference between 2 cables when you listen to them hours apart but that you can't hear when you listen side by side in an A/B test. If you refuse to accept that simple, obvious truth, then you are delusional.
 
Last edited:
OP
pozz

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
This whole thread is a couple audio creationists telling a bunch of audio scientists to provide the missing link otherwise audio evolution is just a bunch of BS. It's an audio scopes monkey trial! :facepalm:

Here's the deal. If you subjectivists are going to make the claim that by changing the cables in your system and then listening for a bit you note a "definite" improvement in sound quality - such that dropping however many hundreds of dollars on said cables was "well worth it" - those differences should without any doubt be easily evident in a side by side, blind A/B test. I don't mean you can pick out the expensive cables 60% of the time. I mean you should have no problem at all picking them nice new cables out 90-100% of the time. It should be that easy. If under blind test conditions you are actually unable to distinguish ANY difference in sound quality, then no difference exists. Its really that simple. There is no magic. There is no hidden aspect of sound that we don't yet understand that is allowing you to distinguish a difference between 2 cables when you listen to them hours apart but that you can't hear when you listen side by side in an A/B test. If you refuse to accept that simple, obvious truth, then you are delusional.
The thing is that there is so much stuff that's supposed to be supporting those differences, like 200 hour burn-in for the cable by itself, or the time it takes for a cable to really affect the full system... The most difficult thing about this kind of reasoning is that it makes looking for exclusions (excuses) the primary effort. There's even a testing component where other gear is supposed to prove "hypotheses" about system synergy. In a discussion it's like playing cards against someone with a fist full of trumps.

Reminds me of Wittgenstein: "Your grounds for doubt are lacking." Doubt should be reasonable and supported as certainty. You should have evidence in either case, evidence being something simple that both parties can agree on (gotta start somewhere).
 

snapsc

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Likes
96
Location
Central Florida
Is it possible that both sides of this debate can be correct at the same time? Psychologists have spent a lot of time researching and studying why and how we make decisions. One of the very interesting areas of study is called "priming". Those who believe they hear cable sound differences, regardless of why, actually do hear them...even if they don't exist. Those that don't believe actually don't hear them, even if they do exist.

Where does this leave us? I suspect that there are many ways, on an individual basis, to verify what is actually happening in our own systems. Here is one that I think is simple and easy:

For a week, have a friend agree to come to your house at least 6 times (why 6...any more might be too intrusive and any less might not be enough). Their role will be to make at least 4 cable changes and 2 non changes of an agreed upon cable...the changes will be hidden from sight and remain hidden after they leave. They will not tell you whether they made a change or not but they will keep a small note page on which they will record the day and whether they made a change or not and if if a change was made, which cable was in the system.

Then before they arrive the next time, you will have to decide which cable is in your system which you will record along with the the date on your note pad.

If you and your helper don't match answers at least 4 times, then statistically you are not really hearing much change if any, which then begets of the question of " are you getting the value you think you are getting from the expensive cables". If you match 5 or 6 times, then you can smile and feel good about your purchase and know that at least in your system, you can hear cable differences even if no one else can.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
As far as measurements go, I don't think it's nearly as complex as some make it out to be. Afaic, anything that makes any sort of audible difference in what we hear from our hi-fi system will also make a measure-able difference in a simple spectrum analysis from 20hz-20khz. No magic. No ultra-sonics. None of that malarkey. If you change your cables and think it makes an audible difference, then it should be easy to take before and after measurements of the spectrum from 20-20000hz and if there's a difference then sure, maybe you are hearing something. If there isn't a difference? Then nope, you ain't hearing anything. The fact that we don't really have any of these sorts of measurements showing differences for such things as cables and burn-in and so forth really tells the tale as far as I'm concerned.

Same goes for soundstage and imaging. I believe it's all reflected in the 20-20khz spectrum. There isn't some specific "soundstage measurement." It's just an illusion created when all the elements of your system (the sound output, the source recording, the speaker position in relation to your ears, etc) come together in just the right way to fool your brain. But, it's reflected in a simple spectrum analysis. I even have a little anecdote of my own about it... :D

I've spent some time setting my speakers up in my listening room. I've played around with positioning and so forth and done some very rudimentary EQing using pink noise and then tweaking a bit by ear. I have things sounding quite nice I think. So a couple months back I was listening to some Sinatra and I was sitting reclined against the back of my sofa in the "sweet spot" with my eyes closed. At one point I decided to lean forward for some reason and so with my eyes still closed I moved to a position with my elbows on my knees such that my ears were now about 2 feet closer to the speakers and further from the wall behind...and in doing so I noticed something. As I moved my head forward (eyes closed) I perceived a change in what I was hearing - a sort of focusing - and there was a very distinct feeling that if I reached out I could put my hand on the Chairman's shoulder. Like Sinatra was now standing right there in front of me singing. It was a pretty pronounced effect and it was repeatable. I could lean back and forth and it would be easily notable. It was very much like a camera image coming into sharper focus. It works with other recordings too - Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa is the most extreme example. That recording comes very close to sounding like a surround system with stuff coming from far to the left and right and from close and far away from me. It isn't as strong with eyes open - likely because seeing the speakers makes it harder to fool my brain as far as locating where sounds are coming from. But with my eyes closed it's an extremely cool effect.

Having noted this effect, I decided to see if I could measure it. Now, I don't own any real analysis gear. I have a cheesy little free spectrum analyzer on my phone that I play around with. So I fired up some pink noise on my system, held the phone at ear level about a foot from the wall where I sit and then, watching the spectrum, moved the phone a couple feet closer to the speakers and away from the wall...and sure enough a couple of the bars right around 2khz bumped up and down about 4 or 5 dbs between the two positions. It's easy to see - I can watch those 2 bars rise and fall as I move the phone towards and away from the wall behind me. Now obviously this is not a very meaningful measurement, and there are likely all sorts of subtle changes occurring that aren't as easy to see. The point I'm making is simply that I noted a change in sound that I interpreted as sharper imaging, and it appears there is an obvious, measure-able difference in the audible spectrum to go along with that change in sound. Imaging is an illusion much like a visual stereoscopic image is an illusion of 3 dimensions. But it isn't a mystery. It still happens within the simple audible spectrum...
 
Last edited:

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
Is it possible that both sides of this debate can be correct at the same time? Psychologists have spent a lot of time researching and studying why and how we make decisions. One of the very interesting areas of study is called "priming". Those who believe they hear cable sound differences, regardless of why, actually do hear them...even if they don't exist. Those that don't believe actually don't hear them, even if they do exist.

Yeah. That happens. That's why we set up tests that remove our beliefs from the equation.
 

Hipper

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
753
Likes
625
Location
Herts., England
As far as measurements go, I don't think it's nearly as complex as some make it out to be. Afaic, anything that makes any sort of audible difference in what we hear from our hi-fi system will also make a measure-able difference in a simple spectrum analysis from 20hz-20khz. No magic. No ultra-sonics. None of that malarkey. If you change your cables and think it makes an audible difference, then it should be easy to take before and after measurements of the spectrum from 20-20000hz and if there's a difference then sure, maybe you are hearing something. If there isn't a difference? Then nope, you ain't hearing anything. The fact that we don't really have any of these sorts of measurements showing differences for such things as cables and burn-in and so forth really tells the tale as far as I'm concerned.

Same goes for soundstage and imaging. I believe it's all reflected in the 20-20khz spectrum. There isn't some specific "soundstage measurement." It's just an illusion created when all the elements of your system (the sound output, the source recording, the speaker position in relation to your ears, etc) come together in just the right way to fool your brain. But, it's reflected in a simple spectrum analysis. I even have a little anecdote of my own about it... :D

I've spent some time setting my speakers up in my listening room. I've played around with positioning and so forth and done some very rudimentary EQing using pink noise and then tweaking a bit by ear. I have things sounding quite nice I think. So a couple months back I was listening to some Sinatra and I was sitting reclined against the back of my sofa in the "sweet spot" with my eyes closed. At one point I decided to lean forward for some reason and so with my eyes still closed I moved to a position with my elbows on my knees such that my ears were now about 2 feet closer to the speakers and further from the wall behind...and in doing so I noticed something. As I moved my head forward (eyes closed) I perceived a change in what I was hearing - a sort of focusing - and there was a very distinct feeling that if I reached out I could put my hand on the Chairman's shoulder. Like Sinatra was now standing right there in front of me singing. It was a pretty pronounced effect and it was repeatable. I could lean back and forth and it would be easily notable. It was very much like a camera image coming into sharper focus. It works with other recordings too - Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa is the most extreme example. That recording comes very close to sounding like a surround system with stuff coming from far to the left and right and from close and far away from me. It isn't as strong with eyes open - likely because seeing the speakers makes it harder to fool my brain as far as locating where sounds are coming from. But with my eyes closed it's an extremely cool effect.

Having noted this effect, I decided to see if I could measure it. Now, I don't own any real analysis gear. I have a cheesy little free spectrum analyzer on my phone that I play around with. So I fired up some pink noise on my system, held the phone at ear level about a foot from the wall where I sit and then, watching the spectrum, moved the phone a couple feet closer to the speakers and away from the wall...and sure enough a couple of the bars right around 2khz bumped up and down about 4 or 5 dbs between the two positions. It's easy to see - I can watch those 2 bars rise and fall as I move the phone towards and away from the wall behind me. Now obviously this is not a very meaningful measurement, and there are likely all sorts of subtle changes occurring that aren't as easy to see. The point I'm making is simply that I noted a change in sound that I interpreted as sharper imaging, and it appears there is an obvious, measure-able difference in the audible spectrum to go along with that change in sound. Imaging is an illusion much like a visual stereoscopic image is an illusion of 3 dimensions. But it isn't a mystery. It still happens within the simple audible spectrum...

It would be nice if you were right, but....

Have you ever listened to your set up and for some reason come away and think 'wow, that was nice' when on another day it was OK but no more? How do you measure that?

That seems to be why, in the part of the Bauert video I mentioned in my post 15 which discussed four stages that are involved in how we listen, the final (fourth) stage, basically psychoacoustics, was 'measured' by audience questionnaires etc., and not by tools like SPL meters and so on which the other three stages seem to be. I'd go further and say perhaps such exact measurements are not possible. Could this be because emotions play a part in our sound perception and how on earth do you measure them?

Not only that, but simple measurements in your listening room will not take account of factors such as humidity, air pressure and temperature, all of which have a bearing on how sound behaves.

Also, in a domestic situation, from my experience, I can't believe that measurements taken with Room EQ Wizard, say, would be accurate enough to show up minor changes. I've not found it that consistent. Furthermore, things like a phantom image are products of our brain - they don't actually exist in the room. You could measure the output of two speakers and I suppose it might tell some expert what phantom image is possible but it would not tell him what phantom image I hear.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
Sorry, but I don't buy it. In so far as hi-fi sound systems are concerned, anything that makes a notable, repeatable audible impact will be measure-able in the frequency spectrum, fairly easily. The things referred to like air pressure and phychoacoustics exist. But when we discuss stuff like cables and burn-in...they are irrelevant. I don't care about cables if their effect is some sort of psycho-acoustic mumbo-jumbo that makes no repeatable, measure-able difference. Measuring gear is far more sensitive than our ears. There is no reason subtle changes that we claim to be able to hear wouldn't be easily measure-able.
 

snapsc

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Likes
96
Location
Central Florida
Yes, there are a lot of ways to measure what we hear in our rooms and at our listening positions and maybe unless we are at the Harman labs, our measurements might be subject to some challenge....but...

From what I've read, science has not yet fully explained why what one person hears and their brain interprets is different from another person.

Allow me to give a weird example. Two people; one grew up around his father playing concert violin, the other grew up around his father playing an old beat up hand me down violin with make shift strings on occasion. They both "know" what a violin sounds like yet if each hears the violin that the other's father plays, it won't sound right to them.

My take away is that science, up to this point, has provided a lot of information on why certain speakers/amps/dac etc. should sound better to most people...and why speaker position and listening position in addition to the room are so important...but at the end of the day, people prefer what they prefer, science be damned and it will be difficult if not impossible for one side to convince the other...until we better understand how and why the brain interprets things the way it does.

As for wires, this seems like the easiest one to test/prove/disprove and do it easily at home using the method I described above.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
Hi Guys, I caused a lot of reactions.

From my point of a view, many from individuals that did not have a lecture in quantum-mechanics, EM wave propagation/high frequency techniques and/or material science, ........ and state that they understand physics !
You have absolutely no clue about the knowledge many members here have acquired. This is quite an arrogant side you show here.
Let everyone believe what het wants;
This is not how science works. There are theories which try to explain experimental results. If a theory works - fine. If not it's wrong and a new theory must take its place. But the new theory must work better to be accepted.
and as Richard Feymann said "Dare to doubt"
Doubt is the basic of science but doubt must be funded on scientific principles, not on claims without proof.

Speaking of Feynman you should know what he had said: Nobody truly understands quantum mechanics, and those who claim that they do don't.
I don't think the majority on this site is looking foor good sound but is looking for an absolute truth.
Sorry to say; you will never find it.
I can't recall how often have we heard this from subjectivists as a last resort. This is BS! All members here love music, go to concerts, strive for optimum sound quality in their homes. Again arrogance replaces arguments.

Many of us have once believed in unfounded claims like those you've thrown in. But other than the majority of still believing subjectivists many have had revealing experiences which told us that one cannot rely on human hearing without controls, and which led to a change in what one can take as proof (DBT) and what not (subjective reviews without controls). And this is based on hard facts, the results of 80 years of scientific research, most of which is disregarded by subjectivists with the turn of a hand because "I can hear it so it must be true".

Have a look a optical illusions. Using very simple basic tools (like using your own finger to hide a part of an image) shows that you cannot trust your eyes telling the truth. If you know you cannot trust your eyes what makes you think you could trust your ears?
This is my last post as I am looking for improved sound at home and did not find any useful advice here.
If you had just asked for advice instead of throwing a lot of claims without proof you might have get more useful advice. Try again with a new thread.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
Yes, there are a lot of ways to measure what we hear in our rooms and at our listening positions and maybe unless we are at the Harman labs, our measurements might be subject to some challenge....but...

From what I've read, science has not yet fully explained why what one person hears and their brain interprets is different from another person.

Allow me to give a weird example. Two people; one grew up around his father playing concert violin, the other grew up around his father playing an old beat up hand me down violin with make shift strings on occasion. They both "know" what a violin sounds like yet if each hears the violin that the other's father plays, it won't sound right to them.
This is correct and not weird at all.
My take away is that science, up to this point, has provided a lot of information on why certain speakers/amps/dac etc. should sound better to most people...and why speaker position and listening position in addition to the room are so important...but at the end of the day, people prefer what they prefer, science be damned and it will be difficult if not impossible for one side to convince the other...until we better understand how and why the brain interprets things the way it does.
I think you're mixing different things here. Nobody argues about the existence of indidividual preferences for sound. Hey, I once preferred distorted sound over clean sound when I was young, but this has changed (to quote Sansa Stark / GOT: I am a slow learner, it's true. But I learn). As @Floyd Toole reported in his book the majority of listeners in the Harman lab had very similar preferences for a specific sound reproduction (flat on axis FR, smooth falling off axis FR, good bass) when listening blind, regardless of what kind of qualification they had.

Here at ASR we strive for accurate sound reproduction, that is reproduce the sound as close as possible to what the artists intended and what the mastering engineer heard in his studio. Any change to individual preferences can then be done by appropriate controls. Unfortunately allmost all highend audio equipmemt lacks these controls and both manufacturers and the audiophile press has told us over dozens of years that those controls make sound quality bad so it became common "knowledge". Yet knowing that almost all recordings pass through many such control stages in the recording and the mastering studio should make one clear that this "knowledge" is plain wrong.
 

thefsb

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
657
Only remaining questions are (for the audiophiles that is):
do you want to hear it ?
do you try to hear it ?
do you hear it ?
can you convince yourself there is a difference ?

I can answer all questions with yes so it's my conviction.

You don't need to claim that others don't understand physics well enough or to introduce arguments using quantum effects. Apply Occam's Razor: you only need Qualia. And it goes right to the heart of your argument right here. You really should delve in to the literature.

Personally, I think it's the most tedious topic in all of philosophy, anti-scientific and rooted in a desire to protect some experiential space from scientific inquiry. But who am I? Nobody. Whereas many high-power philosophers with impeccable credentials will defend their qualia to the end of the world.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,794
Location
NYC
But can you rely on those tests that try to measure perception? Even strictly controlled DBTs cannot provide an absolute truth.
What it can show is that the individual who asserts that he can hear a difference cannot prove that he does. Of course, that is not the equivalent of proving he cannot but it must qualify his assertion. Lucky coins are excused.
 

snapsc

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Likes
96
Location
Central Florida
@LTig

Totally agree that accuracy is the goal and “tuning” to a specific taste is up to the individual....

Which probably explains why many like tube equipment and rolling tubes to get sound they want.

Personally, I want a piano to sound like a piano and a trumpet to sound like a trumpet and the soundstage to be realistic... so I lean toward accuracy with my own system.
 
OP
pozz

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Is it possible that both sides of this debate can be correct at the same time? Psychologists have spent a lot of time researching and studying why and how we make decisions. One of the very interesting areas of study is called "priming". Those who believe they hear cable sound differences, regardless of why, actually do hear them...even if they don't exist. Those that don't believe actually don't hear them, even if they do exist.

Where does this leave us? I suspect that there are many ways, on an individual basis, to verify what is actually happening in our own systems. Here is one that I think is simple and easy:

For a week, have a friend agree to come to your house at least 6 times (why 6...any more might be too intrusive and any less might not be enough). Their role will be to make at least 4 cable changes and 2 non changes of an agreed upon cable...the changes will be hidden from sight and remain hidden after they leave. They will not tell you whether they made a change or not but they will keep a small note page on which they will record the day and whether they made a change or not and if if a change was made, which cable was in the system.

Then before they arrive the next time, you will have to decide which cable is in your system which you will record along with the the date on your note pad.

If you and your helper don't match answers at least 4 times, then statistically you are not really hearing much change if any, which then begets of the question of " are you getting the value you think you are getting from the expensive cables". If you match 5 or 6 times, then you can smile and feel good about your purchase and know that at least in your system, you can hear cable differences even if no one else can.
Thanks for jumping in with a useful wrinkle.

This complication regarding priming is exactly where psychoacoustics comes in. Unfortunately the debates barely ever get into details. To repost a message I've left elsewhere: The hearing system has an active filter/stream selection/averaging mechanism which allows you to voluntarily select from several concurrent sound sources and block others (known as the "cocktail party" effect). In short: you will legitimately hear differences in unchanged content, particularly if you are paying close attention. It's not just imagination at work and it has nothing to do with unusual device combinations. It also works the other way around: if you don't know what to pay attention to, you'll never hear it. This is why musicians are so adept at detecting pitch and timing differences, but not (as many would think) distortions, which is a different kind of expertise altogether (as with Harman trained listeners).

Controlled listening tests are difficult to set up correctly. Isn't it more useful to read up on the existing testing done in really rigorous environments, or the kinds of measurable differences it is possible to detect in cabling and only then draw conclusions based on what you know about human hearing?
As far as measurements go, I don't think it's nearly as complex as some make it out to be. Afaic, anything that makes any sort of audible difference in what we hear from our hi-fi system will also make a measure-able difference in a simple spectrum analysis from 20hz-20khz. No magic. No ultra-sonics. None of that malarkey. If you change your cables and think it makes an audible difference, then it should be easy to take before and after measurements of the spectrum from 20-20000hz and if there's a difference then sure, maybe you are hearing something. If there isn't a difference? Then nope, you ain't hearing anything. The fact that we don't really have any of these sorts of measurements showing differences for such things as cables and burn-in and so forth really tells the tale as far as I'm concerned.

Same goes for soundstage and imaging. I believe it's all reflected in the 20-20khz spectrum. There isn't some specific "soundstage measurement." It's just an illusion created when all the elements of your system (the sound output, the source recording, the speaker position in relation to your ears, etc) come together in just the right way to fool your brain. But, it's reflected in a simple spectrum analysis. I even have a little anecdote of my own about it... :D

I've spent some time setting my speakers up in my listening room. I've played around with positioning and so forth and done some very rudimentary EQing using pink noise and then tweaking a bit by ear. I have things sounding quite nice I think. So a couple months back I was listening to some Sinatra and I was sitting reclined against the back of my sofa in the "sweet spot" with my eyes closed. At one point I decided to lean forward for some reason and so with my eyes still closed I moved to a position with my elbows on my knees such that my ears were now about 2 feet closer to the speakers and further from the wall behind...and in doing so I noticed something. As I moved my head forward (eyes closed) I perceived a change in what I was hearing - a sort of focusing - and there was a very distinct feeling that if I reached out I could put my hand on the Chairman's shoulder. Like Sinatra was now standing right there in front of me singing. It was a pretty pronounced effect and it was repeatable. I could lean back and forth and it would be easily notable. It was very much like a camera image coming into sharper focus. It works with other recordings too - Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa is the most extreme example. That recording comes very close to sounding like a surround system with stuff coming from far to the left and right and from close and far away from me. It isn't as strong with eyes open - likely because seeing the speakers makes it harder to fool my brain as far as locating where sounds are coming from. But with my eyes closed it's an extremely cool effect.

Having noted this effect, I decided to see if I could measure it. Now, I don't own any real analysis gear. I have a cheesy little free spectrum analyzer on my phone that I play around with. So I fired up some pink noise on my system, held the phone at ear level about a foot from the wall where I sit and then, watching the spectrum, moved the phone a couple feet closer to the speakers and away from the wall...and sure enough a couple of the bars right around 2khz bumped up and down about 4 or 5 dbs between the two positions. It's easy to see - I can watch those 2 bars rise and fall as I move the phone towards and away from the wall behind me. Now obviously this is not a very meaningful measurement, and there are likely all sorts of subtle changes occurring that aren't as easy to see. The point I'm making is simply that I noted a change in sound that I interpreted as sharper imaging, and it appears there is an obvious, measure-able difference in the audible spectrum to go along with that change in sound. Imaging is an illusion much like a visual stereoscopic image is an illusion of 3 dimensions. But it isn't a mystery. It still happens within the simple audible spectrum...
BTW this is completely accurate and a very meaningful measurement. All stereo systems have this very specific problem at 2kHz due to crosstalk. This dip is what the center channel aims to address by flattening the frequency response.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
Since we already know everything there is to know about the brain and hearing, perhaps we could shift gears and figure out if this salt and butter on my popcorn for this thread will give me cancer or not.

is the butter organic?
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
Nothing that holds true outside of specific test’s conditions and its participants.

yeh - like gravity

it only exists on Earth and where we've sent space probes

in the rest of the universe, something else is going on, not gravity
 

PeterZui

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
20
You have absolutely no clue about the knowledge many members here have acquired. Correct, I wasn't impressed. This is quite an arrogant side you show here. Just stated my opinion, don't take it personal.

This is not how religion works. There are theories which try to explain experimental results. If a theory works - fine. If not it's wrong (so not true) and a new theory (truth) must take its place. But the new theory (truth) must work better to be accepted (=new temporary truth).

Doubt is the basic of science but doubt must be funded on scientific principles, not on claims without proof. (every new scientific principle is born with a new statement we're trying to proof/test/attack afterwards, I would advise the theory of Erik Verlinde I think very interesting)

Speaking of Feynman you should know what he had said: Nobody truly understands quantum mechanics, and those who claim that they do don't. (I fully agree we are all far from fully understanding)

I can't recall how often have we heard this from subjectivists (aren't we all without realizing it ?) as a last resort. This is BS! (you seem very confident! please dear to doubt) All members here love music, go to concerts, strive for optimum sound quality in their homes. Again arrogance replaces arguments. (did not mean to insult anyone, just my opinion)

Many of us have once believed (so this site is of remaining members who were willing to be converted ?) in unfounded claims like those you've thrown in. But other than the majority of still believing subjectivists (aren't we all without realizing it ?) many have had revealing experiences (your brain has told you it was revealing, was this by reasoning or listening ?) which told us that one cannot rely on human hearing (why not? a lot of animals have proven they can survive because they have a well trained auditory system, I don't know of one that can survive because of "scientific" knowledge) without controls , and which led to a change in what one can take as proof (DBT) and what not (subjective reviews without controls). And this is based on hard facts, the results of 80 years of scientific research, most of which is disregarded by subjectivists (aren't we all without realizing it ?) with the turn of a hand because "I can hear it so it must be true".(So you don't take your own auditory system (= your brain) seriously anymore ? Who or what is trying to fool you except you ? ............You choose to trust your reasoning brain system above your auditory brain system)

Have a look a optical illusions. Using very simple basic tools (like using your own finger to hide a part of an image) shows that you cannot trust your eyes telling the truth. If you know you cannot trust your eyes what makes you think you could trust your ears? (we have two choices, trust our auditory and hearing system or don't trust them but then we should have a better alternative. I'll stick to the sensory perception systems that made us human beings during evolution)

Sorry, couldn't resist this final post
If you had just asked for advice instead of throwing a lot of claims without proof you might have get more useful advice. Try again with a new thread.
no thx for inviting
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
As for wires, this seems like the easiest one to test/prove/disprove and do it easily at home using the method I described above.

An anecdotal (and true) story about a loudspeaker cable swap I experienced in my previous job as service engineer for a (former) high-end audio store.

As a service engineer in a small company I also had to install equipment for customers in their homes.
One fine day a customer had bought an expensive cable upgrade for his way better than average music system. The customer was in the music business is all I will say and he shall remain unnamed.

The following is what the customer experienced. It is my free interpretation of how he was thinking based on his reactions and remarks.

Even though I wanted to see what the technician was doing he asked me to sit in my carefully positioned listening chair and not move around so I could hear for myself what the changes are in sound quality. This could be quite easy as I know this system and the music inside out and any change will be obvious. If I can NOT tell the difference the salesman had stated I could return the cable and there would be no financial loss.

First I listened to the old cable for a while, it sounded ‘as usual’. After the technician had changed the cables I listened again and the changes were not even subtle but the sound improved clearly. After enjoying the music the technician wanted to put back the old cable to verify the change that occured.
Old cable was installed again… old sound back too so the cables appear to be real upgrade.
After several seconds I already pleated to immediately put the new cables back in there.. How could I have been satisfied with this sound all this time… I should have upgraded sooner !.

The technician put in the new cables again .. Ah there is the excellent sound again and will likely have to revisit all my music again.

What to do with the old cables he asked ?… garbage can of course.

The following is what ACTUALLY happened that day:

I told the customer I wanted to show the improvements the cables made to him and asked him to sit in his chair and put on some music he knew well.
The amplifier did have an A-B speaker output which I could use to switch between cables but as the expensive cable could be returned when the customer did NOT hear any improvements it would not be wise to connect both cables and switch between A and B for obvious reasons.

I told the customer I was going to change the cable while he remained in his chair.

First listen was with the old cable… nothing unexpected came from that.

Next I routed the new cable and moved the amplifier a bit as well as sitting behind the heavy speakers pretending to connect the cable but in fact ONLY routed the cable and left the old one connected.
I didn’t even touch the connectors.

The customer put on some music and the ‘change’ was quite noticeable to him and he listened to it for a while.
He was very pleased with the results thinking (to him knowing) he was actually listening to his new cable.

I proposed to check his findings by connecting the old cable and have a listen again to make sure he heard it correctly. This time, however, I connected the new cable while the CUSTOMER was thinking he was going to listen to his old, and clearly inferior, cable.

Indeed to the customer the ‘old familiar and inferior sound’ was back and already within seconds he asked me to switch back. The change was dramatic and wanted the new cable back on there.
In reality he was now listening to the new cable for the first time.

The customer wanted his new cable back in there. So I pretended to swap cables again while doing no such thing in reality.

I told him the new cable was connected again and took away the old cable.

He listened again and immediately noticed the improvements. He was not ever going to use those old cables again and was putting on different music to listen some more !

He paid for the cable and thanked me for the demonstration…

Everybody was happy that day.

The customer for the obvious sonic improvement, the demonstration he got as well as the free delivery and installation.

I am, for the generous tip he handed me for services provided, and above all the pleasure of experimenting on unsuspecting people with excellent hearing in the comfort of their own home and familiar with the system. Of course he still doesn’t know and will gladly tell everyone about the noteworthy improvements he clearly heard when swapping cables.

My boss is happy for making the sale so he can smoke another Cuban cigar.
I have to add that returning cables was standard policy when buying a cable and there was a big sign in the shop stating cables could be returned when no improvements were heard.
In the 7 years I worked there not a single customer EVER returned a cable. And there were some pretty expensive ones among them. So either everyone hears it or they don’t but do not want to be laughed at behind their back or figure a better cable can’t hurt.

The importer and manufacturer of the cable are also thankful because of the big profit margin.
 
Top Bottom