• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Measurable aspects of sound perception

Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
Sure, i agree with you that we must "TRUST" our ears the most, all the measurements in the world are useless if we can't subjectively enjoy the experience, sure sound reproduction is one thing, but UI/UX is important too, durability and etc.

But the problem is as i experience first hand, my ears are easily fooled, i'm grateful that i have a good friend that share the same mindset as i am, that is in audiophile world, head to head blinded abx test is everything, and i do this to every equipment i try and buy, and we are not ashamed to sit for hours in an audioshop doing instant head to head blinded in front of other people, some even approach us and those became a conversation starter.

So my point is, Measurement(that is done by amirm, wolfx700, and other) is a standardized test, it is repeatable and consistent, so i feel i can trust it as my reference point, especially reviews about a piece of hardware that i can't test, hardware that have to be imported and aren't available in brick and mortar shop.

While what you call a "Inspirational Reviews on the Internet" are a lot of bullshit spewed (Sorry for my languange, but that's how i fell) the way they explain things is that, the more expensive, the better.

"This $200 equipment is good, but it can't defeat $2000 equipment, not even close"

Well that's not the case at all if we see the measurement here. Price =/= Quality.

But my question is, do you think amirm is commercially supported? Because some guys in subjectivist forum thinks that because amirm doesn't sell that particular piece of hardware, he gives those particular hardware a bad review. (Someone linked it in amirm profile dashboard)

Afaik amirm doesn't have any audioshop, nor supported financially by any company, just patreon and donation.
I might be a loner and I might be stubborn in the (likely) perception of others.
Anyway; I don't need "friends" or a site or whatever/wherever to discuss and/or define what my perception of a ... (let's stick to the ethernet cable) ....... is.
About internet information;
you write about it as everyone wants to fool you ! Hey, What's new on the internet ??
You have to pick yourself the ones you trust but defining them all as "sorry for my language" seems to me as Xenophobic.
Personally f.e. l criticized but also like Hans Beekhuyzen as I think he has honest listening reviews and is independent. But then again, everyone should do with it as he/she likes ...........
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
4,331
Likes
8,041
Location
The Neverlands
Honestly, from my perspective this is a silly question as you have the lab report of your wine but have no clue of the taste.
I suggest you start tasting and/or listening.
How's your taste when you consumed a piece of garlic, cheese or something else ?
How good are your listening skills when you don't know what is playing ?

To be more to the point; How do you want to measure the effect of non linear systems/effects on our hearing capabilities ? If anyone here could come with a well thought out suggestion howto I would be interested.
Refer to my earlier reply as I think we far overestimate our measuring capabilities.
Do you think your hearing is more linear than that of an AP measurement system ?

Lesson 1 (and I think most of us forgot) with electronic design and the all used mathematics about Laplace and Fourier transformations: WE CONSIDER LINEAR SYSTEMS.................All electronic designs are based on these assumptions that it's a linear system.
No, designers and engineers working on them know nothing is linear. They try to find ways to linear non linear response. Take tubes for instance. They sound great to some folks but are terribly non linear. It's those non linearities they love.


Wasn't TIM distortion discovered by Matti Otala by listening before we ever thought about it and realized it is there ?
Is it a problem still today ? Solved by golden eared people or science ?

Wasn't jitter distortion becoming an issue after listening to digital devices and became an issue ?
Is jitter still a problem today or is it only assumed to be a problem by folks who want to blame it for things they think they hear ?

From my perspective non-linear distortion might be the next but how to measure the effect...................... ?
When distortion is at it lowest do you think linearity is greatest ?

One way or the other; a next important measuring aspect of sound quality will be discovered and this is just a matter of time.
Any idea what needs and will be discovered yet ? Do you think the discovery would come from folks listening sighted or from the science side ?

Till that time, but probably even thereafter, my own hearing system will be my guide for an audio-set-up;
My taste will be for a fine wine selection and I don't care for the lab report.
It would be a very stupid thing not to let your own preference be your guide when it comes to things you like.

My personal conclusion is that human senses are (far) ahead of our scientific knowledge and that this is easy to understand as we realize what brought us here.
Without science would there be any sound reproduction at all ? I think it is easy to understand that good audio reproduction comes from non-linear electronics and transducers. It is science based. Perhaps it is best you realize who and what brought you there. It ain't the audio fairies for sure.

For many members on this site this (subjective) truth might be difficult to accept;
On the other way: Science still has a lot of big challenges; let's start with the 95% of the universe we do not have a clue..............
Subjective truth is not hard to accept when tested properly with the correct controls and conditions.
Bringing in your eyes and knowledge of what one is listening to is hard to accept as truth but perfectly fine if you don't care about that.

The 95% seems like an objective number. How do you know this to be true or is it your subjective guestimation ?
 
OP
pozz

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,483
Likes
2,116
Thread Starter #163
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
How's your taste when you consumed a piece of garlic, cheese or something else ?
How good are your listening skills when you don't know what is playing ?

OK, then don't take the advise and define what you hear by what you read on this site



Do you think your hearing is more linear than that of an AP measurement system ?
I'm pretty sure it isn't but I don't want to be one, it's just a measuring tool ! I am, like anybody else, more special ;)


No, designers and engineers working on them know nothing is linear. They try to find ways to linear non linear response. Take tubes for instance. They sound great to some folks but are terribly non linear. It's those non linearities they love.

It seems to me that from a scientific point of view you didn't understand very much of this statement. It has nothing to do with the linearity of an amplifying system. I meant the mathematics we use for designing. Please reread my post and/or try a seminar on Laplace and Fourier transformations that are used in every electronic design. These mathematics are only valid for "linear" systems meaning all components in the system are linear/time independent ...........


Is it a problem still today ? Solved by golden eared people or science ?
No, solved by the same Matti Otala who also used his hearing capabilities to understand and improve the design.


Is jitter still a problem today or is it only assumed to be a problem by folks who want to blame it for things they think they hear ?
So we agree it is audible. Discovered by listeners. I don't think it has anything to do with blaming. If you think you hear something, you heard it, didn't you ?


When distortion is at it lowest do you think linearity is greatest ?
Afraid you didn't get the clue on the mathematics..........


Any idea what needs and will be discovered yet ? Do you think the discovery would come from folks listening sighted or from the science side ?

Don't be so naive to think it's one way, the biggest insights came from engineers who succeeded to pinpoint a relation between the audio quality and the design. If they didn't start listening we still wouldn't have the science...............


It would be a very stupid thing not to let your own preference be your guide when it comes to things you like.
Here I fully agree :D:D


Without science would there be any sound reproduction at all ? I think it is easy to understand that good audio reproduction comes from non-linear electronics and transducers. It is science based. Perhaps it is best you realize who and what brought you there. It ain't the audio fairies for sure.

Sorry but you should elaborate on this one as I don't get any clue out of it..........


Subjective truth is not hard to accept when tested properly with the correct controls and conditions.
Bringing in your eyes and knowledge of what one is listening to is hard to accept as truth but perfectly fine if you don't care about that.

You just stated there is an absolute truth, but there isn't. From my perspective too many people were killed because some idiots thought there was an absolute one we all should follow....... Speaking of this; I advise the lyrics of the song "to the bone" of Steven Wilson. Great music I think..

The 95% seems like an objective number. How do you know this to be true or is it your subjective guestimation ?

No, I'm just interested in Astronomy. The 95% figure comes from the leading scientists working in this area. They are humble and can admit there is a lot to discover and I think this is a realistic approach.
Most members of this site think they know it all and just have to read the measurement report.
From my perspective they all have become very lazy and any curiosity to discover new things has faded away.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
Hi

I didn't read most of the post in this thread. I was expecting more TBH. I tend to stop reading the second I see "Quantum Mechanics" in an Audiophile discussions. I know, from the intonation of those words, it is always a download slope toward manure.
And that is what happened here.
I might have some new business hiring you as a fortune teller and/or predictor; what do you ask as a wage for 10 minutes ? :D:D
 

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
4,331
Likes
8,041
Location
The Neverlands
OK, then don't take the advise and define what you hear by what you read on this site
I define what I hear in a way that suits me and has served me well.

I am, like anybody else, more special ;)
Yes, you are quite a nugget ! :)

Is it a problem still today ? Solved by golden eared people or science ?
No, solved by the same Matti Otala who also used his hearing capabilities to understand and improve the design.
He solved it by using knowledge and understanding of electronics, not his ears.


Is jitter still a problem today
So we agree it is audible. Discovered by listeners. I don't think it has anything to do with blaming. If you think you hear something, you heard it, didn't you ?
No never heard it. It can be audible but depends on many many factors. Jitter is a kind of broad concept.
Did hear wow, flutter, noise, compression artifacts (digital and analog) but never had gear that was so crappy it had audible amounts of jitter.

Afraid you didn't get the clue on the mathematics..........
I am afraid you don't have a clue about signal fidelity.

Don't be so naive to think it's one way, the biggest insights came from engineers who succeeded to pinpoint a relation between the audio quality and the design. If they didn't start listening we still wouldn't have the science...............
:D:D:D:D:D Trolling is your thing isn't it.


Sorry but you should elaborate on this one as I don't get any clue out of it..........
Is that your or my problem ?

You just stated there is an absolute truth, but there isn't. From my perspective too many people were killed because some idiots thought there was an absolute one we all should follow....... Speaking of this; I advise the lyrics of the song "to the bone" of Steven Wilson. Great music I think..
What's human behavior have to do with electronics ?

No, I'm just interested in Astronomy. The 95% figure comes from the leading scientists working in this area. They are humble and can admit there is a lot to discover and I think this is a realistic approach.
Most members of this site think they know it all and just have to read the measurement report.
From my perspective they all have become very lazy and any curiosity to discover new things has faded away.
What does astronomy or your interest in it have to do with electronics and audio. ?
I take it the 95% we don't know yet you assume is also applicable to electronics ?
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
I define what I hear in a way that suits me and has served me well.



Yes, you are quite a nugget ! :)
Someone's perception is always his truth, thx for this.


He solved it by using knowledge and understanding of electronics, not his ears.
He analyzed the quality of the design by listening, unfortunately we cannot change a design by listening :D
Maybe you could take some interest how Rob Watts does his designing.



No never heard it. It can be audible but depends on many many factors. Jitter is a kind of broad concept.
Did hear wow, flutter, noise, compression artifacts (digital and analog) but never had gear that was so crappy it had audible amounts of jitter.
Then your amplifying and speaker system must have been to crappy to make it audible.


I am afraid you don't have a clue about signal fidelity.



:D:D:D:D:D Trolling is your thing isn't it.
I'm afraid I have to disappoint you; I'm sincere in my statements.



Is that your or my problem ?
No one's problem from my view.


What's human behavior have to do with electronics ?
Nothing, but the behavior on this site very much.


What does astronomy or your interest in it have to do with electronics and audio. ?
I take it the 95% we don't know yet you assume is also applicable to electronics ?
No, I assume it is applicable to our knowledge of our hearing capabilities.
Hi Solderdude,
Think the basic values of the both of us differ to much to find much alignment on the discussed issues;
I suggest we agree to state that we disagree.
 

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
4,331
Likes
8,041
Location
The Neverlands
Maybe you could take some interest how Rob Watts does his designing.
Rob Watts is a skillful engineer. I tried to hear -200dB but alas cannot hear anything useful below -80dB.

Did hear wow, flutter, noise, compression artifacts (digital and analog) but never had gear that was so crappy it had audible amounts of jitter.
Then your amplifying and speaker system must have been to crappy to make it audible.
Yes, that's probably it. It cannot be something else... oh wait .. my ears. Are the jiitter products below -100dB by any chance ?

I am afraid you don't have a clue about signal fidelity
Indeed, no clue whatsover.


No, I assume it is applicable to our knowledge of our hearing capabilities.
That's quite an assumption. Any interest in providing any proof of this ? Oh right, it is an assumption you made. based on ... erm astronomy ?


:D:D:D:D:D Trolling is your thing isn't it.
I'm afraid I have to disappoint you; I'm sincere in my statements.
A sincere troll ... that's something new.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
Rob Watts is a skillful engineer. I tried to hear -200dB but alas cannot hear anything useful below -80dB.



Yes, that's probably it. It cannot be something else... oh wait .. my ears. Are the jiitter products below -100dB by any chance ?



Indeed, no clue whatsover.




That's quite an assumption. Any interest in providing any proof of this ? Oh right, it is an assumption you made. based on ... erm astronomy ?




A sincere troll ... that's something new.
As you didn't react on my last invitation to agree we disagree I'll give you a final example on the sophistication of senses.

In this case of an animal with minor scientific knowledge as we see it; a fly.

Picture this:
You're having breakfast in the garden on a sunny Sunday morning with some toast, cheese, marmelade and ham or.......
All nice, friendly and lovely till suddenly a fly flies in and attacking your ham. You're try to get rid of this annoying creature but are not very successful.
With all our scientific knowledge, we don't have a clue how to design a drone fly with corresponding sensors, processing and behavior. It's because we have no, or let me phrase it more precisely,very limited, clue how this organism does this with it's senses and processing and no scientific knowledge.

And at last please reread Rob Watts; Our brain can detect roughly between 0 dB and 120 dB signal amplitude but first has to get comfortable with the average/peak signal levels. This is the very easy part (mono). But why do we and most living creatures have two ears ? Because they can do amazing processing with the difference of the two signals (-200 dB or even less maybe ?) There are no systems with two microphones and processing that can give us a better result of the direction and distance of the source of a sound.
Get the picture ?
Still don't think so cause I didn't read a confirmation that you could agree that we disagree.
Let's leave it this way,
I have the perception that I can hear the 3D sound image and that you are happy with the mono version.
 

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
4,331
Likes
8,041
Location
The Neverlands
Please show me evidence that -200 dB is detectable.
No... Rob saying it is does not count as evidence.
Show me blind test results with changes at -200dB that you aced.

I know the dynamic range humans can perceive under certain circumstances is 120dB.
Yet under sound reproduction of music it is around 80dB.
The hearing range 'slides' between very sensitive and insensitive with a window of approx. 70 to 80dB when listening to reproduced music.
Sure.. with very special test recordings, purposely made it may be higher.
The vast majority of music we listen to is just not that.

It's fine to have theories but it would be nice if you can at least prove them.

You can agree to disagree.. I just disagree with your theories and till now I have not seen compelling evidence from you that makes me think again.
You have to show me things to make me doubt just like anything everybody wrote here (with a science oriented background) cannot convince you.

I have the perception that I can hear the 3D sound image and that you are happy with the mono version.
Your perception of me is completely wrong. You use arguments and allegations a troll would use.
 
Last edited:

ccw

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
38
Likes
18
are his set-ups available for examination and are the results of these tests published anywhere - and do we trust Paul to publish results if they don't benefit his company? Are they blind tests? I mean inviting people over to listen to stuff is nice, but if those people aren't free to go have a look behind the wall and examine how things are set up and to make sure the test is an actual, honest comparison it doesn't mean much. If it's "here's a system set up with cheap stuff, and now here's a system set up with our stuff...I think you can hear the difference..." well that isn't exactly what we're talking about.

Paul is an amiable bloke. He's a good salesman and seems like a nice guy. I don't believe for one single second that he can reliably hear differences between functioning usb cables in a blind test. I would need to see him do that in a test set up by another party...
Paul M., being so public, seems to be an easy target. While I find some of his self promotion annoying, he is running a business after all.

In Audiophile-world, I think he's in the reasonable camp. And, I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the blind test he speaks of with his amps.

I'm new to ASR, and the approach here is refreshing in contrast to the audiophile wing which obsessively finds jaw dropping effects from every cable, every fuse, every lpsu... without ever going to the trouble of conducting a minimally controlled blind test. There seems to be no awareness of the fallibility of making reliable listening judgements.

Here, measurements are the orthodoxy of audio judgements-- which it appears to me can also lead down the wrong path.

I don't claim to have done a deep study of how audio designers work, but the ones I have read about appear to share some patterns which may argue against a rigid measurement orthodoxy

-- They are intensely focused on measurements.
-- They use listening to correlate to the measurements.
-- When they hear something that does not correlate with measurements, they don't discount their hearing perception, rather they try to find a new way to measure that will explain what they hear.
-- And then they go back to focusing on the measurements to further explore and refine their design.
 
OP
pozz

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,483
Likes
2,116
Thread Starter #179
Paul M., being so public, seems to be an easy target. While I find some of his self promotion annoying, he is running a business after all.

In Audiophile-world, I think he's in the reasonable camp. And, I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the blind test he speaks of with his amps.

I'm new to ASR, and the approach here is refreshing in contrast to the audiophile wing which obsessively finds jaw dropping effects from every cable, every fuse, every lpsu... without ever going to the trouble of conducting a minimally controlled blind test. There seems to be no awareness of the fallibility of making reliable listening judgements.

Here, measurements are the orthodoxy of audio judgements-- which it appears to me can also lead down the wrong path.

I don't claim to have done a deep study of how audio designers work, but the ones I have read about appear to share some patterns which may argue against a rigid measurement orthodoxy

-- They are intensely focused on measurements.
-- They use listening to correlate to the measurements.
-- When they hear something that does not correlate with measurements, they don't discount their hearing perception, rather they try to find a new way to measure that will explain what they hear.
-- And then they go back to focusing on the measurements to further explore and refine their design.
Thanks @ccw. I think you'll find that listening tests are as difficult to do properly as good electronic designs. It may not seem like it, but even an A/B test has subtleties that most ignore.

Please see this post by a one of our members (he invented perceptual audio coding): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/post-307707
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
18
Thanks @ccw. I think you'll find that listening tests are as difficult to do properly as good electronic designs. It may not seem like it, but even an A/B test has subtleties that most ignore.

Please see this post by a one of our members (he invented perceptual audio coding): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/post-307707
It will be my ignorance but what is the exact definition of an A/B test ? Sorry to get a bit allergic here but we cannot judge anything without a comparison.
From my experiences of listening to loudspeakers f.e. at switch-over time you always prefer the latest one because your hearing system was trained to react on it's sound (distortion).
Please take my advise:
Don't do a comparison in in a group because you will get influenced.
Take your own time and do not try to get a clear result.
Every system will have it's weaknesses and strengths and might be even depending on the recording.

Choose what you like best and you don't have to wait for the scientific proof you took the right choice.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom