Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[SubOjectivist]

It's already widely known on this forum that EQ can amplify distortion and make it adible/more audible. The headphone reviews on here touch on that.

You mean that there are reviews of the same pair of headphones (stock vs EQed), and when using EQ, measurements are worst (at least for distorsion)?
Do you happen to have a link so I can have a look?

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

You mean that there are reviews of the same pair of headphones (stock vs EQed), and when using EQ, measurements are worst (at least for distorsion)?
Do you happen to have a link so I can have a look?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eyerdynamic-dt990-pro-review-headphone.19975/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/abyss-diana-v2-review-headphone.19291/

Generally, Amir mentions when frequencies w/ high distortion are also the ones you would want to boost with EQ. The above 2 reviews are such cases.

 

[SubOjectivist]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eyerdynamic-dt990-pro-review-headphone.19975/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/abyss-diana-v2-review-headphone.19291/

Generally, Amir mentions when frequencies w/ high distortion are also the ones you would want to boost with EQ. The above 2 reviews are such cases.

Thanks.
If there is a dip at some frequency but the distortion is already quite high, adding some dBs won't help taming the disto, that makes sense.

 

[audio2design]

Psychology is a social science.

Psychoacoustics is not psychology.

 

[SubOjectivist]

Psychoacoustics is not psychology.

According to Wikipedia, it's multidisciplinary, but amongst other fields, it nonetheless includes psychology.

'Psychoacoustics is the branch of psychophysics involving the scientific study of sound perception and audiology—how humans perceive various sounds. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological responses associated with sound (including noise, speech, and music). Psychoacoustics is an interdisciplinary field of many areas, including psychology, acoustics, electronic engineering, physics, biology, physiology, and computer science.'

This definition sounds good (pun intended), right?

 

[egellings]

What are "intersample overs"?

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

What are "intersample overs"?

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/09/musings-measurements-look-at-dacs.html
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/10/further-explorations-into-intersample.html

 

[egellings]

Thank you.

 

[peterzuid]

Nor will mistreating Shakespeare with vague references to the unsolved mysteries of the universe ("there are more things on heaven and earth...") or quantum mechanics.

Unresolved mysteries of the universe ("there are more things on heaven and earth..") is indeed a very vague and nonspecific scientific defined statement that sound more as a religion.
However, from my perspective, all statements in this "null hypothesis" are in the same class and we are kindly asked to answer with scientific evidence.
And in general; in case you do not believe in quantum mechanics we both have a very different understanding of the physics that brought us here and keeps us going.

 

[elvisizer]

What are "intersample overs"?

benchmark has discussed them a bit as well

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

The prevailing null hypothesis here at ASR can be summarized as follows (I'll edit with any suggestions):

• There's very little difference between competently designed and adequately powered electronics (amps, DACs, streamers), and nothing audible in electronics that is unmeasurable.

What do you mean by

little difference
competently designed
adequately powered

?

 

[TLEDDY]

Hitchen’s Razor: That which can be claimed without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.

Excellent!!

 

[JRS]

<snip>.....
A tiny UK manufacturer told me once his prices (very high in the UK market and increasing) were done to give his products cachet in the far eastern markets, where price tags dictate quality (a $12000 phono stage is automatically judged 'better' even if a $3000 one out-performs it and looks as good). It's been discussed here before, but I believe it's real. Why else do Naim sell their Statement pre and mono's at £179,000 - and they do indeed, even here!

Obviously, you have no appreciation for PRAT (in by book, a shortened form of the verb to prate, or prattle).

 

[Martin]

Psychoacoustics is not psychology.

Nor is it a "social science." (I hate that term; there is nothing scientific about most "social sciences.")

 

[JRS]

@BluesDaddy said: "...If concrete reality is immaterial to perceptual experience, then why not simply take hallucinogens whenever listening to music?...."

Actually, my opinion that if there are any audible effects between gear that measures well, this may be one window which affords the possibility of capturing that in dbl blind testing. One thing that strikes me about psychedelic compounds is there ability to enhance hearing (whether this is via increased resolution or attention, I can't say--I suspect it's on the processing end as the transduction on the business end is a) mechanical and b) involves potassium channels that aren't influenced by serotonergic substances, so it most likely is due to the increased processing power liberated by diverting the neural resources normally devoted to the "default mode network". Another intriguing aspect of the experience with possible relevance is the phenomenon of subjective time dilation which in the extreme can cause seconds to become minutes. I know of no other substances which "enhance" hearing. Granted this is of little practical value, apart from providing some evidence that sub-threshold differences become audible under extraordinary conditions. And quite obviously should be tested using material from the Grateful Dead.

 

[mansr]

Nor is it a "social science." (I hate that term; there is nothing scientific about most "social sciences.")

That's why they have to put "science" in the name. You know, like "democratic" in country names.

 

[Martin]

@BluesDaddy said: "...If concrete reality is immaterial to perceptual experience, then why not simply take hallucinogens whenever listening to music?...."

Actually, my opinion that if there are any audible effects between gear that measures well, this may be one window which affords the possibility of capturing that in dbl blind testing. One thing that strikes me about psychedelic compounds is there ability to enhance hearing (whether this is via increased resolution or attention, I can't say--I suspect it's on the processing end as the transduction on the business end is a) mechanical and b) involves potassium channels that aren't influenced by serotonergic substances, so it most likely is due to the increased processing power liberated by diverting the neural resources normally devoted to the "default mode network". Another intriguing aspect of the experience with possible relevance is the phenomenon of subjective time dilation which in the extreme can cause seconds to become minutes. I know of no other substances which "enhance" hearing. Granted this is of little practical value, apart from providing some evidence that sub-threshold differences become audible under extraordinary conditions. And quite obviously should be tested using material from the Grateful Dead.

IMMHO the only effect psychedelics has on hearing is making one believe the mediocre crap to which they are listening is transcendentally high art. Hence the relationship between the Grateful Dead and psychedelics.

 

[JRS]

IMMHO the only effect psychedelics has on hearing is making one believe the mediocre crap to which they are listening is transcendentally high art. Hence the relationship between the Grateful Dead and psychedelics.

Apart from the joking Dead reference, I am dead serious. It is curious how good crap systems sound with a helping hand from the Bear, but more to the point how absolutely dazzling a SOTA system is. Their absolutely is an effect on the perception of sound that is more hyperacute than distorted (as say is the case with vision), and so if there is some effect present which subjectivists claim is only apparent when sufficiently relaxed or in a meditative state of mind, this would be the way to test the hypothesis. Just saying as my youth was mostly misspent.

One could argue the GD were not only aware of this, but is why they spent insane amounts of $$ on their touring sound systems.

 

[ahofer]

IMMHO the only effect psychedelics has on hearing is making one believe the mediocre crap to which they are listening is transcendentally high art. Hence the relationship between the Grateful Dead and psychedelics.

Certainly they don't *enhance* your listening skills, but I think they change the nature of your attention to the music.

Agree with you about the Dead, tho.

 

[JRS]

All in the audio folia is a good object of study for sociology, psychology see psychiatry.

Indeed. There is a term for this folie a million (widespread delusional beliefs). But alas the widespread belief in superstitious suppositions allows one to wiggle off the hook. I think there is one net that might hook more than a few, and that is as a process addiction. Like sex and gambling whenever the pursuit of a goal becomes so intense as to exclude interest in other areas of life or becomes an inordinate drain on finances, it has a legitimate claim to addiction. One of the leading thinkers in the psychology of addiction Gabor Maté admits to a CD buying addiction. While it might seem silly, he is convinced and cites examples on his TED talks of the destructive effects of classical music acquisition.

The people I know in psychoacoustics are most definitely NOT in social sciences. They are looking at biological mechanisms, neurology, learning mechanisms, etc. That the results is not yes/no does not make it a social science.

Whoa. Psychophysics is most definitely a branch of psychology, and psychoacoustics is a field within psychophysics. I would further claim scientists such as Weber, Fechner and Helmholtz were indeed practicing psychology--by applying physics to psychology in an effort to understand how reality is encoded by the brain. After all we are talking about perception which is a major focus of psychology. Helmholtz BTW made lasting contributions to both vision and audition. Similarly, Ernest Mach, the physicist of speed of sound fame also studied psychophyics and was the first to use the term, gestalt, which is one term that thankfully the fuzzy reality folk haven't absconded in defense of the inaudible--oh wait there is PRAT which comes damn close.

But I would agree that it is a field where cross-pollination is the norm--there is lots of high level mathematics, physics, and information science converging in ultimately an effort to understand and perhaps even artificially create consciousness in within cognitive science, also a ranch of psychology. As an example many of the algorithms devoted to artificial vision were developed with a knowledge of how the retina processes visual information (edge detection, contrast enhancement, hierarchical processing, etc). Improving audio is ultimately an effort to improve psychological satisfaction. That practitioners use microphones or employ Fourier and Laplace transforms is quite beside the point, and is likely a bias against the social sciences as being squishy or something akin. An example is the application of cable theory to axonal transmission of electrical impulses. One could argue that Hodgkin and Huxley were first and foremost physiologists (more specifically biophysicists) but fact remains is they were studying brain cells.