The cliches of subjective audiophilia...

[egellings]

I am an engineer for real! I drive railroad train engines!

 

[Pdxwayne]

You're missing the point. It's not about your hearing, but that of your wife. From the kitchen.

Haha, sure. Go ahead and continue having your funs.

But you sure no wife can have better hearing than the husband? Any scientific research link to prove that?
: P

 

[egellings]

A speaker or headphone responds only to the audio voltage waveform impressed across its input terminals, and nothing more. So if two different amplifiers are said to sound different, then they must be impressing different voltage waveforms across the transducer's input terminals. If the waveforms are identical from both amplifiers, than there can be no difference in the transducer's output. Where would any sonic difference come from if that's the case? All I can think of is the listener's imagination.

 

[NTK]

Ahhhhh, Solderdude claimed I can't hear 0.2db channel imbalance with real music.
So the burden of prove should be on him first?

If you can hear 0.2 dB channel imbalance, then we can safely say we've discover a new species. As you aren't human.
(Source: link)

 

[Jimbob54]

Heh, what do you expect to happen when I sound my disagreements with basic idea of this thread? Many will objects and I answer them.

If I can paraphrase your first post here, it was along the lines of

"don't make fun of people making unsubstantiated claims until you've proved you can hear a 0.5db channel imbalance"

Which doesn't make much sense.

 

[richard12511]

I am agreeing with you.

I also want people to show ABX results. But a thread dedicated to making fun of people rubs me the wrong way. : P

I don't think your are really disagreeing with us objectivists. Our only point is that our measurements are at least as sensitive as our ears. Any difference our ears can hear, our machines(APx555) can measure.

Your test only shows whether or not you can out-hear other humans. What you really need to show to prove the subjectivist belief is that you can hear differences that the APx555 cannot measure.

 

[Pdxwayne]

If I can paraphrase your first post here, it was along the lines of

"don't make fun of people making unsubstantiated claims until you've proved you can hear a 0.5db channel imbalance"

Which doesn't make much sense.

You are missing the points of my post. Doesn't matter. : P

 

[Pdxwayne]

If you can hear 0.2 dB channel imbalance, then we can safely say we've discover a new species. As you aren't human.
(Source: link)

View attachment 150993

How about read this?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/post-127757

Quote:
....
in the frequency response.
Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models by Hugo Fastl and Eberhard Zwicker is not a very quotable book, but on pages 180-181 it makes it clear that a change in SPL of less than 0.2 dB can be heard by humans.


Seems like I am human after all.

 

[Jimbob54]

You are missing the points of my post. Doesn't matter. : P

No, you're correct in saying just because someone doesn't support their claim with proper evidence, they are not automatically wrong .

But that doesn't help others assess the validity of their claim. Or help them get to the bottom of why they may hear that difference. Or indeed respond to it with anything more than "uh huh" or "prove it".

 

[Pdxwayne]

No, you're correct in saying just because someone doesn't support their claim with proper evidence, they are automatically wrong .

But that doesn't help others assess the validity of their claim. Or help them get to the bottom of why they may hear that difference. Or indeed respond to it with anything more than "uh huh" or "prove it".

I think you meant to say:

"No, you're correct in saying just because someone doesn't support their claim with proper evidence, they are NOT automatically wrong."

; )

I agree with your statement.

 

[egellings]

Under special test conditions using certain steady state signal types, I am guessing that humans (that's us chickens, bedawk!) may be able to pick up a 0.2dB difference in loudness, especially if quick back & forth switching between the two levels is made available to the listener. When using a complex music for the test signal, then I bet that the difference may become inaudible.

 

[NTK]

How about read this?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/post-127757

Quote:
....
in the frequency response.
Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models by Hugo Fastl and Eberhard Zwicker is not a very quotable book, but on pages 180-181 it makes it clear that a change in SPL of less than 0.2 dB can be heard by humans.


Seems like I am human after all.

That is for a hump in the frequency response, not a change in the loudness level. Below graph is from Drs. Toole and Olive's paper.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5163

 

[Jimbob54]

I think you meant to say:

"No, you're correct in saying just because someone doesn't support their claim with proper evidence, they are NOT automatically wrong."

; )

I agree with your statement.

Correct!

 

[Pdxwayne]

That is for a hump in the frequency response, not a change in the loudness level. Below graph is from Drs. Toole and Olive's paper.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5163

View attachment 151003

It means sensing channel imbalance should be easier, right?

Anyway, I have done the ABX for it and show prove for it. Not claiming it is easy, but it was with section of live music. See
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...my-gustard-x16-measurements.20679/post-821965

 

[Pdxwayne]

Under special test conditions using certain steady state signal types, I am guessing that humans (that's us chickens, bedawk!) may be able to pick up a 0.2dB difference in loudness, especially if quick back & forth switching between the two levels is made available to the listener. When using a complex music for the test signal, then I bet that the difference may become inaudible.

See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...my-gustard-x16-measurements.20679/post-821965

Yes, with section of live music.

 

[krabapple]

That doesn't mean people don't hear what they hear. Wholesale making fun of others is simply sad.

People often don't hear what they think they hear. That's a fact. What's sad is their resistance to accepting the truth of it.

 

[Pdxwayne]

People often don't hear what they think they hear. That's a fact. What's sad is their resistance to accepting the truth of it.

Sure, often, but not every single time.

 

[krabapple]

I don't ask for much. Just a 0.5db sound difference online blind test to start. Easy Google search to find the test.

If you can hear that, at say 1kHz, it shows you hearing is within known limits. If you can't, it shows your hearing isn't up to that task. What other point are you trying to make?

I've done dozens of ABX tests via foobar200 plugin over the years. That gives me personal experience with the difficulty in hearing some differences that are claimed to be obvious by , e.g. knee-jerk skeptics of lossy encoding (who have not done blind tests).

And?

 

[krabapple]

Sure, often, but not every single time.

Sure, but so? Why would you assume 'this time' is different, without some better evidence?

 

[Pdxwayne]

If you can hear that, at say 1kHz, it shows you hearing is within known limits. If you can't, it shows your hearing isn't up to that task. What other point are you trying to make?

I've done dozen of ABX tests via foobar200 plugin over the years. That gives me personal experience with the difficulty in hearing some differences that are claimed to be obvious by , e.g. knee-jerk skeptics of lossy encoding (who have not done blind tests).

And?

Sure, you can just start with 0.5db tests. We talk later about what other tests you can run.