Why aren’t there more university level controlled tests?

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I don’t get it.

It would appear that there are universities across the globe with testing facilities. We’ve all seen academic papers posted here measuring the limits of human hearing, etc., etc.

One has to ask, what are they doing the rest of the time?

As an example, how long would it take to do a proper, double-blind, controlled test on a handful of DACs with varying degrees of SNR, THD+N, jitter, etc.?

How long would it take to test amps with varying degrees of audible measurements?

It’s not as if universities have a shortage of young people with good hearing.

So many audio-world myths could be put to bed so quickly.

And if you had a few places set up to handle these across the world, whilst not everyone would be able to access them, there’s be enough people close enough who could (and gladly would) bring in their gear, and themselves, for free, reducing the cost.

 

[somebodyelse]

From the academic viewpoint the myths you're talking about are probably already viewed as put to bed. That's not going to attract funding or help anyone's reputation. It might get done if there's someone who finds the problem sufficiently interesting to just do it anyway, or of someone (you?) approached a university with a proposal to fund the research.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

From the academic viewpoint the myths you're talking about are probably already viewed as put to bed. That's not going to attract funding or help anyone's reputation. It might get done if there's someone who finds the problem sufficiently interesting to just do it anyway, or of someone (you?) approached a university with a proposal to fund the research.

Well said. Put another way, what academic journal would publish such work? Marketing? If so, you will find they are more concerned with what is likely to be purchased/preferred, not audio quality. And it might even be more concerned with product design, not audio quality.

University research is not so much about using science, but pushing science further. At least that's what people get more cookies for doing.

So in terms of electronics and material science, there is research going on. In terms of psychoacoustics, there is research going on. But product testing? Nope, no theoretical progress, no improvement in the way current theory is used is going to come from that.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I don’t feel comparing a couple (or more) DACs or amps would be prolonged or expensive.

 

[Elkerton]

Too, if you read earlier double-blind speaker listening tests done for academia (read: the AES journal for example), the products auditioned are not named. As a consumer, I was delighted when the third edition of Sound Reproduction actually named the speakers in its pages, but that is unusual.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I don’t feel comparing a couple (or more) DACs or amps would be prolonged or expensive.

The expense is opportunity costs. If work does not lead to academic publication, it will be seen as a waste of effort by people who have to publish multiple articles per year.

Here's how I would do it (if I were in that area and had a lab). I would call such measurements public service, which is part of my job. Not a part that matters in terms of promotion and tenure and reputation, but that would allow me to access university resources in a legitimate way.

I would also say that I would use this to train and evaluate potential new research assistants, so that brings in an educational and scholarship component, making it more central to my job responsibilities.

I would use lab downtime, arguing that that more efficiently uses existing resources.

And I would create a website, which would be part of the public service component.

And what would be the result? A small and limited version of ASR.

Find someone who has a passion, they can do it. But it will be a VERY low priority for them.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I don’t get it.

It would appear that there are universities across the globe with testing facilities. We’ve all seen academic papers posted here measuring the limits of human hearing, etc., etc.

One has to ask, what are they doing the rest of the time?

As an example, how long would it take to do a proper, double-blind, controlled test on a handful of DACs with varying degrees of SNR, THD+N, jitter, etc.?

How long would it take to test amps with varying degrees of audible measurements?

It’s not as if universities have a shortage of young people with good hearing.

So many audio-world myths could be put to bed so quickly.

And if you had a few places set up to handle these across the world, whilst not everyone would be able to access them, there’s be enough people close enough who could (and gladly would) bring in their gear, and themselves, for free, reducing the cost.

I suspect there are many ways blind tests can be confounded regardless of the "level":

• Choice of equipment overall
• Choice of equipment for direct A/B comparison
• Attitude and audio experience of the human test subjects
• Test conditions, e.g. permitting pre-blind subject familiarization the the components for direct comparison; subjects' listening times; type of music, etc., etc.
• Statistical methods and approaches
• Interpretation.

It brings to mind of study reported in Stereophile some time in the '80s as I recall. It was a pretty rigorous study reported by Andrew Marshall. The conclusion -- valid overall IMHO -- is that difference between amplifiers cannot be reliably detected. However there ware nagging doubts in my mind on account of the fact that between given pairs of amps differences were identified above random probability.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Sorry to burst your bobble. -But it's just not interesting to people.
-People who cares about fidelity are a niche.
-People who are guests on ASR are a niche of a niche.
-People who are users of ASR are a niche of a niche of a niche.

 

[Mnyb]

....and you don't need to test specific products, flat and wide enough frequency response low enough noise and low enough THD is valid parameters for all small signal electronics .

So if one has established limits for hearing acuity of this ? All current and future and past products are already tested provided they are also measured to some comparable standard .

So further testing in human hearing related to these parameters might interest some academic , its much more efficient as you then tests all products ever .

For example its a popular chestnut that the THD spectrum is important for example 2nd order distortion is more benign to human listeners than higher order . Maybe this field is not completely exhausted yet . maybe the noise spectrum to has some impact .

So research into general properties of hearing or general properties in a whole class of products might be a more rewarding project ?

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Sorry to burst your bobble. -But it's just not interesting to people.
-People who cares about fidelity are a niche.
-People who are guests on ASR are a niche of a niche.
-People who are users of ASR are a niche of a niche of a niche.

I think people interested in most individual university research publications are a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

....and you don't need to test specific products, flat and wide enough frequency response low enough noise and low enough THD is valid parameters for all small signal electronics .

So if one has established limits for hearing acuity of this ? All current and future and past products are already tested provided they are also measured to some comparable standard .

So further testing in human hearing related to these parameters might interest some academic , its much more efficient as you then tests all products ever .

For example its a popular chestnut that the THD spectrum is important for example 2nd order distortion is more benign to human listeners than higher order . Maybe this field is not completely exhausted yet . maybe the noise spectrum to has some impact .

So research into general properties of hearing or general properties in a whole class of products might be a more rewarding project ?

Yes, I’m not thinking of a standoff between say a Topping DAC and an SMSL DAC. More a question of picking DACs (perhaps more than one) which measure similarly, and putting them in different levels - let’s say SINAD in 10 dB cohorts, then see where people start to hear the difference. That sort of thing.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I think people interested in most individual university research publications are a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche.

Perhaps. But it was a shot at an explanation to your question why there aren't more more of these tests. -That people in general are not interested enough to do them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You have some such testing for different resolutions of digital, different microphone techniques for stereo and mch. A few other such things. For the most part the op is asking the equivalent of why aren't there more academic efforts to proving to skeptical persons that the earth is really round. It's settled science so little motivation.

 

[Mnyb]

There seems to be some research into speakers , both genelec and Kef sometimes cite reaserch pappers in their white papers and tech specs .

But speakers and headphones have yet to be transparent and also interacts with acoustics and listeners .

So this field is not settled yet

 

[MAB]

Probably the same reason Ohm's Law isn't actively challenged. Universities move forward by publishing research on new science topics, or old unsolved problems. This topic isn't even close to new or unsolved since the 1970's and 1980's:

Actual Double Blind Studies

I have always been curious about 'training' for these tests. I saw a visual test that used an aerial pic of a full Rose Bowl, and instantaneous ABX testing was used to compare two pics and seeing if people could notice the difference between them. The subjects couldn't do it. Then, the tester...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It would be one thing if other scientists were making observations and finding new exceptions to science of audibility, but consumers burning cash on fancy HiFi isn't going to get researchers to investigate what is wrong with Ohm's law in their cryo cables. Maybe the audibility belongs with the human behavior studies like "I drive better after two drinks", "why some patients sometimes/often ignore medical advice?", or a forensic study of aberrant behavior.

Edit: missing word

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Probably the same reason Ohm's Law isn't actively challenged. Universities move forward by publishing research on new science topics, or old unsolved problems. This topic isn't even close to new or unsolved since the 1970's and 1980's:

Actual Double Blind Studies

I have always been curious about 'training' for these tests. I saw a visual test that used an aerial pic of a full Rose Bowl, and instantaneous ABX testing was used to compare two pics and seeing if people could notice the difference between them. The subjects couldn't do it. Then, the tester...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It would be one thing if other scientists were making observations and finding new exceptions to science of audibility, but consumers burning cash on fancy HiFi isn't going to get researchers to investigate what is wrong with Ohm's law in their cryo cables. Maybe the audibility belongs with the human behavior studies like "I drive better after two drinks", "why some patients sometimes medical advice?", or a forensic study of aberrant behavior.

Exactly. It should be an obvious hint that there is not being researched much into the field..

 

[Keith_W]

Has everyone forgotten about Milind Kunchur? Nobody interested in "proving" that cables sound different?

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Exactly. It should be an obvious hint that there is not being researched much into the field..

No, it’s quite often that scientific researchers re-test ideas which are long-settled.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Whilst I think most of the points made are more than valid, I still believe more testing is a good thing. Validating what you already know is not a waste of time.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Whilst I think most of the points made are more than valid, I still believe more testing is a good thing. Validating what you already know is not a waste of time.

I'd say that's as close as a definition of waste of time I can imagine but each to his own.