Why we hear what we hear

[kandamrgam]

Here the author explains why our hearing is so complex and our ears can be more sensitive to nuances than you think!

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with him. This is not to malign the author as I know this forum is very hostile to subjective opinions. Just to welcome discussion around this topic.

Summary of the video:

• First he goes on to explain the biology of listening, the whole auditory science. The boring part
• Then he goes on to explain why we can't completely rely on frequency response and distortion characteristics. For e.g. a system that has extra capacitance (holds the signal an extra 2 microseconds), will still have perfect freq response and distortion, but it will sound worse.
• Speed of transistors in the system matter, responsiveness of driver matter, all which doesn't show in freq response graphs
• Cables matter for timing performance (our ears are sensitive to few microseconds)
• Feedback loops in SMSL and Topping products help produce great measurements but those loops have to introduce more smearing depending on how fast the circuit is. He doesn't say all Topping or SMSL products are not enjoyable, just some of them, and that's why hearing is important.
• What we hear depends on the level, content, structure and history of audio signal. Tone based or sinus based measurements dont capture that. I have asbsolutely no idea what this means
• In general, timing and jitter performance is very important which dont show in measurements

In general, a well made video. He cites research for everything he quotes.

 

[JSmith]

Here the author explains why our hearing is so complex and our ears can be more sensitive to nuances than you think!

Could you give a more detailed summary please?

Notification about “External YouTube Video Link Dropping”

Forum Wide Notification: NOTE: The updated version of this policy is posted in the site Terms and Rules See the above before posting any comments or reporting. ====== below is maintained for reference ====== We are strongly discouraging random YouTube and similar “Video links” being posted...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Unfortunately I don't have 30 mins free to watch this... plus when this Youtuber had an account here, he was quite combative, so not keen to send him any views at this point.


JSmith

 

[Purité Audio]

Whio is he, I have absolutely no intention to look at it.
Keith

 

[JSmith]

Whio is he,

His account here was also PassionforSound, if you wanted to go back on the post history.

Hey, you actually posted one of his videos back here.

More USB

I presume the slight differences in level are down to the various cables electrical parameters or is there something fundamentally wrong with his method? Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

 

[Sokel]

Most of it is based in the "The Human Auditory System and Audio" paper, published by Milind N. Kunchur
Interesting, at least (it's more of a collection of 218 previous studies about the matter)

 

[JSmith]

Kunchur

Oh no, not that guy.


JSmith

 

[Purité Audio]

His account here was also PassionforSound, if you wanted to go back on the post history.

Hey, you actually posted one of his videos back here.

More USB

I presume the slight differences in level are down to the various cables electrical parameters or is there something fundamentally wrong with his method? Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Young and impressionable!
Keith

 

[BDWoody]

I know this forum is very hostile to subjective opinions.

What you know is incorrect.

We tend to be skeptical of uncontrolled subjective opinions.

 

[Purité Audio]

I remember contacting ‘Oyaide’ when they first released, they are Japanese I believe ( always appealing ) and their cables looked smart ,neat;y packaged, I thought we would try some, didn’t make any difference to the sound of course.
I remember trying a silver USB cable from another company and that really did make a difference, it didn’t work.
Keith

 

[Sokel]

I remember contacting ‘Oyaide’ when they first released, they are Japanese I believe ( always appealing ) and their cables looked smart ,neat;y packaged, I thought we would try some, didn’t make any difference to the sound of course.
I remember trying a silver USB cable from another company and that really did make a difference, it didn’t work.
Keith

EVERY uncertified USB cable is susceptible of mayhem, it's fun watching them during measurements, specially USB-C ones, it must be the wild west out there.
It even depends on their orientation (as one can plug them either way)
(some even look nice! ² )

 

[Purité Audio]

The first silver usb spat and popped alarmingly the second had a separate power ‘leg’ remember those, that didn’t spit or pop in fact it was entirely silent didn’t work at all.
Those were the days before the jaundiced cynicism really set in.
Keith

 

[kandamrgam]

Could you give a more detailed summary please?

Notification about “External YouTube Video Link Dropping”

Forum Wide Notification: NOTE: The updated version of this policy is posted in the site Terms and Rules See the above before posting any comments or reporting. ====== below is maintained for reference ====== We are strongly discouraging random YouTube and similar “Video links” being posted...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Unfortunately I don't have 30 mins free to watch this... plus when this Youtuber had an account here, he was quite combative, so not keen to send him any views at this point.


JSmith

I didnt know the rule, I updated with a summary.

 

[Jimbob54]

Could you give a more detailed summary please?

Notification about “External YouTube Video Link Dropping”

Forum Wide Notification: NOTE: The updated version of this policy is posted in the site Terms and Rules See the above before posting any comments or reporting. ====== below is maintained for reference ====== We are strongly discouraging random YouTube and similar “Video links” being posted...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Unfortunately I don't have 30 mins free to watch this... plus when this Youtuber had an account here, he was quite combative, so not keen to send him any views at this point.


JSmith

Yes- this please @kandamrgam

To engage with this post we would need to watch his video. Please give us some key points and timestamps. If I dont get that I will have to close this thread.

EDIT- I see you posted a summary around the time I wrote this. Thanks

 

[Beave]

I didnt know the rule, I updated with a summary.

Based on the additional info you added in your summary update, he's completely FOS and nobody should waste their time watching the video.

So, thanks, I guess, for the summary?

Oh, and you say he cites research for everything. I bet what he really does is mis-represents research for everything he claims.

 

[SSS]

Here the author explains why our hearing is so complex and our ears can be more sensitive to nuances than you think!

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with him. This is not to malign the author as I know this forum is very hostile to subjective opinions. Just to welcome discussion around this topic.

Summary of the video:

• First he goes on to explain the biology of listening, the whole auditory science. The boring part
• Then he goes on to explain why we can't completely rely on frequency response and distortion characteristics. For e.g. a system that has extra capacitance (holds the signal an extra 2 microseconds), will still have perfect freq response and distortion, but it will sound worse.
• Speed of transistors in the system matter, responsiveness of driver matter, all which doesn't show in freq response graphs
• Cables matter for timing performance (our ears are sensitive to few microseconds)
• Feedback loops in SMSL and Topping products help produce great measurements but those loops have to introduce more smearing depending on how fast the circuit is. He doesn't say all Topping or SMSL products are not enjoyable, just some of them, and that's why hearing is important.
• What we hear depends on the level, content, structure and history of audio signal. Tone based or sinus based measurements dont capture that. I have asbsolutely no idea what this means
• In general, timing and jitter performance is very important which dont show in measurements

In general, a well made video. He cites research for everything he quotes.

Watched the video in fast mode. The biological entry part is OK and tells already known facts. At the end of the video he tells about the speed of transistors and cables regarding stored energy which covers low level details. This part is not totally wrong but technical irrelevant for modern semiconductors and cables for audio usage. And the speed of transients is of course measurable. Therefore his conclusion not being able to measure this is wrong. On the other hand, with a level versus frequency plot this may not be visible.

 

[Count Arthur]

If any of his points were true, and all those issues that don't show up in frequency response graphs, are a problem, why aren't people passing level matched, blind tests with ease?

If you are convinced that measurements don't show us everything. Then surely a correctly performed, double blind listening tests, would be the ultimate arbiter of truth.

 

[Mnyb]

Oh no, not that guy.


JSmith

Every crank uses the Kunchur paper as springboard to further crackpottery ?? This is a case of extreme cheery picking antiwaxer style .

But this forum is not hostile at all to subjective impression but they are often used for "yet another cable tread" or "I can still hear differences between properly designed DAC's" that appears every week ? That is very old and tiring .

Things that are so well debunked and thoroughly investigated that it demands extreme rigor beyond most ( and mine ) members capacity to test most has stand the test of decades of people trying ... ?

 

[Thomas Savage]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ., I remember when around 6 years old I was convinced my BBC micro model B was more powerful than my mates Amstrad because the back was bigger .

Seemed to make sense at the time .

 

[Mart68]

Watched the video in fast mode. The biological entry part is OK and tells already known facts. At the end of the video he tells about the speed of transistors and cables regarding stored energy which covers low level details. This part is not totally wrong but technical irrelevant for modern semiconductors and cables for audio usage. And the speed of transients is of course measurable. Therefore his conclusion not being able to measure this is wrong. On the other hand, with a level versus frequency plot this may not be visible.

So the bit that's missing is where it shows him passing blind tests with cables, with jitter tests and all the other things whose audible effects 'can't be measured' but still change the signal so much that it can not only be heard but is such a problem that it's worth spending thousands to solve?

That's handy

 

[voodooless]

Feedback loops in SMSL and Topping products help produce great measurements but those loops have to introduce more smearing depending on how fast the circuit is. He doesn't say all Topping or SMSL products are not enjoyable, just some of them, and that's why hearing is important.

Yeah, if you complain about feedback, you lost the plot...