Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry to go back a few posts, and I know you are getting hammered from many sides. But, I do not see a proven "fact" in your statement above. I am not saying the Clark paper is factual either, and Clark is not here to defend it. But, it is food for thought.

What you keep harping on is merely your belief or hypothesis about longer term testing, not a fact. There has been no controlled experiment to prove your belief is true or factual, as far as I am aware. Even proving (or repetitive hand waving) that says the Clark paper is wrong, still does not prove as a fact that long term listening "can often reveal unpleasant aspects of the sound" or anything else.

My own belief, while I do not try to glorify it as fact, is that longer term testing is a good thing. I try to do that myself as much as possible in auditioning new components. I further believe that we, as audiophile consumers, need longer term testing specifically as a substitute because we do not generally have access to well controlled, double blind short term listening test capabilities for most all components, especially speakers. We are also not conditioned, trained or experienced at doing short tern, double blind. That, and it is a lot of trouble to try to do.

I do believe that better double blind unsighted auditions, if we had access to them which we don't, would help us discover component differences much more quickly. I still believe that longer term listening can be of some value, at least in confirming our short term impressions with a wider mix of recordings and under less stressful conditions. This greater assurance or comfort level is important in buying decisions.

I have done a fair number of long term listening tests to a variety of components, some of which I bought. Anecdotally, I cannot recall a single case where my sonic opinion changed materially between day 1 or 2 and day 30, if indeed the audition carried on that long. I think I did feel that I was generally more confident in my opinion after longer listening. And, I have not turned over my system frequently due to sonic dissatisfaction discovered after purchase. I generally keep my stuff for years.

I might add that component comparisons for my own system are something I have been doing for many decades, and I have tried to learn how to listen and to make good choices for myself. I have gotten better at it. We had a discussion elsewhere about learning a "tell" - the specific sonic characteristics - that make up the difference between components (not something extraneous in 2 different versions of a recording as we were discussing). Often it takes a little while to discover and then pay attention to that in comparative listening. But, I think with experience, one gets better and quicker at identifying it.

I don't disagree with most of what you said & I've said the same myself - long term listening is the best, easily available method we have of evaluating components that we wish to put in our playback systems. Yes, it can be flawed but the long term nature of this listening generally irons out most, if not all of these flaws. I'm sure you have changed your impression of a component usually in the first few sessions of listening - your initial impressions change i.e you hear a difference but don't know if it is more revealing, more accurate (or less revealing, less accurate) until you have listened further?

My criticism of Clarke's (& Nousaine's) paper still stands & hasn't been refuted - I don't call it hand waving - just pointing out how some people leave their critical analysis at the door when they see AES in a paper. And also pointing out obvious experimenter bias in these tests (is this the Clarke that co-developed ABX testing with Kreuger?)

I consider when enough people report the same observation that this constitutes a valid observation to me & therefore a fact (if I confirm it myself). I see this in people's reports of their long term listening revealing aspects of a component that they hadn't first noticed. I consider this reliable evidence that long term listening is a more robust & accurate way of evaluating components. Yes, this may then suggest an A/B listen is done for confirmation. But the point is this new aspect that is being listened for in this A/B listen would never have been uncovered without the long term listening so if we were relying on just A/Bing we would be missing this difference
 
Last edited:
Bold 1) Exactly. The answers you insisted that I re-read were not answers to Tom's post, but a different issue altogether. These answers say long-term listening reveals irritations, not subtlety and detail. Those are completely different things. Nearly opposite things.

Bold 2) Yes. A system with high frequency distortion may not sound right at first listen, but if it is harsh and glaring, it really gets on your nerves after awhile. No argument. But irrelevant.

Tim
Well point 1 is semantics Tim.
If it takes me awhile for dissonance/niggle to kick in on say excess energy in the treble/subtly higher sibilance/'smear' of fast transient high energy sounds such as drums/cymbals/etc then that can be both subtlety and detail revealed or dissonance and listening behaviour change relating to tolerance-threshold reached and a kind of anchoring.
You can overcome the McGurk effect by changing the way one listens (requires focusing on the very early aspects of a sound envelope), I still find it interesting how I can switch between accurately hearing what is said and then switch quickly and be in McGurk effect response when doing some of those tests that are around; this is possible because I am changing my listening behaviour and focus.

No idea why you think it is irrelevant considering you are debating listening behaviour and short/long term listening...
BTW my stand on this is that further research is required into listening behaviour and focus/anchoring/etc with both short and long term listening.
Cheers
Orb
 
There are facts here.

Most people get fatigued after listening to music for a long period.
A Red Herring fact, because jkenys claim is that his "fatigue" is due specifically to the "sound" of the DUT, when in fact, at least a dozen nuisance variables exist. As an audiophile, he conveniently ignores that he's been staring at the DUT, knowing the DUT, reading about its street cred, possibly touching it, had mood swings (and lord knows what else goes on with audiophiles). Yet somehow, he's isolated the cause of his fatigue to:
sound
sound/noun
noun: sound; noun: musical sound; plural noun: musical sounds

1.
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

Why isn't the source of his fatigue, the price? Or the look? Or a bad review...?? Not a single one of those is eliminated by long term viewing.
 
What did you hear after two weeks or whatever that was not in the program and in the stereo electronics and in the room response?
It's got to do with becoming "aware" of different aspects of the sound. This detailed awareness of all the nuances doesn't just hit all at once when we hear a component. Teasing out the details & nuances takes time & variability in what we listen to
And why did it trigger at whatever point it did? Long term listening tests using your ears vs measurements reveal that your ears are not to be trusted, same system, (pretend your head is in a vice etc) and yet it now "sounds' different. There certainly is not any audio science in this scenario!
As said it's a teasing out process of confirming or altering initial impressions. This question of when & why is beginning to be silly

Any comment about my criticism of the Clarke paper you so avidly congratulated Amir for posting?
 
long term listening is the best, easily available method we have of evaluating components that we wish to put in our playback systems. Yes, it can be flawed but the long term nature of this listening generally irons out most, if not all of these flaws.
..and you know this how? That's pure Circular logic. Along the lines of "I've proven it to myself".
It's also bizarre, given that you also said this:
No offence taken but I & others have done numerous side by side comparisons of stock unit to modified unit - were they DBT, no - there is absolutely no need, the difference in sound is so glaringly obvious & noticeable from the first couple of notes. No offence but I already have given this proof with links to the reviews. Have you read any? Anecdotal, yes & not worth a damn according to those who have never heard the unit - say this to one of the people who have a unit & they will laugh at your stupidity in requiring DBT.
How do you reconcile that?
Differences that are "glaringly obvious within first notes"....now need long term viewing to fully manifest? Does that make sense to anyone?
 
Audio science cannot explain everything about how something sounds. Because something sounds different to different people.

* I replied to one of AJ's post and it all disappeared after I clicked on "Post Quick Reply". ...There was a glitch with the webpage. ...I've only seen that two or three times here @ WBF. ...I have no clue.
 
Audio science cannot explain everything about how something sounds.
Because you say so, repeatedly? Please specify what, thanks.

Because something sounds different to different people.
Audio science fully accounts for and explains that. Hearing impediment is no mystery. Any more so than imagination. If there is something you feel is missing, again, please specify.

cheers,

AJ
 
Because you say so, repeatedly? Please specify what, thanks.


Audio science fully accounts for and explains that. Hearing impediment is no mystery. Any more so than imagination. If there is something you feel is missing, again, please specify.

cheers,

AJ

Aj, you and I we hear differently, we perceive the same music recordings from a different latitude, like different stars in the universe.

There are some classical albums that put me in deep transcendental trance; for you it cannot be the exact same...can you or audio science explain that?

But yes, audio science can explain how something sounds from a loudspeaker, or an amp, or a preamp, or even from a particular cable...speaker wire, analog/digital interconnect, AC cord.
 
That is the reality of most every ones situation. Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer via all your senses and the total experience provided.
Unlike an audiophile, I'm not ashamed to admit that price, looks, pride of ownership, etc,...and sound, all play roles in my buying decisions.

cheers,

AJ

AJ, that is quite an assumption and gross generalization, IMO.

Can you prove that audiophiles are ashamed to admit that price, looks, pride of ownership etc. don't play roles in their buying decisions? I know a few for whom they do. I consider myself an audiophile, and how I make buying decisions is similar to what you describe.
 
Aj, you and I we hear differently
Wait a second Bob, when did we establish this? Are we talking about standard definition of "hear" or something else?

we perceive the same music recordings from a different latitude, like different stars in the universe.
Not sure when that was established either, but ok fine, let's say we have different emotional response to the same recording. What the heck does that have to do with encode/decode "Audio Science"? That's musical preference and emotional response, etc. What isn't explainable?

There are some classical albums that put me in deep transcendental trance; for you it cannot be the exact same...can you or audio science explain that?
Which has to do with encode/decode "Audio Science"? That sound more like psychology/psychiatry to me. That too is explainable.
So far I haven't seen one single aspect of encode/decode audio science brought up here that evades audio science, but was somehow miraculously designed, engineered and manufactured.

cheers,

AJ
 
Can you prove that audiophiles are ashamed to admit that price, looks, pride of ownership etc. don't play roles in their buying decisions? I know a few for whom they do.
So there may be far more to listener satisfaction or fatigue than "sound"? Hmmm.
Well, mystery solved.;)

cheers,

AJ
 
Can we atleast agree that what changed was you? The system etc (pretend you had your head in a vice) should really not be changing to any extent. Your mood, something changed. That means the system with a problem is us. We cant properly decode the sound? We decode the sound differently over time...we are not consistant.... my point is its us that is the untrustworthy person when we say we trust our ears since they tell us something different over time. Does that make sense? The stereo did not change...we did..

Perhaps. I agree with you that I, and my ears, change over time and are not consistent. That should not be surprising. However, I do not know about the audio component or system. I am not an audio engineer. I have read that components do change with temperature, break in, warm up, humidity, age. I know my cartridges change and I've read that tubes change over time. I know my room sounds different depending on temperature, number of people, humidity, etc. My LPs change every time I play them. The power grid changes with load and demand and that effects the sound of my system. The noise outside my listening room changes too. The room's noise floor increases or decreases with the time of day and other variables. But yes, I change also. Mood, age and many other variables about me are constantly changing. A good drink will also effect how my system sounds.

Are you so sure that a stereo can not also change to contribute to the different perception one has over time? I know that the sound of concert halls constantly change depending on some of these same variables. I have heard it at both the Boston Symphony Hall and at the Viener Staatsoper.

I agree with you that I change and probably most listeners change. But you have not convinced me that the system does not also change over time, to some audible extent. And as far as trusting my ears? I don't trust my ears completely. Does anyone? I am fully aware that my ears are not 100% reliable. However, I do use them to form fairly confident opinions about audio gear and systems. Other audiophiles ask me what I think about the sound of a component or system. To some extent, they must trust my ears, or my opinion, also, or, at least, what I have to say about the sound of a component or system.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the stereo did not change, and that only my perception of it changed. Is that not what matters in the end? If my perception of a component changes, is it because something about my observations has changed or has my understanding of its sound quality changed? I have limited experience and perhaps need more time than others to form an opinion. But that is certainly not a problem. It is another reason why I prefer longer term listening tests. With more time, I can form a more consistent impression of a component. Consistency, within some narrow range, is what I care about. If I consistently enjoy listening to my system, in the end, as Hillary famously said, "What difference does it make?" whether or not the system changed or I changed, or both changed. I will or will not upgrade that component and then go about enjoying listening to my music again.

I do change cartridges occasionally for a different perception of the system. And I know the cartridges themselves change over short or long periods of time, depending on all sorts of variables. I can live with that.
 
It
may
just
be
that
since
plain old stereo is not such a good illusion
that the mind, after a while (long term listening), says, you know what, I am tired of this illusion, got another one?

I don't have this problem....

Short term listening did tell me that I don't like to listen long term to headphones or certain formats.
 
The complete absence of noise and distortion would not provide perfect reproduction. At best one would have 2 or 5 or n channels which cannot represent a vector field plus a scalar field, where each point in space is represented by a three dimensional velocity vector and a one dimensional pressure scalar. The relationship between this sound field and the impulses on the listener's acoustic nerve are defined by a whole cluster of unknowns, starting with the size and shape of the listeners head (including the pinna) and its changing position (six degrees of freedom). It gets worse if we start talking about the brain and even worse if we start talking about the mind and human perception, a subject that can not be fully understood without understanding human consciousness, which is probably never going to be understood (e.g. for Goedelian reasons).

Since perfect reproduction is physically and logically impossible, we are left with "good enough" and thus decend inescapably into psycho-acoustics and the reality that different listeners hear and perceive differently because of physical and mental factors.

Taking this to the next level, the whole concept of a single objective reality is itself a delusion. What we perceive has learned aspects with a cultural basis. We construct models of reality that are good enough for certain purposes and inadequate for others. The "objectivists" and the "subjectivists" construct radically different models. This is the main cause of the split between the factions.

If this makes no sense, then I suggest sitting on the floor with some cushions and doing some mediation, i.e. some serious introspection.

Very thoughtful comments. Much appreciated.
 
Well point 1 is semantics Tim.
If it takes me awhile for dissonance/niggle to kick in on say excess energy in the treble/subtly higher sibilance/'smear' of fast transient high energy sounds such as drums/cymbals/etc then that can be both subtlety and detail revealed or dissonance and listening behaviour change relating to tolerance-threshold reached and a kind of anchoring.
You can overcome the McGurk effect by changing the way one listens (requires focusing on the very early aspects of a sound envelope), I still find it interesting how I can switch between accurately hearing what is said and then switch quickly and be in McGurk effect response when doing some of those tests that are around; this is possible because I am changing my listening behaviour and focus.

No idea why you think it is irrelevant considering you are debating listening behaviour and short/long term listening...
BTW my stand on this is that further research is required into listening behaviour and focus/anchoring/etc with both short and long term listening.
Cheers
Orb

That was just an answer to jkenny's argument, which completely flip-flopped in mid-breath. In arguing that long-term listening reveals greater subtlety and detail, he pointed me back to posts that, then argued himself that, it is the illusion of subtlety and detail that is presented in initial listening, then revealed to actually be distortion in long-term listening. It is not semantics; it is contradictory. What was irrelevant was the one point to the other, not the very logical idea that distortions become more irritating with prolonged exposure. He was twisting and turning so rapidly that I got caught up in deconstructing his logic; the actual topic became secondary to our conversation in the process. Sorry for the distraction. Carry on.

Tim
 
That was just an answer to jkenny's argument, which completely flip-flopped in mid-breath. In arguing that long-term listening reveals greater subtlety and detail, he pointed me back to posts that, then argued himself that, it is the illusion of subtlety and detail that is presented in initial listening, then revealed to actually be distortion in long-term listening. It is not semantics; it is contradictory. What was irrelevant was the one point to the other, not the very logical idea that distortions become more irritating with prolonged exposure. He was twisting and turning so rapidly that I got caught up in deconstructing his logic; the actual topic became secondary to our conversation in the process. Sorry for the distraction. Carry on.

Tim


Or perhaps more appropriately:

 
Stehno, I think Amir is someone who has that facility of hearing these distortions based on his descriptions of the blind testing he has done & his MS training in distortion identification. I think most people with sufficient training & motivation will reach a fairly decent level in this faculty but most aren't really bothered. But there is one great flaw in this training - we only can concentrate on one or two aspects of the sound at any moment in time & in a moving target such as music, it's easy to miss some flaw because were focussed elsewhere.

I posted this link a while ago - it's the audio equivalent of the change blindness video where the gorilla walks across the video shot & a lot of people don't notice him because they are focussed on another visual task.

Here's the link to the explanation of this selective attention issue
Some further reading can be done here

I appreciate your note, jkeny, as well as your respect for Amir’s alleged hearing abilities. And I don’t mean any disrespect to you or Amir in my response here.

But in my experience, all the tests in the world mean very little when it comes to critically listening to a playback system and sufficiently and accurately evaluating what one heard. And it’s not what you think about somebody but what you know about somebody.

Here's just a few questions that come to mind since you've endorsed Amir's hearing skills:

- Have you ever met Amir in person?
- Have you ever sat with Amir while he was critically listening to a relatively well-thought-out system or any system for that matter?
- Was that time together more than 5 or 10 minutes?
- How passionate is Amir about live music?
- What genre’s and venues does he frequent?
- What are his thoughts of the live music performance afterward?
- What does Amir’s playback system sound like to you?
- What are Amir’s reactions when listening to a torturous opera passage or the sharp strikes of a piano’s upper registers, or complex and/or dynamic passages?
- Does Amir listen to playback music at elevator volume levels or at 120db?
- What are Amir’s thoughts on a playback system’s limitations in light of live music?
- How is Amir able to discern the many distortions that are inaudible but still wreak havoc on a playback presentation?

I don't expect you to answer these questions here but I hope you would have asked yourself some of these questions before providing an internet endorsement. I’m just rattling off a handful of questions here and if given some thought, I could probably come up with maybe 30 better constructed and pointed questions.

Moreover, since we're talking about your endorsement of Amir's hearing abilities and since I don't know you, what value is your endorsement of Amir to me? If I'm attempting to perform due diligence and if you want me to accept your endorsement of Amir's skills, should I not be asking similar questions of you in order to better qualify your endorsement of Amir?

To the best of my knowledge I probably only know a couple of members of this forum. What if on a scale of 1 - 10 every member of this forum rated Amir's hearing ability a 9 or 10, should I trust Amir's hearing skills because a bunch of strangers highly rated his skills? Where's my reference point?

For those in this thread advocating "audio science" whatever that means, where does any type of science come into play when somebody I don't know endorses another's hearing skills over the internet whom he may or may not have met in person?

As you may know, an audiophile’s (and reviewer’s) ability to sufficiently discern what they hear is all over the map. Moreover, the internet can make absolutely anybody look like an expert about anything at least for a time. Some may express great faith in others based on words alone. But this is an audio-only industry and in my experience, the only way I could be convinced of accurately assessing somebody’s hearing abilities and whether or not my assessments were realistic is if I met and spent time with them in front of a playback system. IOW, I’m pretty convinced there is no substitution for this firsthand experience of another’s abilities.

Again, without intending to be disrespectful, I’ve observed a number of Amir’s responses and his responses do not impress me as one necessarily possessing well-trained ears. Of course I could be wrong big time. And although it's been said more than once that Amir possesses keen hearing, that alone has almost zero to do with having well-trained ears. But then again, it matters not what I think about somebody’s talents or what somebody claims whom I’ve never met in person. After all, this is the internet. What matters is what I know to be true from firsthand experience. What matters is, do they truly possess well-trained ears? And how am I to verify that if I’ve not spent time with them in front of a given playback system? If for no other reason than as a reference to my own hearing.

IOW, it seems pert near impossible to accurately assess anybody’s hearing skills over the internet as there are way too many assumptions that need to be made to reach such a conclusion. Even if one spent 10 years dialoguing about audio daily over the internet yet never experienced a single listening session together, in the end it’s still only a guess.

Some people are optimistic and think everybody has fabulous hearing and fabulous sounding playback systems without ever knowing the person or ever hearing their system. I’m not that type. And when it comes to high-end audio being all over the map over most every subject, as demonstrated in this very thread, I think such optimism does more harm than good. Simply because it gives credence where it doesn’t necessarily belong. I’m not saying you’re guilty of this potential as I’ve no clue what your relationship with Amir is. But I don't know Amir and I don't know you. Hence, your endorsement of Amir provides me no value.

I'm not sure why, but I almost feel like I should be insulted if you thought your internet endorsement would have any affect on me one way or another.
 
Can we atleast agree that what changed was you? The system etc (pretend you had your head in a vice) should really not be changing to any extent. Your mood, something changed. That means the system with a problem is us. We cant properly decode the sound? We decode the sound differently over time...we are not consistant.... my point is its us that is the untrustworthy person when we say we trust our ears since they tell us something different over time. Does that make sense? The stereo did not change...we did..

Sorry I cannot resist this but, if a person's ears are untrustworthy in your context then ABX is also a bust as ones listening behaviour/focus may not be correct (talking about the discussions pertaining using ABX to prove whether differences exist in say filters/hirez/amps/etc).
This does sort of bring it back to trained listening and methodology of the listener on how and what to listen for and when in a segment or music, although again this is a complex issue as the listening focus and listening methodology needs to adjust to match the factor involved; reminds you of the long thread in the past on the importance of trained listeners for ABX? - now in your context has relevance to this thread and point.
Cheers
Orb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu