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

[AJ Soundfield]

For those in this thread advocating "audio science" whatever that means

Audio science.
Here is another non-Wonderland word of relevance here.

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?

Well, Amir is perfectly capable of defending himself, but...
Lets get something clear here.
If Amir ran a sub 10 second 100m dash at the Olympics (electronic timing, on camera, many witnesses), would you consider him well trained at running?
If a 250lb (113kg) 70 year old male audiophile sitting at his computer, claimed online that he can run a sub 10 second 100m dash in his back yard, unwitnessed, except maybe by wife, would you consider him well trained at running?

What exactly would constitute evidence of well trained hearing to you?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

abx is about detecting differences between different systems, long term listening is about the exact same system that somehow now sounds different, two different things we are talking here, as I said I am not talking about abx but the idea of long term listening "teasing" something out of the sound from the same system.

Blind, controlled testing (ABX being one method) in the audio sense, it to test for differences in DUT sound. There are no time limits, however quick switching has been shown to be more revealing and consistent with aural memory science.
Open ended long term viewing is to flesh out whatever psychological drama manifests with seeing, knowing, touching, listening, etc, etc, etc, etc. during X amount of mood swings, for the DUT.
Two different things entirely. One is science, the other is anecdotal.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Blind, controlled testing (ABX being one method) in the audio sense, it to test for differences in DUT sound. There are no time limits, however quick switching has been shown to be more revealing and consistent with aural memory science.
Open ended long term viewing is to flesh out whatever psychological drama manifests with seeing, knowing, touching, listening, etc, etc, etc, etc. during X amount of mood swings, for the DUT.
Two different things entirely. One is science, the other is anecdotal.

cheers,

AJ

I do not disagree. I hope, however, we are not going to go down the path of an ABX argument. That has been argued many times in many places before. I personally think ABX has its place within definite limits of how much it can tell us under very specific circumstances. In the context of making an audio purchase decision, I would never use it myself. It is only about detecting differences, not qualitative preferences. Also, in the Harman studies, which are key examples of audio science underlying this thread, I do not see anywhere that they used ABX, which is a good thing based on their objectives.

It has its place, and it is but one narrow example of double blind testing, but it think it has been over- and mis- used in audio, particularly in citations by unknowing audiophiles in online forums. Many mistakenly seem to think it the only type of DBT. Fortunately, I do not see that here, partly because we were introduced to the Harman studies which did not use it.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I personally think ABX has its place within definite limits of how much it can tell us under very specific circumstances. In the context of making an audio purchase decision, I would never use it myself. It is only about detecting differences, not qualitative preferences. Also, in the Harman studies, which are key examples of audio science underlying this thread, I do not see anywhere that they used ABX, which is a good thing based on their objectives.
It has its place, and it is but one narrow example of double blind testing, but it think it has been over- and mis- used in audio, particularly in citations by unknowing audiophiles in online forums.

Quite so, yes, as stated previously, since there is far more than sound when making purchasing decisions. Yes, "ABX" has become the audiophile dog whistle, often conflated with blind controlled testing of any form.
The Harman studies were indeed more A/B, perhaps more rapid, but very much like the controlled blind tests used by almost every major orchestra to select members. The result of that of course, being far more females!
The listening panel must be skilled and trust their hearing, i.e. very non-audiophile. Thus no long term viewing (and associated psychological drama) is required to pick the best performers. Just listening and trusting ears (the real variety, not the grotesque misrepresentation).

cheers,

AJ

 

[Orb]

abx is about detecting differences between different systems, long term listening is about the exact same system that somehow now sounds different, two different things we are talking here, as I said I am not talking about abx but the idea of long term listening "teasing" something out of the sound from the same system.

Not quite, because there is an overlap between debating subtle differences and their perception/listening behaviour for short and long term listening
In this case noticing sound traits due to tolerance/threshold/dissonance after much longer duration with the system.
But you are indirectly also talking about ABX, as I point out your context actually is applicable to both, and comes back to trained listeners and what to listen for when in the music/segment/sound.
You cannot apply your logic to one situation arguing about long/short term listening and ignore ABX, case in point you are the one stating hearing (in reality listening behaviour and critical listening) is fallible in many ways that then must be applied to your logic of when arguing about ABX,
If perceived listening is as as you have been saying in this thread then ABX is a lost situation as well
Context is your post on this

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?

That said yes the issue with long term listening is listener adapting to the changes and also loss of memory for comparison, but then this is balanced by eventually noticing a subtle trait and then changing listening behaviour to identify other cues (maybe 'dissonance' related).
Ergo trained listeners with specific methodology and knowing what,when, and how to listen for specific traits, as has been proved is really needed with ABX (look back at the hirez test that only Amir initially passed and then others started to be able to do, some with guidance on changing how they listen to do the comparison - ie change of listening behaviour).
OK I appreciate I may be a bit unfair in focusing on that specific comment of yours, but it made me smile to go this logic route with it

Cheers
Orb

 

[AJ Soundfield]

That said yes the issue with long term listening is listener adapting to the changes

What changes?
There are a great many issues/variables with long term viewing.

 

[NorthStar]

Deleted. Too argumentative.

:b Sorry Peter, I just had to comment on your comment; we are in @ WBF, a forum where members share their very best experiences with all they have and know about.
This thread is like an 'Illuminati' thread; we read all type of comments coming from the four corners of the globe.

The way I see things myself fit in two categories:
1. The audio science, as we know it, in trying to determine the intricacies of sounds from our audio electronics and loudspeakers and room's acoustics.
2. The human hearing in various listening environment and the shape of our ears.

A piece of audio gear has no musical emotion...it sounds more or less distorted...depending of the design.
It is our ears in our rooms that give it all the sensory emotional value individually.

Some audio gear works best with some set of ears in some rooms. ...Other pieces of audio electronics suit other set of ears better in them different rooms.
Is there such a thing as synchronicity between mechanical/electrical audio devices and the individual human hearing? ...The best match.

Last, can we measure the emotional level from each individual respectively and relatively from his personal listening stance @ a precise moment in time and in space?
Most humans are flawed...most audio electronics are also flawed; so, what can audio science do explain how all those flaws sound like?

Science is often best answered by a question(s). ...Of course, that's the main basis.
We'll have to determine and all agree, among scientists, which audio gear sounds best, well designed and executed to replicate the audio signals with the utmost accuracy.
And then pick a reference human being with one of the best designed/shaped set of ears around.
And last, put all that in one of the best acoustically designed room.
That, would be our reference, and any and all deviation from it would be just that...more or less accurate with flaws.

Take the best hi-fi stereo system of the world, in the best room of the world, and put someone in that room around 60 years of age with less than perfect hearing...limited to say 12kHz or around. ...But that person has a big heart, a lovely family and very good friends. ...Plus a financial freedom and good health and good experience with classical music recordings...he was a professional recording engineer for international classical orchestras from Vienna, now retired. ...He also won a lottery jackpot. ...So he can afford that hi-fi stereo system, the room, and the home housing that room.

On the other hand put a 30-year old man of highly calibrated set of ears, from a music background (violinist in a top classical orchestra, and into his art since the age of four), and unbalanced emotionally in life...music is so intense that he doesn't have the apprenticeship of other domains...like cooking...like personal relationships with lovers or wives, how to maintain a garden, to water the plants, ...etc., brief how to operate with normal things of life. ...Music is taking almost exclusively all his time.

Simply, take any individual and put it in that room and listening to the same music recording, and try to use audio science to measure their all different musical/emotional level.

Today is a beautiful day here, and I'm sure it is also @ many other places on our planet. ...That's a good way to enjoy life while listening to some great music ? tunes. That's one of the best ways, ...and going sailing too. :b

 

[Orb]

What changes?
There are a great many issues/variables with long term viewing.

You adapt (meaning ones cognitive baseline to certain audio parameters/variables starts to change) to the sound of your system the longer you have it, hence why I mentioned earlier one also needs a 'control' type setup to listen to and 'reset' the perceived baseline similar in concept to cleansing ones palate when wine tasting/master blending (as I said back then it is not quite the same but good enough to get the idea across).
Cheers
Orb

 

[AJ Soundfield]

A piece of audio gear has no musical emotion...it sounds more or less distorted...depending of the design.

Or lack of "sound", i.e. perceptually benign.

It is our ears in our rooms that give it all the sensory emotional value individually.

In a blind/controlled session, yes, of course. Otherwise, a whole bunch more than ears is involved. How many times does this obviousness need repeating?

Simply, take any individual and put it in that room and listening to the same music recording, and try to use audio science to measure their all different musical/emotional level.

Why? If one wants to test what ones ears prefers, the Harman method is suffice, no measurements needed outside of the individuals impairment (or not) prior to the test. Just listen and decide. Take as long as needed.
There is no need to test/measure how an individual enjoys a completely subjective all senses experience, such as sighted, uncontrolled long term "listening".

Today is a beautiful day here, and I'm sure it is also @ many other places on our planet. ...That's a good way to enjoy life while listening to some great music ? tunes. That's one of the best ways, ...and going sailing too. :b

Enjoy it. No test/measurement/science required.

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

You adapt (meaning ones cognitive baseline to certain audio parameters/variables starts to change) to the sound of your system the longer you have it

Ok, perceptual adaptation to stimulus, got it. Yes, our perception changes/varies with time, not the DUT/soundfield. Agreed.

hence why I mentioned earlier one also needs a 'control' type setup to listen to and 'reset' the perceived baseline

This part makes no sense to me. A psychogenic 'control' or an external one? What from where?

cheers,

AJ

 

[PeterA]

Yes, our perception changes/varies with time, not the DUT/soundfield. Agreed.

I do not think it is this simple. I agree that our perception changes over time, but I also think that some DUTs and soundfields change over time. The question is perhaps how much time and how much change.

Device Under Test: My SS amps sound very different one hour after being turned on. Depending on humidity and temperature, my cartridges also sound different from one session to another, or even after they have been playing for twenty minutes after being unused for a while. If I unplug my pre amp and then plug it back in, it sounds different and better after a few hours.

Soundfield: My room sounds different depending on temperature, humidity, the outside noise level, how many people are in it. Same with concert halls that I have heard. I suppose you could say those are external to the room or it is my perception of the sound of my room, but I notice a difference without the stereo playing.

I suppose you could argue that changes to temperature, humidity, ambient noise floor, power grid load etc. mean that the DUTs and soundfields are no longer the same ones that they were before, ie, the concert hall now has more people in it or the amp is no longer warmed up, or the cartridge suspension is stiffer, so they are different objects or spaces at some level, but I would argue that they are the same objects or spaces but they have changed just like our ears/memory/perceptions change with changing variables in the environment.

 

[Groucho]

Amazing that everything changes with humidity, time, temperature and so on, except the listener's ears!

Some things really do change with humidity and temperature, and this can be measured. Might a logical conclusion be, however, that the listener's ears and brain are wholly responsible for the perceived changes that are not measurable? ("burning in" etc.)

 

[PeterA]

Amazing that everything changes with humidity, time, temperature and so on, except the listener's ears!

Some things really do change with humidity and temperature, and this can be measured. Might a logical conclusion be, however, that the listener's ears and brain are wholly responsible for the perceived changes that are not measurable? ("burning in" etc.)

Yes, agreed. I don't think I wrote that listener's ears do not also change with humidity, time, temperature and so on. I wrote that our perceptions do change over time, and I think that those factors have a lot to do with it. So does one's mood, what he is drinking, age, etc.

I think we agree. Everything changes. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes not much. I'm sorry if I was not clear.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I agree that our perception changes over time

Ok, good.

but I also think that some DUTs and soundfields change over time.

Think? Based on what evidence? The soundfield is defined by pressure and particle velocities. Where is the evidence of these changes?

Device Under Test: My SS amps sound very different one hour after being turned on. Depending on humidity and temperature, my cartridges also sound different from one session to another, or even after they have been playing for twenty minutes after being unused for a while. If I unplug my pre amp and then plug it back in, it sounds different and better after a few hours.

Right, we just agreed that your perception changes over time. Bingo, you've got it. Now where is there evidence of soundfield changes?? You've gotten into circular reasoning here. Where is the evidence external to you and ascribed to the component DUTs?

Soundfield: My room sounds different depending on temperature, humidity, the outside noise level, how many people are in it. Same with concert halls that I have heard. I suppose you could say those are external to the room or it is my perception of the sound of my room, but I notice a difference without the stereo playing.
I suppose you could argue that changes to temperature, humidity, ambient noise floor, power grid load etc. mean that the DUTs and soundfields are no longer the same ones that they were before, ie, the concert hall now has more people in it or the amp is no longer warmed up, or the cartridge suspension is stiffer, so they are different objects or spaces at some level, but I would argue that they are the same objects or spaces but they have changed just like our ears/memory/perceptions change with changing variables in the environment.

Peter, we need to escape this loop!
It requires external to your changing perceptions evidence.
Got any?

cheers,

AJ

 

[PeterA]

Ok, good.


Think? Based on what evidence? The soundfield is defined by pressure and particle velocities. Where is the evidence of these changes?


Right, we just agreed that your perception changes over time. Bingo, you've got it. Now where is there evidence of soundfield changes?? You've gotten into circular reasoning here. Where is the evidence external to you and ascribed to the component DUTs?


Peter, we need to escape this loop!
It requires external to your changing perceptions evidence.
Got any?

cheers,

AJ

Well, external to me? Other people have told me that they also have heard the sound change in the Boston Symphony Hall, and the Director of Archives at the Vienna State Opera had told me that the acoustics of that great hall are changing constantly depending on those variables of temperature and humidity, number of people etc. He is in that room 300 days a year for 6-8 hours a day. But then, their perceptions change also. So are we back to measurements?

I did not know that sound field is defined as something other than the space of the listening room or concert hall. I have not measured pressure and particle velocities in my room or those halls. I do not have the ability to do the measurements myself. That is why I "think" it is the case based on what I have experienced. If that disqualifies what I have heard because it is not an objective, external scientific measurement, so be it. I have no evidence to support what I wrote, but I will continue to experience it.

I must be mistaken and you can dismiss my post.

 

[Groucho]

Yes, agreed. I don't think I wrote that listener's ears do not also change with humidity, time, temperature and so on. I wrote that our perceptions do change over time, and I think that those factors have a lot to do with it. So does one's mood, what he is drinking, age, etc.

I think we agree. Everything changes. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes not much.

If we all agree that everything changes, then does that not, at a stroke, invalidate all listening-based assessments? (short of gross differences in distortion, frequency response etc.)

I really do subscribe to that view! My view is that there is an objective 'correctness' (or I should say, various versions of 'correct') and that while we can never guarantee to know what our ears and brains are going to perceive on a particular day, we're more likely to hear something good if the equipment is striving to be 'correct' objectively.

If I rely solely on my ears to decide what is 'correct' then I am on a very hard road to nowhere.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Well, external to me?

Yes, as in your SS amp, which you said is changing along with your perceptions. Before we get to warranty repair or bin, where is the evidence for this?

Well, external to me? Other people have told me that they also have heard the sound change in the Boston Symphony Hall, and the Director of Archives at the Vienna State Opera had told me that the acoustics of that great hall are changing constantly depending on those variables of temperature and humidity, number of people etc. He is in that room 300 days a year for 6-8 hours a day. But then, their perceptions change also. So are we back to measurements?

No, we are back to your stereo system. No idea what BSH or VSO has to do with this?

I must be mistaken and you can dismiss my post.

Mistaken no, but perhaps off track. You said something about thinking you amp/system changed...and then we ended up in a changing temp symphony hall!

cheers,

AJ

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, external to me? Other people have told me that they also have heard the sound change in the Boston Symphony Hall, and the Director of Archives at the Vienna State Opera had told me that the acoustics of that great hall are changing constantly depending on those variables of temperature and humidity, number of people etc. He is in that room 300 days a year for 6-8 hours a day. But then, their perceptions change also. So are we back to measurements?

I did not know that sound field is defined as something other than the space of the listening room or concert hall. I have not measured pressure and particle velocities in my room or those halls. I do not have the ability to do the measurements myself. That is why I "think" it is the case based on what I have experienced. If that disqualifies what I have heard because it is not an objective, external scientific measurement, so be it. I have no evidence to support what I wrote, but I will continue to experience it.

I must be mistaken and you can dismiss my post.

I get where AJ is coming from, Peter. The number of people in the room? Sure, that changes the acoustics of the space. But I would think (My turn, and dangerous) it would take an awful lot of humidity to change the acoustics of a concert hall space. No AC? Temperature? I can't imagine how it could change audio, but if it does, I'll bet someone out there has studied it. I did a quick Google and almost everything about heat, humidity and sound came from audiophile forums. This guy --http://www.acousticfields.com/humidity-acoustics-the-impact-humidity-temperature-make-in-room-acoustics/ - does make a case for water in the air changing the flow of sound waves in the space, but he refers to no existing theories on the subject. No science. And he says the impact would be negligible.

Unfortunately there are so many theories in the audiophile world that have been put forward with no substance behind them, so many casual ideas that have been talked into conventional wisdoms, that skepticism is a pretty natural reaction. Humidity may have some effect; there's some logic in it. But like AJ, I'll wait until some science outside of the audiophile industry and hobby talks about the effect before I'll put much weight in the idea. YMMV, of course.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I get where AJ is coming from, Peter. The number of people in the room? Sure, that changes the acoustics of the space. But I would think (My turn, and dangerous) it would take an awful lot of humidity to change the acoustics of a concert hall space. No AC? Temperature? I can't imagine how it could change audio, but if it does, I'll bet someone out there has studied it. I did a quick Google and almost everything about heat, humidity and sound came from audiophile forums. This guy --http://www.acousticfields.com/humidity-acoustics-the-impact-humidity-temperature-make-in-room-acoustics/ - does make a case for water in the air changing the flow of sound waves in the space, but he refers to no existing theories on the subject. No science. And he says the impact would be negligible.

Unfortunately there are so many theories in the audiophile world that have been put forward with no substance behind them, so many casual ideas that have been talked into conventional wisdoms, that skepticism is a pretty natural reaction for some of us. Humidity may have some effect; there's some logic in it. The physic of it may even be described and defined somewhere. But like AJ, I'll wait until some science outside of the audiophile industry and hobby before I'll put much weight in the idea. YMMV, of course.

Tim

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

If we all agree that everything changes, then does that not, at a stroke, invalidate all listening-based assessments? (short of gross differences in distortion, frequency response etc.)

I really do subscribe to that view! My view is that there is an objective 'correctness' (or I should say, various versions of 'correct') and that while we can never guarantee to know what our ears and brains are going to perceive on a particular day, we're more likely to hear something good if the equipment is striving to be 'correct' objectively.

If I rely solely on my ears to decide what is 'correct' then I am on a very hard road to nowhere.

Well said, and it is important to note the word "solely" in your last sentence. Obviously, the ears have to be used carefully in any sonic assessment. But, "trust your ears and the hell with anything else" is often, as you say, a hard and bumpy road to nowhere.