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

[Orb]

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


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

cheers,

AJ

Why psychogenic?
If you start to adapt to a new system the longer it is installed, then having a permanent alternative system or component that one can also listen to briefly (does not need to be for lengthy durations) helps to reset that adaptation.
That 'reference' system does not (just to emphasise it is a tool) need to be enjoyable/fun/satisfying/etc, its purpose is just to be a baseline that we can reference and is different to our true long term and lengthy listening session system, so can be cheap or as close to ruthlessly-analytically neutral with the parameters/variables that we seem to adapt to (such as frequency response/dynamics/scale-presence/etc).
A critical consideration though is that it does seem listeners do not adapt to all audio related factors, because if they did they would not suffer listening fatigue/listening behaviour change/dissonance related cues/etc.
Hence why I feel more research is required for both short and long term listening in terms of listening behaviour,tolerance-threshold,dissonance related factors,satisfaction-focus,etc.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

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 Peter does have a point that some components such as amplifiers can take time to reach their optimum operating window, there are quite a few amps (more associated with Class A or tubes I would say) that can take 30 minutes to fully warm up and they then sound different to their cold start, and a few that take longer.
Anecdotally it is interesting to notice this effect as it only happens with some products with a listener (talking from experience myself) and how the sound subtly changes over that 30-45 minutes, compared to say leaving it powered on before listening or compared to other products that seem to be optimal near straight away from cold start.
Part of the change in my experience is perceived loudness.
Anyway plenty of engineers have discussed this in the past and it is a credible behaviour for some amp designs.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Well Peter does have a point that some components such as amplifiers can take time to reach their optimum operating window, there are quite a few amps (more associated with Class A or tubes I would say) that can take 30 minutes to fully warm up and they then sound different to their cold start, and a few that take longer.
Anecdotally it is interesting to notice this effect as it only happens with some products with a listener (talking from experience myself) and how the sound subtly changes over that 30-45 minutes, compared to say leaving it powered on before listening or compared to other products that seem to be optimal near straight away from cold start.
Part of the change in my experience is perceived loudness.
Anyway plenty of engineers have discussed this in the past and it is a credible behaviour for some amp designs.
Cheers
Orb

Yes, it happens, I agree. My old Class A mono blocks took about 30 minutes from standby to sound their best. But, I came to know that and obviously work around that in doing any comparisons for upgrade. Replaced them with an always on class D, by the way.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Why psychogenic?

If zero evidence of soundfield origin, what other plausible explanation?

If you start to adapt to a new system the longer it is installed, then having a permanent alternative system or component that one can also listen to briefly (does not need to be for lengthy durations) helps to reset that adaptation.

Ah, so you are talking about electro-acoustic system audible change. Ok.

That 'reference' system does not (just to emphasise it is a tool) need to be enjoyable/fun/satisfying/etc, its purpose is just to be a baseline that we can reference and is different to our true long term and lengthy listening session system, so can be cheap or as close to ruthlessly-analytically neutral with the parameters/variables that we seem to adapt to (such as frequency response/dynamics/scale-presence/etc).

Ok, I think I understand where you're going here, but partially disagree. I understand that if you believe electrical output/soundwave/soundfield measurements will fail to reveal the N-Rays type stuff audiophiles "hear", then one could circumvent measurements by having two systems....but where we disagree, is that I would want them identical. One would be "listened" to "cold", the other "warm"...if I am understanding these altered state phenomena correctly. The evidence free presumption being that the "cold" system would audibly differ from the "warm"...at the same state of the persons perceptual "warming up" period.

A critical consideration though is that it does seem listeners do not adapt to all audio related factors, because if they did they would not suffer listening fatigue/listening behaviour change/dissonance related cues/etc. Hence why I feel more research is required for both short and long term listening in terms of listening behaviour,tolerance-threshold,dissonance related factors,satisfaction-focus,etc.

Cheers
Orb

I'm unclear how you've come to those considerations when "listening" in this sense, always involves peeking, touching, knowing, etc, etc. Are you talking about a long term blind test here?

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Well Peter does have a point that some components such as amplifiers can take time to reach their optimum operating window, there are quite a few amps (more associated with Class A or tubes I would say) that can take 30 minutes to fully warm up and they then sound different to their cold start, and a few that take longer.

I don't doubt that possibility and in audiophile world that's probably something desirable, but Peter gave specifics - his SS amp. Is there evidence of demonstrable audible/sound changes? Where?

Anecdotally it is interesting to notice this effect as it only happens with some products with a listener (talking from experience myself) and how the sound subtly changes over that 30-45 minutes, compared to say leaving it powered on before listening or compared to other products that seem to be optimal near straight away from cold start.
Part of the change in my experience is perceived loudness.
Anyway plenty of engineers have discussed this in the past and it is a credible behaviour for some amp designs.
Cheers
Orb

Ok, but how are you parsing the amp warm up from your simultaneous perceptual "warm up"? What controls are in place to test just the amp?

cheers,

AJ

 

[PeterA]

I don't doubt that possibility and in audiophile world that's probably something desirable, but Peter gave specifics - his SS amp. Is there evidence of demonstrable audible/sound changes? Where?


Ok, but how are you parsing the amp warm up from your simultaneous perceptual "warm up"? What controls are in place to test just the amp?

cheers,

AJ

Here are some more specifics which are already in my signature. My amps are Class A SS Pass Labs XA160.5 monoblocks. They sound good when first turned on, but the soundstage, sense of presence, palpability, whatever you want to call it, is somewhat flat. I have found that after about an hour, the sound becomes more natural, more realistic, more believable. The soundstage gets slightly deeper, images become less diffuse and more defined. If left on for two days, they sound even better, though my room is quite warm by then. The Pass manual also mentions this, though I hope you don't argue that I hear it because I first read it in the manual.

Something similar happens to my cartridges after they have played a side or two, especially in the cold, dry New England winters. The music sounds better. Perhaps it is the suspension getting a bit less stiff. I don't know. Dynamics improve slightly and I enjoy the sound more.

I am not in a position to prove any of this to you. I am not a scientist, so if you want to dismiss these observations, fine. You asked me a question, so I am answering it based on my observations.

I don't design loudspeakers, I simply enjoy listening to my music on my system and joining discussions on forums with the intension of learning something. I did not start this thread to be criticized by you for my lack of scientific evidence to support my observations. It is obviously not my area of expertise.

 

[NorthStar]

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.)

...Surely comes into the equation when talking about sound's perception. ...Part of audio science; measurable variation...temperature, humidity level.

 

[NorthStar]

Hi Peter,

From someone who take the time to read and understand every member's thoughts in this thread, and where everyone share on their own style and knowledge of life, I welcome everyone immensely...particularly AJ. I don't see him criticizing but exploring. ...Like all of us. :b

 

[stehno]

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

If you elect the endorsement by a stranger of another stranger (via the internet) over anecdotal evidence, you are to be commended for your great faith.

Well, Amir is perfectly capable of defending himself, but...

I’m unsure why you think Amir has anything to defend here. My comments really weren't about Amir. They were more about potential science-minded types exercising great faith.

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?

You call this clear? Comparing somebody who ran a race with all the evidence in the world supporting his victory compared to somebody sitting in a chair subjectively listening to music while his brain may or may not be attempting to critically analyzing a passage of music. Where are the cameras for this photo finish?

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?

Now this is more clear because if we’re talking an Olympic runner over the internet, how can I tell the difference? Or for that matter how can the endorser of another tell the difference?

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

I thought I was pretty clear.

With high-end audio all over the map, including hearing and interpretive skills, the ability to sufficiently discern differences between a live performance and a reproduced performance, etc, nothing short of firsthand observation would suffice.

 

[Orb]

If zero evidence of soundfield origin, what other plausible explanation?


Ah, so you are talking about electro-acoustic system audible change. Ok.


Ok, I think I understand where you're going here, but partially disagree. I understand that if you believe electrical output/soundwave/soundfield measurements will fail to reveal the N-Rays type stuff audiophiles "hear", then one could circumvent measurements by having two systems....but where we disagree, is that I would want them identical. One would be "listened" to "cold", the other "warm"...if I am understanding these altered state phenomena correctly. The evidence free presumption being that the "cold" system would audibly differ from the "warm"...at the same state of the persons perceptual "warming up" period.


I'm unclear how you've come to those considerations when "listening" in this sense, always involves peeking, touching, knowing, etc, etc. Are you talking about a long term blind test here?

cheers,

AJ

Now I am confused with your response lol.
We are talking about two systems that sound different, therefore adaptation and cognitive baseline always has two systems (one that does not have to be expensive and not enjoyable,not fatigue free,can be very analytical,etc) so this offsets/resets the longer term adaptation with the main system.
There is nothing to disagree about.....
Look this is NOT about having two systems that measure the same but sound very marginal/JND in some variables, it is about reducing the long term cognitive adaptation to ones primary system (if it really bothers someone that this happens or for their job).
I am going to drop this because you keep going on about the wrong aspects sigh, not feeling the love with your persistent peeking and touching applied to this type of information.
Orb

 

[Orb]

I don't doubt that possibility and in audiophile world that's probably something desirable, but Peter gave specifics - his SS amp. Is there evidence of demonstrable audible/sound changes? Where?


Ok, but how are you parsing the amp warm up from your simultaneous perceptual "warm up"? What controls are in place to test just the amp?

cheers,

AJ

You need to get off that thoughts about audiophile world sigh - as I mentioned CLASS A does not need to be just tubes you know and a simplistic view is that it may align with the Class A biasing, although topology and transistor type implemented along with thermal operating specification are considerations.
Dropping this because I get the feeling you have some pretty strong biases, as strong as those that you accuse or look at in the audiophile world.
You do realise that most of these amps do show subtle changes in measurements between cold start and once they have been operating for awhile, as I mentioned before it is NOT 'your simultaneous perceptual "warm up" as you put it because it does not happen all the time; it is amplifier design dependant (some have this behaviour and others do not) and does not happen if the listening sessions starts after the amp has been powered up for a while.
Furthermore as I mentioned, again notable engineers have discusses this in the past and it is a credible behaviour of certain amps including SS ones (depending upon some things I mention above)
Please ignore my posts you are giving me grey hairs; it seems you are just arguing/bating/skewing peoples posts so their original context gets lost and your not actually contributing and just doing quick and short response cycles while getting posters to spend more time than you.
Orb

 

[stehno]

Here are some more specifics which are already in my signature. My amps are Class A SS Pass Labs XA160.5 monoblocks. They sound good when first turned on, but the soundstage, sense of presence, palpability, whatever you want to call it, is somewhat flat. I have found that after about an hour, the sound becomes more natural, more realistic, more believable. The soundstage gets slightly deeper, images become less diffuse and more defined. If left on for two days, they sound even better, though my room is quite warm by then. The Pass manual also mentions this, though I hope you don't argue that I hear it because I first read it in the manual.

Something similar happens to my cartridges after they have played a side or two, especially in the cold, dry New England winters. The music sounds better. Perhaps it is the suspension getting a bit less stiff. I don't know. Dynamics improve slightly and I enjoy the sound more.

I am not in a position to prove any of this to you. I am not a scientist, so if you want to dismiss these observations, fine. You asked me a question, so I am answering it based on my observations.

I don't design loudspeakers, I simply enjoy listening to my music on my system and joining discussions on forums with the intension of learning something. I did not start this thread to be criticized by you for my lack of scientific evidence to support my observations. It is obviously not my area of expertise.

Peter, you seem like a pretty genuine and earnest guy seeking others to engage with the hope of learning something about certain controversial subjects as evidenced by several recent threads you've opened including this one.

I'm curious. Since you're the OP for this thread "Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?" and after 85 pages of others engaging in meaningful dialogue, what if any conclusions have you drawn thus far?

 

[Orb]

Science can measure all these changes mentioned, humidity, temp, amp warm up, tube drift, acoustic speaker suspension "warm up" speaker coil warm up, the spin of an individual electron and way better than any ear can measure as I think must be coming apparent to most on WBF how actively follow things here. The elephant in the room is us. Audio science, whatever that really is, I would say audio science is the ability to measure any thing about an air wiggle. We can do all that way better than anyone can hear, way past anybodies hearing abilities for amplitude, phase, and timing and frequency.

When I mentioned warm-up did any mention speakers?
The discussion and agreement from some others were with my mention regarding certain (again not all) amplifier designs, not speakers so why now "warm up" in quotes and now associated with speakers.....
This is why original context gets skewed.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Talking about speaker warm up.
It is worth noting that it is plausible a speaker sound/performance will subtly change when moved from a cold warehouse/van/etc and then put into a normal house room or lounge, especially for aluminium speakers and potentially other speakers not made from exotic materials (well compared to the 'mdf sandwich' or wood enclosures) between initially installed and when fully temperature acclimatised.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Goliath]

Talking about speaker warm up.
It is worth noting that it is plausible a speaker sound/performance will subtly change when moved from a cold warehouse/van/etc and then put into a normal house room or lounge, especially for aluminium speakers and potentially other speakers not made from exotic materials (well compared to the 'mdf sandwich' or wood enclosures) between initially installed and when fully temperature acclimatised.
Cheers
Orb

Sure it's plausible, but it's also equally plausible any effects were psychological. Difficult isolating the psychological confounders from the listening experience in casual sighted evaluations, but I digress.

 

[jkeny]

Amir asked me if there is a test that shows how long-term listening is more sensitive than ABX tests & I just remembered that I had already posted such an example, here, on this forum (which came from a Gearslutz thread linked to where you can read the full descriptions of his experience)

This guy tested himself with ABX on high-res material because he had already established a preference for it during long-term use/listening

"I also had a very holistic impression of sound (uhhhhhh) 'texture'??--in which the 192 file was smoother/silkier/richer. The 192 is easier on the ears (just slightly) over time; with good sound reproduction through quality headphones (DT 770) through quality interface (RME Babyface) I can listen for quite a while without ear fatigue, even on material that would normally be considered pretty harsh (capsule's 'Starry Sky', for example), and which *does* wear me out over time when heard via Redbook audio.

Yet when he went into doing ABX testing (in which he produced positive results) he found

"Keeping my attention focused for a proper aural listening posture is brutal. It is VERY easy to drift into listening for frequency domains--which is usually the most productive approach when recording and mixing. Instead I try to focus on depth of the soundstage, the sound picture I think I can hear. The more 3D it seems, the better. "

"Caveats--Program material is crucial. Anything that did not pass through the air on the way to the recording material, like ITB synth tracks, I'm completely unable to detect; only live acoustic sources give me anything to work with. So for lots of published material, sample rates really don't matter--and they surely don't matter to me for that material. However, this result is also strong support for a claim that I'm detecting a phenomenon of pure sample rate/word length difference, and not just incidental coloration induced by processing. The latter should be detectable on all program material with sufficient freq content.

It took me a **lot** of training. I listened for a dozen wrong things before I settled on the aspects below.

This shows the fallacy that ABXing is simply superior to long-term testing!

 

[Goliath]

This shows the fallacy that ABXing is simply superior to long-term testing!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[jkeny]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In what way? He already determined with long-term listening that "the 192 file was smoother/silkier/richer" & "I can listen for quite a while without ear fatigue, even on material that would normally be considered pretty harsh" So he has determined that there is a difference between RB & high-res through long-term listening & furthermore (& probably more importantly he knows which he prefers). This didn't take great effort or training - it came from his normal listening

It took a monumental effort with lots of training & careful selection of source material & great effort to retain focus during ABXing to get a positive result - the same result he already determined via long-term listening. What if he hadn't attended to any one of these factors - if he didn't have enough motivation to do so - he would have produced a null result

Does that make sense? It's the corollary to Clarke's paper.

 

[Orb]

Sure it's plausible, but it's also equally plausible any effects were psychological. Difficult isolating the psychological confounders from the listening experience in casual sighted evaluations, but I digress.

If you follow these threads you would know I have mentioned various confounding cognitive related effects including seeing the position of a speaker in relation to its boundary (study did identify this).
But what we are talking about here is NOT related to any of the usual cognitive or perceptual biases.
What is going on with this forum recently, is there anyone who actually follows science instead of just raising vague dismissal comments without making an effort, another post taking no effort just throwing up "give us scientific DBT proof with ambient temp for a cold speaker warming up making audible difference to a listener"....
I am really curious what confounding cognitive bias you think affects a listener with this scenario when it would also have to discriminate between wood based cabinet designs and aluminium/exotic builds, so not only is the cognitive mechanism your inferring influencing listener over the first few days it is also influencing the listener differently between say a Magico aluminium cabinet and their wood based ones (just a quick example of product) - that is an amazing psychological feat...
I am for engineering and especially science, but last few days I am starting to wonder about some here and what benefit there is even posting these days.
Cheers
Orb

 

[AJ Soundfield]

If you elect the endorsement by a stranger of another stranger (via the internet) over anecdotal evidence, you are to be commended for your great faith.

No one "elected to endorse" anyone. That is reading comprehension failure on your part. jKeny referred to Amirs demonstrable trust you ears only results. That is something tangibly real and verifiable, like him running an electronically timed 10s 100m at the olyimpics. No sane, intelligent person would debate Amirs ability to run sub 10s if he demonstrated so. No "faith" required. Faith is the realm of the audiophile believer.
OTOH, your judgement of abilities are purely anecdotal, with zero demonstrable ability.

I’m unsure why you think Amir has anything to defend here. My comments really weren't about Amir.

I appreciate your note, jkeny, as well as your respect for Amir’s alleged hearing abilities.
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?
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?
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.
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.

Audiophile self assessment ability is often very very poor.

You call this clear?

Yes. Very clear evidence of real, demonstrable abilities, vs purely anecdotal bravado about secret backyard sub 10s dashes. You are unable to discern between this?

I thought I was pretty clear.
With high-end audio all over the map, including hearing and interpretive skills, the ability to sufficiently discern differences between a live performance and a reproduced performance, etc, nothing short of firsthand observation would suffice.

IOW, completely anecdotal mumbo-jumbo.
You have scientific evidence that any non-deaf person has trouble "discerning differences between a live performance and a reproduced performance"? Let's see it please, thanks.

cheers,

AJ