Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Exactly. Another example is training your self to listen for noise artifacts. Once you identify the siganature you can readily make the necessary changes to remove it.
Yes, great Amir - thanks for posting your inner disposition & how you felt taking the test.
There's a lot to discuss in this - it shows that you are not just removing knowledge & everything else is the same - other factors come into play which can influence the outcome of the test.
Nice link Still-one - this is one of the factors that is controlled for in the checklist of criteria necessary for taking a valid blind test - the order of playing the files is changed - this is to avoid the brain's natural tendency for filling in the gaps in what we hear. So if we are comparing two tracks one of which is missing the shimmer on a cymbal, if we first play the track that has the shimmer & then the track that is missing the shimmer, we will have a natural tendency to not notice the missing shimmer in the second track. If we play them in the opposite order, we have a better chance of noticing the missing shimmer.
Does this also tell us something about sightedness? When we are comparing two things for subtle differences - we want to anchor our first listening to a particular internal auditory object (it's how we normally listen - we associate sounds with an object) then play the second piece/device & anchor that particular auditory object. Then the usual procedure is to repeat (in any order) more listening passes to re-affirm or contradict our first conclusions (we know these conclusions are tenuous to start with). Having knowledge - like this is A & this is B - avoids the confusion. When we don't have these internal anchors, (we have some confusion over which internal object to associate with what we are now hearing again) we are listening in an unnatural way & this can affect our abilities to differentiate.
There's a lot to discuss in this - it shows that you are not just removing knowledge & everything else is the same - other factors come into play which can influence the outcome of the test.
Nice link Still-one - this is one of the factors that is controlled for in the checklist of criteria necessary for taking a valid blind test - the order of playing the files is changed - this is to avoid the brain's natural tendency for filling in the gaps in what we hear. So if we are comparing two tracks one of which is missing the shimmer on a cymbal, if we first play the track that has the shimmer & then the track that is missing the shimmer, we will have a natural tendency to not notice the missing shimmer in the second track. If we play them in the opposite order, we have a better chance of noticing the missing shimmer.
Does this also tell us something about sightedness? When we are comparing two things for subtle differences - we want to anchor our first listening to a particular internal auditory object (it's how we normally listen - we associate sounds with an object) then play the second piece/device & anchor that particular auditory object. Then the usual procedure is to repeat (in any order) more listening passes to re-affirm or contradict our first conclusions (we know these conclusions are tenuous to start with). Having knowledge - like this is A & this is B - avoids the confusion. When we don't have these internal anchors, (we have some confusion over which internal object to associate with what we are now hearing again) we are listening in an unnatural way & this can affect our abilities to differentiate.
Last edited:
More reason to trust our ears. Most listen to music on our systems daily so any changes made should not be indiscernable. There is harmonic and ambient information that is present on all modern recordings(since the introduction of stereo),some of this information can be masked. The brain can readily differentiate these sublties. The trick is if your system can resolve at this level and if you understand what you are hearing.
Yes, Roger - a presentation from the site Orb linked to Music and the Brain
And this one which gives us old geezers some hope Music and Hearing in Noise
In which it states "Hearing in noise becomes more difficult as we age BUT older adult muscisians have superior hearing in noise (even musicians with hearing loss)" Musicians here means those who are engaged in musical activity for at least 20mins twice per week.
Last edited:
Why would we do something as simple as that? Absolutely horrifying.
I think we need an ABX test on that thought.
John, I suspect we are not as far apart as it may seem. And thanks for partially answering my question (the bit I have bolded in your quote).
As for removing one factor and then attributing the change in results solely to the removal of that factor... that is an interesting question. Surely it appears at first sight that the change in results is directly attributable to the change in experiment?
What else could it be? Added stress due to changed conditions? Negative expectation bias (I reckon I have this - I don't think my ears are any good, so I expect to fail blind tests) ? Something else?
Poppy Crumb has a repertoire of these demonstrations. One of them is the "satanic lyrics" in Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" played backwards...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Watch at least the first 10 minutes.
Yes, as I said, (in the next sentence) an informal blind test is just another angle - not necessarily a better angle, just another one. But as I said, this is usually a test for a specific difference - I get better, more comprehensive results with longer term listening.
You saw what I changed it to in colour blue? It doesn't mean that the new result is now the correct result - it just means that sightedness gave this result & unsightedness another result. The question becomes - what factors are in play in both situations that have an influence on the end result? Are we changing the influence affect (the weighting) of each of these factors between one listening situation & another? You are saying no, we don't change any weighting of the influence of these factors & I am saying that we most likely are. But how can we know - by controlling these factors & doing a valid test.
Did you read Amir's post & my reply post yet?
Last edited:
John
What I find interesting in your arguments (and you are not alone with that line of reasoning) is the insistence and stridency about the non validity of forums blind tests. THis is a classic argumentation fallacy. I will spare you the name of it but no one termed those test conclusive or scirntifc they did however show that the confidence that we, audiophiles have on our hearing acuity or ability is not based on provable facts.
So let me try to see if I understand your position here. A few questions, you are of course free not to answer any of those but in the name of civility and since after all you all, participating in a Discussion Forum, your input/replies/answers would be much appreciated.
There goes my question
Am I correct in reading this point from you: Casual ABX are not valid as scientific proofs? (BTW No disagreements there).
How do you explain this:
With knowledge: Night and Day.
Knowledge removed or withheld: Not able to perceive differences or even confusion.
microstrip
The evaluation of the BADA were conducted sighted. i tried however to match the level as carefully as possible. It seems to me as one of the best DAC I have heard regardless of price. A friend of mine also have it and we conducted some tests with Ayre, MSB, MBL, EMM Lab, ARC and it was to our ears and eyes the better. match level within 1 dB with test tones.
As with many electronics I do find their signature unmistakable once you learn to listen to what make them different. Not all the time but in my case most of the time.
@everyone else
As an aside We had an eminent scientist here on the WBF. We have had quite a few emphasis on "had" as we seem to have run them out so strident some were against some of their (scientific) findings or conclusions. This person, Dr Sean Olive and others developed a software that would train people to become better listener . Strangely enough not too many here reported using it, while they continue to bellow that they "trust their ears". I have been using it for a while actually, I also believe one needs to re-train oneself from time to time to keep the (learned) ability.
It would help people distinguish quite a few artifacts even with knowledge removed.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
Frantz,
If you consider that you found argumentation fallacy you must explain it clearly. IMHO those blind pseudo tests only proved that under that circumstances people can not find the differences, but we do not know why, although some of us love to guess and digress. They only served to make a fool of the ignorant, naif or blusterer guy who accepted to participate in such test.
Thanks for answering the question on the sighted listening of the BADA. Did you ever listen to the DCS Vivaldi, Metronome Kalista -C8 or Trinity DAC? Are you are able to hear those electronic signatures blind?
BTW, I can not understand how people can advise people to use software optimized for training people to listen to loudspeakers and recordings, designed by people who consider that all electronics and cables competently designed sound the same and do not affect the results of listening evaluations, to become a better listener of the "small differences".
This posting made it worth logging on to WBF today.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This video covers the Satanic Led Zep messages & a bit more in a fun way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k
This short track shows the limitations of repeated tests in finding differences. It highlights the "precedence effect". When you listen for some music in a great system you often notice some details and wonderful new information's that you never noticed in an inferior system, but after you listen to it once you find it easily even in the inferior system. The information was there, but for some reason it was made easier to perceive first time in one of the systems.
Frantz,
If you consider that you found argumentation fallacy you must explain it clearly. IMHO those blind pseudo tests only proved that under that circumstances people can not find the differences, but we do not know why, although some of us love to guess and digress. They only served to make a fool of the ignorant, naif or blusterer guy who accepted to participate in such test.
Thanks for answering the question on the sighted listening of the BADA. Did you ever listen to the DCS Vivaldi, Metronome Kalista -C8 or Trinity DAC? Are you are able to hear those electronic signatures blind?
BTW, I can not understand how people can advise people to use software optimized for training people to listen to loudspeakers and recordings, designed by people who consider that all electronics and cables competently designed sound the same and do not affect the results of listening evaluations, to become a better listener of the "small differences".
microstrip
I did try back in the days with a knowledge removed test. I could fairly discern my electronics under those conditions as for cables ...
That is fine if you don't understand why "some people (I may be among these
) suggest to use this interesting software. Yet you are after all a student and admirer of the works of F. Toole a Harman alumni. I would like to think that Dr Olive and others at Harman speak loudly enough when it comes to work pertaining to sound reproduction well above simplistic opinions. You can choose to ignore their findings which is fair enough, it is a hobby and you have the right to your preferences. It would be however more constructive to disprove them in a peer reviewed way or study. AES is an interesting outlet for such. there could be others.I have heard the DCs and cannot warm myself to their sound. The Metronome too briefly to form an opinion and in a complete foreign system playing music I didn't like. The Trinity never. was briefly exposed to a Zanden which I fond sweet in a way very similar to some tubes I like about (VTL, new CJs, Lamm preamps). Te BADA remain IMHO one of the best DAC I have heard regardless of price... I also like a relatively unknown DAC heard it a number of time I think the name is Viola or something ... Very, very good. Of course all listening sessions were sighted
. Some bias had to be present 
Similar threads
