Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[microstrip]

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

Frantz,

Just to tell that as I have read a lot from F.Toole, I think I know what I am talking about a little better than you. F. Toole is very clear in his book - please read the section "Controlling the Experimental Variables" "In controlled listening tests and in measurements, electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to nonexistent differences." page 345 and the sections on electronics imperfections and electroacoustics imperfections - page 349.

BTW, did you use this software you are recommending? I read about it, downloaded it and decided not to take the course, after I considered all the opinions I could get.

 

[amirm]

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".

That software is for hearing small differences in speakers, not in general. Training is domain specific. None of my training for example applies to speaker testing.

 

[jkeny]

Thanks to Orb for the links to this interesting center for research into auditory phenomena, I came across this excellent recent publication "Perspectives on Auditory research" This particular downloadable chapter is entitled " The Cognitive Auditory System: The Role of Learning in Shaping the Biology of the Auditory System"
It deals with learning/training & it's effects on the malleable auditory system.
Fascinating stuff - particularly the research & measurements that give us a window into the Cognitive Auditory System in humans i.e measurements of cABR -

" we view cABR as a metric of the entire auditory system ; that is , we are not interested in “ brainstem responses ” per se , but in a measure that is accessible in humans and serves as a window into the cognitive auditory system as a whole"

A nice friendly overview is presented here

This is well worth looking into & one that I will store & read more thoroughly.

 

[Orb]

Thanks to Orb for the links to this interesting center for research into auditory phenomena, I came across this excellent recent publication "Perspectives on Auditory research" This particular downloadable chapter is entitled " The Cognitive Auditory System: The Role of Learning in Shaping the Biology of the Auditory System"
It deals with learning/training & it's effects on the malleable auditory system.
Fascinating stuff - particularly the research & measurements that give us a window into the Cognitive Auditory System in humans i.e measurements of cABR -

A nice friendly overview is presented here

This is well worth looking into & one that I will store & read more thoroughly.

Someone actually bothered to click on the link I provided and then actually bothered to take a look at the publications... I am shocked....shocked!!!!
Thanks John and glad your finding it of interest as they do have some very interesting works.
Orb

 

[jkeny]

Someone actually bothered to click on the link I provided and then actually bothered to take a look at the publications... I am shocked....shocked!!!!
Thanks John and glad your finding it of interest as they do have some very interesting works.
Orb

I know, it seldom happens on forums, it seems - people just want to get to what they have to say rather than listening/learning.
A number of people could do with reading it - Tomelex & Frantz recent posts spring to mind - it might help them with their expressed distrust of their hearing?

 

[jkeny]

You might try not to generalize about folks hearing John.

I wasn't generalising about how you hear - I was responding to both your & Franz's posts - both of which I presume(?) looked at some of the material in the links & both of you posted the stock phrase "hearing is not to be trusted".
You said the ears are pretty good but the interface to the brain, not. Well the ears are not that good, suffer from non-linear distortion & it's only because of the brain & it's feedback loop with the ears that they perform anywhere near the level that our perception reveals they do.

 

[FrantzM]

Having looked at the material provided my understanding is that our ears are not to be trusted .. You saw those differently, John. Please educate me on how those links suggested otherwise.

 

[JackD201]

Having looked at the material provided my understanding is that our ears are not to be trusted ..

To a degree

 

[treitz3]

Amen Jack.

Tom

 

[JackD201]

That's not about hearing, its about the ear/brain interface, and that's what you ought to not trust or else talk to the scientists who wrote the article referred to a few posts up. Ethans video has folks also talking about these things, but only in simpler terms as you hear what you concentrate on etc.

Huh? No brain no hearing, in humans that is. LOL.

 

[JackD201]

Amen Jack.

Tom

Amazing how we forget that people went centuries writing music, building instruments, playing music, erecting halls to play music in that stand today even before algebra or even a slide rule. Composers knew that you needed to add 8 or 9 violins to double the loudness before the dB ever became a unit. C'mon, ears aren't THAT bad. I don't think we need do become cyborgs do we?

 

[Orb]

Talking about perception tricks and cognitive listening.
Someone posted awhile back another similar test where it was someone talking and they put up sutitles, now changing the subtitles made you think that was the word the talker said.
However, if you change how you listen to a more methodical approach as in ABX the trick fails and you hear the right words overriding the subtitles, going back to "normal" listening to the whole type of listening again was tricked into hearing what the subtitles showed even though I knew it was not that.
Key to correct hearing was listening for the leading edge/attack of the envelope sound trait; that was my own experience and not just conjecture.

Hence why there is many posts regarding trained listeners, the importance of isolating/identifying traits (appreciate oversimplifying), understanding or being aware of cognitive mechanisms and being aware of ones listening behaviour.
And practice
Cheers
Orb

 

[Whatmore]

so I finally got round to doing the keys jangling test.....
This is the result on my computer's speakers via my computer's internal DAC (macbook air)

Completed Trials 33
Number Correct 33 (100.0%)


has the keys test been debunked somewhere in this thread because I'm really surprised it was so easy on such cr@ppy equipment

 

[Orb]

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it seems Arny is suggesting all those ABX results that were a pass should be ignored as it is probable the listeners cheated....
Conclusion therefore seems to be no further investigation required as this is probable cause of success: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...audio-test-results-so-far-6.html#post26302361
Wow, all because one person who did not do the test pointed out how to cheat (but without posting the cheat - although obvious how some such as Foobar can be sidestepped in terms of control but really applying such logic to all is wrong and therefore why is software ABX in audio software still recommended/accepted at HA and by Arny) - and ironically ignores flawes with "hobbyist" ABX tests and results but happy to use them as a narrative proof.
So means back to the neverending cycle then for this on all forums

Cheers
Orb

 

[JackD201]

Well Orb, he's happy in his world. I'm not gonna lose sleep over that. I'd rather be happy for him.

 

[esldude]

so I finally got round to doing the keys jangling test.....
This is the result on my computer's speakers via my computer's internal DAC (macbook air)

Completed Trials 33
Number Correct 33 (100.0%)

has the keys test been debunked somewhere in this thread because I'm really surprised it was so easy on such cr@ppy equipment

Well I got positive results too using Arny's files. But it looks like a poor resampler was used. Of course the files are quite old and software resampling has improved. When I resampled the full bandwidth file with Audacity I could no longer pick a difference in Foobar abx testing. You might try that yourself, and see if it is still audible to you. Not that such is a debunking. But the quality of resampling is what was audible to me at least. When done better it was no longer audible. You might still pick out a difference however.

 

[jkeny]

I can't understand the logic of someone who says "hearing is not to be trusted" because the brain is easily influenced & yet says that JUST taking away knowledge of what's being listened to is revealing the truth about what we hear? It must surely be realised that the brain is still active (& influenced) when listening blind. It must surely be realised that there are many factors still affecting the listening perception. It must surely be realised that sticking electrodes on the auditory nerve coming from the ear will not tell us much about what we perceive - doing the same on the optic nerve will tell us little about our perception of vision. It's the processing of the information that is critical.

As I said already, fully controlled blind listening tests are an attempt to grapple with the known factors that influence our hearing perception. Ignoring these factors or doing a half-arsed job & claiming some higher level of truth is just a pretense & one that hampers discovery.

My sig says this better than I "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

 

[still-one]

It must surely be realised that the brain is still active (& influenced) when listening blind. It must surely be realised that there are many factors still affecting the listening perception.

Of course there are multiple factors affecting what you hear, or think you are hearing. The brain uses the ears and the eyes to come up with a result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjFxMKEkGjE

 

[jkeny]

Of course there are multiple factors affecting what you hear, or think you are hearing. The brain uses the ears and the eyes to come up with a result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjFxMKEkGjE

Yes, the McGurk effect shows the precedence of visual over audible when the two are in conflict -it is not really of much relevance to looking at an inanimate piece of playback electronics. Now where it probably does come into play is in live concerts - where the guitarist lunges forward or the drummer looks bored, or the bass player looks to be vigorously playing. So be careful, you are at the mercy of all sorts of influences in these listening scenarios & may well not be hearing exactly what is being played. Does this really matter?

The point is - if we want to turn ourselves into human instruments for determining the differences between two devices/sounds/whatever - it's not natural, it's a very difficult thing to do. We have to be very careful about controlling all factors, not just one. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[thedudeabides]

The point is - if we want to turn ourselves into human instruments for determining the differences between two devices/sounds/whatever - it's not natural.

Totally agree of course but what would Data say after he's been succumbed by the "Borg"?