Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 70

The pocketing of the prism is somewhat analogous to faking a cable switch.

The whole situation is rather sad really, because some really intelligent people like Richard Heyser were duped by subjectivism. He spent a non-trivial part of his life trying to figure out a new way to look at audio signals (a kind of change of basis analogous to the Fourier transform) in such a way that the results would be more amenable to subjective interpretation. He never bothered to check whether or not the subjective observations which led him on this path were valid. If he had, he wouldn't have wasted his time.

To add insult to injury, one of the biggest BS artists in all of audio, John Atkinson, did a dedication to Heyser at the 2011 AES convention. It's not enough for Heyser to have made a fool of himself in his lifetime, pursuing the origin of baseless claims. No, he must be immortalized for that very thing, and forgotten for what he really did contribute, which was his innovative measurement technique, the forerunner of today's FFT-oriented audio measurement software such as REW, and many other related ideas, such as the energy-time curve.
Edited by andyc56 - 3/9/13 at 9:30pm

No different than Nobel Laureate physicist, Brian Josephson, who feels the explanation of paranormal experiences somehow lies in quantum mechanical explanations. Or the scientists that get duped by alleged psychics (James Randi has numerous stories about those). Or Fleishman and Pons. And the list goes on.

Wait. I'm getting a message from Hugo Chavez. He's saying it was crony capitalism and not capitalism that killed civilization on Mars.

And let's not forget the winner of two Nobels by himself, Dr. Linus Pauling and vitamin C.

Yes, thanks, and many more.

Yes, and 75% of people will perceive a difference between the same component presented twice.. But, then they say it is cheating.

It's not necessarily wrong that they do, but we're into discussing the brain instead of discussing the sound at that point.

posts deleted

 

Personally, no. I think the whole concept of reducing distortion by adding distortion makes no sense. There are far better and far easier ways to get a system where distortion is fixed by more conventional means.

IME audio JNDs are all over the map. For example, under ideal conditions for hearing nonlinear distortion with music, the JND is about 0.1% or -60 dB. Under ideal conditions for masking nonlinear distortion, the JND can be several percent which is more in agreement with the above comments. When it comes to noise, the spectral balance or timbre of the noise has very strong effects on JNDs. One indicator of these differences are the Fletcher Munson curves which show significant differences in the sesnitivity of the human ear at various frequencies and SPLs:



At the threshold of hearing (bottom line) there is a 70+ dB difference in the sensitivity of the human ear over the normal frequency range. At high levels the difference is still about 25 dB.

Another example is the JND for long term changes in pitch which is about 0.5%.

The ear's sensitivity to frequency response differences depends on the frequency where the difference is centered and the width of the band over which the difference exists:



Exactly.

All of the above is consistent with generally accepted wisdom in audio's mainstream. Using modern test equipment it is often possible to consistently measure even the small differences between the channels of stereo and multichannel amplifiers that replicate the same circuit for every channel and they all share the same power supply. However, many modern amplifiers have nonlinear distortion that is 10 to 100 times less than the established JND. Good thing, because if we heard strong differences among the channels in stereo or multichannel amplifiers it sure would be confusing!

The development of audio gear over the years agrees with you. The long term trend for amplifiers, preamps, DACs, and even speakers has been towards components with flatter frequency response and lower nonlinear distortion.

Compensating for frequency response errors with equalizers is fairly straightforward and is done routinely. Compensating for nonlinear distortion is generally tricker, and rarely shows up in production equipment. One exception to this showed up in some professional tape recorders from the 1970s and 1980s that had nonlinear compensators in their record amplifiers to compensate for the signficant nonlinear distortion in magnetic tape at high levels.

Please notice the linearity control (R628) that used symmetrical FETs (CR 501 and 502) as nonlinear compensation (adjustment resistor is about 1/3 down and half ways across).

The two are somewhat indistinguishable though. My opinion is that the folks did hear a difference and that difference was because their auditory focussing was different and this changed the weighting factor do what the brain assimilated. Hearing is a lossy process and information (sounds) are rejected in the processor making its way to long term hearing. If the brain can only hold a finite amount of information when hearing, if we sub(consciously) focus ononeaspectof thereproduced sound, we inadvertently lose something else. It's like when one is a room full of people and we're trying to hear what a person many feet away is saying.

Yes, that's why we need longer, significant, series for statistics that will hold water.

But the other side of that is that at the very highest level, scientists tend to have unconventional aspects to their thought -- they're a little wild -- and they are not willing to dismiss ideas simply because they don't seem sensible.

Yes, and I mentioned that in an earlier post. Here's an article that explains pre-distortion fully, and even shows a schematic plus plans for a basic but effective distortion analyzer:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/distort.html

--Ethan

And all while blinking, breathing, seeing, smelling and feeling....

I have nowhere near the technical acumen of some on these forums, but to me that is plain and obvious human characteristic. The interesting part is how conveniently and frequently it gets ignored in these discussions.

Why bother? You can have all the studies and proofs in the world, disseminate to everyone, and people will still believe what they want. Rhinos and elephants and tigers will still be slaughtered for their horns or whatever. People will still have rain dances. We will still elect dumb asses and the media outlets will still cater too foolishness because it sells.

Which just goes to show no matter one's level of education, it doesn't insulate them from foolishness.

I agree. When people bring up ABX testing as their main defense and ask for a more reliable model in its place I just counter by saying "use your hearing, man". It works. Alright, I'm joking so please don't get your knickers in a twist.

Exactly!

And, usually nature doesn't use sleigh of hand tricks as people tend to so the scientist believe that they will not be tricked but they will be.

As mentioned by Chu, in the end, the brain is a very large part of this perception business. After all, it is the brain that is affected or is causing the bias, believing to hear what is not there, etc, being fooled. It is the processor. The ear just sends a bunch of signals, neuron pulses, then the brain does the rest.
But, I could be way off.

on a personal level, has anyone here experienced this 'ability' of the brain to 'hear things which are not there'??

You know, the old example of 'they held up these humungous looking speaker cables and then bent down behind the speakers'.....all reported improvements and changes to the sound. The kicker is of course the people changed nothing. If you have experienced this mind trick, can you give the example?

I am really curious, I'd love to subjectively find out the magnitude of what this brain trick can do.

I think what is telling would be the reaction of the individual when they found out that in fact nothing was changed. I'd imagine mine would be 'wow! really? geez, is that not an amazing thing our brains could do'. Another's would be perhaps anger, or complete rejection 'I don't believe you'.

To the guy (prior to informing him nothing was changed) what would his reaction be to the suggestion 'some would say changes like this need to be confirmed by blind testing', would he say 'no, when the change is as obvious like this then no blind testing is needed'? In other words, and what I am intensely curious about, is it THAT real and solid to him that the whole idea of it possibly being personally created is beyond possibility?

[this is the whole area I was talking about brett in that last email...think we should pursue it somehow]

How would/could the reverse be manifested?? Would I NOT hear an obvious existing difference between dacs say (if my pre existing stance is 'not much difference there')? Does the question of 'reverse' even make sense in this context?

Not significantly.

Terry, some of those that heard a difference in a fake cable swap might just rationalize it as proof that cables have a settling time because the dielectric was stressed and it takes time for the system to achieve equilibrium again.

What if the set of 'fake' cables were made and given to someone nearly a decade ago, and they still hear what they think they are not what they actually are? I have a data point there and told Terry the story in person some years ago.

Ha, that's the least of some of the rationalisations I'd expect!

We know that 'explabation' is rubbish, not least that it does not make sense heh heh. (the original 'explanation' had a typo in it, but felt it appropriate to not fix it as it rhymes with or implies a mix of explanation and babble..ie explababble' haha)

I am super curious about this whole area. He hears these differences and they are so 'real' to him that he can go to great lengths with flowery descriptors. You then show him incontrovertible proof that nothing had changed, the 'new' sound is exactly the same as the 'old' sound. Which path do the individuals take in dealing with this set of factors?

'You tricked me' might be one response...possibly that might be so. Or was it his own brain? Could he acknowledge that?

Or would it be such an eye opener that he could change his mind and now see the need for controlling this aspect of audition by means such as blind testing? Because the one thing a procedure like this has NOT proven is that there are no differences between dacs (say). It is a prior step to that, demonstrating the need to control these mental gymnastics.

The thing is, we are ALL subject to this phenomenon, it is not just the realm of the subjectivist, it is a human trait. Which is what prompted me to wonder how the objectivist might exhibit the trait, with the example of 'not hearing an obvious difference'. Does it work that way?

Brett, no doubt you saw the earlier link from arny, would something like this be of use in the earlier project we spoke of??

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-8-Channel-Relay-Board-RS232-Serial-controlled-/280758385304

Did you see the link posted earlier about the McGurk effect? Well known well documented example. Simple and powerful example.

Not really. I already have the relays and the interface worked out so it would cost me $50 to get what I already have.

Yeah, have seen that before.

I really like this other example!


Ok brett. Am leaning towards the latest idea that was mooted (in keeping with where this thread has gone lately) but I daresay the arduino one will come in handy sooner than later.