Themis;376555 Wrote:
When I was saying we're stuck between
all-things-sound-the-same/not-the-main-problem and the
snake-oil-merchants, I didn't mean I needed an immediate proof of the
existence of any side. ;)
I think I see what you're trying to articulate, but it doesn't apply.
I just
Themis;376288 Wrote:
Well, in fact, if I understand properly, this experiment has nothing to
do with the one of Oohashi. This one has to do with hearing, not
perceiving.
First of all, one of the three tests Oohashi et al performed was a
listening test, and they claimed a statistically
Bah, never mind.
It's just that I find it unbelievable, that, after all these years, a
lot of researchers (especially audio engineers) spend so much time
and energy trying to convince everybody around that redbook 16/44.1 is
the best recording/reproduction method possible, and that any attempt
to
Themis;376470 Wrote:
Bah, never mind.
It's just that I find it unbelievable, that, after all these years, a
lot of researchers (especially audio engineers) spend so much time
and energy trying to convince everybody around that redbook 16/44.1 is
the best recording/reproduction method
darrenyeats;376479 Wrote:
People satisfied with the cheap, universally compatible, non-DRMed,
high-availability format (red book) don't have to justify their
satisfaction.
Darren, of course I agree with that. But, what I find strange, is when
research is limited by most people's satisfaction
Themis;376488 Wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, mind you, but I haven't seen any audio
improvement for the last 30 years which didn't have to go through a
tough criticism about audible this and not the main problem that.
Am I the only one to find that strange ?
I have sympathy for what you're
Themis wrote:
Bah, never mind.
lot of researchers (especially audio engineers) spend so much time
and energy trying to convince everybody around that redbook 16/44.1 is
the best recording/reproduction method possible, and that any attempt
to go better is useless.
I've never heard anyone
darrenyeats;376503 Wrote:
I have sympathy for what you're saying, really I do. The problem is,
no-one is going to take notice and pay attention until someone goes
beyond subjective impressions and actually demonstrates and shows there
is an audible difference.
Think how great it would be
Themis;376488 Wrote:
Darren, of course I agree with that. But, what I find strange, is when
research is limited by most people's satisfaction limits. It's a world
without dreams for better tomorrows: that's what I find sad.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, mind you, but I haven't seen any audio
When I was saying we're stuck between
all-things-sound-the-same/not-the-main-problem and the
snake-oil-merchants, I didn't mean I needed an immediate proof of the
existence of any side. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis;353433 Wrote:
What _really_ puzzles me, is that it didn't result to a counter-study
(originated from the AES or the ITU-V or anything), simply to show that
it was wrong. There was no attempt whatsoever to prove the contrary.
Funny... It's as if these organizations know some things
Yeah, nice test (joke).
This time, they've really managed to make it sound as they would like
it to be (i.e. by separating inter-modulation interferences).
I suppose that AES must be happy, now. :)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
krabapple wrote:
From above results, we can still neither confirm nor deny the
possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical
sounds with and without very high frequency components. It is therefore
necessary to conduct further repetitive evaluation tests with many
subjects
pfarrell;376228 Wrote:
krabapple wrote:
From above results, we can still neither confirm nor deny the
possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical
sounds with and without very high frequency components. It is
therefore
necessary to conduct further repetitive
krabapple wrote:
Well, it clearly says that the experiment failed, but they still
believe. Which is fine with me, some experiments fail.
Except they didn't say the experiment 'failed'. They simply noted, in
quite correct fashion
Which is proper conference speak for failed
--
Pat
krabapple;376231 Wrote:
And Themis, eliminating gear-induced modulation distortion of audible
frequencies by ultrasonic frequencies is a GOOD thing for such a test.
Because if the 'effect' is just intermodulation distortion, then people
aren't really perceiving 'hypersonic' sound itself.
opaqueice;353711 Wrote:
...the most common is when data points are not independent but the
analysis assumes they are...
Unfortunately, _proving_ independence in the general case is not
possible... often researchers will assume independence if it seems
reasonable to do so, in their opinion
opaqueice wrote:
Robin Bowes;353543 Wrote:
I didn't say individuals couldn't learn it - just that they either
have
it or not.
Eh?
C'mon, keep up.
You said:
opaqueice wrote:
Robin Bowes;353296 Wrote:
Absolute pitch is an ability that individuals either have or they
don't. Nothing
I understand Brian Dipert's thoughts. They sound logical, although he
has a tendency of using shortcuts (one pragmatic answer... that's a
bit too easy of an answer and it's merely based on pseudo-psychological
consumerist thoughts). IMHO, his thoughts are too heavily
industry-driven.
I'm
opaqueice;353497 Wrote:
You're just the only one that ignores the other posters.
Your links to this Brian editor fellow? Before he became editor he was
an electronics guy working with NVRAM, ASIC's and 3 years of PLD
programming. I did all that... nothing to do with brain functions or
I think Nick sums it all.
It's nice discussing scientific studies using our own thoughts, but, as
we have limited scientific background, unless we can bring some -new
personal evidence- in the debate, the discussion is not constructive.
I don't feel up to criticizing scientific studies using
opaqueice wrote:
Robin Bowes;353296 Wrote:
Absolute pitch is an ability that individuals either have or they
don't.
Nothing lucky about it.
That's not quite true, actually - some people manage to learn it (I
know someone that acquired perfect pitch only during composition school
in his
Robin Bowes;353543 Wrote:
opaqueice wrote:
Robin Bowes;353296 Wrote:
Absolute pitch is an ability that individuals either have or they
don't.
Nothing lucky about it.
That's not quite true, actually - some people manage to learn it (I
know someone that acquired perfect pitch
DeVerm;353513 Wrote:
You disagree with it's contents? With the spectral analysis of
instruments, performed by a CalTech professor in 1992? You can find his
paper, incl. all the spectral graphs here:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Section X is particularly
well...except that (certainly in my case) you can't just switch to
hi-res... 98% of my CD's are not currently available in any high res
format...and probably never will be.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call
Phil Leigh;353586 Wrote:
well...except that (certainly in my case) you can't just switch to
hi-res... 98% of my CD's are not currently available in any high res
format...and probably never will be.
They are availabe in analog format, perhaps ? ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon
Themis;353626 Wrote:
They are availabe in analog format, perhaps ? ;)
Yes - I had most of them on vinyl... I really didn't enjoy the vinyl
compression, clicks and pops, tracing distortion and other issues. This
was with a very good vinyl replay system. :o)
MOST of the CD's sound a lot
Phil Leigh;353634 Wrote:
Yes - I had most of them on vinyl... I really didn't enjoy the vinyl
compression, clicks and pops, tracing distortion and other issues. This
was with a very good vinyl replay system. :o)
MOST of the CD's sound a lot better. There are a few exceptions - which
could
DeVerm;353513 Wrote:
Your links to this Brian editor fellow?
No. I was referring to the fact that that paper has precisely zero
citations (at least that turned up on either google scholar or the web
of science) that are not one of the following: by at least one of the
authors, a whitepaper
opaqueice;353650 Wrote:
If that were the case, you might have thought that at least one out of
the 500 or so subjects in the recent 2-year study of SACD versus
redbook would have been able to distinguish between them, wouldn't you?
Not necessarily. Studies are made so that you can get only
Themis;353655 Wrote:
Not necessarily. Studies are made so that you can get only the answers
that you are looking for.
If he question was : can you hear an audible difference ? everybody
will answer no.
That's not how the SACD study was done. You're not asked -if- you can
hear a difference
opaqueice;353663 Wrote:
That's not how the SACD study was done. You're not asked -if- you can
hear a difference - you're asked to identify X as A or B.It's the same thing.
If you can't hear a difference you can't identify X
precicely. And if you can't identify X precicely, you can't hear
Themis;353666 Wrote:
It's the same thing. If you can't hear a difference you can't identify X
precicely. And if you can't identify X precicely, you can't hear the
difference. Same thing.
But the subjects in this study -could- identify the difference - or so
they claim. It says even in the
You know, there's not much more on the subject coming up on Google than
I already read and statistics are not my favorite subject, so I am
getting a bit bored too and won't go into all these details again.
But taking a big step back and looking at implications of the study for
someone who
DeVerm;353681 Wrote:
My thoughts are that there is zero study-related impact on any of
today's home listening environment. The simple reason is that we can't
create the needed setup. When the studio's record music, they don't use
the 2-100 kHz linear microphones, they don't correct for
harmonic;353081 Wrote:
This is one word war i dont want to get into.
Haveever reason studies in have the brain reacts in various abx test
senarios have proved that the hearing sence is very very tricky
compared to tast , smell and so on.
In short the brain is almost incapeble of
DeVerm;353161 Wrote:
So, it's time to ask your nearest university to repeat that study with
the London Philharmonic Orchestra! No joke, I would like to see that
happen.
I...(cough, strangle)...agree. :)
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz - Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) - PMC AB-1
Dell
DeVerm;353147 Wrote:
harmonic;353081 Wrote:
This is one word war i dont want to get into.
Too late, but don't worry...
LOL.
Themis;353176 Wrote:
Don't worry. :) I try to show it up when I'm amused or puzzled, but
there's no risk that I can go into personal or moral attacks.
darrenyeats;353222 Wrote:
(One question about the AES study: I assumed they could listen and
switch back and forth for as long as they liked as in a normal ABX
test, but it seems some of you think they used time-limited samples. If
you can provide a reference to where it says they used
harmonic wrote:
Some few musicians havever are abel to tune there guitars to the
correct pitch by using there ears, but it takes skill and lots of
experince and it s more luck than skill if the get it 100 right.
Rubbish. There's no luck involved; it takes a good ear and skill.
R.
Robin Bowes;353266 Wrote:
harmonic wrote:
Some few musicians havever are abel to tune there guitars to the
correct pitch by using there ears, but it takes skill and lots of
experince and it s more luck than skill if the get it 100 right.
Rubbish. There's no luck involved; it takes
Phil Leigh wrote:
Robin Bowes;353266 Wrote:
harmonic wrote:
Some few musicians havever are abel to tune there guitars to the
correct pitch by using there ears, but it takes skill and lots of
experince and it s more luck than skill if the get it 100 right.
Rubbish. There's no luck
Robin Bowes;353296 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
Robin Bowes;353266 Wrote:
harmonic wrote:
Some few musicians havever are abel to tune there guitars to the
correct pitch by using there ears, but it takes skill and lots of
experince and it s more luck than skill if the get it 100
Robin Bowes;353296 Wrote:
Absolute pitch is an ability that individuals either have or they
don't.
Nothing lucky about it.
That's not quite true, actually - some people manage to learn it (I
know someone that acquired perfect pitch only during composition school
in his mid 20's).
Themis;352994 Wrote:
Can you, if you don't mind, link us a couple of examples of such
studies, so we could discuss ?
Several are given in the paper. I'm sure there are many, many more -
for example, as people develop lossy compression algorithms this must
be one of the things they check for.
opaqueice;353320 Wrote:
Several are given in the paper. I'm sure there are many, many more -
for example, as people develop lossy compression algorithms this must
be one of the things they check for.The differences about the studies given
in the paper are discussed and
explained in the
Themis;353339 Wrote:
The differences about the studies given in the paper are discussed and
explained in the paper. If your explaniation differs, I would like to
discuss why.
Their explanation (that the difference is due to the fact that it takes
10s of seconds for the effect to manifest) is
Themis;353339 Wrote:
I'm not aware of any other EEG tests, are you ?
Yes, I am and they used different sound material too:
We do not think that the hypersonic effect is specific to the sound
material used in the present study because we previously confirmed, by
EEG analysis, that the same
opaqueice;353370 Wrote:
Their explanation (that the difference is due to the fact that it takes
10s of seconds for the effect to manifest) is very far-fetched. It's
not based on any theory about the origin of the effects they think
they've found. And even if it's correct, until we know
Themis;353433 Wrote:
What is for sure, it's that' it has something to do with the duration.
Or it's simply wrong.
In my case, for audio, I prefer sub-conscious (or un-conscious) studies
than conscious ones.
Trouble is, if you don't know -why- something is happening, and you
don't know
opaqueice;353439 Wrote:
Trouble is, if you don't know -why- something is happening, and you
don't know -what- precisely is happening, and you don't know if the
subjects are even aware of it, it's pretty hard to do anything with
that information.
For all we know, adding supertweeters
I find it very surprising that (I think) I am the only one researching
this further with google searches. What I have learned over the last
week or so
- the 2000 paper was the final result of 20 years (!) of experiments in
which period other papers on the subject were published. Oohashi already
DeVerm;353481 Wrote:
I find it very surprising that (I think) I am the only one researching
this further with google searches.
You're just the only one that ignores the other posters.
opaqueice;352726 Wrote:
By the way, I had a look at the citations to that paper. There are a
total of 9
opaqueice;352725 Wrote:
If it takes 10s of seconds for the brain to even respond to the HFS,
this is something that has little or nothing to do with hearing.
Yes YES now we are on the same line again! True and part of the message
from this study: we can't hear it!
Precisely what it is I
OK. I skimmed the paper and I'm still skeptical. I'm a scientist but
this is not my area. First, this is a very small study with only 10-30
individuals per test. The findings are only marginally statistically
significant (I computed the p-values), and in some cases not
significant. They
lanierb;352978 Wrote:
Given that there are many other studies that find no effect in similar
tests, Can you, if you don't mind, link us a couple of examples of such
studies, so we could discuss ?
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
DeVerm;352679 Wrote:
Correct, it's 8 year old news. But my question to you is: how can you
stay a die-hard red book fan when, at the same time, you hear (as
opposed to just knowing) that there's something better available?
I haven't heard it (with music at normal volumes). In fact the
darrenyeats;353012 Wrote:
This shows how much reliance can be placed on subjective, uncontrolled
listening tests for either equipment or formats.Darren, I don't get your
point :It doesn't exist such a thing as an
objective and controlled ABX listening test. So, what do you
_really_ mean ? Do
lanierb;352978 Wrote:
First, this is a very small study with only 10-30 individuals per test.
The findings are only marginally statistically significant (I computed
the p-values), and in some cases not significant.
They don't say how they calculated their statistical tests (their
F-stats),
darrenyeats;353012 Wrote:
I haven't heard it (with music at normal volumes). In fact the opposite
- I heard CDs played on a Marantz CD-94 sound noticeably better than
SACDs on the SACD player to hand. This shows how much reliance can be
placed on subjective, uncontrolled listening tests for
This is one word war i dont want to get into.
Haveever reason studies in have the brain reacts in various abx test
senarios have proved that the hearing sence is very very tricky
compared to tast , smell and so on.
In short the brain is almost incapeble of remembering sound.
The brain is
DeVerm;353063 Wrote:
huh? Did you use full response 2-100kHz audio kit from media to
speakers? Did you verify that the phase response through-out the
spectrum was within reasonable margins etc? Did you use the same
master for both versions? Are you sure the SACD disc was okay. Didn't
it
harmonic;353081 Wrote:
This is one word war i dont want to get into.
Too late, but don't worry...
Haveever reason studies in have the brain reacts in various abx test
senarios have proved that the hearing sence is very very tricky
compared to tast , smell and so on.
[...]
Some few
darrenyeats;353090 Wrote:
What are you talking about?
I was answering your question above that's all. My answer was that I
don't hear there's something better, and although many others do most
of them are probably like me and have not listened in a controlled way,
so it doesn't mean
darrenyeats;353090 Wrote:
I was answering your question above that's all. My answer was that I
don't hear there's something better, and although many others do most
of them are probably like me and have not listened in a controlled way,
so it doesn't mean anything. I didn't imply anything
DeVerm;352261 Wrote:
No, that disagreed part you mention was never tested before. The
subjects still can't hear the HFS part even when it's played together
with the LFS part... but --their brains react to it--. The scope of
previous tests never included that possibility and thus did not
sebp;352273 Wrote:
Could it be simply possible that Mr Oohashi, for this experiment, asked
Pioneer to manufacture speakers according to his specs?True. But after this
experiment, several manufacturers started producing
super tweeters. It's quite common nowadays speakers (and headphones)
DCtoDaylight;352310 Wrote:
Why not? Two full, album length recordings, each at different sample
rates. You are given two years to decide which is better... I didn't
say it was easy, what I said was it's possible.
I see too many cases of people claiming ABX testing is flawed or can't
DeVerm;352540 Wrote:
I agree with most you write, but your example would loose the blind
part of it as you can see which version has the higher sample-rate.
Also, for abx you would need three recordings of which two are the
same... if I understand it all correctly.
But again, I agree and
I'm jumping in late here, but is there a theory about how exactly these
high frequency harmonics make any difference to a human whose ears
can't render them? Clearly you can't feel them either as you can with
low frequency. Is there meant to be some other sense that picks them
up? Sounds crazy
Since sound is just air vibrating, I can't see no reason why your whole
body - and not only your eardrums - could not act as a receptor.
I believe skull bone is being used as a resonator for helping
hearing-impaired people.
Ever felt infra-basses in your stomach during a concert?
It's not about
opaqueice;352477 Wrote:
That's just... wrong. You're directly contradicting the authors of this
paper:
Well, it seems that you insist that the methods used were the same as
in earlier studies so it's no use to keep arguing about this. But, for
the record, I state that studies by Muraoka et
lanierb;352549 Wrote:
I'm jumping in late here, but is there a theory about how exactly these
high frequency harmonics make any difference to a human whose ears
can't render them? Clearly you can't feel them either as you can with
low frequency. Is there meant to be some other sense that
DeVerm;352604 Wrote:
The simple fact that it happens remains and is only disputed by die-hard
red book fans
Whoa. Even die-hard red book fans, as you put it, have always known it
is possibly to hear the difference between red book and hi-rez -under
certain conditions.-. In this sense this
Part of this study refers to the redbook upper frequency cut.
Also, as I understand, part of this study refers to the ABX
methodology.
In my opinion, ABX tests and the statistical methodology that
accompanies them are NOT DIRECTLY questioned in this experiment.
Nevertheless, ABX tests are used
DeVerm;352595 Wrote:
Well, it seems that you insist that the methods used were the same as in
earlier studies so it's no use to keep arguing about this. But, for the
record, I state that studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al.
(1979) did use questionnaires only and not EEG or PET
darrenyeats;352654 Wrote:
Whoa. Even die-hard red book fans, as you put it, have always known it
is possibly to hear the difference between red book and hi-rez -under
certain conditions.-. In this sense this study isn't really news.
Correct, it's 8 year old news. But my question to you is:
DeVerm;352540 Wrote:
I agree with most you write, but your example would loose the blind
part of it as you can see which version has the higher sample-rate.
Also, for abx you would need three recordings of which two are the
same...
Yes, you are correct, there does need to be a little bit
opaqueice;352675 Wrote:
No, that's exactly what I said (several times already). The
questionnaire/listener response part of this study was more or less
identical - other than the length of the samples - to those previous
papers. Its results contradict those of the previous studies.
Ah,
DeVerm;352709 Wrote:
But that is just part 3 of this test and you conveniently leave out the
other 2 major parts so you can say the whole study is similar to
previous ones? That would not be correct.
But I didn't say it
It seems, therefore, that an exposure to FRS shorter than 20 s,
By the way, I had a look at the citations to that paper. There are a
total of 9 references in English which show up on google scholar, of
which some are loudspeaker manufacturer white-papers, one is a
description of the SACD standard, a few are by authors of the paper,
and only one is a
This thread is a continuation of off-topic posts that started with post
#96 on this page:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345page=10
It's about the research done in Japan that was published in 2000 of
which you can find a copy here:
You said that :
opaqueice;351963 Wrote:
DeVerm;351942 Wrote:
The document clearly states that Pioneer is the manufacturer and not
Tsutomu Oohashi. Oohashi works for 1) Department of KANSEI Brain
Science, ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, Kyoto;
and 2) Department
sebp;352273 Wrote:
Could it be simply possible that Mr Oohashi, for this experiment, asked
Pioneer to manufacture speakers according to his specs?
I even suspect that these speakers were never sold at all but just
manufactured for this test. I see that Pioneer does sell speakers that
can
Hope this moves over to the new thread properly...
DCtoDaylight;351968 Wrote:
Medical ABX tests routinely run for months and sometimes years, in order
to properly evaluate the results. It may not be convenient to do that
with audio gear, but I personally believe that's what's required.
85 matches
Mail list logo
