Human Hearing Acuity Shown to be More Accurate Than Standard Linear Models

[PENG]

In addition, we have close to a century worth of psycho-acoustic research that lends credence to all the double-blind research ever conducted. I think at this point if people still feel compelled to argue with the testing, then I think denial is a strong factor that cannot be ignored.

After all, if your long-held cherished beliefs were revealed to be nothing more than the result of an improperly set up comparison, where levels were mismatched, components were slow-switched and sighted, where every form of bias imaginable was influencing your results, you would either carry on believing, cognitive dissonance-style, or adapt and evolve.

How many people adapt and evolve?

What you said remind me of Audyssey, as they often quote "psychoacoustic". One thing people often seem to forget is the significance of modern sound processing technology. Does anyone ever wonder why when listening to orchestral strings, or even solo violin (well at least what sounds like a violin) such as that heard in the Lord of the Ring movies, never seem to sound grated, in fact almost sound too smooth? You wonder why a lot of people would engage sound processing even when listening to music and not to bother with Pure Direct at all. There are also people also listen to amplified music all day but would comment on how adding a power amp resulted in night and day difference even for low volume listening. None of those make any sense to me and I can only assume such reported experiences, if real, were due to Placebo effect or other unknown factors unrelated to the amps compared.

I also tend to agree with 3 dB that comparing speakers is quite different in that I have never heard or read anything about noticeable difference between speakers. The controversy seems to always about amps, preamps, DACs, and wires etc. So speakers comparison in some cases (probably more often than not) may not even need any "properly controlled" DBT. I do think it is better to do properly controlled DBT to compare anything, but it is a matter of considering the point of diminishing return prior.

 

[Goliath]

I also tend to agree with 3 dB that comparing speakers is quite different in that I have never heard or read anything about noticeable difference between speakers. The controversy seems to always about amps, preamps, DACs, and wires etc. So speakers comparison in some cases (probably more often than not) may not even need any "properly controlled" DBT. I do think it is better to do properly controlled DBT to compare anything, but it is a matter of considering the point of diminishing return prior.

I agree. In fact if the sound quality differences are large enough they can overcome the effects of bias. People have no issues discerning audible differences between speakers in a double-blind test. It's always amplifiers, separate DACs, speaker cable, interconnects and power cable that result in "no difference". I mean, surely there is a pattern here?

I am convinced that people hear differences when comparing amplifiers and cable. Not even audible illusions, but actual sound quality differences that exist. However I strongly believe those differences are not attributable to the components under evaluation, and more a result of poorly set up comparisons that result in false positive outcomes.

Of course, people can and do experience audible illusions, it's easy to set up a test where this occurs. Just switch between the same receiver, giving them the knowledge that they are listening to a far more expensive product and watch the subjective hyperbole fly. However, in the interest of being fair, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than calling them crazy.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

I've found that speakers which measure well in the time domain tend to image better. Heh, my 1/2 cent.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've found that speakers which measure well in the time domain tend to image better. Heh, my 1/2 cent.

Half Cent? They expired a very long time ago.
At least a penny but inflation is a factor, perhaps a full dollar?

 

[3db]

Half Cent? They expired a very long time ago.
At least a penny but inflation is a factor, perhaps a full dollar?

Heh!! The penny has been phased out in Canada.

 

[cutedaddy]

@mtrycrafts:
In wine, as in audio, whole mobs of ignorant and myth-promoting idiots walk the earth. Snake oil is definitely to be found among wine sales people, as it is among audio sales people. But there's no question many professional wine tasters can distinguish grapes, geographic origin and other facts from just tasting the wine blindly. As i said, if you're dealing with a real maverick, their capacity to identify traits in a wine is sometimes quite astonishing.

The same goes for professional musicians, who can develop an astonishing ability to identify small details, in live performances as well as in recorded ones.

Practice in sports yields physical changes in the athlete, meaning their muscles grow, but also their control of these muscles grows, to name an analogy. This implies their brains also develop by physical exercise, which indeed has been proven extensively in research. The same goes for anyone practicing anything: the brain (firmware) adapts, meaning your actual physical ability to hear/see/smell/taste/feel can in fact be improved upon by practice. Little debate there.

So why wouldn't we want to accept this? Golden ears exist in that sense. At the same time, it would be nice if the ignorant, proclaiming humans can hear above 20kHz, would take a moment to consider this is physically impossible. Humans don't hear above 20kHz. No human, anywhere, at any time since hearing tests exist, has been found to perceive tones above 20kHz. Scientific facts tend to change over time, but this one has been unchanged for a long, long time already (over a hundred years actually). So, golden ears don't exist in that sense.

 

[cutedaddy]

While this is an older publication and no longer easily available, it may be an interesting read nonetheless. Or, perhaps their testing protocol and equipment limited their performance
Gould, Glenn, "The Grass is Always Greener in the Outtakes," High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

As to those wine folks, I heard of it but I would still like to see a good test of their ability under blind conditions published.

Found this: https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/glenngould/028010-4020.18-e.html
Don't think that's what you meant? Or perhaps it is.
Interesting read, nonetheless, into non-sensory factors in perception, as well as beyond the conventional-five-senses perception of experiences commonly deemed 'sensory'.

Nothing to alter my stance on golden ears though: they exist in the sense practice will enhance hearing- and distinguishing abilities; they don't, in the sense some people have ears that can hear outside the human hearing spectrum (VERY GENEROUSLY defined as 20-20k).

As to the wine folks: such published tests undoubtedly exist, as i myself have witnessed several. Just surf the web. And don't despair, as they are bound to be outnumbered by snake-oil tests!

Cheers

 

[mtrycrafts]

Found this: https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/glenngould/028010-4020.18-e.html
Don't think that's what you meant? Or perhaps it is.
Interesting read, nonetheless, into non-sensory factors in perception, as well as beyond the conventional-five-senses perception of experiences commonly deemed 'sensory'.

Nothing to alter my stance on golden ears though: they exist in the sense practice will enhance hearing- and distinguishing abilities; they don't, in the sense some people have ears that can hear outside the human hearing spectrum (VERY GENEROUSLY defined as 20-20k).

As to the wine folks: such published tests undoubtedly exist, as i myself have witnessed several. Just surf the web. And don't despair, as they are bound to be outnumbered by snake-oil tests!

Cheers

Thanks for the link. Interesting, yes. I did see my reference in this article: Reference 14. I guess my title is a bit off in the name but not the rest.