View Full Version : Interesting article on our hearing ability.
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
Ha - one in the eye for the oscilloscope-carrying 'our senses are shit' brigade! ;)
Marco.
Audio Advent
03-12-2015, 22:30
This ties in a lot with the benefits of high-res which people ignore - impulse response! Impulse response is all about the timing which is what this paper seems to be saying in a confusing kind of way... They are recognising that our hearing is more sensitive to timing and impulse than was previously thought it seems.
So.... err, how does this relate to Nyquist Theorum, the Fourier Uncertainty principle inherent within it and this saying that our ears don't comply with that Fourier Uncertainty principle? Does this mean that PCM digital inherently falls short of the timing sensitivity of our hearing?
Sounds like some kind of non-linear digital conversion technique is needed for both A/D and D/A.
Audio Advent
03-12-2015, 22:35
Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you're testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of 'ecological theories of perception' in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.
That's what I always think... and therefore try to test a system or bit of kit with non-musical sounds and soundscapes to see how real they feel. A much better test than music in my opinion. Probably also why there is such pleasure in a dynamic, fast speaker (for me).
Firebottle
04-12-2015, 08:50
.. and therefore try to test a system or bit of kit with non-musical sounds and soundscapes to see how real they feel.
An excellent approach Sam, I've always though spoken voice is a good test if you haven't access to anything else.
It reminds me of a former headmaster, who had ESL57's, telling me that a number of people thought that someone was in the other room, when it was Radio 4 playing through the 57's.
:)
fatmarley
04-12-2015, 09:19
I'm waiting for the day when they prove that some people can hear differences between cables. Will be good fun bringing up all the old cable threads and laughing at the patronising naysayers.
Rothchild
04-12-2015, 11:51
Ha - one in the eye for the oscilloscope-carrying 'our senses are shit' brigade! ;)
Marco.
I know you'd love to believe it was but there's nothing in the article that seems to suggest that this is the case. What they're saying is that a principal designed to apply to linear systems (Fourier Uncertainty) doesn't serve to aid our understanding in quite the same way when applied to a non-linear system (the cochlea). The researchers express surprise at how good humans are at discerning timing cues (in particular), yes, but look a bit closer at the level of the timing cue they are working with...
The most exceptional candidate could differentiate sounds with a 3ms acuity, pretty impressive, but this only represents about 132 samples at 44.1kHz and is a signal / duration that wouldn't be difficult to measure with pretty rudimentary equipment. Given that the article seems to go on to suggest that being able to tell which room of the house someone is calling you from represents a 'hyper acuity' I would humbly suggest they're quite some way off of saying anything about the different sonic qualities of mains cables.
Still, it's nice to know we're all contributing to an open minded, welcoming forum where diverse views are welcome and the most important upshot is more hifi enjoyment....
I know you'd love to believe it was but there's nothing in the article that seems to suggest that this is the case.
Well, Marc, in that case we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, it quite clearly demonstrates that our human senses (albeit only in certain exceptional individuals) are rather more sensitive/accurate than science had previously given them credit for!
Perhaps if there was more of such credit given to the ability/acuity of our senses, as opposed to ridiculing what they reveal as 'imagined' (the common behaviour of 'objectivists' when it suits their shortsighted and simplistic thinking agendas), then we might actually learn more? :)
Marco.
cloth-ears
04-12-2015, 21:08
I'm waiting for the day when they prove that some people can hear differences between cables. Will be good fun bringing up all the old cable threads and laughing at the patronising naysayers.
I think that will be a long wait. If anything this is yet another nail in the coffin of the anti-science, anti-measuring brigade. This study was carried out using precise measuring equipment in a scientifically controlled environment. It just goes to show that you “can” measure what you hear. Something I and many others have been saying all along. The evidence it there if you look. The only difference between me and you is that I’m not laughing at your beliefs. This is a forum; we are all entitled to our opinions. If you can show me some tangible evidence that supports your claim I am more than happy to listen
Rothchild
04-12-2015, 21:27
From the article
.... any system that exceeds the uncertainty limit must be nonlinear. For this reason, the nonlinearities in the cochlea are likely integral to the precision of human auditory processing. Since researchers have known for a long time about the cochlea's nonlinearities, the current results are not quite as surprising as they would otherwise be.
So, scientists know that the human hearing system is non-linear, and that the Fourier uncertainty principal only practically applies to linear systems. This is a confirmation of known facts and accepted principles, not 'one in the eye'.
Again, from the article:
Now there's five decades of careful documentation of just how nastily nonlinear the cochlea is, but it is not evident how any of the cochlea's nonlinearities contributes to enhancing time-frequency acuity. We now know our results imply that some of those nonlinearities have the purpose of sharpening acuity beyond the naïve linear limits.
This actually a bit of a circular statement it basically says 'ears do what they do, we don't know why but our results imply that they can hear stuff' Relatively uncontroversial for subjectivists and objectivists alike.
Perhaps you could point out the parts of the article that show that science believes that people can't recognise a 3ms interval or microtonal tuning shifts? Once I've seen that I might be able to 'agree to disagree' but currently it really just looks like you didn't really read the article properly.
Probably we'll just have to disagree to agree that the definition of an objectivist is a subjective one.....
I think that will be a long wait. If anything this is yet another nail in the coffin of the anti-science, anti-measuring brigade.
Who be them dudes, then? :hmm: :confused:
I only know of the science-respecting, measurement-supporting (when it's appropriate), anti-dogma brigade....................
Marco.
cloth-ears
04-12-2015, 21:35
Who be them dudes, then? :hmm: :confused:
I only know of the science-respecting, measurement-supporting (when it's appropriate), anti-dogma brigade....................
Marco.
They know who they are, I'm too much of a lady to name names :)
From the article
.... any system that exceeds the uncertainty limit must be nonlinear. For this reason, the nonlinearities in the cochlea are likely integral to the precision of human auditory processing. Since researchers have known for a long time about the cochlea's nonlinearities, the current results are not quite as surprising as they would otherwise be.
So, scientists know that the human hearing system is non-linear, and that the Fourier uncertainty principal only practically applies to linear systems. This is a confirmation of known facts and accepted principles, not 'one in the eye'.
Again, from the article:
Now there's five decades of careful documentation of just how nastily nonlinear the cochlea is, but it is not evident how any of the cochlea's nonlinearities contributes to enhancing time-frequency acuity. We now know our results imply that some of those nonlinearities have the purpose of sharpening acuity beyond the naïve linear limits.
This actually a bit of a circular statement it basically says 'ears do what they do, we don't know why but our results imply that they can hear stuff' Relatively uncontroversial for subjectivists and objectivists alike.
Perhaps you could point out the parts of the article that show that science believes that people can't recognise a 3ms interval or microtonal tuning shifts? Once I've seen that I might be able to 'agree to disagree' but currently it really just looks like you didn't really read the article properly.
Probably we'll just have to disagree to agree that the definition of an objectivist is a subjective one.....
I think we'll just have to 'agree to disagree' full stop, Marc, as we clearly have very different mindsets. Life's too short, and talking about this sort of pish really bores the shite out of me. No offence! So let's leave it there :)
Marco.
They know who they are, I'm too much of a lady to name names :)
Well, it's certainly no-one I know, including me! :D
Marco.
Rothchild
04-12-2015, 21:42
Sure, I just don't understand why someone might comment, on a discussion board, about a subject they don't want to discuss.
Tis cool though, I'll just hang out for someone who does ;)
I didn't start the thread, remember. Plus, I realise quickly when it's a :brickwall: situation, and so bail out whilst my sanity is still intact.
Anyway, nice one, so enjoy! :flasher: :santa:
Marco.
fatmarley
05-12-2015, 10:56
The only difference between me and you is that I’m not laughing at your beliefs.
I'd say the main difference Is that I read peoples posts properly before replying.
There are some very cocky, arrogant and patronising guys on another forum that I would laugh at If my beliefs were proved right. I wouldn't laugh at you because you're not doing this kind of thing - "Oh yea, great idea. Why not try some different cables :doh:"
The way I see it the ear is a passive device which transmit signal to the brain but we actually hear - that is decode the signals pressure waves hitting our ears create - in the brain. So does the brain compensate for non-linear ears similar to the way it compensates for sight (doesn't the brain flip our visual image the right way round?)
We can play our favourite tunes to ourselves in our brains, no external stimulae at all. My brain has a really good system set up in there, best I've ever heard ;) - Which would suggest that we actually 'hear' with our brains. So how do you measure that?
Oldpinkman
05-12-2015, 12:22
Which would suggest that we actually 'hear' with our brains.
You know, I seem to remember saying something similar once or twice :sofa:
cloth-ears
05-12-2015, 12:38
We can play our favourite tunes to ourselves in our brains, no external stimulae at all. My brain has a really good system set up in there, best I've ever heard ;) - Which would suggest that we actually 'hear' with our brains. So how do you measure that?
So what you are saying is that you can hear things that are not really there. I rest my case
Told you, Martin, don't attempt to go there, mate, as all you'll end up with is..... :brickwall: :brickwall: losing the will to live in the process, and really, life's too short.
Their ingrained prejudices run too deep to ever change! ;)
Marco.
. I rest my case
A little prematurely I think ;)
Obviously we can easily tell the difference between real and imagined sources of music. That is not really in question.
It is interesting that our brains seem to be able to record and play back music down to the last little hit on a triangle, providing we have heard it enough times first of course.
cloth-ears
05-12-2015, 13:53
A little prematurely I think ;)
Obviously we can easily tell the difference between real and imagined sources of music. That is not really in question.
It is interesting that our brains seem to be able to record and play back music down to the last little hit on a triangle, providing we have heard it enough times first of course.
I was only playing with you Martin, of course I knew what you meant but I just couldn’t resist. You did rather leave the door open on that one :lol:
Lodgesound
05-12-2015, 14:01
I rarely get involved in these things - BUT Marco's comment......"Life is too short..." struck a chord.
From an early age I knew what I liked soundwise and just made or assembled systems to fulfill that personal need.
Seriously just listen and if you like/love it then you have found your own "utopia" in the HiFi world - forget science as despite being fascinating it can be almost destructive to enjoyment.
We are all so different and our perceptions as individuals can only be guessed at by others. I learnt many years ago to just enjoy and relish what I like in the world of audio which is one of the many reasons why I left it behind as a profession.
Science and research develops and builds this technology which from an end-user's perspective comes fortunately with much variance and choice as research is never absolute. Trying to pin down Human perception and put it in general terms is in my opinion quite futile and more than a little presumptuous.
Rothchild
05-12-2015, 18:50
I tend to find myself perplexed that it's apparently challenging or controversial that the ears are (mostly) the hearing apparatus and the brain is the hearing organ (much as Macca describes).
I also don't think it's too hard to understand that ears, as a physical apparatus, have physical limits. Because they're organic they have a range of variation in their 'build quality' (if you will) but in broad strokes it's classic 'bellcurve' distribution with some outliers at either side of the range (ie some with better than 'standard' and some not) - The article in the OP also points out that we know quite a lot about the behaviour of the cochlea and the function of the ear (think about things like the Fletcher Munson curve which shows something of the 'non-linear' functioning of the ear canal).
I've also had enough experiences (mostly in recording studios) to know that the brain is a fallible organ. I too have honestly and sincerely heard things that I subsequently realised were only 'in my head' so I would suggest that there is also a range of possibility between 'being able to hear a piece of music in my head' (and knowing it's an act of imagination) and having music actually playing but interpreting/hearing aspects of it that aren't 'in the air'.
Anyway, in terms of the OP I'm not actually sure what the article says of interest, for the most part it seems to come to some really rather unremarkable conclusions.
Just thought it may generate some good discussion Marc and I,m sure some folk would find it interesting?
I rarely get involved in these things - BUT Marco's comment......"Life is too short..." struck a chord.
From an early age I knew what I liked soundwise and just made or assembled systems to fulfill that personal need.
Seriously just listen and if you like/love it then you have found your own "utopia" in the HiFi world - forget science as despite being fascinating it can be almost destructive to enjoyment.
We are all so different and our perceptions as individuals can only be guessed at by others. I learnt many years ago to just enjoy and relish what I like in the world of audio which is one of the many reasons why I left it behind as a profession.
Science and research develops and builds this technology which from an end-user's perspective comes fortunately with much variance and choice as research is never absolute. Trying to pin down Human perception and put it in general terms is in my opinion quite futile and more than a little presumptuous.
Very true Stewart. When I want to listen to science I will put a program on or watch the Xmas lectures. Music to me is what I hear that I like
Hear, hear!
Applying a scientific approach to my music listening (or testing myself continually, and pointlessly, like some lab rat, for things that I intrinsically know I can hear) is about as appealing as clamping my balls in a vice, or dripping sulphuric acid into my Jap's eye.
Marco.
Stratmangler
05-12-2015, 22:24
Too little is made of the brain's ability to decipher the noise we call music. A set of "good ears" is overrated - a dog has far greater hearing acuity than any human, yet its hearing process is centred around hunting and defence, and music doesn't get a look in.
A good while ago (1998) I was undergoing chemotherapy at Christie Hospital in Manchester.
The further into the course of treatment I got the less I could process what my ears were picking up, and I gradually stopped listening to music.
I just couldn't physically handle and process what my ears were picking up, and it became a burden to sit and listen to recorded music.
I stopped playing guitar because of it, and the fact that the skin on my fingers couldn't stand up to the abuse of playing just made the situation worse.
It is definitely a case of a healthy body making a healthy mind, and chemotherapy is not the easiest of things to have to deal with. As I recovered from the effects of the chemotherapy I found that my ability to process musical sounds returned, and the stronger I became the better things were.
Hi Chris,
An interesting a thought-provoking observation... I didn't realise you'd been through the 'big C', mate. Hope you're in full remission from it now and that all is well :)
Marco.
Stratmangler
05-12-2015, 23:03
They were hard and dark days, but I managed (with more than a little help from the good people of Christie Hospital) to fight and win through.
It's been a while since Christies gave me the option of being signed off on that battle.
I've had equally hard and dark times since (a broken neck is pretty significant), but that too is behind me, and things are going relatively well at the moment.
Nice one, mate. Glad to hear it.
I've not been through chemo or the big 'C', but I did have a spinal tumour a few years back, which had it not been removed, would have eventually killed me. When you're going in for an op and the consultant tells you that there is an 85% chance you'll wake up paralysed from the waist down, it tends to 'focus the mind' somewhat on what's important in life!!
Thankfully, medical SCIENCE (yes I wouldn't be here now typing this if it wasn't for that, so of course I value and respect science), and the 'man upstairs', helped me through that one, and so the odds worked out in my favour :)
Marco.
walpurgis
05-12-2015, 23:20
Glad you are on an even keel now Chris. You've had some tough luck.
Not had cancer fortunately, but I can commiserate over the broken neck. Been there!
Rothchild
05-12-2015, 23:39
Just thought it may generate some good discussion Marc and I,m sure some folk would find it interesting?
Hi Jim, as a launchpad for reflection and discussion I think it is interesting, otherwise I probably wouldn't have posted my analysis of the findings of the research and comment on what I think they might mean. I note you haven't yet actually passed much comment on what you think the research says, or what its finding might mean for hifi fans. It would be nice if there was less shitpositing in the thread, but I think if you pick through it there are actually some reasonable, reflective comments and observations about the article you posted, which aren't just posturing.
Stratmangler
05-12-2015, 23:44
Glad you are on an even keel now Chris. You've had some tough luck.
Not had cancer fortunately, but I can commiserate over the broken neck. Been there!
There were silver linings to both scenarios, funny as that may sound.
I'm stronger and wiser from both, and the negative from the neck fracture (ie the immobility) became a positive, as I was always available at the time to step in and help my son with his maths and reading - that time has served him well in more recent years.
It would be nice if there was less shitpositing in the thread...
Such as? You mean the ones that don't paint a nice rosy-glow of certainty over the (rather blinkered and self-serving) dogmatic 'objectivist' mindset? ;)
Marco.
There were silver linings to both scenarios, funny as that may sound.
I'm stronger and wiser from both, and the negative from the neck fracture (ie the immobility) became a positive, as I was always available at the time to step in and help my son with his maths and reading - that time has served him well in more recent years.
Now that's both positive and lateral thinking at its best! :thumbsup:
Alex is a total credit to you, mate.
Marco.
Audio Advent
06-12-2015, 00:02
Anyway, in terms of the OP I'm not actually sure what the article says of interest, for the most part it seems to come to some really rather unremarkable conclusions.
Sounds like you knew it ALL already and so this is so very boring for you to read...
I found it interesting that the workings of the ear are non-linear and what the means for our hearing - I didn't happen to know that myself and is interesting in the context of thinking about things like the Nyquest Theorum from some time like the 1930s when perhaps linearity /non-linearity of the cochlea may have been unknown or assumed to be linear. Digital theory is all based on linear methods.
It is interesting to read that this appears to be a recent confirmation of that non-linearity having a practical effect/benefit and therefore may have evolved for it's benefits. It also appears to be a recent realisation of those benefits of non-linearity rather than simply stopping at the theory of non-linearity and never testing the real-world effect this may have on hearing ability.
It is also interesting to note how it shows real evidence for a particular sensitivity and leaning towards transients and attack. Surely that means that realism in hifi would require a system good at those things. Not everyone wants realism though - I do - some prefer cosy musicality and note-centric reproduction without being blasted by the transients of a real trumpet.
It is interesting, now that someone mentioned it, that it would appear the non-linearity is preserved and not "linearised" by the brain.
Rothchild
06-12-2015, 07:32
Sounds like you knew it ALL already and so this is so very boring for you to read...
Actually Sam, no. Bringing out the notion that the transient response is being accentuated by the non-linearity of the cochlea and considering it's evolved value is an aspect I hadn't really considered, certainly not in the way you've put it. Also, the observation that the results demonstrate that the brain doesn't 'correct' for the functioning of the ear is a very valid point that tells us something interesting about the ear/brain interface.
Are you talking about shannon and nyquist sampling theorum? Or did Nyquist do other notable work in this area?
I think I may have misused 'interesting' as probably meant 'novel' or surprising, so I'm sorry if anyone thought it meant I was talking about something I find boring. The function of the ear/brain and the physics of sound are, by simple merit of the fact that I'm in to music and sound reproduction, interesting subjects.
cloth-ears
06-12-2015, 08:22
Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence. The knowledge it brings to the table allows us to concentrate on what matters and to ignore what doesn’t.
walpurgis
06-12-2015, 10:39
Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence. The knowledge it brings to the table allows us to concentrate on what matters and to ignore what doesn’t.
Who are these "us" and how would they discriminate between 'what matters and what doesn't' ?
cloth-ears
06-12-2015, 10:55
Who are these "us" and how would they discriminate between 'what matters and what doesn't' ?
“Us” is anyone who believes in fundamental scientific principles. Applying these principles would tell “us” if placing a pot of jam on a speaker wire makes it sound better or not.
Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence.
Yes of course, for those who build and produce our equipment, it is an undeniable necessity. Those of us who simply buy it and listen to it, however, don't need science to help us enjoy our equipment or the music it produces!
Marco.
Yes of course, for those who build and produce our equipment, it is an undeniable necessity. Those of us who simply buy it and listen to it, however, don't need science to help us enjoy our music!
Marco.
It can be useful for determining what we buy - or at least what we decide to try out. For example If you had 10K to spend on speakers there is no way you can dem every 10K speaker in your own home. So having some knowledge of the design and the specs is helpful to ascertain if they will be a match with your room and your amplification.
walpurgis
06-12-2015, 11:06
“Us” is anyone who believes in fundamental scientific principles. Applying these principles would tell “us” if placing a pot of jam on a speaker wire makes it sound better or not.
I must admit I've not tried that. What were your findings? ;)
I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.
Personally I trust what my ears tell me and not science and equipment that measures sound. Hearing is not all about the ear/brain interaction but also possibly much more complicated in that other senses may also be involved in a form of synathaesia.
It can be useful for determining what we buy - or at least what we decide to try out. For example If you had 10K to spend on speakers there is no way you can dem every 10K speaker in your own home. So having some knowledge of the design and the specs is helpful to ascertain if they will be a match with your room and your amplification.
Yes sure, if you're that way inclined. I don't seem to have done too badly though, mainly using my ears, good judgement and gut instincts! ;)
Marco [Who's listening room is a test apparatus-free zone. No blindfolds either, except for bondage purposes].
Rothchild
06-12-2015, 12:43
I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.
I'm not getting this point from the article though, I'd previously have thought 3ms quite a large margin of error (it's certainly easily captured with a 'basic' 16bit 44.1kHz sampling) but the article seems to suggest that transient detection of this order is somehow 'super hearing'. It interesting insofar as 3ms is also something of a benchmark for a good studio monitoring system (if you can't achieve proper realtime) after 3ms one starts to notice a certain 'sponginess' to the foldback in the cans against what's being played.
Hearing is not all about the ear/brain interaction but also possibly much more complicated in that other senses may also be involved in a form of synathaesia.
Agreed, which was why I said earlier that the ear was 'mostly' the apparatus for hearing (cos of infrasonics etc)
I always find these sort of discussions quite comical, especially when such entrenched 'anti-science' views are expressed that verge on an almost inflexible religious dogma. Like somehow our ears and minds are secret and sacred territory not to be tainted by such diabolical trickery or that any scientific exploration would take away some of the magic faerie dust that makes the process of hearing so spellbinding.
Worth noting that without the work of science we wouldn't have our lovely shiny hifi altars to worship at ;)
cloth-ears
06-12-2015, 12:52
I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.
Personally I trust what my ears tell me and not science and equipment that measures sound. Hearing is not all about the ear/brain interaction but also possibly much more complicated in that other senses may also be involved in a form of synathaesia.
It does appear a little strange that you don’t trust science and equipment that measures sound yet you are happy to post and trust an article about a study which was made using the very things you distrust. Without science and measuring equipment this study could not have been made. Very confusing........
I always find these sort of discussions quite comical, especially when such entrenched 'anti-science' views are expressed that verge on an almost inflexible religious dogma. Like somehow our ears and minds are secret and sacred territory not to be tainted by such diabolical trickery or that any scientific exploration would take away some of the magic faerie dust that makes the process of hearing so spellbinding.
Worth noting that without the work of science we wouldn't have our lovely shiny hifi altars to worship at...
Again, others and you get it wrong and come up with the same tired old bollocks. Listen up, this time, and please let it penetrate:
No-one here, to my knowledge, is "anti-science" (far from it); merely anti- "science currently has all the answers, when it comes to analysing how the human ears and brain interprets music signals".
Anyone failing to grasp that fact, is either not reading posts correctly, or allowing their ingrained scientific prejudices to 'translate' it differently from how the words appear on the screen!! ;)
"Entrenched", my son, works both ways, just like "dogmas"...............
Marco.
I'm not getting this point from the article though...
Try disabling your binary-thinking chip first... ;)
Marco.
It does appear a little strange that you don’t trust science and equipment that measures sound yet you are happy to post and trust an article about a study which was made using the very things you distrust. Without science and measuring equipment this study could not have been made. Very confusing........
Only because I post an article it doesn't necessarily mean I believe in everything it says :rolleyes:
Light Dependant Resistor
06-12-2015, 13:43
I have the habit of not only trusting my ears but as I have said on another recent thread
I make recordings.
I am continually assessing circuit values and have a new little circuit that is proving to be just so good.
I put it in a marantz CD7300, It then found its way into four more pieces of equipment. I have
recordings made before and after so it is easy to verify that the ears are indeed correct.
Very occasionally a circuit value is not right and once again my ears pick it up straight away.
You need to be capable of saying and assessing when something is not as good
and not just thinking every change made is progress. One key point is to have speakers
on good solid stands and once well positioned, not to move them.
Cheers / Chris
.
cloth-ears
06-12-2015, 14:01
Only because I post an article it doesn't necessarily mean I believe in everything it says :rolleyes:
If you don’t believe it why did you say:-
“I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.”
You can’t pick and choose. You either believe in the science or you don’t.
No-one here, to my knowledge, is "anti-science" (far from it); merely anti- "science currently has all the answers, when it comes to analysing how the human ears and brain interprets music signals".
I have yet to read a post here where anyone has even remotely claimed that science has all the answers - simply that if a given phenomenon is observed it is worthwhile exploring this within a scientific framework to attempt to discern WHY it exists.
I should think the reasons for wanting this exploration would be perfectly obvious (apart from saving a whole shedload of money wasted on products with spurious claims) and yet such an enterprise is more often that not met with active hostility and terms like 'measurebators' sprinkled about freely ...
I must admit I haven't actively followed the long entrenched 'objectivist v subjectivist' debate but at times I find the opposition a tad ridiculous and wholly counter productive. If someone recommends cable 'X' to me I'm more than willing to try it (within financial limits) but I am far more interested in knowing WHY it makes a difference other than the fairly bland and meaningless 'it sounds better' because if I understand the physics involved I may be able to transfer that knowledge to other areas (and save myself potentially shedloads of money)
Well, Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, it's all about enjoying the music, not fretting over whether science can explain what one hears with hi-fi.
I couldn't give a monkey's about that, as I'm happy to use the two God-given organs strapped to my head for that purpose, and leave the nerdy geeks with their blindfolds (and those who build our equipment) to worry about the science.
As I said a while back, with this subject matter, it's virtually impossible to engage with others of a completely opposite mindset, and hope that they'll be able to see things how you do.
I could successfully dissect your post and address why I think you are wrong, but there's simply no point, as the exercise would be futile, and achieve little more than create a circular argument - and life's too short. I shall therefore return to enjoying my Sunday lunch! :)
Marco.
Well, Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, it's all about enjoying the music, not fretting over whether science can explain what one hears with hi-fi. I couldn't give a monkey's about that,
Hardly 'fretting' :lol:
- just innate curiosity about how things work ... and a desire not to waste what little money I have (and believe me, I enjoy my music regardless)
Well, both of us have different, but equally valid ways of arriving at that point! :)
Marco.
P.S Trust me, some *do* fret.
If you don’t believe it why did you say:-
“I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.”
You can’t pick and choose. You either believe in the science or you don’t.
I can pick and choose what I like Bob:ner:
It's not a question of "believing" in science. We all do, or at least you'd be an idiot if you didn't.
It's a question of not believing that every time we genuinely hear an effect in hi-fi, which seemingly can't be neatly pigeonholed into a section of 'Johnny's Book of Current Scientific Facts', it's thus automatically imagined. *That* is the point.
Unfortunately, the rather binary-thinking objectivists amongst us don't seem able to appreciate that subtlety! ;)
Marco.
Well, both of us have different, but equally valid ways of arriving at that point! :)
I doubt if the differences are really that big when it boils down to it (except maybe disposable income :)
I'll quite happily listen and learn from both camps before taking a punt - but at the end of the day if it don't sound right to me it goes out, regardless of what anyone says ;)
awkwardbydesign
06-12-2015, 18:16
One key point is to have speakers
on good solid stands and once well positioned, not to move them.
Cheers / Chris
.
Which is why Townshend Seismic Sinks work so well. (Ironic mode; ON)
I doubt if the differences are really that big when it boils down to it (except maybe disposable income :)
I'll quite happily listen and learn from both camps before taking a punt - but at the end of the day if it don't sound right to me it goes out, regardless of what anyone says...
Lol... Well, in reality, you're not doing much different from me!
You're quite right, because at the end of the day, your FINAL arbiter is YOUR ears, not just what science has to say. It's those who don't appear to possess that ability that I consider have a problem - but then I don't believe for a second that most of these so-called 'objectivists' are incapable of 'trusting ears'; but only THEIR ears, not those belonging to a subjectivist!! ;)
Marco.
Audio Advent
06-12-2015, 23:15
Are you talking about shannon and nyquist sampling theorum? Or did Nyquist do other notable work in this area?
Seems that nyquist started off with theory of electrical signal transmission and then worked with Shannon to exand that into sampling theory. The mathematics in both are all about linearity and sampling linearly (if those are the right terms). If our hearing is non-linear then perhaps the theory isn't best for sampling audio in order to satisfy our honed senses... but then, as someone pointed out previously, perhaps it's a matter of magnitude and so it doesn't come into it at all.
Light Dependant Resistor
06-12-2015, 23:31
Seems that nyquist started off with theory of electrical signal transmission and then worked with Shannon to exand that into sampling theory. The mathematics in both are all about linearity and sampling linearly (if those are the right terms). If our hearing is non-linear then perhaps the theory isn't best for sampling audio in order to satisfy our honed senses... but then, as someone pointed out previously, perhaps it's a matter of magnitude and so it doesn't come into it at all.
Not to forget Alec Reeves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Reeves
who invented Pulse Code Modulation with his 1938 patent, the outline then for
what we know as digital today was with all three, Reeves Nyquist Shannon
complete.
The exception being Delta Sigma Modulation now being actively pursued by Analog Devices
and realised to the best of my knowledge in a audio product first with the DBX700.
A subsequent form of which, like a firm reminder to Sony that PCM was not the be all
and end all of digital, requiring a little more thinking, resulted in SACD.
Cheers / Chris
Rothchild
07-12-2015, 10:56
Seems that nyquist started off with theory of electrical signal transmission and then worked with Shannon to exand that into sampling theory. The mathematics in both are all about linearity and sampling linearly (if those are the right terms). If our hearing is non-linear then perhaps the theory isn't best for sampling audio in order to satisfy our honed senses... but then, as someone pointed out previously, perhaps it's a matter of magnitude and so it doesn't come into it at all.
Yeah, I think it's a different order of magnitude. The timing in the research is easily containable with a 44.1kHz sample rate (as you know we'd need to be talking about an impulse faster than 1/20th of a millisecond for it to matter, and then all we'd have to do to capture a faster impulse would be up the sample rate). To my understanding Philips and other manufacturers were responsible for 44.1, not Nyquist and Shannon, the latter just postulated that the fastest impulse you could capture would be half the sample rate, CD just adapted that to create a 'sensible' default.
In a lot of ways 3ms is at the cusp of being the difference between a technical and a musical issue. There's quite a lot of writing about microtiming and 'groove' (the effect of sliding notes 'off the grid' of mechanical quantisation) and a lot of these seem to start at 5ms and work up from there (some I've seen use 50ms as the upper limit and some at 600ms).
Interesting thought though, the notion that one might do some pre/de-emphasis processing to a linear sound capture, based on the non-linearity of the ear, although I suspect that thinking like that is what gave us MP3 and whether that's a good or a bad thing isn't a ring I'm about to throw my hat in to! :eyebrows:
Interesting thought though, the notion that one might do some pre/de-emphasis processing to a linear sound capture, based on the non-linearity of the ear, :
I've always suspected the reason that people prefer vinyl is because it's imperfections accidentally do exactly that.
I've always suspected the reason that people prefer vinyl is because it's imperfections accidentally do exactly that.
Or is that Vinyl is an analogue medium and our hearing is in analogue ?
It seems to me that the technical aspects of processing digital captured audio are not quite there yet, at least from what I have heard with my old fashioned lug holes. :)
I've always suspected the reason that people prefer vinyl is because it's imperfections accidentally do exactly that.
Lol....! Don't start that pish again. I'm still waiting on you pointing out to me where these supposed "imperfections" are, sonically, when in my system, comparing two identical pieces of music on CD and vinyl.
And if you can't hear them, then they simply don't matter!! ;)
Marco.
Or is that Vinyl is an analogue medium and our hearing is in analogue ?
It seems to me that the technical aspects of processing digital captured audio are not quite there yet, at least from what I have heard with my old fashioned lug holes. :)
But it isn't analogue unless it is an old recording (pre 1980) - otherwise even if it was recorded all-analogue it has still been converted to digital and back at least once when the record was cut.
I've a fair few albums on both vinyl and CD and generally speaking to me the CD sounds more like what you hear on playback in the studio. The vinyl copy has more energy, life and presence. My view is that some people like to hear the recording (as a sort of intellectual exercise, for want of a better term) and others like to hear the music. I'm sort of in the former camp, I think.
I've a fair few albums on both vinyl and CD and generally speaking to me the CD sounds more like what you hear on playback in the studio. The vinyl copy has more energy, life and presence.
But, Martin, that's just your subjective opinion, not fact, the same as my opposite view is (which I could demonstrate, using both the vinyl and digital sources in my system - a process made even easier now with having access to over 25,000 albums on my hard-drives), so how does that qualify as any form of proof to back up your argument?
Marco.
Rothchild
07-12-2015, 11:59
I've always suspected the reason that people prefer vinyl is because it's imperfections accidentally do exactly that.
It's plausible that if the RIAA de-emphasis curve in a pre-amp didn't exactly match that of the emphasis put on at the mastering / cutting stage, then there might be some minor phase issues creeping in to the replay system - but this wouldn't be uniform across replay systems, so wouldn't necessarily be a reason for vinyl to be preferred.
But, Martin, that's just your subjective opinion, not fact, the same as my opposite view is (which I could demonstrate, using both the vinyl and digital sources in my system - a process made even easier now with having access to over 25,000 albums on my hard-drives), so how does that qualify as any form of proof to back up your argument?
Marco.
When I came round your place and had a listen I preferred your CD player, the reason being I felt that your TT was trying to be a CD player. That was with the SPU cartridge. At NEBO with the Denon SL1 (?) cartridge it sounded like a really good TT, which I preferred. Meaning if you want that clinical studio replay (which I like) just play a CD, why get the TT to sound like CD?
I'm not offering my suggestion as proof of anything. When it comes down to it CD and vinyl are both just a trace of amplitude and wavelength, albeit stored and retrieved differently. Our preferences are down to our individual expectations, rather than it being a case of better or worse.
It's plausible that if the RIAA de-emphasis curve in a pre-amp didn't exactly match that of the emphasis put on at the mastering / cutting stage, then there might be some minor phase issues creeping in to the replay system - but this wouldn't be uniform across replay systems, so wouldn't necessarily be a reason for vinyl to be preferred.
I was thinking more of the character introduced on vinyl replay, even order harmonic distortion, arm resonance, that sort of thing.
When I came round your place and had a listen I preferred your CD player, the reason being I felt that your TT was trying to be a CD player. That was with the SPU cartridge. At NEBO with the Denon SL1 (?) cartridge it sounded like a really good TT, which I preferred. Meaning if you want that clinical studio replay (which I like) just play a CD, why get the TT to sound like CD?
I'm not offering my suggestion as proof of anything. When it comes down to it CD and vinyl are both just a trace of amplitude and wavelength, albeit stored and retrieved differently. Our preferences are down to our individual expectations, rather than it being a case of better or worse.
Fairy muff... Interesting how a change of cartridge made such a difference, and not in the way I would've expected.
However, surely the wobbly ETP platter must've totally ruined things at NEBO? :lol: ;)
Seriously though, according to some, all the mods I've had done to my T/T have been a waste of time, and I've simply 'convinced myself' that it's better...
Now, you own a pretty nice sounding (almost) stock Technics SL-1210. Based on what you heard from mine at NEBO, in what way would you consider the work I've had done to it has improved its ability, simply to perform as a better turntable, compared with what you get from your (almost) stock Technics at home?
I consider your opinion very valid on this, from the point of view of knowing, inside out, how a stock model performs, and having heard mine do what it does. Feel free to start a separate thread on this, if you wish, entitled something along the lines of: 'Just how worthwhile is to max-out a Technics SL-1200/1210?', or whatever. I'll leave it up to you! :)
I think it's a subject many folks would be interested in, especially coming from someone, such as yourself, who always tells is as he hears it, minus any bullshit, and most importantly, you have the practical experience in this area to know what you're talking about.
Marco.
Seriously though, according to some, all the mods I've had done to my T/T have been a waste of time, and I've simply 'convinced myself' that it's better...
Now, you own a pretty nice sounding (almost) stock Technics SL-1210. Based on what you heard from mine at NEBO, in what way would you consider the work I've had done to it has improved its ability, simply to perform as a better turntable, compared with what you get from your (almost) stock Technics at home?
.
Ideally I would really have to compare the two back to back in the same system, but that isn't really necessary as we are talking about a big, big difference in quality. I suspect even if I were to fit a top end arm and MC cart it would not close the gap that much. But I've no idea which mods you have done are effective and which are not. Could be they all are, I know that is your opinion, having done it incrementally.
Thing is for me on balance I prefer the sound of the CD version, that is the sort of presentation I like. So I'm reluctant to spend more money on my TT set up* even though I have a fair size record collection, when I can buy the CD of an album for a couple of quid.
* My current TT set up cost a grand and my CD player owes me £50 so you can see why this is, as they say, a 'no brainer' for me.
Ideally I would really have to compare the two back to back in the same system, but that isn't really necessary as we are talking about a big, big difference in quality. I suspect even if I were to fit a top end arm and MC cart it would not close the gap that much. But I've no idea which mods you have done are effective and which are not. Could be they all are, I know that is your opinion, having done it incrementally.
Okay dokes, no worries. Your comments, however, are insightful and useful. I have something to say on this subject, so I will use what you've said above as the basis from which to start a new thread (which you can of course comment on) - that is, as soon as I have time to do so :)
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
07-12-2015, 15:09
My view is that some people like to hear the recording (as a sort of intellectual exercise, for want of a better term) and others like to hear the music. I'm sort of in the former camp, I think.
That's honest. I'm in the other camp, I'd prefer a poorly recorded good performance to a well recorded boring performance. So hifi show music leaves me cold.
And the term "hifi" then becomes contentious; to me it means capturing the performance, the emotion. To others it means closest to the studio recording.
And never the twain shall meet.
PS. I have a John Martyn album, Mad Dog Days. It's wobbly and distorted, but alive, and I love it.
Rothchild
07-12-2015, 18:09
I like both.:)
Me too!
Both is the ideal but you need to spend a few quid on the old TT. And the rest of the kit has to be up to it too.
Even then it isn't straightforward as many an expensive but crappy system will demonstrate.
If i 'm emotionally invested in the music it can still move me. But you don't need hi-fidelity system to do that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.