Magnolia sells some great stuff. We are lucky that it’s easier than ever to put together a great low cost music system 

No one can be against blind test ...

We use them in an informal manner when we must verify some thing, location, effect, etc...

But the ideological stance using this tool as a method for the elimination of any qualia perceived as delusional in a systematic way against anyone claiming something about any piece of gear or any factors , rightfully or wrongly, nevermind , is irritating for many ...

Anybody using a new devices can and must take a blind test in his own way if there is a doubt about a product ... I did it with my Schumann generators grid to test if the effect is an illusion or real ... I did it twice , the first time unvolontarily because i forgot to switch them on ... The next time i try them in a blind test with my wife ...

And perhaps the systematic proposition of these test at all interventions about any qualities experienced by someone also may reflect an erroneous take on audio and on acoustics experience , a focus more on the gear than on acoustic circonstances and factors ... So yes, the anger of some subjectivist audiophiles can be a defense mechanism , but the systematic rejection by professional blind tester objectivist of the subjective experience resulting from the trained biases of some audiophiles is also a problem ...

it is why i cannot be an objectivist nor an objectivist ... But i prefer subjectivists which at least trust their ears ... Because i believe in acoustics i trust my ears too ...

This does not means that my ears cannot be deceived but they need to be trained and tested by my own blind test on the spot because blind test is a tool for me not a show to debunk people ... And if audio is not about gear taste first and last , it is not either about electrical measuring tools first and last , it is about acoustic training and psycho-acoustics knowledge first and last ...

in the incremental process of tuning a system mechanically, electrically and acoustically there is no big place for placebo effect and delusion and negative biases ... Tuning a room system ask for hundred and hundreds of modification that add together in some direction ... No need for a double blind test at the end to know that our system is metamorphosed completely by these many hundred of modifications ...

For sure if someone claim that a mere cable had completely transformed his system we dont need double blind test to debunk his claim as an exageration at best and at worst a deception or a self deception ...

Cables made generally small changes compared to vibration/resonance mechanical control, compared to electrical noise floor level control, and especially compared to acoustics modification which are hugely impactful... Even compared to some other minor optimization devices , cables are less spectacular changes generally in my experience ...I had observed more positive changes by the way i myself modify my own cables but this is another story and i dont sell anything anyway ... And yes i blind tested these addition i use with my cables .. 😊

.. 😁😊

 

These tests should inform audiophiles about the nature of how we perceive sound. If the mere existence of these tests anger you maybe you should think about why. Maybe it just hits too close to home and threatens your belief system. And your anger is just a defense mechanism trying to protect your emotional investment in your beliefs?

 

...

 

“But Magnolia doesn’t sell the good Martin Logan models…”

So high end is about the status of labels and the prestige of the stores that sell them. Owners of the “good” Martin Logan’s can relax for now. Their status is not in danger 

“Nice description of a parlor trick. It's a sad commentary that people take it upon themselves to deceive others and at the same time, conduct ABX tests under their conditions and not the way Harmon, Toole, Barton and the other real experts did it back in the day. They just use their terms and phrases and twist things.”

 

Actually Toole and Olive essentially did exactly the same test using speakers. And they published the entire experiment in the peer reviewed AESJ. This is a very common method used in many clinical studies. So is that a sad commentary on how science does research on human perception? 

These tests should inform audiophiles about the nature of how we perceive sound. If the mere existence of these tests anger you maybe you should think about why. Maybe it just hits too close to home and threatens your belief system. And your anger is just a defense mechanism trying to protect your emotional investment in your beliefs? 

But Magnolia doesn’t sell the good Martin Logan models…

“ So how did this thread become about cables and and a pile on by Cable Deniers like @andrewdrouin @scottwheel and other Audioholics subscribers.”

The thread is still about the bogus rationalizations for the existence of audiophiles such as myself. Cables and power cords are just examples. We can switch out cables and insert DACs, SS amplification and a number of other things if you like. It’s still the same issue. 

“High end audio is not cables well all cables. There are high end cables. But when I think of high end audio I think of brands like like Gryphon, Atma-Sphere, AGD, ARC, Simaudio, Pass Labs, T&A, Sonus Faber, QLN...Not Roskan, Pioneer, NAD, Marantz, well the stuff you buy at Best Buy or Crutchfield.”

 

So you base what is high end on status symbols? It’s the name on the label and the store? You do know that Magnolia, the stereo branch of Best Buy sells Martin Logan right? 

Thanks, mahgister....👍

Excellent post nonoise ...

😊

I once took a group of so called audiophiles and gouged their eyes out so that they had no visual reference to rely on, and then I led them around what they thought were a labyrinth of rooms and told them that some of the rooms had acoustic panels installed and some had none.  In reality I was just leading them around in a circle in my two car garage, but you should have heard those suckers rave about how good a JVC surround sound receiver hooked with lamp cord to a pair of JBLs from Crutchfield sounded when they thought that they were in a treated room.

Oh, and I conduct tests such as these all the time.  It's really no big deal. 

 

Nice description of a parlor trick. It's a sad commentary that people take it upon themselves to deceive others and at the same time, conduct ABX tests under their conditions and not the way Harmon, Toole, Barton and the other real experts did it back in the day. They just use their terms and phrases and twist things.

Barton spoke of how frustrating it was to do the tests as what they supposed was incorrect from the beginning. Test subjects valuations were all over the map with the first half hour of testing. Turns out they were listening to the room and not the devices under test (being an unfamiliar room). Having them acclimatize their hearing to the room took another 1/2 hour of rest before proceeding. Nothing was done on the fly, in short bursts of time. It was 1/2 hour listening, 1/2 hour rest, and so on. 

Then and only then did the results start to gel, to get a consensus. The test subjects were gaining much more accuracy and could pick out which speaker and which sound corresponded to it and whether they preferred it or not. After it was over, they had a pretty good understanding of what the general public preferred.

Did you conduct your tests in such a manner? From what you described, I think not. You just set them up for a fall that any hack street magician can do and has done since the beginning of time. Yes, the power of suggestion is strong but when used as a weapon, can easily deceive and/or disorient someone. It doesn't mean they can't hear things they prefer as that takes time (the thing you deprived them of).

All the best,
Nonoise

The Golden Ears, with a Golden System, in a Golden Room couldn't hear a difference:

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Yes, folks can accessorize all they want, have at er', pretty stuff is cool, but as Paul Simon sings, "faith ~ faith is an island in the setting sun, but truth ~ truth is the bottom line".

A few years back, I hosted a blind audition with a decent setup - 4 year old Maggie 1.7QR / Roksan amplification / top-line model Pioneer Elite SADC source / Mobile Fidelity master recordings, in a nice listening room, with "Golden Ear'd" folks, including symphony orchestra members and a few others with "Golden Ear" stereo systems and audio addictions like ours...

No one, and I mean no one ~ was able to hear the difference between robust, $350 silver wire interconnects (which many online were raving about) vs. absolute el-cheepo / "totally flimsy junk that came free with a junk VCR from the 1980's" RCA interconnects.

All of the hardware, minus the speakers of course, were located in an adjacent room, with thick, 12 ft. fancy speaker cables running under the door into the listening area - which was an ideal setup for this evaluation, as requests could be made and followed without anyone seeing each other or what was going on.

I took the evaluation to another level after our blind audition sessions were complete and ran a series of specifically requested tracks / "known cable" requests for the listeners - - but without actually changing the cables back and forth when that was requested.

Inevitably, the listeners "heard all manner of difference between the cables" as I supposedly swapped them back and forth on demand... except that I never changed the cables at all.  They were listening to the same el-cheepos all along, but they still 'heard' all kinds of "depth", "warmth", "air" and "soundstage" when they thought that they were listening through the expensive / silver cables - and they were convinced that none of this existed when they thought that they were listening to the cheap / junk cables...

Placebo effects are scientifically valid.  Expensive cables, unfortunately, are not...

Now, I'm not here to argue with every other Golden Ear that wants to chip in, because, I've heard their positions, justifications and breathless refrains of "even my wife could hear the difference right away when she walked into the room" all before, 101 times... (more actually).

Until someone can show me that they can "hear the difference" between cables -- when they cannot see which cable is in place - - then I call BS on it.

Over and out.

 

@jacobsdad2000  , I don't know if I would describe it as the "Wild West", but this identical discussion has reared it's ugly head there and I'd bet a lot of money with one of the original participants.

I left after I unintentionally offended or insulted the moderator.  He had a hissy fit and called me a dick and a liar.  I tried to aplologize for unintentionally insulting or offending him and he called me a liar a second time and then he deleted my response to that.

 

@immatthewj never participated at audio asylum. Has come up in searches is it the equivalent of the Wild West? For audio forums? I thought this place was pretty raucous. I will have stroll through it.

Beating a dead horse, by some 🙄

“ I’m not attacking your credibility I’m just never going to agree with you.”

let’s take this moment to think about what it means to be stuck in one’s position. It is often mistakenly believed that open mindedness and skepticism are diametrically opposing ideologies. They aren’t. True skepticism is the ultimate form of open mindedness. It means being open to possibilities that something might be true or that something might not be true. Including our own current beliefs. I don’t take the position that I would never agree with you. I take the position that my disagreement with you is subject to change should new compelling evidence come to light. But evidence needs to be verifiable and repeatable. Not anecdotal. 

@scottwheel im not attacking your credibility I’m just never going to agree with you.  

Wow this thread went down the toilet. 

@jacobsdad2000  , I am having a flashback from the audio asylum days.  It is not a good trip that I am experiencing.

“thats good for you. We can agree to disagree. That’s perfectly fine I don’t have anything to prove to you. Even if someone did you are stuck to how you feel. Take care.”

 

I am genuinely happy for you that you enjoy your stereo. But your last remark strikes at the very heart of this matter. You have continually tried to give your beliefs credibility by attacking the credibility of those such as myself with very different views. You want to agree to disagree but you also want to characterize me as “stuck in my position.”  A mischaracterization that I suspect makes you feel better about your own beliefs. Because there is something unsettling about someone who has such different beliefs but can’t be discredited or dismissed some how some way.
 

There is a very easy test to see if someone is stuck in their position. Let’s try it. It goes like this. 
 

What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong about cable sound and power cord sound? Answer that question honestly and I will do the same. And then we can see who is stuck in their position.

Then i believe you are of good faith ...

We are in the same boat ... I dont buy anything very costly because i can be satisfied with acoustic basics and relatively low cost gear ...I listen to my music and i had invested more in them and in books than in audio gear by far ...

I am not an expert in audio, only someone able now to embed any system at any price not in the best possible ways as an acoustician  but on a reasonnably good ways ...

But i like to read about hearing theory and acoustics and music a lot ...

Welcome here ...

 

“We are not in the same business here ...”

I’m not in any business here. I work in film not in audio.

”Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi;”

again I’m not in business here. But when I look at the state of the hobby it is clear that there aren’t enough voices in it calling out the shady and dubious products on the market. Those products dominate the market. Here we have a thread that attempts to rationalize the existence of audiophiles such as myself by trying to dismiss us as haters of high end audio, jealous of audiophiles who buy expensive cables and power cords etc. Or lack any experience with “real” high end audio. I chimed to debunk that mischaracterization of audiophiles such as me that don’t buy into high end cables and power cords. I’m not jealous. I used to own “high end” cables back when I believed in them. It’s not an affordability issue it’s an issue of spending money ineffectively. It’s not about hating high end audio. I am quite passionate about audio and music. It’s certainly not from any exposure to “high end” audio. I have heard many a million dollar plus system over the years at shows, dealerships and the hom s of affluent audiophiles on four different continents. And I am not the only one.

“myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...”

I’m just an audiophile who is passionate about sound quality and music. But I am also a skeptic who believes in science and seeks genuine expert advice. There are a lot of posers in the audiophile world and few genuine experts. I don’t believe everyone in good faith. Dishonesty abounds in this world. I know enough about how humans hear, process and remember sound to understand how we can honestly reach erroneous conclusions about sound and I accept those limitations in myself.

 

Wow this thread went down the toilet. 

“We are not in the same business here ...”

I’m not in any business here. I work in film not in audio. 

”Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi;”

again I’m not in business here. But when I look at the state of the hobby it is clear that there aren’t enough voices in it calling out the shady and dubious products on the market. Those products dominate the market. Here we have a thread that attempts to rationalize the existence of audiophiles such as myself by trying to dismiss us as haters of high end audio, jealous of audiophiles who buy expensive cables and power cords etc. Or lack any experience with “real” high end audio. I chimed to debunk that mischaracterization of audiophiles such as me that don’t buy into high end cables and power cords. I’m not jealous. I used to own “high end” cables back when I believed in them. It’s not an affordability issue it’s an issue of spending money ineffectively. It’s not about hating high end audio. I am quite passionate about audio and music. It’s certainly not from any exposure to “high end” audio. I have heard many a million dollar plus system over the years at shows, dealerships and the hom s of affluent audiophiles on four different continents. And I am not the only one.
 

“myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...”

I’m just an audiophile who is passionate about sound quality and music. But I am also a skeptic who believes in science and seeks genuine expert advice. There are a lot of posers in the audiophile world and few genuine experts. I don’t believe everyone in good faith. Dishonesty abounds in this world. I know enough about how humans hear, process and remember sound to understand how we can honestly reach erroneous conclusions about sound and I accept those limitations in myself. 
 

 

 

@scottwheel thats good for you. We can agree to disagree. That’s perfectly fine I don’t have anything to prove to you. Even if someone did you are stuck to how you feel. Take care. 

By the way because i dont buy any tweaks...then i do not sell anything and i had nothing to prove to you or to anybody ...

Because i tuned my room/speakers relation in an incremental long process, if i never used DOUBLE blind test in an objective environment for sure, for the period of one year full time when i worked on my acoustics i used simple blind test systematically each week voluntarily or unvoluntarily ... For example pieces of shielding materials i designed to protect my central electrical panel fall on the floor unbeknowst to me etc ... I used others devices for which as anybody who use them a blind test is not only fun but necessary by the way ... The goal is not debunking but refining the number of devices and their location effectivity etc ...

 

Your repeated insistence on DOUBLE blind test for others is very revelatory of your understanding and attitude ...

A marketing company must use this DOUBLE blind testing because they need statistical results , simple blind test in an incremental designing process as in my room acoustics is also rational; but asking others to be double blind tested to debunk them is children play ... Have fun ...

Scepticism is defined by 5 modalities and levels of experience in history of philosophy ...It is way more than a method of debunking ...

James Randi was running a business of his own it was never about science ...I am not a disciple of this showman...

I read not only about mathematics but mystics by the way ... 😊

Did you know that the founder of all modern mathematics was a christian mystic ?  ( it was in fact three christian mystics separated in time and disciple of one another the last is Georg Cantor )  i bet you did not know that Cantor was a mystic who taught theology and use the three methods of Dyonisos to create set theory limitation of size principle before the axiomatization and use the intuition of the mystic mathematician bishop Nicolaus of Cues about the absolute and relative infinite  to create set theory ... ... He was difficult to debunk trust me ... No one succceeded yet ...

“Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..”

I understand the practicalities of it. I actually do them. My brother had a great saying. “You don’t have to cut yourself to know you bleed.” You don’t have to do your own DBTs when they have already been done over and over and over again with the same results. You acceptedthe results from the one study you cited that used DBTs. Why would you not accept the results of the multitude of tests debunking cables, power cords and other such tweaks? And as for practicalities, it’s not really so impractical that one can’t do them. I somehow manage on a fairly regular basis

We are not in the same business here ...

Since you came here you seems to be in the business of debunking audiophiles , style James Randi; myself i am neither a subjectivist waiting to be debunk by you , nor an objectivist with scientism blinders ... I am interested by fundamental questions about sound, music, mathematics and hearing ...i believe everyone of good faith ... And it is better if the person is rational for sure ...

I am also guy who look for the way to improve in an incremental way, at the lowest cost, my sound/musical experience and perception using basic principle of acoustics for experiments and for designing my speakers/room/ears relation ...I never bought any tweaks i prefer to create mine for my own use... When you own a low cost but good system , there is many design limitations to compensate for a bit ...

I succeeded in my modest way so much i am happy , i call it the minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold resulting from a relative balance ratio between all acoustics factors implied ...

With more money in the next year, because i cannot really mechanically eradicate destructive crosstalk effect successfully by myself , with a bit more money i will buy as you did already the BACCH filters ... Only reading the Dr.Choueiri explanation is enough for me to be convinced ...

I believe anyone of good faith anyway , and i can read science then i understand and believe Choueiri ... You describe it by the way very well yourself, it is an acoustic revolution not a toy and not a mere tool ...

Now you can debunk people here with your interpretation of science facts , i prefer to hear them without judgement as friends ...Even if some testimonies can be debunk, it is not my career occupation nor my hobby ... Remember that there exist no unanimous theory of hearing , to know why this is so , we must understand very deep problems in many fields from maths theoretical and applied , physics, neurophysiology psychology of perception , and last but not least philosophy problems related to Qualia and meanings ...

Knowledge is more than science and science is more than technology ... Wisdom is knowing it ... Transhumanism is the only cult i want to debunk , not some deluded audiophiles buying a cable with or without any effect ... I dont care ...

I wish you fun with your debunking blind testing company ...

I advise you to submit your CV to big pharma ...😁 I read that they need to "debunk" low cost non profit solutions effectiveness to replace them by highly profitable costly drugs ( safe and effective for sure  ) ...😊

 

 

Let me get to the point. I don’t trust anyone who claims to hear differences but are afraid to put their claims to a proper level matched ABX DBT. And so far you have dodged the question multiple times here. Anyone can claim to hear anything. And apparently you will believe it on faith. But if the differences are real that can be demonstrated with a positive result in a proper ABX DBT. If someone posed this question to me they wouldn’t have to ask twice. The answer is yes I’d be happy to demonstrate that everything in my system that I claim makes an audible difference does so under double blind level matched conditions.

so you believe anyone who says they can hear a difference no matter how dubious the claim. I believe anyone who can reliably demonstrate they can hear the difference in a proper controlled test. We just have different standards for what we believe

I find no need or reason to try to convince anyone, especially who has clearly different thoughts about it...I love how my system sounds, and certainly hope you are very happy with yours....some of my components and cables selected after double blind testing, others not...all bought with full return option...

“Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..”

I understand the practicalities of it. I actually do them. My brother had a great saying. “You don’t have to cut yourself to know you bleed.” You don’t have to do your own DBTs when they have already been done over and over and over again with the same results. You acceptedthe results from the one study you cited that used DBTs. Why would you not accept the results of the multitude of tests debunking cables, power cords and other such tweaks? And as for practicalities, it’s not really so impractical that one can’t do them. I somehow manage on a fairly regular basis. 

Let me get to the point. I don’t trust anyone who claims to hear differences but are afraid to put their claims to a proper level matched ABX DBT. And so far you have dodged the question multiple times here. Anyone can claim to hear anything. And apparently you will believe it on faith. But if the differences are real that can be demonstrated with a positive result in a proper ABX DBT. If someone posed this question to me they wouldn’t have to ask twice. The answer is yes I’d be happy to demonstrate that everything in my system that I claim makes an audible difference does so under double blind level matched conditions. 
 

so you believe anyone who says they can hear a difference no matter how dubious the claim. I believe anyone who can reliably demonstrate they can hear the difference in a proper controlled test. We just have different standards for what we believe 

@scottwheel  let me get to the point.  Anyone who says they can’t hear a diffference. I trust that THEY CANT HEAR A DIFFERENCE! But those that do I’m more apt to agree with them and trust their judgement more.  That’s just being straight up! 

@mahgister thank you! +1

We all have our own beliefs, and decision making processes...there are hundreds and hundreds of threads essentially identical to this one...read and enjoy !

There is one thing you seems to not understand here ...

Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..

Blind test are useful practice in many industry for his statistical signifiance...THATS ALL ...

Blind test are useless for an individual incremental step by step process of tuning an audio system/room with many devices ...

 

Supposed now in an experiment i put a piece of shungite on an amplifier...

This amplifier is mine , the system is mine , the acoustic room is controlled by me for my ears ...

I listen and i recognize a difference ( positive or negative) with or without this piece of shungite on the amplifier ( i can ask my wife to put it or not on the amp ) ... I will use a piece of music i know very well on my room /system doing this ...

If i do the same experiment with a piece of quartz, i will recognize or not a positive or a negative difference or no difference at all ...

But it will be with my gear and my acoustic room ...

With another gear, another room, another music ; this test will have no meaningful result ...

We can do it statistically with a crowd using the same system and room for all and had results which will be positive in a low % for the perception of an effect and change ...

But this low % of beneficial results will in no way change or contradict the value of this positive results for my ears, with my specific gear, and my specific room and my music ...

Then we must not infer that a negative % results about a "tweak" means that the tweaks had no value ...

It is not also good science to infer from a mere placebo explanation... It will be simplistic and the usual way hard core objectivist simplistically eliminate a real perceived effect in some conditions for some ears as illusory ...

i dont believe and i dont buy tweaks by the way ...

I created mine at no cost ...😁

Experiment is science ... using statistic goes both way it can establish the value of a result or discredit a result as easily if you know how to falsify anything with statistics ( half of medical articles are made this way paid by big pharma ) ... See big pharma criminal methods use of statistic and this is a fact confirmed by many direc tors of the more prestigious medical journals ...Google it ..😊..

i am neither in the crowd of subjectivist audiophile nor in the crowd of objectivist ...

Sorry ...

I enjoy music at low cost by my own creative effort in simple way adressing electrical noise floor, mechanical vibrations/resonance and acoustics my own way AT NO COST ...

I dont promote scientism but simple experiments...I promote creativity not costlier upgrades ...

Dont sell me your blind test salad to discredit anything ...😊

We must learn how to hear even as adult ... It is enough for me ...I dont buy the accuracy salad on the limits of hearings... Because it is not even wrong ...It is beside the main point : qualia recognition and interpretation ...

My low cost system is enough for me as i tuned it by the way... It gave me minimal acoustic satisfaction passed this minimal threshold ... The only upgrade i need will be the BACCH filters you already own...

my best to you ...

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol.

 

“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable. 

“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable. 

ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment.

Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies , and in spite of certain criticism , theirs conclusions goes with the reseacrh trends in this hearing studies field ... I am not an objectivist nor a subjectivist... I am only interested by hearing, acoustics, sounds, musics ... And the source of qualia ...

What they say in their conclusion goes hand in hand with the deep and important research of J.J. Gibson in the visual field ... Then it appear to me that reversing that trend is not possible because hearing and seeing are way less stranger and distant to one another for the brain that what we think generally as non scientist ...

And by the way this article is related by me to the second article i put in my post by a physicist van Maanen about the conditions of application of the Fourier mappings in amplifier design for continuous sine waves signals versus dynamic musical signal in relation to the human ears ...

 

 

 

 

https://maa.org/news/math-news/human-hearing-not-constrained-by-gabor-limit

«Human Hearing Not Constrained by Gabor Limit

 

“ I don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough”

 

I didn’t ask you to put stock in me. I’m asking you if you put stock in yourself. Do you think *YOU* can reliably identify those differences in a proper level matched ABX or ABChr DBT? Can you really hear the difference without knowing in advance which is which? 

@scottwheel i don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough 

“how so?

If you do not know it by now, I guess you never will.”

 

does that stop you from explaining it and answering the questions I asked? 

“As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html “

 

ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment. 

“ so that deeper soundstage.  Airy decay. Tighter bottom end bass. It’s all human biology. lol 😂 “

 

Do you think you can reliably identify these differences in a proper ABX DBT? 

As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

For the aural memory problem , analysing it in pure quantitative terms is beside the main point and is not enough ... The body store aural memory in his metabolism rythm as emotions and as meanings too ...

Sound and musical memory are not only accurate quantities, they are essentially RECOGNIZED pattern of meanings perceived in their own non linear time domain and they are also emotions stored in our body and by which we can ressuscitate even consciousness ( alzheimer patient listening music . unborn babies growing a brain with rythm )

Reducing aural memory as a mere mechanistic process can be useful in technological experiment, and it must be so because technology to be efficient need limits ; but putting this mechanistic approach as the ONLY way human store sound memory is not only detrimental to hearing research it is simplistic ... Science dont reduce itself to technology...

Technology must simplify and use maps to work , but science goes on by facing complexity and reality, not mere maps...And knowledge is the ability to differentiate technology and science, maps and reality ...

Knowledge call for wisdom not for technology at the end ...

Our world is actually in a state of destruction created by ideological technocrats reducing not only wisdom and knowledge but science to technology for the sake of corporate greed and power ... I dont know if you learned something in the last 4 years humanity goes through, about science, greed, power, technology etc  but i learned a lot  ...

Do you or do you not accept the well researched established thresholds of human hearing and human aural memory?

>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
 

>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
 

how so?

If you do not know it by now, I guess you never will.

@scottwheel so that deeper soundstage.  Airy decay. Tighter bottom end bass. It’s all human biology. lol 😂 

What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories?

 

Read this and you will have a gist of an aspect of the problem ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Link this article above with this one about the conditions around a good audio design :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

For the competing theories about hearing, google it, there is many competing theories, but the main point is between theory of ecological perception inspired by J.J. Gibson in visual perception field and the theory based on a more traditional mechanical view ( Fourier, Helmholtz, etc )

By the way we must not conflate the immense progress in audio technology with pure scientific unresolved question about hearing itself ...

For example the fact we create A.I. with neural network are not a proof of our understanding of the brain AT ALL ... It is easy to demonstrate because consciousness dont emerge from the neural level , but from a much smaller scale according to the most important research in this field right now ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257134660_Consciousness_in_the_universe_a_review_of_the_%27ORCH_OR%27_theory

Technology is not science, and science is not knowledge ...

As transhumanism and other technological cult simplify it by reduction ...

@scottwheel here we go telling people that they can’t hear possibly what they are hearing. This is where we are. So everyone that hears a difference in power cords cables etc are being mind tricked or ear tricked. Ok whatever! 

“human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...”

 

based on what? As I mentioned before I try to pay attention to actual scientists in the field of psychoacoustics and the actual studies. According to scientists such as James D Johnston and Floyd Toole among others we know a great deal in deep detail about what humans can actually hear and can’t hear and have a pretty detailed map of how that correlates to measured performance in audio gear. In so far as the electrical audio signal in particular is concerned it is very well known as to what makes an audible difference and what does not. It does get more complicated once it’s about sound waves in three dimensions. What scientific sources are you getting this conflicting opinion from that states human thresholds of hearing are not so well understood? Honest question. Even in the world of high end audio we do have some substantial differences of opinions among top scientists. But none that I know of regarding thresholds of audibility. So honestly, if you know of any conflicting opinions from the scientific community I’d very much like to know about it. 

human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...

>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
 

>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
 

how so? Do you believe that you and other audiophiles have developed some form of audio perception that works differently than what was the product of millions of years of evolution? Do you think that somehow your ear physiology has been some how reconstructed or that your brain functions that process sound have been re-wired? What makes it questionable? What makes you think you are exempt from human biology?