High Resolution Audio Comparison (1 Viewer)

[Steve_AS]

Right. They're human, we're human. But you know what? A brain surgeon is human too. Yet I'd rather have him working on my brain (if heaven forbid something happened to me) than you. No offense, but I just go with people who are trained in their field of expertise.

So, why don't you 'go with' people who are trained specifically as experts in determining what sounds different to people and what doesn't?

Look at it this way. An experienced audio engineer is going to have developed a set of practices (set A), most of which are *certainly* going to have objectively audible effects on the sound of the resulting recording -- that is, they'd pass a blind test with flying colors. Changes in level, EQ, baking tapes, etc. Two remasters almost never sound alike, for that reason. The 'good' engineers are ones whose Set A practices have resulting in recording pleasing to you. Note that Set A practices are expected from standard , well-founded physical and biological principles to have an audible effect. But some other practices (set B), based on those principles are unlikely to have *any* effect on the sound, when tested objectively (e.g., choosing 'hi end' cables over standard ones; doing a voodoo dance in the studio before a session; etc.) Being an expert at the manipulation of set A practices does not establish the validity of set B practices. And the listener cannot tell simply by listening what teh effect of set B was, since the set A practices have almsot certainly resulted in *some* differences.

Consider also this: there are companies that sell fake knobs and sliders to studios, for use when other 'experts' -- in this case producers and musicians -- become annoying in the quest for 'something more' in the mix. Tweaking this knob -- which isn't connected to anyting -- *in the presence of the annoying producer/musician' usually results in perception of difference on their part, until that point is reached wehre they believe that 'something more' has been added.

Now, how could this *ever* work if people who firmly believed that what they heard was true, were always right?

 

[Carlo_M]

Sorry Steve, I know what you're trying to get at (to a certain extent) and I agree that professionals in any industry as prone to normal human error.

But you have not given me any good evidence to suggest that I should disregard what the audio engineers I know are saying and listen to someone like...yourself.

I'm sorry, what were your qualifications again?

 

[Steve_AS]

Sorry Steve, I know what you're trying to get at (to a certain extent) and I agree that professionals in any industry as prone to normal human error.

But you have not given me any good evidence to suggest that I should disregard what the audio engineers I know are saying and listen to someone like...yourself.

I'm sorry, what were your qualifications again?

Any college textbook on perceptual psychology, sensory physiology, or psychoacoustics, should have references to point you at the data on the fallibility of perception. *I* know about this work, as does any scientist in those fields, any clinical researcher, and a fair number of audio component designers (who use double blind tests in product evaluation). The pertinent question is, what are *your* qualifications -- or any audio engineer's -- for *ignoring* that work?

 

[Carlo_M]

Well you certainly have mastered the art of talking down to people while trying to make it seem like you're not talking down to people. But since you really avoided answering my question, I'll just say thank you for your entertaining viewpoints but I'll stick with listening to my friends who are professionals in the industry.

BTW, I minored in Psych in college, specialization in abnormal psychology. I do not ignore that body of work, nor do most of the people I know in life, let alone the mixers and engineers I know. I certainly do not consider any of my colleagues and friends infallible. But I will listen to someone who has cut their teeth in the industry and learned their trade before someone who is a master at insinuating doubt and providing no real answers or even suggestions other than "double blind tests" which I think is the ultimate cop-out. DBTs are notoriously hard to set up and confirm (because after all, you'll want confirmation, you won't take someone's word on it) and of course you don't offer to fly out and administer these DBTs and bring your own equipment. The people I know are actually busy cranking out product, working on projects. They don't have time to just steer their facility towards a DBT and interrupt all the processes to appease the doubters out there. DBTs are always suggested by those with time on their hands, and that's just not these people.

So thank you for your opinions. I'll stick with the pros.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Any college textbook on perceptual psychology, sensory physiology, or psychoacoustics, should have references to point you at the data on the fallibility of perception.

Steve,

Can you point to any evidence or case study whereby psychological perceptions were enough to outweigh audio perceptions?

In other words...How do we know that human perception errors are enough to negate subjectively perceived differences?

You have not presented any evidence to that effect...

 

[Steve_AS]

First and foremost, are you even willing ot accept scientific evidence? From what you've written previously, I have to wonder. You seem to exalt the truth of subjective perception above all...a stance that scientists and trial lawyers would find curious at best.

The existence of 'psychological perceptions' as a confounding factor is implicit in the use of *controls* for perceptual bias in *every* published paper dealing with psychoacoustical phenomena (i.e., involving 'listening tests')..even those that support some 'subjectivist* beliefs (e.g. Oohashi's papers.)

Do you really think scientists would go to all that trouble, for all these years,if the effect of bias *wasn't* established? Why do you think double-blind randomized protocols even exist?

I'm not responsible for *you* unfamiliarity with scientific standards of proof. I have pointed you at a good source of reference information: college texts.

For example:

Psychoacoustics, 2nd edition
Zwicker & Fastl
Springer Verlag, 1999


I coudl also point you to some of Tom Nousaine's articles describing his tests of listening panels, but I suspect, from what you're written, that you've already armed yourself with justifications why you shouldn't believe those.

Even more anecdotally, are you saying that in all your years of comparing treamtents/components/recordings, you've *never*
had the embarrassing experience of believing you were comparing two things, only to realize that you'd *never switched from the first treatment/component/recording* even though you'd thought you did, and were quite sure you'd heard a difference?

And finally : surely you are familiar with visual illusions. THese are instances where the eye is tricked into seeing something that isn't really there. Do you honestly believe that there is no correlate in the audio realm? If so, then you should read some of the work of psychologist Diana Deutsch.

(Of course home audio reproduction is, in a sense , itself a form of *illusion*. The players aren't *really* in your room, are they?)

 

[Steve_AS]

The people I know are actually busy cranking out product, working on projects. They don't have time to just steer their facility towards a DBT and interrupt all the processes to appease the doubters out there. DBTs are always suggested by those with time on their hands, and that's just not these people.

Like I said, they're doing so much stuff that *will* make
a difference, and that *does* require skill and experience to make the right choices, that an essentially superstitious belief in (for exampel) the magic of a special audio cable isn't going to make an objective difference one way or the other. They can talk all they want about said cable's benefits, but in the end the only proof that matters to rationalists would be one where other factors are *accounted for*. In such cases, "There's no time to prove our claim, we're too busy; we trust our ears" is hardly a valid excuse, and ludicrously overconfident from a psychological point of view. Of course many an industry has been built and run successfully without examining each of its premises critically.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Think about jitter, science in the early to mid 90s could not measure time based distortion, yet audiophiles using their ears could detect differences in transport quality. Finally after Bob Katz and others explored this phenomena, scientists created jitter analyzers.

It's not even an anecdote it's "fable".
Steve, good points all around,but looks like you're "talking to the hand". Science and audiophooles are don't mix.

 

[Carlo_M]

Steve, nice.

While you purport to endorse "rationality" and science - you yourself offer absolutely no credentials, or even offer these tests yourself. Btw, I do think DBTs have merits, but I acknowledge that they are awfully hard to set up, take lots of time and equipment, and basically that people in the industry have no time for it.

You apparently do, since you champion it so much, but have not offered to take the time to go through the effort of running DBTs to prove your own point.

In short: you prove and disprove nothing. You simply attempt to poke holes behind the guise of science, while having no experience or qualifications in the very science you hide behind. I cannot tell you from a person who has read some college texts and is drunk with the newfound knowledge, with absolutely no practical experience in the knowledge you've gained.

Meanwhile you continue to attempt to discredit people who have spent years actually DOING the music making/mixing/engineering whatever. People who have sweated and bled in their field of expertise.

In short: I have nothing against science and DBTs. My problem is with people who wield the sword of science without apparently being a scientist.

Reading about it and doing it are two different things, and you strike me as a person who has simply read about it.

 

[Michael R Price]

All this arguing is great, but... why is jitter such a fable?

I feel like there is a disconnect on one level between science and subjectivism in audio. The science - fact - does tell us that all these technological differences, like different amplifier topologies, CD player digital circuitry, power supplies, even cables, distort a signal in different ways, to a minor extent. But there seems to be no proof that any of these differences in sound are audible. Any objectivist will agree that the distortion exists, but the real question is whether we can hear it - and whether double-blind testing methods mask things we can actually hear.

It is really impossible to prove one's point on either side of the issue. So don't argue with Lee, he's just trying to make music sound better.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It is really impossible to prove one's point on either side of the issue. So don't argue with Lee, he's just trying to make music sound better.

I guess the most diplomatic contribution I can make is to complete my jitter test CD and send a few of them out to each of you and let you pick out which of the (blind) low and high jitter tracks sound the best.
I only ask that people keep an open mind. I will even send a CDR to Steve if he sends his address.
I am just trying to make the music sound better.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Here is a nice paper on the techniques for audio metrics that hints at the complexity involved with audio.
http://audioprecision.com/ftp/public...easurement.pdf

 

[Lewis Besze]

Nice point Lewis, Were you captain of your school's debate team?

Exactly,and you were my science officer.

 

[Steve_AS]

All this arguing is great, but... why is jitter such a fable?

Jitter isn't a fable ..the idea that it was 'discovered' due to audiophile nagging is. Jitter was known about, and measured, in the 60's by the telecommunications industry.

 

[Steve_AS]

Reading about it and doing it are two different things, and you strike me as a person who has simply read about it.

Alas, you stike me as a person who hasn't even done THAT.
Hence my suggestions to go take a look at the literature.

 

[Steve_AS]

Steve, of course I use science where applicable. I actually use cutting edge AI algorithms in my current software venture. I love science, but that does not mean I cannot recognize obvious shortcomings. I think science in fact can measure quite validly a vast number of things accurately. I just don't believe, based on playback and recording experience both, that science can easily capture all the complexity that goes into recorded music. Bob Katz I believe would agree with me yet he has great skills as an engineer and has built many scientific instruments and products. Subjectivism does not dismiss science, but rather places it on par with human perceptions trained critically to listen.

Subjectivism, then, basically ignores the *decades* of consistent scientific evidence *about* human perception. This evidence predicts that in many cases human perception will be to some degree AT ODDS with the objective reality, as demonstrated either by independent measurement, or by placebo-controlled tests of perception. This is the basis for the use of controls in all experiments. It's amusing that subjectivists are 'perceiving' things exactly as science predicts they will, but simply refuse to believe the rest of the scientific story.


If, as you say, instruments cannot detect differences you are hearing (a conjecture I don't think is true at all, but will entertain for the purpose of argument), there still remains another way to determine if the perception is likely to be objectively true, that doesn't rely on sensitive measuring instruments. It's called a controlled listening trial. If you reject that, *and* reject the measurability test, then you've basically abandoned the scientific method completely, and are relying on something indistinguishable from *faith*.

Minute diffeences in mics, btw, would certainly show up as differences in measurements of distortion. I'm gald, though that you seem to have followed some sort of controlled comparison for them at Chesky.

Re: trial lawyers, your dismissal is utterly beside the point; the fact remains well-documented among *all* sectors of the legal system, that 'eyewitness' testimony is notoriously unreliable, even though it's often the linchpin of prosecutions. It's a common exercise in law schbools to 'stage' an event int he class, and then ask the students to report what they saw. The differences in eyewitness reports are always there, and often considerably at odds with reality.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It's called a controlled listening trial. If you reject that, *and* reject the measurability test, then you've basically abandoned the scientific method completely, and are relying on something indistinguishable from *faith*.

We do this all the time at Chesky and in the studio and here in Atlanta when trying out new gear. In fact, my jitter test CD is designed to be blind by not including which tracks were low and high jitter samples. The problem we subjectivists always have is that the objectivists will bash any results we get from even something as scientific as this-there are always questions about how blind the test was, environmental parameters, etc. And as I have mentioned before, most high end companies use blind testing. I, for one, try to keep all else the same to test for one component. In a studio environment where time really is money, we can not always do "blind" testing, but most often the differences are stark enough to our ears that the results are valid. I think where many DBTs fail is having an audience that is not trained to listen critically. Recent peer-reviewed AES papers have shown that listeners can improve their skills to hear more subtle changes in sonics.

I think Richard Cabot, a respected audio engineer, saying that audio is particularly complex should be an indication that we recording engineers may be on to something.

This at the end of the day remains a religious debate. Perhaps it is best to put aside our differences and look together to improve how science measures audio.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Steve,

One more thing that bothers me. As someone who works with science, I wondered last night about the notion of "exploration".

Is it not better as a scientist to view current tools as inadequate to create extra momentum for exploring where the deficiencies in the tools lie, with a goal to finding out if:

(1) some audio event cannot be measured presently (remember the subjectivist never said it would "never" be possible)

(2) there is a way to vastly improve the current tools to capture more of the event.

If you think current tools can describe 100% of audio events, then there is no incentive to build better tools...

There is a big element of curiosity and exploration in the best scientists. Maybe if scientists and audiophiles alike (and you would be surprised at the overlap - the Atlanta Audio Socity has many engineers) kept an open mind, we could create more scientific listening tests and better sounding equipment. Certainly jitter is a fantastic example where audiophiles help prod engineering firms like Audio Precision and Miller Audio into developing more adequate tools for audio.

Just a thought....

 

[Carlo_M]

Steve,
You can claim all you want, we still don't know you from Adam.
Lee has credentials in his field as he has a published body of work. You claim you've done things, but we don't know a thing about you. How can we take your opinion over someone who has a proven track record?
All you've done is made claims, but still no proof of your qualifications. If you can't supply any, that's fine. I don't want your life story or your history. For all I know it's fabricated and you're some eighteen year old high school debate student who just wants to see how well you can argue on a public forum - not saying this is the case, a hypothetical.
What I want is this: Lee is in the recording industry and is using techniques to try to make his products better. He's got product I can look at, purchase, and decide for myself if he's blowing smoke or if he's producing results.
Meanwhile you try to drag down his efforts by challenging everything with a "skeptical" & "scientific" frame of mind. Why don't you publish or create something - an article in a journal, a published work, a confirmed DBT, anything - that we can evaluate in light of Lee's products so we can make an informed decision?
Otherwise what we have here is a man working hard to make a difference, and another just asking "why why why" without ever offering anything constructive. It's easy to tear something down, it's harder to build something. I'm asking you to build something.
Put up, in other words...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Carlo,

Well put. I don't mind challenges but the personal attacks from Steve and Lewis do get old. There seems to be an intentional dismissal of audiophiles in spite of some of the work we have done.

The problem with a lot of this is that many scientists debating in the argument come from fields where tools can do a reasonable job of capturing the event. This is just not the case in audio where the tools are relatively inadequate.

Some phenomena like Jitter is even more difficult to explain in a text-based web forum. I have been working with time-based distortion created from jitter since 1991 and only now do I think I have somewhat of a handle on it. It is much easier for me to demonstrate these phonemena in a studio environment when real musicians are being recorded than it is here. Another problem is that people don't readily accept the ear can make distinctions down to the low picosecond range, but it can nevertheless.

Again, we know this because we have added Lucid Audio masterclocks in the chain and the soundstage depth increases and the highs clear up. But until one has heard this it is very tough to explain in a web-based forum. That is, in part, why I want to create the test CD for people to make up their own minds. I have no doubt that some will not hear the difference or even have a good enough sound system to highlight the sonic changes (one could take the CD to the local high end dealers and listen back on some Maggies or Wilsons, etc.).

What really bothers me is that people seem to just want to shut down the discussion. The best policy is always keeping an open mind. Einstein did and it worked for him. At the very least we will get a deeper understanding.

Audio lies at the intersection of art and science. Let's take evidence from both to create a more natural sound for both consumers and artists.