Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 18:50:08 GMT
So what do these guys know about music that some of us don't, that is the question: - jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.fullActually, I've not read it myself, I've shamelessly lifted it off another forum but it sounds (sorry ) interesting. Dave. EDIT, Looked a bit further and found this - I believe the author of this does carry some weight in audio circles, eh Alex? : - www.hificritic.com/downloads/Archive_A10.pdfDave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 21:41:44 GMT
Hi Dave According to presently accepted theory, you shouldn't have been able to hear the difference those recently added Super Tweeters made, and even more so due to your age. Neither should I be able to appreciate the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96, let alone hear a further improvement with superb 24/192 recordings such as those from Barry Diament's SoundKeeper Recordings. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 21:49:57 GMT
Dave, This same research has been covered yet in another 'divisive' thread and shoved forward as scientific proof. I read it (and Kunchurs research) and in short: They did experiments showing that ultrasonic sounds that are related to music do influence brain activity. It also shows that the inaudible ultrasonic part that was taken out en reproduced WITHOUT the audible music did not envoke a similar response in the brain. So ultrasonic info IS registered by the brain. At the same time, however, they ALSO did subjective tests (with and without the subsonic contents) which shows no relation to the brain activity. So yes... there is brain activity when ultrasonic sounds are reproduced activity that is different or not present when ultrasonic is left out BUT there seemed to be NO relation between subjectively found differences in SQ and brain activity. In essence when listening people could not tell with and without ultrasonics apart BUT there seemed to be a brain activity that differed eventhough it did not correlate with more realistic perception of higher bandwidth material. Since they did not further research WHAT the brain activity was all about and related to what, it is very conceivable this brain activity was related to the findings of M. Kunchur. Alex recently pointed to the other groundbreaking research that shows people can detect phase shifts that are smaller than the audible range predicts and one subject that could not hear above 10kHz was still able to reliably detect PHASE differences. The fun part is, that phase differences are handled differently in the brain as bandwidth (frequency) which makes this possible. This makes sense as the human 'location of sound' relies of phase differences (read timing not frequency) which is NOT frequency dependent but has a certain relation to it. In this article Kunchur states that even 192 kHz is not enough for reproduction based on a DIGITAL waveform (7 kHz squarewave) that can be perceived to have a shifted phase. Also moving your head a fraction or standing or sitting while listening to a speaker creates even larger differences in phase shifts and this would suggest planar speakers CANNOT sound good. They do and sound good though and even though we move position in a room or move around are still able to 'hear' the quality not to change while the phase has shifted radically so it's not as simple as it appears. problem is in real life music there is no 7kHz squarewave and even the fastest needle and cutting machine on this planet is able to cut a squarewave with the needed phase/amplitude relation either. Thereby making the suggestion that digital reproduction is incapable is already questioned to say the least as 'proof'. There are a lot of other things that are not adressed and factually all the research shows humans are capable of discerning phase differences (timing differences) that are smaller than the sample rate of even 192kHz streams can resolve. It was an interesting article with some interesting outcomes and 'suspicions' that audiophiles should be looking into bitrates with relation to perceived differences. magazines like the one you mentioned jump on this as proof. All we need is scientific research done with this in mind. It doesn't exist yet, it's only a suggestion or suspicion of Kunchur. research done with audiophiles in the past , just like the research mentioned first has untill this day never revealed a clear relation between the reported and found sonic differences in blind conditions. So in essence till now the question remains. Hearing or not hearing real or not real remains un-answerred by the scientific community. It remains a question of believing what you choose to read and value to be true. Perception... very interesting subject. You should believe what you feel comfortable with and others should be free to believe what they feel comfortable with. Just enjoy the music you like to listen to.... And do it the way it is most enjoyable to YOU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 22:05:31 GMT
Someone has to keep the public abreast of recent research, after all, people like Dave and myself know there is far more to hearing than just being able to hear a >10kHz sinewave. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 22:43:24 GMT
Hi Guys, Please let's not get busy with the slings and arrows of contempt for each others differences of opinion or my already shaky reputation on RG will take another knock . I can only 'speak' as I hear or don't hear - I like to think I'm reasonably intelligent and have a science/engineering background but I know sweet BA about hifi. I am famous (notorious ?) for posting on another forum a few years ago that, depending where I happened to be in my listening room, the speakers would disappear (sonically, not literally ) and had anybody else noticed this. Soooo, no preconceived ideas or knowledge then . When I added a pair of super tweeters (not cheapies and put together by people who really know what they were doing) I reported that, with my ear pressed up against either super tweeters I could hear absolutely nothing, not a 'tweet' . My first thought was that they were not working properly. However, when I sat back and listened to the music I immediately noticed a very significant improvement, but the super tweeters still appeared to be silent. I have since put a sound pressure level meter up against the super tweeters and it clearly showed that something was emanating from them but, whatever it was, it was not troubling my ears . Soooo, something is there, I can't hear it directly but it improves my appreciation of the sound. I need no convincing that my brain is reacting favourably to something I cannot consciously hear - end of, as far As I am concerned. If this is not physically possible according to the theorists then some of us are wired up wrong . Just my honest experience but let's discuss it or forget it, not 'fight' about it, OK? Dave.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 27, 2012 23:21:40 GMT
I agree that a better understanding of how hearing actually works & the full psychoacoustic model is probably necessary for the next advances in audio reproduction. A couple of interesting papers - one which is a summary overview serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Sancar.htmlAnother gives interesting insight into one current active area of research - auditory brainstem involvement in hearing & the active feedback pathways involved in hearing www.soc.northwestern.edu/brainvolts/documents/Kraus_PhysToday_2011.pdfOne thing about phase is that we seem to be very sensitive to timing differences in sound waves reaching each ear i.e interaural phase differences & this is how we localise things in our world. It is also a determining factor in the illusion that we call sound stage depth.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 1:37:08 GMT
We only have to digitize what the mics capture, right? That should be a lot easier than having to digitize the total sonic envelope that exists in real space.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 1:59:11 GMT
According to presently accepted theory, you shouldn't have been able to hear the difference those recently added Super Tweeters made, and even more so due to your age. Like many other things, hearing does not decline according to age per se. It declines according to general health, which *usually* declines according to age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 7:02:59 GMT
Consider the following.
The older we get the more high frequencies we loose. The more hearing damage we get the more certain parts of the spectrum get 'lost' or experience distortion or strange effects the brain has learn to 'ignore'. The differences between L and R ear also change over the ears (get your ears tested and see discrepancy between the ears). Perhaps when this happens the brain relies more on phase/timing differences to 'extract' info (placement which means 'air' around the instruments) or can more easily use this as frequency domain is also used to derive 'depth' when it is there. This may explain why certain people hear benefits simply because their hearing has deteriorated to the point this is needed in every day life to 'get around'.
Kunchurs research has shown we can detect phase shifts of a single high frequency tone. It is very obvious to those that are into perception why he chose a high frequency (7kHz) and not 2.3khz or even 777Hz to show the limits of hearing (which are in micro seconds area not ns or even ps).
Since Kunchur is an audio guy and had his filter and gear present he just as easily could have proven his point using music like that of Barry Diament's SoundKeeper Recordings IF that were possible and a clear relation is there. It would be a very logical step in the process and he could have written history if he could show a relationship. Instead he only suggests digital audio is probably insufficient and leaves out the inadequacies of vinyl and analog tape. This is speed and frequency limited as well AND contains considerable phase shifts in the higher frequencies He only suggests in his paper people should look in the timing issues. I think it would be very strange if all he has ever done was listening to 7kHz tones and not to the effects it has in music. IF it were very detectable in music I reckon he would have researched that as well and showed where it all goes haywire.
The problem is, it is quite easy for the brain to go to the edge of it's limits of detection with a single tone or test signal, but what if a MULTITUDE of instruments, voices each with their own harmonics (also added ones) that all may or may not have had individual phase shifts (tone filtering, roll off, DSP, mic position you name it) that differ in each instrument (track on the recorder) and needs to paint you a 'holographic' picture of what 'once was' (a recreation based on auditory input) is extremely more complex for these signals than a single tone and possibly not handled the same way even. No research of that aspect appears to have been done or conclusive evidence in that direction has been located.
We can detect a single tone in a noise band till very low levels and even s slight change of 'character' in noise can make you detect 'dashes and dots'. Ask that specialist to listen for music or other noise drowned in noise and they can't anymore.
Music is NOT a single tone.
People use differences in phase between L and R ear to detect placing L and R. As long as the phase shifts are equal between L and R (in audio equipment) 'placement' does not change. The effect of phase differences in an absolute sense (the differences in phase between the fundamental wave and harmonics) is still not very clear but seems to be of influence with at least higher frequency single 'notes' that are not present in your average music file at all. Maybe it has some influence in detecting placement more accurately.
The big issue is the same.. research is not done with music but single test tones. When research with music is done (in blind conditions ?) it suddenly becomes impossible to show differences that can otherwise be shown so easy and clear. These are completely different areas of research. How improvements in sound can be equally 'big' in magnitude when people 'elevate' their power cords on special stones e.t.c. and by using 'snake oil' can have the same improvements you get with other 'measures' cannot be related to phase differences or change in the signal in anyway yet seem to have a profound influence in placing of instruments and air e.t.c. cannot be explained. Blind tests failing to show these 'obvious' improvements is another matter and IMO should NOT be put in the same 'perception' enigma which is very popular to do so amongst 'believers.
I see I have so reading to do (links by John)
The strange part to me in al this is that we can still percieve 'better files' as better even if absolute phase shifts are HUGE which to me invalidates some viewpoints. Analog post processing such as 'BSG Technologies qøl™ Signal Completion Stage' which takes signals in frequency domain 'apart', subsequently alters the phase relation of the higher and lower frequencies and 'mixes' it together again increasing (or should I say alter) 'perception' is an example. The rather high amounts of phase shifts in transformer coupled tube amps, tone controls, equalizing, speaker filtering, speaker placement, units spread distance of speakers, planar vs point and even differences in SQ can even be heard with slow 'full range' speakers that simply cannot resolve these higher speeds STILL appear to be possible yet the theories about timing would suggest it is not possible...
personally I think the percieved differences in SQ like those from higher quality files eminate from different master techniques and or remixes/compression and philosophy of people who like to record in a decent way opposite to 'bulk entertainment' and thus prefer formats that arguably are superior to formats that can contain less info is of bigger importance.
The controversy will always remain I am afraid and the 'longed' for improvement of reproduction some people have been waiting for will remain and endless wait... why. ? MONEY, and the MASSES are more important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 7:30:12 GMT
Barry Diament from Soundkeeper Recordings provides comparison files in different resolutions for several of his releases, and given good listening equipment the differences are obvious.The differences between Norah Jones - Come Away with Me" album in 16/44.1 and the new releases in 24/96 and 24/192 are quite obvious, and there are reports of this album in high resolution becoming reference material. It's NOT just about the new mastering, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 8:11:25 GMT
Barry Diament from Soundkeeper Recordings only has 4 albums (Norah Jones is not in his stable) and provides each album in a few different formats.
Strangely enough burning a DVD with different formats is equal in costs of production and 'effort' yet there seems to be a price difference. It appears to me the guy is mostly in it for the money as the differences in quality and production costs are hardly related/defendable otherwise.
He makes very good sounding recordings b.t.w. using 'live' recording techniques without overdubs and other sound degrading processing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 8:57:16 GMT
Frans As you are probably already aware, Barry Diament when at Atlantic Records was the mastering enginer for many famous albums including "The Eagles-Hell Freezes Over" and "Linda Ronstadt-What's New." Barry also claims that his artists get a far greater cut of the proceeds than with normal record companies. There are resolution comparisons of the 4 albums at www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm"Maria" from "Americas" is the 1st track in the latest album . It can be compared in 16/44.1,24/96 and 24/192. I have a DVD of this album as .wav files in 24/192 Alex
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 28, 2012 9:44:49 GMT
Barry also contends that CDs from replication plants never sound as good as the original master. yet when copied to HDD he can't tell it apart from the master! Not wishing to stir up any hornets nest, just reporting.
Personally, I believe that we are only scratching at the surface of understanding what hearing perception is about & Frans is correct that single tone testing is almost worthless - it only helps to establish some base level criteria about the mechanics of hearing which is only the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 9:51:38 GMT
John That's not surprising. Barry uses a Mac , and plays files with iTunes, despite people suggesting he should upgrade his playing software. Bsrry does however hear clear differences between BluSpec comparison CDs when played from a CD Rom.He also states that 24/192 is the only format where the output sounds the same as the mic. feed to him. Alex P.S. Perhaps Frans and Chong need this to go with their valve amps ;D www.cerebrex.com/UltrasonicHearing.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 11:35:22 GMT
Alex's reference to the Cerebrex gubbins got me thinking (laterally I hope, maybe even 'out of the box' or 'blue sky' ) 1) We are generally believed to have evolved from something that crawled out of the liquid soup eons ago. Many of those creatures still living in the liquid environment, I understand, do have a form of ears in the same sense that we do but also have sound or vibration sensors embedded in their skin. 2) I think everyone would agree that 'hear' very low notes not only through our ears but we 'feel' them through our body. Who's to say there is not a vestige of that skin/body hearing sense still remaining? 3) Our skin is regarded as the body's biggest organ so why can't it be sensitive to sounds as well as all the other things it's sensitive to and act as supplementary hearing, just like it does for other animals, and maybe responding to the high freqs that are beyond the ability of our ears? Just ramblin' , Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 12:42:17 GMT
Dave,
My former boss had the same theories. Perhaps you could explain to people that are deaf (by defective hearing) that they can hear with their skin/body...
Sure... in a disco or life performance they can 'feel' the beat because of the large SPL. They can even dance to it... hearing it though is slightly another matter, as is the influence of this organ on perception. All their other senses are probably elevated as well yet they cannot hear shite with their skin.
Us hearing people also get extra 'input' from high SPL as well as our mindset changing when other people are around. The question whether the skin can enhance musical experience also is not very relevant for headphones. Even with headphones the reported 'improvements' are also there, how likely is that gonna come from the skin ?
Nice theory though... not a very solid one IMO.
The fun part of people reporting stuff that is only verified by 'sighted tests' is just that to me, a report of a sighted finding. To some it is THE proof and all they need is verification by others, who's brains can be influenced similar, like as in optical illusions, touch, smell, taste. To others it is a finding that just as easily can come from 'other factors'. Both 'parties' feel they are right and will never come to a concensus without irrifutible and overwhelming eveidence that can posuede both 'camps'.
Talking about it in a relaxed way as in this thread is very usefull IMO.
research as reported above, especially that research that has done in controlled environments, still have not come up with any solid explanations, it just shows where certain boundaries are in certain circumstances with a group of people (audiophiles or random?) under certain circumstances with certain tests.
The only thing that is appearant from all that research is... hearing is complex and done with the brain. The brain (hearing) can be influenced by other triggers/senses which is also widely known/accepted.
This used to puzzle and bug me to no end. I take it as it is now and just enjoy the music in whatever format) it may come to me.
I still can appreciate good recording quality and prefer that over lesser quality though. If that weren't the case my speakers, headphones and gear would not be answerring to my minimal requirements for 'transparant' sound. It may well be a 'lesser' standard than that of others and my hearing may be crappy but it's my hearing and only matters to me. I have come to believe, however, based on personal experience, this is likely not to be the case untill proven otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 13:31:08 GMT
"Barry also contends that CDs from replication plants never sound as good as the original master. yet when copied to HDD he can't tell it apart from the master! Not wishing to stir up any hornets nest, just reporting."
The same reason that identically-checksummed files should always sound the same. When you remove the interference, i.e. the physical transport in the case of CD's or other interfering factors in the case of downloads, then you hear the best possible sound that can be gotten with that digital track.
And again, hearing does not deteriorate with age - it deteriorates with health. 64 y.o., can still clearly hear 15 hz and 16 khz.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 28, 2012 14:36:23 GMT
John That's not surprising. Barry uses a Mac , and plays files with iTunes, despite people suggesting he should upgrade his playing software. Bsrry does however hear clear differences between BluSpec comparison CDs when played from a CD Rom.He also states that 24/192 is the only format where the output sounds the same as the mic. feed to him. Alex I agree, Alex & I told him this but I dissuaded him from getting into a bits-is-bits debate The same reason that identically-checksummed files should always sound the same. When you remove the interference, i.e. the physical transport in the case of CD's or other interfering factors in the case of downloads, then you hear the best possible sound that can be gotten with that digital track. And again, hearing does not deteriorate with age - it deteriorates with health. 64 y.o., can still clearly hear 15 hz and 16 khz. Yes, dale, I tried to tease this out with him as to why different replicated CDs might sound different, given that the digital output from the replicated CD is identical to the binary master file (he tested this). But he wasn't willing to go there Something I find strange i.e that he is not inquisitive following up on this empirical evidence & seeing it through to it's logical conclusion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 14:56:20 GMT
Frans, In the friendliest possible manner, damn you with your point about headphones - it does rather make the 'skin hearing' theory a bit more difficult to substantiate ;D ;D . It suggests that whatever those of us that believe/know that they can 'hear 'sounds above and beyond the normal human hearing range are either: - 1) not human - possible in the case of some forum members but not necessarily of this forum ;D 2) are self deluding old (and in some cases, young) farts or 3) something is happening in the brain with these very high frequencies that does not translate into sound (as we know it Jim ) but does make it's presence felt in other ways, (but only for the fortunate few ;D ). But as you say, it matters not, at this stage in our incomplete understanding of sound, if and why it happens - if I can hear it and enjoy the music because of it and you can't hear it but still enjoy the music as much as I, WTF else matters? On a slightly different note, I enjoy bouncing opinions about between us, even on subjects of which I know very little, and enjoy learning from more knowledgeable others, as long as it stays friendly and does not get personal and bitchy. IMO the definition of a friend is someone you can disagree with, even quite strongly, without falling out over it - a possible exception perhaps is about each other's wives and families .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 15:35:20 GMT
Dale,
Hearing loss - age related; Presbycusis Definition of Age-related hearing loss:
Age-related hearing loss, or presbycusis, is the slow loss of hearing that occurs as people get older. Causes, incidence, and risk factors:
Tiny hairs inside your ear help you hear. They pick up sound waves and change them into the nerve signals that the brain interprets as sound. Hearing loss occurs when the tiny hairs inside the ear are damaged or die. The hair cells do not regrow, so most hearing loss is permanent.
There is no known single cause for age-related hearing loss. Most commonly, it is caused by changes in the inner ear that occur as you grow older. However, your genes and loud noises (such as from rock concerts or music headphones) may play a large role.
The following factors contribute to age-related hearing loss:
Family history (age-related hearing loss tends to run in families) Repeated exposure to loud noises Smoking (smokers are more likely to have such hearing loss than nonsmokers)
Certain medical conditions and medications also contribute to age-related hearing loss. About half of all people over age 75 have some amount of age-related hearing loss.
Ofcourse it is perfectly possible for a 64 YO to hear upto 16kHz. Very likely you could even hear upto 18 kHz when younger (healthier ?), perhaps even to 19kHz at a very young age.
The health of most people is not increasing over the years (above 40 is what I am talking about) so in that case what is the cause of hearing loss (high freq)... age increasing or health declining ?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 16:26:17 GMT
I didn't hear better at 26 years old, when I first measured with Stereophile LP's. But good health, i.e. having the same flexibility of joints, same ability to run fast, jump high, same vision etc. between youth and senior years - is actually rare in people, which is why there's a 99 percent or better correlation coefficient when doing the statistics "by age".
But for the same reason we have to be very careful with false or misleading statistics about the quality of music tracks based on "common knowledge", we should be just as careful with "age related" misconceptions too.
When it comes to hearing a difference in measurably same digital tracks, if the subjects feel those differences are repeatable in a reliable way, then I am willing to accept that, but that just says to me that you have to look somewhere besides the digital data that measures the same. The confusion seems to be in where some people say "there's no place else to look". And my problem of course is that I can't look at other people's systems remotely to search for those differences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 19:03:38 GMT
I certainly heard better when I was younger and know that for a fact. I am anything BUT a health freak but do not drink, smoke, drink coffee, do dugs nor excercise or do sports.
The reported differences between files (identical or different in certain aspects) have been covered over and over and no concensus or explanation that satisfies both parties will ever exist (my opinion). It's pointless to go there as ALL the viewpoints have been debated till it bleeds. Not only at this forum but all audio and computer related forums have the same controversial debates with the same outcome. No concensus and only p'ed off opposing sides.
I had the impression this thread was about pereception in general and not only about one particular controversial subject.
Not one single person is going to say 16/44 can 'hold' the same amount of analog info as 192/24. That's not the issue at all, bandwidth is higher and waveforms are described with greater accuracy. FAR greater and accurate as any analog storage medium will ever be capable off ! (sorry vinyl lovers) The debate is about the significance of this difference and audibility off it with reference to the analog info. Tubes and vinyl for instance is said to be more natural and pleasant and numorous reasons are given for that. It may SOUND better or more natural but isn't closer to what the microphones picked up.
Research has shown evidence that supports the views of people that say 16/44 is enough as well as 32/384 is not even enough. Both 'sides' will only accept results obtained in a certain way (they feel is the only proper way to test) and it would be a pleasing thought if test circumstances could be defined that would satisfy both camps in order to get somewhere. Much like political decisions both parties can live with. Unfortunately, just like in politics, it would only be a compromise where neither party will fully agree with but in the most fortunate case MIGHT want to live with. The differences of opinion are rather huge and every aspect would have to be defined by concensus.
Blind tests can say something or nothing depending on HOW the test is done AND the results are evaluated. Blind group tests will always show 50% results unless differences are HUGE. Therefore blind tests are overestimated if not done CORRECT. Subjective tests are also highly flawed simply because the influence 'knowing part' is severly underestimated.
It's a matter of trust and belief based on personal experiences and the wish to only consort with likeminded people on BOTH sides of the debate.
The trick is to find a way of testing that as much as possible eliminates problems that may/do exist in perception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 19:30:32 GMT
Frans, clearly put. Wish I could have said that in the way you did. D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 19:42:42 GMT
IIRC Barry said this in the context of the ULN8, not 24/192 per se. ? Please correct me if I mis-remember. Derek.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 20:32:04 GMT
Sorry Frans, not on point. It isn't about arguing in hopes of a consensus, it's about investigating to find the difference.
And with health and hearing, it isn't about anecdotes about hearing and health, it's about explaining where the differences (degradation etc.) come about - the causes and how to get around them for persons who are interested in such things.
|
|