High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[busb]

If it's inaudible, it doesn't matter whether it's present or absent.

Frog couldn't hear it, and I don't think I could, and I don't think anyone could.

That's it as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, JC

So much for not trusting one's ears then.

Nothing wrong with trusting your ears . . .

It's your brains which are the suspect item.



JC

+1! I can never quite work out why so-called audiophiles are scandalised by the notion that our brains can be fooled. Photographers, videographers or others' involved in the visual arts don't seem to react with the same level of hysteria when confronted with visual inconsistencies. Perhaps they are just fairly normal folk.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Not a parallel. The parallel is stereo which gives us the illusion the instrument are in different places, just as in art depth is a illusion created by artists using certain techniques..

 

[Alec]

Not a parallel. The parallel is stereo which gives us the illusion the instrument are in different places, just as in art depth is a illusion created by artists using certain techniques..

Irrelevant. Your brain is a great liar. How do I know? Well, you are human, aren't you?

 

[manicm]

The whole argument about not trusting your brain is rubbish. Of-course 3D movies are not truly 3D - it's an illusion that largely works but we know that and our brains know that. And speakers create an illusion too, so if we are purely to trust our brains then things like imaging and soundstage are meaningless, so why bother? If my ears like something, they like something, if it sounds better to me it is better for me.

 

[fr0g]

If it's inaudible, it doesn't matter whether it's present or absent.

Frog couldn't hear it, and I don't think I could, and I don't think anyone could.

That's it as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, JC

So much for not trusting one's ears then.

Nothing wrong with trusting your ears . . .

It's your brains which are the suspect item.



JC

+1! I can never quite work out why so-called audiophiles are scandalised by the notion that our brains can be fooled. Photographers, videographers or others' involved in the visual arts don't seem to react with the same level of hysteria when confronted with visual inconsistencies. Perhaps they are just fairly normal folk.

+2

I'd add that "using your ears" to achieve Hi-fidelity audio playback, while necessary at some point is equivalent to "using your eyes" to calibrate the colour on a monitor.

While it works to a degree, there are tools that can do a much better job at determining how close to correct the end result is.

The brain (and subsequently ALL senses) are all very easily fooled...

A jpg image. Do you trust your eyes?

The famous Shepard's ascending tones. Play through then repeat. Is the tone rising? No.

http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/shepards.mp3

 

[chebby]

It's hard to believe, but when I sawed a pair of speakers in half neither of them contained little musicians!

I put tiny pieces of my 'Living Stereo' disks under a microscope and nothing moved.

Basically it's all a big con pulled off by clever companies just using electronics and magnets to make our brains think there is music and speech coming from these systems.

Reading into this subject I find that scientists have already discovered this. In fact, some of them were responsible for it!

I wish we could get back to the 'good old days' (before scientists and their tricks and illusions) when our LPs and valve amps had real music from actual musicians flowing through them.

 

[Alec]

It's hard to believe, but when I sawed a pair of speakers in half neither of them contained little musicians!

I put tiny pieces of my 'Living Stereo' disks under a microscope and nothing moved.

Basically it's all a big con pulled off by clever companies just using electronics and magnets to make our brains think there is music and speech coming from these systems.

Reading into this subject I find that scientists have already discovered this. In fact, some of them were responsible for it!

I wish we could get back to the 'good old days' (before scientists and their tricks and illusions) when our LPs and valve amps had real music from actual musicians flowing through them.

You know the model village in Bourton on the Water? Anyway, I made my family stand outside it's church for ages once, so we could see the little people come out.

And that was only a year ago.

 

[steve_1979]

It's hard to believe, but when I sawed a pair of speakers in half neither of them contained little musicians!

I once sawed a pair of little musicians in half to see how they worked. It didn't end well.

 

[chebby]

It's hard to believe, but when I sawed a pair of speakers in half neither of them contained little musicians!

I put tiny pieces of my 'Living Stereo' disks under a microscope and nothing moved.

Basically it's all a big con pulled off by clever companies just using electronics and magnets to make our brains think there is music and speech coming from these systems.

Reading into this subject I find that scientists have already discovered this. In fact, some of them were responsible for it!

I wish we could get back to the 'good old days' (before scientists and their tricks and illusions) when our LPs and valve amps had real music from actual musicians flowing through them

You know the model village in Bourton on the Water? Anyway, I made my family stand outside it's church for ages once, so we could see the little people come out.

And that was only a year ago.

The rot set in with ported reflex speakers. The little b#ggers could just climb out and run away.

 

[Alec]

I went a couple of years ago, too, and discovered the walkway was too narrow to accommodate a fat wheelchair user. Sad.

But there were voices coming from that church, dammit!

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain some trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

 

[busb]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain sime trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

Hey Lemon, indulging in a little denial? Any comparison, parallel, simile or metaphor by their very nature are not exact but are used to liken similarities.

My point is not being able to understand why audiophiles seem so unusually sensitive to the whole notion they are not totaly in charge of their auditory faculties. It doesn't mean they are more excitable, are emotional misfits (they just smell funny) or have only average IQ. Maybe some of the more enlightened ones have a sneaking feeling in the back of their minds that they might just have been had so resent those who question even the more sane ideas such as high res being better. It's not the deliberately contrived ones we should be worrying about! At least you seem willing to countenance the concept that auditory inconsistances do actually exist even if you feel they are irrelevant.

It's not that Hi res contain trickery as such but may well be pointless. Why make any technology more complex than necessary? Doing so is inelegant. I am not saying that it's impossible that hi res is better but on the balance of probability, it does seem unlikely.

 

[manicm]

If it's inaudible, it doesn't matter whether it's present or absent.

Frog couldn't hear it, and I don't think I could, and I don't think anyone could.

That's it as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, JC

So much for not trusting one's ears then.

Nothing wrong with trusting your ears . . .

It's your brains which are the suspect item.



JC

+1! I can never quite work out why so-called audiophiles are scandalised by the notion that our brains can be fooled. Photographers, videographers or others' involved in the visual arts don't seem to react with the same level of hysteria when confronted with visual inconsistencies. Perhaps they are just fairly normal folk.

+2

I'd add that "using your ears" to achieve Hi-fidelity audio playback, while necessary at some point is equivalent to "using your eyes" to calibrate the colour on a monitor.

While it works to a degree, there are tools that can do a much better job at determining how close to correct the end result is.

The brain (and subsequently ALL senses) are all very easily fooled...

A jpg image. Do you trust your eyes?

The famous Shepard's ascending tones. Play through then repeat. Is the tone rising? No.

http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/shepards.mp3

So how do you know when your ears are not being fooled?? Oh I forget, only by ABX testing. So what I'm hearing as a guitar is not a guitar. I'm sure someone somewhere will have some explanation for this.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

It's hard to believe, but when I sawed a pair of speakers in half neither of them contained little musicians!

I put tiny pieces of my 'Living Stereo' disks under a microscope and nothing moved.

Basically it's all a big con pulled off by clever companies just using electronics and magnets to make our brains think there is music and speech coming from these systems.

Reading into this subject I find that scientists have already discovered this. In fact, some of them were responsible for it!

I wish we could get back to the 'good old days' (before scientists and their tricks and illusions) when our LPs and valve amps had real music from actual musicians flowing through them.

Not sure what your point is, mate. You take photos, so I assume you know there's no little man carving ouy the pixels (pixies, maybe, in Chebby speak

), but I assume you know and apply the rule of thirds, which is more relevant to the examples here.

Unless it was a joke?

 

[steve_1979]

Not sure what your point is, mate. You take photos, so I assume you know there's no little man carving ouy the pixels (pixies, maybe, in Chebby speak

), but I assume you know and apply the rule of thirds, which is more relevant to the examples here.

Unless it was a joke?

Of course it wasn't a joke!

Besides my camera has 10 mega-pixies in it. Is says so on the side so it must be true.

 

[manicm]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain sime trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

Hey Lemon, indulging in a little denial? Any comparison, parallel, simile or metaphor by their very nature are not exact but are used to liken similarities.

My point is not being able to understand why audiophiles seem so unusually sensitive to the whole notion they are not totaly in charge of their auditory faculties. It doesn't mean they are more excitable, are emotional misfits (they just smell funny) or have only average IQ. Maybe some of the more enlightened ones have a sneaking feeling in the back of their minds that they might just have been had so resent those who question even the more sane ideas such as high res being better. It's not the deliberately contrived ones we should be worrying about! At least you seem willing to countenance the concept that auditory inconsistances do actually exist even if you feel they are irrelevant.

It's not that Hi res contain trickery as such but may well be pointless. Why make any technology more complex than necessary? Doing so is inelegant. I am not saying that it's impossible that hi res is better but on the balance of probability, it does seem unlikely.

I don't give a toss. If B&W, or anyone else, quote a frequency range of 50khz even if it's outside of the human range and the speaker just sounds better for it, then it is better. Simples.

Don't need any other obfuscatory arguments to persuade me, only my ears. On the issue of high-res - it may not be audibly better - but your statement 'on the balance of probabibility it does seem unlikely' makes no sense whatsoever. If this thread is seeking scientific explanations, then such vague statements must be thrown out the window.

 

[busb]

Things started going wrong when scientists stopped believing in the ether!

 

[Alec]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain sime trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

Hey Lemon, indulging in a little denial? Any comparison, parallel, simile or metaphor by their very nature are not exact but are used to liken similarities.

My point is not being able to understand why audiophiles seem so unusually sensitive to the whole notion they are not totaly in charge of their auditory faculties. It doesn't mean they are more excitable, are emotional misfits (they just smell funny) or have only average IQ. Maybe some of the more enlightened ones have a sneaking feeling in the back of their minds that they might just have been had so resent those who question even the more sane ideas such as high res being better. It's not the deliberately contrived ones we should be worrying about! At least you seem willing to countenance the concept that auditory inconsistances do actually exist even if you feel they are irrelevant.

It's not that Hi res contain trickery as such but may well be pointless. Why make any technology more complex than necessary? Doing so is inelegant. I am not saying that it's impossible that hi res is better but on the balance of probability, it does seem unlikely.

I don't give a toss. If B&W, or anyone else, quote a frequency range of 50khz even if it's outside of the human range and the speaker just sounds better for it, then it is better. Simples.

Don't need any other obfuscatory arguments to persuade me, only my ears. On the issue of high-res - it may not be audibly better - but your statement 'on the balance of probabibility it does seem unlikely' makes no sense whatsoever. If this thread is seeking scientific explanations, then such vague statements must be thrown out the window.

Nope. That's perfectly scientific. If there's no absolute proof, making a decision on the balance of probability is perfectly reasonable. That is, if there is some evidence. If there is none either way...

 

[busb]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain sime trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

Hey Lemon, indulging in a little denial? Any comparison, parallel, simile or metaphor by their very nature are not exact but are used to liken similarities.

My point is not being able to understand why audiophiles seem so unusually sensitive to the whole notion they are not totaly in charge of their auditory faculties. It doesn't mean they are more excitable, are emotional misfits (they just smell funny) or have only average IQ. Maybe some of the more enlightened ones have a sneaking feeling in the back of their minds that they might just have been had so resent those who question even the more sane ideas such as high res being better. It's not the deliberately contrived ones we should be worrying about! At least you seem willing to countenance the concept that auditory inconsistances do actually exist even if you feel they are irrelevant.

It's not that Hi res contain trickery as such but may well be pointless. Why make any technology more complex than necessary? Doing so is inelegant. I am not saying that it's impossible that hi res is better but on the balance of probability, it does seem unlikely.

I don't give a toss. If B&W, or anyone else, quote a frequency range of 50khz even if it's outside of the human range and the speaker just sounds better for it, then it is better. Simples.

Don't need any other obfuscatory arguments to persuade me, only my ears. On the issue of high-res - it may not be audibly better - but your statement 'on the balance of probabibility it does seem unlikely' makes no sense whatsoever. If this thread is seeking scientific explanations, then such vague statements must be thrown out the window.

I was being diplomatic, considering how sensitive this subject is! Your scientific contribution is what exactly? I thought so. No one has met the challenge set out by Fr0g yet.

 

[matt49]

So how do you know when your ears are not being fooled?? Oh I forget, only by ABX testing. So what I'm hearing as a guitar is not a guitar. I'm sure someone somewhere will have some explanation for this.

You've put your finger on the reason why these parallels between optical and auditory illusions on the one hand and expectation bias on the other are misleading.

Optical and auditory illusions work on our perceptual system. Expectation bias, however, is a cognitive bias. Blind testing removes the cognitive bias and leaves no illusion behind. There's no equivalent way to remove the effects of a perceptual illusion. Sure, someone can explain the illusion to you, but that won't stop you from "seeing" it.

Or to put it another way, when you do a sighted test of an expensive USB cable and you think it sounds better than your cheap one, there's no actual auditory illusion in play. Your ears have practically nothing to do with it.

 

[jcbrum]

There was a very good programme on telly recently about The Placebo Effect, and expectation bias. It's available on iPlayer for the next 8 days.

(click the highlighted link)

JC

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Mate, it isn't a parallel. Your jpg, stereo, depth perception etc are deliberately created to fool the brain. Are you saying that the process of creating hi res files contain sime trickery to make them sound better? If you are, that would be a parallel, but obviously that isn't true.

Hey Lemon, indulging in a little denial? Any comparison, parallel, simile or metaphor by their very nature are not exact but are used to liken similarities.

My point is not being able to understand why audiophiles seem so unusually sensitive to the whole notion they are not totaly in charge of their auditory faculties. It doesn't mean they are more excitable, are emotional misfits (they just smell funny) or have only average IQ. Maybe some of the more enlightened ones have a sneaking feeling in the back of their minds that they might just have been had so resent those who question even the more sane ideas such as high res being better. It's not the deliberately contrived ones we should be worrying about! At least you seem willing to countenance the concept that auditory inconsistances do actually exist even if you feel they are irrelevant.

It's not that Hi res contain trickery as such but may well be pointless. Why make any technology more complex than necessary? Doing so is inelegant. I am not saying that it's impossible that hi res is better but on the balance of probability, it does seem unlikely.

No, you've confused a parallel with something else - see the points about expectation bias which is what you an frog are really talking about.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

There was a very good programme on telly recently about The Placebo Effect, and expectation bias. It's available on iPlayer for the next 8 days.

(click the highlighted link)

JC

Sorry, lost me, is that computerspeak?

You mean hyperlinks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink

Most people do know how the internet works by now, mate, you don't have to tell us.

 

[jcbrum]

HaHa, sorry lemon. Perhaps I underestimated your intelligence.

I'll re-read your old posts.

JC

 

[Clare Newsome]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.