Comment by sound1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sound1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In audio most objectivists believe that currently known measurements (frequency response, power handling abilities, THD, PSSR, other non linear distortions, noise floor, etc.) can 100% conclusively define subjective sound. But then on the flip side there are very reputable people (eg. Paul McGowan from PS audio) agree that we may not have figured out all measurements necessary to nail down subjective audio quality. It is upto the ears of the listeners and their exposure to super high end audio to decide whether that is true.

I fall in the camp that thinks we haven't fully figured out what conclusively decides subjective sound quality. It makes things much more interesting and open to more research to settle debates on solid state vs tube, sigma-delta vs r2r dacs, full range driver vs other speaker configurations, cables/interconnects/power-cords matter or not and things like that).

Some interesting links (I don't endorse what these guys are saying but find them VERY interesting):

About DACs: http://www.streamplayer.io/v1/sharing?v=8Mn5PrnZV-k

About whether audio power cables make a difference (Ask Paul from PS audio): http://www.streamplayer.io/v1/sharing?v=8QuToO9JUfw

High end equipment makers have a vested interest in promoting pseudo science because it duped people into spending $5k for a DAC (e.g., PS Audio). Audio frequency range electrical engineering is very well understood and rigorously defined. The only extent to which there is an ‘x’ factor not covered by the legit engineering is that human perception does play a role in, well, human perception. So if you tell someone that this piece of equipment cost more than a car, people will genuinely believe it does sound better. Not too dissimilar from the very real placebo effect in medicine.

Anecdotally, I was recently listening to music in some audiophile house, streaming from ~15K$ eq. It wasn't even close to anything I've heard before, other than live music (in something like a jazz club, not a rock concert). Profound quality. I'm sure it's overpriced but man - if I had the money I would replicate his setup without a thought.

> Profound quality.

I've listened to a friend's $10k setup. It was more like a live concert than listening to a regular stereo. Yes, it had a tube amplifier. If you remember anything about the audiophile's setup, what was the setup?

This measurability nonsense is a red herring.

Think about it, the question can easily be answered by blind A/B testing using real listeners with varying aptitude for discerning any differences and the qualities.

Over the years people have tried and failed often to show much difference, when tests were done with proper controls and with scientific rigor.

To be fair I haven't read up on the subject recently so if there's anything current that shows otherwise I'd be glad to read a link to a paper from a credible source.

Yes. Approximately no-one believes that we have definitive measurements of subjective sound, any more than we have definitive measurements of how good a painting is.

The key thing is the equipment owner's self-suggestion, vs. whatever adequately controlled blind testing would reveal.

I've done a small amount of audio restoration work, in which you're often trying to judge (e.g.) how much of a noise-removal process to apply. How much of that high-frequency content is just noise, or is there actually some of the original signal still lurking in there? Apply too much noise-removal and you'll take away some of that signal.

In doing this you frequently bump up against the question, "Can I actually hear a difference?" My rather sobering experience when I actually put it to the test was that I was way beyond the point of being unable to identify different treatments of the same audio, any more than could be explained by random chance, and yet I was still telling myself I could hear a difference.

Which is why some professional audio plugins offer a “blind”-mode where all interesting but visually distracting meters, spectra etc are switched off. This is also the appeal of analog gear, where suggestive metering is uncommon.

False.

Rigorous double blind a/b/c/d tests using real listeners has been performed, and the research has been published in peer reviewed journals since the 80's.

What has happened is that most of the audiophile community saw research as a threat to their revenue streams and actively FUD around it. And the audio engineering community has simply moved on.

Here is a talk that could be very informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

His book is worth a read as well.

What's one thing I said that was false?

I said studies have been done that failed to show any difference, that's absolutely true.

I said I was open to hearing about recent papers published showing otherwise, yet you've provided zero links to a peer reviewed paper. You offer a Youtube video? If it's a video about research can we just skip to a direct link to the science? Citation please?

I said it's not necessary to know if current testing equipment can detect differences, to know if people can tell the difference. True.

Where are the rigorous double blind studies, with full disclosure, conducted with no conflicts of interest in funding or affiliation?

And of course I assume we want to stay on topic and look at research that isolate amplifiers for some tests, not conflate them with moving parts such as speakers.

For personal listening maybe. PA systems for concert halls are sold in blind demos. Several vendors competing for the contract hang their systems behind an acoustically transparent curtain and the buyer decides which one sounds best.

That About DACs video is fascinating. It gets to the issue of what is it audiophiles might be hearing that we just can't seem to measure. (An explanation of why "the specs are so much better" but "it still sound wrong.")

Seconded. Great video, very informative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com