How The Ear Works

Thanks for the invitation but that sort of thing takes more time and consideration than I can spare at the present time but I will contribute to the original thread of resources from time to time.

Kal

amirm said:

People who follow me long term know that I don't exist on either side of the coin . As a matter of what I practice, I am far more on your side of the house though than the other. While I own fancy cables here and there I am not bothered by using ordinary ones. I have a tube amp but it is only for headphone system. All my sources are digital. You see me take the opposite side here because I feel people who are on the subjective side of these things tend to not have the engineering background so I come to their defenses if it doesn't violate my engineering sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Amir,
I would also love to be on your side, but as I feel that my choices of hifi equipment are on the highend side, I must assume that I belong to other side and accept I am guilty of bad science practice - I buy expensive things that I can not explain by science, either instrumentation or ear behavior. Unless all the power cables of my system are not more expensive that those used in my laboratory, I can not assume hifi is using mostly science for its development, and use it as a justification for my system ...

I feel that we speak too much about science and forget that audio is an engineering subject.

"Engineering is that profession in which knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind."

Study, experience, and practice. May be we should remember it?

Indeed. I should say that any time I ventured into a new road that disagreed with engineering 101, I subjected myself to rigorous tests to make sure I was on solid ground:

1. Cables (interconnects). I bought a high-end (Transparent Audio), mid-end (Monster), and low-end (generic cable that came with my equipment). Tested them blind and was surprised to hear a difference. Difference was small but was there.

2. DACs. Bought the Mark Levinson No 36s DAC and compared it to my then "high-end" DVD-A and SACD players ($1000 to $1,500) each so see if outboard DAC did better. It did. Difference was small but bigger than #1.

3. DVD-A against CD players with and without ML DAC. DVD-A was superior against the CD. CD+ML closed half the gap but couldn't get there. Specifically, a $1000 DVD-A player playing DVD-A content beat the $1,000 CD player+$6,000 DAC. So source mattered.

4. Turning off the front panel and video circuits on a DVD-A/SACD transport to see if they really made a difference. They did.

5. Decoding in Blu-ray players vs in the receiver. Failed to create a valid test. Audio would stop playing for many seconds when I would try to switch between PCM audio from the source vs bit stream.

6. Difference between digital audio transport cables. Using a pro sound card and above ML, I was able to compare coax vs balanced AES/EBU connection and hearing the difference. In another test, comparing optical TosLink and Coax and yet again hearing a difference.

7. Testing of power regeneration. Not blind but was surprised that as I raised the frequency the power generated by PS Audio, the performance of ML DAC improved and then got worse and finally caused an error on the DAC!

All of these things caused hairline cracks in my pure beliefs as an engineer . I have theories for some but not others.

It has been a while since I ran these tests. With our showroom opening soon, I have access to more gear and hope to conduct more A/B tests. Hopefully I still have the patience to sit through it .

garylkoh said:

My assertion is that we are still learning about how the ear works and I am still learning and discovering things that I didn't know. Dr Geddes' assertion is that I disrespect science and that all the work on understanding how the ear works is already completed and hence there is no more to learn.

Click to expand...

That is not what I said, or at least what I meant, at all. What is left to understand about how we hear are fairly small details. One can learn almost all that is really important in sound reproduction from books like Blauerts (about 30 years old now) or Tooles (several years old). Whats left are such obscure details that they don't have much importance for audio. But your post was disrespectful of science, or that is how it came off to me.

amirm said:

All of these things caused hairline cracks in my pure beliefs as an engineer . I have theories for some but not others.

Click to expand...

I am on the complete other side. I read what Floyd Toole and Sean Olive have done with really well controlled double blind tests and IT ALL reinforces my belief that the science of sound is extremely solid. None of their work has caused a "crack" - hairline or otherwise - in my beliefs as a scientist. But most of the things on your list test my credibility. Most curious.

Earl,

I highly respect you and have read a lot of your work but do take a chill pill. Claiming to be the salvation for anybody is in my opinion a wee bit over the top there. I have a room Abbeys will be perfect for (long and narrow) and I'm seriously considering them for when the time comes. Imagery of angels with flaming swords and blaring trumpets jumping out of the wave guides and you coming from down through the ceiling is just kind of creepy if you don't mind me saying.

Hey, I'm just trying to make you laugh.

Jack

I'll chime in with something useful later. I promise to try my very best.

I wondered about the "savior" reference, but the religious connection was neither intended or required. The word has a much broader meaning than in its usual context.

Gedlee said:

I have never heard a system better than mine and I spent very little (considering). More times than not people tell me its the best that they have heard. Everyone agrees that what I have achieved is a miracle of cost efficiency.

Click to expand...

Could you give us a short description of your full system (or, if it posted elsewhere, just post a link)?

microstrip said:

Could you give us a short description of your full system (or, if it posted elsewhere, just post a link)?

Click to expand...

I thought that this was common knowledge, but here goes:

I have three Summas across the front, but let's just limit the discussion to the stereo system. I have three subs, two behind the mains and one in the back corner of the room. I use a Pioneer VSX 919. The source is a PC (with my library all in lossless WMA) connected digitally to the receiver via HDMI - so the signal is all digital until the power amps. Thats it for hardware. The room is very reflective except at LFs where the walls are flexible and well damped so it is very absorbent at LFs. It is a sound proof room so it is very well sealed. It is 16 by 24. There is a ceiling diffuser right between the speakers and listeners, but otherwise the room has no visible acoustical treatments. The floor and ceiling (floating) are oak, and one wall is faux stone. One wall is an acoustical screen hiding the speakers and behind those is a lot of damping material - basically the only HF damping in the room is behind the speakers.

JackD201 said:

Earl,

I highly respect you and have read a lot of your work but do take a chill pill. Claiming to be the salvation for anybody is in my opinion a wee bit over the top there. I have a room Abbeys will be perfect for (long and narrow) and I'm seriously considering them for when the time comes. Imagery of angels with flaming swords and blaring trumpets jumping out of the wave guides and you coming from down through the ceiling is just kind of creepy if you don't mind me saying.

Hey, I'm just trying to make you laugh.

Jack

I'll chime in with something useful later. I promise to try my very best.

Click to expand...

Jack-

Maybe he’s inhaled too much glue dust. ;-)

Dan

Devert that is hilarious, but on a more serious note here guys. I will not get involved in the whole savior thing, but I will say this. I have been involved in this hobby since I was 18 years old I am now 52 so we are talking 34 years. Now I have not and will never claim to have heard everything out there but I have heard more than my fair share of systems in those 34 years. I also do not have the financial means to acquire the level of gear that some people here have. When I was looking to replace my last pair of speakers I went and heard Earl's system because I researched his philosophy on audio systems and thought I have to hear these. Well the bottom line is this, his system is by far the best home based system that I have ever heard. I obviously bought a pair of Abbeys and am completely satisfied with them. Does my system match the sound of Earl's, no it doesn't, not quite, but I attribute that to the difference in the rooms which I have learned is much more important than most people realize. Bottom line, I believe that Earl's speakers are absolutely the best bargain in audio today.

Dan

Gedlee said:

I thought that this was common knowledge, but here goes:

I have three Summas across the front, but let's just limit the discussion to the stereo system. I have three subs, two behind the mains and one in the back corner of the room. I use a Pioneer VSX 919. The source is a PC (with my library all in lossless WMA) connected digitally to the receiver via HDMI - so the signal is all digital until the power amps. Thats it for hardware. The room is very reflective except at LFs where the walls are flexible and well damped so it is very absorbent at LFs. It is a sound proof room so it is very well sealed. It is 16 by 24. There is a ceiling diffuser right between the speakers and listeners, but otherwise the room has no visible acoustical treatments. The floor and ceiling (floating) are oak, and one wall is faux stone. One wall is an acoustical screen hiding the speakers and behind those is a lot of damping material - basically the only HF damping in the room is behind the speakers.

Click to expand...

Wait a doggone minnit...your source is a computer...and you connect directly to a Pioneer AV receiver, with no external DAC, via HDMI? It's not even a Pioneer Elite receiver?!? My God man it's like you believe all the goodies are in the recordings and the transducers! Have you no billet aluminum fronts? No silver wire? No Rube Goldberg disc spinners?

Are we related?

Tim

LOL, I have a non-Elite Pioneer receiver too!

--Ethan

Ethan Winer said:

LOL, I have a non-Elite Pioneer receiver too!

--Ethan

Click to expand...

We now know how to keep all of our out of the country club!

what is about listening test

I got my engineer degree (1971 in Japan) long time ago , may be my knowledge not too up date now but, still I can build tube amps by my new design. audio is a hobby for me just for fun and I would like to join here to talk about how I think in the listening test although my English isn't good enough. in listening test I think it can divide to two parts , one by sensitive of the ear to what frequency and distortion, and this factors also can be measured out . the other one is by feeling or by brain's memory in compare to other system's sound or to the real sound, like the density of the sound , emotion, clearness, 3D sound stage,lively etc.those feelings also so personal can't be measure out and shown by numbers. my first post in this forum is talking a elastic thread replace the belt of a belt drive TT has a wonderful result, the idea came from the designer of SPJ, she sent a roll of thread ($20) to my partner who own the SPJ TT, after we try and found out there are big different with the original rubber belt which come with the set, the difference is lively and live less ,we try more non elastic material like sewing thread and fishing line, same result, finally we found similar elastic thing only $4 a roll in local store.the reason of this cause I guess is that the elastic thread works as a spring to naturalize the very little change of speed in turning . and this change can't be measure out by our equipments in hand but can detect by ear. after with the new elastic thread also found the driving motor has same difference between motors, like a chain reaction, one part got better will find others not good enough, and also I found a direct drive TT is the best motor in driving to a belt drive TT, the listening test of this mods didn't need repeat more than one time because difference is so big, I don't know will it be the same in other systems because it will depend on the quality of the whole system, first it need to catch up the different between lively and live less because there are no measurement for that feeling. in a digital source, I don't know they will have same level of difference of lively between transports or DACs in listening test ?
tony ma

Tony

You must understand a fundamental premis that I (and probaly Ethan as well) accept and that is that reproduction is without emotion, feeling or anything else that is defined in subjective terms. The music contains all of the emotion and the reproduction path from the recording to the listener should have none. If the recording is lifeless then the reproduction must be lifeless as well. The reproduction must not make a bad recording sound good because that would imply that it is alright for a good recording to be degraded. The reproduction system must not change anything.

That brings me to your points. Lets assume that the differences that you heard are profound and readily audible (this is usually not the case, but I'll accept that in your test they are). Differences alone do not, let me reapeat that, do not mean "better". They could just as easily be a degradation. Now if you define "better" as your personal "preference", then you have thrown out the entire premis of "HI-FI" and that is "true to the original". Without measurements, different is just "different" and you can only judge by "preference". Do this enough times and you no longer have a "Hi-Fi" system - you have become a recording engineer/producer who tailors the music to his own personal preference. This is fine if that's what you want to do, but to a purist like me, it is unacceptable and it is not Hi-Fidelity. I want to hear exactly what the producer/artist put on the recording without any interfernce by my playback system. This leads to a completely unambiguos situation where the "best" is clearly that which measures "best" - closest to the original. No personal interpretation is either required or desired.

Earl, people like Tony have heard your argument countless times. That hey are not hearing additional fidelity but coloration. They counter that the reverse is true and that the people who go by measurement, are hearing less than the full music when played live. Having seen 10 rounds of this argument back and forth, I don't find it useful or constructive anymore. It is one set of words against another. No new knowledge is imparted.

This thread was hoped to be more insight into how the ear works. Do we have more information in that direction? If not, we will probably have to close the thread as the arguments are never satisfying to one camp or the other or both!

amirm said:

We now know how to keep all of our out of the country club!

Click to expand...

I'm already there, Amir. You'll find me in the kitchen.

Tim