Measurements & the stereo illusion

[j_j]

Again, I will repeat the view that I & others can hear changed sound stage - more solid, deeper (& better engagement with the music) when some digital sources are used.

If you hear a falsifiable difference from different digital sources playing the same PCM files, something is broken. That's all I can tell you. The cues that will give you that sensation are far above either measurement or audibility thresholds.

Really.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

While it's good, it's a bit oversimplified.

But not nearly as oversimplified as jkeny's viewpoint, to say the very least.

And yet still not simple enough, it seems.

Tim

 

[Julf]

I understand the distillation of the signal through the perception system. This plasticity also allows us to be very efficient in how we use the perception. The steering has just as much chance of being steered towards a negative result as it does towards a positive result. My explanation of the psychology of auditioners of Jplay who have just bought an audio product is just as valid & just as likely to steer listeners towards not hearing any improvement when using it. The view being put forth here was that because I recommended it that therefore listeners were pre-disposed towards hearing it as an improvement.

OK, so you at least agree that the results are influenced, in a very significant way, by perceptual issues? So now we are only debating the statistics of the influence being dominantly positive or negative?

 

[jkeny]

OK, so you at least agree that the results are influenced, in a very significant way, by perceptual issues? So now we are only debating the statistics of the influence being dominantly positive or negative?

And yet we all manage to agree on an auditory view of the world that is pretty consistent i.e an elephant sounds different to an oboe, no matter if we love elephants or hate elephants or are being threatened by a charging elephant. The point being that yes all our perceptions may be influenced by many, many influences & yet we mostly seem to arrive at the same auditory view of the world so I guess the signal is getting through in it's essence, nonetheless & these other influences don't count for as much of an influence as is being portrayed here.

 

[Julf]

these other influences don't count for as much of an influence as is being portrayed here.

That might be your opinion, but do you have any factual evidence for that?

My point was that psychological factors are the most likely explanation to people feeling JPLAY sounds better than other software.

The difference between an oboe and an elephant is a real one that can be verified by objective measurements, and there are clear reasons for why they sound different.

The audible difference between JPLAY and other players is one that clearly can't be objectively verified, and there are no reasonable explanations as to why there would actually be a real, physical difference, so the possibility that the only difference is in the psychological factors is the most obvious one.

 

[jkeny]

That might be your opinion, but do you have any factual evidence for that?

My point was that psychological factors are the most likely explanation to people feeling JPLAY sounds better than other software.

And those psychological factors can be portrayed either way - in favour or against Jplay sounding better - so you are just picking a one-sided view of these psychological factors when there is an equally valid opposite interpretation. You & I don't know what is the motivation/influences in people's head & what weight they attach to them & how much they are swayed by them - so it's pointless arguing this.

This also seems like a good place to leave this thread!!

 

[Julf]

And those psychological factors can be portrayed either way - in favour or against Jplay sounding better.

Indeed. Whether somebody feels JPLAY sounds better or worse doesn't matter - both alternatives are equally well explained by psychological factors (especially in the absence of any other reasonable explanations).

 

[j_j]

And yet we all manage to agree on an auditory view of the world that is pretty consistent i.e an elephant sounds different to an oboe, no matter if we love elephants or hate elephants or are being threatened by a charging elephant. The point being that yes all our perceptions may be influenced by many, many influences & yet we mostly seem to arrive at the same auditory view of the world so I guess the signal is getting through in it's essence, nonetheless & these other influences don't count for as much of an influence as is being portrayed here.

The difference in spectrum between an elephant an oboe is enormous. Differences in reverberation are not nearly as enormous.

You are (and it seems angrily) confusing two very different situations, and you are asserting that these other influences don't count in the face of decades of experience, measurement, and publication.

In short, you are making an extraordinary assertion that runs counter to all known evidence, and are ignoring much simpler possibilities such as
1) level differences
2) equipment malfunction
3) inadvertent self-influence
4) visual or intellectual guidance of perception

It seems odd to me for you to insist on something utterly counter to decades of my personal experience, and more than a century of scientific experience, when other reasons for your perceptual experience are well documented and understood.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The difference in spectrum between an elephant an oboe is enormous. Differences in reverberation are not nearly as enormous.

You are (and it seems angrily) confusing two very different situations, and you are asserting that these other influences don't count in the face of decades of experience, measurement, and publication.

In short, you are making an extraordinary assertion that runs counter to all known evidence, and are ignoring much simpler possibilities such as
1) level differences
2) equipment malfunction
3) inadvertent self-influence
4) visual or intellectual guidance of perception

It seems odd to me for you to insist on something utterly counter to decades of my personal experience, and more than a century of scientific experience, when other reasons for your perceptual experience are well documented and understood.

You haven't spent much time on audiophile forums, eh doc? This is as common as air in such places. And the reason for the elaborate construction of unlikely to impossible answers in the face of common, well-documented, well-understood ones? They don't like the common, well-documented and well-understood answers.

Tim

 

[j_j]

You haven't spent much time on audiophile forums, eh doc? This is as common as air in such places. And the reason for the elaborate construction of unlikely to impossible answers in the face of common, well-documented, well-understood ones? They don't like the common, well-documented and well-understood answers.

Tim

Hah, I was on rec.audio.high-end the day it started. I was in net.audio before it was even rec.audio. Yeah, I know. All too well, I know. If you want to see some more extreme of the audiophile replies to basic science, check out

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.audio.opinion/hPhZnHYp2kE Which was sent to every member of AT&T Research, the board of directors, etc.

Tell me about it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hah, I was on rec.audio.high-end the day it started. I was in net.audio before it was even rec.audio. Yeah, I know. All too well, I know. If you want to see some more extreme of the audiophile replies to basic science, check out

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.audio.opinion/hPhZnHYp2kE Which was sent to every member of AT&T Research, the board of directors, etc.

Tell me about it.

Man. What did you do in his corn flakes?

Tim

 

[j_j]

Man. What did you do in his corn flakes?

Tim

Insisted DBT's were required.

 

[andy_c]

Insisted DBT's were required.

That's what you get for being a "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"

(This is a joke, please don't take it seriously)

 

[j_j]

*snort*

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Insisted DBT's were required.

Yeah, that'll do it.

Tim