Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Interesting thread. One guy producing actual data and others countering with words. Not a fair fight it would seem. The audiophiles may need to up their game, but at least it’s a home game here for them so that helps.  😉

Fwiw I use name brand speaker wires with batteries on them and gotta say it’s one tweak I never have heard a difference with. But it’s OK, In my defense, I bought them used for a reasonable price versus the competition. They work fine and sound good because my system ain’t bad otherwise so no need to measure…they get the job done. Glad I didn’t pay top dollar new though. I might have felt a little silly then.

This paper as you say never negate the benefit of linear measuring methods in GEAR DESIGN , it demonstrated that linear Fourier frequency based methods cannot explain hearing

No it didn't.  It only says simultaneous detection of timing and frequency is better than Fourier Uncertainty limit.  It says nothing about either one being used by itself.  

Magnasco and Oppenheim said this :

«The significant increase in timing acuity unaccompanied by a
drop in the total acuity for a pulse with considerably larger
variances in timing and frequency indicates that either the
precision of human time-frequency perception operates in a realm distant from the true uncertainty bound, or such a bound does not exist for the auditory system»...

See? It says it right there.  They are only talking about time *and* frequency ("time-frequency") detection together and its level of uncertainty.  Nothing about either analysis by itself having an issue.

By the way when we speak of measures in science, ESTIMATION of measures results must be BOUNDED in a set... This set SIZE is ascribed by the theory , here Fourier theory... Magnasco and Oppenheim state that the results of their experiments exceed more than 10 times the uncertainty limit of the Fourier principle... 

Nope.  The research has nothing to do with Fourier *theory*.  It only has to do with time and frequency detection thresholds.  This is reflected in the title of the paper: "Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle"

See the word Uncertainty?  It doesn't say theory.  It talks only about a relationship between time and frequency in our perception.  Any other interpretation is wrong and outside of the scope of the paper.

amir_asr

407 posts

07-07-2023 at 02:31am 

@kevn 

Thank you for your quick response, amir. I hope you won’t mind if I can clarify an issue (I realise how many queries you are attempting to answer at the same time, so I fully understand if you missed this) - 

My question was if you could advise if the test was a good way to gauge listening ability, but your reply involved "Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems", training and learning.

My question did not have anything to do with a method, or training, or audio systems, just whether the test, even if intended to have participants give a ‘no, there is no difference’ answer; only if you could advise if it was a good starting point to gauge ‘listening ability’.

You have me at a disadvantage as I thought I clearly answered your question.  Once again, no, it is not a proper test so doesn't make for a good starting point or any starting point for that matter.

It reminds me of buying a Japanese learning CDs years ago at an airport.  It claimed full immersion and quick learning.  I start the lesson and first thing it wants to teach is the words for Horse and Jockey!  I am pretty sure that should not be the starting point to learn any new language unless you are into horses.  :)

But tell me what you concluded about the results of the tests you ran.  Who had good listening ability and why?

@amir_asr 

Thanks for taking time to reply : ) - may I assume that my having you at a disadvantage is your acknowledgement you had not directly responded to my original question? It is important only because your latest reply is again about learning when my question is about inherent ability :) – this is a factor of vital importance as we will come to later in my reply here, in answer to your question.

Your comment, that the instructional CD and its first two words of translated instruction (‘horse’ and ‘jockey) did not make a conducive start to learning any language unless one had an interest in horses, caught my attention.

It is known with the pedagogy of language learning, that understanding the general or foundational rules of syntax and phonetics is far more complex than a beginning with specific but simple words that name the world around us….well, like horses and jockeys! Nouns are, in fact, the way children and full adults begin to have interest to learn and understand a new language in every society and culture. It begins as distinct sounds and inflections of those sounds. I would argue, in fact, that the CD attempted to immediately immerse you in the start it promised, in learning Japanese, and that the bias you had of what learning a language should be about, coloured what the CD offered. 

That aside, would you agree that your bias towards ‘learning’ has coloured your two responses thus far? That is, in relation to my question which is about inherent ability. This is an important factor in light of the bigger discussion of the thread, everything of which really boils down to just one thing – if differences in sound quality can actually be heard between equally measuring equipment. And all that boils down to just one other single thing - that is, if listening ability can be better evaluated.

Learning how to listen and inherent listening ability are two quite different things, something which the listening test I posted shows.

The categorical mistake of equating listening tests of equipment with listening tests for human hearing aside, formal blind listening tests in fact carry more than one uncontrolled variable, contrary to accepted belief. These unknowns are 1) the hearing/listening abilities of the listener, and 2) the potential (if unmeasureable) differences in equipment under test­­. You see, we cannot use as a control the very unknown that we are attempting to determine, just because we believe accurate measurements of that same equipment make it a ‘control’. The ones who believe that differences exist think that their unqualified listening abilities are the control, and the ones who don’t believe differences exist, think that their measured equipment is the control, when the equipment itself is that which is being blind tested. With the test I posted, the resolutions of the test tracks are controlled, as with the playback device and earphones the test is conducted on. The only variable is the listener.

Formal blind listening tests are designed to fail both parties, because they do not qualify as tests (having more than one variable), let alone being that which tests for listening ability. It is a categorical mistake to substitute one for the other.

There are other listening tests many others refer to, having to do with frequency range done under very controlled circumstances in a clinic. These, unfortunately, chop sounds up into bits and pieces and are not listening tests, let alone tests for listening to music which is above all, about time; those are hearing tests, a completely different qualification of what an educated and deeply trained listener is about.

While we may each have a very strong belief in how we rate as listeners, we may not actually know in relation to others, or a standard for comparison, where we each actually stand. And, as you have rightfully pointed out numerous times in this thread, our unqualified hearing cannot be relied on – this accessible test allows each of us to quickly know if we can trust our listening ability, or if it needs practice and development, by way of track resolutions we cannot contest, and our own ears as the only variable.

There is more I have to add, but I leave it here for now, in anticipation of your response. Thanks again.

In friendship – kevin

Yeah … stunning indeed. Whoever takes you seriously with your findings is in a stunning need for help 🤦‍♂️

Well, in that case, may your future be full of noise and distortion.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z10zK0utr60