advertisement


Illusions - what do we really hear

awkwardbydesign said:
It IS amazing. To believe that none of these things have any effect. :D
Click to expand...

As an engineer I'd be amazed if they did have any effect as it would take a re-writing of the laws of physics if they did :D

It's bizarre that in hi fi some people will trust their own flawed and sometimes illusory aural/brain faculties rather than the science and engineering of centuries of mankind's learning. Apparently it's good enough to put man on the moon and build the large hadron collider but falls short in getting 240V to your hi-fi correctly.....
 
westsea said:
It was in this thread - Clearer Audio Prototype Burndy for Naim NAC 552 posts 25 to 28 I think

Not sure how you can tell how different our lives are, I have to confess I'm and engineer and value is important, I have difficulty with what appears to me to be wasteful of resources. On the same day a mate of mine sent me the email about the Illusions competition as he was a finalist, and asked me to vote for his entry. The two things connected in my mind, hence the thread
Click to expand...

Thanks I had seen the thread but did not read it as it was a Naim fanboy topic,

Having read it I can share your wonder about illusions. Having tried Mains cable swaps enthused about by those speaking of their SQ benefits I gave some a try, as I expected zilch. Never tried silver any cable but accept it may change analogue I/C s SQ. Those who believe changes in I/C materials will do the same for digital or mains make me uncomfortable. They usually having minimal understanding of materials but fertile imaginations and rich self expression skills, the romantics. It wasn't in my mind but seems to be in some vocal others.

Also took an international call from Derek at the "Widows centre" explaining to me that I had a problem with my Windows computer. I was trying to eat so he got what Windows computer is that then, good bye.

Illusions for some people work.
 
Quote
It's more helpful IMHO to consider the ways in which what we hear is constructed by our brain trying to interpret data.

I had hoped that a few of the more interesting illusions would have inspired some analogies with the Hi FI scene, particularly the 'The day it rained on Lowry' and Snowblind. The Star Wars entry had a particular resonance to some of the posts on pfm!
 
I'm impressed with the vast knowledge offered which can dismiss lots of hi-fi stuff as ineffective.

Unfortunately I'm not an engineer, metallurgist, electrical expert, psychologist, hearing expert or even rocket scientist, so all I can do is listen and determine for myself what sounds good and what doesn't.

What would be more helpful then telling me of my ignorance (which I already know) is to advice me what practical ways will help me decide.
 
Hipper said:
I'm impressed with the vast knowledge offered which can dismiss lots of hi-fi stuff as ineffective.

Unfortunately I'm not an engineer, metallurgist, electrical expert, psychologist, hearing expert or even rocket scientist, so all I can do is listen and determine for myself what sounds good and what doesn't.

What would be more helpful then telling me of my ignorance (which I already know) is to advice me what practical ways will help me decide.
Click to expand...

A very good point. Listen with your ears not your eyes.
 
Hipper said:
I'm impressed with the vast knowledge offered which can dismiss lots of hi-fi stuff as ineffective.

Unfortunately I'm not an engineer, metallurgist, electrical expert, psychologist, hearing expert or even rocket scientist, so all I can do is listen and determine for myself what sounds good and what doesn't.

What would be more helpful then telling me of my ignorance (which I already know) is to advice me what practical ways will help me decide.
Click to expand...

cooky1257 said:
A very good point. Listen with your ears not your eyes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately those who believe* in measurements often seem to ignore their ears!
*Belief rather than scepticism; "Science" becomes just like any other religion. :(
 
awkwardbydesign said:
Unfortunately those who believe* in measurements often seem to ignore their ears!
*Belief rather than scepticism; "Science" becomes just like any other religion. :(
Click to expand...

Hardly. More often those who believe their ears find they go missing when the eyes are not involved. Unsighted comparisons soon sort out whether there are audible differences that can be reliably identified. That's before you measure a thing or start debating whether a difference is an improvement.

But we tend to hear what we expect unless you can remove the expectation and that works both ways.
 
SteveS1 said:
But we tend to hear what we expect unless you can remove the expectation and that works both ways.
Click to expand...
yes, but I think it's important to understand that what we perceive is a construction and that much of that is entirely unconscious. The pattern recognition examples don't really follow what you expect except in a very broad sense. Our senses construct data in surprising ways on so many levels: consider
-the missing fundamental (where the spectral content is constructed)
- the precedence effect (where the direction of most of the sound is interpreted as coming from the direction of the first arrival)
- some more interesting examples here (although with the unfortunate "illusion" tag)

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ve-great-auditory-illusions.html#.VXvr31KkrCQ

Many of these will of course work blind. The point though is that the various layers of construction are something of a continuum, and once one thinks about them in the round, it becomes obvious that it is very rash to ascribe a cause to a particular perceived event/difference without allowing for all of the different ways in which the event/ difference may have been constructed.

People often post along the lines of - I wasn't really expecting a difference, so it couldn't have been expectation bias. This shows if anything that expectation is perhaps an unhelpful term.

I've always understood expectation bias to apply more to experimenters than to the subjects of experiments. Of course when listening at home to cables we are probably both.
 
I always find these threads rather bemusing, if you can't rely on your own senses what's the point. I hear things the same everyday whatever I'm thinking or doing, I'm certainly not fooled by sound or my brains interpretation of it, my music & tv sound the same to me whatever the situation, I find it odd people succumb to this odd way of thinking unless your on the cannabis as in the other thread.
 
adamdea said:
People often post along the lines of - I wasn't really expecting a difference, so it couldn't have been expectation bias. This shows if anything that expectation is perhaps an unhelpful term.

I've always understood expectation bias to apply more to experimenters than to the subjects of experiments. Of course when listening at home to cables we are probably both.
Click to expand...

I'd use the term 'cognitive bias'.

Another thing that rankles is when people say 'you didn't really hear that -- it was just psychoacoustics', as if 'psychoacoustics' merely referred to auditory 'illusions' and not more generally to the way the cognitive-physiological ensemble of the auditory system constructs what we hear.
 
mattgbell said:
I'd use the term 'cognitive bias'.

Another thing that rankles is when people say 'you didn't really hear that -- it was just psychoacoustics', as if 'psychoacoustics' merely referred to auditory 'illusions' and not more generally to the way the cognitive-physiological ensemble of the auditory system constructs what we hear.
Click to expand...
Absolutely- I was just thinking that a fundamental musical concept- harmony- is probably based on a sort of construction of reality- namely that in order to identify sounds as coming from a particular source (tiger, Avalanche..) we tend to interpret harmonically related sounds as being linked.
 
Ragaman said:
I always find these threads rather bemusing, if you can't rely on your own senses what's the point. I hear things the same everyday whatever I'm thinking or doing, I'm certainly not fooled by sound or my brains interpretation of it, my music & tv sound the same to me whatever the situation, I find it odd people succumb to this odd way of thinking unless your on the cannabis as in the other thread.
Click to expand...

The thread was meant to make a light hearted point not to be carried away by the desire for ever more esoteric equipment. I wish I had your certainty, over the years my perceptions have changed significantly. No cannabis, just the occasional beer.

However, perhaps if you Google this and listen to the end it may help
Flanders And Swann ~ Song Of Reproduction ~ (1957)
 
westsea said:
The thread was meant to make a light hearted point not to be carried away by the desire for ever more esoteric equipment. I wish I had your certainty, over the years my perceptions have changed significantly. No cannabis, just the occasional beer.

However, perhaps if you Google this and listen to the end it may help
Flanders And Swann ~ Song Of Reproduction ~ (1957)
Click to expand...
It was meant as a joke.

It's quite simple to hear without listening, just switch off & enjoy your music rather than listening to intently for various parts, it's much more enjoyable listening to the whole rather than individual segments I have found. Your perceptions don't come into play this way, you just enjoy the music rather than the system, it's very freeing & sometimes why the casual listener such as a passing friend or family member hear improvements even though they have no idea you have changed a piece of equipment or cable etc..as they listen to the music rather than the system.

I have been doing this for years with great results, for me anyway. We are all different & I imagine this concept would be beyond the full on audiophile who has spent thousands on equipment, I'm certainly not in the latter camp.
 
When I think I hear a difference that perhaps I shouldn't I get the test mic out. It proves I am not imagining it.

I've done this countless times valve rolling. There are marked, measurable differences and I get curious as to the traits of particular valves.

If you can't measure a change you aren't hearing one, I think. The mic is better than your ears.
 
Not sure a mic is better, but I definitely would think it's more consistent. I think our ears are amazing but they are connected to a computer which uses other senses for parity which is where things get a bit more tricky. I'm sure if you sat someone in a dark room where they couldn't see what they were listening to, and they had to make comparisons the results would probably be pretty reliable, including measuring no changes at all.
 
adamdea said:
Absolutely-
Click to expand...

Yes. The imprecision of terminology (as used) lies at the root of many misconceptions in audio. But then what can one expect from a field which is a profession for some, a hobby for others, which combines physics, engineering, physiology, psychology, and art, but with the bulk of the participators not versed in even one, let alone all, of these disciplines ...
 
I see a lot of musical terminology misused as well but I just let it slide... A lot of musical malapropisms that only really apply to spectral music seems to have leaked into the audiophile nomenclature for describing everyday musical phenomena. The smart thing to do is not correct such people but leave such discussions well alone. I'm not on a mission to educate or belittle or even try and look cleverer than thou -- so I just leave people to it and. go off and make a thing. It used to depress me but this is how it has always been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top