TheFlash

Bluesound Node 2 vs "pimped" Node 2i with linear PSU

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ChemMan said:

I don't believe you are correct.  The point of double blind studies, as you know, is to limit bias, variability and manipulation.  Testing one individual. multiple times, offers only that one person being tested any knowledge.  It in no way has any bearing on overall scientific theory. 

Agreed. it is a very specific test confined to one individual, pointless unless you are taking on James Randi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

It is normally at this point someone highlights the obvious outcome of most 'home conducted DBTs'. No one has used DBTs and shown that SS amplifiers, SS DACs or cables sound different, so they all sound the same and are therefore perfect. Or is the DBT not ideal for our audio purpose? Only to be met with the ususal wearing of the coat of scientific credibility like the emporer's clothes. Is there another way? Maybe, directly measuring whether the person is positively responding to the changes in audio.

Right let's try a different subject. Can humans respond to audio with frequencies above 20kHz. Most (including me) would say no. Job done.

But some Japanese scientists decided to test it. Reference at the end for the geeks. So they played an audio recording with lots of information above 20 kHz to a group of about 30 people. Whilst playing the audio they measured the response of the people using an EEG and PET results from their brains. And sure enough they saw the part of brain that 'hears' responded to this audio. They then filtered (very carefully) the audio above 20 kHz from the signal. Yes it was a very modern recording with frequencies above 20kHz, without any phase shift in the audio band. They then played the HF part of the data and found there was very little brain activity from the people involved. Proving people can't hear/respond to audio above 20 kHz? And then the perplexing bit. They played the filtered audio (the part with no frequencies above 20 kHz) and the people's brains responded less to this audio that the audio containing all the frequencies.  They speculated that as it can't be the ears that hear this HF audio, humans must respond to HF audio using another sensory process and  they argued it may be the skin or the eyes.

I do not want to speculate about this theory too much but is this another way to determine whether we are responding positively to music without all the hassle/questions of DBTs. Just directly measure your brain's hearing response to the audio? 

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, George 47 said:

But some Japanese scientists decided to test it.

With all due respect.  I read this study some time ago and it is, well, "fluffy."    It's a well presented, methodical attempt, but at the end of the day -- Fluffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Warszawa said:

Cruising towards 100 pages of the same old piffle.

....It could in fact be Waffle, not Piffle - but it takes proper methodology to find out for sure. :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1 minute ago, ChemMan said:

With all due respect.  I read this study some time ago and it is, well, "fluffy."    It's a well presented, methodical attempt, but at the end of the day -- Fluffy.

What is fluffy? I agree the guessing as to what is causing the effect is speculative. But the EEG or the PET data are established methodologies being applied here. Others have tried using scanners to directly measure people's response but they are big noisy machines, even the newer ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, George 47 said:

What is fluffy? I agree the guessing as to what is causing the effect is speculative. But the EEG or the PET data are established methodologies being applied here. Others have tried using scanners to directly measure people's response but they are big noisy machines, even the newer ones. 

It's fluffy because this is the sort of "study" done when graduate students need to graduate. As I said, well presented and methodical, and it should be. Unfortunately, academia makes its own rules and because of this, academic supervisors/mentors are also in the business of asking people to move on. Or its a case of people who have a nice pile of grant money. Take it for what it is: my opinion on someone's work based on a career in the sciences. 

Edited by ChemMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CnoEvil said:

....It could in fact be Waffle, not Piffle - but it takes proper methodology to find out for sure. :geek:

I’ve decided to take the unsighted approach. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
16 minutes ago, ChemMan said:

With all due respect.  I read this study some time ago and it is, well, "fluffy."    It's a well presented, methodical attempt, but at the end of the day -- Fluffy.

Well then lets add a little fact to this . No two and yes I am saying no two people actually hear in the same way . When we are in the womb and in the very formative weeks of our birth the path way to the part of the brain thay deals with hearing is formed . No two pathways are the same and many travel through completely different parts of the brain with very different functions before they get to the part of the brain that deals with sound which is the same part for most people (there are people who hear in a different part of the brain but this is a very low number.)

So as no two people hear in the same way what they hear and how they hear can be altered . If we react to sounds we are not able to hear at different harmonic levels and some of those are out side the level of hearing then it is concievable that they will colour and influence our like and dislike of that music. Very low bass waves that are not heard can be felt and in some cases can make people nauseous being around earthquakes and other seismic activities can induce this yet they way below the threshold of waht we can hear . If that can be true why is hard to believe that higher pitched sounds can have a physical effect ?

Edited by bencat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Unless I've missed something, and I have only speed read the work, I see a flaw.

Play something including frequencies above 20kHz and below 20kHz. Filter and play the bits below 20kHz and the bits above 20kHz, then compare the three. Was anything done to look at the effects of IMD of the above 20kHz frequencies on those below 20kHz? If you just filter, then you remove the higher frequencies, but when they are present, you need surely to consider their modulating effect on other frequencies?

Edited by rabski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bencat said:

If that can be true why is hard to believe that higher pitched sounds can have a physical effect

Who said I don't believe it?  

All the things you mentioned above are why it is "fluffy."  The "knowledge" gleaned from a study of this sort is useless: the numbers too small; the ideas too obscure and esoteric and the area of interest so discreet to be irrelevant. 

I can't tell you how many of these I have peer reviewed, read for marks or written myself. At the end of the day it is nicely scientifically presented.  That's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found a video to sum up this thread ... if you listen carefully you can hear the aliasing effects of ultrasonic frequencies in the music.

BTW The video runs more smoothly with an LPSU.

Half way into the video someone enters the roundabout unsighted in a double blind test ... it's carnage.

Goodnight.

:minikev:

Edited by t1no
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
6 minutes ago, t1no said:

I've found a video to sum up this thread ... if you listen carefully you can hear the aliasing effects of ultrasonic frequencies in the music.

BTW The video runs more smoothly with an LPSU.

Half way into the video someone enters the roundabout unsighted in a double blind test ... it's carnage.

Goodnight.

I think you are taking the pi$$...in a roundabout kind of a way...:minikev:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Time for bed” said Zebbiddee, and that includes bluebottles...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
7 hours ago, Warszawa said:

Not even splitting threads to keep them on topic? How’s anyone supposed to find any updates on the original subject in the last 50 or more pages?

This thread currently has 95 pages which is small beer in the great scheme of things. The Dave DAC thread over on Head-Fi has 989 pages with no sign of running out of stream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
7 hours ago, MGTOW said:

We were discussing scientific testing to establish whether listeners can reliably tell the difference/improvements between hifi equipment. the only correct way to do this is properly conducted, double blind testing. This can be carried out with a group or with an individual, just as long as there are sufficient tests to give statistically viable results.

I was quoted as saying something that I did not and would not say in that context. 

I asked for a retraction, which I STILL have not received. Some quote of what I said in thread about a different subject was posted instead, not at all relevant. 

You wrote these words (repeated below) in a thread that I started specifically about double blind testing and is entirely relevant to this thread where Keith asked if a test carried out by me was unsighted and I correctly quoted you.  You now appear to have changed your mind on the subject.

I  notice that Rabski who also made comments in the same double blind testing thread is happy to repeat his same words on the subject here in this thread because they are relevant and assert the same as you said at the time.

I demand that you retract your words requesting my retraction on the basis that a) you do not a valid argument and b) you had the temerity to use capital letters in your request; you should refrain from attempts to copy the style of such a genious (Twitter) literary icon as Donald Trump.

“....and I bid you good day sir” Extra points given if you know the film and scene that I have just quoted. 😂😂

6EDFC46D-CF55-4D6C-853A-A661C72B94DA.png

Edited by DomT
To add 😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.