[bigshot]

We're talking about an octave at the very top of the range of human hearing. Unless we're a teenager, we probably can't hear the top half of that octave if we tried. The rolloff in the half we actually *can* barely hear is between -.5dB at stuff we can sorta hear and -3dB and the bleeding edge of our ability to hear. Now that would be audible with tones and music in lower octaves with a direct A/B comparison. No one is arguing otherwise. But our hearing isn't the same up in the stratosphere as it is at the core, and under music, it's even less sensitive to small variations. And sitting on the couch listening to your favorite CD with no switched comparison, you would never notice it in a million years.

The dumbest thing about audiophiles is how they follow numbers without any context whatsoever. Better numbers HAVE to sound better, right? Nope.

Why do sound engineers make the exact same mistake? Yes, .5dB is the threshold of audibility at best, and 3dB is a clear volume difference. But the context here is 1) very VERY high frequencies, 2) a gradual rolloff from the absolute edge of audibility to a just clearly noticeable difference, and 3) the sound being listened to on headphones with a response curve above 10kHz that looks like the Rocky Mountains.

We aren't talking about theory here. We're talking about audibility. That isn't a hard and fast line. It varies a little bit, and the context of how the sound is being heard makes a HUGE difference. .5dB with tones in an anechoic chamber isn't the same as .5dB sitting on your couch in your living room. It's dumb to keep chasing numbers down a rabbit hole, but it's even dumber to say that a number means one thing and one thing only, regardless of the context.

 

[gregorio]

We're talking about an octave at the very top of the range of human hearing. Unless we're a teenager, we probably can't hear the top half of that octave if we tried.

Again, let’s forget the actual science/facts and just go with what bigshot thinks. Until this is actually called the bigshot forum, then teenagers will generally hear up to around 18kHz, some up to 19kHz. By their early 20’s about 17kHz and then loose very roughly about 1kHz per decade.

The rolloff in the half we actually *can* barely hear is between -.5dB at stuff we can sorta hear and -3dB and the bleeding edge of our ability to hear.

According to the measurement you quoted a -0.5 roll-off occurs around 8kHz. Maybe you can only “sorta hear” stuff at 8kHz but that doesn’t apply to everyone. At 10kHz it’s about -0.8 and at 12kHz it’s around -1.2dB. I’ve not argued this is a HUGE difference but to many adults it IS an audible difference.

But our hearing isn't the same up in the stratosphere as it is at the core, and under music, it's even less sensitive to small variations. And sitting on the couch listening to your favorite CD with no switched comparison, you would never notice it in a million years.

8kHz is not “up in the stratosphere”, even 10kHz - 12kHz isn’t, unless you’re in your 70’s or have hearing damage. Last time I tested this type of frequency roll-off, in my late 40’s, I could ABX it with 100% certainty and that was with music recordings, not test signals!

You have zero evidence of whether I or others “would never notice it in a million years”, you simply made that up but that’s OK because this is the bigshot forum and you’re allowed to do what you slam other audiophiles for doing!

The dumbest thing about audiophiles is how they follow numbers without any context whatsoever. Better numbers HAVE to sound better, right? Nope.

That is indeed one of the dumbest things about audiophiles. They moan about jitter and all sorts of things below -100dB and “numbers” which are sometimes even below the level at which sound can be reproduced, let alone be audible. But that is NOT the case here, there is context; scientifically proven levels of audibility and even you stated “The difference between old school NOS DACs and oversampling ones is audible but not huge.”, so now you’re contradicting yourself!

Why do sound engineers make the exact same mistake?

Yes, yes, the old audiophile cry that sound engineers don’t know what they’re doing. An assertion that you yourself have argued against countless times when it suits your agenda.

But the context here is 1) very VERY high frequencies, 2) a gradual rolloff from the absolute edge of audibility to a just clearly noticeable difference, and 3) the sound being listened to on headphones with a response curve above 10kHz that looks like the Rocky Mountains.

1. It’s high but it’s not ultrasonic and it’s not even VERY high for many people.

2. A just noticeable difference is around 0.5 to 0.7dB and differences of just above 0.2dB have been demonstrated to be ABX’able (although not in the higher freqs alone). A difference of 0.8dB at 10kHz and 1.2dB at 12kHz is within that proven limit and can be identified by some/many.

3. Irrelevant unless that HP freq response changes every time a new track starts or unless it seriously attenuates at 9kHz-12kHz but of course most HPs do the exact opposite.

It's dumb to keep chasing numbers down a rabbit hole, but it's even dumber to say that a number means one thing and one thing only, regardless of the context.

True but irrelevant, because there is context and we’re not chasing numbers like 0.001% distortion or jitter artefacts at -140dB, the numbers we’re discussing here have been reliably proven to be within audibility.

What is dumb, is to contradict the reliable evidence/science, contradict even yourself and simply make-up assertions with no basis in fact beyond your personal experiences. Or rather, that would be dumb in a Sound Science forum, in a bigshot forum you can contradict or make-up whatever you want.

G

 

[bigshot]

words. numbers. ego. everything but actual sound.

Take an a really good song and apply that rolloff to it- a nice steady curve from -.5dB at 10kHz to -3dB at 20kHz. Sit on the couch and relax and see how much of an impact it has on the music. Can you tell that there is a rolloff in normal home listening conditions without a direct A/B comparison? Is it unpleasant to listen to that song that way?

Just because we can measure a difference, it doesn't mean it's audible. And likewise, just because there is an audible difference, it doesn't mean that it adds up to a hill of beans in normal home listening. Audiophiles don't just worry about sound that they can't hear. They worry about sound that flat out doesn't matter.

Go ahead and make it about me... Bigshot this, Bigshot that. I really don't care. I'm speaking clearly and making understandable points, whether or not you allow yourself to listen to any voice but your own.

 

[gregorio]

So I state: “Last time I tested this type of frequency roll-off, in my late 40’s, I could ABX it with 100% certainty and that was with music recordings, not test signals!” and you respond with:

Take an a really good song and apply that rolloff to it- a nice steady curve from -.5dB at 10kHz to -3dB at 20kHz. See how much of an impact it has on the music.

Ridiculous! And incidentally, “that rolloff” you posted; at 10kHz is down by about -0.8dB (not -0.5) and at 12kHz it’s down by about -1.2dB.

words. numbers. ego. everything but actual sound.

So the music recordings I listened to when doing that ABX test weren’t “actual sound”, what were they then? words. numbers. ego indeed, welcome to the bigshot forum!

G

 

[bigshot]

hush!

 

[gregorio]

Nice edit after the fact:

Just because we can measure a difference, it doesn't mean it's audible.

Sure, this is easy to demonstrate, science has done so numerous times and it’s beyond rational dispute that we can measure well beyond audibility.

And likewise, just because there is an audible difference, it doesn't mean that it adds up to a hill of beans in normal home listening.

What do you mean “And likewise”, it’s not “likewise” in the slightest! You just made this up, based purely on your personal experience of your home system and your personal opinion of what “a hill of beans” is. So no scientific basis to this assertion, it is not beyond rational dispute and therefore it’s pretty much the opposite of “likewise”!

Go ahead and make it about me... Bigshot this, Bigshot that.

The assertion above, is that about bigshot’s belief and opinion or is it a demonstrable scientific fact? YOU are making it about bigshot, not me!

I really don't care.

Then why are you doing it?

G

 

[bigshot]

whatever. It's getting boring now. I've clearly stated what I was trying to say, regardless of your ego fueled lack of comprehension.