I feel it is okay to broaden your knowledge using AI. But I personally would never ever use AI as my copywriter in communication with other people.
1 Like
It will do the opposite of broadening your knowledgeā¦ Your cognitive abilities will be usurped through the biased rationalizations of the machines you depend on to deliver the informationā¦ Assimilation is inevitableā¦
One of my favorite quotes is from Douglas Adams (of Hitchhikerās Guide fame), who said āIād take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.ā Not that I think science or math can yet explain all the phenomena associated with human hearing or our enjoyment of music. But itās making headway in those areas, and I find it fun and exciting to follow the progress.
Thereās some awfully cool stuff being discovered, for example regarding people hearing differently from each other, based on both nature and nurture. Did you know that there are some auditory phenomena nearly all right-handers experience the same way, while some left-handers experience them differently, and other left-handers experience them the way right-handers do? So there is definitely a genetic component, but then the dominance of right-handers in the culture actually changes the way many left-handers hear things. For more on this, see https://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=208 . (Sheās written a fascinating book on the psychology of hearing called āMusical Illusions and Phantom Words.ā)
3 Likes
I guess I should volunteer with some researchers as well.
About ten years ago I suffered from a feeling of pressure on my ears, so I got to see an ear specialist. Had to go through some tests to see if it effected my hearing. All went fine, result was very good. They saw a curve when measuring the pressure that there was some overpressure. Specialist then got her otoscope. The amount of scar tissue on my eardrums amazed her beyond belief. She said she never met someone with this good hearing whilst having so much scars on the ear drum. To her it seemed almost impossible, yet the results were obvious.
Just kidding about volunteering, but nonetheless it has since intrigued me.
Now I donāt want to imply that have the ability to hear certain things that other people canāt. Because I donāt know if thatās the case. Itās just that the understanding of the human brain and hearing is an intriguing area where a lot of ground remains uncharted. Everyone hears different things or focuses on different things. For example even when we hear the same things the brain of my wife focuses on the main melody as where I tend to focus on detail and lyrics more.
4 Likes
Relevant to the constructs of subjective audio perception of sound quality (not to be confused with the bias of āappreciationā of sound-quality)
Psychology of auditory perception
Andrew Lotto1ā and Lori Holt2
Audition is often treated as a āsecondaryā sensory system behind vision in the study of cognitive science. In this review, we focus on three seemingly simple perceptual tasks to demonstrate the complexity of perceptualācognitive processing involved in everyday audition. After providing a short overview of the characteristics of sound and their neural encoding, we present a description of the perceptual task of segregating multiple sound events that are mixed together in the signal reaching the ears. Then, we discuss the ability to localize the sound source in the environment. Finally, we provide some data and theory on how listeners categorize complex sounds, such as speech. In particular, we present research on how listeners weigh multiple acoustic cues in making a categorization decision. One conclusion of this review is that it is time for auditory cognitive science to be developed to match what has been done in vision in order for us to better understand how humans communicate with speech and music.
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/psychology/holtlab/PDF/lori.%20MY%20Papers/LottoHolt_WIRES.pdf
1 Like
So, Iāve waited to see if others picked-up on the intrinsic biases that dominate this āreviewā, and again moot it in itās entirety as a responsible addition to this forumā¦
The most glaring and most influential is, that it is highly doubtful and obvious, you spent much effort in dialing in the up-sampling/modulation parameters of either algorithm for the Yamaha RX-A8Aā¦ This is evident in the description of your setups and the turnaround time from my suggested comparison, to the production of your subjective observational āreviewā.
Please refrain from these sorts of subjective assessments as they serve of no value for anybody here in the forum, as these observations are intrinsic to the biases of the subjective conditions surrounding your audition, which cannot be reproduced and corroborated.
I think it is not up to any single forum member to speak for others. While any listening test is subjective, I want to make three important points:
-
The difference in musical enjoyment between Yamaha receiver and IsoRegen ā Benchmark DAC3 is bigger than switching between any upsampling settings. It is also noticeable without any upsampling and when playing music using JPlayer, for example.
-
During Sundayās auditions I also auditioned my reference tracks using the exact DSD128 r8brain settings that you posted. These settings are very different from the upsampling settings I arrived at. Even with those settings that may not be ideal for my setup, there is a big noticeable difference between Yamaha receiver and IsoRegen-Benchmark.
-
Today I listened to the system using USB output from the Mac mini straight to the IsoRegen (taking the UltraRendu out of the equation). This setup still sounds more musical to my ears than the Yamaha receiver does.
2 Likes
Appreciation is not the pointā¦ It is the subjective assertions made in the reviewā¦. You were better-off just sticking with your impressions in employing up-sampling/modulation in your subjective environment and those subjective observations you perceived in the assessment. 
My r8Brain settings are intrinsic to my playback system synergiesā¦ not yoursā¦ I arrived at using r8Brain after a long run of using SoX and I am very versed in the aspects of filter design.
How would you know?
4 Likes
On my point of view typical accusatory inversionā¦ @mhsmit experiments are quite usefull, dogmatics @Agoldnear posts have no value for anybody here in the forum as usualā¦
8 Likes
Well @mhsmit you got 143 viewsā¦ not quite an overwhelming affirmation of the demographical value of this review, or of this type of review here in this forumā¦
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the majority AudirvÄna user demographic and their digital-audio playback technology acumen.
Youāll get a few more views just because folks want to see what I said, and to post their ad hominem attacks.
Wowā¦ @Agoldnear it is the oppositeā¦
no one here as your intelligenceā¦
and WE (i) donāt care about itā¦ remove your blindness about this forumā¦
we are here about learning, not to be prove we are rightā¦
try to listen to your music without blindness in the darkā¦ see the light!!!
3 Likes
Who are you to tell someone else to refrain on giving their [subjective] opinionā¦ Is your opinion the master of warā¦ ELPā¦ No one yields who flys in my shipā¦
4 Likes
Just pointing out the obviousā¦ Doesnāt take a genius to seeā¦
I am not the arbiterā¦ The statistical reality is revealing of the truthā¦
The ad hominem attacks were predictableā¦ 
Start Rant/
So now you are a statistics expert as well? I get a bit of a pot and kettle feeling here. You are the self proclaimed expert of about everything on this forum with āstatisticallyā speaking the most irrelevant and bombastic posts (next to useful ones I must admit) and now you are accusing others of being āirrelevantā or even telling them to seize posting based on some fringe āstatisticsā you deem significant? It seems that you confuse your own subjective truth with the absolute truth.
Yet you are mostly tolerated (āstatistically speakingā) by other forum members. It would suit you if you could show the same courtesy to others. But I donāt hold my breath. It occurs to me that your (IMO) superiority complex has often a toxic effect in threads. Nobody likes a āMr. Wiseguyā. Yet nobody is telling you to stop posting. Again why donāt you show the same decency to others?
/Rant over
5 Likes
Deja Vu much?
Hi Andy
5 Likes
Yes. One Deja Vu to many
5 Likes
I suffer the ad hominem attacks from you and others, when expressing my opinion and insightsā¦
Somehow it seems these responses are a projection of what you are accusing me of posting, only because of a myopic cognitive-bias that many have on this forum, regarding the hubris of their own āsuperiority complexāā¦ Iām sorry that your egos get bumpedā¦
No, I am not a statistician but I am smart enough to extrapolate from the number of views of this thread, that the premise and intentions for this post were based on a high degree of NaĆÆve Realism (psychology) and there was little rationale for this reviewā¦ especially when we donāt see these types of subjective commentary dealing with comparative performance here on the forum. If so, why donāt folks like yourself tell the story of the evolution of your playback systems here? Any insights into my playback system has been provided in response to ad hominem attacks so to defend my positionā¦ not to bragā¦ Although some feel this is the reasonā¦ I understand the pride folks have in their playback systems and level of their observational experiencesā¦ We all rely on some form of subjective assessments in-order to confirm our biases and make decisions.
I do my best to provide insights into my assertions and where my perspectives are derived. I expect everybody making assertions here on the forum to do the same. However, when I call out somebody (at the risk of being attacked) regarding assertions that have not been qualified or cannot be qualified, I expect them to defend those assertions through qualified and verifiable evidence. Generally, because of expectations cultivated by the general audiophile media marketplace, folks are looking for confirmation and affirmation, not expecting challengesā¦ I donāt believe I am the most knowledgeable member of the AudirvÄna Community Forumā¦ I have a wide spectrum of insight to contribute and I am always adding to my catalog of insightsā¦ Any assertion I may make will be supported by real-world and theoretical science and experiential insight into the subject being discussedā¦ Some here find this intimidating and interpret this as arrogant and simply egocentric in nature and I suffer the ad hominem attacks from those myopic perceptionsā¦ I give credit where credit is due, however I will always question the veracity of unqualified assertions that cannot be corroborated or verifiedā¦ This often leads to debate on technical acumen and the questioning of subjective interpretations of things we hold as being true.
I appreciate your insights and the insights of others that I can verifyā¦ In some instances your experience and that of others is out of the scope of my interests, but I am always curious, which has led me into some areas of playback that are not relevant to my own, however fundamentally relevant in the scope of signal transmission.
Technical assertions must be questionedā¦ to accept any given assertion here on the community forum as āfactā without question, in my opinion, should never be something we should foster. There is too much misinformation being purveyed in this sort of subjective review. Anybody standing-up to question such assertions with corroborative evidence to back their position should not be viewed as doing so, purely for some egocentric reasonā¦ I am acutely aware of this mis-interpretation of my own positions and responses and insightā¦ However, I will continue to express my viewpoint and insights in light of this myopic interpretation of my intentions by forum members.
Maybe you should have your own thread titled:
@Agoldnear - No subjective elements here, just facts and .pdf
1 Like