[medium jim]

I disagree, you can't trust your ears!

Prove it to yourself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

Listening and measuring together, that's my advice

Both are good tools...

Jim

[Steve]

I disagree, you can't trust your ears!

Prove it to yourself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

Listening and measuring together, that's my advice

First, it pertains to video, not to audio, therefore you have misapplied science, unless
and until you have proven that this applies in all cases in audio listening as well
as video.
It is one thing to say it can happen, which it does, but misapplying science is not good.

Agreed, measuring and listening are both valuable.

Next, the moderator has instructed us to keep on topic.

Cheers.

[stevenkelby]

Both are good tools...

Jim

Within their limits, agreed 

First, it pertains to video, not to audio, therefore you have misapplied science, unless
and until you have proven that this applies in all cases in audio testing.
Thus you do not have a valid argument until you prove such.

Next, the moderator has instructed us to keep on topic.

Cheers.

First, I don't understand what you mean by "it pertains to video, not to audio". The link I provided shows you how easily our ears are fooled. Ears, that's audio...

It uses video to show it, but what it is showing, is that our ears cannot always be trusted completely. I think that is a valid argument.

Next, what is the topic exactly? Golden Ears is in the thread title. If a discussion of the abilities of human ears is not on topic, what is?

Best,

Steve.

[Steve]

Within their limits, agreed 

First, I don't understand what you mean by "it pertains to video, not to audio". The link I provided shows you how easily our ears are fooled. Ears, that's audio...

It uses video to show it, but what it is showing, is that our ears cannot always be trusted completely. I think that is a valid argument.

Next, what is the topic exactly? Golden Ears is in the thread title. If a discussion of the abilities of human ears is not on topic, what is?

Best,

Steve.

You are attempting to misapply science by using the youtube (combining both senses, sight and hearing) when only
audio/hearing is present from one's stereo. There is a conflict being demonstrated between video (lips moving) and
audio in the youtube, when with normal stereo, there is no such conflict.

You claim our ears are easily fooled, so how often does it actually occur. It is a case of how often and under
what circumstances.

We are to stay on topic, aren't we??

Cheers.

[stevenkelby]

The point of the video is that the sound is Bar but our ears are hearing Far. Therefore, our ears are fooled, our ears "hear" something that isn't there.

In that case, we cannot trust what we hear with our ears, correct?

So the blanket statement to "trust your ears" is not always good advice. Maybe you are looking at your new amp or cables, and hearing improved sound when the sound has not changed, or is worse.

Does that make sense?

Maybe I missed your point.

You claim our ears are easily fooled, so how often does it actually occur.

How should I know? 

For the record, I think that some people do have "Golden Ears" and can hear things than "science" can't measure.

Steve.

[stevenkelby]

You claim our ears are easily fooled, so how often does it actually occur. It is a case of how often and under
what circumstances.

I think I get it now after your edit. It's a good question and central to the discussion. That youtube video was just one strong example but I'm sure there are others.

The OP video suggests the opposite can be true too, sometimes our "science" and measurement can be wrong/fooled, and it's our ears that are right

[wakibaki]

I watched the video. I am convinced. It would be better if you emphasized that the results are confirmed by blind testing, and that the whole presentation is science based, and claims only to have extended the bounds of scientific knowledge of what is audible.

w

[Steve]

The point of the video is that the sound is Bar but our ears are hearing Far. Therefore, our ears are fooled, our ears "hear" something that isn't there.

In that case, we cannot trust what we hear with our ears, correct?

So the blanket statement to "trust your ears" is not always good advice. Maybe you are looking at your new amp or cables, and hearing improved sound when the sound has not changed, or is worse.

Does that make sense?

Maybe I missed your point.

How should I know? 

For the record, I think that some people do have "Golden Ears" and can hear things than "science" can't measure.

Steve.

The point is actually the lips appear to say one thing while the audio is perceived differently, thus the conflict.
It is really nothing more than trickery and deceit since one does not see the tongue, internals of the mouth. With a
typical stereo setup, one does not see any video/lips, thus no conflict is established. As such, the youtube is
a complete misapplication. 

Your comment:

That youtube video was just one strong example but I'm sure there are others.

As per my above point, the youtube is not even applicable to this discussion, a misapplied piece of
trickery since the tongue is not seen. As such, it is not any example, certainly not a "strong example".
Sloppy science is picking a trick and posing it as science.

Cheers.

[Steve]

I watched the video. I am convinced. It would be better if you emphasized that the results are confirmed by blind testing, and that the whole presentation is science based, and claims only to have extended the bounds of scientific knowledge of what is audible.

w

Who says it is not based on science? Maybe they just arrived at different conclusions than yours.
Since over the years there has been debate as to which blind tests are accurate and which are not,
which side does the public accept, who decides?

Cheers.

[stevenkelby]

The point is actually the lips appear to say one thing while the audio is perceived differently. Of course the
tongue is not seen, which affects the sound. Again, it is a misapplied science, coming to an improper conclusion.

I believe we were instructed to address the ESS video.

Cheers.

That sounds like a straw man to me. Do you think we can trust our ears or not? I think not, and i think that video is a demonstration of that.

Do you trust your ears 100%?

I think this is related to the ESS video and therefore on topic.

[Steve]

That sounds like a straw man to me. Do you think we can trust our ears or not? I think not, and i think that video is a demonstration of that.

Do you trust your ears 100%?

I think this is related to the ESS video and therefore on topic.

Since you are pushing it, may I suggest you study the youtube again.
See my previous post again as the tongue is not seen, so not all the information is
presented to the viewer/listener. One can mislead anyone under those conditions,
by misinforming or leaving out critical information.
Stereo listeners have no such video/lip vs audio conflicts to deal with, thus your youtube presentation
is inapplicable under real, typical, stereo conditions, which is what this string is about.

The question concerning this string is not if I believe my ears 100% of the time, but if you presented
any credible evidence to contradict the ESS youtube. You did not, but did misuse science.
Please don't attempt to diverge from the topic.

Again I ask the question, how do you know the ESS presentation is not based on science? 
Did you contact ESS for information? 
 
Cheers.

[stevenkelby]

Since you are pushing it, may I suggest you study the youtube again.

I don't think I'm pushing anything, just carrying on the conversation and trying to understand your point of view

See my previous post again as the tongue is not seen, so not all the information is
presented to the viewer/listener. One can mislead anyone under those conditions.
Stereo listeners have no such conflicts to deal with, thus the youtube is nonsense under
real, typical, stereo conditions, which is what this string is about.

OK I disagree and have explained why. Arguing further is probably pointless but I'll have one last try.

My take away from that video is that you cannot always trust what your ears hear under all conditions. Your ears can be fooled (how and in what circumstances is open, the point is that they can be). Regardless of whether the youtube video helps demonstrate that point or not (I think it does), do you agree with that point?

I ask you again:

Do you trust your ears 100%?

Or not?

Again I ask the question, how do you know the ESS presentation is not based on science? 
Did you contact ESS for information? 

I think you mistake me for wakibaki, he said:

I watched the video. I am convinced. It would be better if you emphasized that the results are confirmed by blind testing, and that the whole presentation is science based, and claims only to have extended the bounds of scientific knowledge of what is audible.

w

I agree with him.

I don't think anyone is saying the ESS presentation is not based on science? 

The question in this string is not if I believe my ears 100% of the time.

Well that was my question, I asked it after medium jim said to trust your ears and I said I disagree, you can't trust your ears.

My question remains, can you or not? I thought I showed 1 situation in which you cannot. Obviously that situation is not the same as listening to a stereo, but it does show that ears can be fooled.

The question is if you presented
any credible evidence to contradict the ESS youtube. You did not.

I wouldn't try and contradict the ESS video, I agreed with everything presented in it. To the best of my knowledge it makes sense

Who do you think is trying to contradict the ESS video? Maybe you jumped to a false conclusion?

Please don't attempt to diverge
from the topic.
 
Cheers.

Which topic was that again?

[Steve]

Steve, I am merely pointing out that the youtube you presented is not applicable
to the subject at hand. I have pointed out, twice now, that the conflict that occurs in the
you tube, between video/lips and audio, does not occur in typical stereo listening.
It is that simple.

I apologize. I see you did not post such.

That is all the points I am making. Your comment concernng believing one's ears is with
Jim. 

Cheers and good luck in your personal endeavors.

[tnargs]

Am I the only one who is naturally suspicious when an employee of one DAC maker makes a presentation on how other DAC technologies are audibly worse? 

[medium jim]

There have been several tours of various gear on the AC that were/are predicated on the participants listening impressions and not scientific measurements, why is this if the human ear isn't a valuable tool in an of itself?!

Or are all of them an exercise of futility...

Jim

[stevenkelby]

There have been several tours of various gear on the AC that were/are predicated on the participants listening impressions and not scientific measurements, why is this if the human ear isn't a valuable tool in an of itself?!

Or are all of them an exercise of futility...

Jim

I don't know, I think it's still worthwhile listening!

I think the ear is a very valuable tool, just not foolproof

[medium jim]

I don't know, I think it's still worthwhile listening!

I think the ear is a very valuable tool, just not foolproof

And the same can be said for scientific measurements! 

Jim

[kernelbob]

I've seen posts complaining that manufacturers tout the superiority of their products without technical details.  Then, when one presents a lengthy presentation of the technical reasons why some DAC technologies sound better than others, there are posts complaining that a manufacturer is presenting technical information.

What exactly do you want from a manufacturer?  Do you want their understanding of technical aspects of their products or don't you?  Of course you're welcome to take the presentation with a grain of salt, but I would suggest the most useful responses would be to address the technical aspects of the presentation and not to attack it out of hand because the presenter works for a DAC manufacturer.

I thought the presentation was clear and carefully constructed so as not to be too technical (no equations were permitted by the ground rules) and yet be substantive.  If someone disagrees with the technical argument, then so be it, but I think we owe the gentleman a thank you for his efforts.

For one, I welcome technical discussions from any quarter.  If the arguments are bogus, then I'm sure they'll be dealt with in short order.  So far, I haven't seen one response to the presentation attacking the technical points presented.

[stevenkelby]

And the same can be said for scientific measurements! 

Jim

Agreed 

I thought the ESS talk was excellent.

[medium jim]

Agreed 

I thought the ESS talk was excellent.

An audiophile has to learn early on that this is a give and take and no matter how bad you want a perfect system, it will not be...sure fun trying though!

Jim