Suggest audio-related topics for us to cover on our podcast, The Noise Floor!

The HEADPHONE Community
, , ,
223

Thanks for using these questions! I saw them used on the replay recently, since I’m many weeks behind on the stream replays.

A few other topics:

What was BA timbre? I never got what people meant when they said “BA timbre” because it was a phrase used like you already knew what BA timbre was, or sounded like, without any examples provided. (I say “was” because I think that phrase has slowly fallen out of fashion in the discourse.)

What were some perfect features from headphones that were otherwise bad?

What headphones have you bought multiple times, and why?

What headphones should everyone listen to at least once?

1 Like
224

In response to your question “What headphones…bought multiple times, and why…?”

For a whole variety of reasons, price, availability, ease of ordering, convenience, form factor, light weight, portability, less obtrusive in public, smaller and easier to store, and dare I say it, better sound quality, IEM’s have taken an important - actually a dominant place in my listening. That’s what I use 100% of the time.Now.

And it did take a few months of tons of comparisons, but I could not shake off my wonderlust for the ARTTI T10. ended up buying two more of this IEM, for my wife and child, so they could also enjoy all the goodness that I had discovered. By far the best IEM I have heard, and am pretty satisfied with it. I wanted to give them something really nice, and could not thing of anything better, that I could afford, for their respective birthdays.

I have larger ear canals than most so I use the Moondrop SPRING XL ear tips with the ARTTI T10. Yes it is a snug fit, cos the T10 nozzles are wider than many other IEM nozzles, but that combination of tip and earpiece is nirvana, match made on earth for my ear canals. Great isolation, fit and open sound, highs, lows, mids, sub bass. All in there. The T10 comes with a variety of ear tips, which sound ok, but the SPRING XL’s take things up a serious notch more.

226

If this has already been talked about, forgive me - I think I’ve listened to all episodes and don’t recall this being covered.

I think a good topic would be how each of you approaches trying to recruit friends and family into the hobby. It’s so easy to get too deep into the weeds too quickly, so how do you avoid that in your attempts to interest others in the audio reproduction hobby? Once they take the bait and are somewhat hooked, how do you then entice them to fully jump down the rabbit hole? Or do you not even bother with the latter, and instead let them cook for a bit to see if they express further interest on their own?

227

Can you guys please shred the latest video by passion for bs?

  • he advertises it as a video on blind testing but the entire video is about short back-to-back tests versus longer uninterrupted listening sessions
  • his only remark on blind testing in the entire video is that “it’s difficult to do”
  • he argues, I think, that some differences between equipment can be so minute that you can only detect them after several hours of (supposedly uninterrupted) listening – (a) so why would anyone care if the difference is so small that you can only detect it after hours? (b) he must mean uninterrupted listening, otherwise he could just do the A/B/X test after the hours-long listening session (c) even if there were differences that our brains can reliably detect – but only after 4+ hours of uninterrupted listening and no sooner – then they must be so minute that they would be completely drowned out by the strength of habituation that occurs within 10 minutes of listening.
  • he’s a complete quack and shouldn’t get more air time, but he’s so deep in Dunning Kruger territory that I think it needs to be publicly exposed.
1 Like
228

There’s zero chance this gets covered, no one’s gonna go on a crusade against another Youtuber and make enemies.

I think this guy was in a podcast that Cameron participated in before?

But perhaps covering some of these topics or have @Mad_Economist swear and laugh about them would get the point across without directly naming names and pointing fingers.

229

I’m not averse to indicting this video, but as far as going on a crusade against a person, I’d rather that they be present for it. I’d very much like to have a dialogue - and by that I mean a civil but serious debate - with Lachlan on a platform of his choosing about the myriad misconceptions in his videos. I’d like this to be public, but if he would prefer to talk in private, I’m also open to that.

We’re pretty happy to roast content people put out, though - recall that one of our streams was about 50% beating up on a RTings article a few months back. This video sucks, and spending some time breaking down why - and possibly doing the same with a couple other videos of his on the same thread - isn’t off-brand for us. This doesn’t make us in a crusade against him, but we’re very openly in a crusade against misinformation, and this video is definitely that :smile:

5 Likes
230

Let me attempt to be a bit “open”. My major lesson learnt over recent months, is, there are a lot more commercial undercurrents, than are immediately apparent.

For many, listening is either a hobby or a professional tool. These interest groups have not much at stake, in the game.

As soon as you cross over into the camp of anyone selling something in the listening tool marketplace, a service, a product, or influencing the sale thereof, all bets are off. It’s impossible to eliminate bias or conflicts of interest.

So please do not become upset by “marketing” videos on Youtube. There is no censorship there, the rules are different. He earns money from products sales, product advertising, as well as Youtube adverts on his channel, so controversy improves “footfall” and eyeballs, on his videos. The controversy is most likely deliberate, and your response proves it. He has touched a nerve - yours, the video has done its job, sparked curiosity. I now have to join the bandwagon and watch it, increasing his income.

Consider almost everything on Youtube Land as what it is, “entertainment” not truth. There is absolutely no filter or censorship, or peer review or an editorial board. Anyone can say anything, on Youtube.

2 Likes
231

You’re wrong about that, now that you’ve clicked on his video you’ll get more videos from him and other influencer/marketeers! :rofl:

Overall I agree with you though, I see that thumbnail and just rolled my eyes and refused to watch. If I were to get upset and want to prove everyone who’s wrong, I’d have to spend my whole life and then some on headfi!

232

For those seeking to avoid this, you can delete your youtube history in time increments, avoiding recommendations you don’t want (I usually do this when I watch a video to fact check it)

233

No one says you have to get upset and want to prove someone wrong just by watching their video. I’m not saying you should watch every video about every subject that interests you, but consider that the only way to be confident in your opinion is to periodically consider the opposite opinion with an equal amount of respect.

I myself found the video thought provoking but I am skeptical of his conclusions. Which pretty much sums up my opinion of every Passion For Sound video. It would be great to see a discussion on Noise Floor as @Mad_Economist suggests regardless.

And yeah, the title and thumbnail is clickbaity. Every successful YouTube channel uses similar tactics. It’s just good marketing. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.

1 Like
234

You can also click the 3 dots and go “don’t recommend videos from this channel”, which I did after watching the above video.

3 Likes
235

guess so. overly confident people don’t even need to do that, they already know they’re right.

236

It sparked anger, which works for engagement but is toxic for the community. Your view also seems to be disregarding any ethical dimension to it – are you saying that because he’s making money from this it is morally ok to spread misinformation like that, and even try to sell it off as based on science? I think it is legally ok to do that but not morally.

No, it’s called a bait and switch. The thumbnail is about blind testing, the intro is about blind testing, the rest of the video is about a different topic entirely.

3 Likes
237

My bad, I had forgotten. You are correct. :+1:

238

My educational background is close to the research he cites on human perception (i.e., I come from cognitive psychology). IMO you mostly misinterpreted this video, and PFS is more right than wrong. While I have no use for a lot of his stuff (e.g., cable analyses) and he can be a quack, this is indeed based on science. I half disagree with his selective attention interpretation (mid point of the video), and I generally disagree with his “unconscious bias” content near the end (to start, “unconscious” is often used to address “implicit” biases that are not unconscious at all).

  • He says that [CORRECTION: rapid switching] overwhelms hearing given the complexity of music, and that music’s rapid changes from moment to moment make it hard to evaluate snippets. Correct.
  • He emphasizes that the appreciation of content occurs over longer periods and as the brain forms interpretive structures (i.e., this changes with learning and remembering passages on the 2nd or 400th time listening to a given song. Consider every Zeppelin song that shifts from mild to overdrive). Yes.
  • Habituation – if meant as having a functional memory for system performance no matter what sounds come out next – varies by the distinctiveness of content and exposure to the range of possible interacting states of all elements (i.e., sources, DAC, amp, drivers). This is commonly known as “synergy.” A full appreciation of a system’s potential can indeed require hours or days rather than 10 minutes. Easily.

I developed my functional strategy for system evaluation years ago, as shown in my fatigue-oriented playlist. With this playlist I suffer to determine what setup will work for me in real-world listening, as likely pleasant or a dead-end. This method cannot be blind, but I find it to be highly reliable.

In brief, I listen to a variety of genres for 3 hours and some of these are heavily distorted or bad quality sources. The distortion and quality get worse over time. My measure is tinnitus and general auditory fatigue (e.g., losing a sense of resolution, discomfort). A bad setup makes my ears ring in seconds, even with mild female vocals. An excellent setup will make it to 2.5 or even 3 hours. Various drivers, amps, or DACs have reliable “pain points” at specific times and with specific tracks.

There is no faking pain and tinnitus. Developing a clear appreciation of other musical properties can require as much time and source variety too.

Same here. PFS means well, but he tends to wander off.

No. It gets at his overall point: blind AB tests, as necessarily short and inherently at odds with more complex perceptions, are worthless. Yes, yes they are worthless. One example is what happens to your eyes when you walk from a snow covered yard into dark room and vice versa. Your optic sensors require a good amount of chemical time to adjust. You’ll be functionally blind for a few seconds going either way. Such is life as a biological, electro-chemical animal.

I find PFS to be a waste of time more often than not, but this one was okay.

See above. IMO you interpreted this video incorrectly.

Nope, he’s talking about real science on why blind testing doesn’t work well. He is correct on the whole.

2 Likes
239

What are you testing for? Finding audible differences in equipment? Or finding a preference in audio equipment?

And why would you say blind tests are necessarily short? Can’t you play something without looking for any amount of time, then switch to playing with other equipment without looking for whatever amount of time?

What are you testing for in your audio test to make this example relevant? Blind audio tests should be volume matched.

What? You put your health on the line to test audio equipment to see which one you like better? How do you control for the many variables in your test, such as your personal fatigue level day to day, changes in your hearing sensitivity due to abuses and age, volume matching etc? Do you just play your playlist at some volume and time yourself to see when your ears ring?

1 Like
240

First of all, I don’t know what your background has to do with anything. Your argument should be able to stand on its own two legs.

That’s neither what he says, nor is it correct. He argues against short back-to-back tests and for very long tests. His arguments do not contain any reference to whether the person testing knows which product they’re listening to or not (which is what blind test means). You can do a blind test while listening to one product for 4 minutes, 4 hours or 4 days non-stop before switching to the next product. If “blind testing overwhelms the listener” then how exactly does you knowing what you’re listening to help with that? Think about what you are saying here: A listener would still be overwhelmed after hours and hours of listening only because they don’t know which particular piece of equipment is in the chain?

No. Anyone reviewing audio equipment should know to use songs they are very familiar with, not new songs. So the song material in an experienced reviewer should at least in large part consist of tracks they have heard at least 400 times. In addition to that, a reviewer who has done this kind of extensive listening sessions with at least 100 if not 500 different products – a lot of them high-end – should not be acoustically overwhelmed for hours when listening to familiar music with a new DAC.

The what now? Let’s look this up to get on the same page w.r.t. what habituation is: “Habituation is a form of non-associative learning in which an organism’s response to a repeated stimulus decreases over time due to prolonged or repeated exposure, without changes in sensory input or reinforcement. It is a fundamental neural adaptation that optimizes cognitive and sensory processing by filtering out predictable or irrelevant stimuli.”

And nobody argued that this isn’t the case. Let’s briefly acknowledge that we have left the question of blind vs. non-blind testing and are now discussing the question whether short-term AB testing or long-term AB testing is more appropriate for a product review. Nobody is saying he can’t take all the time in the world to get to know the product’s characteristic sound. But if after all of that extensive listening he still can’t tell product A from product B in a blind ABX test, then you’d be a fool to trust what he has to say about the difference between the two.

Sorry, but this sounds massively unwise. If your method for figuring out how much you like a certain product is how fast it gives you tinnitus I’m at a bit of a loss for words. But you should stop.

He is randomly linking a total of two papers and a non-peer-reviewed book to pretend his argument is somehow based on science when it doesn’t even make logical sense. He is showing no ability to isolate various independent factors from one another, i.e., he doesn’t appear to understand that whether something is tested “blind” is not the same as whether something is tested “short”, or with which test scheme something is tested (e.g., ABX).

Unfortunately, it’s not just him.

3 Likes
241

See the video. Human short term memory versus long term memory. They differ – short term is more accurate to the source while long term memories consolidate and transform. Human audio memory is generally pretty poor.

Human senses are electro-chemical. This includes vision as well as sound, and smell is keyed to the physical shapes of various compounds. Chemicals have all sorts of time and fatigue issues. See classic film (silver-based) photography. Your brain relies on chemicals too.

Volume matching will make it even harder to distinguish between sources, yes.

When you’ve shopped for gear expressly to avoid tinnitus, you do what you’ve got to do. There’s no risk per the volume (<75 dB) – just the post-ear perceptual integration.

1 Like
242

I see, hope you find what you like without further tinnitus then. According to research you could try to put negative db filters for your tinnitus frequency when you play back audio, it might help.

243

That is a better approach to testing, yep.

Typo on my part; I meant rapid switching. No need to continue this topic.

You be you. Others do not test that way.

Fully agree. Exposure to what system can do will make it happen. Exposure to a partial range of content will not.

Human perceptual performance typically falls on a bell curve. Some distinctions may not be audible to a given person, or at a given time. Humans are fuzzy and they often generate dubious interpretations. That’s why many follow reviewers with similar tastes.

Measured dB of 60 to 65 can do it. I’ve been to audiologists, and it’s not a physical risk in the slightest. My hearing tests quite well for my age. This is a quirk of perceptual/neurological processing that happens AFTER the ear.

I do not like most of his content and cannot defend it, so it’s time to let this rest.

1 Like