1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 195864-117078

Here’s how good AI is now. Check it out!

AI Overview

+18

Yes, the threshold for hearing audible phase shift on an analog equalizer can change significantly depending on the audio system and listening environment

. The audibility of the EQ's phase shift is influenced by factors beyond the EQ itself, including room acoustics, speaker design, playback volume, and the complexity of the audio material. 

How the audio system affects audibility

Room acoustics

  • Acoustic masking: In a typical listening room, sound reflections from walls, ceilings, and other surfaces create a complex web of constructive and destructive interference (a "phase soup"). This ambient phase distortion is far greater than what an analog EQ introduces, effectively masking the more subtle EQ-induced shifts.
  • Threshold shift: Because our ears are evolutionarily adapted to filter out the natural phase shifts caused by environmental reflections, the audible threshold for an EQ's phase shift is much higher in a normal room compared to a controlled, anechoic (echo-free) environment. 

Loudspeakers

  • Crossover effects: The crossovers in multi-driver speakers are a major source of phase shifts, as different frequencies are routed to different drivers (woofers, tweeters). The phase shifts caused by a speaker's own crossovers can easily dominate and obscure any shifts introduced by an external EQ. This is less of an issue with headphones or single-driver speakers.
  • Driver alignment: In multi-driver speakers, if the drivers are not perfectly time-aligned, it can create additional, audible phase distortion. Some high-end speakers, for instance, are designed to have all frequencies leave at the same time to ensure better phase coherence. 

Playback volume

  • Audibility increases with volume: Studies show that phase effects, particularly in the lower frequencies, become more noticeable at higher sound pressure levels (SPLs). If you are listening at low volumes, phase shifts are less likely to be audible, but they may become detectable when listening at higher, more intense levels. 

Headphones vs. speakers

  • Headphones offer higher sensitivity: Controlled studies have shown that phase distortion is more detectable on headphones than on loudspeakers in a normal room. Without the masking effect of a reflective room, the subtle changes introduced by an EQ's phase shift become more apparent. 

Complexity of the audio material

  • Musical content vs. test signals: Phase shift is generally inaudible on complex musical and speech signals. It is most easily detected with specific, simple test signals, such as square waves or tone bursts, and only under very controlled conditions. A phase shift that is obvious with a simple test tone may be completely lost in a dense mix. 

EQ-related factors that remain constant

While the audible threshold changes, the physical phase shift caused by a given analog EQ remains constant regardless of the audio system. The EQ's circuit design dictates the filter's minimum phase characteristics, which means the amplitude and phase response are inherently linked. What changes is the listener's ability to perceive that shift based on the overall context of the playback chain. 

tlcocks
erik_squires
17,570 posts
 

Thanks for the kind words,  but even when I have found AI quoting me directly the "research" it does can be bogus or poorly sourced.  I’ve spent the last 2 months or so using it for research and coding and writing assistance.  You have to be really careful in leveraging it or you’ll be caught in one of many traps. 

You should treat large pieces like what the OP quoted as "multiple loosely joined opinions from the web" until you have narrowed down exactly where they came from.  AI does a poor job of separating "some bro said this" vs. actual research by experts. It’s really good for learning concepts, like ask it to explain group delay, then asking it questions about the math are usually accurate, or at least you can find sources in text books or articles from known experts.  

Ask it to tell you why silver cables sound better and you are going to get a lot of nonsense, which excludes contradictory opinions and evidence. 

Recently here I was pointed to a blog which appears to be an AI summary of a single research paper by an undergraduate.  The paper IS very interesting, but it’s 1 paper that has not been peer reviewed or put into the context of past work.  The blog author posted the summary as fact and failed to credit the source.  That these are immutable facts that should be accepted by all, and that’s where the real danger of AI is. 

When @audiokinesis writes something here, he is usually very clear about what prior work he’s basing his opinions on, and also makes it clear where and why his opinions/experiences have diverged.  That’s a model I hope to follow and I hope critical readers pay attention to when it’s missing from civil discourse and AI summations, and the kind of thinking that allows conspiracy theories to thrive. 

I leave you all with these cautionary tales. 

https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/18/openais-research-on-ai-models-deliberately-lying-is-wild/

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/tech/ai-sparked-delusion-chatgpt

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/29/tech/ai-chatbot-hallucinations

ticat's avatar
ticat
452 posts
 

AI = a mentally exhausting toy/tool

lanx0003
1,971 posts
 

AI lies! Statistics, if misused or abused by humans, lie too. Human intelligence (HI) lies or makes mistakes all the time. Anyway, I concur with all of your opinions above. As I mentioned before in other posts, we as end users need to verify the information given by AI in order to make the best use of it. From what I can see, ChatGPT has evolved to have better problem-solving capabilities than its peers AND even helps fill in some deficiencies in HI. I regard that as a very positive evolution.
 

tlcocks OP
569 posts
 

I guess my point was not that it’s perfect. Clearly it’s not. But its capabilities are coming along rapidly. Doubt anyone would contest that. 

audiokinesis
2,800 posts
 

Thanks for your kind and non-AI-generated words, @erik_squires!  I share your skepticism of AI as a reliable primary source.

A few months ago I used AI in an attempt to speed up my search for woofers with a particular set of characteristics, among which was having one or more demodulation rings (also known as "shorting rings" or "Faraday rings"). The answers I received were WRONG more often than right! I found out by checking the data sheet of every recommendation. In some cases I even contacted the manufacturer to double-check whether the data sheets were correct, just in case the AI had a reliable source of information that I was unaware of. Nope.

The AI presented its incorrect recommendations as if they were absolute facts, with no clue in the wording that there was any uncertainty or any possibility of error.

I was, and still am, amazed at how incompetent AI was at finding information that was available to it, and how "dishonest" it was in its presentation of incorrect information as "fact".  This experience makes me wonder how much bad information is being given out by AI in other areas.

Anyway if the answer matters to me, I will do my own fact-checking the old fashioned way. 

Duke

More to discover