Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Ron Party]

Did you read her article?

Regrettably, yes.

 

[Ethan Winer]

can it all be predicted by measurement, or is there some level of human judgment that comes into play?

The accuracy of reproducing equipment can absolutely be measured and its quality predicted. Where human judgment comes into play is when the gear is colored and you have to decide if you like that coloration or not. A bass boost can be full (good) or boomy (bad). Only you can decided if you like it, based mainly on frequency and amount. Me, I'd rather have accurate than colored.

isn't there a level of tweaking by ear that you will do as well?

Not necessarily. My personal goal is to minimize coloration added by the room, and that's easy to do with a formulaic approach. However, there is an art aspect to room acoustics. For example, both absorption and diffusion can solve problems such as flutter echo, but they sound different. There's also cost. I prefer diffusion where it's practical, but good diffusion costs more than good absorption.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

it turns out the ears are sensitive to noise modulation even at a very low level (On video at 0:34:00)

Non Linear excess phase noise seems to also be an issue that the ears are sensitive to. (on video around 0:47:00)

I watched those sections but didn't see anything relating absolute amounts of noise to audibility.

--Ethan

 

[Bill Hart]

The accuracy of reproducing equipment can absolutely be measured and its quality predicted. Where human judgment comes into play is when the gear is colored and you have to decide if you like that coloration or not. A bass boost can be full (good) or boomy (bad). Only you can decided if you like it, based mainly on frequency and amount. Me, I'd rather have accurate than colored.



Not necessarily. My personal goal is to minimize coloration added by the room, and that's easy to do with a formulaic approach. However, there is an art aspect to room acoustics. For example, both absorption and diffusion can solve problems such as flutter echo, but they sound different. There's also cost. I prefer diffusion where it's practical, but good diffusion costs more than good absorption.

--Ethan

Thank-you for the response, Ethan.

 

[Gregadd]

The problem with measurements is most of us don't have access to them. We rely on specs. And indeed we can be misled. It also takes a certain amount of expertise to interpret. Many experts differ on the cause and effect. A product may appear to measure well but we find the numbers were manipulated or don't sound right. As J.G.Holt said fidelity to the source is menaingless if it does not sound like real music.

 

[Gregadd]

You had me for a minute, Greg. Of course it can have a description, you can even give it a name (Think I'll call mine Clarissa). Can what you like be present in different degrees? Of course! But that get's us nowhere closer to "better," it only gets you more of what you like. Can different listeners have different levels of perception? Perception of what? What you like? I don't think so. I think your level of perception of what you like is the only level that matters. Can a more experienced person help you sift through what you like? No. No one can have more experience of what you like than you can.

Right back where we started? Evidently. Looks like we're already looking for ways to put pseudo-objectivity on our personal tastes (ie: I have a higher level of perception, more experience, therefore what I like is more valid). Same as it ever was....

Tim

I have no attempt to "get you." The issue is not to tell you what you like. Experts have access to things you don't. As do other more experienced people. Consulting those people before making a decision just makes sense. They have a wealth of knowledge that neither of us have and probably don't care to possess. An interior decorator (a good one) exposes me to to options and I decide what I like. Does she/he have "pseudo objectivity" or has he/she just matsered theri craft?

 

[Ethan Winer]

The problem with measurements is most of us don't have access to them. We rely on specs. And indeed we can be misled. It also takes a certain amount of expertise to interpret. Many experts differ on the cause and effect. A product may appear to measure well but we find the numbers were manipulated or don't sound right. As J.G.Holt said fidelity to the source is menaingless if it does not sound like real music.

These beliefs are common from people who don't understand how audio gear works. It's not that complicated! I have written extensively on gear specs and what they mean, including many articles on my web site.

As for fidelity being meaningless if it doesn't sound real, that's pretty silly. All gear can aim for is high fidelity. Don't forget that the "fi" in hi-fi stands for "fidelity." Gear cannot make a lame recording sound good. So if it doesn't sound real with high quality gear, then blame the recording engineers or musicians.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

I've blind-tested myself, but I don't have formal ABX software which would be double-blind. But why should I take that test? I'm not the one making the claims, others are. I know what I can and cannot hear based on more than 40 years experience. What I can hear is not the issue. It's what others claim they can hear. This is very simple logic.

--Ethan

Don't they make the same claim. Thier ears are golden and your 40 years experience is golden. Yes there is a burden on the challenger.

 

[jkeny]

I watched those sections but didn't see anything relating absolute amounts of noise to audibility.

--Ethan

Who said anything about "absolute amounts of noise" - the statement is that noise modulation which occurs in sigma-delta DACs is audible!

"The surprising reality is that a ?? can be audibly distinguished from a conventional DAC, despite measuring very much better than that DAC"

"?? makes a variable (but still very low) amplitude “ffssst” noise as the state variables transition though noisy space"

These beliefs are common from people who don't understand how audio gear works. It's not that complicated! I have written extensively on gear specs and what they mean, including many articles on my web site.

You will not find None-PSS noise by looking at THD, DNR and SNR

 

[Ethan Winer]

You can't prove a negative. It's up to those claiming a positive to prove their case, whether AC power cords, magic pebbles, CD demagnetizers, or any other BS du jour. They never do. What part of this basic logic do you not understand?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Who said anything about "absolute amounts of noise" - the statement is that noise modulation which occurs in sigma-delta DACs is audible!

If there's no qualification for how loud the noise must be in order for it to be heard, then the statement is meaningless.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

If there's no qualification for how loud the noise must be in order for it to be heard, then the statement is meaningless.

--Ethan

If you looked at the slides you would see that a graph is given which shows an example of the noise varying in two instances between 102dB & 112dB.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I don't believe anyone can pick out any type of noise when it's 102 dB down let alone 112dB. And I won't believe it until someone proves it to me in person, blind, at least nine times out of ten. You realize that's 6 and 16 dB below the noise floor of a CD, yes?

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

Now you're just making stuff up. There are two things here that could be considered a "denial" -- "I don't believe it's all a matter of preference" and "And I'm not demanding standards. I'm fine with the ones we've got." Surely you don't believe I think it's all a matter of preference? I'm the "objectivist" here. I'm just trying to get a few people to admit that what they're talking about is preference. And you think I'm demanding standards? No, I'm demanding a position Greg: Is it subjective or are your choices superior (not you personally)? And if you think they are superior, by what standards do you make that judgement?

Let's step back from the objectivist/subjectivist, analog/digital divide for a moment and bring this thing closer to home. For a moment, we're not a digital guy and a vinyl guy talking, with the vinyl guy saying that his medium of choice sounds more like real music than digital ever does. Instead, we're a guy who loves electrostats and guy who loves horns. The horn guy says "Stats are fatiguing and they don't sound like music. I can't listen to them for more than a half hour. Horns are much more musical, more natural, they bring you closer to the original event."

And that's not just his opinion. He won't let it go, in spite of the fact that you can clearly show that your stats have quicker response, wider, more even FR, lower distortion, better dynamic range (we're being hypothetical here), etc. he insists his horns are superior. Your stats sound like souless hifi. His horns sound like music. All of the objective evidence is in your corner; every measurement, every blind listening test, every objective piece of data to be found. He has absolutely nothing to back up his claims yet it is not his opinion, it is the reality that you can't hear. You don't have the experience. You haven't heard good horns. Your system is not resolving enough to reveal the difference. You're wrong. He's right. The facts be damned.

That's what the digital side of this hobby faces every day, and you guys wonder why I won't let go?

Tim

Maybe you should have acredited that quote "Now you're just making things Up to Ethan.

Let's answer the question No you don't beleivve it's all preference That standard is reserved the things you disagree with. This fora is full of the refrain that goes something tlike this. That's just a coloration that you prefer. It's nothing wrong with haveing a preference. Just aadmit its a preference. You just did it You get what you pay for thread. Demanding a standard for judging tutrnables. Making the unsupported claim that there was no metric for judging turntables. Can you prove that? I gave an example of a SOTA turntable The Walker Proscenium Gold. I provided a link to an extensive review complete with an interview about his design goals. I hope you read it.

With regards to your argument: When has this ever been true?:"All of the objective evidence is in your corner; every measurement, every blind listening test, every objective piece of data to be found. "

If it ever happend it is extremely rare. Do I have to submit a reserch paper on every possible subject because Tim is skeptical? Do I have to do blind test? Tim just knows we are wrong. He just keeps taking put shots at us maybe he'll hit something.

The beauty of this is it all comes down to listening. No matter degrees you have. No matter how many research facilitys you have. No matter how much measuring you do. It all comes down to listening. You prefer the things that suit your preconcieved notionsYou have got to make those crazy audiophiles here something that sounds like real music. Some people hate that. It drives them crazy. I love it.

 

[jkeny]

I don't believe anyone can pick out any type of noise when it's 102 dB down let alone 112dB. And I won't believe it until someone proves it to me in person, blind, at least nine times out of ten. You realize that's 6 and 16 dB below the noise floor of a CD, yes?

--Ethan

I know it challenges your belief system!

 

[Gregadd]

These beliefs are common from people who don't understand how audio gear works. It's not that complicated! I have written extensively on gear specs and what they mean, including many articles on my web site.

As for fidelity being meaningless if it doesn't sound real, that's pretty silly. All gear can aim for is high fidelity. Don't forget that the "fi" in hi-fi stands for "fidelity." Gear cannot make a lame recording sound good. So if it doesn't sound real with high quality gear, then blame the recording engineers or musicians.

--Ethan

Yeah Ethan. The problem is not trying to make a lame recording sound good. The problem is when a lame storage medium or equipment makes a good musical performance sound bad.

Thankfully I don't need an engineering degree to know when music sounds right. No amount of measurements can convinve me other wise.

 

[Gregadd]

You can't prove a negative. It's up to those claiming a positive to prove their case, whether AC power cords, magic pebbles, CD demagnetizers, or any other BS du jour. They never do. What part of this basic logic do you not understand?

--Ethan

Sure you can prove a negative. I do it frequently in my job. I prove my clients did not commiit the crime. For example my client did not rape that woman. The DNA in the semen does not belong to him. My client did not commit the crime because he was in prison at the time. My client did not rob the store tha'ts not him on the video. Unfortunately proof does not always lend itself to such convienent circumsatnces. Many have been able to pick out cables,vinyl demagnetizers,etc. the problem is they did it in that completely unscientific ABX test.

 

[Gregadd]

TIM distortion in early solid state designs and jitter in digital playback would never have been discovered were it not for subjectivist engineers trusting their ears to find out what was wrong with equipment that measured perfectly yet sounded poor. I know there are other currently unknown distortions that have yet to be discovered, this is why many tweaks give an audible sonic improvement as they are lessening or curing a problem we haven't yet learned how to measure. Subjectivists are the pioneer's of audio because if and when the effect of the cure can be measured, objectivists may then be willing to listen and perhaps even trust their ears since science now allows them to.

I love her

 

[Ethan Winer]

Sure you can prove a negative. I do it frequently in my job. I prove my clients did not commiit the crime. For example my client did not rape that woman. The DNA in the semen does not belong to him.

You misunderstand the meaning of "you can't prove a negative." If someone's DNA doesn't match, then you have in fact proved a positive. An example of a negative that can't be disproved is James Randi's favorite: "You can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist." And you really can't! You can prove that what someone thought was Big Foot was actually something else, but you can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist either. If you're a lawyer, surely you can grasp this logic. Then again, if you're a lawyer, you are likely an expert at twisting facts and logic to suit your purposes. And I say this with the utmost respect for lawyers. People often tell me I could have been a successful lawyer because I love so much to argue.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

You misunderstand the meaning of "you can't prove a negative." If someone's DNA doesn't match, then you have in fact proved a positive. An example of a negative that can't be disproved is James Randi's favorite: "You can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist." And you really can't! You can prove that what someone thought was Big Foot was actually something else, but you can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist either. If you're a lawyer, surely you can grasp this logic. Then again, if you're a lawyer, you are likely an expert at twisting facts and logic to suit your purposes. And I say this with the utmost respect for lawyers. People often tell me I could have been a successful lawyer because I love so much to argue.

--Ethan

That's where we differ Ethan. I don't see anyhting in audio land equivalent to the Easter Bunny or Bigfoot.
You're wrong. If my client is not the one that's a negative. If he is the one that's a positive. It's just like a pregnacy test. I can prove you're are pregnant ? By default you are not pregnant.

I'm an expert at finding the truth. I do not know how good a lawyer you would be. I would love to cross-examine you.

I forgot Ethan I can prove the Easter Bunny does not exist. I just do what you do. I demand you to bring me the proof. When you fail. Voila No Easter bunny.

You might also want to look at this:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf