Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Yes, & what is being told to you is that this is so far an unrealised goal. You think measurements prove it has been achieved but others tell you that the measurements are not sensitive enough & they can hear differences your measurements don't reveal.
That's silly - just because some level of equipment all performs in the same ball-park you then assume & distrust other equipment which performs at a higher level. I drive an ordinary car & it drives much like the other cars in it's price range. I recently drove a Porsche 911 Carrera & to lie that it wan't different or that it drove like other cars in it's class would make me a fool. I'm sure a F1 car will have a similar jump in performance because it's a money-no-object design with some innovations. You are dealing in absolutes, Tim, & forget that manufacturing has a budget & products are made to a budget. Your AV receivers are made to a budget & mostly follow the same approach to what they do. High-end gear either incorporates new design ideas, new technologies or expensive components. To try to make the argument you make about AV equipment is naive & silly
Yes & preserving this signal perfectly is the as yet unachieved goal. You argue that it has been done within audible limits & use measurements as your proof, others argue that it hasn't been & use hearing as evidence.
I have given you a video which disproves what you say in the case of DACs, - what do you have to say about this? You don't believe him? You would like to see the evidence? Or like some here state, unless it's actually done in your presence you will not believe it - a Randi technique, I believe!
Yes, & what is being told to you is that this is so far an unrealised goal. You think measurements prove it has been achieved
I don't think it has been achieved and said so. You need to work on your reading comprehension, John.
Do I believe that? No. I believe the audible differences between similar amps, even midfi, is extremely subtle. What I think is dramatic, obvious, night and day, anyone can hear it is the hyperbole of Audiophiles. There is a reason why these differences often vanish in AB/X testing. It's not because they don't exist. But it's not because the testing methodology is screwed up or because the poor Audiophiles are suffering crushing performance anxiety either. It is because most of these differences are insignificant. So insignificant that if listening conditions are not ideal or the Audiophiles are actually listening to music instead of listening to gear, they vanish. I'm not looking for anyone to say that there is no audible difference between a Pioneer receiver and a Krell. But a little intellectual honesty about what that difference might be would be really refreshing.
I'm sorry, John, did I miss this? Could you re-post the link and remind me what belief of mine it disproves? I want to make sure I actually believe it before I watch a video.
Bold -- is for emphasis, and hopefully to avoid replying to things I haven't actually said.
Tim
I don't think it has been achieved and said so. You need to work on your reading comprehension, John.
And I'm telling them that they're wrong, that modern equipment can measure anything that can be heard. I believe I'm right about that. I await evidence to the contrary. I'm asked to prove negatives around here all the time. Enjoy.
One of these days I'm going to learn to stop putting casual examples and metaphors in these posts. Someone almost always takes them literally, and makes them the central point. All I was really trying to say is that, according to Audiophiles, there is this dramatic, obvious, night and day, anyone can hear it difference between amps, even, if not especially, the very best amps. Given an amp's basic purpose, that can only mean one of two things: 1) These amps are being deliberately "voiced." 2) Even at the very highest levels, after all these years in a deeply mature technology, our best designers are failing and at a dramatic, obvious, night and day, anyone can hear it level.
Do I believe that? No. I believe the audible differences between similar amps, even midfi, is extremely subtle. What I think is dramatic, obvious, night and day, anyone can hear it is the hyperbole of Audiophiles. There is a reason why these differences often vanish in AB/X testing. It's not because they don't exist. But it's not because the testing methodology is screwed up or because the poor Audiophiles are suffering crushing performance anxiety either. It is because most of these differences are insignificant. So insignificant that if listening conditions are not ideal or the Audiophiles are actually listening to music instead of listening to gear, they vanish. I'm not looking for anyone to say that there is no audible difference between a Pioneer receiver and a Krell. But a little intellectual honesty about what that difference might be would be really refreshing.
I'm sorry, John, did I miss this? Could you re-post the link and remind me what belief of mine it disproves? I want to make sure I actually believe it before I watch a video.
Bold -- is for emphasis, and hopefully to avoid replying to things I haven't actually said.
Tim
Tim, I believe your statements to date are along the lines that the amplifiers sound so alike that there really is not much between them. You gave the example of AV receivers being so alike then why aren't high-end amps the same & you're contention seems to be they are very similar - it's just those dam audiophiles exaggerating everything. Yes, they probably do but the AV receivers are manufactured to a price point & so sound the same.
You are focussing on the hyperbole that is used by lots of people with a hobby such as this. You will get the same hyperbole with cars, art, music, etc. So what, take it for what it is, over-excited, over-exaggeration, delight. What's the big deal? You seem to treat it like some sort of lie whereas most take it for what it is - the over-exaggeration that goes with all hobbies. It's what this forum is about "what's best". If you think this is an over-exaggerated goal then why are you posting on such a forum?
I posted a video from the Chief Engineer & CTO of ESS where, according to him, they routinely use selected audiophiles to spot differences that his measurements don't show! So what if they are small differences, this is the level of refinement that we are at in audio now! remember, "What's Best"
Video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
Slides: http://www.esstech.com/pdf/noise-shaping-sigma-delta.pdf
Audiophiles were able to hear differences between Sigma-Delta & Multibit non-S-D DACs that the conventional measurements FFT or otherwise did not reveal. They have now correlated these audible differences with measured differences in:
- noise modulation
- phase modulation
Yes, they are now measuring these (not with FFT) but they would never have even thought of or tried to measure them if the audiophiles had not been used as a validation check. As far as they were concerned the two devices measured identically & therefore there should be no audible difference. Secondly they don't know why or how the phase modulation is audible.
So they are now using new measurements (in their portfolio) solely because it correlates with what the audiophiles hear not because they have any theoretical underpinnings for using it.
You are focussing on the hyperbole that is used by lots of people with a hobby such as this. You will get the same hyperbole with cars, art, music, etc. So what, take it for what it is, over-excited, over-exaggeration, delight. What's the big deal? You seem to treat it like some sort of lie whereas most take it for what it is - the over-exaggeration that goes with all hobbies. It's what this forum is about "what's best". If you think this is an over-exaggerated goal then why are you posting on such a forum?
I posted a video from the Chief Engineer & CTO of ESS where, according to him, they routinely use selected audiophiles to spot differences that his measurements don't show! So what if they are small differences, this is the level of refinement that we are at in audio now! remember, "What's Best"
Video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
Slides: http://www.esstech.com/pdf/noise-shaping-sigma-delta.pdf
Audiophiles were able to hear differences between Sigma-Delta & Multibit non-S-D DACs that the conventional measurements FFT or otherwise did not reveal. They have now correlated these audible differences with measured differences in:
- noise modulation
- phase modulation
Yes, they are now measuring these (not with FFT) but they would never have even thought of or tried to measure them if the audiophiles had not been used as a validation check. As far as they were concerned the two devices measured identically & therefore there should be no audible difference. Secondly they don't know why or how the phase modulation is audible.
So they are now using new measurements (in their portfolio) solely because it correlates with what the audiophiles hear not because they have any theoretical underpinnings for using it.
Last edited:
I have an iTunes account, but there's nothing in my new iMac and i'm not sure where the cloud fits in here- i thought i could just go to a system eq to play back some stuff on amazon cloud, but apparently there is only an audio EQ through iTunes, not part of the OS applications. So, this has turned into a project~ sorry. part of apple's walled garden.
If my wife didn't use them all for skeet practice.
I could just buy three tracks from iTunes- will do that. I just never used iTunes. The user interface is so 'justin bieber' and i did use the amazon cloud for a while for lo-rez access to music files before apple started their cloud. when i was using a dell PC, it gave me the option to populate itunes with the stuff i bought from amazon, but that was pre-cloud so it is all sitting on a drive in a now uninstalled PC. I love the ergonomics of the iMac, I just shy away from iTunes. Lemme see what i can do. Right now I have the main system up and rolling- although i think the AC power in the hood is pretty bad- it's super hot and humid up here right now and everybody is running their AC.
Ahhh...John, up to a point this is kinda fun, and we're still there, thanks. I know it'll eventually get annoying and I'll let it drop, but in the meantime, I just finished assembling a garden cart I ordered, the wife is out shopping, my son is defeating dark elves in Skyrim, and between that garden cart and the shower I desperately need,I get to talk to you. I'm still amused, and that's a good part of the answer to this question:
Another part is that I know that for every one of the raging subjectivists or vendors selling solutions here, there are at least one or two members rolling their eyes who appreciate my push back. I know this because I hear from them regularly. So, I enjoy it, so do others. Good enough for me. But and it may be last, but it's definitely not least, this forum is "What's Best," not "What's Different," and when you get down to the kinds of insignificant differences we suffer over, differences that, as I've said before will more often than not go unheard if you don't know precisely what to listen for, it is unquestionably a judgement call. And there's just something in me that has a hard time letting what's more expensive or what's more tweaky, or what's more exclusive, or what's more anal retentive, or what I have = What's Best, pass by unchallenged. I'm compelled to question it, because I know it's not anywhere near that clear.
So ultimately it was measurable, they just weren't measuring the right things. Thanks for the confirmation. I really don't mind being wrong and suspect that in the absolute sense I am wrong about all things audible being measurable. But it's good to know I haven't gotten there yet
. Tim
Alright, Jack, I tested 3 tracks -- 2 pretty uncompressed, one pretty loud, running through my headphone system. What I noticed is that with the output of my computer opened up, and the eq set at 0 dB, I could run the digital volume control on my headphone rig all the way down to -79 dB (one more notch is "off") and still hear it. And If I run it up to the mid -40s dB range, it is surprisingly full for having defeated everything but the 1k slider. Not sure I get the "sing along" thing.
What did I learn? That a whole lot more of the content of jazz and rock recordings is in a very narrow midrange band, and that I can hear 1k pretty good, in spite of my advancing years.
Tim
I just did it too. Three tracks were 'Anyone Who had a Heart' from the Shelby Lynne/Dusty record, Janis Ian's 'When the Party's Over' from "Between the Lines" and "Ramble On" from LZ 1 (remastered version).
On Shelby, I got the most from listening at 1khz band; for kicks, i would switch between the 1khz setting you requested and a preset for 'jazz' which followed a bump at the extremes and a dip in the middle; switching back to 1khz you got the gist, and obviously, not as loud as a normal setting, but you heard alot of stuff around her voice in the jazz setting that sounded 'added.'
On Janis, at 1khz you got her voice and the strings/rhythm, but no chorus/background voices (and you could hear the bass slap with nice tone), but at the jazz setting you heard the backing vocals and the rest of the instruments more to the forefront, not just as background. (obviously different level makes the normal eq setting sound more appealing).
on 'ramble on' you could clearly hear the reverb on Plant's voice, the tabla or whatever the drums are, and the upper reaches of the bass; switching to the 'jazz' setting, apart from louder, more bass, much more 'attack' from the band.
So, what does this show?
On Shelby, I got the most from listening at 1khz band; for kicks, i would switch between the 1khz setting you requested and a preset for 'jazz' which followed a bump at the extremes and a dip in the middle; switching back to 1khz you got the gist, and obviously, not as loud as a normal setting, but you heard alot of stuff around her voice in the jazz setting that sounded 'added.'
On Janis, at 1khz you got her voice and the strings/rhythm, but no chorus/background voices (and you could hear the bass slap with nice tone), but at the jazz setting you heard the backing vocals and the rest of the instruments more to the forefront, not just as background. (obviously different level makes the normal eq setting sound more appealing).
on 'ramble on' you could clearly hear the reverb on Plant's voice, the tabla or whatever the drums are, and the upper reaches of the bass; switching to the 'jazz' setting, apart from louder, more bass, much more 'attack' from the band.
So, what does this show?
That we like Jack enough to jump through a few hoops for him?
Just kidding. I'm curious too.Tim
He's never going to tell us. Or, he went to sleep. Isn't it yesterday, or tomorrow in his time zone?That we like Jack enough to jump through a few hoops for him?
Tim
Is this an effort to illustrate the "telephony effect"? The psycho acoustic phenomenon in which sonic information presented in the upper midrange forces the brain processor to recreate missing frequency information to some extent and fill in the blanks, even when the midrange and bass frequencies are not there.
Used by the telephone companies in using restricted band transmission with human voice communication, and by ancient greek amphitheater designers to allow clear exposition of spoken words in outdoor performances.
I have a hunch that there are some famous speaker manufacturers that use the principle as well with upper midrange emphasis in their designs.
Used by the telephone companies in using restricted band transmission with human voice communication, and by ancient greek amphitheater designers to allow clear exposition of spoken words in outdoor performances.
I have a hunch that there are some famous speaker manufacturers that use the principle as well with upper midrange emphasis in their designs.
That's their problem, and it just shows their ignorance. Science can prove that the earth is round and rotates around the sun. If someone prefers to ignore that proof, it doesn't mean the earth is flat or that the sun revolves round the earth. It only means that the person is incapable of understanding the evidence. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.
--Ethan
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
That a whole lot more of the content of jazz and rock recordings is in a very narrow midrange band, and that I can hear 1k pretty good, in spite of my advancing years.
Tim
Not really.... I'm pretty sure that's a pretty wide Q and you're still getting a lot of content 3-4 octaves up and down.
Are you making a reference to me?
So you're the self-appointed Raph Nader of WBF protecting the poor foolish consumer who falls for all the confidence trickster vendors & you are nailing them with your incisive critique? Please, this smacks too much of messiah complex
That's your opinion because you have admitted that you have never heard the differences that are being spoken of & therefore you think it all hyperbole!
You are the entitled to your opinion but it is simply your opinion - don't try to make it the opinion of a church that you claim to represent.
I don't know what you are saying here - are you admitting that "all things audible are not measurable"?So ultimately it was measurable, they just weren't measuring the right things. Thanks for the confirmation. I really don't mind being wrong and suspect that in the absolute sense I am wrong about all things audible being measurable. But it's good to know I haven't gotten there yet
Tim
The point of the video is that they didn't feel the need to do any other measurements - they are doing all the standard measurements normally used for DACs. Nobody does all possible measurements, it's not feasible so measurements taken are informed by theory & practise in other words the measurements chosen are an editorialised choice of all possible measurements. To say that they JUST weren't doing the correct measurements is naive & silly & shows a lack of understanding about real-word testing. Of course statements like "all things audible can be measured" is firstly premised on the believing the audibility reported by the audiophiles & then looking for correlation in measurements. In your case you have shown that you would dismiss the audibility reports as inconsequential as all the measurements "prove" that there are no or very imperceptible differences between the two devices. So the exaggerated claims of these audiophiles with their "exaggerated claims of differences" & rather than dismiss them as delusion, hyperbole, exaggeration
Not really.... I'm pretty sure that's a pretty wide Q and you're still getting a lot of content 3-4 octaves up and down.
Oh I'm sure.
Tim
Well, you are selling a solution, but I don't know that it isn't a very real solution to a very real problem, John. I've never heard your product or the one you modify, so I can't judge.
Not at all. But there is more than one point of view on this. I express mine. I get the occasional PM appreciating it, so I know I'm not alone nor is my POV universally unappreciated. I neither said nor implied any more than that, John, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth and motives in my head. It's noisy enough up there already.
Wrong again, sir. I've heard some of the differences we discuss here and I've been unable to hear others. My conclusion that there is much hyperbole in the hobby, a POV you were agreeing with in your last post, by the way, is based as much (maybe more) on what I have heard as what I have not.
You really do have an active imagination. I said I've heard from people who agree with me. You've morphed it into ministry.
I don't know what you are saying here - are you admitting that "all things audible are not measurable"?
Re-read. Slowly. You'll get it.
Tim
Used Foobar with EQ 1.2KHz set at 0dB all others down at lowest setting -20dB
3 tracks used:
Shelby Lynn - Just a Little Lovin' (from album of same name)
Admiral Fallow - Dead against Smoking (from Boots Met My Face)
Admiral Fallow - Subbuteo (from sam album as above)
In all three tracks a tunnel effect sound with bass & upper registers lacking i.e no body to the sound, the fullness gone! No presence, no semblance of anything approaching realism!
3 tracks used:
Shelby Lynn - Just a Little Lovin' (from album of same name)
Admiral Fallow - Dead against Smoking (from Boots Met My Face)
Admiral Fallow - Subbuteo (from sam album as above)
In all three tracks a tunnel effect sound with bass & upper registers lacking i.e no body to the sound, the fullness gone! No presence, no semblance of anything approaching realism!
I would appreciate you not saying this " for every one of the raging subjectivists or vendors selling solutions here, there are at least one or two members rolling their eyes who appreciate my push back." You imply that there is something amiss with what I'm selling so if you think so say so & stop making these associations between "raging subjectivists" "vendors" "members rolling their eyes". be honest & say what you feel instead of trying insinuation!
-snip-
Again, Tim, say what you mean clearly - it helps for real communication, if that's of interest to you? If it's not of interest, fine!
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |