Objectivists - what might be wrong with this label/viewpoint!!

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
I started to post this in the thread "Objectivists - what makes your blood boil" but as I wrote the post I saw that it really was somewhat off topic so I decided to start this alternative thread.

Let's not go down the usual route on this thread - try to keep it technical. The whole area of auditory perception is of huge interest to me as we seem to know little enough about it (although many will retort that we know more than I think) - maybe some recent summary papers might answer this retort -
2007 ;
2010 ; 2013 ;


I'd like to make a number of points which relate to why I think the pet characteristics associated with certain objectivist's viewpoint is erroneous:

- firstly, the pet characteristics I associate with a particular type of objectivist is:
  • measurements are far more sensitive/reliable than hearing
  • if the measurements show there is no audible difference then there can be no audible difference
  • blind tests are needed to "prove" an audible difference exists


- we don't know quite a lot about the workings of our auditory perception as is evidenced in the field of study called Auditory Scene Analysis. This being the hugely important aspect of how we make sense of the various vibrations impinging on our ears. To me, this is the most important aspect of what we hear in reproduced music - it's what determines how we judge how close a musical reproduction comes to realism, how it engages our emotions, how we can get an insight into the performance of the musical event being portrayed.

- when I say we don't know quite a lot about this, I don't mean that we don't know what neurons in what part of the brain do what (we don't), I mean we don't yet know how an auditory stream is formed by our brains - what are the salient primary aspects of the vibrations that we use to form these auditory objects i.e how we isolate one instrument in the string section of an orchestra & follow it as an auditory object over time, to the exclusion of the other instruments. It appears that there are a number of correlated aspects that we use to do this - temporal coherence being one important aspect of this formation of this auditory object.

- this function (which we all do naturally in our everyday lives, to make sense of the world) is a dynamic construction done in our brains from moment to moment & we seem only able to make conscious (focus on) one auditory object at a time.

- My point is that if we don't yet know the perceptual mechanisms that operate in ASA how can we say that measurements can tell us what is perceivable or not? I don't believe we yet have a sophisticated set of dynamic measurements that emulates this brain mechanism & therefore current measurements only give us very detailed snapshots of an auditory moment in time (I know there are dynamic measurements of speakers but AFAIK these only represent an aspect of what I'm talking about)

- There also exists in audio perception a similar blindness to change that is well recognised in visual perception - in other words auditory change blindness exists just as much as visual change blindness exists. We probably all know the visual test where we are asked to count the number of times a ball is passed between a group of people all moving around & most people don't see the guy dressed as a bear who walks across the scene.

- This, to me, is one of the major shortcomings with blind testing - it's not an "ears only test" as some maintain (there is no such thing as an ears only test) - it's a test of being able to isolate the particular difference between two pieces in advance & then being able to retain one's attention to just that particular difference while listening. Just playing two pieces & expecting the difference to pop out in our perceptions will only work if the differences are gross. So, as most agree, trained listeners are a necessary part of a useful blind test - being able to retain attention on a particular aspect of a piece is easily compromised by the number of unknowns at play - doing a blind test increases the number of unknowns & therefore, by itself, increases the difficulty of retaining this ability. Hence the oft quoted criticism that blind tests are really best for determining freq or amplitude differences between pieces, not for the type of dynamic differences mentioned above.
 
Last edited:

Atmasphere

Industry Expert
May 4, 2010
2,336
1,837
1,760
St. Paul, MN
www.atma-sphere.com
We do know that music is processed by the limbic centers in the brain. We also know that tipping points exist, such that if the brain finds something it did not expect (like a perceptual rule somehow being violated) it transfers processing to the cerebral cortex. Much of this has only been found out in the last 10 years or so.

I don't like blind tests only because I don't see the need to waste the time setting one up. I don't make snap judgments based on what I hear unless something is really obvious- instead I prefer to live with something for a while, throw some material I know at it, see if I like playing the stereo with the 'change' whatever it might be. Often I know what I am dealing with pretty quick (after all, our equipment does have a reputation for transparency) but after a week or so even the small things are sorted out. When I hear something I don't like, I like to see if I can measure why on the bench. For that matter, I like to measure why I like something too. Usually its pretty obvious- distortion or bandwidth issues, low level noise, etc. Sometimes it takes a little thinking out of the box.

When I first decided to try to sort out why power cords were audible, rather than just measure the power cord I instead measure the equipment that was using it. The loss of power in the amp that I happened to be using led me to the power cord pretty quick. We have one customer that measures distortion in the room when he changes a part as a tweak, for example in the power supply. In this way he is able to quantify the difference- which so far has correlated 100% to what he hears. IOW, sorting out what and how to measure is a big portion of the issue- and they don't teach a lot of that in school!

If I can hear it and measure it then I know its real. If I can measure something and not hear it, the assumption is that it may not be important. Conversely, if I can hear something but not measure why, the assumption is that I'm not using the right technique.
 

esldude

New Member
Well most of your links are to aural processing by pattern matching in the brain. There is plenty to learn.

One needs to remember that the brain cannot process what doesn't get to the neurons. If the ear mechanism passes on no signal there simply is nothing to work with.

Existing knowledge of the ear's limits are further along than processing by the ear. As conventional research using blind testing and other methods show the response of the ear is quite close to the physical limits of sound transmission in the air itself there simply isn't a lot more to be had there. In one of your links it mentioned right off pilots receiving a clearly audible signal and not hearing it. That is a brain processing and attention issue. It isn't a limits of the ear issue.

Measurements are far more sensitive and reliable than the ear. Especially at an electrical level that can be matched up with its effect on sound reproduction. Measurements are not going to tell you about aural scene analysis at this point. But such analysis cannot occur when signals are not something the ear can respond to in the first place.

From that it follows if one uses them with care and appropriately that yes if measurements show no difference at a level the ear can detect, there can be no difference in the sound that is due to the physical sound. You might hear one for other reasons. Attentional differences actually explain why sighted casual listening comparisons are likely to go astray. Your attentional direction changes which will result in the brain hearing something different even when the ear got the same signal both times.

Blind tests are a last resort for when measurements show nothing, and people insist on one. They also have research value in determining what the limits of the ear are. For instance we know a wideband level difference of fractional decibels can be heard. If you say two things sound different, and measurements show the response or level difference then no new blind testing is needed. We already know why it sounds different.

So you are building a straw man. We know quite well the limits of the ear. They aren't likely to be expanded much at all. What the ideas you put forth are about is how something is perceived including the brain processing when it is a genuinely different sound presented to the ear. What accounts for emotion can be due to reasons not part of a sound difference or in time we may find there is some sound changes that effect it as well. The aural scenes will vary if the signal is changed. With more knowledge acquired in time you can decide how to alter a signal for a given effect. The other part is learning how conditions and attentional direction just before listening alter what is heard regardless of the signal presented.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
We do know that music is processed by the limbic centers in the brain. We also know that tipping points exist, such that if the brain finds something it did not expect (like a perceptual rule somehow being violated) it transfers processing to the cerebral cortex. Much of this has only been found out in the last 10 years or so.
I think this area of neurophysiology is a fast moving one & this paper gives a good overview of where things were at as of 2013 "The what, where and how of auditory-object perception" This paper suggests that the auditory cortex is still considered the main processing area for audio but suggests peripheral areas & parallel/distributed processing for certain aspects of the audio stream.

I don't like blind tests only because I don't see the need to waste the time setting one up. I don't make snap judgments based on what I hear unless something is really obvious- instead I prefer to live with something for a while, throw some material I know at it, see if I like playing the stereo with the 'change' whatever it might be. Often I know what I am dealing with pretty quick (after all, our equipment does have a reputation for transparency) but after a week or so even the small things are sorted out. When I hear something I don't like, I like to see if I can measure why on the bench. For that matter, I like to measure why I like something too. Usually its pretty obvious- distortion or bandwidth issues, low level noise, etc. Sometimes it takes a little thinking out of the box.

When I first decided to try to sort out why power cords were audible, rather than just measure the power cord I instead measure the equipment that was using it. The loss of power in the amp that I happened to be using led me to the power cord pretty quick. We have one customer that measures distortion in the room when he changes a part as a tweak, for example in the power supply. In this way he is able to quantify the difference- which so far has correlated 100% to what he hears. IOW, sorting out what and how to measure is a big portion of the issue- and they don't teach a lot of that in school!

If I can hear it and measure it then I know its real. If I can measure something and not hear it, the assumption is that it may not be important. Conversely, if I can hear something but not measure why, the assumption is that I'm not using the right technique.
Agree with your thoughts on blind testing from a manufacturers POV (other considerations necessary for consumer blind testing) - it is just too time consuming & little progress would be made, Anyway, it's the obvious audible differences that are important to differentiate one's product & not small differences although cumulative small differences can add up to an obvious difference when combined together :)
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Well most of your links are to aural processing by pattern matching in the brain. There is plenty to learn.

One needs to remember that the brain cannot process what doesn't get to the neurons. If the ear mechanism passes on no signal there simply is nothing to work with.

Existing knowledge of the ear's limits are further along than processing by the ear. As conventional research using blind testing and other methods show the response of the ear is quite close to the physical limits of sound transmission in the air itself there simply isn't a lot more to be had there. In one of your links it mentioned right off pilots receiving a clearly audible signal and not hearing it. That is a brain processing and attention issue. It isn't a limits of the ear issue.

Measurements are far more sensitive and reliable than the ear. Especially at an electrical level that can be matched up with its effect on sound reproduction. Measurements are not going to tell you about aural scene analysis at this point. But such analysis cannot occur when signals are not something the ear can respond to in the first place.

From that it follows if one uses them with care and appropriately that yes if measurements show no difference at a level the ear can detect, there can be no difference in the sound that is due to the physical sound. You might hear one for other reasons. Attentional differences actually explain why sighted casual listening comparisons are likely to go astray. Your attentional direction changes which will result in the brain hearing something different even when the ear got the same signal both times.

Blind tests are a last resort for when measurements show nothing, and people insist on one. They also have research value in determining what the limits of the ear are. For instance we know a wideband level difference of fractional decibels can be heard. If you say two things sound different, and measurements show the response or level difference then no new blind testing is needed. We already know why it sounds different.

So you are building a straw man. We know quite well the limits of the ear. They aren't likely to be expanded much at all. What the ideas you put forth are about is how something is perceived including the brain processing when it is a genuinely different sound presented to the ear. What accounts for emotion can be due to reasons not part of a sound difference or in time we may find there is some sound changes that effect it as well. The aural scenes will vary if the signal is changed. With more knowledge acquired in time you can decide how to alter a signal for a given effect. The other part is learning how conditions and attentional direction just before listening alter what is heard regardless of the signal presented.

I'll deal with your whole post rather than individual elements of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument seems to go along the lines of - we already have defined the limits of hearing from psychoacoustic studies & anything which we perceive which is outside of these limits is therefore inaudible?

I already covered this - our audio perception (i.e the processing on these signals) could well reveal levels of signals which are currently considered inaudible. How? In the same way that FFT reveals signals that are below the noise floor (& are therefore considered should be inaudible). Why hasn't audio test revealed this? Because audio tests are simplified using single tones, etc. in order to make the testing more focussed/easier.I would also suggest that audio testing is not overly concerned with using the best quality audio reproductions systems available - not nearly as revealing as some of the systems used by members here.

Here's a paper that shows that moving the head temporarily resets an audio stream - "Effects of self-motion on auditory scene analysis" So what, I hear you say! Well it's only the timing/amplitude aspect of the signal that is changing yet it causes streaming to collapse, momentarily - this collapse is perceived as a significant factor.

What level of change in timing/amplitude would you expect to see in such a head move? If during audio playback such a small change occurred in the timing or amplitude of particular aspects of a signal in how would this be measured? Remember this is not necessarily a recurring timing difference, it could be occurring at various points during playback, with different parts of the signal.
Edit: my point here is that an FFT would need to be run for the full length of time that covers such an event (usually much more time span than is usually done) & even if a sufficiently long FFT was run it wouldn't pick up & make significant such a once off event (as you know FFT works by averaging, & amplifying recurring signals). Based on such an FFT - no sign of this event would be seen & therefore according to your premise, no audibility possible. Do you still hold this view with this example?

So, I'm not talking about the ear's limits - this is a false dichotomy - the processing that happens to these dynamic signals gives rise to far more insight into the what we are capable of hearing than a simple analysis of the signals can reveal. Again, I'm not saying that we won't be able to measure this, in time, it's just that we are a long way from knowing what/how to measure this correctly.
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
We can measure any change to an audio signal. Any change.
OK, you are very adamant & you seem to indicate you have a background which supports your bullishness about this - can you please tell me the measurements that could be used which correlates to a perceived change in an audio stream?
We can friggen move atoms around to form a word if we want. We can not figure out what the ear brain does to the impulse it receives from the ears and that is where the mystery is.
Indeed & this is the processing part of the signal that is our auditory perception. Not knowing what parameters in the audio signal give rise to this perception, how can we know what to measure & what sensitivity is needed. Hence, my thread! There's really no point in saying that we know how to measure any change in an audio signal when yo don't know where, in that audio signal, to look for that change & to what level of detail is needed.
And since hardly no two folks on this forum can agree on what sounds best then while I too enjoy understanding hearing as you do jkenny, I don't have any beliefs we can not measure phase, amplitude, time or frequency in the audio band or on either side of it with precision well past hearing ears of mortals. I guess you needed to have worked on radar, radio, precision measuring gear, laser, microwave, radiation and nuclear imaging gear to have an appreciation for what we can measure. So, my background shows me we can measure it
Are you saying that this is your background?

...do we measure it....no, not as intensely as we could because audiophiles do not want exact, they want sounds good, and sounds good means new gear, different gear, and constant tonal changes,
This seems to be a completely wrong view, IMO - all audio manufacturers want the definitive measurements that correlate to hearing - it would be their killer USP - saying that they don't bother because it's in their commercial interest not to find this is frankly rubbish
and one simple example is cartridge choices on turntables for the idea of preferring different sounds...same record, different cartridge, different sound, and no two can agree on which is right.
Yes lack of such measurements leads to a vacuum where all sorts of semi solutions are seen

IN ANY CASE, this is an interesting thread and I share your passion for understanding how we hear more better bro.
Glad you find it interesting but your contribution is pretty negative - we know all there is to know about audio measurements, we can't agree on what sounds best, the lack of measurements is simply for commercial reasons. Have I covered all your points?
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,709
406
405
We can friggen move atoms around to form a word if we want.

True, but how do we measure the difference between one object with random atoms and another with words?
 

esldude

New Member
Please don't use the old useless bit about we use single tones and therefore blah, blah, blah is not good enough. Just stop it.

FFT's, yeah, a splitting of the 20 khz band into two 10 khz bands gets you a 3 db lower noise floor. Keep splitting it and we can see lower and lower into the stuff there. Okay, it is a bit dynamic and not quite as simple as a static spectrum analyzer, but it isn't totally unlike one the way the ear works. Depending on the particulars of the signal the ear acts like something between 25 and 40 bands of spectrum analysis. Generally again varying slightly with the particulars of the test signal you can hear 15-20 db into the noise. Guess how much 32 bands lower the noise floor............come on guess. Well how about 15 db. See a close connection there?

The nerve signals leaving the ear have been researched some. There is a constant low level firing of them which we know the rest of the brain ignores until certain patterns and thresholds are passed. The constant random firing is caused by brownian motion of the air. That is why our hearing threshold is where it is to keep us from hearing random air motion. That and other parameters are what I had in mind when I said the physical limits of sound transmission in air lie near currently mapped out limits to what the ear responds to. If we don't have it all perfectly mapped out there still aren't big surprises left to be found there.

As tomelex is telling you, any parameters of the signal that can be presented to the ear can be measured far beyond the limits of the ear to pick up and use. It just is. This shouldn't be so hard to get agreement on.

Now the various things you are referring to are about processing, pattern matching etc. done by the brain are after the signals leave the ear. They all are a result of signal differences we can easily measure to have occurred at the level of the ear. We don't know all that much about how some of it is processed and auditory scenes are created. Don't know about what you have in mind, but we do get audiophiles confusing those two areas of hearing. The ear has to pick up on it to be heard, once sent out from the ear to the brain it can be heard in some context. But saying I heard two wires and one alters the depth of the recording, and we don't know much about auditory scene analysis going on so that must be what is happening with the wire.......blah, blah, blah is just a losing proposition. If that wire caused a change that would cause a transformation of soundstage and depth, we would easily have measured that it did so. We don't have parameters for measuring depth or imaging results in the final hearing. But anything that causes the effect will show up if we measure the signal as a measurable difference.

We also know a lot about how prone and malleable people's perceptions are from other influences. If people claim an effect from an improbable cause, and measurement of the signal presented shows no evidence for it, then you need to test blindly because there are so many things that will alter what is heard when the signal doesn't change. Positive results in those tests when there is no signal difference are much rarer than hen's teeth. Positive results when the signal is in fact different are not as rare as audiophilia portrays it to be.

And no, blind testing of modding or designing audio equipment is slow, tedious, boring work which is largely inefficient. But then again, if we design by what parameters the ear works upon it is no problem with most audio equipment to surpass it so handily there is nothing to worry about. Design things 10, 100 or 1000 times better than the ear and move on. If you then think you are hearing something, do check blind and be careful. Chances are great there wasn't anything real there to be heard.

Now how some of this brain processing works to better design speaker/room interaction and microphone/room interaction on the recording end could be very helpful. For basic boxes between both ends to work with high fidelity to the original signal we don't need it.
 

esldude

New Member
No, so let me just put it simply

1) we can measure any and every change to an audio signal.
2) we can measure any change to a signal way better than any ear can discern
3) just because we can measure any change to an audio signal does not follow that we can correlate it to what you prefer in "sound" so please don't mistake measurement ability for a desire to figure out what sound effects you or I may prefer!
4) re read 3 above, I never said that measurments of any type correlate to what folks hear, they simply correlate to any change in a signal. As far as I know, atleast as mentioned over and over in wbf is the industry measures to get in the ball park then they alter the signal so plain old stereo can be more believeable.

I see nothing negative in what I say, I consider them the facts and the state of the audio art in most cases. I think you are looking for a new tone control that needs to be implemented at the recording itself and then somehow through two speakers will give a more realistic presentation of what the real event might have sounded like and good luck doing that, as you would have to start a whole new way to record, and then get results, and since the way to record is already known with our stereo system, all the tricks that can be tried are mostly tried and mostly all rejected by the audiophile elders or elites, who shun all attempts to change anything in the playback of stereo as they know it. In fact, your earlier study of the distortion mechanisms in vinyl playback are where you are most likely to get answers to make an audible effect on your digital playback gear, as you are not going to invent a new way to record in my opinion. Hope this makes it a bit more plain to you. The obstacle to discovery in gaining knowledge is that you have not come to terms with the limitations of stereo as a SOURCE replication system imo of course.

Very good post. Gets to the point I had in mind with more clarity and more succinctly than I managed.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Let me simplify what I'm saying as I see the usual arguments being used here & this will get us nowhere - I'm not talking about preference, I'm talking about the way the perception of hearing works - please don't try to use the preference thing.

Let's forget about the ear & use an analogy - let's imagine that the ear works like an FFT

So what I'm contesting is that you maintain everything that is shown on an FFT can be measured in the original signal & I am saying that the processing involved in FFT reveals signals which would likely be missed without this processing. (you are basically saying that because all signals can be measured at a low level we already have the information revealed by FFTs & therefore don't need them)

So back to hearing - with the perception of hearing, we don't yet know the processing involved yet you try to maintain that everything is solved because we have the ability to measure the signal at a low level & sensitivity.

Sorry I don't buy your argument
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
So, if you maintain that you can measure every change in audio then tell me how to measure & isolate the 2nd violin from the string section & follow it through the playing of the piece. Show me how you have isolated this signal from the rest of the orchestra & now when you have done that the task, the job of analysing change in those signals will be made much easier but still requires a huge amount of signal storage & post processing.

If you can't do that currently with measurements then you can't measure what is an everyday hearing task & you can't say that we can measure anything that can be heard. You're like a person with a microscope who has become so captivated by what it can reveal that you have missed what it can't do & what is appropriate to do.

I'm reminded of this L Cohen lyric "I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons" for some reason?
 
Last edited:

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
Hello jkeny

Measurements are measurements they measure physical or electrical properties. What you are asking them to do would require a computer or similar interface which can be programed to mimic what our brain does. They are not designed to measure our everyday hearing tasks. If your ears were not connected to your brain you would have a bunch of electrical impulses that on their own would be gibberish. Simply saying that because measurements the are not capable of following an individual instrument does not in anyway invalidate their capabilities. We are talking about two very different things.

Rob:)
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Hello jkeny

Measurements are measurements they measure physical or electrical properties. What you are asking them to do would require a computer or similar interface which can be programed to mimic what our brain does. They are not designed to measure our everyday hearing tasks. Simply saying that because they cannot does not in any way invalidate their capabilities. We are talking about too very different things.

Rob:)

Uh??
Measurements are "not designed to measure our everyday hearing tasks" is the quirkiest logic I've read in a long while. Since when has there been a rule book about what can be measured & what can't - what should be measured & what shouldn't? You better have a talk with the Auditory Scene Analysis people as they are doing exactly what you seem to be saying is forbidden. You batter talk to the hearing aid industry as they are doing the same!

Again, I think most replies here are confused. What is being demonstrated by the replies here is the confusion, once anything about brain processing is mentioned, an immediate assumption that we are now in the land of "preferences" - I'm not sure if this applies to your reply, Rob?.

The reason for measurements is to better understand the world that we occupy Another reason which applies in this case is to evaluate that a device is doing the job it is designed for - AFAIK, the role of audio equipment is to replay an audio event in a way that is as realistic to our perception of hearing as possible. What this has become morphed into by the objectivists is a different criteria for evaluation - one that tallies with their existing set of measurements. Instead of dealing with the difficult measurement problem they substitute an easier measurement problem & defend this as being the true goal.
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Uh??
Measurements are "not designed to measure our everyday hearing tasks" is the quirkiest logic I've read in a long while. Since when has there been a rule book about what can be measured & what can't - what should be measured & what shouldn't? You better have a talk with the Auditory Scene Analysis people as they are doing exactly what you seem to be saying is forbidden. You batter talk to the hearing aid industry as they are doing the same!

Again, I think most replies here are confused. What is being demonstrated by the replies here is the confusion, once anything about brain processing is mentioned, an immediate assumption that we are now in the land of "preferences" - I'm not sure if this applies to your reply, Rob?.

The reason for measurements is to better understand the world that we occupy Another reason which applies in this case is to evaluate that a device is doing the job it is designed for - AFAIK, the role of audio equipment is to replay an audio event in a way that is as realistic to our perception of hearing as possible. What this has become morphed into by the objectivists is a different criteria for evaluation - one that tallies with their existing set of measurements. Instead of dealing with the difficult measurement problem they substitute an easier measurement problem & defend this as being the true goal.

You're asking the microphone to measure the signal-processing gear on the other side of the glass. I,can't imagine a more quirky argument than that.

Tim
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
Hello Jkeny

Uh they are not designed to follow the second violin in your example as an everyday hearing task. Nothing quirky about that. The standard measurements used to design the equipment we use are based on physical and electrical properties. The are not designed to mimic how we hear or follow a single instrument as in your example. I am not the least bit confused.

Rob:)
 
Last edited:

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
You're asking the microphone to measure the signal-processing gear on the other side of the glass. I,can't imagine a more quirky argument than that.

Tim

Uhh??

Can our perception of hearing separately isolated & follow the oboe in an orchestral performance? Is this perception not as a result of the vibrations at the eardrums? According to you guys all is measurable - so show me all the collection of signals responsible for this perception of the oboe in the music's waveform & follow this auditory object through the performance of the piece.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
I somehow just think that Jkeny does not understand what a linear amplifier is or how air when disturbed acts against a mic diaphragm. I can think of no other explanation for not being able to distinguish between measurements and the totally unique processing of air movement on the ear/brain system, but I will bow out here and let him continue to the thread as it does have a lot of good ear/brain stuff which is interesting.

Indeed, if you do not understand the mechanisims of how an amplifier causes distortion then the whole idea of measurements I guess would make no sense. Plenty to research on the internet on this subject for those that want to learn more. If you don't understand the simple mechanism that causes a distortion to appear as the same effect as a signal twice the frequency of the fundamental then you don't understand amplification nor what our measurments imply.

If I understand your post, I see you are using the argument that the job of the playback system is to accurately recreate the vibrations picked up by the microphone, recorded& stored & transmitted through the playback electronics for output on another transducer. You then talk about linearity with two non-linear transducers at either end of the chain. What exactly is your point & what exactly do I not understand?
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
That would be nice. Starting with stereo as a base has severe limitations to that idea. IF you had a wall of mics and a wall of speakers you might start getting close to replicating the live event, or if you have mics in your ears, as you sit in the auditorium, and at home you play this back through some headphones FR'd for your ears then (that's true binaural) then you will get an even better representation of the event, no, as I said before, stereo as we know it can only give so much , those that know that can then relax a bit knowing that no one has tried to create anything other than stereo (or a manipulation of stereo as in ambisonics) as the record process, that's where it all starts and too bad for us that's the very limitation we live under as consumers. Really, its that simple John.
Tom, you have settled on & accepted what you see as the limitations of the process & this is your final resting place. I'm not so ready to do this as I have heard better reproduction than I expected (with vinyl & DSD for instance) & it fascinates me why this better reproduction sounds better. As you, Plonk, Rob all say the answer must lie in the signal but whereas none of you seem interested in finding what these signals might be, I am.

In fact, by your posts here, all of you actively discourage looking for the reasons for this perceptible difference (don't come back at me with the hackneyed blind test retort), instead firstly using the "preferences" tack, then the "measurements are not meant to do this" tack & now the "stereo is broken, why bother" tack. I really don't buy any of it, sorry - I'm interested in the why of things & by finding out the why, improving the how.

Funnily enough, I find the objectivists to be the ones that most "object" to this notion of finding out the why - it might be why they are called "objectivists" :)?

What I'm really asking for is for objective measurements that can tell me what we will hear - I would be a rampant objectivist, given that
 

arnyk

New Member
Apr 25, 2011
310
0
0
So, if you maintain that you can measure every change in audio then tell me how to measure & isolate the 2nd violin from the string section & follow it through the playing of the piece.

The above might just be an example of a false argument created by means of the gratuitous addition of irrelevant and even impossible requirements.

The claim was that some kind of change could be measured if it existed, which was responded to by a demand that the full provenance of the change, every note in the musical composition, an analysis and full simulation of the acoustics of the concert hall, full knowlege of the playing style of all of the musicians involved, all going back to the creation of the Universe etc., etc. be provided. ;-)

We can and do often avoid all of that senseless nit picking by determining whether or not the change could possibly be audible, no matter what its details are.

Take an amp or DAC with 0.001% THD. The threshold of distortion for nonlinear distortion no matter how egregiously audible under the most ideal circumstances for hearing it is more like 0.05%.

Therefore without too much exercise of great faith, we observe that 0.001% is 50 times less than 0.05% and thus reasonably expect it to be inaudible.

It is very easy to do a sighted evaluation where 0.000000000000000001% or less THD is detected with 100% reliability. The thresholds observed in DBTs are a little higher - pretty much agree with other generally accepted science.

I'll leave it to the readers to figure out which test is the one to believe. ;-)
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing