Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

[Phelonious Ponk]

how does one take it seriously

The central question.

Tim

 

[fas42]

I just said you hadn't presented any evidence to support that position.

Let's just stop right there! Since this expression, or something like it, is repeated over and over again, by many people, can you give me a precise, unambiguous definition of "presenting evidence". Is it DBT, research in peer reviewed journals, or something else? Lots of precision here, please ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

And they keep on happening with each change, and always an improvement, over dozens of tweaks and changes, how does one take it seriously with some folks.

To some degree I believe I understand what is happening here. Unlike seemingly most audio people who work with an additive belief I come from the subtractive angle. To explain: these listeners are saying their sound keeps improving as if it were an infinite process, additive; mine is, that the "truth" is out there , and weaknesses or deficiencies detract, or subtract, from the truth.

When these people make a change it firstly alters the sound because of the intrinsic nature of the change, and secondly because they have reset the system: switched off and on the components, and cleaned contacts, altered the position of damping elements, etc. At this point, mainly because of the second aspect, their system will be closer to the truth, and they will proclaim such. Then, over a period of time the system starts to subtly degrade because the effect of those housekeeping activities wears off, a subtractive process. Finally the listener feels too strongly that something is not right, decides on another tweak or update, and the process repeats itself. If you're into electronics, the system "quality" progresses just like the waveform on a power supply storage cap!

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's just stop right there! Since this expression, or something like it, is repeated over and over again, by many people, can you give me a precise, unambiguous definition of "presenting evidence". Is it DBT, research in peer reviewed journals, or something else? Lots of precision here, please ...

Frank

Evidence can be a variety of things, Frank, all involving some sort of disciplined methodology involving independent gathering of empirical data, measurement, reporting and verification. Yeah, peer review would be cool. The scientific community generally doesn't take things too seriously without it. DBT could qualify (or not). Measurement by instruments could qualify (or not). A bunch of guys talking on an audiophile discussion board about a way cool volume control? Not.

Tim

 

[mep]

If we had to wait for all of that stuff to happen before a new product was released, we would all still be listening to 1950s consoles.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If we had to wait for all of that stuff to happen before a new product was released, we would all still be listening to 1950s consoles.

Nonsense. The only part that doesn't typically happen in the development of audio products is peer review. If you're buying gear that has not been developed through a disciplined methodology involving the gathering of empirical data through measurement (yes, including listening), reporting, and verification, stick it in a wood box and write Magnavox on the front of it, it may as well be a 1950s console. But the odds are very, very slim that this is the case. All decent designers test, measure, listen, verify, measure some more, listen some more, verify, record their findings, verify....

It is not magic; it's engineering.

Tim

 

[fas42]

If we had to wait for all of that stuff to happen before a new product was released, we would all still be listening to 1950s consoles.

Exactly ...

The movement forward occurs frequently because people intuitively innovate, or by accident discover some "effect", which they then exploit or attempt to spread out into the community by various means.

A bunch of guys talking on an audiophile discussion board about a way cool volume control?

Sarcasm is obviously a very useful method for attempting to investigate something, or pursue a dialectic ...

Lots of precision here, please .

I'm sorry, Tim, I'll have to give you a D for that effort ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Nonsense. The only part that doesn't typically happen in the development of audio products is peer review. If you're buying gear that has not been developed through a disciplined methodology involving the gathering of empirical data through measurement (yes, including listening), reporting, and verification, stick it in a wood box and write Magnavox on the front of it, it may as well be a 1950s console. But the odds are very, very slim that this is the case. All decent designers test, measure, listen, verify, measure some more, listen some more, verify, record their findings, verify....

It is not magic; it's engineering.

Tim

There won't be reporting, peer review, and on and on. Manufactureres of high-end gear aren't making products to sell to scientists. They will design a circuit, build it, listen to it/measure it, make some changes, listen to it/measure it again. Maybe let some people hear prototypes to get some feedback and barring any major changes, it will probably go into production. And once it's in production, then some manufacturers find out all of the things that were wrong with it and come out with the MKI revision quickly to be followed by the MKII and MKIII revisions.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There won't be reporting

Really? You don't think they're recording the results of their experiments? You don't think they're sharing those records with other designers working on the project? You don't think they're doing this with some kind of track-able, repeatable discipline so they know when the results change?

peer review

I gave you that one, and it still stands

and on and on.

What on and on?

Manufactureres of high-end gear aren't making products to sell to scientists.

Fair enough. Most of them aren't working by themselves in a basement either. I think you have a romantic notion of "high end" design that would result in pretty iffy products if it was real...

And once it's in production, then some manufacturers find out all of the things that were wrong with it and come out with the MKI revision quickly to be followed by the MKII and MKIII revisions.

...or if it is real, let's just hope you're not the guy who pays a few grand for the first release, or even MKI. It isn't software, after all.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"A bunch of guys talking on an audiophile discussion board about a way cool volume control?"

Sarcasm is obviously a very useful method for attempting to investigate something, or pursue a dialectic

I withdraw the words "way cool." I stand by the rest, which is neither sarcastic or inaccurate.

Tim

 

[mep]

Really? You don't think they're recording the results of their experiments?

Recording and reporting are two different things in my book. Recording, sure. Reporting, I doubt it.

You don't think they're sharing those records with other designers working on the project? You don't think they're doing this with some kind of track-able, repeatable discipline so they know when the results change?

Same comment as above. Of course they are recording their findings and sharing it with other engineers involved with the project.

Fair enough. Most of them aren't working by themselves in a basement either. I think you have a romantic notion of "high end" design that would result in pretty iffy products if it was real...

...or if it is real, let's just hope you're not the guy who pays a few grand for the first release, or even MKI. It isn't software, after all.

How do you think all the guys feel that buy an expensive piece of new gear just to have the MKI, or MKII, or MKIII version come out the week after they bought theirs? Happens all the time Tim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we're arguing semantics at this point, Mark. Or perhaps experience. Recording findings and sharing them with the team? I call that reporting. A formal, published study, no. But I call it reporting. And I respect your disagreement.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

How do you think all the guys feel that buy an expensive piece of new gear just to have the MKI, or MKII, or MKIII version come out the week after they bought theirs?

When buying cars, I've found the best time to get one is right after the new model has been announced or right before it is to be released. It's so easy to get a good deal for a perfectly good car. Brand new car at pre-owned pricing almost.

What sucks is when there is no disclosure! You start imagining that you are Sonny Corleone and your dealer is your brother in law

 

[fas42]

I didn't say you were wrong in your belief that potentiometers can impact audio quality, I just said you hadn't presented any evidence to support that position.

Okay, Tim, we'll take this one a bit further.

So you accept that I did hear something that was an actual phenomenon, there was something that occurred that was audible as least to me. But you're saying that has no usefulness or integrity until I can actually present readings from a test instrument of some variety that shows this effect occurring, or that I point you to study done be a reputable authority using DBT techniques on a group of people investigating precisely this behaviour?

Is this correct?

Frank

 

[fas42]

Sorry, Tim, couple more thoughts:

it was audibly improving the quality of the sound every time I moved the knob, I'd clean it.

How would you clean it?

And, did you even glance at the thread I posted, which was started and maintained by the designer and producer of the attenuator, describing many of the steps he went through to refine his product, and what he did to determine the problems of even high quality units?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Okay, Tim, we'll take this one a bit further.

So you accept that I did hear something that was an actual phenomenon, there was something that occurred that was audible as least to me. But you're saying that has no usefulness or integrity until I can actually present readings from a test instrument of some variety that shows this effect occurring, or that I point you to study done be a reputable authority using DBT techniques on a group of people investigating precisely this behaviour?

Is this correct?

Frank

Nope. Didn't say any of that either. I have no idea if there was an actual phenomenon or if you actually heard anything. And I'm not saying that what you heard (even if it's only what you expected to hear) had no usefulness or integrity. I'm only saying that it doesn't come up to the standard of "evidence."

ev·i·dence? ?
[ev-i-duhns] Show IPA
noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

A bunch of guys discussing something on a board, without any data, comes a bit closer (quite a bit) to this:

hear·say? ?
[heer-sey] Show IPA
–noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge

2.
an item of idle or unverified information

Tim

 

[fas42]

And I'm not saying that what you heard (even if it's only what you expected to hear) had no usefulness or integrity. I'm only saying that it doesn't come up to the standard of "evidence."

So if I hear two people in some place talking about committing a crime my experience of hearing this has no validity as "evidence" anywhere?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So if I hear two people in some place talking about committing a crime my experience of hearing this has no validity as "evidence" anywhere?

Frank

Legal evidence and scientific evidence are very different things, Frank. If the law had to meet the demands of science, there would be damned few convictions. But we're not trying anyone. We're talking about science, or at the very least, engineering. I know many seem to think they are discussing art, but that's really only happening in the music forums.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

legal def of hearsay- an extrajudicial(out of court) statement offerred in court for the proof of the matter asserted therin. A statement by a party oppnent or defendnat is an admisssion. Not hearsay.

 

[fas42]

We're talking about science, or at the very least, engineering.

Yes, we are talking about engineering, or more precisely, the precision of engineering required for the "truth" to be fully revealed. I would suggest everyone agrees that a certain level of engineering is required for accuracy of playback. The argument, debate, dialectic is the level of engineering required ...

Some (no names, no pack drill ...) would suggest the level of engineering implied by the numbers stated in the standard specifications issued by companies, along with the accepted test procedures carried out on the accepted test instruments are totally adequate to guarantee this performance. Other would disagree vehemently regarding this ...

So, to arrive at the truth of the recording I believe there are at least three opinions about what is sufficient to achieve this:

1. Components performing adequately, as tested using current, well known measuring techniques
2. Components, possibly esoteric, that have been highly tweaked and refined, using listening as the prime guide to performance
3. Components that can be shown to perform well using advanced, highly sophisticated variants of current testing methodology, with possibly completely new modes of testing. Overall system tests, from source through to speaker operating as a single entity, would be key elements

So how do people feel about this list ...??

Frank