[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
opaqueice;144386 Wrote: > > > Brutefir is supposed to be very efficient, so my guess is 500MHz is > more than enough, especially if your server is dedicated and you don't > use sweeps longer than 45s. Sounds like its worth testing out. -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
cliveb;144363 Wrote: > Do you have a feeling for what sort of CPU power is needed to run the > inguz room correction on Linux using brutefir? > > inguz says that for Windows, you need a 2GHz+ CPU. Is there anyone > about who's running it on Windows that can comment on this? Do you > really need that much CPU? > > I'm interested in inguz' stuff, but at the moment my Slimserver is > running under FreeBSD on a 500MHz CPU, and my Windows server is Win2K > on a 533MHz mini-ITX, so I'm trying to figure out what sort of hardware > and/or OS upgrade would be required. Well, I think the CPU requirements depend on the size of the filter you want to convolve with. 45 second sweeps seem pretty standard - recorded at 16 bit and 44.1kHz that's a bit less than 10^8 data points. So if 10 operations are required per point you get something less than 10^9, so that would occupy a 1GHz CPU fully for one second. With inguz I get maybe 10% CPU activity for a few seconds at the start of each track, which fits roughly with the above - my server is dual core 2GHz or so. Brutefir is supposed to be very efficient, so my guess is 500MHz is more than enough, especially if your server is dedicated and you don't use sweeps longer than 45s. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
opaqueice;144309 Wrote: > I've been using the inguz filter for months now - it makes a big > difference. For linux there's a program called brutefir - if you > search the forums you'll find someone that successfully used that. Do you have a feeling for what sort of CPU power is needed to run the inguz room correction on Linux using brutefir? inguz says that for Windows, you need a 2GHz+ CPU. Is there anyone about who's running it on Windows that can comment on this? Do you really need that much CPU? I'm interested in inguz' stuff, but at the moment my Slimserver is running under FreeBSD on a 500MHz CPU, and my Windows server is Win2K on a 533MHz mini-ITX, so I'm trying to figure out what sort of hardware and/or OS upgrade would be required. -- cliveb Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompressed mastering -> you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I've been using the inguz filter for months now - it makes a big difference. For linux there's a program called brutefir - if you search the forums you'll find someone that successfully used that. Once you have a filter file it's not hard - you just need to edit the slimserver config.conf file to tell it to process the file with brutefir or whatever. Possibly brutefir would work on mac, but I don't know. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
totoro;144209 Wrote: > Have you tried room correction? I just started playing with the inguz > audio stuff. It's pretty cool, it works, and it's free. That sounds like a sensible solution. Unfortunately it's Windows. And I don't use Windows on my servers. (My server isn't powerful enough either, but that can be fixed). -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
That looks TOTALLY promising! Too bad it's windows only. But, why not? Why not use software on your computer to calibrate EQ via Slimserver? Genius. totoro;144209 Wrote: > Have you tried room correction? I just started playing with the inguz > audio stuff. It's pretty cool, it works, and it's free. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomsi42;144199 Wrote: > I don't have problem with this. I need to fix my room (or move) before I > swap my speakers. I might buy a transporter; but my reasons for that > purchase is more close to highdungeon's Rolex "ravings" than real > needs! But I don't mind that - if I can afford it and I believe that it > improves the sound, I'm OK... Have you tried room correction? I just started playing with the inguz audio stuff. It's pretty cool, it works, and it's free. -- totoro _ squeezebox 3 -> behringer 2496 -> classe 5 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomjtx;144163 Wrote: > . > Do you think most people in both camps would agree that amplification > has improved to the point that the least differences exist in this part > of the audo chain? > > Seems reasonable to me. I don't have problem with this. I need to fix my room (or move) before I swap my speakers. I might buy a transporter; but my reasons for that purchase is more close to highdungeon's Rolex "ravings" than real needs! But I don't mind that - if I can afford it and I believe that it improves the sound, I'm OK... -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Absolutely. Positively. I concur. I had a set of Harbeth Monitor 40s. They are, by any measure, reference level speakers if there have ever been reference level speakers. The difference between a set of McIntosh MC-501s ($5k used) and a late '90s Carver A-500x ($400 used) were minor and fall into the categories you described. Moving the speakers a bit or making a wee change in listening position made for a greater difference. Playing with sources -- ditto. tomjtx;144163 Wrote: > . I'm also an (amateur) musician, have played an inssomewhere around > 16kHz). > > In the end, I could tell the difference, but only on some tracks I knew > very well, and even then just barely. I found it easiest to discern on > a recording of the Bach cello suites - there was a difference in > timbre, and possibly in detail. But it was very subtle - and this in a > comparison between an extremely highly rated and reviewed amp custumized > and upgraded by the manufacturer, and a 15 year old medium to low grade > mass-market surround sound receiver. > > My (personal) conclusion from this experience? Spend money on music, > speakers, and room correction. Amplification has been solved. that's interesting. The timbre differences you heard would probably be enough for me to want to buy the amp. Do you think most people in both camps would agree that amplification has improved to the point that the least differences exist in this part of the audo chain? Seems reasonable to me. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
. I'm also an (amateur) musician, have played an inssomewhere around 16kHz). In the end, I could tell the difference, but only on some tracks I knew very well, and even then just barely. I found it easiest to discern on a recording of the Bach cello suites - there was a difference in timbre, and possibly in detail. But it was very subtle - and this in a comparison between an extremely highly rated and reviewed amp custumized and upgraded by the manufacturer, and a 15 year old medium to low grade mass-market surround sound receiver. My (personal) conclusion from this experience? Spend money on music, speakers, and room correction. Amplification has been solved. that's interesting. The timbre differences you heard would probably be enough for me to want to buy the amp. Do you think most people in both camps would agree that amplification has improved to the point that the least differences exist in this part of the audo chain? Seems reasonable to me. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomjtx;144052 Wrote: > > If I had listened to unfamiliar recordings I think it would have been > harder to hear those differences. > So, is it possible that much blind testing relies on short term aural > retention rather than long term. Perhaps a blind test which uses > recordings testers are intimately familiar with on that system could > yield different results? I don't have an opinion on that, just curious. > Well, when I bought my current amp (a ~$1200 upgraded Odyssey Cyclops) I went to some effort to compare it to the old one (a Technics, new price maybe $400 in 1992). I compared them using the SB by making "mono" files - I used Audacity to take the left channel of an original .WAV and make a new file, with the orignal left channel now on both channels. So no digital processing of the sound file - just both outputs identical. Then I sent one out to one amp, and one to the other, and connected each amp to one of a pair of speakers. I tried this both with and without an external DAC. I had a friend switch which speaker was connected to which amp back and forth out of my sight (so blind, but not double blind - but I'm reasonably sure she didn't give me any clues). I'm also an (amateur) musician, have played an instrument since age 4, and have very good high-frequency hearing (I've always been able to hear the sound of a TV monitor, which is somewhere around 16kHz). In the end, I could tell the difference, but only on some tracks I knew very well, and even then just barely. I found it easiest to discern on a recording of the Bach cello suites - there was a difference in timbre, and possibly in detail. But it was very subtle - and this in a comparison between an extremely highly rated and reviewed amp custumized and upgraded by the manufacturer, and a 15 year old medium to low grade mass-market surround sound receiver. My (personal) conclusion from this experience? Spend money on music, speakers, and room correction. Amplification has been solved. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
You're not kidding. Most of my watches are inherited (I come from a very large family) and some I simply will not wear out -- the sentimental value is too deep and the monetary value too great. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Pat Farrell;144087 Wrote: > > Plus, you can wear a watch to work, and show off what good taste you > have and how rich you are. High End audio is not visible at work I wear a Rolex Presidential that I inherited from my father and I have to say that it causes more problems that I ever imagined. It's all I have left from him, yet often I am scared to travel wearing it (especially in London) and it stays in a box. You get judged as a crass exhibitionist when all you are doing is wearing a nice watch. Sometimes people wear watches for different reasons (mine is to stay close to my father) and having something valuable can be a real impediment. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Quite true. It really is bothersome to be the kind of person who appreciates a device for its durability, mechanical interest, design, and legacy, and then walk out into a world where 90% of the people who own similar things are out to show off their good taste and deep pockets. But, horology is a personal interest, so there. I have a personal rule: I don't spend more money on personal items than I donate to good causes. As a rule, I donate quite a bit more, in terms of money and volunteer time. And I still feel a bit guilty. Pat Farrell;144087 Wrote: > highdudgeon wrote: > > Amen. High end audio is also highly elitist...and most marketing > plays > > into this. In some ways, I think the high end watch market is > actually > > more honest. They make nifty things, they make beautiful things, > they > > make insanely rugged things, and they make some hedious things. > > However, there is no pretense that *what* they make is more accurate > > and somehow superiod in telling time. > > Plus, you can wear a watch to work, and show off what good taste you > have and how rich you are. High End audio is not visible at work > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomjtx;144043 Wrote: > Thanks for the clarification and sorry I jumped to an incorrect > conclusion about your post. Sounds like you have some excellent > guitars. > I don't know if you like clasical guitar but check out Aires Latinos by > David Russsel (that's the CD that won the grammy last year) He records > for telarc. > If you like that check out his all Bach CD My babies! (apart from two rapidly growing up 11 year old twins!) +---+ |Filename: guitars3.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1808| +---+ -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
CardinalFang;144094 Wrote: > Out of interest, there is a fairly common condition called dyspaxia and > one of the common symptons is that no matter how many times you hear > something, it never gets registered deep in your memory and you have to > keep re-learning things like number tables to remember them. Sounds like a hi-end dealers dream disease..all that new sounding equipment to sell -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomjtx;144052 Wrote: > My point is .not all aural memry is fleeting. The more and longer we > hear something the longer we retain it in our memory . > Out of interest, there is a fairly common condition called dyspaxia and one of the common symptons is that no matter how many times you hear something, it never gets registered deep in your memory and you have to keep re-learning things like number tables to remember them. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon;144054 On a forum I participate it -- highly reputable, the Robert Greene forum -- a member posted to the effect that, after years of fiddling with interconnects, he decided to try a test himself. He had his wife change cables every few days over a three week period. There were three different cables. They ranged from very expensive to reasonable. In the end, he couldn't tell any difference, do he kept the reasonable set (Bryston) and sold the others. That's a sound a approach.[/QUOTE Wrote: > > > what a good idea. He can probably send his kids to college now:-) -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon wrote: Amen. High end audio is also highly elitist...and most marketing plays into this. In some ways, I think the high end watch market is actually more honest. They make nifty things, they make beautiful things, they make insanely rugged things, and they make some hedious things. However, there is no pretense that *what* they make is more accurate and somehow superiod in telling time. Plus, you can wear a watch to work, and show off what good taste you have and how rich you are. High End audio is not visible at work -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Amen. High end audio is also highly elitist...and most marketing plays into this. In some ways, I think the high end watch market is actually more honest. They make nifty things, they make beautiful things, they make insanely rugged things, and they make some hedious things. However, there is no pretense that *what* they make is more accurate and somehow superiod in telling time. It's all about design and the interest in unique mechanical creations. And, yes, it is expensive. However, no one at, say, IWC will tell you that a current production watch is technically superior to one built ten or twenty years ago, when it comes to telling time. The differences are in looks and "complications" (added functions, like reserve time, date variations, etc.) tyler_durden;144065 Wrote: > Most people would like to think they are different, even better, than > most other people in some way. An easy way for people to rank > themselves against others is money. People with money often feel they > are somehow better, more deserving, than others with less money. > > People with money who consider themselves better than others, don't > like the idea of the money being the only thing that differentiates > them from the masses because if it was, it would mean a) any slob who > wins the lottery would suddenly be equal to or better than them, and b) > some financial catastrophe could suddenly make them not better than > everyone else. So they invent other things that make them better. In > particular, all of their senses somehow become more powerful- their > palates are easily offended by cheap wine, their ears offended by > mass-market stereo, etc. Now they are truly different from the masses > in a way that is not dependent on the vagaries of finance! > > "You are different. You are better than others, your tastes are more > refined, you are harder to satisfy, you DESERVE the best, you can > afford the best..." High-end audio marketers, like wine marketers, > have successfully targeted this sensibility for years. It works > becauses it reinforces the insecure customer's need to be better than > others. > > TD -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Most people would like to think they are different, even better, than most other people in some way. An easy way for people to rank themselves against others is money. People with money often feel they are somehow better, more deserving, than others with less money. People with money who consider themselves better than others, don't like the idea of the money being the only thing that differentiates them from the masses because if it was, it would mean a) any slob who wins the lottery would suddenly be equal to or better than them, and b) some financial catastrophe could suddenly make them not better than everyone else. So they invent other things that make them better. In particular, all of their senses somehow become more powerful- their palates are easily offended by cheap wine, their ears offended by mass-market stereo, etc. Now they are truly different from the masses in a way that is not dependent on the vagaries of finance! "You are different. You are better than others, your tastes are more refined, you are harder to satisfy, you DESERVE the best, you can afford the best..." High-end audio marketers, like wine marketers, have successfully targeted this sensibility for years. It works becauses it reinforces the insecure customer's need to be better than others. TD -- tyler_durden tyler_durden's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Double-blind testing is a tricky thing -- there's a whole science to it. In terms of audio, done over time with one or two people, it is valid. Use different lengths of music. Do it over different days, even. Tally the results. Otherwise, you need a larger sample to correct for individual oddities. That's what I like about the Bay Area Audiophile Society test -- they actually bothered to do it correctly. On a forum I participate it -- highly reputable, the Robert Greene forum -- a member posted to the effect that, after years of fiddling with interconnects, he decided to try a test himself. He had his wife change cables every few days over a three week period. There were three different cables. They ranged from very expensive to reasonable. In the end, he couldn't tell any difference, do he kept the reasonable set (Bryston) and sold the others. That's a sound a approach. adamslim;143980 Wrote: > Thanks - it was a pleasure to read the thread this morning. I hoped > that doing the flaming in the initial post - and hence without target - > we'd get a nicer discussion, which seems to have worked. > > Do people think that double-blind tests are genuinely accurate? It > strikes me that there are two potential flaws: > > - The person is in a different mood. At the start of the second test > he has just heard Time Out, and is about to hear it again. Therefore, > I suggest that it is necessary to do the testing dozens of times, and > see if the consensus is statistically indicative. Man that would be > tiring! > > - I have always found that the important matters about hi-fi take a > long time to assess. Do I find myself jumping up to put the next disc > on? Am I transported to the live venue? Is this the right music for > me to get into, right now? I like to test things for several days, and > then go back to the original again to reconfirm my opinion. All an A-B > does is show differences, which is not relevant to me. I need to know > what the difference really means, in terms of my enjoyment of the > music. > > So to conclude, I posit that double-blind testing may not always be an > appropriate method of comparing gear. I think it is useful, but would > treat the results with some caution. However, I recognise that my > system of testing, by not being blind, cannot be scientific. Is there > a third way? -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I think this speaks to the point that one needs large groups and controls and/or one needs to conduct the test over time. Yes again, I can't help but commend Slim Devices. A 30 day trial period, no questions. How many dealers offer that? tomjtx;144052 Wrote: > I see your point, but if you read A's statement it doesn't sound quite > so ridiculous. > Lets consider musical memory, aural, visual and muscle memory from a > musicians viewpoint. > I memorize pieces quickly. If Ihave a piece memorized for a week and > then don't play it for a week I lose most of all 3 types of memory. > Conversely, a piece I have played for years will stay in all types of > memory for months. > > In university, music students have aural dictation tests where they > have to write out a melody they hear or harmonies they hear(melodic and > harmonic dictation) > > This is a skill that is developed with practice. > This skill is based on aural memory. The musician must remember that a > particular note he hears is the note he must write on the page. > To hone my memory I write out the pieces I play from my aural memory > without the guitar in front of me. > > The performance of a piece of music is an act of remembering the > future, if we don't don't know where the piece ends we can't play the > beginning with insight ( I am speaking hear of interpreting a through > composed piece) > > My point is .not all aural memry is fleeting. The more and longer we > hear something the longer we retain it in our memory . > > when I auditioned a new amp for my system I chose a few recordings I > knew very well. I had analyzed the compositional structure and was very > aware of the articulation of different lines. I heard a big difference. > Rythmic articulation was > clearer, inner voices easier to hear etc. > If I had listened to unfamiliar recordings I think it would have been > harder to hear those differences. > So, is it possible that much blind testing relies on short term aural > retention rather than long term. Perhaps a blind test which uses > recordings testers are intimately familiar with on that system could > yield different results? I don't have an opinion on that, just > curious. > > So listening to a composition for many months increases the long term > aural retention of the composition and could lead to a greater degree > of acuity evaluation prcess. > I only mean to say that this could be one factor in A's differing > results. There may be an aural component to this and not ONLY other > factors. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Nice post! ceejay;143986 Wrote: > A few random thoughts: > > (1) double-blind testing ... while granting some practical limitations > (like the hangover problem, or the number of trials you need to make, > or how long you need to listen to each sample, or making it really > blind), this does have a very valuable contribution to make in > answering the question "is there a difference?" Not, of course, "is > this better?"! But if a snake-oil salesman or his victim can't tell > the difference between A and B, then there really isn't one, regardless > of whether you favour an "objective" (measurement-driven) or > "subjective" (ear-driven) approach to evaluation. > > The consequence of this, in response to the last post, is that it's not > very helpful in comparing gear, but it is helpful in determining whether > a tweak has any discernable effect. > > (2) comparing gear ... the problem with this is that in the end, we > have to make a subjective judgement about what sounds best to us. This > is some mix of the behaviour of our ears (we do all have differing > frequency-response curves, my audiologist sister tells me), the > behaviour of our brains in interpreting the sound we hear, the impact > of our musical preferences, and of course non musical influences like > the price or the pretty lights. > > Does that make me a pure subjectivist? Well, no, because objective > measures are hugely useful in arriving at shortlists of stuff to listen > to, although reviews written from a subjective viewpoint can *sometimes* > be helpful. > > (3) audiophilia as religion ... it really is, you know. Hence the holy > wars that keep springing up on this board. Even worse, we are not > talking about one religion attacking another, what we have here are two > sects of the same religion which, as history tells us, gives us the > worst kind of religious war! > > (4) subjectivist/objectivist/realist ... going back to the very first > post, I agree that the subjectivist and objectivist are contrasting > positions, but I'm not sure that "realist" is distinct. I suspect that > the "realist" is someone between the two ends of the scale. And lets > not forget that there is another, orthogonal scale, ranging from > "raving audiophile" at one end to "really don't care" at the other. > > (5) bringing my last two points together... the interesting thing about > the subjectivist/objectivist spectrum is that unlike many other such > lines, where few people occupy either end but most people are somewhere > in the middle, in this one there are plenty of people at each end... > more of an even distribution than a normal one, say. > > So, in conclusion, audiophiles are not normal ! :) > > Ceejay -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I see your point, but if you read A's statement it doesn't sound quite so ridiculous. Lets consider musical memory, aural, visual and muscle memory from a musicians viewpoint. I memorize pieces quickly. If Ihave a piece memorized for a week and then don't play it for a week I lose most of all 3 types of memory. Conversely, a piece I have played for years will stay in all types of memory for months. In university, music students have aural dictation tests where they have to write out a melody they hear or harmonies they hear(melodic and harmonic dictation) This is a skill that is developed with practice. This skill is based on aural memory. The musician must remember that a particular note he hears is the note he must write on the page. To hone my memory I write out the pieces I play from my aural memory without the guitar in front of me. The performance of a piece of music is an act of remembering the future, if we don't don't know where the piece ends we can't play the beginning with insight ( I am speaking hear of interpreting a through composed piece) My point is .not all aural memry is fleeting. The more and longer we hear something the longer we retain it in our memory . when I auditioned a new amp for my system I chose a few recordings I knew very well. I had analyzed the compositional structure and was very aware of the articulation of different lines. I heard a big difference. Rythmic articulation was clearer, inner voices easier to hear etc. If I had listened to unfamiliar recordings I think it would have been harder to hear those differences. So, is it possible that much blind testing relies on short term aural retention rather than long term. Perhaps a blind test which uses recordings testers are intimately familiar with on that system could yield different results? I don't have an opinion on that, just curious. So listening to a composition for many months increases the long term aural retention of the composition and could lead to a greater degree of acuity evaluation prcess. I only mean to say that this could be one factor in A's differing results. There may be an aural component to this and not ONLY other factors. opaqueice;144037 Wrote: > You're right on both counts - and it's never gonna happen. There's a > quote somewhere by John Atkinson about how in a blind test he couldn't > distinguish between two amplifiers he regarded as very different. I > really love this quote, because it demonstrates such total > irrationality - he concludes there must be something wrong with blind > testing. Not that the amps might sound the same - impossible! - but > somehow that blind testing conceals differences. Quite scary, since > all of our drugs, medical treatments etc. are tested that way. And > completely ridiculous, since we have massive amounts of data that the > opposite is the case - not to mention simple logic. > > So if reviewers used blind testing and concluded that essentially all > amps sound the same, the industry would fall apart - or at least suffer > a major blow. And any publication responsible for that would lose most > of its advertising revenue and go under. > > The quote is here, half way down or so: > > http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Thanks for the clarification and sorry I jumped to an incorrect conclusion about your post. Sounds like you have some excellent guitars. I don't know if you like clasical guitar but check out Aires Latinos by David Russsel (that's the CD that won the grammy last year) He records for telarc. If you like that check out his all Bach CD CardinalFang;144000 Wrote: > Of course I meant electric guitars, and Suhr is most definitely one of > the finest in that field - I personally think he's the finest at what > he does and so do Eric Clapton, Mark Knopler, Pete Frampton who have > been customers of his too. CAD and CNC allow him to produce repeatable > designs custom built for different hand sizes, preferences etc. and all > are hand finished. You would not be able to tell a machine had been > involved apart from the very consistent shaping of the neck, body etc. > Suhr still hand picks timbers, checks tone and applies very strict > quality control. > > It's a different story with acoustics or classical instruments where > hand tuning of the body is required and the wooden structure of my > acoustic was built entirely by hand using the methods you describe. > It's also important to buyers who are also investing in the > craftmanship and the "hand-built" ethos. I understand that, it's why I > bought the instrument myself. For my electric, it's about the tone and > feel. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon;143957 Wrote: > Transporter is 2-3 weeks out, I'm afraid Sorry, thought you already had it. I should have access to one in 2-3 weeks also, looking forward to your observations. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
CardinalFang;144001 Wrote: > One thing to consider is who is doing the testing. I would put forward > the view that a serious professional reviewer should use double blind > as a matter of course, but for individuals, just buy what you want > after reviewing and auditioning by whatever means you like! > You're right on both counts - and it's never gonna happen. There's a quote somewhere by John Atkinson about how in a blind test he couldn't distinguish between two amplifiers he regarded as very different. I really love this quote, because it demonstrates such total irrationality - he concludes there must be something wrong with blind testing. Not that the amps might sound the same - impossible! - but somehow that blind testing conceals differences. Quite scary, since all of our drugs, medical treatments etc. are tested that way. And completely ridiculous, since we have massive amounts of data that the opposite is the case. So if reviewers used blind testing and concluded that essentially all amps sound the same, the industry would fall apart - or at least suffer a major blow. And any publication responsible for that would lose most of its advertising revenue and go under. The quote is here, half way down or so: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
adamslim;143980 Wrote: > Do people think that double-blind tests are genuinely accurate? One thing to consider is who is doing the testing. I would put forward the view that a serious professional reviewer should use double blind as a matter of course, but for individuals, just buy what you want after reviewing and auditioning by whatever means you like! A reviewer has a lot of influence and is being paid to be fair and non-partisan, so I think it's a cop out to resort to vague language and not subject expensive equipment to some reasonable, repeatable procedure so that someone else can repeat it and understand what the reviewer means. At the moment most reviews just contribute to the poor impression many people have of audiophiles. How often do you read "audiophiles will buy anything" on news groups or web sites? I've seen it many times. It may not matter to some audiophiles, but it's something that a lot of people are passionate about and it's not nice to be a laughing stock, hence I think it is behind some of the very aggressive stances people take. Of course the issue is that magazines have financial pressures too and don't want to annoy advertisers and there's nothing like a blind test or measured performance to really define a relative quality between two products. I would also guess that one of the more difficult aspects is peer pressure, especially if you are a member of an audio club - or on a forum like this. If several people say a component is better is better than another, then there can be a lot of pressure to agree, even if you don't hear the differences - or even feel it sounds worse. I've bought gear because people say it's good and been very disappointed. I bought cable once because it was being lauded and when I plugged it in it was much worse than the existing cheap mains cable I was using. Of course then there is the usual discussion on system matching etc., but I had wasted a fair bit of money by that stage. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomjtx;143877 Wrote: > I could go on, but not one great maker uses CAD or anyting like that. > They build by ear, using tap tones , adjusting bracing etc. It is an > art that cannot be fully measured. > Of course I meant electric guitars, and Suhr is most definitely one of the finest in that field - I personally think he's the finest at what he does and so do Eric Clapton, Mark Knopler, Pete Frampton who have been customers of his too. CAD and CNC allow him to produce repeatable designs custom built for different hand sizes, preferences etc. and all are hand finished. You would not be able to tell a machine had been involved apart from the very consistent shaping of the neck, body etc. Suhr still hand picks timbers, checks tone and applies very strict quality control. It's a different story with acoustics or classical instruments where hand tuning of the body is required and the wooden structure of my acoustic was built entirely by hand using the methods you describe. It's also important to buyers who are also investing in the craftmanship and the "hand-built" ethos. I understand that, it's why I bought the instrument myself. For my electric, it's about the tone and feel. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
A few random thoughts: (1) double-blind testing ... while granting some practical limitations (like the hangover problem, or the number of trials you need to make, or how long you need to listen to each sample, or making it really blind), this does have a very valuable contribution to make in answering the question "is there a difference?" Not, of course, "is this better?"! But if a snake-oil salesman or his victim can't tell the difference between A and B, then there really isn't one, regardless of whether you favour an "objective" (measurement-driven) or "subjective" (ear-driven) approach to evaluation. The consequence of this, in response to the last post, is that it's not very helpful in comparing gear, but it is helpful in determining whether a tweak has any discernable effect. (2) comparing gear ... the problem with this is that in the end, we have to make a subjective judgement about what sounds best to us. This is some mix of the behaviour of our ears (we do all have differing frequency-response curves, my audiologist sister tells me), the behaviour of our brains in interpreting the sound we hear, the impact of our musical preferences, and of course non musical influences like the price or the pretty lights. Does that make me a pure subjectivist? Well, no, because objective measures are hugely useful in arriving at shortlists of stuff to listen to, although reviews written from a subjective viewpoint can *sometimes* be helpful. (3) audiophilia as religion ... it really is, you know. Hence the holy wars that keep springing up on this board. Even worse, we are not talking about one religion attacking another, what we have here are two sects of the same religion which, as history tells us, gives us the worst kind of religious war! (4) subjectivist/objectivist/realist ... going back to the very first post, I agree that the subjectivist and objectivist are contrasting positions, but I'm not sure that "realist" is distinct. I suspect that the "realist" is someone between the two ends of the scale. And lets not forget that there is another, orthogonal scale, ranging from "raving audiophile" at one end to "really don't care" at the other. (5) bringing my last two points together... the interesting thing about the subjectivist/objectivist spectrum is that unlike many other such lines, where few people occupy either end but most people are somewhere in the middle, in this one there are plenty of people at each end... more of an even distribution than a normal one, say. So, in conclusion, audiophiles are not normal ! :) Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
joncourage;143943 Wrote: > Lot's of great theory here, coupled to well-thought-out philosophy of > the subject. (And everyone getting along so nicely!) Bright, educated > group, articulate. Impressive (and intimidating). Good Thread, OP. Thanks - it was a pleasure to read the thread this morning. I hoped that doing the flaming in the initial post - and hence without target - we'd get a nicer discussion, which seems to have worked. Do people think that double-blind tests are genuinely accurate? It strikes me that there are two potential flaws: - The person is in a different mood. At the start of the second test he has just heard Time Out, and is about to hear it again. Therefore, I suggest that it is necessary to do the testing dozens of times, and see if the consensus is statistically indicative. Man that would be tiring! - I have always found that the important matters about hi-fi take a long time to assess. Do I find myself jumping up to put the next disc on? Am I transported to the live venue? Is this the right music for me to get into, right now? I like to test things for several days, and then go back to the original again to reconfirm my opinion. All an A-B does is show differences, which is not relevant to me. I need to know what the difference really means, in terms of my enjoyment of the music. So to conclude, I posit that double-blind testing may not always be an appropriate method of comparing gear. I think it is useful, but would treat the results with some caution. However, I recognise that my system of testing, by not being blind, cannot be scientific. Is there a third way? -- adamslim SB3 and Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
This is the point at which I switched off from the earlier "subjective-objective" thread mentioned by the OP. It pains me that the real potential of a forum such as this will never be realized if even one person that participates never learned how to play well with other boys and girls. Not reading what other people post, pedantic lecturing, boasting, mine's bigger than yours, put downs Why not just have a food fight or a farting contest, it would probably be more fun. -- atkinsonrr atkinsonrr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7214 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I repeat, I did not wrote "15 and up", I wrote "15kHz" upward. I am referring to tweaking the "frequency response" of his sytem, not turning up the volume knob, I did not write "boosting the entire spectrum". So stop assuming that everyone is stupid and only you are clever. There's enough debates about how to properly conduct a double blind test, the things that you were quoting does not put you on the winning side. Your PHD degree is not well deserved, because you can't even read properly, which school did you go to? What GRE score did you get for the admission? You want to talk about qualification? You want to use your qualification to prove your superiority? You have no idea where I come from, what I studied and where I studied. Just because you have a PhD so you assume that I have less? I repeat, from my numereous experience in auditioning hi-fi system, listening to the same thing with many different people, gathering their feedback, it's evident to me that each of us hear things differently. Sometimes when I found certain system sounded rather harsh, the guy next to me say:"Oh no, it doesn't sound harsh at all, it's just nice and pleasant to my ear". So if you want to call this "taste", fine, you're perfectly entitled to your definition of "taste". You can talk all kind of theories you want, at the end of the day, you don't have my ears, how can you be so sure that you are hearing the same thing I am hearing? Well, I guess I have nothing left to say, let's face it, there will always be "audiophiles" who bought so-called "snake oil" products, there's nothing you can do to stop them, no matter how hard you try, you're not going to change people. You have your own way of choosing products, we have our own way. Just leave us alone. highdudgeon;143956 Wrote: > You wrote 15 and up -- but 15 and up to where? 20khz? In that case, > all your friend did was turn up the volume by 20db and everything > stayed linear. I don't think you understand. It matters, and it > matters a great deal, if someone raises a particular range. If you > boost the entire spectrum, that's called turning up the volume. > Basically, you didn't answer my question. And, if that WAS your answer, > then you don't understand the situation. > > I'm not going to go into this. I have a mere doctorate degree in > history and physics, I'm married to a physician, I managed an > experimental psychology journal for three years whilst in graduate > school, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I beg of you, go ask > someone with technical knowledge. Not audio hobby knowledge -- medical > and psychological knowledge. > > Again, why did the knowlegeable audiophiles think a CD player sounded > different with a pizza box support on top of it? Because of the power > of suggestion. Same ears, same SOUND, but two different results. Why > is it that some audiophiles could claim with certaintly that a $1,000 > power cord made a difference...but were then not able to score better > than 50% -- the flip of a coin -- in distinguising a walwart cord from > a $1,000 cord in a double blind test? Think about these things. > > People's ears aren't warmer or leaner or whatever, anymore than we see > different colors. It's like this: a sound wave hits your ear; the > signal is 50 cycles; that's what you process. Period. You see a shade > of yellow. You're seeing a certain frequency, period. I don't see the > yellow differently than you (unless I have a serious condition, and > that is possible. Note bene: Van Gogh; but he just say more of a > certain thing). However, you might LIKE certain sound characteristics > more than others. Understand? It's taste, cultural and social > situation, etc. I have a friend who swears by beveling CDs, painting > the edges black, etc. It is complete bunk. I can't hear a thing, > there's no reason why I should hear anything, and no one else can, > either. But he's way into it and swears he does. I believe him. > Psychology is like that. > > But, you know better. I don't appreciate the rude post, by the way, > but I think it is funny that you weren't able to answer a very simple > question. I think I phrased it politely and gave specific parameters > for a reply. Basically, you just said that your pal turned up the > volume. A lot. So, think again: what frequency range? What slope, or > was it a mind-bogglying silly straight shelf? Was he using an EQ device > or just a volume knob? And, what music was he listening to that had > information below 20hz? You do know that CDs cut off at 20hz, right? > So, no matter how hard he tried, he could do nothing -- nothing -- > below that range? In which case, why was he bothering? And, while > you're at it...you do realize that the vast majority of EQ units do not > go down to 15hz? Right? Because we can't hear that stuff and it isn't > really present in our music? > > Something to think about. My post was serious. Actual, real
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Transporter is 2-3 weeks out, I'm afraid tomjtx;143949 Wrote: > excellent post..now, how about that > transporter lavry comparison?.pretty please? -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
You wrote 15 and up -- but 15 and up to where? 20khz? In that case, all your friend did was turn up the volume by 20db and everything stayed linear. I don't think you understand. It matters, and it matters a great deal, if someone raises a particular range. If you boost the entire spectrum, that's called turning up the volume. Basically, you didn't answer my question. And, if that WAS your answer, then you don't understand the situation. I'm not going to go into this. I have a mere doctorate degree in history and physics, I'm married to a physician, I managed an experimental psychology journal for three years whilst in graduate school, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I beg of you, go ask someone with technical knowledge. Not audio hobby knowledge -- medical and psychological knowledge. Again, why did the knowlegeable audiophiles think a CD player sounded different with a pizza box support on top of it? Because of the power of suggestion. Same ears, same SOUND, but two different results. Why is it that some audiophiles could claim with certaintly that a $1,000 power cord made a difference...but were then not able to score better than 50% -- the flip of a coin -- in distinguising a walwart cord from a $1,000 cord in a double blind test? Think about these things. People's ears aren't warmer or leaner or whatever, anymore than we see different colors. It's like this: a sound wave hits your ear; the signal is 50 cycles; that's what you process. Period. You see a shade of yellow. You're seeing a certain frequency, period. I don't see the yellow differently than you (unless I have a serious condition, and that is possible. Note bene: Van Gogh; but he just say more of a certain thing). However, you might LIKE certain sound characteristics more than others. Understand? It's taste, cultural and social situation, etc. I have a friend who swears by beveling CDs, painting the edges black, etc. It is complete bunk. I can't hear a thing, there's no reason why I should hear anything, and no one else can, either. But he's way into it and swears he does. I believe him. Psychology is like that. But, you know better. I don't appreciate the rude post, by the way, but I think it is funny that you weren't able to answer a very simple question. I think I phrased it politely and gave specific parameters for a reply. Basically, you just said that your pal turned up the volume. A lot. So, think again: what frequency range? What slope, or was it a mind-bogglying silly straight shelf? Was he using an EQ device or just a volume knob? And, what music was he listening to that had information below 20hz? You do know that CDs cut off at 20hz, right? So, no matter how hard he tried, he could do nothing -- nothing -- below that range? In which case, why was he bothering? And, while you're at it...you do realize that the vast majority of EQ units do not go down to 15hz? Right? Because we can't hear that stuff and it isn't really present in our music? Something to think about. Then again, you are right, as you say, so maybe you shouldn't bother thinking. 95bcwh;143945 Wrote: > What you are saying is, everyone has the same ear and hear exactly the > same thing, the only difference is their "taste". > > > What I'm saying is, everyone has a different ear AND a different taste, > they do NOT hear exactly the same thing, and they do not like exactly > the same thing. I have listened enough, and listened to the same thing > with different people on countless occasions, I know that I am right. > > Anyway, thanks for your detailed lecture, but read my post again, I > wrote "15kHz" and up.. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon;143922 Wrote: > Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the > doctor. They vary, with age or exposure to excessive sounds, in range > and acuity. I'm 41 and my upper limit is a shade over 14khz. That's > pretty good for someone my age, actually, and a minor miracle, > considering the number of very loud concerts I have attended over the > last twenty-five or so years. By the time I'm fifty, statistically, my > upper limit might be half of that. > > Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that, in fact, we hear the > same things. What differs are our expectations, tastes, etc. These > are qualities of the mind, not the ear. Someone dedicated to rap, say, > might like a system with a grossly exaggerated bottom end. Someone > devoted to the accurate reproduction of high quality classical and jazz > recordings will be attracted to a system that is linear and highly > precise. Someone who specifically desires a warmer midrange and gentle > rolling off of the top and especially bottom end (not unattractive with > many recordings) might prefer a tube amp over a solid state amp. And > so on. So: personal expectations lead to realistic choices of > equipment -- most of which, we hope are made by honest manufacturers > who will provide accurate information. > > Case in point: a Rolex or any other fine automatic is akin to a tube > amp: no matter how complicated, it cannot be as accurate as a quartz > watch. This is a given. They are luxury items and they appeal to us > for reasons that can vary from a collector's interest to aesthetic > enjoyment to, well, desire for a status symbol. However, they don't > pretend to be the most accurate watches in the world. They are COSC > certified and that means they function within certain published > parameters. My Explorer II is +1-3 seconds a day. That means that it > is off, assuming I keep it wound, by upwards of 15 minutes a year. A > $15 casio can do better than that. So, do I own it because, to me, to > my eyes, to my sense of time, it is more accurate? Of course not. It > is equally not accurate to everyone. However, I like it, so I own it. > > I'm a dedicated solid state user and value equipment that is highly > transparent and accurate. However, one of the nicest-sounding pieces > of gear I've heard in the last couple of years is the McIntosh MA-2275. > If you call Mc and talk to Chuck Hinton, their technical rep, he'll > tell you in a heart beat that it is not as accurate as the solid state > stuff...it is for people who want a certain kind of sound. > > Make sense? I'm not flaming anyone here...just trying to be clear and > to draw what I think are some useful analogies. excellent post..now, how about that transporter lavry comparison?.pretty please? -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon;143941 Wrote: > I think you missed the point of my post in an obtuse kind of way What you are saying is, everyone has the same ear and hear exactly the same thing, the only difference is their "taste". What I'm saying is, everyone has a different ear AND a different taste, they do NOT hear exactly the same thing, and they do not like exactly the same thing. I have listened enough, and listened to the same thing with different people on countless occasions, I know that I am right. I do not need any so-called scientists to teach me about theories. Anyway, thanks for your detailed lecture, but read my post again, I wrote "15kHz" and up.. -- 95bcwh 95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Lot's of great theory here, coupled to well-thought-out philosophy of the subject. (And everyone getting along so nicely!) Bright, educated group, articulate. Impressive (and intimidating). Good Thread, OP. Here's my perspective, and my approach: You do your homework on specs and measurements and reputation to narrow down your choices. And then you listen. Repeat. Simple as that imo. Perhaps obvious in the extreme. It's all I got, folks! -- joncourage joncourage's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that our ears work the same. Our eyes, except for when we are color blind or have some other gross disturbances, work the same way. What varies, my friend, is our expectations and our likes and dislikes. You might like it because it APPEALS to you. To you, to your sensibilities, to your subjective tastes. Some people like vanilla ice cream and some people like chocolate ice cream. As for your second point, I use it as an example above. Someone who is a fan or rap or other such music might well EQ their system so that the bass is exagerrated. They will like that. It will NOT be an accurate representation of the recording, that's for sure, but it might fit the person's aesthetic sensibilities. (By the way, you do realize that a 15db increase is enormous, right? Overwhelming. Moreover, doing that on the low is is a great way to destroy your speakers, and is certainly positive to produce distortion. But that's another conversation.) 95bcwh;143938 Wrote: > How do you explain, when someone tells you that he's sensitive to > upsampling DAC, he develops headache after listening to it for more > than an hour; whereas, some people (me included) absolutely love it? > > How do you explain, when someone tells you, he tweaked his system so > there's some 20dB increase in frequency response starting from 15kHz > upward and he absolutely love that sound, whereas others found it too > aggressive, ear splitting? > > > Yes, our ear work the same way, but the genetic code that create our > cells are not entirely the same. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
highdudgeon;143922 Wrote: > Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the > doctor How do you explain, when someone tells you that he's sensitive to upsampling DAC, he develops headache after listening to it for more than an hour; whereas, some people (me included) absolutely love it? How do you explain, when someone tells you, he tweaked his system so there's some 20dB increase in frequency response starting from 15kHz upward and he absolutely love that sound, whereas others found it too aggressive, ear splitting? Yes, our ear work the same way, but the genetic code that create our cells are not entirely the same. -- 95bcwh 95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Actually, our ears work pretty much the same. So says my wife, the doctor. They vary, with age or exposure to excessive sounds, in range and acuity. I'm 41 and my upper limit is a shade over 14khz. That's pretty good for someone my age, actually, and a minor miracle, considering the number of very loud concerts I have attended over the last twenty-five or so years. By the time I'm fifty, statistically, my upper limit might be half of that. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that, in fact, we hear the same things. What differs are our expectations, tastes, etc. These are qualities of the mind, not the ear. Someone dedicated to rap, say, might like a system with a grossly exaggerated bottom end. Someone devoted to the accurate reproduction of high quality classical and jazz recordings will be attracted to a system that is linear and highly precise. Someone who specifically desires a warmer midrange and gentle rolling off of the top and especially bottom end (not unattractive with many recordings) might prefer a tube amp over a solid state amp. And so on. So: personal expectations lead to realistic choices of equipment -- most of which, we hope are made by honest manufacturers who will provide accurate information. Case in point: a Rolex or any other fine automatic is akin to a tube amp: no matter how complicated, it cannot be as accurate as a quartz watch. This is a given. They are luxury items and they appeal to us for reasons that can vary from a collector's interest to aesthetic enjoyment to, well, desire for a status symbol. However, they don't pretend to be the most accurate watches in the world. They are COSC certified and that means they function within certain published parameters. My Explorer II is +1-3 seconds a day. That means that it is off, assuming I keep it wound, by upwards of 15 minutes a year. A $15 casio can do better than that. So, do I own it because, to me, it is more accurate? Of course not. It is equally not accurate to everyone. However, I like it, so I own it. I'm a dedicated solid state user and value equipment that is highly transparent and accurate. However, one of the nicest-sounding pieces of gear I've heard in the last couple of years is the McIntosh MA-2275. If you call Mc and talk to Chuck Hinton, their technical rep, he'll tell you in a heart beat that it is not as accurate as the solid state stuff...it is for people who want a certain kind of sound. Make sense? I'm not flaming anyone here...just trying to be clear and to draw what I think are some useful analogies. 95bcwh;143911 Wrote: > This is wrong, subjectivists do not claim that their preferences are > duplicated. Human ears are not built equal, what sound good to one's > can sound crap to another's. -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
adamslim;143686 Wrote: > > - The subjectivists reckon that listening is the only real test. > Implicit in this position is the view that dedicated tester can hear > all differences, and that their preferences are duplicated though > others (their readers, if they are reviewers). They normally recognise > the non-linear factors in hearing, but maintain that they can hear > differences that can't be measured. > > This is wrong, subjectivists do not claim that their preferences are duplicated. Human ears are not built equal, what sound good to one's can sound crap to another's. -- 95bcwh 95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Really, so much of this boils down to speakers. Ever heard Dali Megalines? Spooky. Read the review. If you can find someone with a pair anywhere near where you live, introduce yourself, buy a nice bottle of wine, and beg your way over for an audition. As for the pure subjectivity thing: it just doesn't work. Why? Because we are hopelessly prey to suggestion. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in courts. Notice the Bay Area Audiophile Society study on power cords. Or how about the psychiatric study demontraing an equal success rate in short-term alleviation of depression between placebos and Prozac (not LONG term)? Or -- a favorite, Google it somehow -- a stereophile writer who, at a show, placed a pizza box tripod (those little things they stick in the middle of a pizza to keep the lid up) on top of a CD player and proclaimed the latest great tweak. 100% of the audience noticed an immediate improvement...until she lifted the curtain. I see a lot of this in the modding community. We're told this or that part will be replaced. Well, great. But, why? With what demonstrable proof? We're talking about electronics. Electronics can be measured and the measurements do mean something. When someone is selling you a $700 power cord or $700 power supply, it would behoove you to put emotion and, yes, listening, aside, and do a lot of homework. In the end, though, it is all about the head and the heart. I know perfectly well that a $400 used Carver is 95% of a $9k pair of McIntosh mono blocs. I know this because I have owned them in the same time. But, the Mc's leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. I know that my Timex Ironman is far more accurate, functional, and even readable than one of the automatic watches I collect -- like an IWC or Rolex -- but the automatics sure are more fun (to me!). Pat Farrell;143902 Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > Pat Farrell;143852 Wrote: > >>I tend to agree with The Absolute Sound's definition when the type of > > >>music fits: the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space. > >>But most music doesn't fit those restrictions. The sound of an > electric > > > "Believing" doesn't necessarily mean the presented sound has to be > > exactly like some listening position IRL. Just that when you hear it > > you don't know if you listen to a live performance ot a hifi. > > No problem with your definition. I have never heard any reproduction of > > a full orchestra in a house that sounded real. > > The computer scientists use a "turing test" where the definition of > artificial intellegence is that you can't tell if the answer is from a > > computer or a person. The same definition is my definition of high > fidelity. > > > BTW, my hifi sounds a lot better than most live electrified > > performances... So lets add that is needs to be non-electrified > > instruments. > > See my paraphrasing of TAS's definition. > "real acoustic instruments" which can be voices, string, brass, etc. > > Better than a live performance may be good, but it is not high fidelity > if 'fidelity' has the definition of the word that predates "hi fi" > > Is the definintion of a high fidelity playback of The Moody Blues mean > the sound of a real orchestra? or the sound of a Mellowtron? > > What is the definition of high fidelity for the sound of a synthesizer? > > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
At the risk of making absolute statements on sensitive topics, double-blind tests are the only scientific way to gauge whether or not a subject can perceive the difference between two stimuli. This isn't limited to audio. There are plenty of perception tests around vision, smell, etc. that follow the same rules. Smell these test tubes--which one is different? And so on. This goes on in the very real scientific field of perception every day. That said, setting up a controlled laboratory in your own home is not as easy as some objectivists may lead you to believe. There's the playback hardware itself, the listening environment, and several biological factors (can tinnitus be amplified by blood pressure variations and caffeine? I don't know, but it's plausible. What about mental distractions/altered states? Et cetera) If a double-blind test shows that the subject cannot identify the different stimulus with certainty, that does prove that the subject can't tell the difference--but only within the parameters of the test. If one of those parameters was off (say, the subject was hung over but did not want to inform the tester), then the test isn't really valid in other circumstances. So I guess my point is: objectivists are correct that all differences can be measured (go ahead, call me autistic!). However, failure to measure a difference may be a failure of methodology rather than an indicator that the difference cannot be perceived by the subject. People who classify themselves as subjectivists have a lot to offer in terms of setting up the test environment correctly, but it's not meaningful without the double-blind test at the end. That's my two cents. Really not trying to troll, perhaps succeeding anyway. My first venture into this fray. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Here's a question - suppose I played two systems for you blind, which differed only in one component, and you couldn't tell the difference. Would you be willing to spend $1000 more on one because it turned out to have prettier cables? I don't know anyone that would say yes to that - although maybe they exist - and for me the answer is obviously not. Given that, I really would like to know if some component I'm considering actually makes a difference, and as such most audio reviews are totally useless, which is really annoying. I don't really care if the difference is demonstrated by measurements with an instrument or by someone's ears, but they have to be done correctly (which really isn't very hard, especially when you're an audio reviewer and it's your job). Actually I'd prefer if the difference was demonstrated by a listening test, since after all that's what matters in the end. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
P Floding wrote: Pat Farrell;143852 Wrote: I tend to agree with The Absolute Sound's definition when the type of music fits: the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space. But most music doesn't fit those restrictions. The sound of an electric "Believing" doesn't necessarily mean the presented sound has to be exactly like some listening position IRL. Just that when you hear it you don't know if you listen to a live performance ot a hifi. No problem with your definition. I have never heard any reproduction of a full orchestra in a house that sounded real. The computer scientists use a "turing test" where the definition of artificial intellegence is that you can't tell if the answer is from a computer or a person. The same definition is my definition of high fidelity. BTW, my hifi sounds a lot better than most live electrified performances... So lets add that is needs to be non-electrified instruments. See my paraphrasing of TAS's definition. "real acoustic instruments" which can be voices, string, brass, etc. Better than a live performance may be good, but it is not high fidelity if 'fidelity' has the definition of the word that predates "hi fi" Is the definintion of a high fidelity playback of The Moody Blues mean the sound of a real orchestra? or the sound of a Mellowtron? What is the definition of high fidelity for the sound of a synthesizer? -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Pat Farrell;143852 Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's > home, > > that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the > recording > > venue. > > While I tend to agree with the literal comment here, I don't agree that > > this is an admirable goal. > > Probably because I've spent too much time inside recording studios. > > I don't want an accurate reproduction of the recording studio. > It reminds me of the classic statement about not wanting to watch the > making of either sausage or laws. > > Even if you are at the hall, Carnegie Hall, Kennedy Center, Filmore > East, etc. while they are making a recording -- what you hear there is > impossible to reproduce. Any site with a crowd of more than 20 or so > customers has a sound reproduction/reinforcement/enhancement system. > And > what you hear in one seat is not what someone hears 10 feet away. > > I tend to agree with The Absolute Sound's definition when the type of > music fits: the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space. > > But most music doesn't fit those restrictions. The sound of an electric > > guitar is the sound of the guitar and its amp, which includes the > distortion of the amp's tubes, and how the speaker does not properly > connect to the air. > > I have never heard a system, no matter how "hi fi" reproduce the sound > of sitting one row in front of four trumpets playing big band jazz > while > I played my trombone. I've heard pretty good approximations, but never > anything that sounds like it really sounds. > > I believe that you can not reproduce a symphonic orchestra in a room > that will fit inside a house, unless it is far bigger than any house > that I've ever been in. > > I have heard systems that can make it sound like a small group is in > the > room when playing bluegrass, or solo guitar, or a jazz trio. At least > to > the point of a willing suspension of disbelief. > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html "Believing" doesn't necessarily mean the presented sound has to be exactly like some listening position IRL. Just that when you hear it you don't know if you listen to a live performance ot a hifi. BTW, my hifi sounds a lot better than most live electrified performances... So lets add that is needs to be non-electrified instruments. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
CardinalFang;143757 Wrote: > Well I would have myself a realist up until that point. I love music > above all else, but I like to know my equipment has been well designed > and well engineered both visually and sonically. I have bought it all > after reviewing some basic specifications and getting a feel for the > quality of the builder then listening to a short-list. I've had quite a > few systems, but ended up with Copland gear because I like the refined > look and detailed presentation. I also have a Pink Triangle because of > the neutral presentation and groovy design - plus I liked the attitude > of the company. > > Measurement and design are important to me for a number of reasons, but > aren't the be-all and end-all, as I did rather unsuccessfully try to say > on the other thread. I do like to know a piece of gear has been > validated for performance and safety - I have a family and I don't want > problems with inadequately tested and designed gear. That's why I get > really nervous about some mods. They are replacing components in > well-engineered and tested products and not doing anywhere the same > level of safety or soak testing that a bigger manufacturer would, nor > do you have the liability insurance should there be a problem. When you > put on top of that some dodgy theories about how the mods work I start > to run away. > > Final choice of gear comes after listening to it at home, as it should, > but it wouldn't get into my home unless I knew from measurements that it > was likely to be a good fit with the rest of the system. > > I couldn't bring myslef to buy any high end system if I didn't think it > gave me more insight into the music through more detail or a more > realistic sound stage for example. Some of the terminology thrown > around in reviews really puts me off buying it though. Words like > "chocolately" really irritate because it's telling me nothing. How > would I be able to listen for that quality myself if I don't understand > what the reviewer is saying. I guess that's why I prefer scientific or > engineering terms, they are generally unambiguous and I can then choose > whether it's what I'm looking for when judging the inevitable > compromises in equipment. > > I have applied the same rules to my other pastime - geetars. I have two > hand built guitars, a John Suhr and an Sheppard acoustic (a little known > British builder). I actually bought the Suhr without ever playing it - I > couldn't, it was built to spec and didn't exist. However I did know that > Suhr is probably the best luthier in the world, so I trusted him. All > the gear is based on CAD designs that are a result of solid engineering > and knowledge, thoroughly soak tested, measured against my > specifications and finally checked for the correct tone.[/QUOTE > > You might want to qualify the greatest luthier comment. Steel string > and electric guitars are different animals as are clasical guitars and > he may be a fine luthier, but he is unknown as a clasical guitar maker. > Steel string and electric makers generally make terrible classical > guitars. > there is no single greatest maker, we are in a golden age of clasical > guitar making and there are many fine makers. One of the most famous is > Mathias Damman. he makes a double top.( nomex is sandwiched betwen 2 > very thin tops to produce a very loud guitar) Many of the most famous > guitarists play his instrument: Grammy winner David Russel, Manuel > Barrueco, Pepe Romero to name a few. Mathias makes only 12 guitars a > year and has a 12 year wait list. > 20,000. On the open market the asking price is 42,000. > > There are other fine makers like Thomas Fredholm, Sweden at 8,000 > Smallman of Australia and redgate and Humphrey etc. > > I could go on, but not one great maker uses CAD or anyting like that. > They build by ear, using tap tones , adjusting bracing etc. It is an > art that cannot be fully measured. > > I have been a clasical guitarist for 30 years ad I have owned and > played most of the best makers...I too have ordered a > guitar, but I try to avoid that, I didn't like it... > I wouldn't ask someone to marry me I hadn't met either.even > > though a guitar purchase is far more important:-) -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
P Floding wrote: There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's home, that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the recording venue. While I tend to agree with the literal comment here, I don't agree that this is an admirable goal. Probably because I've spent too much time inside recording studios. I don't want an accurate reproduction of the recording studio. It reminds me of the classic statement about not wanting to watch the making of either sausage or laws. Even if you are at the hall, Carnegie Hall, Kennedy Center, Filmore East, etc. while they are making a recording -- what you hear there is impossible to reproduce. Any site with a crowd of more than 20 or so customers has a sound reproduction/reinforcement/enhancement system. And what you hear in one seat is not what someone hears 10 feet away. I tend to agree with The Absolute Sound's definition when the type of music fits: the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space. But most music doesn't fit those restrictions. The sound of an electric guitar is the sound of the guitar and its amp, which includes the distortion of the amp's tubes, and how the speaker does not properly connect to the air. I have never heard a system, no matter how "hi fi" reproduce the sound of sitting one row in front of four trumpets playing big band jazz while I played my trombone. I've heard pretty good approximations, but never anything that sounds like it really sounds. I believe that you can not reproduce a symphonic orchestra in a room that will fit inside a house, unless it is far bigger than any house that I've ever been in. I have heard systems that can make it sound like a small group is in the room when playing bluegrass, or solo guitar, or a jazz trio. At least to the point of a willing suspension of disbelief. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I'd like to sidestep the issue altogether by simply observing the following: There is probably no system today, and certainly not in anyone's home, that can really fool us into believing that the we are at the recording venue. As long as this is the case our ears will do just fine as the ultimate test of quality. When it comes to the path to get to the ultimate sound we must obviously use all tools at our disposal: Measurements AND listening. We actually have to trust our ears, or would never be able to figure out what measurable parameters are the most important! It is an iterative process, and our short auditory memory hampers us in this effort. Traning (experience), a.k.a "golden ears" makes us better at evaluating sound quality, but no-one is infallable. -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
tomsi42;143718 Wrote: > I feel that the problem with some of the threads in this forum, is that > some the participants have a short temper (or carries a chip on their > shoulder), takes everything personally, have a personal grudge against > poster X, and/or don't cool down and reread before posting. Sometimes > it's like 10 year old kids quaralling (my dad is stronger than your dad > and so on...). It is tiresome as it drowns out the intersting stuff. > > As the english say: Gentlemen, behave! >From my experience the problem is that readers often read much more into a posting than the writer intended. It also seems to be unacceptable to many if you hold a position that encompasses several points of view depending on different circumstances and this thread is really another example. Three positions are stated, but the reality is that we're probably a blend of the three and we're being pushed into taking sides. At the end of the day we all buy things for all sorts of reasons, many of which we wouldn't like to admit to. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
SuperQ;143793 Wrote: > This has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. > > To quote wikipedia: > "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of > natural phenomena" > > also see this page: > http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html What scientific researcher do, often has little to do with the 'scientific method' - its usually based on whatever the NIH/NSF/DARPA/InsertYourFavouriteFundingAgencyHere is likely to fund. -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Okay, okay. So my graduate degree was in the history of science -- I studied physics, history, and philosopy for five years after college and came away with a funny hat and a nice robe with stripes on the sleeves. I can assure you that there are stacks and stacks of books and arguments and counter-arguments as to what constitutes a scientific method. So let's not overly simplify. I think the point some of the "autistic" people were making -- and I believe this has been conflated with the "realist" set -- is that it is useful and important for manufacturers to be open about their product and to publish materials to back up their claims. It is silly to say "I will replace part X with part Y"; it is useful to say that "by replacing part X with party Y we will achieve these goals, and here i the proof." Of course, ultimately, it all comes down to hearing and to one's personal experience of pleasure in the hobby. I know, for instance, for a certain fact that my Carver A-500x, my McIntosh, and my Nuforces are very close to each other in performance...and that most people can't tell the difference. Still, I really like those blue meters...even if I don't use them at the moment. Okay, so personal taste, right? Now, here's the thing: when it comes to electronics, by and large you can tell a great deal from measurements. If an amp is not linear, if a preamp is noisy, if a DAC is jittery, then those are good indicators that we might not want to pay attention to the product. As I state elsewhere, this becomes trickier with speakers. Speakers are mechanical and different speakers can measure the same -- or be made to measure the same, through EQ or DSP -- but sound vastly different. Sure, some numbers are meaningful, but ultimately you have to sit down and see if they "grab" and involve you in the music. This is a, really, and objective and subjective approach. So, I suggest that the above post casts things in a rather black and white light. We have to take a measured approach to our interests and purchases. We have to use our heads, but we also have to use our ears. Some things might be difficult: for instance, a tube amp is not capable of the same precision performance as a solid state amp. Still, it might sound really good to someone, it might perform at a high level, and that's great. When it comes to mods -- or Microsoft or many high end companies -- we should all desire more openness and less hype. If everyone says their mod or product is th best, well, then someone had to be wrong. Publish numbers. Give us facts. Give us an opportunity to hear what you're talking about. (Slim Devices publishes and discusses facts; moreover, they have an exceedingly generous trial period guarantee AND open source software. How unique is that?!) That's it. And, please, let us not use insulting and ugly language. That only leads to problems. SuperQ;143793 Wrote: > This has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. > > To quote wikipedia: > "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of > natural phenomena" > > also see this page: > http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html -- highdudgeon highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
adamslim;143686 Wrote: > This may (preferably) be unpopular with the establishment, challenge > current thinking and has every chance of being utterly wrong. > This has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. To quote wikipedia: "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena" also see this page: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I think this whole discussion is centred around subjectivism, after all what do we actually mean by the term 'audiophile'. It strikes me that a wide variety of people either identify themselves as part of, or definitely not part of, this group for a range of reasons. Some seem to be searching for a form of 'sonic nirvana' where audio reproduction reaches a point that is almost certainly is unreachable. Even within this group, I bet there's different factions. Some are searching in the hope of replicating some audio experience they remeber or would like to have been present for. Others seem to understand that the journey towards 'perfection' is the actual goal and that learning about developing technologies and techniques is its own reward. Others definitely fall into the pack-rat/collector mindset of many hobbyists. The idea of owning or trying a variety of products and techniques may sometimes cause them to use the 'sonic quest' excuse, but it's the pleasure of hoarding things and experiences that really drives them. I'm sure there's a million other motivations for being an audiophile and that's where the basic question you raise becomes philosophical. There is no 'right approach' because different folks are after different things from the hobby. It's no different to being into great food, classic cars or whatever. If you're a technology freak and you get off on having items that move the science on another inch - that's great. If you build a system that puts you in the room with Miles as he recorded Kind of Blue - wonderful. If you're the boy with biggest and best toys - bloody marvellous. As with most ideological 'discussions' there is high probability of creating an argument and bad feelings as you are asking people to justify their beliefs and then have others tell them they are wrong. We're all adults (figure of speech) and I'm sure it won't degrade into anything more than spirited banter here, but maybe it would be more positive to ask people why they consider themselves 'audiophiles' and what they enjoy about the hobby. Maybe we'll even learn new ways to get more out of our own systems and music, without the ideological differences getting in the way of fun. -- Jez Jez Hildred Senior Manager - Sales & Marketing Slim Devices, Inc. http://www.last.fm/user/Kadosh/ Jez's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4300 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
adamslim;143686 Wrote: > The realists are the worst of all. They cannot get off the fence - they > can't bring themselves to buy equipment that either sounds good or > measures well, so they are condemned to unhappiness and mediocrity. Well I would have myself a realist up until that point. I love music above all else, but I like to know my equipment has been well designed and well engineered both visually and sonically. I have bought it all after reviewing some basic specifications and getting a feel for the quality of the builder then listening to a short-list. I've had quite a few systems, but ended up with Copland gear because I like the refined look and detailed presentation. I also have a Pink Triangle because of the neutral presentation and groovy design - plus I liked the attitude of the company. Measurement and design are important to me for a number of reasons, but aren't the be-all and end-all, as I did rather unsuccessfully try to say on the other thread. I do like to know a piece of gear has been validated for performance and safety - I have a family and I don't want problems with inadequately tested and designed gear. That's why I get really nervous about some mods. They are replacing components in well-engineered and tested products and not doing anywhere the same level of safety or soak testing that a bigger manufacturer would, nor do you have the liability insurance should there be a problem. Final choice of gear comes after listening to it at home, as it should, but it wouldn't get into my home unless I knew from measurements that it was likely to be a good fit with the rest of the system. I couldn't bring myslef to buy any high end system if I didn't think it gave me more insight into the music through more detail or a more realistic sound stage for example. Some of the terminology thrown around in reviews really puts me off buying it though. Words like "chocolately" really irritate because it's telling me nothing. How would I be able to listen for that quality myself if I don't understand what the reviewer is saying. I guess that's why I prefer scientific or engineering terms, they are generally unambiguous and I can then choose whether it's what I'm looking for when judging the inevitable compromises in equipment. I have applied the same rules to my other pastime - geetars. I have two hand built guitars, a John Suhr and an Sheppard acoustic (a little known British builder). I actually bought the Suhr without ever playing it - I couldn't, it was built to spec and didn't exist. However I did know that Suhr is probably the best luthier in the world, so I trusted him. All the gear is based on CAD designs that are a result of solid engineering and knowledge, thoroughly soak tested, measured against my specifications and finally checked for the correct tone. -- CardinalFang You're only young once, but you can be immature forever... CardinalFang's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=962 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
Addendum: holy crap. Wall Of Text. Those are my opinions. Do with them as you will. -- flattop100 flattop100's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7760 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
I agree. I think the general motto should be *'If it sounds good to you,
then it sounds good to you.'*
I'd like to share an experience I had over the summer. I work for a
mid-size production company in central Minnesota. We have a small line
array system (8 cells aside/50,000 watts), and for the summer concert
series we do, we had guest sound engineers mixing the bands.
Now, the line array is a bit of a beast. It takes time and a careful
touch to get everything set up and sounding good. Our general method is
simply using the ears - play a CD, set the crossover, walk around, set
the main EQ, walk around, and finally notch problematic spots in the
spectrum. Most of the time, though, the beast is tamed and it sounds
pretty damn good.
The first band of the season had a guy fresh out of music school. Their
engineer played two tracks, one to set the EQ the way he liked, and one
to see where the limits of the system were. He was done in ten minutes,
and the show sounded fantastic.
The second band of the season was a former 'A' list rocker, currently
in the "Where Are They Now" file. Their engineer played a some music,
told me to turn down the horns by half, and took 30 minutes to get
things in shape. After the show, he was screaming and vowing to never
work with us again. "I couldn't get the vocals over the mix!" ("That's
because you turned the horns down by half. Guess where the carrying
power is in a line array?") He hated our system.
The fourth band was a recently popular swing group. (The gig was moved
inside due to weather.) He played two tracks, then *got out his
computer and diagnotic mic.* I was told to turn the subs down by 20db,
and to turn up the high mids by 15db *because that's what the little
graph on his laptop was showing him*. I had serious misgivings, but
hey, I'm just the system tech. After that ONE reading, he played half a
song and walked away. The show sounded great...in one spot in the arena.
It was painful and awful nearly everywhere else.
I'm coming to the point. What did I learn from this?
1. Our hearing varies greatly from person to person. Classic Rock
Soundguy heard our PA much differently than I did. So did several other
acts. What sounds good to one person isn't necessarily goign to sound
exactly the same (or good, or bad) to another person. Our ears are not
precisely the same, nor have they been treated the same.
There are many days I wish I could see frequency response charts of my
hearing, and compare them to people I work with.
2. Diagnostic equipment is a starting place, and nothing more. In my
opinion and experience, it is a foundation to be built upon, not the
endpoint of evaluation. If Swing Group Soundguy was going to rely so
heavily on his pretty bar graph, he should have taken 5 more readings
in the room and averaged them, and THEN gone back and played 3 more
songs and -listened-. Some author wrote -Writing about music is like
dancing about architecture.-He meant it in a different way, but I think
its applicable to this situation: Swing Guy was using his eyes to
listen.
3. Context, context, context. The line array sounds different every
time we're outside. Wind and humidity actually make a huge difference
in how it sounds. Having a crowd in front of it changes how it sounds.
Likewise, think of the differences room treatments make in how your
home systems sound. How do measuring instruments account for the drapes
in your home? The unpainted drywall in your garage? Anywhere else you've
put a sound system?
4. The importance of knowing the sound of a certain album, or two or
three tracks of a mix CD. I have a mix I take with me everywhere I go,
and I listen to it on every possible combination of equipment. It's my
belief that I know exactly how they sound, and that is my diagnostic
tool when I calibrate or evaluate a sound system. Since I know so
specifically how 'Gaslighting Abby' by Steely Dan and 'Cut Chemist
Suite' by Ozomatli and ..., I can take that CD anywhere and say, "This
is how your system is different from my system."
Where we get lost in all this is saying -my system sounds better than
your system-. Wrong. It sounds *different*. Whether that difference is
good or bad is in the ear of the beholder.
--
flattop100
flattop100's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7760
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
90% of the music I listen to was never live, never performed in a concert hall, and in most cases was probably in the digital domain it's entire life until it hit my amplifier (i.e. was never even "recorded" in the traditional sense). So for me, whether a set of speakers duplicates the sound of some mythical concert hall is entirely irrelevant. I want something which sounds (a) good and (b) as the producer intended. Given that most studio monitoring equipment is intentionally as linear and flat as possible, it makes sense to me that my system should aim for the same to satisfy (b). I will admit to liking a little more bass than some, and that satisfies (a). -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
This thread is a great set-up for the mother of all flame wars! adamslim must be the kind of guy who enjoys watching people tear each other limb from limb :-) Here's hoping that the Audiophiles forum here doesn't end up like rec.audio.opinion. But while I'm here, let's get into the Nomex and put my head on the block Listening to an audio system involves the ear/brain interpreting the soundfield generated. But in addition to the soundfield, there are other, non-auditory, influences. Those non-auditory influences can *genuinely alter what the listener actually hears*. A person's various senses don't exist in isolation, but influence one another. The visual and/or tactile satisfaction afforded by the look and/or feel of a component can cause the auditory system to register an improvement in what it hears. Here's an example: I used to own a Micro-Seiki CD-M100 CD player. This was a seriously breathed-upon Marantz CD94. It did sound good. But it was also a beautiful piece of furniture. Listening to it was a joyous experience, and I am convinced that my appreciation for the exquisite look and feel of it made it sound better than it did. What does this have to do with the objective v. subjective argument? Well, it seems to me that the subjectivists, when making sighted comparisons of audio gear, genuinely hear differences that may not be anything to so with the soundfield on its own. This is not a character flaw: it's human nature. Where *some* subjectivists seem to go wrong is in assuming that to admit that the improvement they hear might not be anything to do with the sound would indicate some kind of self-delusion, and so they start speculating about all kinds of extremely implausible mechanisms as to why they hear a difference. On the other hand, *some* objectivists seem to refuse to acknowledge that it's entirely reasonable to enjoy an audio system more - indeed genuinely hear a better sound - just because it has certain non-auditory attributes that make you feel good. They argue that because you can't distinguish them in a blind comparison, it's stupid to prefer one over the other. I'll sign off by saying that (once I've persuaded my wife) I will almost certainly buy a Transporter. And almost certainly it will sound better to me than my SB2. But I'm happy to acknowledge that this *may* be mainly to do with the non-auditory aspects of the device. It really is OK to prefer something just because it's sexier (and I'm not only talking about women). -- cliveb Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompressed mastering -> you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Science and audiophilia
You got me there ;) I consider myself a realist, and that fits with the price of my stereo (about 4000,-) But I am OK with that. On a more serious note; I listen to blues, pop and rock (and a little bit of jazz). Although I go concerts and blues festivals, most of my listening are done to studio records. As some of them have a lot of details, I want to hear them all. Listening to the same artists live - it's so different from studio that it's no point in reproducing that. I always borrow equipment and do a thorough listening test before I buy new stuff. But I will probably look at techical specifications and the measurements in the reviews as well (But that might just be the geek/engineer in me). I feel that the problem with some of the threads in this forum, is that some the participants have a short temper (or carries a chip on their shoulder), takes everything personally, have a personal grudge against poster X, and/or don't cool down and reread before posting. Sometimes it's like 10 year old kids quaralling (my dad is stronger than your dad and so on...). It is tiresome as it drowns out the intersting stuff. As the english say: Gentlemen, behave! -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
