Where is Audio Truth ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

And this is different from pushing a subjective point of view that cannot be refuted how? Oh yeah, it could be confirmed or refuted unlike the subjective opinion based upon refusing to submit to confirmation or refutation.

 

So the other part of your comment, about incentives..........so if there are incentives it makes it more likely to be so or more true? Commercially you have a point, based upon objective reality.....eh.....not so much.

 

Neither one can be be refuted, but when an objective minded person suggests tests be run that he known will never be run it's really a copout. Objectivity is all about verifiable evidence based conclusions. One would think the objective minded people would seek some evidence that can actually be obtained.

 

not sure what you're getting at with your second statement. It seems like want to join a debate team rather than have a discussion.

[sandyk]

And this is different from pushing a subjective point of view that cannot be refuted how?

 

Dennis

It is FAR easier to refute a subjective point of view, when many of those refuting that point of view are technically qualified in that area, and are thus far more likely to be believed than someone without formal qualifications in that area.

They are also quite often able to post links referencing published teaching in those areas to support their P.O.V.

Only the very brave (or stupid?) are game to say too much, knowing that "the establishment" will come gunning for them.

Pushing a subjective point of view is like swimming upstream against a strong current ! No wonder my arms are so tired after 5 years of this ! (grin)

 

Regards

Alex

[wgscott]

We can't verify anything (as correctly pointed out by David Hume). We can only falsify (test and refute). Thus the criterion for objectivity is being able to state under what conditions one would accept being wrong.

[mayhem13]

. One would think the objective minded people would seek some evidence that can actually be obtained. .

 

I think the evidence is readily obtainable......someone just needs to put in the work. One would 'think' that maybe one of the software player designers would put themselves to the task........or are they concerned with the results not being favorable to the product?.....it's the only logical conclusion that I can come to when a company would ignore testing that would verify the design......unless someone else has a more sensible reason to present. Not sure where the real 'copout' is hiding, but of course I'd say its elsewhere, outside of my objective skepticism.

[Paul R]

+1

 

Nobody has an incentive to run such a test so it will not be done. Asking for this information is an easy way to push a point of view that will not be refuted.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think the evidence is readily obtainable......someone just needs to put in the work. One would 'think' that maybe one of the software player designers would put themselves to the task........or are they concerned with the results not being favorable to the product?.....it's the only logical conclusion that I can come to when a company would ignore testing that would verify the design......unless someone else has a more sensible reason to present. Not sure where the real 'copout' is hiding, but of course I'd say its elsewhere, outside of my objective skepticism.

I'm the opposite. Because nobody is going to do the work the evidence is not obtainable. The pros don't outweigh the cons for anyone with or without a financial interest. It would be very expensive to conduct a test that satisfied the majority of people interested. Expensive monetarily and the amount of time people would have to invest. The ROI isn't there for anyone.

 

Because this is such a first-world problem I don't envision anyone tackling it soon. I'd rather listen for myself and make up my own mind. I believe most people are in this camp despite the loud vocal minority on both ends of the spectrum.

[Paul R]

The more sensible answer to this is that such verification is not needed by most people. Those who do hear a difference and prefer the sound of that difference, buy the player- while those who do not hear a difference do not buy the player.

 

All in all, a much simpler explanation, and one that would seem to answer all the questions and objections well.

 

Paul

 

 

I think the evidence is readily obtainable......someone just needs to put in the work. One would 'think' that maybe one of the software player designers would put themselves to the task........or are they concerned with the results not being favorable to the product?.....it's the only logical conclusion that I can come to when a company would ignore testing that would verify the design......unless someone else has a more sensible reason to present. Not sure where the real 'copout' is hiding, but of course I'd say its elsewhere, outside of my objective skepticism.

[mayhem13]

Well it would seem to me that both this topic, and the whole bits are bits arguement really stops here, and remains a subjective observation.....instead of potentially exposing a MUCH larger listening group than the relatively small audiophile community to definitive research that concludes that bits ARE NOT bits....and maybe, just maybe it's time for the industry to move away from space saving, bit chopping MP3s. Sounds like a substantial ROI for someone.....who believes that bits are not just bits. In order to expand your market, you've got to establish value. So the only market that value has been established is the very small 'audiophile' segment?....with a music market that's suffering tremendous losses daily?......and there's no one willing to do the testing?.....hmmmmm. I think that says more about the results than the testing.

[Audio_ELF]

Barry ... I'm possibly not replying to exactly the correct post of yours but I wanted to make a point about your "room treatment" vs "DSP methods"...

 

You are in the situation where (due to your work) you can have the perfectly setup room - you must remember that most people by neccesity or choice do not have this situation. They either have a setup in a secondary room where there is some consideration paid to such things, or in most cases the listening room is also the general living room. In many situations possibly some small room treatments can be applied but generally they are restricted to what is possible with achieve with domestic furniture.

 

In these situations DSP can help if not as good as proper treatment.

 

Perhaps this should be added to the audio truths... listening rooms are by neccesity a compromise.

 

Eloise

[Don Hills]

... 1. When speakers are well placed in a room, the listener is going to hear the speakers before they hear the room. This means there are two separate "sounds". The one that arrives first - from the speakers - is going to determine the tonality. For my ears, those dips are a killer. ...

 

Barry,

I agree that you hear the speakers first, then the room. But I disagree that "dipping" out a resonance necessarily affects the tonality of the direct sound from the speaker. Remember that a resonance doesn't come into being suddenly at full level. It builds up gradually. If you correctly EQ the exciting signal, the level of the exciting signal is going to start as normal and drop in step with the resonance build-up. So the important transients and note attacks are reproduced unchanged. But yeah, DSP is a band-aid, not a cure. As you point out, there are things it can't fix, such as excitation of a resonance different from the exciting energy, or fix anti-nodes ("suck-outs").

[mayhem13]

Barry,

I agree that you hear the speakers first, then the room. But I disagree that "dipping" out a resonance necessarily affects the tonality of the direct sound from the speaker. Remember that a resonance doesn't come into being suddenly at full level. It builds up gradually. If you correctly EQ the exciting signal, the level of the exciting signal is going to start as normal and drop in step with the resonance build-up. So the important transients and note attacks are reproduced unchanged. But yeah, DSP is a band-aid, not a cure. As you point out, there are things it can't fix, such as excitation of a resonance different from the exciting energy, or fix anti-nodes ("suck-outs").

 

As much as I hate to have to agree with Barry, the results of DSP used to cut a mode do in fact effect the dynamics in the surrounding area of the FR to some degree. It's why speaker designers avoid having to use notch filters by allowing drivers to work within their acoustic passband. The effects are not as audible in most cases as Barry might suggest, but IMO it's less damaging to boost than it is to cut where DSP is concerned. That being said, I'd rather cut a 4-5 db mode with DSP than let it be if the mode is narrow. Some modes can be wide band, covering as much as a half an octave when talking about such long wavelengths. Best to deal with those mechanically IMO......in a 'fixed' or home environment of course. When engineering a live event, the engineer is limited to speaker placement and eQ.....with the former often being wasted once the room/venue fills up with acoustic treatments....namely the patrons!.....can both suck the life out of a 'dead' space or be a godsend when working in a concrete bunker or a tin box.

[Paul R]

Bits are Bits- But they are not music. When a stream of bits is processed to retrieve musical information, the not very controversial contention is that the processing causes an audible difference in some manner. Which is a much more general assumption that you seem to accept.

 

Which is cool- but you might want to realize that your proposition puts you in minority among most people, including scientists, lawyers, artists, and engineers. Does not make your ideas wrong, but definitely in the minority.

 

And it is very unlikely there is any kind of conspiracy operating to hide the truth. At least, not here. Have you tried interesting one of the magazines with a proposal to fund and manage a test such as what you propose? A very clever proposal might catch their attention. Or that of some of the schools around with a good physics, neurology, and psychology program. In fact, you might even find that some version of this test has been done already, and be able to review the results. Just expect that the test methodology and the validity of the results might be questioned, exactly the same way you might question any personal results here, and for exactly the same reasons.

 

Paul

 

Well it would seem to me that both this topic, and the whole bits are bits arguement really stops here, and remains a subjective observation.....instead of potentially exposing a MUCH larger listening group than the relatively small audiophile community to definitive research that concludes that bits ARE NOT bits....and maybe, just maybe it's time for the industry to move away from space saving, bit chopping MP3s. Sounds like a substantial ROI for someone.....who believes that bits are not just bits. In order to expand your market, you've got to establish value. So the only market that value has been established is the very small 'audiophile' segment?....with a music market that's suffering tremendous losses daily?......and there's no one willing to do the testing?.....hmmmmm. I think that says more about the results than the testing.

[mav52]

I'm the opposite. Because nobody is going to do the work the evidence is not obtainable. The pros don't outweigh the cons for anyone with or without a financial interest. It would be very expensive to conduct a test that satisfied the majority of people interested. Expensive monetarily and the amount of time people would have to invest. The ROI isn't there for anyone.

 

Because this is such a first-world problem I don't envision anyone tackling it soon. I'd rather listen for myself and make up my own mind. I believe most people are in this camp despite the loud vocal minority on both ends of the spectrum.

 

 

Agree. Regarding testing and I'm talking about in depth testing using equipment not ears, I cant see it happening, the cost for one. The environment for the test, the measuring equipment, connecting audio components and then will manufacturers even provide their "$$$$" cables for the test. If there was results and these $$$$ cables turned out to be "smoke and mirrors and magic wordsmithing in their advertisements boy that would be interesting. I say NOPE, NADA it ain't going to happen. If it did, there are those that will still debunk/challenge the test with some nonsense that it didn't do this or that, setup had to be wrong etc.. etc. just a never ending cycle of objective/subjective mumbo jumbo.

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

Barry, this could happen, as I specifically mentioned in my post. How? If sound traps etc. were used for the multiples problems you mentioned. And although I haven't myself heard "superb" mini monitors, I have heard well regarded "audiophiles" speak of them and prefer some of their aspects to those of superb full spectrum systems. But in case those cases involved hyperbole, I think "excellent" mini monitors should do just fine in my example.

 

But most to the point, this was supposed to be a thought experiment.

 

Chris

 

While it is entirely possible I'm missing the point, in which case I apologize but if one is going to go so far as to treat the first and second harmonics, why not treat the fundamentals? In fact, in most of the situations I've heard of, when folks get bass traps, they tend to place them in the corners first -- if nowhere else -- (and the corners are where the fundamentals are addressed).

 

As I said, perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the intention of the experiment. My thought was that such could be most useful if they reflect real world situations. My experience has been that folks either don't treat their room modes or start in the corners. In either case, harmonics of those modes will remain and even a so-called minimonitor will excite them (as will ordinary conversation in the room).

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Eloise,

 

Barry ... I'm possibly not replying to exactly the correct post of yours but I wanted to make a point about your "room treatment" vs "DSP methods"...

 

You are in the situation where (due to your work) you can have the perfectly setup room - you must remember that most people by neccesity or choice do not have this situation. They either have a setup in a secondary room where there is some consideration paid to such things, or in most cases the listening room is also the general living room. In many situations possibly some small room treatments can be applied but generally they are restricted to what is possible with achieve with domestic furniture.

 

In these situations DSP can help if not as good as proper treatment.

 

Perhaps this should be added to the audio truths... listening rooms are by neccesity a compromise.

 

Eloise

 

We may see (actually, hear ;-}) this differently. While most "civilians" do not have the luxury of a dedicated room or the option to install treatments if they desire too, I do not see DSP as a positive. Not at all. I've set up all sorts systems for dozens of friends, relatives and acquaintances, in all sorts of rooms and have never encountered a single instance where the idea of DSP would cross my mind. (Quite the contrary.)

 

To be clear, as I've said many times, I would never argue with whatever brings anyone their listening pleasure. If a person likes the results of DSP, I say they should employ it. (Similarly, if a person likes a 12 dB boost at 8 kHz, who am I to say they shouldn't apply it?)

 

That said, I'll say how it sounds to my ears. As I hear it, DSP provides *some* mitigation of one of several room issues, in exchange for what I consider a much more serious problem, which is skewing the direct response from the loudspeakers. I would much rather hear good speakers in an untreated space than the state of the art after they've had their response massacred (in the amplitude and time domains - *both*). Further, after DSP has mangled the speaker response, the preponderance of room problems remain untouched, so as I see it, DSP *adds* problems, it doesn't take them away.

 

Lastly, let me add that in my experience, moving the loudspeakers a few inches (or yes, sometimes more than a few inches) will more often than not yield *truly* positive benefits all around. It is, in fact, the first method of "room correction" I use -- and it works every time. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Don,

 

Barry,

I agree that you hear the speakers first, then the room. But I disagree that "dipping" out a resonance necessarily affects the tonality of the direct sound from the speaker. Remember that a resonance doesn't come into being suddenly at full level. It builds up gradually. If you correctly EQ the exciting signal, the level of the exciting signal is going to start as normal and drop in step with the resonance build-up. So the important transients and note attacks are reproduced unchanged. But yeah, DSP is a band-aid, not a cure. As you point out, there are things it can't fix, such as excitation of a resonance different from the exciting energy, or fix anti-nodes ("suck-outs").

 

Room issues, being *time* based and not amplitude based, must be viewed over time. The dip(s) in loudspeaker response are, to my ears, *very* audible, as is the time smear engendered by steep filters. For me, transients and attacks are indeed changed.

 

DSP is a band-aid... on a broken arm. ;-}

I've heard too many variations on the theme over the years, with too many systems in too many different rooms. In my opinion, it degraded every single one of them.

But... some folks like what it does and I wouldn't take it away from them.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

I know there is a wide diversity of viewpoints on this.

My take:

While data can be objective, the interpretation of the data can't be.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[crisnee]

Chris

There is virtually no spacial information in the 55-60HZ area in a room of the size that your "to die for" mini monitors would normally be used in.

 

Alex

 

Alex

 

Why is it that you're obsessing with this part of my post? It was by far the least important part of it, and was actually only in the post so that people wouldn't say "ah but you'll be messing with spacial cues and the like" when you use DSP. I know when/where they would and wouldn't be relevant. You've apparently completely missed the point of my post.

 

I think you just don't want to do m thought experiment, for whatever reason. And for that thought experiment you would use the perfect size room for the mini monitors, and a different size room, one that exhibits 50-55hz resonance and has all the multiples corrected via traps and the like. It's a freakin' thought experiment. And that goes for Barry too.

 

By the way, it's meant for all to partake in, not just Barry and Alex.

 

Chris

[crisnee]

And Barry, just for you.

 

It's a thought experiment. One makes up things that don't necessarily happen, but nevertheless can happen. So let's just pretend that the wife has lovely art works standing in the corners, or has an obsessive compulsive problem that demands that all corners of rooms are free of objects of any kind.

 

And Alex, please don't tell me no such OCD exists. It doesn't matter. It's a freakin' thought experiment!

 

Respectfully yours,

and I apologize in advance for any transgressions I may have... and anyone I may have...

 

Chris

[sandyk]

Chris

Nobody is stopping others from joining in your " thought experiments"

Perhaps many see DSP as an additional, expensive and unnecessary stage of complexity, especially as most still use analogue amplification too ?

Alex

[Audio_ELF]

especially as most still use analogue amplification too?

Yes Alex, but people still need a DAC - just put the DSP prior to any DAC.

 

Eloise

[sandyk]

Yes Alex, but people still need a DAC - just put the DSP prior to any DAC.

 

 

Eloise

Given that many people are reporting differences between " bit perfect" software players, and many are reporting marked SQ differences due to different types and brands of USB cables etc. it seems a bit silly to not get the best out of digital to start with, before introducing more possible new issues before we even get into a DAC.

Of course, the " bits are bits' brigade insist that none of this matters ! Interesting though, that the poll that YOU started shows that around 80% of the participants don't agree with that.

Cat got your tongue about the results of your own poll ? (grin)

 

Alex

[Audio_ELF]

Of course, the " bits are bits' brigade insist that none of this matters ! Interesting though, that the poll that YOU started shows that around 80% of the participants don't agree with that.

Cat got your tongue about the results of your own poll ? (grin)

Actually I was leaving it to run it's course - the expiry date on it is 9th September but I have added a comment. Please don't take that poll as some kind of "audio truth" though. I didn't think there would be any doubt that a large majority would report hearing a difference; I was more interested if there was any corrolation between how people connected and what they heard.

 

I think that its likely that the playback software is influencing the computer's power and in someway that is being transfered to the DAC in an audible manner - though I also believe that this is hardware dependent and such influence shouldn't be happening (the DAC should be able to be isolated) and that it just shows that computer audio is still "broken".

 

I believe that Gordon has stated before that at a theoretical level an async DAC should be immune to the computer and cables and he doesn't understand how one affects the other...

 

Eloise

[sandyk]

Eloise

Thanks for the candid answer. Clearly Computer Audio still has issues to sort out, and more research is needed.

However it seems likely that the big boys are going to keep things close to their chests for commercial reasons.

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I have found that the USB cable's shield also plays a part in this problematical area It needs to be interrupted at the USB device end. I believe there has also been mention of earthing of the shield playing a part with cat 7 cables too ?

[4est]

That only works if you are strictly digital.

Yes Alex, but people still need a DAC - just put the DSP prior to any DAC.

 

Eloise