If it's measurable, is it audible?

[mayhem13]

 

I'll make this very easy for you, if you don't hear what Alex and others do, and you don't want to perform your own tests then shut up! You have no valid comment to make in any manner whatsoever since you don't believe the results and you are unwilling to test for yourself. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

.

 

I'm close minded........obviously. But clinically and mentally well by comparison to your obvious lack of tolerance or civility. Possibly you have more pressing medical and or psychological issues to attend that might be more productive to your recovery than posting contradicting positions and accounts here on CA?

[Teresa]

I'm close minded........obviously. But clinically and mentally well by comparison to your obvious lack of tolerance or civility. Possibly you have more pressing medical and or psychological issues to attend that might be more productive to your recovery than posting contradicting positions and accounts here on CA?

 

Please explain why you continue to hound Alex because his listening observations are different than your own?

 

You must be looking in the mirror as it is you who has a severe lack of tolerance and civility. I am totally tolerant of all views even those I strongly disagree with, I believe all listening observation reports as real to the person reporting them. I never call anyone mistaken, fooled, liars, etc. That is what you and your fellow objectivists do all the time and I am getting sick of your offensive attitudes. Live and let live, please!

 

I have no contradictory positions, I believe in fair treatment to everyone. I am also offended by you attacking people who hold positions you disagree with. Please learn to behave.

[esldude]

I'm close minded........obviously. But clinically and mentally well by comparison to your obvious lack of tolerance or civility. Possibly you have more pressing medical and or psychological issues to attend that might be more productive to your recovery than posting contradicting positions and accounts here on CA?

 

Mayhem13, you have a PM from me. Take a look.

[gmgraves]

It's not only illogical it is flat out impossible.

 

 

 

No we are not, in the USA we don't get to select who runs for office we only have a choice between those chosen for us by the financial backers who give them millions of dollars in exchange for favors. We don't have a democracy we have a plutocracy. So your comparison with music is invalid.

 

 

 

Because we use our ears to enjoy music with, nothing external has control over them.

 

 

 

So a total lack of faith in your twisted logic is "faith", what a bizarre attitude you have. My ears tell me what they like, if what they like is not real and what they dislike is real, it would not change what they like and what they dislike. Some say imaging, soundstaging, and other aspects of sound are not real however I enjoy them very much, thank you.

 

 

 

I am open minded enough to believe that there are people who don't trust their ears and trust what is external instead and I have never attacked them or belittled them for their beliefs even when I find them bizarre. All people deserve respect.

 

 

 

I have studied that so called evidence and so far all of it is highly flawed.

 

If I don’t use my ears to listen to music with then there is NO reason to listen to music. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? It is our ear/brain/body system we use to enjoy music with, take that away and there is NO music.

 

Finally, trust no one except yourself as no one's experience will always match your own. In the realm of audio that means checking out everything you have an interest in using your system, your music and your ears.

 

I don't know what to say. Teresa's attitude is so anti-intellectual and so illogical, that there is really no way to counter it. I must therefore conclude that she is as totally right-brain dominant as I am totally left-brain dominant.

 

Anyone who confuses the ability to pleasurably listen to music with a need to trust one's ears completely and blindly accept what they tell you, even when you know, intellectually, that what they are telling you is wrong, has a very tenuous grasp of reality.

[sandyk]

Anyone who confuses the ability to pleasurably listen to music with a need to trust one's ears completely and blindly accept what they tell you, even when you know, intellectually, that what they are telling you is wrong, has a very tenuous grasp of reality.

 

That's not quite what she is saying. Most Audiophiles will have no issues whatsoever with this earlier reply from Teresa.

The section in bold lettering was highlighted by me. Nice selective bit of editing of Teresa's reply there George.

 

As for Diogenes , that kind of reply is pretty much par for the course from him these days.

 

Wrong, while I believe under unnatural listening conditions it is possible to fool the ear once or twice as those pseudo-scientists love to do. However the ears cannot be fooled repeatedly over many days, weeks, months and years,, that is just flat out illogical. That’s why repeated listening and money-back satisfaction guarantees are so important. I am sorry you have been seduced by their scam.

[gmgraves]

A truly open minded person would be open to the possibility that their ear/mind system is not defective and they are being deceived by people out to destroy audiophiles and the noble quest for the best music experience possible. Don't be sucked into their obscene mediocrity. My ears have not let me down yet, and I know they never will!

 

Open your ears and open your mind and trust what you hear. To reject what you hear is very closed minded IMHO.

 

"The words Wilma Cozart Fine lived by were "trust your ears." This was the guiding principle that defined her working life. For those who don't know the name, hers was a working life to remember." - Trustees Award: Wilma Cozart Fine

 

But there is no possibility that the ear/mind system is not defective at some level. All human beings are susceptible to both delusion on some level as well as illusion. I trust my ears to a point, and they are seldom wrong. I couldn't successfully subjectively review audio equipment if I didn't trust them. My ability to correctly characterize the sound of a component was somewhat validated last year when an amplifier that I reviewed was later reviewed by Stereophile and that reviewer heard exactly the same characteristics that I had heard, and even described these characteristics in a similar manner. Interestingly, my review hit the newsstands just a couple of weeks before the Stereophile issue did, so it was virtually impossible for that review to have been influenced by mine or vice versa. But just because I trust my ears doesn't mean that I accept, blindly, every crack-pot product that comes down the pipe, just because I think I hear a difference when using said product. It has to be real. And very often, it turns out not to be.

[gmgraves]

But that's just too much hard work for most of the usual suspects here. They expect others to do the dirty work for them.

 

 

Yet again, comments like that show just how far many of you are living in the past, needing to quote Latin, which is so beloved of Academics and has no real place in modern society.

Does it make you feel superior to be able to use Latin phrases ?

Do you use phrases like that in your motoring reviews ? If not, then why here ?

 

Huh? Are you referring to my use of the phrase non-sequitur? While it does have it's roots in Latin, so do other phrases that are now considered part of the English language - like, for instance, Caveat Emptor, or Juris Prudance. If you are taking me to task for having a decent vocabulary, then I suggest that your apparent lack of a decent vocabulary is your problem, not mine. Non-sequitur means, in case you are unfamiliar, a response that doesn't fit the subject at hand. For instance, if I say "Nice Day, isn't it?" and you respond with "How about those 49ers, eh?" your response is a non-sequitur and that is perfectly good English. And yes, If I write an automotive article that requires the use of non-sequitur, I will definitely use non-sequitur, and hope that my audience has a better grasp of the English language than you do.

[sandyk]

I have a quite reasonable command of the English language thank you . Phrases like that are mainly bandied about by intellectual snobs. You would be highly unlikely to use that phrase in a motor review.

Your target audience would not be impressed by your use of words like that in a motoring review. Caveat emptor and Juris Prudence are now also falling out of common usage, except in some circles.

Your command of the English language is way below what you believe it is. You can't even correctly spell the phrase you used !

 

Jurisprudence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MrAcoustat]

Huh? Are you referring to my use of the phrase non-sequitur? While it does have it's roots in Latin, so do other phrases that are now considered part of the English language - like, for instance, Caveat Emptor, or Juris Prudance. If you are taking me to task for having a decent vocabulary, then I suggest that your apparent lack of a decent vocabulary is your problem, not mine. Non-sequitur means, in case you are unfamiliar, a response that doesn't fit the subject at hand. For instance, if I say "Nice Day, isn't it?" and you respond with "How about those 49ers, eh?" your response is a non-sequitur and that is perfectly good English. And yes, If I write an automotive article that requires the use of non-sequitur, I will definitely use non-sequitur, and hope that my audience has a better grasp of the English language than you do.

 

Being french my vocabulary is not very good but i do my best, having a good vocabulary and having good ears are two very different things, i have had very limited scholling BUT i have been listening to music for over 40 years and i trust my ears, to me one as nothing to do with the other, please stay civil for the love of music ENJOY. - - - - - -

 

MrAcoustat owner of the Quebec soccer team - - -

[Teresa]

Teresa promised to stop posting January 7, maybe she should keep her promise

 

You are correct. Actually I'm trying very hard not to post. I only posted in this thread as I was trying to read it and I needed to ask Esldude a question to help me understand, that was in Post 51 as follows.

 

I am trying to read this thread, however you have me really confused, if someone offered proof you would accept how would it help you hear an effect you cannot hear?

 

If I don't hear a difference I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me, I'm curious how it could change it for you?

 

Once you clear up that contradiction I'll go back to not posting, I just want to be able to understand what I read.

 

Esldude did confirm if someone offered proof he would accept it would not change what he could hear, thank goodness. Evidently he has no interest personally in his own listening situation with Alex's tests, he is curious what other people hear or do not hear and why. Still doesn't make sense to me but since I believe in respecting other people's opinions and desires I didn't question his motives further.

 

However, the back and forth with the usual objectivists escalated from there to where we are now. Personally I don't like it and all I wanted was an answer to a simple question as I was struggling with the motives of the poster. If it will continue to be this hard to read threads at Computer Audiophile and to just ask a simple question I may have to give up visiting here completely.

 

Also, I keep hoping that objectivists learn some manners and quit disrespecting subjectivists but I'm not holding by breath.

[Paul R]

(Amusement)

 

I find it mildly qmusing that some of those who for so long have decried to keep an open mind about (xyz) seem to have trouble grasping - or even respecting - another point of view they do not understand or agree with.

 

If at this point, you are wondering exactly whom I refer to, good.

[thesurfingalien]

(Amusement)

 

I find it mildly qmusing that some of those who for so long have decried to keep an open mind about (xyz) seem to have trouble grasping - or even respecting - another point of view they do not understand or agree with.

 

If at this point, you are wondering exactly whom I refer to, good.

 

Cinderella, perhaps

[thesurfingalien]

Please explain why you continue to hound Alex because his listening observations are different than your own?

 

Teresa,

 

Here is the thing that you do not seem to get: none of us actually is questioning Alex's or anyone else's listening experience. In Alex's case, we question what he claims to be the cause of the differences he hears. Why? Because what Alex claims simply is impossible. And I dare to say that it is not only objectivists who hold this opinion; there are plenty of subjectivists too.

 

Peter

[Paul R]

And as these things usually do, when you start thinking about something, so does everyone else! I opened up my email this morning and found this jewel from Paul McGowan. Appropriate, no? Think he reads this stuff?

 

Proof! | PS Audio

 

I cringe every time someone proves to me what I know to be true isn’t. Politicians try to do this as a matter of course. It’s simple to do. Present a narrow group of facts or plausible assumptions as evidence and then the conclusion is a logical one based entirely on those facts. Any reasonable person considering only those facts would draw the same conclusion, thus it is proven.

 

[Paul R]

Hi Peter - it may well be that Teresa understands this reasoning quite well, and is making the point that getting upset over these reasons is not something she feels makes any sense.

 

A valid point of view. I sometimes wish I could hold to that view as tightly as Ms. Teresa does, but I am built a little different.

 

-Paul

 

Teresa,

 

Here is the thing that you do not seem to get: none of us actually is questioning Alex's or anyone else's listening experience. In Alex's case, we question what he claims to be the cause of the differences he hears. Why? Because what Alex claims simply is impossible. And I dare to say that it is not only objectivists who hold this opinion; there are plenty of subjectivists too.

 

Peter

[gmgraves]

I like your Quebec soccer team!

[gmgraves]

I have a quite reasonable command of the English language thank you . Phrases like that are mainly bandied about by intellectual snobs. You would be highly unlikely to use that phrase in a motor review.

Your target audience would not be impressed by your use of words like that in a motoring review. Caveat emptor and Juris Prudence are now also falling out of common usage, except in some circles.

Your command of the English language is way below what you believe it is. You can't even correctly spell the phrase you used !

 

Jurisprudence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

I don't give a damn whether or not these usages are falling out of favor or not. All that means is that society is devolving (as if we didn't know that). I think language is a poor enough means of communication and we should use all the words we've got and I will continue to do so whether you like it or not. I do not use words to "impress", I use them to try to communicate. Unfortunately it's bound to be unsuccessful with some.

[Blake]

Not sure if this is of any interest, but it relates to the thread topic. In the speaker subforum, Sean Olive, Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International posted this response to my question:

 

Sean:

 

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting indeed. I enjoy reading these studies and it does correct commonly-held assumptions about the preferences of certain demographic groups.

 

Apologies for the off-topic detour, but in your opinion or experience:

 

With currently available measurement equipment, is it possible to measure all aspects of sound? For example, is it possible to measure soundstage width, height and depth? How about imaging or instrumental layering/separation?

 

I would be very interested to know your views on this topic.

 

Cheers,

 

Blake

 

Sean's response:

 

Current measurements are able to capture the linear and nonlinear distortions in audio equipment which can be used to predict perceptual dimensions related to timbre (e.g. bright/dull, clarity, coloration,etc). Current measurements of nonlinear distortion such as THD are not reliable indicators of audibility as the added harmonics are often masked by the signal.

 

Spatial dimensions are generally harder to characterize with measurements as the recordings themselves, speaker directivity and listening room all interact in ways that affect the dimensions you suggest. That said, binaural measurements at the listening seat using some signal processing can reveal the general location of the image (azimuth) and the width and envelopment of the imagery which is related to the IACC. Look at some of PhD work of Wolfgang Hess for example.

 

Time-variant Binaural Activity Characteristics as Indicator of Auditory ... - Wolfgang Hess - Google Books

[Blake]

With Sean Olive participating in these forums, I suggest that perhaps it might be helpful/informative to see if Sean is will to join in the discussion or be available to answer questions.

 

The thread is here:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f12-headphones-and-speakers/perception-and-measurement-headphone-sound-quality-do-listeners-agree-what-makes-headphone-sound-good-18880/.

 

I would suggest though, that people remain polite.

[sandyk]

Here is the thing that you do not seem to get: none of us actually is questioning Alex's or anyone else's listening experience.

 

Really ? Come on Peter, pull the other leg. It whistles. (LOL)

You guys dismiss almost every subjective report in the forum, no matter what the subject.

 

I haven't made any specific claims as to the causes of my main posts other than when I reduce vibration and further improve the PSU areas, both internally and external USB supply to the storage medium that SQ improves.

That's not that much different than many others have reported, here and elsewhere.

[Don Hills]

Huh? Are you referring to my use of the phrase non-sequitur? ...

 

George,

I think Alex is dragging a red herring across your path...

[Paul R]

That is some interesting information IRT to the thesis referenced at the bottom. I will have to determine how to get access to that paper, and translate it if necessary. Do you know if he has done any other acoustic work? It looks like his primary field is some form of genetics?

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Not sure if this is of any interest, but it relates to the thread topic. In the speaker subforum, Sean Olive, Director of Acoustic Research for Harman International posted this response to my question:

 

Sean:

 

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting indeed. I enjoy reading these studies and it does correct commonly-held assumptions about the preferences of certain demographic groups.

 

Apologies for the off-topic detour, but in your opinion or experience:

 

With currently available measurement equipment, is it possible to measure all aspects of sound? For example, is it possible to measure soundstage width, height and depth? How about imaging or instrumental layering/separation?

 

I would be very interested to know your views on this topic.

 

Cheers,

 

Blake

 

Sean's response:

 

Current measurements are able to capture the linear and nonlinear distortions in audio equipment which can be used to predict perceptual dimensions related to timbre (e.g. bright/dull, clarity, coloration,etc). Current measurements of nonlinear distortion such as THD are not reliable indicators of audibility as the added harmonics are often masked by the signal.

 

Spatial dimensions are generally harder to characterize with measurements as the recordings themselves, speaker directivity and listening room all interact in ways that affect the dimensions you suggest. That said, binaural measurements at the listening seat using some signal processing can reveal the general location of the image (azimuth) and the width and envelopment of the imagery which is related to the IACC. Look at some of PhD work of Wolfgang Hess for example.

 

Time-variant Binaural Activity Characteristics as Indicator of Auditory ... - Wolfgang Hess - Google Books

[gmgraves]

George,

I think Alex is dragging a red herring across your path...

 

That's certainly possible.

[sandyk]

That's certainly possible.

 

I am simply pointing out that although based in the U.S.A. , this is an International forum where English is not the native tongue of many members.

[thesurfingalien]

Hi Peter - it may well be that Teresa understands this reasoning quite well, and is making the point that getting upset over these reasons is not something she feels makes any sense.

 

A valid point of view. I sometimes wish I could hold to that view as tightly as Ms. Teresa does, but I am built a little different.

 

-Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

I am not so sure Teresa is making the mentioned distinction... She believes that, every time an objectivist disagrees with a subjective observation, it equals an insult. In my perhaps erroneous point-of-view, one can only feel insulted if the personal experience itself is questioned. However, I find it very hard to believe that questioning the circumstances (perhaps a bit of a bread term by lack of a better word) that cause the listening experience can be regarded to as insulting. And that is what I believe to be the distinction.

 

Now, again in my perhaps erroneous point-of-view, I find it very curious that for Teresa it does not make sense for objectivists to seek answers to determine the real reason that causes listening experiences to change if in doubt (or to seek confirmation for the alleged reason that caused a listening-experience to change). Once the real reason is found (or confirmed), actions can be taken that may lead to (further) improvement and better understanding.

 

Kind regards,

Peter