Jump to content
IGNORED

If it's measurable, is it audible?


If you can measure it, is it audible?  

40 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

These are subtle distinctions, Peter, and I'm not prepared to disagree with your view although I don't necessarily accept it either. However, IMO, demanding proof to back up every subjective observation is insulting. It's one thing to hold a different view, but quite another to completely dismiss the validity of any subjective observation for failure of the member to provide 'objective' proof. Fortunately, this forum is not Hydrogenaudio.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
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.

 

Hi Alex,

 

I have to agree here. I, for example, sometimes have to look up words used in posts by members such as Paul Raulerson, Jud, esldude, wgscott etc... However, my excuse is that my native language is Dutch :)

 

While I appreciate efforts to expand my vocabulary, perhaps for everyone to be able to understand each other, it may be beneficial to replace less used vocab with something a bit more common in posts.

 

Kind regards (and thanks in advance),

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment

Hi Peter - let me twist that around to example what might be a bit of an alien viewpoint to you.

 

Why spend all that time investigating physical phenomena, and risk invalidating people (i.e. ruining their enjoyment) when you can simply listen to tell if something is better or not for me? And moreover, what I think is better may not be at all better for you. What I believe is the best change ever for me may indeed, be a very detrimental change to you. It really doesn't matter at all what the physical characteristics are in this case. It is what each individual hears and enjoys.

 

Or another example, there is clear documented proof that "people cannot really tell the difference between 256K AAC, Redbook Quality, and Hi-Res versions of the same song. In fact, there is proof that people *prefer* MP3s!". In simple fact, there is lots of proof for that, including blind tests.

 

I think most here might disagree with that to some degree or another, I certainly would, but I don't need to go disprove the evidence those people use to know that it is not a totally accurate conclusion they have drawn from their data. At least for me.

 

I can and do enjoy well done MP3s, but I enjoy well done hi-res recordings a whole lot more... Why should I need to defend that statement, or put up with someone smirking at me and telling me that I am imagining that? Obviously, I do not. Even though I do not subscribe wholly to this point of view I have just attempted to describe, I can certainly understand and even more or less agree with it. At least to a point.

 

Those two points of view are somewhat alien, and often uncomfortable, to those of us with math, physics, engineering, or many other backgrounds. But from a particular point of view, they make very good sense and indeed, may be the most stress free way to find and enjoy the music and audio system that best suits you.

 

There is a lot of truth in that Paul McGowan post I referenced this morning. :)

 

Given that, I do enjoy finding out the real facts behind why things are as they are. But no so much I will endure not having the pleasure of a good system to listen to all sorts of music on.

 

In a way, that is a subjectivist viewpoint. In another way, it is the same as saying: "I understand I can calculate an orbit with quantum mechanics, and that the answer I get to the same problem with classical mechanics may not be anywhere near as accurate. However, until someone figures out a method to make quantum or string theory easier to work with, the answers I can from classical methods are quite good enough to use.

 

-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

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
These are subtle distinctions, Peter, and I'm not prepared to disagree with your view although I don't necessarily accept it either. However, IMO, demanding proof to back up every subjective observation is insulting. It's one thing to hold a different view, but quite another to completely dismiss the validity of any subjective observation for failure of the member to provide 'objective' proof. Fortunately, this forum is not Hydrogenaudio.

 

Hi Allan,

 

I do not really see the subtlety in distinction here as for me there is quite a big difference. But sometimes it is just difficult to put what one thinks into the correct words.

 

In all honesty, I think that there is more discussion about objectivists demanding proof than it actually happens, except in repetitive subjects. I believe the same is the case for completely dismissing validity of subjective observation.

 

On the other hand, it also happens that subjectivists completely dismiss the validity of DBT or measurements, simply because they do not confirm subjective experiences :)

 

Kind regards,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment
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.

 

You could have done that in a not so confrontational manner. I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that the more ubiquitous Latin phrases such as non-sequitur, and pro bono, or caveat emptor are used in other European languages as well - especially the Romance languages which have Latin as a root.

George

Link to comment
Hi Alex,

 

I have to agree here. I, for example, sometimes have to look up words used in posts by members such as Paul Raulerson, Jud, esldude, wgscott etc... However, my excuse is that my native language is Dutch :)

 

While I appreciate efforts to expand my vocabulary, perhaps for everyone to be able to understand each other, it may be beneficial to replace less used vocab with something a bit more common in posts.

 

Kind regards (and thanks in advance),

Peter

 

Not a bad idea. However, I don't really know a simple English replacement for non-sequitur that isn't an entire sentence.

George

Link to comment

I will prefix this by saying I know I may be biased and my views are well known but...

 

Paul wrote (and I have snipped a few bits)

Or another example, there is clear documented proof that "people cannot really tell the difference between 256K AAC, Redbook Quality, and Hi-Res versions of the same song. In fact, there is proof that people *prefer* MP3s!". In simple fact, there is lots of proof for that, including blind tests.

 

[...snip...]

 

I can and do enjoy well done MP3s, but I enjoy well done hi-res recordings a whole lot more...

Well I agree IF someone makes the comment (the last paragraph above) as written then that's great subjective view point - there is no arguing with it.

 

However I would say the comment is more likely to be made "I can and do enjoy well done MP3s, but a (well done) hi-res recording is better". That changes from an opinion to expressing something as an absolute.

 

I would further put forward that what if most often written by an objective biased person is "a well done MP3 has in blind test been shown to be indistinguishable from an uncompressed CD". While this is again an absolute statement it is defining under which circumstances.

 

Arguments usually follow on from a reply along the lines of "yes but blind testing is artificial and I can always tell the difference".

 

Anyway as I say I am biased but that is the feeling I get when open ended questions are asked. It's also bed time so my reply may be not quite how I intended to word it.

 

Eloise.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Not a bad idea. However, I don't really know a simple English replacement for non-sequitur that isn't an entire sentence.

 

Does not follow will usually suffice more or less.

 

Hope my writing isn't too tough Peter. I do sometimes change some words keeping mind English is not everyone's native language. But only sometimes. Not for lack of respect for those, heck I barely know one other language. I definitely respect those that can post here in English from other places in the world.

 

On the other hand, on non-audio forums using the same name as here, most people assume it stands for:

English Second Language Dude. So I get these message in a language I don't understand. If Google doesn't translate it well, I have no idea what they are saying.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Fortunately, this forum is not Hydrogenaudio.

 

 

Unfortunately several senior members have told me recently that it's becoming much more like Hydrogen Audio, and a far less friendly place than it once was.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Thanks Paul, great post!

 

Hi Peter - let me twist that around to example what might be a bit of an alien viewpoint to you.

 

Why spend all that time investigating physical phenomena, and risk invalidating people (i.e. ruining their enjoyment) when you can simply listen to tell if something is better or not for me? And moreover, what I think is better may not be at all better for you. What I believe is the best change ever for me may indeed, be a very detrimental change to you. It really doesn't matter at all what the physical characteristics are in this case. It is what each individual hears and enjoys.

 

Or another example, there is clear documented proof that "people cannot really tell the difference between 256K AAC, Redbook Quality, and Hi-Res versions of the same song. In fact, there is proof that people *prefer* MP3s!". In simple fact, there is lots of proof for that, including blind tests.

 

I think most here might disagree with that to some degree or another, I certainly would, but I don't need to go disprove the evidence those people use to know that it is not a totally accurate conclusion they have drawn from their data. At least for me.

 

I can and do enjoy well done MP3s, but I enjoy well done hi-res recordings a whole lot more... Why should I need to defend that statement, or put up with someone smirking at me and telling me that I am imagining that? Obviously, I do not. Even though I do not subscribe wholly to this point of view I have just attempted to describe, I can certainly understand and even more or less agree with it. At least to a point.

 

Those two points of view are somewhat alien, and often uncomfortable, to those of us with math, physics, engineering, or many other backgrounds. But from a particular point of view, they make very good sense and indeed, may be the most stress free way to find and enjoy the music and audio system that best suits you.

 

There is a lot of truth in that Paul McGowan post I referenced this morning. :)

 

Given that, I do enjoy finding out the real facts behind why things are as they are. But no so much I will endure not having the pleasure of a good system to listen to all sorts of music on.

 

In a way, that is a subjectivist viewpoint. In another way, it is the same as saying: "I understand I can calculate an orbit with quantum mechanics, and that the answer I get to the same problem with classical mechanics may not be anywhere near as accurate. However, until someone figures out a method to make quantum or string theory easier to work with, the answers I can from classical methods are quite good enough to use.

 

-Paul

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
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 - - - [ATTACH=CONFIG]10043[/ATTACH]

 

Je parle un peu, mais regardez mieux...!

 

Santé,

 

Roch

Link to comment

As I said before my goal is to quit posting because it is becoming more and more difficult, it took me many hours just to write this post.

 

However, I have to clear up some more misconceptions about me and what I believe.

 

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

 

No, it’s insulting "people" that is insulting, such as calling them names: delusional, liars, mistaken, wrong, unintelligent, stupid, irrational, illogical, etc. as well as showing absolute contempt to their listening impressions. This is the obscene behavior of the objectivists that I highly object to. I say live and let live!

 

I have no objection to objectivists performing tests or even publishing those tests, my objection is their bullying subjectivists to do the same when subjectivists have no interest in such endeavors and would prefer to enjoy music instead. You can't bully people into doing what you want them to do.

 

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

 

Really? Alex only started having more and more people confirm his test results as objectivists four years ago attacked his listening impressions. So Alex responded by playing the objectivist game, something I think a subjectivist should never do. I have always said each individual has the right to believe what they believe and to enjoy what they enjoy.

 

Being one of Alex’s test subjects I am quite convinced what he is saying is real but I would never rub anyone’s nose in it. Everyone is free to believe or disbelieve anything they choose, to me this is a personal issue and not one where one group can demand adherence to their point of view by another group. Many things we take for granted today were at one time considered impossible.

 

And since I am so open minded I believe you should be free to believe or disbelieve anything you wish as long as you don’t infringe on other people’s beliefs and disbeliefs.

 

...On the other hand, it also happens that subjectivists completely dismiss the validity of DBT or measurements, simply because they do not confirm subjective experiences :)

 

No, it's because they do not confirm to reality and thus are poor tests, I gave many, many examples of absurd results of public ABX DBT's throughout their long history of making everything under the sun sound statistically the same in the the article linked below. So far they are a complete failure, could there be a competent ABX DBT test in the future? I'm open minded enough to consider it possible but I'm not holding my breath.

 

See: Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects and Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial by Robert Harley

 

...IMO, demanding proof to back up every subjective observation is insulting. It's one thing to hold a different view, but quite another to completely dismiss the validity of any subjective observation for failure of the member to provide 'objective' proof. Fortunately, this forum is not Hydrogenaudio.

 

Thanks and I agree completely.

 

The proof thing is something that interests objectivists and something that subjectivists either find no interest in or find it a distraction to things that are important to them.

 

I believe that objectivist's have the prerogative to discuses their own proofs among themselves, however they can’t milk proof like one milks a cow. If a subjectivist wants to give proof they will, no amount of bullying will make anyone do what they do not want to do!!

 

I have always believed if a person wants something tested “their way” they will only be satisfied if they perform the tests themselves thus I don't understand them bullying subjectivists for proof that subjectivists have no interest in giving. Once again it is about common human decency.

 

Personally, I prefer the right to return any product I don’t like for a full refund over any test saying I should like a certain product. I don’t have that kind of blind trust in specifications or science. I have to actually hear it in my system, with my music and more importantly with my ears.

 

Now if the objectivists will quit misrepresenting what I say I will kindly go back to not posting and just reading unless I need to ask a question to understand a post as I did in post 51.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

Hey Peter- I think you be right today, but a few months to a year ago? Quite the opposite.

 

Reminds me of what happens when you poke a sleeping bear with a stick... Unpleasant results!

 

Hi Allan,

 

I do not really see the subtlety in distinction here as for me there is quite a big difference. But sometimes it is just difficult to put what one thinks into the correct words.

 

In all honesty, I think that there is more discussion about objectivists demanding proof than it actually happens, except in repetitive subjects. I believe the same is the case for completely dismissing validity of subjective observation.

 

On the other hand, it also happens that subjectivists completely dismiss the validity of DBT or measurements, simply because they do not confirm subjective experiences :)

 

Kind regards,

Peter

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Hi Allan,

 

I do not really see the subtlety in distinction here as for me there is quite a big difference. But sometimes it is just difficult to put what one thinks into the correct words.

 

In all honesty, I think that there is more discussion about objectivists demanding proof than it actually happens, except in repetitive subjects. I believe the same is the case for completely dismissing validity of subjective observation.

 

On the other hand, it also happens that subjectivists completely dismiss the validity of DBT or measurements, simply because they do not confirm subjective experiences :)

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Peter,

 

The subtle distinction I was referring to is the manner in which things are often stated, making the line between questioning personal experience and circumstances a very thin one. Regarding your other comment, I am afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. Without naming names, I can easily think of a least three members who are habitually quick to dismiss and ridicule virtually any subjectivist observation, more often than not with unnecessary and bitter sarcasm. They could learn from your respectful approach.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
there is clear documented proof that "people cannot really tell the difference between 256K AAC, Redbook Quality, and Hi-Res versions of the same song. In fact, there is proof that people *prefer* MP3s!". In simple fact, there is lots of proof for that, including blind tests. -Paul

 

Paul: You raise an issue that came up several years ago in digital photography. Although everyone claimed that they wanted more and more megapixels of resolution, many people in "blinded" testing (hard to do for photographs, but what I mean is blinded as to the resolution) chose lower res pictures as preferable because they seemed "sharper." In truth, they were seeing the edges of pixels and their eyes were being fooled into a false sense of sharpness, but that didn't stop them from preferring the lower res photo. In fact, as resolution increased it amplified other effects such as lens distortion, camera shake, etc. that hadn't been as noticeable with lower resolutions.

 

The bottom line, for me at least, was that people can have strong preferences that are not "supported" by facts or science, but that doesn't make those preferences wrong. Some of us want our preferences to closely align with verifiable facts that we can either test/measure or prove scientifically; others may go through life quite happily choosing their personal preferences in total ignorance of the scientific "wrongness" of those choices. When it comes to live and death decisions such as medicine, I much prefer the former (the scientifically proven view), when it comes to art and music, the latter group might live the better life -- they are far easier to please.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
As I said before my goal is to quit posting because it is becoming more and more difficult, it took me many hours just to write this post.

 

However, I have to clear up some more misconceptions about me and what I believe.

 

 

 

No, it’s insulting "people" that is insulting, such as calling them names: delusional, liars, mistaken, wrong, unintelligent, stupid, irrational, illogical, etc. as well as showing absolute contempt to their listening impressions. This is the obscene behavior of the objectivists that I highly object to. I say live and let live!

 

I have no objection to objectivists performing tests or even publishing those tests, my objection is their bullying subjectivists to do the same when subjectivists have no interest in such endeavors and would prefer to enjoy music instead. You can't bully people into doing what you want them to do.

 

 

 

Really? Alex only started having more and more people confirm his test results as objectivists four years ago attacked his listening impressions. So Alex responded by playing the objectivist game, something I think a subjectivist should never do. I have always said each individual has the right to believe what they believe and to enjoy what they enjoy.

 

Being one of Alex’s test subjects I am quite convinced what he is saying is real but I would never rub anyone’s nose in it. Everyone is free to believe or disbelieve anything they choose, to me this is a personal issue and not one where one group can demand adherence to their point of view by another group. Many things we take for granted today were at one time considered impossible.

 

And since I am so open minded I believe you should be free to believe or disbelieve anything you wish as long as you don’t infringe on other people’s beliefs and disbeliefs.

 

 

 

No, it's because they do not confirm to reality and thus are poor tests, I gave many, many examples of absurd results of public ABX DBT's throughout their long history of making everything under the sun sound statistically the same in the the article linked below. So far they are a complete failure, could there be a competent ABX DBT test in the future? I'm open minded enough to consider it possible but I'm not holding my breath.

 

See: Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects and Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial by Robert Harley

 

 

 

Thanks and I agree completely.

 

The proof thing is something that interests objectivists and something that subjectivists either find no interest in or find it a distraction to things that are important to them.

 

I believe that objectivist's have the prerogative to discuses their own proofs among themselves, however they can’t milk proof like one milks a cow. If a subjectivist wants to give proof they will, no amount of bullying will make anyone do what they do not want to do!!

 

I have always believed if a person wants something tested “their way” they will only be satisfied if they perform the tests themselves thus I don't understand them bullying subjectivists for proof that subjectivists have no interest in giving. Once again it is about common human decency.

 

Personally, I prefer the right to return any product I don’t like for a full refund over any test saying I should like a certain product. I don’t have that kind of blind trust in specifications or science. I have to actually hear it in my system, with my music and more importantly with my ears.

 

Now if the objectivists will quit misrepresenting what I say I will kindly go back to not posting and just reading unless I need to ask a question to understand a post as I did in post 51.

 

Hi Teresa,

 

First of all I want to say that I do not appreciate people using name-calling under any circumstances. I can not see much of that here, but perhaps on other forums this happens more often. That is unfortunate.

 

Furthermore, I will refrain from posting in reaction to what you post for two reasons:

 

- I feel I am incapable of presenting my thoughts to you in such a manner it makes sense. Likewise, I am having a hard time understanding your position.

- It takes you a long time to reply. Given your condition, I prefer you to do what you enjoy most: listening to music instead of spending this time.

 

Let's agree to disagree?

 

Kind regards & take care,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment

Hmm, really? I seem to recall many posts in the recent past that equate hearing differences in bit perfect files with alien abduction and folly.Those sorts of statements are very much name calling IMO. If memory serves me, you have done so...

Hi Teresa,

 

First of all I want to say that I do not appreciate people using name-calling under any circumstances. I can not see much of that here, but perhaps on other forums this happens more often. That is unfortunate.

 

Furthermore, I will refrain from posting in reaction to what you post for two reasons:

 

- I feel I am incapable of presenting my thoughts to you in such a manner it makes sense. Likewise, I am having a hard time understanding your position.

- It takes you a long time to reply. Given your condition, I prefer you to do what you enjoy most: listening to music instead of spending this time.

 

Let's agree to disagree?

 

Kind regards & take care,

Peter

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
Hi Teresa,

 

First of all I want to say that I do not appreciate people using name-calling under any circumstances.

 

I am glad to hear that. //(*_*)\\

 

...Given your condition, I prefer you to do what you enjoy most: listening to music instead of spending this time.

 

Thanks, much appreciated!

 

Let's agree to disagree?

 

Kind regards & take care,

Peter

 

Agreeing to disagree works perfectly for me and has always been how I feel since I respect everyone's opinion even those I disagree with. I wish others would follow your lead.

 

Now back to not posting and just reading.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

Well said - very well said. The only point I might question is whether or not it is easier to please one group than the other. I begin to think they are both equally difficult! :)

 

-Paul

 

 

Paul: You raise an issue that came up several years ago in digital photography. Although everyone claimed that they wanted more and more megapixels of resolution, many people in "blinded" testing (hard to do for photographs, but what I mean is blinded as to the resolution) chose lower res pictures as preferable because they seemed "sharper." In truth, they were seeing the edges of pixels and their eyes were being fooled into a false sense of sharpness, but that didn't stop them from preferring the lower res photo. In fact, as resolution increased it amplified other effects such as lens distortion, camera shake, etc. that hadn't been as noticeable with lower resolutions.

 

The bottom line, for me at least, was that people can have strong preferences that are not "supported" by facts or science, but that doesn't make those preferences wrong. Some of us want our preferences to closely align with verifiable facts that we can either test/measure or prove scientifically; others may go through life quite happily choosing their personal preferences in total ignorance of the scientific "wrongness" of those choices. When it comes to live and death decisions such as medicine, I much prefer the former (the scientifically proven view), when it comes to art and music, the latter group might live the better life -- they are far easier to please.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Paul: You raise an issue that came up several years ago in digital photography. Although everyone claimed that they wanted more and more megapixels of resolution, many people in "blinded" testing (hard to do for photographs, but what I mean is blinded as to the resolution) chose lower res pictures as preferable because they seemed "sharper." In truth, they were seeing the edges of pixels and their eyes were being fooled into a false sense of sharpness, but that didn't stop them from preferring the lower res photo. In fact, as resolution increased it amplified other effects such as lens distortion, camera shake, etc. that hadn't been as noticeable with lower resolutions.

 

The bottom line, for me at least, was that people can have strong preferences that are not "supported" by facts or science, but that doesn't make those preferences wrong. Some of us want our preferences to closely align with verifiable facts that we can either test/measure or prove scientifically; others may go through life quite happily choosing their personal preferences in total ignorance of the scientific "wrongness" of those choices. When it comes to live and death decisions such as medicine, I much prefer the former (the scientifically proven view), when it comes to art and music, the latter group might live the better life -- they are far easier to please.

 

 

Good point. But in your example of low-res vs. high-res pictures, there really IS a difference! Not only does a difference exist, but there is even an explanation as to why some prefer low-res over high-res pictures. Often, in audio, people choose products, that in reality, do nothing and not only do they produce no real differences or improvements, but the science and physics behind sound reproduction predict (accurately) that they can and will produce no real change. This is quite different from your example where people actually choose to prefer something that is measurably (and in the case of lower bit-rate MP3, audibly) inferior in resolution. I.E. There is a real difference here, but people's personal tastes are at work and for whatever reason, they prefer the lower-res pictures and audio files. This is like the old "tone tests" performed by Bell labs and others during the 1930's where test subjects were exposed to so-called wide-band musical reproduction as well as the same music reproduced with restricted bandwidth (2.5 KHz vs 12 KHz) and most preferred the restricted bandwidth reproduction*.

 

*I started to become interested in audio at a very early age and as a kid, I would notice people's console radios and radio/phonographs (many were still around in those days) when we would visit their homes. If the radio had a a simple so-called "tone" control (really just a treble-cut control), that control was invariably always set to maximum treble cut. The radio/phonographs that were sophisticated enough to have separate bass and treble controls, were almost invariably set up with the bass boosted to maximum and the treble control turned all the way down. Now, I know that most people don't do that amy more, and haven't for years, (although in the sixties and seventies many people would turn the bass and treble to maximum on their Pioneer, Panasonic, and Sansui (etc.) receivers. My suspicion about the "tone tests" mentioned above is that the test subjects were not so much expressing a preference for restricted bandwidth material as they were expressing a dislike for the scratchy and very distorted wide bandwidth reproduction of a noisy 78 RPM record (the only form of canned music in the '30's) or the noise riddled AM radio broadcasts of the same period.

George

Link to comment
Hmm, really? I seem to recall many posts in the recent past that equate hearing differences in bit perfect files with alien abduction and folly.Those sorts of statements are very much name calling IMO. If memory serves me, you have done so...

 

Hi 4est,

 

Indeed I wrote the "alien abduction" remark, but if you read that post again, you will also notice the remark I put right before I wrote it. However, if you are suggesting I intentionally made that remark to hurt, offend or insult other people you are dead-wrong. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe about me and my intentions, but I must confess I am rather disappointed with your post.

 

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment

.......and I can't help but wondering of that same example of photography rings true for the many proponents of MP3 where less may in fact be 'more'.

 

I believe it was Jud who raised an interesting point some months ago in regards to very high resolution audio where the required filters simply weren't up to the task of dealing with the data stream yet, and in such cases the higher bitrate files could sound worse than lower resolution counterparts.

 

It would seem to me in this wonderful world of analog music, and that many prefer a smooth response such would hold true for music itself being presented in a smoothed fashion. I also think this is primarily one of the reasons many prefer tubes over solid state gear ( I enjoy a tube every now and then on some material).

 

Maybe listening too closely or at such high resolution isn't the best way to go about things. Of course it's a personal experience for listeners.

Link to comment
.......and I can't help but wondering of that same example of photography rings true for the many proponents of MP3 where less may in fact be 'more'.

 

I believe it was Jud who raised an interesting point some months ago in regards to very high resolution audio where the required filters simply weren't up to the task of dealing with the data stream yet, and in such cases the higher bitrate files could sound worse than lower resolution counterparts.

 

It would seem to me in this wonderful world of analog music, and that many prefer a smooth response such would hold true for music itself being presented in a smoothed fashion. I also think this is primarily one of the reasons many prefer tubes over solid state gear ( I enjoy a tube every now and then on some material).

 

Maybe listening too closely or at such high resolution isn't the best way to go about things. Of course it's a personal experience for listeners.

 

Then, we should listen to non compressed digital music with a piece of cotton in each ear?

 

There are a lot of DACs with the nice price where the filters (between another things) are very well implemented. Please try the TEAC UD-501, maybe you would be surprised. I am. Smooth response from smooth recorded music, of course.

 

BTW, regarding modern tube gear of today, it's very, very resolving. But unfortunately not at the nice price.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Roch

Link to comment

I am sorry if I disappointed you Peter, but I do not understand why one wouldn't be offended by a remark such as that. Culturally, people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are seen as disturbed and completely crazy. Add to that, those people who claim to have been abducted are rare, and often considered freaks. Intentional or not, it paints one as woefully hopeless if they dare to say they hear these differences. Let's keep in mind that there is a significant percentage of people who claim to experience this sort of phenomena. Franky, too large a portion of posters here observe this sort of thing for it to be considered "unusual". Certainly not enough so for them to have to support it under the so often stated Carl Sagan remark.

Hi 4est,

 

Indeed I wrote the "alien abduction" remark, but if you read that post again, you will also notice the remark I put right before I wrote it. However, if you are suggesting I intentionally made that remark to hurt, offend or insult other people you are dead-wrong. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe about me and my intentions, but I must confess I am rather disappointed with your post.

 

Peter

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...