Fear and loathing not required

[crisnee]

Let me settle everything, for all, forever. I'd like to go further, but I don't want to appear too presumptuous.

 

For the objectivists, there is only one fact.

 

For the subjectivists, judgment is all there is.

 

For everyone (The Beatles included), Love is all there is.

 

Chris

[pagan]

deleted

[4est]

I am sorry if it seems like I am picking on you, but this sort of thinking is one of the roots of all of these problems in my mind. Too many people are saying what others are thinking or interpret their actions. Often then we are pigeon holed into labels that comprise much more than we are comfortable with individually. I see this akin to (American) politics where the candidates spend more time talking about what their opponent, than what they intend to do. In all truth, there are large holes in the explanations of both sub-obj camps- whether or not they admit it Ultimately, if one is so sure of their position, why are they defending it so profusely, and for whom?

Let me settle everything, for all, forever. I'd like to go further, but I don't want to appear too presumptuous.

 

For the objectivists, there is only one fact.

 

For the subjectivists, judgment is all there is.

 

For everyone (The Beatles included), Love is all there is.

 

Chris

[Superdad]

I am sorry if it seems like I am picking on you, but this sort of thinking is one of the roots of all of these problems in my mind. Too many people are saying what others are thinking or interpret their actions. Often then we are pigeon holed into labels that comprise much more than we are comfortable with individually. I see this akin to (American) politics where the candidates spend more time talking about what their opponent, than what they intend to do. In all truth, there are large holes in the explanations of both sub-obj camps- whether or not they admit it Ultimately, if one is so sure of their position, why are they defending it so profusely, and for whom?

 

+1 Forest (and +2 about US politics!).

[REShaman]

+1 Forest (and +2 about US politics!).

 

This awareness applies equally to couples relationship and relationships in general. Best not to tell others what s/he is saying. Better to relate what you heard and then ask if you got it right.

 

Offered in support of deepening the connection.

 

Best,

Richard

[InfernoSTi]

Excellent post and excellent thinking John.

 

I think those areas you bring up are very pertinent and could bring real benefits if they were investigated more. I feel some of the other minutia even when real is often of rather minor difference in the sound we hear.

 

Thank you for the conversation, Dennis.

 

I should thank you for allowing me to chase down a few trails to find which ones come up short, rather than just telling me "I'm wrong" (what would I have learned from that?). As ever, I am left with as many questions, but perhaps they are better questions, thanks to you.

 

I agree. For me, timbre in the reproduction of music is very important. So is just wandering in the woods.

 

Jim, so both timbre and timber are important? I agree with you (and that brought a smile, too)...

 

Best,

John

[InfernoSTi]

Hi John - you have to account for intent in the testing. Just as in the case of drug tests being skewed when sponsored and directed by a pharma company with a financial interest in the results, so to are many audio test skewed to favor one or another set of results.

 

This is, unfortunately, just a true on the side of the so called 'objectivists' as it is on all the other sides. Perhaps more so because the loudest adherents believe they already know the answers. This is also a common circumstance, at least in the history of western civilization.

 

Hi Paul,

 

I struggled with a form of this question a lot (you can see it in my earlier posts, perhaps).

 

The way I worded it was to call "intent in testing" a subjective preference bias and said that the whole process from the subjective selection of the test to the objective measuring of the test created a false sense of "objectivity" when it was really "subjective." How I overcame this, in my thinking (such as it is), was to develop the three part test.

 

The first part acknowledges that there is a subjective element to the selection of the test but calls for results to be repeatable by others. In other words, it says you can't just commit fraud and make up fake data because, to be truly objective, you must identify the test that is chosen in the first place and have others replicate the results. This allows one to validate both the premise and the conclusion separately. Was it the right test? Are the results repeatable?

 

The second part acknowledged that there are some tests that are true yet don't matter unless one is at 9.9/10ths with the rest of their systems. If they haven't treated their rooms very well (or at all), worrying about the "flatness" of their speakers at +/-3 dB vs. +/-2 dB is silly. There is a corollary to other components in the music reproduction chain. Big things first, medium things second, small things last. I think people would be shocked to actually measure their rooms…it was shocking to me the first time I hooked it up and ran REW…at that point, my perspective changed on the order of magnitude of things. Some things do matter more than other things…and some things are so small, they become preference choices, rather than necessities, even though they are objective.

 

The third part proposed the idea that timbre was important (to me, perhaps equal to any other test once you get past a certain level system) yet seemed to be missing in the objective tests currently. Since it appears to remain in the subjective only category, yet it has a powerful influence on the fidelity of reproduction, perhaps it should be the real area of debate and exploration in taking our systems to the "next level" if they are already very good to begin with. We seem to be missing valuable tests that would help all of us build "better" music reproduction systems.

 

So that is a long way to say "yes and I think I've accounted for it to a degree." What do you think I am missing from your point of view?

 

Best,

John

[Paul R]

Hi John- what I would suggest is missing is the reason and purpose. The end and only really important goal is "does the sound from this equipment please the owner?"

 

The "why" part of it is not all that important from the stakeholder point of view. And there really is only one test that will ensure the stakeholder expectations are met- that is the stakeholder/owner listening to the thing and being pleased.

 

So in audio, when the purpose of a test is showing off or proving someone else wrong or -as we often see here - to save the masses from their own foolishness, the test is useless and foolish. More, it is asinine and hurtful to hobbyists and the industry in general. In the few cases where it does expose true fraud, it is often ignored because of the numerous times when it does not.

 

So what is missing is the measurement of how satisfied and delighted the end users are. I saw a young audiophile a few weeks ago get really upset that he had been duped into buying a useless $150 piece of audiophile equipment, because some smartass told him he had to spend $500 or more to get even a barely acceptable audiophile DAC. The poor kid wanted his laptop to sound good with headphones. He was disappointed with a Dragonfly- though upon questioning, he really loved it.

 

He loved it even more after I told him I had one and loved he sound from it. More, the same thing has happened to me myself- i got a tad upset over a set of amps I really love, because there were much less expensive than the one they replaced. Stupid of me, no?

 

I am not sure I have clearly illustrated the point I was tying to make, but perhaps you can work with that idea a little.

[Superdad]

The first part acknowledges that there is a subjective element to the selection of the test but calls for results to be repeatable by others. In other words, it says you can't just commit fraud and make up fake data because, to be truly objective, you must identify the test that is chosen in the first place and have others replicate the results. This allows one to validate both the premise and the conclusion separately. Was it the right test? Are the results repeatable?

 

John: I like where you are going with this, but I have found that even posting tests--in ample detail--that are repeatable and strongly confirmed by others, does not prevent the "objectivists" from jumping in, decrying that differences can be a heard, and demanding measured proof.

 

To give two examples, here are long reports that I methodically carried out, which resulted in a lot of Mac people switching their playback methods (base on both public and PM responses I got):

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/attention-current-mac-mini-users-boot-mavericks-sd-card-load-ramdisk-dismount-your-internal-sata-drives-and-pour-drink-musicians-walking-out-your-speakers-18159/#post270162

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/my-deep-dive-media-storage-interfaces-musical-differences-heard-between-chipsets-firewire-400-800-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-sata-flash-drives-sd-cards-and-network-shares-warning-may-cause-seizures-dbt-crowd-and-flat-earth-naysayers-18108/#post268712

 

The discussions that followed the above cited reports also led me towards new knowledge and experiments (that was a fun and rewarding month!). Of course not everyone heard the differences at the same magnitude (and I have no idea how pronounced the differences were in anyone's system but my own), and other than theorizing (based on progression and deduction), no "objective" or measurement tests have or can be taken of the results (which, when comparing worst to best medium/interface are quite striking, and to me, totally undeniable).

 

So does any of the above validate or invalidate my research and reporting? How does it fit into your "three-part test?"

 

Cheers,

Alex C.

(I'm the Alex that has yet to be able to hear bit-identical files sound different; But a 4-way shoot-out of 25-ft Ethernet cables yielded an obvious winner.)

[esldude]

big snippage........

The discussions that followed the above cited reports also led me towards new knowledge and experiments (that was a fun and rewarding month!). Of course not everyone heard the differences at the same magnitude (and I have no idea how pronounced the differences were in anyone's system but my own), and other than theorizing (based on progression and deduction), no "objective" or measurement tests have or can be taken of the results (which, when comparing worst to best medium/interface are quite striking, and to me, totally undeniable).

 

more snippage.....

 

 

Well Alex, I would disagree about the bold phrase above. No objective measurements were taken, but they could have been in some of the things you experimented with. If they found nothing, and you heard something then you are back to the same old conundrum.

 

Maybe some of your experiments changed something. Or if not would those totally undeniable results have been present done blind. It isn't news that humans hear convincing differences when they know they did something even if nothing is different. They hear something when something is different too. Which is the conundrum of it all.

 

So no amount of detail nor strong sighted confirmation from others rises above that old problem. You should never have expected it to convince "the other side" with that approach. That is not news.

[thesurfingalien]

Cheers,

Alex C.

(I'm the Alex that has yet to be able to hear bit-identical files sound different; But a 4-way shoot-out of 25-ft Ethernet cables yielded an obvious winner.)

 

Is there any reason in particular for you to include this footnote?

[InfernoSTi]

Hi John- what I would suggest is missing is the reason and purpose. The end and only really important goal is "does the sound from this equipment please the owner?"

 

The "why" part of it is not all that important from the stakeholder point of view. And there really is only one test that will ensure the stakeholder expectations are met- that is the stakeholder/owner listening to the thing and being pleased.

 

So in audio, when the purpose of a test is showing off or proving someone else wrong or -as we often see here - to save the masses from their own foolishness, the test is useless and foolish. More, it is asinine and hurtful to hobbyists and the industry in general. In the few cases where it does expose true fraud, it is often ignored because of the numerous times when it does not.

 

So what is missing is the measurement of how satisfied and delighted the end users are. I saw a young audiophile a few weeks ago get really upset that he had been duped into buying a useless $150 piece of audiophile equipment, because some smartass told him he had to spend $500 or more to get even a barely acceptable audiophile DAC. The poor kid wanted his laptop to sound good with headphones. He was disappointed with a Dragonfly- though upon questioning, he really loved it.

 

He loved it even more after I told him I had one and loved he sound from it. More, the same thing has happened to me myself- i got a tad upset over a set of amps I really love, because there were much less expensive than the one they replaced. Stupid of me, no?

 

I am not sure I have clearly illustrated the point I was tying to make, but perhaps you can work with that idea a little.

 

Paul,

 

I understand what you are saying. I built a little very inexpensive one tube per channel (SPUD) amp that blew away all my previous amps. It was small and simple and pure…and the imagining and tone were scary real. I spent months just listening to everything in awe. It gave me a new "language" about what was important and when I find "it" in my other equipment, I know I am there. It is a confidence drawn from experience and, to a degree, luck. There is no going back, as you can imagine. Of course, it had a weakness…lack of bass extension that some held up (objectively) as a weakness that made it objectively inferior to amps with greater extension. My solution? Find an amp that had both the "scary real" sound and the full extension of range, which I have done (and am halfway to a mono block set that improves on that, as well).

 

That said, I also see the sharks amongst the fishes. I suppose I have learned to tell the difference by the manner in which they approach an issue. If they insist they are singularly right and no other solution is equal, then I typically put them into the "this deal is too good to be true" (and it usually is, right?) category. If they care more about winning than helping others find musical reproduction happiness, then that becomes obvious they aren't seeking the same thing I am seeking. This is a bit more difficult the less absolute folks become…but then that is it's own solution.

 

So I guess the idea that somebody has to believe something just because the test shows a predictable result is only 1/2 of the first concept. The other half is that the test preference must be explored to see if it is of value. In other words, putting context into the test based on other variables is the key.

 

In the context of the subjective test selection, the order of magnitude relative to other parts of the whole, and the "non-tested" components (such as timbre) will place the repeatable testing into it's proper place.

 

I had a short but interesting off-line discussion of preference vs. accuracy with Dennis. It revolved around THD and the preference of some for a small amount of even order harmonics. The recent posts of the BBC dip are another example of this. Just because we say something in the music chain is "flat" doesn't mean it sounds better. This is because we are not machines. We are humans with very particular hearing instruments (our ears, our bones surrounding our ears, our nervous system and how we react to particular sounds based on, perhaps, our history of survival that required location of threats at pre-conscious speed or we would die: we need to locate a sound in space and have involuntary reactions to those sounds). So all this stuff that isn't really based on testing to a biased test (i.e. "flat is more accurate" when in fact dips or certain types of distortion are "preferred").

 

The conclusion I reached was that for many of these issues, it was possible to define what was "preferred" and test for that objectively. Too much even order harmonics sounded too bloated. Too little sounded to dry and unrealistic. Too much odd order sounded harsh. Too little THD sounded un-engaging. Or with the BBC dip, -2 dB at 2.5K sounded "preferred" but less or more didn't. It wasn't that it was unpredictable, it was that it wasn't based on "accuracy" as much as "preference" but could still be tested and repeated.

 

This is the measure of honesty in the audio world. But it requires a deeper understanding that some are willing to delve into. All that speculation and testing (trying new things that are different to see how they sound) to gain some deeper insight is what is needed but many dismiss the value of doing it themselves.

 

I suppose that I consider "bad behavior for personal gain" a separate problem that I can't overcome because it is involves many other factors including the fact that some desire conspicuous consumption for it's own sake and while some are offended, others are rewarded. Who am I to say which is right? What I am willing to do is require a clear statement of purpose: is it trying to find the best sound for the money or is it to impress others by the amount of money spent? Once that statement is made, then an honest conversation can occur.

 

I am trying hard to be responsive to your question and recognize I may have missed the mark, still.

 

Best,

John

 

P.S. Since you are perhaps an hour away, if you ever want to come down and hear my system, you could report back if you think I'm on the right track or just wandering in the woods….you are welcome, schedules permitting.

[InfernoSTi]

John: I like where you are going with this, but I have found that even posting tests--in ample detail--that are repeatable and strongly confirmed by others, does not prevent the "objectivists" from jumping in, decrying that differences can be a heard, and demanding measured proof.

 

To give two examples, here are long reports that I methodically carried out, which resulted in a lot of Mac people switching their playback methods (base on both public and PM responses I got):

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/attention-current-mac-mini-users-boot-mavericks-sd-card-load-ramdisk-dismount-your-internal-sata-drives-and-pour-drink-musicians-walking-out-your-speakers-18159/#post270162

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/my-deep-dive-media-storage-interfaces-musical-differences-heard-between-chipsets-firewire-400-800-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-sata-flash-drives-sd-cards-and-network-shares-warning-may-cause-seizures-dbt-crowd-and-flat-earth-naysayers-18108/#post268712

 

The discussions that followed the above cited reports also led me towards new knowledge and experiments (that was a fun and rewarding month!). Of course not everyone heard the differences at the same magnitude (and I have no idea how pronounced the differences were in anyone's system but my own), and other than theorizing (based on progression and deduction), no "objective" or measurement tests have or can be taken of the results (which, when comparing worst to best medium/interface are quite striking, and to me, totally undeniable).

 

So does any of the above validate or invalidate my research and reporting? How does it fit into your "three-part test?"

 

Cheers,

Alex C.

(I'm the Alex that has yet to be able to hear bit-identical files sound different; But a 4-way shoot-out of 25-ft Ethernet cables yielded an obvious winner.)

 

Alex,

 

To me, I suppose it is a similar answer as I gave Paul. There is lack of agreement as to the subjective test and a lack of acknowledgement that "preference" and "accuracy" are two separate concepts. I have said before we don't listen to test tones. What I mean by that is that accuracy is great in certain measure but if it doesn't produced a preferred musical reproduction, then it isn't as good.

 

For me, I suppose the rest of it goes to what I have said before, as well. Civility and respect allow us to disagree and all grow. Rudeness and disrespect stop all sharing, learning, and growth and eventually lead to name calling which ultimately leads to Godwin's Law which I say means the person who resorted to name calling lost, regardless of the facts.

 

Resorting to aggression is as persuasive as saying "Oh yeah?!!!" and expecting others to see the light. Do people really think that when they are being mean spirited and taunting that the other party will suddenly think, since you said "Oh yeah?!!!" and called me a bastard, I can now see your point of view…how enlightened I am. Of course not. They are just being mean and no longer seeking to move the learning forward.

 

To be honest, I see this behavior in both camps so I don't think it is related to objective/subjective but more towards people's personality and, perhaps, lack of skill in gaining alignment with others in their point of view.

 

Does that address your concerns or am I missing something still?

 

Best,

John

[sandyk]

Is there any reason in particular for you to include this footnote?

 

 

Perhaps it's time that I responded to Paul's comments about my frequent mentioning of Sydney as a more suitable environment coming across as boastful ? The simple reasons are that the comparison .wav files are saved to a Corsair Voyager using an external low noise +5V JLH PSU and a modified USB cable. They are also played the same way. When the files are played in Sydney, whether I am present or not, they are played using the same external +5V JLH PSU or a spare PSU.

It can easily be demonstrated that doing this with a USB memory stick or USB HDD in association with a desktop PC or SMPS powered media player's USB port gives improved playback of ALL the saved .wav files.

 

This kind of thing will certainly not be news to the many members who use SOtM USB cards, or iFi PSUs. with their USB DACS.

 

For others to hear these files the way that I hear them , I would need to send overseas a Corsair Voyager USB memory stick along with a companion +5V JLH PSU and modified USB cable. I would also need to fit a transformer with dual primary windings and a voltage selector switch.

 

Alex K.

[gmgraves]

I am sorry if it seems like I am picking on you, but this sort of thinking is one of the roots of all of these problems in my mind. Too many people are saying what others are thinking or interpret their actions. Often then we are pigeon holed into labels that comprise much more than we are comfortable with individually. I see this akin to (American) politics where the candidates spend more time talking about what their opponent, than what they intend to do. In all truth, there are large holes in the explanations of both sub-obj camps- whether or not they admit it Ultimately, if one is so sure of their position, why are they defending it so profusely, and for whom?

 

 

To me, this objective/subjective thing is non-productive. As I see it, the only rational way to look at the situation in audio (as well as anything else) is to note a phenomenon, decide if the phenomenon is repeatable, if not, shrug your shoulders and move on. If it is repeatable, find a way to test it to see if it's real. If it's not, shrug your shoulders and move on. If it is real embrace the positive effects of the phenomenon and be happy. It's that simple.

[Don Hills]

This thread reminds me very strongly of a song which goes, in part:

 

"Everybody else is wrong

Doesn't everyone concur, oh no

Thank you for the vote of confidence

I feel so much surer now that

Everybody else is wrong"

- Todd Rundgren / Roger Powell

 

George's post just above sums up my own thoughts on the topic.

[InfernoSTi]

Since we are quoting songs this thread reminds folks of, here is mine:

 

"Oh yeah, all right

Are you going to be in my dreams

Tonight?

 

Love You, Love You

 

And in the end

The love you take

Is equal to the love you make"

 

- The Beatles

 

To me, the value one puts into the thread is equal to the value one gets out of the thread.

 

Best,

John

[Don Hills]

... To me, the value one puts into the thread is equal to the value one gets out of the thread. ...

 

Indeed.

 

A few posts back, you said timbre becomes increasingly important to you as the overall quality of the system improves. How do you (specifically you) define timbre? What qualities in the sound do you look for?

[InfernoSTi]

Indeed.

 

A few posts back, you said timbre becomes increasingly important to you as the overall quality of the system improves. How do you (specifically you) define timbre? What qualities in the sound do you look for?

 

I think a lot of tests fail to address the timbre of the musical reproduction. I don't see a lot of objective tests showing what sounds "more like a real instrument" A or B. I think this is how we get a lot of the "that sounds better to me" discussion. It isn't that the objective data should be questioned, it is that there are differences in how amplified recordings sound from source to amplification to transduction. In the end, this seems more a preference than a question of accuracy of reproduction. The discussion of how different styles of tweeters can all measure the same but sound different from each other is related to this issue. So I think we need more acknowledgement of timbre in the reproduction of music.

 

In summary: (1) while the preference is subjective, the test is objective and the results predictable; (2) we need more of an understanding of the scale of importance of the test relative to other measures; and (3) we need better testing of timbre in the reproduction of music.

 

The third part proposed the idea that timbre was important (to me, perhaps equal to any other test once you get past a certain level system) yet seemed to be missing in the objective tests currently. Since it appears to remain in the subjective only category, yet it has a powerful influence on the fidelity of reproduction, perhaps it should be the real area of debate and exploration in taking our systems to the "next level" if they are already very good to begin with. We seem to be missing valuable tests that would help all of us build "better" music reproduction systems.

 

Yes, indeed, I did say that timbre (wiki link provided) is important to me and yet I found that there was not an objective test for timbre that people hold up.

 

So what qualities in sound do I look for? Balance and lifelike reproduction of sound. Of course I don't know what it sounded like live or in the studio, so I am guessing. By balanced, I mean avoiding sound that is inherently fatiguing, harsh, and brittle rather than sound that is purposely so; equally, I mean avoiding sound that is inherently fat or overly lush or blurred. The real issue here is that the idea is that accuracy is supposed to produce this best. Yet we see different examples where this isn't agreed upon. I think that BBC dip thread covers this point very well.

 

I suspect that for many, "accuracy" is a good measure, but that has not been the case in all of my experience. I would substitute the word "preference" instead. Yet the tones and pace and harmonics that let us distinguish different instruments seem to very with different equipment that, objectively, should sound the same. I won't go into my different types of tweeters example again…you have read it and either agree or disagree. All I can say is my current speakers sound more "right there real" than my previous speakers.

 

I will say that this is a phenomenon that is exhibited throughout the music reproduction chain: source, amplification, and transduction. When I bought my DAC, the seller mentioned he thought the instrumental and vocal timbres were very realistic, while I have had this experience with a couple of amps more so than the others I have tried. My speakers currently use an AMT style tweeter that sounds much more realistic than the previous ones I have used, some of which were nice (none of which were super fancy, though).

 

I know there are people who don't hear a difference in the components of their systems. These people believe that all equipment sounds the same (source format, DACs, amps, speakers, rooms). I say they are lucky…they can buy the least expensive kit and get the most enjoyment out of their systems.

 

So on the one end, we might say the higher degree of accuracy, the better things sound. On the other extreme, we might say it all sounds the same no matter what. A third idea is that some equipment sounds better for reasons not yet fully agreed upon.

 

I also think this is similar to the debate of 16/44 vs 24/192 vs DSD when, in reality, the recording and mastering have more to do with the quality of sound that the resolution. We all know examples of a well recorded/mastered CD sounding better than a poorly recorded/mastered DVD/Blu-Ray/SACD (or equivalent download). There is more to music reproduction than the specifications.

 

So how do you test for "better recording and mastering" and how do you test for better timbre? This is exactly what I'm calling for. I don't know the answer but I think it has a much value to discover as looking for the next degree of digital resolution: we are pretty good right now in that regard.

 

What do you think the role of timbre plays? No role, it's a myth? A majority role, it's the answer to the question? Some mix depending on the quality of the overall system?

 

I look forward to your thoughtful response. If you can show me how I should revise my thinking, I will do so with great pleasure knowing I learned something new today.

 

Best,

John

 

P.S. I don't hold myself up to be an expert in this field, it is just a hobby of mine. So if I need to be a trained musician to discuss timbre or an EE to discuss accuracy, then I will quietly bow out of the conversation as I don't hold either expertise. If that makes my opinion less valid, I can accept that, too. Those with the most knowledge should hold a higher place of respect if they share it with others.

[mayhem13]

Yes, indeed, I did say that timbre (wiki link provided) is important to me and yet I found that there was not an objective test for timbre that people hold up.

 

So what qualities in sound do I look for? Balance and lifelike reproduction of sound. Of course I don't know what it sounded like live or in the studio, so I am guessing. By balanced, I mean avoiding sound that is inherently fatiguing, harsh, and brittle rather than sound that is purposely so; equally, I mean avoiding sound that is inherently fat or overly lush or blurred. The real issue here is that the idea is that accuracy is supposed to produce this best. Yet we see different examples where this isn't agreed upon. I think that BBC dip thread covers this point very well.

 

I suspect that for many, "accuracy" is a good measure, but that has not been the case in all of my experience. I would substitute the word "preference" instead. Yet the tones and pace and harmonics that let us distinguish different instruments seem to very with different equipment that, objectively, should sound the same. I won't go into my different types of tweeters example again…you have read it and either agree or disagree. All I can say is my current speakers sound more "right there real" than my previous speakers.

 

I will say that this is a phenomenon that is exhibited throughout the music reproduction chain: source, amplification, and transduction. When I bought my DAC, the seller mentioned he thought the instrumental and vocal timbres were very realistic, while I have had this experience with a couple of amps more so than the others I have tried. My speakers currently use an AMT style tweeter that sounds much more realistic than the previous ones I have used, some of which were nice (none of which were super fancy, though).

 

I know there are people who don't hear a difference in the components of their systems. These people believe that all equipment sounds the same (source format, DACs, amps, speakers, rooms). I say they are lucky…they can buy the least expensive kit and get the most enjoyment out of their systems.

 

So on the one end, we might say the higher degree of accuracy, the better things sound. On the other extreme, we might say it all sounds the same no matter what. A third idea is that some equipment sounds better for reasons not yet fully agreed upon.

 

I also think this is similar to the debate of 16/44 vs 24/192 vs DSD when, in reality, the recording and mastering have more to do with the quality of sound that the resolution. We all know examples of a well recorded/mastered CD sounding better than a poorly recorded/mastered DVD/Blu-Ray/SACD (or equivalent download). There is more to music reproduction than the specifications.

 

So how do you test for "better recording and mastering" and how do you test for better timbre? This is exactly what I'm calling for. I don't know the answer but I think it has a much value to discover as looking for the next degree of digital resolution: we are pretty good right now in that regard.

 

What do you think the role of timbre plays? No role, it's a myth? A majority role, it's the answer to the question? Some mix depending on the quality of the overall system?

 

I look forward to your thoughtful response. If you can show me how I should revise my thinking, I will do so with great pleasure knowing I learned something new today.

 

Best,

John

 

P.S. I don't hold myself up to be an expert in this field, it is just a hobby of mine. So if I need to be a trained musician to discuss timbre or an EE to discuss accuracy, then I will quietly bow out of the conversation as I don't hold either expertise. If that makes my opinion less valid, I can accept that, too. Those with the most knowledge should hold a higher place of respect if they share it with others.

 

Finally, a post within this horror of a thread that raises some excellent questions that deserve answers. Besides, the fundamental tone, there's the embedded harmonics when considering mechanical and electronic devices that produce sound. When individual speakers are tested, they're tested with a single tone without harmonics and then the speakers is measured for ordered harmonics produced where there are none in the test tone. In these cases, they're considered distortions as they are 'produced' by the driver.....for whatever the reason. When viewing those measured orders of HD, the driver's 'timbre' can be established to some degree. The measurements are MUCH more chaotic than the fundamental and different for every driver, even slightly for those tested that are the same product. Looking further at HD, we have even and odd orders where depending on the fundamental tone can sound either musical or not. Usually, 2nd order is even and as such not particularly offensive and for some, actually enjoyable. Use typical ribbon tweeters as an example, we find often very high 2nd order HD lower in frequency, yet we also hear many of the OP's examples of timbre used as 'airy' and such.

 

So yes, Timbre can be measured, .......but the results aren't very usefull in the contents of complex music. As to many of the descriptors used to describe an audible experience I find when properly described with an example, a measurable reason for those actually exist.

[esldude]

, "Timbre depends primarily upon the spectrum of the stimulus, but it also depends upon the waveform, the sound pressure, the frequency location of the spectrum, and the temporal characteristics of the stimulus" (American Standards Association 1960, 45).

 

Timbre has been called, "...the psychoacoustician's multidimensional waste-basket category for everything that cannot be labeled pitch or loudness." (McAdams and Bregman 1979, 34; cf. Dixon Ward 1965, 55 and Tobias 1970, 409).

 

Also said to be the difference between two sounds of equal loudness and frequency, but which sound different.

 

Much as Mayhem13 has described it. You have a fundamental, you have overtones, you have different mixes of levels in those overtones, and the overtones with a different phase to the fundamental can be heard as different as well. Good electronics likely won't change any of those. And as mayhem eludes to, lots of it will likely be in speaker differences. The right kind of overtone structure in low level distortion might enhance certain instrumental timbre or even cover it up making it worse.

 

One could create test tones with different timbre by making them with the different overtone structure. Some of that has been done, I have seen papers back in the 50's and 60's where that was discussed some. But the results were less simple and seemed to follow what one would expect based upon the usual tests with simple single tone sine waves. Speakers would be more complex and vary more I would assume. In principle one could test it, but it might not translate in being able to say with any certainty speaker A has better timbre than speaker B for instance. Too many other variables, and different people probably have more variable preferences than in other areas.

 

Some people often discuss how violins sound. Sound from a bowed string isn't too dissimilar from sawtooth waves. So not surprising something with that complex harmonic structure would have a timbre that is different on different speakers or in different listening rooms.

[crisnee]

Originally Posted by crisnee

Let me settle everything, for all, forever. I'd like to go further, but I don't want to appear too presumptuous.

 

For the objectivists, there is only one fact.

 

For the subjectivists, judgment is all there is.

 

For everyone (The Beatles included), Love is all there is.

I am sorry if it seems like I am picking on you, but this sort of thinking is one of the roots of all of these problems in my mind. Too many people are saying what others are thinking or interpret their actions. Often then we are pigeon holed into labels that comprise much more than we are comfortable with individually. I see this akin to (American) politics where the candidates spend more time talking about what their opponent, than what they intend to do. In all truth, there are large holes in the explanations of both sub-obj camps- whether or not they admit it Ultimately, if one is so sure of their position, why are they defending it so profusely, and for whom?

 

Apparently I did not make my point. I was essentially saying what you're saying 4est except in profound joke form. I thought the fact that I wanted to do better than solve all problems forever might have given that away.

 

Chris

[gmgraves]

Yes, indeed, I did say that timbre (wiki link provided) is important to me and yet I found that there was not an objective test for timbre that people hold up.

 

Is timbre the sound a tree a makes in a forest when it falls and there is no one there to hear it?

[Daudio]

Is timbre the sound a tree a makes in a forest when it falls and there is no one there to hear it?

 

Nope, it is the sound the lumbermen make when the fellers cut passes a critical point, to warn and protect his fellow lumbermen. So there are always human ears to hear it, otherwise it is useless.

[Superdad]

You have a fundamental, you have overtones, you have different mixes of levels in those overtones, and the overtones with a different phase to the fundamental can be heard as different as well. Good electronics likely won't change any of those.

 

HA, HA, HA, HA!! Dream on Dennis. Timbral and temporal performance of amplifiers differs greatly.

See, you have gone and done it. You have admitted there is a whole area of reproduction for which the ear is a far more direct and and nuanced measurement tool than current analyzer instrumentation. In 10 seconds the ear can tell which of two waveforms sounds more like a real instrument; It might take a year to figure out the same just looking at an analyzer.