Fear and loathing not required

[Superdad]

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.

 

Sorry Dennis, the conundrum is yours not mine. My tests are repeatable, and as I have explained before, they can be done blind (A+ playlists list the same track 4 times--with them located in different places--and you can't know which is which until afterwards by moving the track and checking).

 

And dozens of people with different systems reporting similar results? Don't you ever get tired of riding that "expectation bias" horse. That horse will be going lame soon and you will have to shoot it.

[Don Hills]

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.

 

Your definition, later in your post, generally matches my own definition. How recognisable or "true to life" an instrument sounds. As the Wikipedia link says, this can be specified by its envelope and the mix of harmonics. Synth and patch manufacturers measure these so that they can recreate them. (Some of them are quite good at it, to judge by listening to their product.) But I do agree that it can be hard to develop an objective measurement for timbre. You can measure the differences between the source and the system's reproduction of it, assuming that you can get the source. This is why synthetic test signals are used, whose characteristics are precisely known, and are crafted to mimic the envelopes and spectral composition of "real" music. You still have the problem of matching the differences seen to their audible effects.

 

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.

 

The sound usually will be shaped much more in recording and production than in reproduction, assuming a reasonably competent reproduction system. Something as simple as moving a microphone a few centimetres will usually have a more profound effect than changing DACs. What you hear is what the producers (artists, producers, tracking / mixing / mastering engineers) want you to hear, whether you prefer it or not. That's why I believe that focussing on accuracy in reproduction is important. A system has to get that right. Once that is achieved, you can tailor the sound to your preferences. I do wonder why audiophiles consider tone controls and equalisers to be not worthy of consideration but then mix and match equipment to achieve the same end result. I'd rather buy something like a Cello Audio Palette and do it all from the comfort of my armchair...

 

... When I bought my DAC, the seller mentioned he thought the instrumental and vocal timbres were very realistic ...

 

That's a good example of expectation bias.

 

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. ...

 

Although you may think of me as an "objectivist", I do accept that components can sound different, especially the "elephants in the room" and the room itself. This doesn't mean that I consider that these differences are desirable. I think we should continue to hold designers' and manufacturers' feet to the fire to encourage them to make progress. For validation, I only have to point to the number of subjectively and objectively excellent DACs available at a reaonsable price compared to the state of the art only a few years ago.

 

Surprisingly, musicians tend to be over-represented among people who think all systems sound the same, or at least consider the sound to be relatively unimportant. They are best placed to judge how an instrument should sound, yet they can discern minute differences in intonation and style on a system that would have audiophiles running from the room.

 

... 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.

 

I don't believe you can test for preference. Your lifelike violin may be too sharp / thin / warm / tubby for another.

 

 

Timbre is important. A trumpet should sound like a trumpet, not a kazoo. But as I've said, I believe the role of the system is to reproduce the sound of the trumpet as it was delivered to me, not the way I remember it as sounding. There's no one "voicing" for a system that will suit all music. I'd rather have a system that reproduces all music equally rather than one that excels at one style. That's a personal preference though. I appreciate that others may prefer systems that suit the genres that they prefer to listen to. A classical music enthusiast is going to look for different strengths in their system than a death metal enthusiast. (I had to correct a typo there, I typed "deaf" instead of "death"...) Even metal-heads have a sub-set who consider fidelity important, for example: Metal-Fi

 

... 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.

 

I don't feel the need to revise your thinking. When it comes to preference, everyone is entitled to their own. Nowadays I'm more interested in the reasons behind perceived differences. (Perceived, as in they may be real or they may not.) For example, I can accept that Alex hears clear, repeatable differences between two bit-identical files ripped with different hardware. I don't accept that the differences in the ripping systems are responsible for the differences he hears.

 

Regards,

Don.

[sandyk]

Don

Please check your PMs

Alex

[Jud]

That's why I believe that focussing on accuracy in reproduction is important. A system has to get that right. Once that is achieved, you can tailor the sound to your preferences. I do wonder why audiophiles consider tone controls and equalisers to be not worthy of consideration but then mix and match equipment to achieve the same end result. I'd rather buy something like a Cello Audio Palette and do it all from the comfort of my armchair...

 

I agree about accuracy first. I also dislike "system matching," which combines two components that are audibly incorrect in hopes of achieving accuracy. Each component should on its own be as accurate as possible, or at least, as Dennis recently said, make errors of omission rather than commission.

 

Something I think people tend to forget about equalizers or tone controls, whether they are hardware or software, is that just like any other audio hardware or software, they may not be transparent where you are *not* trying to make adjustments.

 

Surprisingly, musicians tend to be over-represented among people who think all systems sound the same, or at least consider the sound to be relatively unimportant. They are best placed to judge how an instrument should sound, yet they can discern minute differences in intonation and style on a system that would have audiophiles running from the room.

 

I played in a school orchestra (French horn, terribly) for a few years, and I would disagree. First, the sound you hear from your own instrument differs from that anyone else hears, just as a recording captures your voice as others hear it, but not as you do. Second, the sound of a group of instruments varies depending on your seat in the audience, let alone a seat in the midst of the group.

 

, "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.

 

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.

 

Overtones (harmonics) are critical, and I think it is also important not to forget temporal characteristics, particularly phrasing and attack transients. It is the difference between a synthesizer set to the sound of a clarinet, and the sound of a clarinet itself.

[gmgraves]

Surprisingly, musicians tend to be over-represented among people who think all systems sound the same, or at least consider the sound to be relatively unimportant. They are best placed to judge how an instrument should sound, yet they can discern minute differences in intonation and style on a system that would have audiophiles running from the room.

 

Regards,

Don.

 

Interestingly enough, a jazz musician, whose group I was recording, explained that to me, because I'd noticed the same phenomenon over the years. Put simply, musicians listen for different things than do audiophiles. Mostly, speaking sound wise, most musicians tend to gravitate toward equipment that makes "their instrument" sound right to them, if they care about sound quality at all. But many (maybe even most) don't care. They listen to the intonation and the technique of themselves or other players of their instrument. This Jazz trumpet player told me that he can hear what he's listening for on a table radio, and that a high-end audio system doesn't enhance his listening experience one whit. When I asked him why he doesn't appreciate good sound, his answer was that he got to hear the real thing every day. Why would he need to listen to canned music?

 

An exception seems to be symphony orchestra conductors. Many of those have expensive, high-end systems because they have to hear minute details of the entire orchestra to spot problems in the group caused by such things as poor ensemble playing, missed cues, etc. But even that isn't universal. I used to record the San Jose Symphony Orchestra, with a fairly well known Austrian conductor named Georg Cleve (of Midsummer Mozart fame). I could have given him superb reel-to-reel master tapes of the performances, but he only wanted compact cassettes (this was before digital). At his home, he had only a Pioneer receiver, a Sony cassette deck, and a pair of the larger Advent speakers! On the other hand, when I recorded Seiji Ozawa with the San Francisco Symphony several years later, his home system was "state-of-the-art" for the time: Audio Research SP6 Preamp, Audio Research power amps (don't know the model number), Infinity Quantum Line Source speakers, a Revox A77 Half-track/15ips tape recorder, an Empire 398 turntable/arm with a Koetsu MC cartridge, and a Marantz 10B FM tuner! it was, without a doubt, the best system I'd ever heard at the time. He required 15 ips, half-track "study tapes" of his performances on 10.5" reels.

 

I still have some of the master tapes from both the San Jose and the San Francisco Symphony concerts. Most of them, alas, are unplayable as they were recorded on Ampex "Grand Master" tape. This was the biggest disaster in the whole history of recorded music! Ampex applied a black coating on the back of their Grand Master tape to increase grip between the recorder's capstan and the tape with an eye to reducing wow and flutter (especially scrape flutter). Unfortunately, after a very few years, the backing started to turn to goo, adhering one layer of tape to the next and pulling huge chunks of oxide off of the tape when it was played or spooled. Luckily, I was able to transfer many of the tapes to CD before they became unplayable and I only used the Ampex stuff for one season - unfortunately, the season I recorded the SF Symphony with Ozawa. The rest of the recordings were made with either Maxell R-to-R tape or Sony FeCr R-to-R tape formulations and those are still fine.

[Paul R]

Most of the musicians I know, and I bashfully admit to knowing a lot of them, don't have killer audio systems for some rather simple reasons. First, they do not make a great deal of money, and secondly, what free money they do have they tend to spend on new instruments or other things that help them make music, not reproduce it.

 

One can get a large number of free tickets and free beers helping these folks to come up with a system they adore for a most minuscule cost.

 

The musicians I know with six figure salaries all have killer systems, and tend to have high res recordings of their orchestras and/or performances and film scores. They also tend to have instruments that cost as much as my house.

[wgscott]

I will NEVER accept I am wrong ...

 

Do you see the logical parallels?

 

[christopher3393]

Do you see the logical parallels?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10676[/ATTACH]

 

The parallels are specious. I suspect they may be based on superficial understanding of and perhaps prejudice against religion as well as metaphysics as indicated in other posts. Bill, either you know something about these and other philosophical and religious issues that you have posted as parallels or you don't. I challenge you to defend your views on metaphysics that have appeared elsewhere, on Freud, on religion. Your views on these issues and their relationship to philosophy of science, then to science, then as analogies to the divisions here, appear to either be sources from logical positivism or analytic philosophy, neither of which necessarily represent anything close to the final word on these issues in the philosophical community. It is very hard to tell how much or how little you know about what lies behind these issues that would allow yo to make analogies between "subjectivists" (a blanket term) and fundamentalists, or as you put it elsewhere, "believers". Anyone I know with even basic knowledge of these issues can see right through this. It appears to me to be highly subjective, emotional, biased, and lacking in background on these issues. I've tried elsewhere to engage you about this but you have not responded. I ask you to either present a better case for your position or admot that you really don't know much about these things and stop b.s.ing. I'm sorry that this is hard edged, but I find your posts on these things as offensive as you find some of the non- or anti-scientific stuuf. Fair enough?

[wdw]

The parallels are specious. I suspect they may be based on superficial understanding of and perhaps prejudice against religion as well as metaphysics as indicated in other posts. Bill, either you know something about these and other philosophical and religious issues that you have posted as parallels or you don't. I challenge you to defend your views on metaphysics that have appeared elsewhere, on Freud, on religion. Your views on these issues and their relationship to philosophy of science, then to science, then as analogies to the divisions here, appear to either be sources from logical positivism or analytic philosophy, neither of which necessarily represent anything close to the final word on these issues in the philosophical community. It is very hard to tell how much or how little you know about what lies behind these issues that would allow yo to make analogies between "subjectivists" (a blanket term) and fundamentalists, or as you put it elsewhere, "believers". Anyone I know with even basic knowledge of these issues can see right through this. It appears to me to be highly subjective, emotional, biased, and lacking in background on these issues. I've tried elsewhere to engage you about this but you have not responded. I ask you to either present a better case for your position or admot that you really don't know much about these things and stop b.s.ing. I'm sorry that this is hard edged, but I find your posts on these things as offensive as you find some of the non- or anti-scientific stuuf. Fair enough?

 

Great post. With all accolades to Dr. Scott in my reply. WDW

[mayhem13]

The parallels are specious. I suspect they may be based on superficial understanding of and perhaps prejudice against religion as well as metaphysics as indicated in other posts. Bill, either you know something about these and other philosophical and religious issues that you have posted as parallels or you don't. I challenge you to defend your views on metaphysics that have appeared elsewhere, on Freud, on religion. Your views on these issues and their relationship to philosophy of science, then to science, then as analogies to the divisions here, appear to either be sources from logical positivism or analytic philosophy, neither of which necessarily represent anything close to the final word on these issues in the philosophical community. It is very hard to tell how much or how little you know about what lies behind these issues that would allow yo to make analogies between "subjectivists" (a blanket term) and fundamentalists, or as you put it elsewhere, "believers". Anyone I know with even basic knowledge of these issues can see right through this. It appears to me to be highly subjective, emotional, biased, and lacking in background on these issues. I've tried elsewhere to engage you about this but you have not responded. I ask you to either present a better case for your position or admot that you really don't know much about these things and stop b.s.ing. I'm sorry that this is hard edged, but I find your posts on these things as offensive as you find some of the non- or anti-scientific stuuf. Fair enough?

 

The problem I find within your well composed rebuttal is that you have grouped all of the unknowns into the question of philosophy when many of them are in fact cultural questions of which for differing cultures so too are their philosophical principles. I'm pretty sure you understand the complexity of the arguement, and I think Bill does too. To suggest otherwise was quite unfair based on suggested parallels. For the sake of a discussion where the playing field isn't exactly level, sometimes a simplistic point of view is what's needed.

 

And let's be as frank as you have suggested....an in depth discussion of philosophical principles in relation to cultural isolation has no business taking place here on CA.

[SuperRoo]

....an in depth discussion of philosophical principles in relation to cultural isolation has no business taking place here on CA.

 

X2

[InfernoSTi]

 

(snip) Us and Them - Pink Floyd

 

And who knows which is which and who is who

 

And in the end it's only round and round and round

Haven't you heard it's a battle of words

 

With, without

 

And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about

[InfernoSTi]

Why does it seem that the "objectivist/subjectivist" argument is a debate of the intrinsic value of an imaginary currency? This currency is knowledge gained from study, investments made (both tangible and emotional), and each side believes they are the richer. Kind of a "my currency is more valuable than your's because that is what I believe is true" even if it is no harder won or firmly believed.

 

The only problem is that this "currency" only has value on the internet audio forums…there isn't another place to go to spend that currency.

 

How much more "wealth" would be created if the two sides built something positive that could be shared outside the confines of the audio chat forums? I can't imagine telling friends and family about some of the debates we have seen lately…yet when the topic turns to greater understanding, sharing perspective in a respectful and civil manner, and finding value in others' perspectives even when they differ from our own, that is something I would be proud to share with my family and friends.

 

Perhaps there are those who share these "battles won and lost" with others but I can't imagine anyone finding that interesting in the slightest. Now some of the experience and knowledge shared? That is amazing stuff...

 

Best,

John

[Superdad]

^^Three cheers to you John for that!

[sandyk]

John

In some other forums we actually do share the knowledge learned , often in the case of DIY Projects that others can join in.

Some of the project threads run into well over 100 pages, even though the total member numbers are far below larger forums like this one. The vast majority of C.A. members would appear to prefer to buy something ready built than build something they can be proud of. A few members have suggested a DIY area here, but nothing has come from it .

There are of course a few exceptions though. Another thing that puzzles me is why with so many U.S.A. members, so few get to visit those with similar interests in their own area.

Are you all paranoid about even letting others know which city you live in ?

Regards

Alex

[InfernoSTi]

John

In some other forums we actually do share the knowledge learned , often in the case of DIY Projects that others can join in.

Some of the project threads run into well over 100 pages, even though the total member numbers are far below larger forums like this one. The vast majority of C.A. members would appear to prefer to buy something ready built than build something they can be proud of. A few members have suggested a DIY area here, but nothing has come from it .

There are of course a few exceptions though. Another thing that puzzles me is why with so many U.S.A. members, so few get to visit those with similar interests in their own area.

Are you all paranoid about even letting others know which city you live in ?

Regards

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

Thanks for responding. You can tell by my earlier thread a while ago on modifying a linear power supply for a CAPS server and from my kit listing that I value DIY very much. I have scratch built tube amps but mostly I use kits as I'm not that good at things yet. One area that I have done a lot of work on is setting up room treatments…if you take your time and educate yourself, you can really make huge improvements for very little money (space being the biggest resource you have to give up).

 

For me, a currency I value is knowing the designer of a particular item. I prefer to spend money on and get more value back from a piece of equipment that has that personal, human element to it. My baffles were built by hand by an internet friend in Seattle, etc. Knowing the person who crafted them is as important as how good they look to me (well, nearly so!). My next project is a little Nelson Pass mono block SS amp kit. It should take an evening or two. Oh, and I love reading about other people's DIY experiences and posting my own. I would support a DIY area.

 

I'm from Schertz, TX, USA which is between Austin, TX and San Antonio, TX. Nobody has heard of Schertz but everyone knows where South Central Texas is, even if they live across the world where it is blazing hot right now (and where the Drop Bear lurks). Are you in Sydney proper or a 'burb?

 

Best,

John

[sandyk]

Hi John

I live in an inner west suburb of Sydney. I have made several good friends who are DIY Audio members and we regularly meet at each others houses to demo any new purchases, or things like improved XOvers in elderly B&W 801 speakers etc. . Not only that, but I have made friends with a few members of a U,K. based forum with similar DIY interests. In fact, one U.K. member is a Virgin U.K. pilot , and several of us will once again catch up with him at West Ryde Hotel on the 28th for a few drinks and a meal, and discuss our common interests. This is what forums should be all about.

 

Regards

Alex

[Paul R]

Interesting point of view, but did you manage to time travel from 1912 to 2014? If memory serves me correct, the last meeting was in 1912 or so... and what time travel would do to the Foundations of logic and mathematics would just be a shame...

 

Can I have my leg back now please?

 

-Paul

 

 

As a devoted logical positivists member of the Vienna Circle, I felt it was imperative to register here and to point out that this individual has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

 

The demarcation proposed between science and so-called metaphysics proposed by Sir Karl Popper is very much different from what we Vienna Circle Logical Positivists have advocated. Sir Karl, although a bit of a fellow traveller, certainly would not subscribe to logical positivism (or analytical philosophy, for that matter). Rather, if you had to pin a label on him (much like the spurious labels you folks seem to enjoy applying to yourselves and each other), it would be rather more accurate to call him a "falsificationist" or a logical negativist. Perhaps that is why his point of view is identified with in the modern scientific community; he placed a premium upon testing hypotheses.

 

The demarcation comes down to one of explanatory power: If you can explain everything with your hypothesis, and are unable to articulate under what conditions you might be mistaken, and cannot accept any possibility that you might be wrong, then your hypothesis is vacuous and has no explanatory power. (One might also note that being able to state under what conditions you would consider your hypothesis refuted is an example of a rare and welcome quality -- intellectual humility -- perhaps we could use a little more around here). In any case, Sir Karl's demarcation was thus based on testability and falsifiability, something that genuine scientific hypotheses possess, and religious and metaphysical ones do not.

 

Thus, far from specious, the parallels drawn are actually quite compelling. You may not happen to agree with them, but I suggest that most people really don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut what you might happen to think.

[christopher3393]

I do respect the position that arguments like the ones I posted can certainly be divisive and are best let rest in the interests of attention to the overriding purpose and intent of this forum and in the interests of working together positively, respectfully, tolerantly.

 

I realize I’m not presently taking that position over certain issues raised particularly in this thread. We can refer to wgscott post #44 for what appears to be the nub of it. I’m sure many are not interested in this, so please try not to be bothered by it. I do believe that continuing to pursue these issuesmay very well end up appearing irrelevant, foolish and fruitless. Nevertheless, I still think there may be something here that would at least allow me a deeper understanding of some presuppositions underlying some substantive issues that have not been brought to the foreground, and that may be close to the heart of the split on this forum. However inadequately I do it may be another thing! But I have not yet really had the opportunity to explore this, and it would be nice to get a fair hearing.

 

So to “Rudolph Carnap”, Here’s the dry stuff: I didn’t realize that Bill’s position on metaphysics was only based on Popper’s falsifiability thesis. I didn’t mean to imply that Popper was a positivist, but that the position on metaphysics that Bill alluded to is at least similar to both positivist and analytic philosophical positions.

 

“Rudolf”, have you read A.N. Whitehead’s Process and Reality? It is a 20th century metaphysics by a philosopher who spent a lifetime as a mathematician and physicist! It is speculative, but it is also rigorous and open to revision and correction. So it seems at least possible that intelligent scientists can do metaphysics and intelligent “subjectivists” can have their own rigor. Not a rigor that is exempt from rationality, logic, and rigorous testing by the best scientific standards, but these things take time, don’t they?

I asked Bill in another response what he thought of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structures of Scientific Revolution, which really shifted philosophy of science away from Popper’s position, toward a more comprehensive view of how scientific discovery actually happens in human history. This is wider perspective than falsification, isn’t it? And Paul Feyerabend’s Against method is much more radical in its thoroughgoing rejection of falsification as a hopelessly narrow approach that ends up being narrow and obstructive. For Feyerabend, reality, even scientific reality, is infinitely more complex.

 

“Rudolf”, do I have this right? I may very well not. I’m not an expert. How do you understand these texts, texts that I assume are familiar to those who engage in philosophy of science? Do you see how these critiques might shift a person’s take on falsification and potentially open out to a different, more flexible approach to the “subjectivism/objectivism”split? Yes, I know, at best this is an invitation toward wider exploration. My intention is to suggest with a few examples, a richer plurality of perspectives that could lead to greater tolerance. My impression is that openness to this plurality and ambiguity does not have to fall into a soft relativism, a sort of laisse-faire permissiveness that seems to offend some of a more scientific bent. I would hope it would be a source of creative tension.

 

Thanks,

 

Christopher (a.k.a. "Balbulus" if you prefer)