Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[esldude]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Dennis, what I was boggled by is where Arthur goes from there. Quoting again:

 

"Which audio "tech/guru" or scientist measures what is happening in an amplifier from 100th to 1,000,000th of one watt?

The Answer: Not even one.

This same basic principle holds true for measuring preamplifiers, speakers and everything else. (It is also a very plausible explanation why some components appear to sound better after some "break-in".) Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most 'magic'. "

 

In general no measures are not done at those levels.  I don't think we have reason to believe we will find much there which isn't known otherwise though as I said before you couldn't be 100% sure unless the measures are done. 

 

There isn't much impossible about measuring such levels there just isn't much incentive to do so.  We can measure pretty easily to -100 db below full scale or even lower.  It has little relevance at lower levels as it would be so low in level ambient noise, masking effects and your hearing thresholds would bury it.

[mmerrill99]

11 minutes ago, esldude said:

In general no measures are not done at those levels.  I don't think we have reason to believe we will find much there which isn't known otherwise though as I said before you couldn't be 100% sure unless the measures are done. 

 

There isn't much impossible about measuring such levels there just isn't much incentive to do so.  We can measure pretty easily to -100 db below full scale or even lower.  It has little relevance at lower levels as it would be so low in level ambient noise, masking effects and your hearing thresholds would bury it.

However, I saw your post on ASR showing some graphs of noise floor modulation which you commented on & your desire for more of such plots but as you said, no desire shown for doing such plots.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

However, I saw your post on ASR showing some graphs of noise floor modulation which you commented on & your desire for more of such plots but as you said, no desire shown for doing such plots.

True enough.  When I said I would like to see more plots that was true.  I however only have 4 real DACs and all my quality DACs show little of the effect.  I posted some results of an HDMI switcher that also could function as a DAC which has considerable modulation of the noise floor.  I wish it were a measure more commonly done as part of reviews for large numbers of DACs.  I myself am not buying and measuring tons of DACs.  I think there may something do that effect in DACs.

 

I don't think it is much of an effect in solid state amplifiers.  Here in my recent comments I mostly had in mind amplifiers. 

[mmerrill99]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

I however only have 4 real DACs and all my quality DACs show little of the effect. 

Can you post these?

[Kal Rubinson]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:54 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

I cannot help here since I have had no experience with that product and, therefore, did I vote for it.

Of course, there was a typo.

I cannot help here since I have had no experience with that product and, therefore, did not vote for it.

[Ralf11]

as Billy said:

 

"when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be."

[Sal1950]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

everything and everyone is biased  

 

I also think that longer term listening tends to drain confirmation bias (at least for me) ... also one of the reasons to do more advanced measurement is that when you have say 15 variables, then everything starts to sound the same, particularly when different combinations of variables get switched on and off. ... but the sound of the J2 vs the M2 is very apparent ( the J2 uses a Semisouth power JFET, and negative feedback,  the M2 uses a transformer voltage amplification followed by a MOSFET current and no global feedback)

I didn't dispute that the two amps sound different, I doubted your ability to so rapidly make a subjective call on which of the two is more accurate. The differences could be a bias induced illusion since you don't take any further steps to confirm. As I mentioned before everything you know about the design of these two has created a strong subconscious preference of one over the other, depending on your personal believes on which design creates a more transparent chain.

Your opinions in this case are lost in the darkness created by lack of substantiated information.

[Sal1950]

7 hours ago, Albrecht said:

The overall "accuracy" of the recording and true-ness of the instruments is a result of the sum-total of all of the gear and the room, and the learned expertise of the listener.

The speaker that has a slight volume drop in the upper mids, sounds much different with an amp that has a little boost in the upper mids. (Such a pairing will in no way be reflected in the, {as you might call poor}, measurements of the speaker).

What decade of High Fidelity component are your writing about?

If the components behind the speaker terminals of your system vary so much from transparency that you can use them as tone controls,  you should seriously consider some upgrades.

This is a perfect example of the sad state of subjective audiophiles belief system in todays High Fidelity community.

 

[semente]

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

"You are listening to and measuring a recording of a Stradivarius, not to a Stradivarius."

Of course, I don't understand the point, - People are judging the sound and making a judgement to whether or not that instrument sounds "true." As listeners to recordings, we are forced to listen to the recordings. Sure, - there can be bad recordings where the Stradivarius doesn't sound any different than a Yamaha: a given.

With measurements you feed the equipment with a signal and compare it to the output.

 

Now imagine three recordings of the same Stradivarius: one with an adequately positioned typical mic from the golden era (RCA, Mercury) that exaggerates presence and the top, another with one of those mics that go on the violin's bridge and a final one with adequately positioned flat response mics.

 

None of them will sound like a real Stradivarius but the last one will sound close and you may through listening determine whether the latter sounds realistic.

Of course, for starters, you would have to know or be able to recognise which recording is which, and you would have to know what a violin sounds like but you will always be listening to a recorded violin.

But, realistic as it may sound, you can not determine if the recording was accurately reproduced because you need equipment to listen to a recording.

This requires the ability to identify accurate reproduction: we are comparing what we listen to our memory of the best reproduced sound that we have listened to; an approximative and quite flawed approach.

 

This is why I defend that listening should be approached from an observational perspective, using material (recordings) that are carefully selected to expose specific aspects of performance (just as you do with measurements).

We don't listen to music but sound; that way we are not merely "tasting" but observing.

 

 

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

"The measurements will tell you if the system or the speakers are reproducing the recording accurately,""

NEVER EVER.. not the speakers alone...  and that is what I am saying. The measurements are bad at that, - because they in no way reflect the sum total of the combination of the room, associated gear, etc. The overall "accuracy" of the recording and true-ness of the instruments is a result of the sum-total of all of the gear and the room, and the learned expertise of the listener.

The speaker that has a slight volume drop in the upper mids, sounds much different with an amp that has a little boost in the upper mids. (Such a pairing will in no way be reflected in the, {as you might call poor}, measurements of the speaker).

 

And how do you know if the amplifier or the speaker has a drop or a boost in the upper mids: you measure.

You can also listen but whilst you can measure them separately you cannot listen to one without some specimen of the other, and you are adding the recording, the source and the room to the mix. Sorry I forgot to add and the listener.

 

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

I am a musician/songwriter, and I have pretty good idea of what a 1968 Rickenbacker 4001 bass sounds like. But that doesn't mean that I'm not surprised by some EQ, or some effect.

 

In my opinion and experience, one cannot use studio recordings (not the large majority) to assess realism.

You have recorded in a studio and probably know why.

 

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

"Measurements are unbiased and repeatable."

But not reflective of the overall "big picture." Plus, - measurements CAN BE biased, - as we've seen with Trolls like Archimago, - who does non-detailed & cursory measurements on cheap and inaccurate measuring equipment, non comparative measurements, with a limited sampling that are designed to achieve a certain biased conclusion.

 

Let me rephrase it to unbiased and repeatable and serious then.

 

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

""For me hi-fi is just a tool to reproduce music; I love my stereo equipment as much as I love a screwdriver or a saucepan.""

That makes me sad. I think that it's possible to appreciate the art, and the equipment that enhances it. Clearly to you, some playback gear is better than others. It's unfortunate that you do not appreciate the "tools" that make what is hoped a highly emotional experience, even more emotional! I really like Peter Gabriel's music. I really like that he cares about enhancing it by making great quality recordings. I really appreciate the equipment that enhances it even further. I also really like Peter Gabriel in the car, on my iPhone, in the kitchen, and in the bedroom system..... But I enjoy it more on the big, main, system.

 

Of course it is possible to appreciate both, many people do.

But I prefer not to waste time and emotional effort and ownership pride with objects.

It's a personal preference, an approach to life, which I also find useful for performing unbiased/unimpassioned assessment not just of audio equipment but of tools in general.

 

I also find it rather fruitless to "adore" audio designers; to be blunt, most are in it for the money even when/if they also design and manufacture tools that reproduce recordings with a high degree of fidelity or accuracy.

[semente]

P.S.:

 

My respect for audio designers comes not only from the seriousness of their work but also from the seriousness of their talk.

And there's only so much marketing nonsense I can take.

 

"Dave knew what he wan'ed his new mid-range driver to do after hearing a Mahler Symphony in Vienna's famed Musikverein Concert Hall."...really? 

[cue string section]

A driver that "seems to truly honor the music...".

 

 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Your opinions in this case are lost in the darkness created by lack of substantiated information.

 

Sorry, but wouldn’t it be just the opposite?  Wouldn’t his opinions be lost, if at all, in the light of all the objective, *substantiated* information he has about how the different ways the two circuits work?

 

And if his subjective opinions are overwhelmed by the objective facts, what is the problem?

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Sorry, but wouldn’t it be just the opposite?  Wouldn’t his opinions be lost, if at all, in the light of all the objective, *substantiated* information he has about how the different ways the two circuits work?

 

And if his subjective opinions are overwhelmed by the objective facts, what is the problem?

 

So do you think that knowing how something works negates the need in objective testing and measurement? Do you think Nelson Pass doesn't measure his amps after he designs them?

 

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So do you think that knowing how something works negates the need in objective testing and measurement?

Measurements can be useful under the right circumstances. Just because something is  a measurement does not mean that it is unbiased nor accurate. What is your goal?

 

Quote

 

Do you think Nelson Pass doesn't measure his amps after he designs them?

 

 

 

Don't take my word for his methods , he is a terrific educator and describes his methods extensively. It would be worthwhile to read his own writings. Hint: he listens after he measures and nothing goes out the door if it doesn't pass the listening test, regardless of measurements.

[jabbr]

 

[christopher3393]

12 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

as Billy said:

 

"when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be."

 

to which Uncle Martin might reply:

 

" …the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking.

What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature-that he is a meditative being."

[Jud]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So do you think that knowing how something works negates the need in objective testing and measurement? Do you think Nelson Pass doesn't measure his amps after he designs them?

 

 

 

Hi Paul -

 

It was with knowledge that the amp circuits jabbr built were measured and tested by Nelson Pass, and that further, jabbr understands the design principles of each and the way each circuit works, that I wrote.

 

There seems to be a general way of thinking among a large segment of society these days that scientific and engineering knowledge are a kind of bias like any other.  Bias they are indeed, but I would say a bias in favor of reality is not like any other.

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

There seems to be a general way of thinking among a large segment of society these days that scientific and engineering knowledge are a kind of bias like any other.  Bias they are indeed, but I would say a bias in favor of reality is not like any other.

 

You raise an important point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

 

Quote

Interest in the “science wars” has waned considerably in recent years. Though the events of the science wars are still occasionally mentioned in mainstream press, they have had little effect on either the scientific community or the community of critical theorists.[citation needed] Both sides continue to maintain that the other does not understand their theories, or mistakes constructive criticisms and scholarly investigations for attacks. As Bruno Latour recently put it, "Scientists always stomp around meetings talking about 'bridging the two-culture gap', but when scores of people from outside the sciences begin to build just that bridge, they recoil in horror and want to impose the strangest of all gags on free speech since Socrates: only scientists should speak about science!" Subsequently, Latour has suggested a re-evaluation of sociology's epistemology based on lessons learnt from the Science Wars: "... scientists made us realize that there was not the slightest chance that the type of social forces we use as a cause could have objective facts as their effects".

 

However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their critiques have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Writing about these developments in the context of global warming, Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

 

[Ralf11]

BTW, Billy is Wm. Thomson, Lord Kelvin

[christopher3393]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

BTW, Billy is Wm. Thomson, Lord Kelvin

 

It's a strong and quotable statement from the first volume of his Popular Lectures. Thanks for introducing it.

Uncle Martin is Martin Heidegger. Quote is from his Memorial Address. His essay "The Question Concerning Technology" takes up this concern in depth.

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

It's a strong and quotable statement from the first volume of his Popular Lectures. Thanks for introducing it.

Uncle Martin is Martin Heidegger. Quote is from his Memorial Address. His essay "The Question Concerning Technology" takes up this concern in depth.

 

Thanks for clarifying that for us non-philosophy/science nerds.  

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Thanks for clarifying that for us non-philosophy/science nerds.  

 

Here is more on Heidegger from the experts;

 

 

[semente]

 

[Ralf11]

in the last 2-3 centuries, science has steadily eaten away at philosophy

 

oddly, the 2 philosophy PhD's I know hate to hear that

[fas42]

Note, there is an intelligent way of sorting things out - you hear that's something's wrong; you investigate; you suspect there may be a lacking in the design or implementation somewhere; you now put your science cap on, and devise a solution or workaround; implement that - and again listen. Remarkably, in this crazy world of audio, that works! Of course, if measurements make your day you'll go nuts extracting a million graphs and numbers - which will prove, that you're good at measuring things, with pictures with lots of pretty colours and lines that wriggle up and down, to show for it ...

[pkane2001]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

Measurements can be useful under the right circumstances. Just because something is  a measurement does not mean that it is unbiased nor accurate. What is your goal?

 

 

Don't take my word for his methods , he is a terrific educator and describes his methods extensively. It would be worthwhile to read his own writings. Hint: he listens after he measures and nothing goes out the door if it doesn't pass the listening test, regardless of measurements.

 

I think we generally agree. My point wasn't that all measurements are good, but that some measurements are, and to ignore all measurements in preference to subjective listening is counterproductive, if your goal is the most accurate reproduction of the recorded sound. Similarly, one should not ignore listening and rely completely on measurements. I think too often in these forums the opposite sides portray each other in this simplistic, black-and-white, exaggerated way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I pick a component by reviewing its design, measurements, reputation of the designer, and word of mouth reviews from people I trust. I then evaluate the component myself, measure it if I can, listen to it, compare it to others. I never have relied on just measurements or just listening, that's just not in my nature.

 

I've been following Nelson Pass from the nineties. I've owned four of his amps, still own two. I've always liked his designs, ingenuity, and the no-nonsense way in which he approaches this hobby of ours.