Why are objective assessments important...

[tapatrick]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

It's "harder" to read graphs and understand what they mean than divining what a pure subjectivist might be implying about whether something has "presence", or if a "veil is lifted", or the sound is "faster".

As you seem to be a helpful person I have some basic questions as I have very little understanding of measurements or their meaning. I know what a frequency curve is and the importance of low jitter and noise levels etc. but I'd much rather read a review by someone who knows how to interpret the measurements presented.

 

Apart from the obvious (noise spikes or reduced frequency range), opinion seems to be that these are open to interpretation or only show a partial picture of what constitutes the sound coming from system. I spend time on DIY forums and I put together basic components and modify them following the advice or example of those more qualified - changing wiring, building cables, replacing capacitors and replacing clocks etc as I like to tinker then try them by listening carefully over several weeks of trial in order to hopefully enhance my system. For instance my reference source is a $50 chinese SD card player heavily modified and powered by LifePO4/Ultracaps. So my interest in measurements is in relation to things like this.

 

For myself and other non techies could you please list the types of measurements everyone is referring to and any good resources to understand the relationship between these and sound quality? Thanks in advance

[tapatrick]

12 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hi @tapatrick,

Yeah, very good question but a broad one also...

 

 

Thanks @archimago! I understand these are broad questions so your thoughts are appreciated. I will digest and see where that leads.

 

I must say the couple of new streams on exploring the respective value of subjective and objective perspectives are very informative with a wealth of references and take more time to absorb.

[tapatrick]

10 hours ago, STC said:

Our hearing is not flat nor consistent. It varies through out the day.

Certainly would explain a lot. I always wonder when listening faculties are treated as some kind of scientific instrument.  

[tapatrick]

On 2/23/2020 at 11:38 AM, tapatrick said:

Thanks @archimago! I understand these are broad questions so your thoughts are appreciated. I will digest 

@Archimago 

Thank you for taking the time to write so fully and in detail which fleshes out the complex nature of listening to music. I have highlighted a few phrases from your linked post that were most meaningful as a starting point. 

 

A. “The music we hear adds to the quality of life”

 

AMEN - the Alpha and the Omega

 

B. ”...there is a difference between what our neural mechanisms hear, and whether we actually are listening to it”

 

C. “This leads us into the broad, complex, and marvelous domain of cognition/psychology in hearing/listening. This is a topic which should really be on the forefront of audiophile discussions “

 

Well said and appreciate the space to now discuss your understanding of this. 

 

In relation to B. and in my experience I have found back and forth comparisons unsatisfactory (blind or not). Only longer term listening tells me whether I enjoy a setup. I can notice details between 2 setups/components or tweaks but the narrowing of attention through ‘listening’ restricts my ability to judge whether I like it or not. Like as in relation to A. above. 

 

This I would imagine is related to the modes of the 2 hemispheres in our brain as in C above. 

 

On one occasion I had an acquaintance round for a listening session and we were comparing DACs. Because he was there we were listening intently and the differences were difficult to tell. I knew there were differences as I had noticed them many times over extended periods of back and forth. I was intrigued by this as my attention was altered by someone else being present. In discussions about this where there was not the interest this was dismissed as ‘expectation bias’ and delusion!

 

 

“Art and science, subjective enjoyment and engineering virtuosity are complementary and together represent the fulfillment of this hobby (not to mention modern life!)...”

 

Absolutely... enough for now.  

[tapatrick]

Apologies for the ‘shouty’ type. Pasted text while commuting and couldn’t edit. 🙃

[tapatrick]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Archimago

thanks for the very considered reply. I doubt that you and I will come to the same conclusion at the end of the day but I am okay with that.  I appreciate learning your perspective

 

@Archimago @Audiophile Neuroscienceand others. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and considerable experience. And the overall tone! Loving this thread...

[tapatrick]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There's a remarkably easy way to assess overall competence

!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tapatrick]

2 hours ago, DuckToller said:

Inspired by this thread I was curious to read today's The Long Read  at The  Guardian's webpage called "Why your brain is not a computer"

My short resume:  There seems to be a lot unclear in that area ...

A great read. 
if you haven’t come across it I highly recommend “The master and his emissary” by Ian McGilchrist. A masterpiece of both scientific research into the structure of our brains and philosophical implications. Does touch on some of the issues raised in this thread and beyond.  
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary

[tapatrick]

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

My personal feeling is that over time, we tend to form opinions about equipment that might also be unrelated to sound quality itself. Hard to prove this. Sort of related to how with consumer goods, there's a tendency over time to catch "upgradeitis" and want something "different", not necessarily "better" sounding. A "7 year itch" perhaps - in the case of obsessive audiophiles, maybe even every 6 months 🙂. Not sure how one would dissociate this longterm tendency from actual adjudication of sound quality!

Very refreshing to discuss being objective about subjectivity. For sure 'upgradeitiis' is a big component and blinkers our ability to be honest and straightforward about sound quality especially in relation to our own systems. In relation to your last sentence, I would consider development has occurred when the itch has been out grown as in a maturation of desire combined with perfecting ones system to a sufficiently satisfactory point or one has run out of money!   

 

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

Very important observation and why in my article a few years back, I devoted a portion on the COGNITIVE component of listening; beyond the physiological limitations of the human ear/mind. Our ability to ATTEND is limited and so when we listen to music, the attention wanders in and out depending on all kinds of factors. Moods change. Attentiveness changes through the day. A song might "speak" to me more after a busy day at work compared to a weekend, etc...

I will read your article.

I am aware of these modes and moods and how they change the experience. I have worked out that the only lingering dissatisfaction I have with my system has been narrowed down to lie in the region between 8-10khz. With some recordings I add a narrow sharp DSP cut in Roon at 8khz and then I can sink back in my seat and get lost in the music again. Some detail and 'air' is lost but the whole is made better. My interest in being objective about my subjectivity is so that I can get lost in the listening experience as one of life's great pleasures. As an artist I require this in order to set my imagination free. 

 

23 hours ago, Archimago said:

Have fun! Enjoy the music...

 

For sure, you too!

[tapatrick]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I don't know.

I don't know but I want to know is a profound position to adopt....

[tapatrick]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

BUT... Coming back to the thread title, we must still contend with the fact that the vast majority of that "nourishment" is a result of the art itself (ie. music), and not confuse that with the devices we're using to convey the sound. The machines we use to reproduce the music are conduits for the art and IMO the job is to transmit the signals that encode the art. And objective analysis is the primary way of determining that these devices are performing to expectations.

I have met McGilchrist too and asked him some questions - a great man.

 

Agree wholeheartedly but I do not have the training or experience so this might be a good point to ask:

• what are the measurements that can be made, or should be made in relation to analysing performance of equipment?

• and secondly overall sound quality

• what equipment can be used/bought for home use?

• how do you make and record these?

• how can we 'view' them?

• what should we be looking for in the measurements?

 

[tapatrick]

4 hours ago, Iving said:

The problem for social media Forums like this is that we converse casually about this and that - and quite naturally many of us are not familiar with the Scientific Literature germane for any given conversational assertion. If we are speculating - we should say so really. If we speculate with strong assertions then we are being a little unfair on ourselves and others - and stifling reasonable debate. If we speculate with strong assertion and also ridicule - then we are trolling - and that prevents anything useful happening (except satisfying the ego of the troll in what is only ever a selfish and empty or hollow victory).

In general online forums are unsatisfying for deeper more complex discussion for the reasons you state as there are so many usually conflicting interests at play. It takes a lot of good will, intention and players who know and admit the limits of their knowledge - this thread shows its possible to exchange points of view and knowledge without a bun fight.

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

To keep things ever so simple, we could for example:
1. Hypothesise that adding component X to piece of equipment Y might result in better SQ. We find that SQ scores reported by an adequate pool of Ss are (or are not) significantly higher (in the statistical sense) for (X+Y) vs. Y. The Method / Procedure would have to be rigorous (controlling for nuisance variables). The stats would depend on whether between or within Ss, and the p value would have to be less than 0.05 for sig. If it were say <0.0001 we would be *very* convinced (and manufacture accordingly). This is sort of a bottom-up approach.
2. We could wonder whether a thick cable was better for SQ than a thin cable. We conduct an experiment. Again rigorous *where only thickness of cable differentiated levels of the IV* and Method / Procedure sound. If Ss reported that the thicker cable sounded better at p<0.0001, it would be *undeniable* that *something* about the cable was accounting for SQ - but unlike 1. above we wouldn't know what it was (without conducting further experiments). This is sort of top-down.

Yes to be convincing there would have to be this level of rigour applied. Any studies I have come across (which aren't that many) which depend on data from listeners preferences reveal that there seem to be very few people who are consistently accurate. The study on wine tasting experts not being able to tell good from bad was similar in this respect.

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

and it is difficult (if not impossible) to *prove* a subjective experience false -

so true if only it could be left at that with interest switched to finding out how to measure improvements that are subjectively obvious.

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

Because we have fallen short in the rigour of our thinking and in our "humility" - both intellectual and social - we have ended up with two playgrounds here at AS. But that is far more likely to result in enlightenment than one in which trolls (from either camp) and ribaldry reign supreme (such as at certain other Forums) - and earnest people stay away.

Agree. Next step hopefully would be a hybrid where subjectives who are convinced of improvements would engage with some objective analysis. Then the 2 camps as well as being important places for like minded exchange do not remain just echo chambers.

[tapatrick]

5 hours ago, Iving said:

the octane quality of my musical kicks.

...a line from a punk rock anthem with appropriate guitar riff..:)

 

[tapatrick]

On 2/23/2020 at 12:15 AM, Archimago said:

...For example, in my blind testing years ago, I found a group of people who preferred MP3 over lossless FLAC. I personally have no problems with this (since I don't think high bitrate MP3 sounds bad at all) but it would be very much "counterculture" to various "purist" forms of audiophilia (including strict objective ideal of "high fidelity" and absolute "transparency") that seeks less manipulation of the sound.

@archimago wondering what you think of this Genelec paper... questioning quick v slow listening..

[tapatrick]

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

...why should we not think that maybe over time what we perceive is actually a change within ourselves rather than a reflection of the true "difference" produced by the device being listened to?

....that he spent $$$$ on some wires and now feeling better about the money he dropped (because he consciously/subsconsciously wants that to happen as well!).

Thanks and good points.. A change within ourselves is all part of the 'science' from my point of interest which includes (trying) to understand subjectivity.

For sure spending $$$ is always going to be a major influence on any assessment.

 

[tapatrick]

14 hours ago, Archimago said:

FYI... Just posted some thoughts that originated in our discussions here.

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-audio-music-audiophile-big.html

I think you have done a good job in your blog post of covering all the relevant areas involved from music production to listening. And maybe the conversation is now concluded. 

If only everyone would acknowledge and respect each others 'intent' as you put it then there would be a lot less misunderstanding. I am none the wiser which measurements matter but I have to say I'm now clear that measuring and analysing equipment outside of listening leaves me cold. I will leave that to others more qualified but I will keep an eye on developments.. .

[tapatrick]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

Hi @tapatrick, 

I have some thoughts about the "which measurements matter" question that I'll post on the blog in the next while...

 

 

Thanks for letting me know. Look forward to reading your thoughts.