Why are objective assessments important...

[Bill Brown]

As a direct answer to the topic line I would say that we need them to continue to attempt to seek out/try to develop a body of measurements that correlate with perception (positive, negative, and euphonic), identify equipment with significant engineering flaws, and to help us identify components from the huge number that we think are worthwhile to audition.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hi Bill,

I certainly agree that many things we measure today are either minor or do not lead to audible differences. A great example I think is JITTER. Yes, we can measure this with all those sidebands down below -100dBFS in modern asynchronous DACs, but seriously, who can hear them unless VERY severe - basically "broken", "engineering flaw" gear? (See my DEMO post awhile back.)

 

Thank you for the long reply, Archimago.  It is interesting.  I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but there are some subtle differences, even just in context, or history, or something.  I'll try to explain.

 

I do agree with the above in the sense that Jitter is a "solved" problem and should not cause audible problems or be an issue in a competent design.  I can't think that I would ever consider buying a DAC that tested poorly in this regard.  I have to think back, though to the (?) 80s when this problem wasn't being addressed by designers of audio components (as opposed, possibly, to the users of digital circuits in other fields).  Objectivists at the time thought digital as it existed was "solved."  DACS, I think it is clear to see in retrospect were "tweaked," or "kludged" by "high-end" designers in the search for "better sound" (?euphony).

 

As things evolved I learned about jitter via Stereophile, saw early measurements being conducted and how poorly some DACs measured (as well as some of the tweaky boxes that were designed to fix this and didn't):

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/2020-jitter-measurements

 

A subjectivist provocateur would say that before jitter was fixed in DACs that they were being told by objectivists that they were "crazy," that digital was "solved," and that no additional measuring techniques were needed as all important parameters could be characterized with the current state of the art......

 

But yes, I agree jitter is solved and am not holding my breath for another clear, measurable area for improvement in digital-reproduction to be found.

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Despite this, notice how "jitter" continues to be claimed by various companies as being important... Go talk to Paul McGowan and Ted Smith and their PS Audio DAC. Isn't it more than a little suspicious that they never provide measurements/evidence to show the audible issue despite their verbal claims!?

 

Yeah, not sure I get what is going on there, to say it politely.  I have seen the measurements on Sphile and ASR and am not terribly impressed.  Some people that I respect like them, so....heck, I don't know.

 

As a consumer I don't really care if they don't provide measurements, it's up to them.  Would I buy one? No.  Would I try to "save" someone from being "fooled" into buying one?  No.  Would I take the opportunity to discuss the facets if they wanted?  Sure.  If they are happy and enjoying their music, more power to them.  I am not a crusader.  Don't think it would work anyway, people are so, so variable.

 

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Your comment "develop a body of measurements that correlate with perception (positive, negative, and euphonic)" is insightful. Nice. I believe that it is only with objective testing and controlled listening (measurements of the subjective experience while minimizing non-sound-related biases) that we can differentiate "positive, negative, and euphonic". I think in fact we are getting to the point where of the three, "euphonic" is becoming most important.

 

Again, I agree to some degree :).  Objective testing? Yes!  I'll take all the sources of information I can get!  Controlled testing?  Sure, but.....  I like the blinded testing at Harman as an example.  I am simply not yet convinced that it is universally applicable to the testing of all audio gear, though hopefully, as a physician you won't find me too hypocritical for believing in blinded, placebo-controlled trials for medicines, etc......

 

Not sure if you recall, but decades ago JA organized a carefully controlled DBT of amplifiers.  One a tube amp, the other SS.  The tube amp had an output impedance that would have to produce frequency-response changes into the varying impedance v frequency of the speakers that were audible by anyone's criteria.  Null result.  Why?  I don't know.  I have some guesses but I don't know.

 

Yes, euphony the way you describe it is huge.  Are subjectivist reviewers now simply describing differences in euphony?  Certainly possible (thought not exclusively, my gut says).

 

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Would be rather unexpected if audiophiles ever advocated for such a thing because for some it's "euphonic"!

Some, probably.  I hope others, though, are more self-aware and consider it a possibility.  Or maybe not

 

I suspect you are familiar with Nelson Pass' work in this regard.  He is fairly matter-of-fact that he knows 2H HD is euphonic, this informs his designs, and has even produced a gizmo that allows manipulation of its phase and level and told folks to have fun.

 

Re TTs.......In the 90s I built one using Well Tempered Reference components (arm, motor, platter, bearing).  I used multiple levels of Aluminum alternating with Isodamp for CLD, all mounted on a Newport laser table (just the base), pneumatically isolated and self-leveling.  Enjoyed lots of good sound.

 

Now, though just listen to music from an HD, having sold off most of our stuff (not just audio) in a wonderful, simplifying way.

 

I still have lots of files I recorded digitally, though

 

Thanks again,

 

Bill

 

 

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Good points there Bill. I was but a lad back in the 80's (especially early to mid 80's) before having the resources to own or explore hi-fi so can't really speak to what the debate was like between objective and subjective folks...

 

  

 

I was 14 in 1982 when the first CD players came out(?).  I began reading everything about this hobby that became my lifelong love then, went through all the normal stages (gear-lust, reading the Audio Magazine annual equipment catalog like a kid used to read the Sears catalog before Christmas, etc.).  I would watch the mailbox for the latest issues of Audio, Stereophile, and, I must confess, Stereo Review and inhale all of them in less than a day, then resuming the month-long wait.  Can't believe this all makes me feel old at 51!  This was basically the ONLY way to get info on the hobby except for the one friend I found in college that shared my passion!  An AMAZING contrast with today.  Wow!

 

History is important to me.  Subjective reviewing grew from JGH for Stereophile, and a bit later HP from TAS as a reaction to the measurement only era preceding it, seen in magazines like High Fidelity(?).  JGH swung the pendulum towards subjectivity and I think it was needed.  Remember, though, that he used measurements as able at the time- find one of his old reviews and check out a primitive FR measurement of a phone cartridge!  He was in pursuit of "high fidelity," in, I think, the truest definition of the term, and actually decried the further swing of the pendulum towards the subjectivist-only, "how the sound makes me feel," "if it sounds good to me" type of pursuit.

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

I say things but I too am not all that interested in the "crusade". No need to "fight" or force anyone's personal beliefs.

 

Yes, I sense a healthy, pragmatic, non-judgemental approach to your writing and the engineering chops you bring to the table- whoever the heck you are!

 

I was thinking of the things this morning that would lead me to a "righteous crusade."  There are some, perhaps, but certainly none in this realm.

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

I will say one thing about the importance of blind tests though. When we come across a claim by a "pure subjectivist" that he/she "can easily hear the difference between the two USB cables" (or whatever contentious issue), I would consider that person as a prime candidate for blind testing.

 

Yes, why someone would set themselves up for that is a mystery to me.  I am confident about some stuff, but........ I try to minimize the possibility of getting even close to Hubris.

 

3 hours ago, Archimago said:

what is the effect of the tube amp's lower damping factor on the frequency response?

 

I can't remember the exact numbers, but certainly differences that should be perceived as outlined in the relevant literature, my understanding of which suggests that narrow cuts and peaks are difficult to perceive, but that (even fairly subtle) frequency response changes that affect wider frequency bands are perceptible.  Note that in this case, as suggested by JA's measurements of amps into a simulated load, that they should have been.  Again....euphony?

 

I don't want to overstate, though, the test as a "gold standard."  I found it intriguing at the time and it remains in the back of my mind, especially with my personal experiments with blind testing.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Thanks for another good post, Archimago.

 

Very happy you found the article with JGH.  He was quite the curmudgeon, but I liked him.  We have to remember that at the time he began publishing measurements were VERY primitive by today's standards (the HW and SW available to even hobbyists is astounding!).  They certainly wouldn't have been conducive to the extensive work to correlate measurements with perception that now seems at least somewhat possible (perhaps by you!). He did his best in this context, and I think did it quite well.  I agree with his references to acoustic music performed in a real place.  Of course the circle of confusion can be evoked, but he recorded extensively, knew the sound of live music and the character of the mics he used.

 

I hope you read the link to AD's article as well.  It certainly elucidates the other possibilities, potential faults that you alluded to later.....  It is certainly possible that we "lost our way."  Maybe the pendulum will swing back.  AD is interesting, he is a skilled writer.  I still read his stuff based on that (and am always on the lookout for music to seek out).  Perhaps there is a lot of "synergy" and "euphony" involved, this providing the sound he prefers.  I have a lot of thoughts about this in the context of the equipment he likes.  And the room he listens in!  I am frequently fairly disappointed with the rooms subjectivists reviewers describe....so much that can be done in this regard!

 

I agree a lot with your response to John's as well, very nice!  But also very strongly with "Neuroscience's" that followed.  Seems like there has to be a synthesis of Neuroscience (the field, not the man) and the engineering to move forward.  I think we also have to remember that the former, while strides are being made, is a bear!  So much we don't know yet!  So complex!

 

I was waxing philosophic in my thoughts last night, but my posts are already cumbersome in length so will list bullets of my thinking (my office network is down this morning....I still miss paper charts):

 

-  I am not interested anymore in ridiculously expensive equipment of any sort; if I had unlimited resources I still wouldn't purchase it.  It is not a part of my ethos. I grew up poor, lived overseas as a child, and spent 3 years in the "developing world" as a volunteer (not hyping myself in any way, just background).  I feel guilty enough sometimes with my current equipment.

 

-  I rarely read entirely subjective reviews.  Their value has decreased for me over time.  With the amount of information available to us now in so may fields that interest me I feel like I have to be selective.

 

-  I do read subjective reviews that are followed by measurements in my ongoing attempt to correlate them with perception, though frequently go introduction -> conclusions-> measurements.

 

-  Most of my audio interests for a long time don't involve the equipment discussed in depth on this forum.  I have a Mac, never learned enough about Windows to be effective (the first time I used a computer at all was age 30!) running Audirvana, to an RME DAC with the USB cable that came with it (and no interest in exploring others).  I taught myself vacuum tube design (though have only built for my son a guitar amp), have read "The Master Handbook of Acoustics," Geddes ""Audio Transducers" (mainly the waveguide stuff, the math is more up your alley!), and others.  I dream of DIY loudspeaker design, tube amplifier topology, current transmission between components, other stuff.  As to the last I built a DAC/headphone amplifier using the "Twisted Pear" Buffalo DAC from diyaudio powered by SLAs and connected the DAC chip outputs to a fancy transformer, to headphones (sort of using the voice coils as the I/V resistor) and used parametric EQ to correct the FR variations calculable from their impedance curve.  Good stuff!  Some of the best (subjective) sound I have ever experienced.

 

- I found this recent AES article timely http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20455, it reflecting my thoughts:  It isn't the dynamic range that increased bit-depths allows or the high-frequency extension that higher-sampling rates allows (though I wonder about some of the studies on possible other mechanisms that may provide benefit in "Neuroscience's" realm), but instead to allow different filtering options.  I like and buy high-res material (though am too often very disappointed when, from old recordings, they squash the dynamics in the re-mastering).

 

- I was intrigued by Ayre's "Listen" filter and was excited to learn the settings in iZotope provided by "Audinventory" (?) in the long iZotope thread on this site that would closely replicate it (with measurements).  I liked the sound, eventually blind-testing my "golden ear" son who picked them out and described it subjectively in the exact terms I had in mind (that I hadn't biased him with by sharing).  I upsample in Audirvana and apply this filter, bypassing the RME's.

 

"Many of the fights we get into originates from the "all or none", "black or white", "100%" mindset. As mature adults, we know that the only way to handle the complexities of life (of which the squabbles of audiophilia is but a tiny microcosm) is to find the middle ground... The "shade of grey" between the subjective and objective. Some things do need to be "more subjective" just as my preference is to be "more objective" when it comes to audiophile gear."

 

Amen!!!

 

Best, Bill

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

While some compromise in relationships can be a good thing, one should never look for a middle ground between disinformation and information (false equivalence/false compromise).

That was actually me quoting Archimago, but no worries, as I agree with him. And I agree with you too, but don’t feel the kind of conversation we are having here is at risk of what you describe. At least I hope not. 

[Bill Brown]

12 hours ago, Archimago said:

I'm not sure which AD (Art Dudley?) article you're referring to Bill.

 

Yes.  He wrote some pieces in direct response to JGH's criticisms.  He is certainly one of the most vocal (and well-written!) proponents of that school of thought....

 

12 hours ago, Archimago said:

Ultimately, understanding human perception, cognition, consciousness, and sentience is no doubt one of the many "ultimate questions" which humankind will explore in science in the measure of time. But I'm pretty sure we don't need to understand the human mind to that depth just to be confident in determining whether hi-fi equipment like an amplifier is "more than good enough for human hearing" while reproducing some music retrieved off some disk or data storage...

 

I am coming around on this argument of yours.....

 

It is somewhat like those that suggests that a reviewer should post their hearing-acuity testing.  Never understood it.  The stimulus reaching the eardrum's hasn't changed.  The listener's hearing perceptions of the world are constant whether in nature or reproduced music.  I can barely hear to 14 kHz now, but I would never skew the frequency response of a system to compensate (maybe until I needed hearing aids!).  Now we could certainly discuss whether there reaches a limit where their ability to appreciate subtleties are gone...

 

Was happy to read, and liked yours and @barrows responses to JA's Chord upscaler review.

 

Cheers!

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

13 hours ago, Archimago said:

Right, as the paper says, these days the 24-bit dynamic range is more than enough and the limitation is the music itself; this is why severe dynamic compression IMO is a disaster for audiophiles. What's the point if we have awesome hardware but barely any new music to enjoy that can utilize the system's abilities?

 

Yes!  Heartbreaking that we have lost so much popular music to DR compression.  Almost unlistenable!  A tragedy, almost criminal.

 

Thank heavens my main musical loves are jazz and classical.  D*%*it Rick Rubin for massacring late Johnny Cash and RHCP, though there are many others.  Listen to Cash's "Hurt" and the clipping/overload at the peak.  Ridiculous.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I'm not fussed about this ... one can always get copies of original masterings, via CDs that come out in the early days of digital; and I've done my own experiments in reversing destructive compression, limiting and clipping - a perfectly listenable version of the material is possible to extract; it just requires someone to be sufficiently motivated to do the exercise. I suspect there will be a minor sub-industry down the track, who will make a business of undoing all the nonsense, and selling "cleaned up" versions of the bad stuff - the "data" is on the recording, it just needs to be, er, 'rearranged'.

 

I am afraid I am very skeptical.  Unless they have the original raw tracks I suspect we are in trouble.  When I look at the graphs of these tracks I cringe as everything is banged up against full scale, the tops squared off with clipping.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

I thought a lot also about @barrows plasticity. Certainly it is there, but Archimago’s comments are good. 
 

OTOH, a baby’s? Wow! Wonderful to behold. 

Barrow’s comments re. the complex mechanisms of hearing were welcome. 

 

I agree as well that our understanding of the human brain, while progressing, remains daunting. I have explained it as the “final frontier.”