Why are objective assessments important...

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What I think most subjectivists sceptically reject is the notion that excellent device specs translates into sonic transparency and the corollary, that an excellent set of specs means that the device will sound like any other device with the same specs.

Don’t assume that the provided measurements are “specs” for an electronic circuit, We know that, for example, THD does not entirely denote “SQ”

[DuckToller]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

In my opinion therefore we need to establish measurements of the audio signal that not just informs us how the device is performing, as important as that is, but informs us how the sound/music will be perceived, i.e. what will it sound like.

sound like a dream to me, but I am not an expert in neuroscience ....

I would have a guess, that the full set of personal factors that determine our subjective perception could only be integrated as approximative & averaged data, which in turn may give us only a divergent perception from the ones we hold ... 
You may want to correct me here, I'd be happy to learn how our lifelong individuality & experiences can be integrated in a measuring model 
Best, Tom

[Iving]

32 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

sound like a dream to me, but I am not an expert in neuroscience ....

I would have a guess, that the full set of personal factors that determine our subjective perception could only be integrated as approximative & averaged data, which in turn may give us only a divergent perception from the ones we hold ... 
You may want to correct me here, I'd be happy to learn how our lifelong individuality & experiences can be integrated in a measuring model 
Best, Tom

 

I went a long way towards answering this question here:

.

If I I'm not mistaken, @Audiophile Neuroscience is a psychiatrist (medically-trained practitioner) whereas my career background was in academic psychology with an emphasis on Research Methods and Statistics. We will have slightly different perspectives on this no doubt!

The key parts of my notes in the post linked above are:

- It's true that we can then proceed with measurements and conduct rigorously designed studies to see whether reliable experience reports are significantly correlated with the variables we have harnessed for that purpose.

- Even with such procedures we cannot attribute cause without intervention studies (change the level of an IV to see whether a change in the DV accompanies that change).

- As I see it, that is putting the cart (measurements) before the horse (musical enjoyment) anyway - so moving along - we are all interested in music and enjoyment - so why not see whether our enjoyment (choose your DV - take your pick - discuss) can be explained by plausible IVs (take your pick - discuss).

- Then you need good ways of measuring material *and psychological* variables combined with lots of subjects/participants and (M)ANOVA and/or regression etc with suitable statistical control and evaluation of interactions (between IVs) in order to draw fitting conclusions.

 

So there are *many* ways one could approach this in terms of developing one or more research questions.

 

For myself, "individual differences" or "personality" represents a fascinating realm of measurement possibilities on the "Independent Variable" (IV) side of the equation. Any hedonistic experience could qualify as an interesting "Dependent Variable" (DV)!

 

It's quite possible to keep things focussed more on equipment and measurement of equipment on the IV side of things, and more on "perceptual" reports rather than "enjoyment" ones on the DV side. Either way we are missing at least half the picture by failing to consider psychological variables.

[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

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

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..

 

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).

[fas42]

In the 35 years I've been looking at getting subjectively convincing SQ, I have never once looked at it from the point of reducing THD, IMD, or TIM - yes, if I do my own design, then I very carefully assess what would be the best use of electronic parts to get measurably optimum numbers; but in the real world I have been startled too many times at hearing equipment that I know has very ordinary figures in this sphere perform way above what most would expect, to believe that worrying about such is going to be vital.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

Don’t assume that the provided measurements are “specs” for an electronic circuit, We know that, for example, THD does not entirely denote “SQ”

Hi Jonathan,

not sure I completely follow what you mean when you say don't assume that the provided measurements are specs for an electronic circuit. At any rate my intention was to use the word specs or specifications in a broader sense, pertaining to materials, design and performance et cetera - the things that define what a product is and does.

Cheers

David

 

[jabbr]

55 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Hi Jonathan,

not sure I completely follow what you mean when you say don't assume that the provided measurements are specs for an electronic circuit. At any rate my intention was to use the word specs or specifications in a broader sense, pertaining to materials, design and performance et cetera - the things that define what a product is and does.

Cheers

David

 

Davd, 

 

Well yes, a complete specification would be the electronic circuit, firmware, drivers etc, but aside from a FirstWatt amplifier, that is never available. Even then, a SPICE simulation of the circuit is not the same...

 

A measurement is not a spec in that sense. Some of these specs are more akin to marketing. Of course you may need a certain wattage amp with certain speakers, and a DSD or PCM DAC input etc.

 

Some measurements like spectra may give an idea about how the product sounds. 
 

Tell me though, do you find that “performance specs” give you an idea about how the products sounds? If so, which specs? I’d say that some common specs give a very general idea but not at the level of detail I’m interested in — I think that some of the nonlinear behaviors give a better idea of the unique product sound but these aren’t commonly measured nor published.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, DuckToller said:

sound like a dream to me, but I am not an expert in neuroscience ....

I would have a guess, that the full set of personal factors that determine our subjective perception could only be integrated as approximative & averaged data, which in turn may give us only a divergent perception from the ones we hold ... 
You may want to correct me here, I'd be happy to learn how our lifelong individuality & experiences can be integrated in a measuring model 
Best, Tom

Hi Tom

I believe @Iving has given an expert reply to this.

 

I agree with you that perceptions are a complex amalgam of sensory and psychological influences affected by our experiences and conditioning et cetera. I don't disagree that we have unique experiences and that we can all perceive things differently. I mean the latter both figuratively and literally (another topic).

 

The perception of pain for example is in fact defined by the International Association for the study of pain is a "sensory and emotional experience". Nobody can feel your pain and yet everybody has experienced pain and things like pain thresholds for various stimuli have been studied and defined. In other words it is predictable and reproducible that we share some features in our experience of pain and with some degree of normal variation.

 

In order to perceive anything there must be an evoking stimulus, at least in the context that we are talking about. Without going off on a tangent there are some subtle differences between evoke, illicit and emit but basically it is possible for a stimulus to produce the experience of a sensation, image, feeling, memory et cetera. While no two experiences are identical we do expect a normal range of variation especially when talking about fairly automated responses to physical percepts in neurotypical people.

 

For example, the perception of two point discrimination at the fingertips is about 6 mm in "normal people". There is an acceptable range of variance. Two point discrimination is the ability to discern being touched by one pointy object as opposed to 2 pointy objects. If the pointy objects are closer than 6 mm apart you will perceive it as a single touch, if further than 6 mm apart you will perceive being touched by two objects. Apart from anything else this is a function of the structure and physiology of the nervous system which  subserves the sensation.

 

To my way of thinking it doesn't matter how complex or unique the perception ends up it still has to be discriminated in the first place and this is where I would try to assign the dependent variable. I am not suggesting a reductionist model and believe that psychological influences are always potentially and normally present as part and parcel of the experience.I think this already happens to some extent with things like the measurement of dynamic range and the perception of compressed/loud sound.

 

Where I differ a little bit with @Iving is while I agree that the enjoyment of music is the endgame I don't think you necessarily need to make that the dependent variable. This starts to get far more complicated IMO and harks back to your original statement/question, adding degrees of difficulty for things like preferences, "lifelong individuality & experiences", cognitive associations and interpretations et cetera. It is also the area where in my opinion there is most propensity for bias as your enjoyment of music can and will be influenced by appearance, price, brand et cetera.

 

One can never assume you are not dealing with some kind of bias, even unconscious bias, but by the same token people have very little vested interest in knowing whether for example their two point discrimination at the fingertips is 6 mm or 7 mm. There is rarely a sense of performance anxiety during the test . In 40 years I have never tested a patient who particularly cared about the result. In fact over recent years I have tested both sighted and blinded and have yet to come up with a difference. This is despite the fact that sighted observation does actually influence perception in many areas as we all know and I'm not talking about bias I'm just talking about the way normal perception works.

 

So, rather than talking about preferences or better or worse sound quality per se I am saying to try and establish what part of the measured stimulus correlates and is concordant with a physical percept. I think that is within the realistic realms to achieve, maybe, outside of academia but people very familiar with research methodology and statistics would still need to be involved.

 

I mentioned dynamic range before and compressed sound. Another thing that audiophiles often talk about is "warmth". My understanding is that that spectral balance in the signal is important. Add a touch more upper bass in the EQ and it sounds a bit fuller and warmer. Some forms of distortion add warmth and I am given to believe from @sandyk that some manufacturers tailor the amount of even order distortion in some solid state amplifiers to give a vacuum tube like warmth. I think these things need to be confirmed and in some way made quantifiable. If designers are voicing their gear to sound a certain way then it would be useful to know the measurements that they have relied upon to do so. If they have added even order harmonics it is presumably measurable. The trouble is there is no look up table that tells the ordinary person what that measurement means to their listening experience.

 

 

Cheers

David

 

[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. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Davd, 

 

Well yes, a complete specification would be the electronic circuit, firmware, drivers etc, but aside from a FirstWatt amplifier, that is never available. Even then, a SPICE simulation of the circuit is not the same...

 

A measurement is not a spec in that sense. Some of these specs are more akin to marketing. Of course you may need a certain wattage amp with certain speakers, and a DSD or PCM DAC input etc.

 

Some measurements like spectra may give an idea about how the product sounds. 
 

Tell me though, do you find that “performance specs” give you an idea about how the products sounds? If so, which specs? I’d say that some common specs give a very general idea but not at the level of detail I’m interested in — I think that some of the nonlinear behaviors give a better idea of the unique product sound but these aren’t commonly measured nor published.

 

This is where i maybe went wrong. I consider all measurements to be specs of some kind."The purpose of a specification is to provide a description and statement of the requirements of a product, components of a product, the capability or performance of a product, and/or the service or work to be performed to create a product."

 

Jonathan (I think) I totally agree with you regarding performance specs and we need better indicators of how products sound in a much greater level of detail than presently exists. Whether that's measuring or quantifying or somehow communicating "nonlinear behaviours" I cannot say. I would much prefer to be informed by objective data even at the end of the day if I reject it and still make my own subjective choice. At least I would have an option, a choice.🤔

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, Iving said:

If I I'm not mistaken, @Audiophile Neuroscience is a psychiatrist (medically-trained practitioner)

 

I probably need to see one, call me crazy🤣, but I am not a psychiatrist. I updated my profile with some details of my background just prior to your post I think. I am definitely not a neuroscientist and regret actually including the term in my moniker. When I joined AS years ago I literally wanted to be known as musicophile  but the name was not available. Neuroscience reflects an interest not a qualification.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I would much prefer to be informed by objective data even at the end of the day if I reject it and still make my own subjective choice. At least I would have an option, a choice.🤔

Yes absolutely. I believe in a combination of understanding the electronic circuit, measuring the circuit to ensure that it is behaving as intended, as well as listening!

 

This is the crux of the question: which measurements predict great sound?

 

Hard to say but if a product claims low jitter, then let’s see the measurements. If a power cord or supply supposedly improves a DAC then let’s see the measurement! If a product claims to block leakage current then let’s see the effect n a DAC!

[Archimago]

19 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The relevance of measurements in audio seems to be a popular theme at the moment.

 

We know from other threads here and elsewhere that it is difficult to completely correlate objective measurements of an audio signal with subjective perceptions of what that measured signal will sound like to a human listener.

 

Measurements of the audio signal are not direct measurements of perception. They are surrogates or indirect markers. In medicine such markers are used all the time but the difference is we know how that indirect marker compares to a gold standard test of what you think you are measuring. It's just calibration of one tool against another known, and more accurate, tool.

Hmmm, let's hold off on the medical lab test analogy because I think we can make a case with examples of almost anything we want to argue about depending on which tests we're talking about! 😃

 

The way I see it, the measurements we do in audio are actually very correlated to what we hear already! Other than the rare birds like jitter and TIM which I agree can be surrogate measurements, key measured parameters like frequency response is highly correlated to sound quality of speakers and listener preferences (like the Harman research). Noise level likewise when high enough is clearly correlated to audibility and preference.

 

Let's talk about something like THD+N which commonly gets brought up. We have the luxury in 2020 to be blessed routinely with <0.01% THD+N DACs and through our vantage point say: "Oh, THD+N is meaningless and doesn't correlate with sound quality!"

 

Imagine if we lived in a time when source components went as low as 0.5% and often even went up to 5+% THD+N (still the case with low quality vinyl - anyone care to measure a Crosley turntable for example?). Back in those days, I imagine the objective number was seen as way more than a theoretical construct or questioned as to whether it made a difference! Of course it could be audible.

 

Every one of the distortions we typically use for measurements would lead to unwanted audible issues when severe enough. Even the dreaded but most likely toothless jitter boogeyman when high enough (as demonstrated) ruins the sound. To a real degree, it is thanks to technological progress that we have the luxury of subjectively expressing our preferences!

 

When devices often measured poorly say in the 40's to the early 80's, surely the focus on objective performance can be understood.

 

Quote

In my opinion, we haven't got that far in audio yet…….( this is despite blind testing. As a test tool, in my opinion it is not adequately calibrated and without known sensitivity, specificity, true and false positives/negatives, and positives and negative predictive values. Another topic).

 

I think implied in my response above is the idea that we have actually gone far enough already in many ways - especially for 2-channel audio! While there may be some things here and there to find, I think the technology is well mature. To go beyond might not be the domain of the hardware audiophile hobby as I'll discuss below.

 

Quote

Still, in my opinion there is hope. By definition, irrespective of how complex a perception is, it must have an evoking stimulus. That is basic neurobiology. I am excluding things here like hallucinations and the huge topic of central modulation in the nervous system.

 

So, the stimulus in this case is an audio signal followed by sound waves in air. The principle is pretty straightforward in that you can study that stimulus to observe what changes in the stimulus correlate, and are concordant with, some sort of change in perception.

 

I mentioned elsewhere that I don't think it should be terribly difficult to study such things as dynamic range measurement and compare that with our subjective evaluation of compressed or dynamic sound perception. Similarly, frequency response that doesn't extend down into the bottom octaves of music is expected to sound a certain way, or at least lacking a certain sound.

 

Actually, my hope for high fidelity products need not go this far. Beginning at the source, all we really have are our CDs, vinyl, and digital downloads (tapes, cylinders, etc...). All that we can ever recover or "hear" is in that data. If we can completely, transparently reproduce that "source" with a perfect turntable, perfect CD player, perfect DAC... No losses in the cabling... No losses in the preamp... "Perfect" amplifier to a perfect speaker/headphone that can "faithfully" (as in "high fidelity") reproduce what the data encoded in that source is, then that is all we can hope to do. "Transparency" to the source content is all that we can ever achieve. What happens in the mind neurobiologically is of no direct concern to high-fidelity audio reproduction or to hi-fi companies even though it would be very interesting academically.

 

To go "beyond hi-fi" would be to research psychoacoustics, which I think is what you're starting to suggest. How do we measure or even create mental effects such as "virtual 3D sound", "being in a stadium", expand perceived dynamic range, enhance subtle details, etc... All of which likely is more than what's on the CD or vinyl or downloaded file (especially 2-channel material). But as a purist "high-fidelity audiophile", this is in the realm of perceptual enhancement rather than as an audiophile who wants the cleanest, uncolored, most direct, "shortest signal path" type of performance.

 

Whereas we can objectively measure and know "fidelity" to the source recording (what goes in is exactly what comes out of the transducers and enters the ear), what constitutes as perception of the sound (neurobiologically measured so we can know that the person perceives it as "good" or even "better"), can only be defined based on individual preferences and that person's unique perceptual machinery.

 

Suppose we even have that kind of capability to peer into the mind with some detail (IMO not possible in this generation including with EEG, MEG, and neuroimaging), what do we think DAC manufacturers or speaker manufacturers can do about it?

 

Quote

It seems to me that where we're at with objective measurements is to verify  that a piece of audio gear is performing to spec and maybe explore better and alternative designs. There are measured levels of jitter, various distortions, frequency response and so on. Some of these measurements can give us some insight into what the gear might sound like, how it is "voiced". But frustratingly to most audiophiles there is often a disconnect between the measurement of the device's performance and how it sounds.

 

To be honest, I don't feel this way at all! I typically listen to the gear, then put it on the test bench, then have another listen afterwards to see if I can hear significant anomalies found. More often than not, I agree with the measurements and where I am surprised, it's usually with the areas where I believe it makes little difference (again, jitter is a good example, and low level harmonic distortion and TIM might be another).

 

Like I said above, performance of gear is already very good and if we have a concept of the threshold of our own hearing limitations, the magnitude of the anomaly on the measurements will make sense. Then there's no frustration at all because one can accept that the anomaly is there but it makes no difference because one's ears/brain/listening ability would not be able to pick it up.

 

In time, as one accepts these limitations of the self, then some things become less important. People still ask me all the time if I prefer USB or SPDIF. To me it doesn't matter any more because the only difference unless there are bit errors or audible noise is jitter and even though TosLink has worse jitter, I believe it's inaudible. A person like Ted Smith can come along and claim his DAC sounds different because of "jitter"; well, unless he can show me evidence that his DAC has good jitter performance (which it does not), then it's probably fair to suggest he's wrong.

 

Does it matter if my Emotiva amp has -80dB THD+N compared to my Hypex with less than -90dB? No, because both Class AB and D amps are very good now, that's not what matters most anymore... Rather the difference in damping factor to control my speakers, the lower cost and the fact that the Class D uses much less electricity are objective parameters that matter to me now within normal listening levels. In terms of anomalies found, does it matter that the Hypex has a 400kHz switching noise? No, because I know from experience that I cannot hear it and there are easy ways to ameliorate the effect in the system...

 

This IMO is the "offer" and power of having an objective perspective - this is an opportunities to experience, develop awareness, and understanding for oneself. It's simply part of the hobby. Subjectivists IMO should engage with the objective side because they will learn something about audio gear and themselves; in the process I suspect many will not be as influenced by peer pressure 😉 of what they're "supposed" to hear or like. Likewise, objectivists should recognize that our perceptual abilities are unique (personal, subjective) and embrace the emotional side including pride of ownership and luxury as the case might be.

 

Quote

The implicit suggestion/understanding/belief that the better the device's measured performance the better the potential sound quality has strong face validity but it is not always borne out in reality. It probably holds more true in the converse, in that lousy measurements are probably going to translate into poor sound quality but even this does not hold completely true.

 

I agree this is not true that perfect measurements mean "better sound quality" to everyone. And this is because we can respect people's subjective opinions. There are those among us who love vinyl sound and will only partake of a purely analogue/vinyl feast 😀. Are they "wrong"? Of course not. But this doesn't mean that they are not listening to turntables with temporal distortions way "worse" than a few hundred picoseconds of jitter off the CD player. Or that their systems don't have relatively high noise levels and >1% THD. If a person considers this subjectively "better sound", so be it... No need to engage in a crusade.

 

This is why to me it doesn't matter what neurobiology is saying when it comes to the hardware goal. For some, what I might call distortion is heard as being euphonic. I don't mind knowing about it or even modelling the sound quality to see if I might enjoy the coloration... These preferences are idiosyncratic in nature and not something that we need to chase. Some like beer, others wine, others whiskey. But if ya wanna get intoxicated, make sure the EtOH content is objectively adequate :-). It all comes down to what we're aiming for.

 

Quote

In my opinion therefore we need to establish measurements of the audio signal that not just informs us how the device is performing, as important as that is, but informs us how the sound/music will be perceived, i.e. what will it sound like.

 

As above. I think that's important for neuroscience, not "hi-fi" audio engineering as per the hobby I believe I'm engaging in for the hardware sound reproduction side. Maybe one day when we can plug our brainstems into the system and hit the vestibulocochlear nerve, cochlear nuclei, inferior colliculi, or maybe directly to Heschl's gyrus, then we better know what's happening with neuronal firing patterns!

 

"How the sound/music will be perceived" IMO is not the job of this hobby but yours, the neuroscientist 😉.

 

Quote

What I think most subjectivists sceptically reject is the notion that excellent device specs translates into sonic transparency and the corollary, that an excellent set of specs means that the device will sound like any other device with the same specs. I don't think it is an unobtainable goal just think we're way off reaching it, in my opinion.

 

A man can reject all kinds of notions. The question is, does that man have a means to prove that his rejection is not based on biased opinion and variables outside of whatever governs the topic at hand?

 

Suppose we have 2 amps to listen to. A subjectivist might reject that these two well-designed, well-measured amplifiers "sound the same" within normal operating parameters. I can listen for myself and walk away disagreeing with him. Since it is only his opinion, unless he shows me that this is indeed the case with "honesty controls" (ie. controlled trials, blind testing), otherwise with what faith am I to have that his opinion reflects reality?

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Again, we are just fortunate to be living in a time when our reproduction gear is good enough to keep measurable distortions low enough that for the most part, people lose sight of how important the objective side is. When devices often measured poorly say in the 40's to the early 80's, surely the focus on objective performance can be understood.

It is true that the commonly measured parameters such as THD and frequency response are almost universally excellent. Yet products sound different. What is needed is a focus on measurements that highlight the differences between equipment, rather than measurements which are almost universally good. 
 

Let’s me highlight (again) the FirstWatt series of amplifiers because:

1) same quality/case/power supply/price

2) published schematics

3) each has unique sound

 

So which measurements best explain the unique sound of each amp?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

50 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yes absolutely. I believe in a combination of understanding the electronic circuit, measuring the circuit to ensure that it is behaving as intended, as well as listening!

 

This is the crux of the question: which measurements predict great sound?

 

Hard to say but if a product claims low jitter, then let’s see the measurements. If a power cord or supply supposedly improves a DAC then let’s see the measurement! If a product claims to block leakage current then let’s see the effect n a DAC!

Totally agree. My only qualification would be obviously provided that said measurement exists...and exactly as you say, which measurements predict great sound?

[jabbr]

Ok how about these measurements — as some examples, there are others:

 

1) isolation from common mode noise (CMRR) — common mode noise, whether through the power supply or inputs, leads to leakage currents, hum etc

2) input rise time sensitivity

3) impedance mismatch sensitivity 

4) power supply noise sensitivity

 

(I’ve heard very audible issues with several components which otherwise measure very well)

 

*** this list has nothing to do with the series of FirstWatt amps!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok how about these measurements — as some examples, there are others:

 

1) isolation from common mode noise (CMRR) — common mode noise, whether through the power supply or inputs, leads to leakage currents, hum etc

2) input rise time sensitivity

3) impedance mismatch sensitivity 

4) power supply noise sensitivity

 

(I’ve heard very audible issues with several components which otherwise measure very well)

Okay, great, thanks for the examples. For many (most?) non technically minded audiophiles only Number 1) isolation from common mode noise (CMRR) has a meaningful correlate people can understand .....it leads to hum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the other measurements don't affect sound quality it's just that it is not specified in what way.

 

It is as you say I believe the most audiophiles are looking for the measurement that explains what they hear or why two components sound different....... if indeed they are actually hearing something that is measurable.

 

If they are hearing something that is not measurable then there are two possibilities. It is not actually there to be heard in the first place or alternatively, it's some kind of failure of the testing process such as the wrong test looking in the wrong place or other reason for a false negative.

 

 

[STC]

21 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

In my opinion therefore we need to establish measurements of the audio signal that not just informs us how the device is performing, as important as that is, but informs us how the sound/music will be perceived, i.e. what will it sound like.

Don’t you think this falls under psychoacoustics? It has been extensively researched and still being discovered. 
 

Blind tests are useful to determine if the difference can be detected by human hearing. If not than whatever specs becomes unnecessary. 
 

I don’t think there was any dispute whether objective or subjective 5.1 is perceived to be more pleasurable and real than 2.0.  What kind of measurements can tell this?  

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

It is true that the commonly measured parameters such as THD and frequency response are almost universally excellent. Yet products sound different. What is needed is a focus on measurements that highlight the differences between equipment, rather than measurements which are almost universally good. 
 

Let’s me highlight (again) the FirstWatt series of amplifiers because:

1) same quality/case/power supply/price

2) published schematics

3) each has unique sound

 

So which measurements best explain the unique sound of each amp?

 

Hey @jabbr,

I dunno. Let me get back to you when I have a FirstWatt to measure on the bench... 🙂

 

If we are to compare objective performance, we cannot speak in generalizations but must specify devices and examples so everyone's on the same page. What THD and frequency response are you referring to specifically?

 

Of course devices sound different including the FirstWatt amps, but notice that they do measure quite differently as well. Are there 2 FirstWatt amps that measure almost identically in detailed testing (not just FR, but also stuff like output impedance / damping factor across the audible frequency, relative amounts of odd/even and higher order harmonics...), and specified which speaker they're connected to? Remember, unless we can confirm load invariance with the amp, all bets are off.

 

Furthermore, Pass makes no bones about appreciating that varying amounts of harmonic distortion might be preferable (and makes devices like the H2 Harmonic Generator to play with this). It's objectively demonstrable and yes, audible...

 

 

I see no problem here.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

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

 

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

I think we can make a case with examples of almost anything we want to argue about depending on which tests we're talking about! 😃

 

This is what I want to know. If you're making a case that the test reveals an abnormality how is that manifest to the listener. If it is not manifest to the listener then why is it important? This brings us full circle to the title of your thread.

 

I fully accept things like frequency response and sufficiently high noise levels can be correlated with audibility and at least in the case of spectral anomalies it can be characterised with subjective descriptions like "warmth" or "air". I would like to learn how each of the other measurements translate to the listening experience.

 

I get your point that THD+N and jitter may no longer be the culprits that they used to be thanks to clever engineers and designers. As I understand it noise induced jitter like in the PHY of Dacs was not even recognised until relatively recent times and thanks to the work of engineers like John Swenson.

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

All that we can ever recover or "hear" is in that data. If we can completely, transparently reproduce that "source" with a perfect turntable, perfect CD player, perfect DAC... No losses in the cabling... No losses in the preamp... "Perfect" amplifier to a perfect speaker/headphone that can "faithfully" (as in "high fidelity") reproduce what the data encoded in that source is, then that is all we can hope to do. "Transparency" to the source content is all that we can ever achieve.

 

I agree that being faithful and transparent to the source is all that a perfect reproduction system can do. At this stage I haven't seen your evidence for the other statements. With great respect it almost echoes the claims of CDs when they first came out of "perfect Sound forever". The trouble is it sounded terrible. Then Julian Dunn and others started talking about jitter and after this noise.

 

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

What happens in the mind neurobiologically is of no direct concern to high-fidelity audio reproduction or to hi-fi companies even though it would be very interesting academically.

 

This is where we have the greatest disconnect but yes I understand your perspective. You are dealing with making a signal perfect to the extent that you can gauge that the signal is perfect. The trouble is we disagree as to the ability to ensure the signal is perfect without listening. It's like building a perfect aeroplane but never doing a test flight in reality, in my opinion.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 this is in the realm of perceptual enhancement rather than as an audiophile who wants the cleanest, uncolored, most direct, "shortest signal path" type of performance.

 

I'm not asking for perceptual enhancement

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 I typically listen to the gear, then put it on the test bench, then have another listen afterwards to see if I can hear significant anomalies found. More often than not, I agree with the measurements and where I am surprised, it's usually with the areas where I believe it makes little difference (again, jitter is a good example, and low level harmonic distortion and TIM might be another).

 

This of course can be confirmation bias

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Then there's no frustration at all because one can accept that the anomaly is there but it makes no difference because one's ears/brain/listening ability would not be able to pick it up.

 

This sounds a bit like speculation

 

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

In time, as one accepts these limitations of the self, then some things become less important.

 

Alternatively one can accept that "limitations of the self" means we don't have an answer for everything at this present time and there are more discoveries to come with attendant improvements in transparency. Certainly this would appear to be the way of science.

 

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

The question is, does that man have a means to prove that his rejection is not based on biased opinion and variables outside of whatever governs the topic at hand?

 

Science really isn't about proof, it's about probabilities and evidence, test and retest and setting conditions to reject the null hypothesis. I totally agree that properly controlled trials that eliminate bias and confounders and using demonstrably valid tests is the way to go. This is a huge topic but would take us off topic for this thread.

 

Archimago, for the sake of some brevity I have chopped down your responses and am aware that sometimes doing so can make it appear out of context. This was not my intention if it has occurred.

 

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

Don’t you think this falls under psychoacoustics? It has been extensively researched and still being discovered. 
 

 

Hi ST, I think there is something of a chicken and the egg argument going on. I get that you can just work on improving fidelity of the signal without any reference to a human being and to the extent that you can satisfy yourself that it is faithful. The problem is people have been told it is faithful before and yet it doesn't sound right to human beings. Now either the human beings are flawed or the stuff they're being served up is flawed. Due to listening reports, and engineers that listen, engineers have gone back to the drawing board and discovered that it wasn't really faithful at all. Thus improvements in transparency are made.

 

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

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!

Hey @Bill Brown, yeah, the descriptions of JGH over the years do suggest quite a "character". 🙂

 

I'm not sure which AD (Art Dudley?) article you're referring to Bill. I agree that I am disappointed too when I see pictures of many of these rooms used for highly subjective reviews. Recently on the Steve Hoffman Forum, there was a thread discussing Guttenberg and Fremer's rooms. I would hope that folks who spend so much time "listening" should be demonstrating the importance of this. (In comparison, @The Computer Audiophileclearly spent much time and efforts.)

 

Quote

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!

 

Yeah, as you can see, I've written a detailed response to "Neuroscience" above.

 

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... And I for one definitely thinks there is no need to go to such depths to understand if expensive ethernet cables or USB cables "sounds different" 🤔.

 

Quote

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.

 

Likewise, I was born overseas and have seen what the world can be like... We often forget about the privileged positions we might be in. To have disposable income, to talk about audiophile toys, to have a sound room, to have time to engage in forums like this... All privileges.

 

Quote

-  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.

 

Me too. Used to read Stereophile almost cover to cover. Stopped by the early 2000's when I got into SACD and DVD-A and realized that much of the time, these guys were just "hearing thing" 🙂. Now days, just target device reviews I might be interested in or curious about objective performance when a device is hyped or just to see how things perform (like some of the R2R DACs these days).

 

Quote

-  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.

 

Ditto. Once awhile this happens...

 

Quote

-  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.

 

Wow. Fantastic work on the building!

 

Quote

- 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).

 

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?

 

Filtering options are good. Just make sure to curb our enthusiasm of course 😄 and remain realistic.

 

Quote

- 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.

 

As discussed awhile back on my blog with settings for piCorePlayer, we can try out Chord-like, MQA-like, NOS-like, Meridian-like settings (plus my favourite filter setting of course!). "Computer audio" and the iterations of software have really provided opportunities for audiophiles to experiment and learn without needing to spend a lot of money!

 

Quote

"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

 

Cheers Bill.

[STC]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The problem is people have been told it is faithful before and yet it doesn't sound right to human beings.

(Hi David, nice to see active here again. )
 

Referring to the quote above, I suppose by equipment manufacturers, recording engineers and high end reviewers.

 

i don’t see why the measurements are relevant for listening music. Technically, a vinyl is inferior to digital and yet a vinyl system can sound as good as a digital system if not better to some. That itself is enough to convince me that measurements is not going to tell everything. 
 

When you say engineers, there are many out there but what are they actually measuring?  It is only somewhere in 1978 the new standard of object and subjective assessment for sound quality was conceived by taking psychoacoustics aspect into considering for sound quality evaluation. The standard is specified in the ITU.  Emotional response to music is more important when compared to objective measurements. 
 

If you were to play a jazz DSD in a dead room and compare the same in MP3 (320) in a lively room; the preferred one would be the MP3 sound. Measurement wise the DSD is better in every aspect but at emotional level the MP3 in a live room is more natural and believable. 
 

Our own judgment changes with time. As a young boy, I was mesmerized by the Poetry of the sea album. Every night after my parents were asleep, I would sneak in the hifi set to my room and place the speakers to the side of the bed and I will lie in between. It was so real sounding to me at that time. As time goes by, I have forgotten about the cassette until about 10 years ago when I saw the CD. When I played them in my system which is far superior than the player I had 45 years ago, the emotional connection wasn’t there. And like all audiophiles I too thought the analogue tape was a superior medium compared to digital. (Actually, this is also one of the thing why I abandon hirez and high end but that story is for another day).

As you can see from my experience, it wasn’t the measurements that brought out the best sound to my ears when I was a kid. It was the emotional connection of hearing the sea gulls flying from left to right, the boat engine, the crashing waves and the orchestra trigged something in me. 
 

As music lovers, measurements are not relevant. It is about making the sound of your system good so that you would appreciate the music more. Is it measurable? Yes but not with the conventional measurements we use to design equipments. 

 

p.s. Just Google to find out the correct name of the CD and was pleasantly surprised to notice that it was a Quadraphonic recording. glad that I was on the right track at that tender age.   

 

 

[Archimago]

3 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

 

Yup. No sweat @Audiophile Neuroscience. It's a hobby. There are no final exams. And let's have fun thinking about this... 😀

 

Quote

This is what I want to know. If you're making a case that the test reveals an abnormality how is that manifest to the listener. If it is not manifest to the listener then why is it important? This brings us full circle to the title of your thread.

 

If an abnormality does not manifest to a listener, I agree that it then does not make a significant difference to the sound quality. But that doesn't mean knowing about the presence of the abnormality is worthless.

 

It tells us when there are bugs. For example, I know that the ESS9038Pro DAC is capable of very low levels of distortion and jitter. Yet, I measured unusually high jitter when I first looked at the Sonica DAC back in 2017! I then E-mailed Oppo, they looked into it and indeed fixed the problem (this is all written here). These days devices are complex and who knows if that Sonica firmware would have been fixed if an objective person didn't run a J-Test and check the filters used. Bugs can show up and things can be missed. Perhaps nobody would have ever heard the difference, but it is nice to know that it's fixed and the DAC can be used to its full potential.

 

Low level anomalies provide a learning opportunity. I've seen enough harmonic distortion FFTs to recognize where my standards lie when it comes to quality and a sense of value. I can say that I have measured enough DACs to tell the difference between a robust piece of gear with one that's "finicky" and prone to pick up hum because the procedure I follow sometimes will create distortions which excellent gear is able to reject. As I wrote recently, there's almost a "subjective opinion" one can form about the device while doing the test, reflective I think of the engineering that went into the machine.

 

Finally, it's just good to know about these things sometimes 😉. I might never hear a Class D amp's 400kHz switching noise, but knowing it's there, and at what amplitude, will allow me to understand future generations of the device and how this manifests as characteristics of future progress.

 

Quote

I fully accept things like frequency response and sufficiently high noise levels can be correlated with audibility and at least in the case of spectral anomalies it can be characterised with subjective descriptions like "warmth" or "air". I would like to learn how each of the other measurements translate to the listening experience.

 

I don't typically use terms like "warmth" and "air", but if I had to...

 

"Warmth" to me is a type of high frequency roll-off (perhaps a loss from the "presence" region like 5kHz up), possibly a mid-range prominence around 1kHz and below, a "tilt" in the EQ. Unless a recording is meant to be "warm", I don't like this. At RMAF 2019, a speaker system I heard being too warm was the unusual looking Endow Audio "Point Array Technology" speaker.

 

Like "warmth", some recordings are meant to be "airy" (think Enya). But air can be an exacerbation of that higher treble or one can hear it exaggerated with some low quality gear that causes a lack of high-frequency focus, and possibly noise above 5kHz. A good example of "air" for me is the cheap Yeeco Class D based on the TI TPA3116D2. Some audiophiles like this sound but it was "too airy". When I measured it later, I found quite an inconsistent output impedance with quite significant drop-off from 2kHz onward resulting in poorly controlled high frequencies when presented with a reactive load - you can see a frequency accentuation at 7kHz when I hooked it up to my bookshelf speaker for example. Furthermore this amp has quite a bit of higher order harmonic distortions even at 1W (we're talking 8th order harmonic of equal amplitude to 2nd and 3rd order). Which of these is more important is hard to know but clearly the objective results are not telling me that this is good performance and that I should pay attention to the higher frequency abnormalities!

 

Quote

I get your point that THD+N and jitter may no longer be the culprits that they used to be thanks to clever engineers and designers. As I understand it noise induced jitter like in the PHY of Dacs was not even recognised until relatively recent times and thanks to the work of engineers like John Swenson.

 

Show me one objective piece of data John Swenson provided about the 8kHz PHY noise. How about one piece of data that his USB Regen actually reduces jitter or noise with a DAC's ouput. I've asked for this years ago...

 

The USB Regen is basically a 1-port USB hub. Just because he brought attention to the fact that USB high-speed bus clock runs at 8kHz (125μs) and that in special circumstances we might be able to detect this noise doesn't mean it was ever much of a problem. It's a talking point that contains truth but I have yet to see evidence that the actual product sold delivered on the promise. (I don't think ASR ever found evidence of benefit either.)

 

Quote

I agree that being faithful and transparent to the source is all that a perfect reproduction system can do. At this stage I haven't seen your evidence for the other statements. With great respect it almost echoes the claims of CDs when they first came out of "perfect Sound forever". The trouble is it sounded terrible. Then Julian Dunn and others started talking about jitter and after this noise.

 

Not sure what other statements you're referring to here...

 

I don't think jitter ever explained the "terrible" sound of CDs in the 80's. Not sure if Julian Dunn ever said jitter explained much of this either. My belief is that some early CDs sound bad not because of the hardware but the recordings themselves. Some of it was poorly transferred. Some used early ADCs that could not perform at 14-bits much less the full 16-bits. Also remember that a number of early CDs had pre-emphasis applied and might not be played back properly (especially these days if one rips one of these CDs and not correct it for computer playback!). Also, @John Dyson's work on decoding Dolby A might also play a role.

 

But remember too that there were sonic gems from those days. Donald Fagen's The Nightfly was fantastic for 1982 (an early digital recording using 3M machines, tracks laid down from 81-82) and still sounds great today even if the production is a bit dated! So is Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms in 1985. They always sounded great even back in the 80's... As usual, be careful about painting with too wide a brush stroke!

 

I wrote about "Pure, Perfect Sound - Forever" back in 2014. Digital medium remains the best quality we have. Hardware and software for audio production have clearly improved over the years. And to this day, I don't believe hi-res makes that much difference over pain-'ol 16/44.1 CD resolution (more below).

 

Quote

This is where we have the greatest disconnect but yes I understand your perspective. You are dealing with making a signal perfect to the extent that you can gauge that the signal is perfect. The trouble is we disagree as to the ability to ensure the signal is perfect without listening. It's like building a perfect aeroplane but never doing a test flight in reality, in my opinion.

 

Right, but if the plans for the perfect aeroplane is a work of genius, the potential is captured and there is value and beauty in that even if never fully instantiated. That's hypothetical though. When it comes to audio, since I don't believe that the ear is "perfect", I don't ask it to do such a thing! All I ask is that the hardware be good enough that it does not corrupt the signal and the ear/brain/mind can be presented with a sound that is reflective of what's on the source recording I'm listening to.

 

Quote

I'm not asking for perceptual enhancement

 

OK.

 

Quote

This of course can be confirmation bias

 

(Regarding listening - measuring - relistening...) Maybe, but is it any worse than listening to an expensive audio cable with eyes wide open? I see it as a feedback mechanism. It actually teaches me what "clean" sounds like. I think this is beneficial because most subjective audiophiles never have the opportunity to balance the listening with objective performance indicators.

 

Quote

This sounds a bit like speculation

 

(Regarding not being frustrated and whether brain/ear can pick up something...) Again, I'm coming at this as having the experience and I'm saying I'm not all that frustrated :-).

 

Quote

Alternatively one can accept that "limitations of the self" means we don't have an answer for everything at this present time and there are more discoveries to come with attendant improvements in transparency. Certainly this would appear to be the way of science.

 

Sure. I'm open to it even though there is currently no evidence that one should expect much more transparency than what we've gained over numerous generations of products already especially with 2-channel recordings...

 

After the years of reading magazines and being told that this "new generation speaker is much better than the last", "Is this the best amplifier ever?", or more perversely "this new cable sounds clearly better", I believe many audiophiles have that mentality of a strong expectation for even more...

 

If you've been in this hobby for years, is it true that good speakers from 10 years ago sounds much worse than today's models? Is that vintage amp necessarily inferior to the best of today? Did the Squeezebox Transporter I bought before 2010 sound much worse than my Oppo UDP-205 UHD Blu-Ray? While I believe there have been improvements, I'd be lying if I were to say anything was "heads and shoulders" better...

 

The push for "hi-res" sounding "much better" is a nice example of real technological improvement that should sound much better but alas our ears are not capable of this (literally, a "limitation of the self"). Despite the hype, at it's core, this is what the science has been saying. Remember the Reiss hi-res review paper that got the audiophile media buzzing in 2016? Well, if you read the paper I think you'd find what Mark Waldrep said to be much more accurate. The fact that the marketplace has not adopted hi-res to a significant degree is also telling.

 

Quote

Science really isn't about proof, it's about probabilities and evidence, test and retest and setting conditions to reject the null hypothesis. I totally agree that properly controlled trials that eliminate bias and confounders and using demonstrably valid tests is the way to go. This is a huge topic but would take us off topic for this thread.

 

No worries. Agree that there's no need to get too deep into the philosophical discussions... We have the audio products before us, so let's just enjoy that and use examples where we can.

 

Quote

Archimago, for the sake of some brevity I have chopped down your responses and am aware that sometimes doing so can make it appear out of context. This was not my intention if it has occurred.

 

Cheers

David

 

No problem. I typically don't write so much in forums but thought that this week it would be fun to engage with you guys. We can agree to disagree and so long as we mutually share interesting ideas and experiences, it's worth taking the time to chat.  👍

 

Cheers AN...