Jump to content
IGNORED

Why are objective assessments important...


Recommended Posts

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.  

ATL DC Blocker > Topaz 2.5Kva Isolation Transformer > Sine SA5 Cryo 5 power strip > EtherRegen switch powered with Ciunas Supercaps 7.5v LPS > Laufer Mini Memory Player> EC Designs U192 USB Transport plus Fractal DAC > Decware SE84UFO3 Mono Amps > TNT UBYTE-2 Speaker cables > Omega Super Alnico Monitors. PH SR4 & Ian Canada UConditioner Ultracap 5V power supplies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

ATL DC Blocker > Topaz 2.5Kva Isolation Transformer > Sine SA5 Cryo 5 power strip > EtherRegen switch powered with Ciunas Supercaps 7.5v LPS > Laufer Mini Memory Player> EC Designs U192 USB Transport plus Fractal DAC > Decware SE84UFO3 Mono Amps > TNT UBYTE-2 Speaker cables > Omega Super Alnico Monitors. PH SR4 & Ian Canada UConditioner Ultracap 5V power supplies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi ST

 

coming at this from a purely scientific point of view I don't have a problem with the theory that engineers (or other skilled professional) might be able to produce a signal that is perfectly faithful to the source.

 

Exact replica is not possible with current technology. Close enough is possible and without reference that will be real enough to fool us. But if someone is telling that two speakers can produce faithfully to the source then the sound should generate the same sound waves like the original equipment. That will be a challenge and no practical way to reproduce them at home. 

 

 

Quote

 

As many have pointed out there is currently a poor correlation between many audio measurements and audible sound quality or sound characteristics. I think there is potential for this to change if there are people willing to look (and listen).


Who are they? the latest method of objective and subjective assessment is reliable. 

 

Quote

If you understand how sound and music is perceived it seems reasonable to me, armed with this information, that you might be able to find measurements to reflect this. We might even find out why some people prefer vinyl over digital or vice versa

 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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

 

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'.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread shows again the desire to approach the situation by looking at parts of the whole - and studying them in isolation - which IME will lead to a big fat zero, in terms of understanding "what's going on" ... I just shake my head at the pointlessness of this ...

 

Until someone!!! takes the business of measuring a complete system in operation, in every possible area that may be relevant, seriously - this will go absolutely nowhere.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:
31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Until someone!!! takes the business of measuring a complete system in operation, in every possible area that may be relevant, seriously - this will go absolutely nowhere.

 

I have to say that I've never seen anyone!!! use exclamation marks in the middle of a sentence before.

 

I'm!! starting to wonder about your !! observation skills! Tom!! Is your sreen! resolving !! enough!? 🤔

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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

 

Which is exactly the sort of tracks I've worked on ... pure clipping can be resolved by copying and pasting parts of the track that have the comparable waveform, at slightly lower levels, available to be used, as a template - the ears can't pick that you've 'cheated'. Compression can be guesstimated, and by a process of stepwise adjusting the right decompression parameters, a best fit can be selected - think of it like fine tuning the settings of a colour TV - there will be a combination that will give the "best picture".

 

It's trivially easy to hear how much has been gained, comparing the original, and a decent "fixing up" - it may not be technically perfect, but it makes a world of difference, subjectively.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Every measurement that I do with a microphone measures the complete system in operation.  Without the amps, I cannot get enough signal from the speakers. 😜

 

And, in every possible area, too, I presume ... 😜.

 

Over the years, I've come across clips on YouTube which "compare" live with reproduction, in some way, at some point. Right, you've now got the raw material - line up the live moment with the replay ... oh dear ...

 

What's usually trivially obvious is that the transients, and treble energy are not even in the ball park - every time there's a "sharp hit" in the music, the reproduction version is way, way behind.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Which is exactly the sort of tracks I've worked on ... pure clipping can be resolved by copying and pasting parts of the track that have the comparable waveform, at slightly lower levels, available to be used, as a template - the ears can't pick that you've 'cheated'.


 

Life is much simpler than that. 
 

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2019/3/20/we-test-3-top-declipper-plug-ins-that-quickly-restores-distorted-audio-listen-compare-amp-vote-for-the-example-you-prefer-the-sound-of

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Yes, there will always be options ... which is why I'm not worried about "rescuing" modern mastering 'catastrophes'.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, tapatrick said:

@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 pleasure @tapatrick. Nice chatting with you guys :-).

 

Quote

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. 

 

Yeah, I can accept that we're going to have a broad variation depending on the person on how we experience longer term listening and ownership of a product.

 

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!

 

Quote

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!

 

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 can imagine that the time with your friend represents a different state of mind compared to individual listening. The mental "mode" will be different. Your mind might be more attentive to the social atmosphere rather than engaged with critical listening to notice the difference.

 

To me, this again speaks to the importance of controlled listening because we are not machines, if we are to find consistency, we must make some attempts at identifying the relevant variables and take steps toward a disciplined approach.

 

Quote

 

“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.  

 

Have fun! Enjoy the music...

 

Archimago's Musings... A "more objective" audiophile blog.

Free The Music - No MQA!  :nomqa:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Every measurement that I do with a microphone measures the complete system in operation.  Without the amps, I cannot get enough signal from the speakers. 😜

 

 

Maybe you would need one of this:

 

68525427_Musicnotestape.jpg.791da72b4a4744a1e1fd1fb8c4173a79.jpg

 

 

🤩 🤩 🤩

 

Roch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...