Why are objective assessments important...

[tapatrick]

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

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

@Archimago 

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

 

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

 

AMEN - the Alpha and the Omega

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Absolutely... enough for now.  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, STC said:

(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.   

 

 

 

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.

 

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).

 

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

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Great thread guys. If only we knew @Archimago’s real identity, we could take it seriously. 
 

Only kidding of course. 

[tapatrick]

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

[STC]

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

 

 

 

[Iving]

At last - edifying debate!

 

I'm aware that this thread is in "Objective-Fi". Here and recently on "When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions" I have demonstrated that I am neither Subjectivist nor Objectivist; indeed, I argued that these are limiting categories if "truth" is our goal. I am neither troll nor disrupter. I will keep my few quote-wise remarks to "response" vs. opening up new fronts. To me, "Objective" considers the merits of and possibilities surrounding that which is *measurable*. Generally we don't consider psychological matters here at AS. A psychological angle is not necessarily a Subjective angle - quite the contrary if it resorts to an empirical approach. There is a strong Behaviourist tradition in modern psychology - usually associated with the laboratory-based conditioning experiments of Pavlov (Classical Conditioning) and Skinner (Operant Conditioning) - not to mention Thorndike and of course Watson. Scientific psychology also embraces as core elements of its BPS-endorsed curriculum in the UK inter alia Developmental Psychology, Personality aka Individual Differences and of course Hearing, Speech and Language. Just like any ordinary degree in the physical sciences, it takes three years of full-time effort to navigate merely an undergraduate qualification. Most of us - even if postgraduates or academics - are Jacks of All Trades when it comes Audiophilia - i.e., Masters of None. If we all chip in a bit - remaining open-minded except to the truly preposterous - we can hope for a little enlightenment.

 

20 hours ago, Iving said:

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

 

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am not a psychiatrist ... I am definitely not a neuroscientist ... Neuroscience reflects an interest not a qualification.

 

Many apologies. Inculcated with thoughts of statistics, I added 2 + 2 and made 5. Mea culpa. [Actually I blame @Samuel T Cogley's humorous departure-flourish - I think I got you and @Bill Brownmixed up as one nebulous and of course imaginary character.]

 

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

Thank you

 

20 hours ago, Iving said:

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.

 

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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 ... 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 think we are on the same page!

 

Measuring perception [self-reports] as DV in relation to "Equipment" manipulations as IV(s) is bound to constitute the short-run game and appeal more to hard-nosed folks with a Scientific bent. One could conduct experiments with psychological or "non-Equipment" variables *only* - e.g. Extraversion as IV to perceptual thresholds in the context of a "Stimulus Intensity Modulation" model say - not too tough on an "Objectivist" mindset.

 

4 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.

 

I am an advocate for mysteries! Yes - these "ultimate questions", particularly consciousness (although human language, subjective experience of pain, aesthetic appreciation including that for beauty, mathematics, music etc may be regarded philosophically as mutually bound with human consciousness - and thus all these ideas may be considered equally elusive) may be explored "in science" - but I doubt - at least for argument's sake - that science, as we understand science since the Scientific Revolution, is the paradigm in which humans will appreciate these things as fully as we may ever be able to do that.

 

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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).

 

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

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 me it doesn't matter what neurobiology is saying when it comes to the hardware goal... These preferences are idiosyncratic in nature and not something that we need to chase.

 

 

These are the teasers of the day for me. In other words I'll probably find myself reflecting for a while on the psychology of individual differences in music appreciation given the *hypothetical* proposition of a perfectly transparent system. On the one hand I accept that proposition (i.e. "perfectly transparent") as a logical foundation for discussion - it's like twin studies in psychology - if DNA is identical then DV differences cannot be attributed to genetic differences and may plausibly be attributed elsewhere instead - on the other hand - I ask, "Where does that perfectly transparent system end?" And answer rhetorically, "At the DAC output?"; "Just in front of the speakers?"; "At the human eardrum?"; "In the afferent nerves?" - "In the yawning and unexplored - even unfathomable [?] - chasm between those impulses and the subjective experience of music?"

 

But the OP's remarks suggest we may be straying beyond the scope of the Thread Topic here and so I shall stop any moment.

 

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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.

 

Well said.

 

3 hours ago, STC said:

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.

 

Beautiful. Compelling. Beguiling.

 

Things are not always as they seem.

[tapatrick]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Archimago

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

 

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

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hey @jabbr

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

 

 

You could build one! I picked this series as an example because the circuits are published and there is a forum on DIYAudio devoted essentially to building them. 

Archi, you do a great thoughtful job on your blog. I’m writing this to answer the question, not necessarily for you, but for the “subjectivist” who doesn’t find THD and frequency response helpful.

 

Rather than trying to “prove” to people why they aren’t hearing what they are hearing, we all could do a better job using objective data to demonstrate why people are hearing what they are hearing. 
 

Nelson Pass, for example, allows people to play around with 2nd harmonic. Tube vs transistor. Note that jFets were selected because similar behavior to tiroides etc. 

 

So think of this from a scientific POV, rather than prove an observation isn’t meaningful, scientists do much better explaining an observation in a new light. 
 

As an example consider a paper:

”Differential transmission of common mode noise in a series of USB cables as a function of a series of USB transmission devices”

 

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

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?

 

Exactly, yet these seem to be the universal “specs” that are published... 

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Of course devices sound different including the FirstWatt amps, but notice that they do measure quite differently as well.

 

Yes, if you do the proper measurements! THD and FR not so dissimilar.

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

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.

 

Exactly. My point is that if you look at the circuit, the specific testing becomes more apparent.

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

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 firmly believe that everything audible is measurable if and only if the right measurements are done. Not all that is audible is measurable by an AP analyzer, or demonstrated solely by an FFT. 

[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

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 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...

The brain is plastic, that is it can compensate to an extent for changes in hearing acuity at the ear level.  The ear/brain system is much more complex in how it works than just the signals received by the ears.  Tthe Brain is essentially the worlds most powerful super computer using feedback and a continuously adaptive DSP systems to process signals from the ear and make them discernible as having musical meaning (or not, as the case may be)

This is why if we are really to have the slightest understanding of how perception works, i believe brain imaging is going to have be part of that research.  I know little about it, but just the amount I do know about brain imaging and how it is pushing understanding forward recently is amazing.

[fas42]

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'.

[fas42]

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.

[kumakuma]

25 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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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!? 🤔

[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

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

It's known as, the Art of Audio Commenting ... 😉

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour 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.

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. 😜

[fas42]

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.

[fas42]

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.

[STC]

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

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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

 

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

[Archimago]

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...

 

[elcorso]

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:

 

 

 

🤩 🤩 🤩

 

Roch

[Archimago]

15 hours ago, Iving said:

At last - edifying debate!

 

I'm aware that this thread is in "Objective-Fi". Here and recently on "When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions" I have demonstrated that I am neither Subjectivist nor Objectivist; indeed, I argued that these are limiting categories if "truth" is our goal. I am neither troll nor disrupter....

 

Good stuff @Iving. For me, life has to be lived in that gray zone between objectivism and subjectivism. There is no point depriving ourselves of the joys that each "dialectic" of life brings. While this thread might be in "Objective-Fi", there is no better place to talk like this IMO.

 

To live in the "gray" zone means we have to look at both extremes and be ready to disagree with both sides at times; but always be reasonable. I find that these days, many audiophile forums will "ban" talk of DBT or measurements even. Banning opportunities to express when we think some subjective opinion is absolute BS, and likewise, when a "pure objectivist" robotically focuses on numbers (like which DAC has the lowest THD+N and call that "best") deprives the opportunity to find common ground.

 

No need for that artificial polarity.

 

Quote

I am an advocate for mysteries! Yes - these "ultimate questions", particularly consciousness (although human language, subjective experience of pain, aesthetic appreciation including that for beauty, mathematics, music etc may be regarded philosophically as mutually bound with human consciousness - and thus all these ideas may be considered equally elusive) may be explored "in science" - but I doubt - at least for argument's sake - that science, as we understand science since the Scientific Revolution, is the paradigm in which humans will appreciate these things as fully as we may ever be able to do that.

 

 

Right. And a part of me feels there is a beauty about the idea that indeed we shall never be able to explain all the intricacies of the human mind... And that's totally OK! It's good to "own" our own thoughts and actions rather than expecting some kind of mechanistic "predestined" nature to the universe to be revealed through science. Of course, consciousness is a much more complex question than whether a fancy USB cable transmits electrical signals "accurately" 🙂.

 

What I do know is that at this current time, the idea that we're even approaching an understanding of consciousness is completely science fiction. Not in my lifetime unless we truly witness some kind of "paradigm shift" in the neurosciences!

 

Quote

These are the teasers of the day for me. In other words I'll probably find myself reflecting for a while on the psychology of individual differences in music appreciation given the *hypothetical* proposition of a perfectly transparent system. On the one hand I accept that proposition (i.e. "perfectly transparent") as a logical foundation for discussion - it's like twin studies in psychology - if DNA is identical then DV differences cannot be attributed to genetic differences and may plausibly be attributed elsewhere instead - on the other hand - I ask, "Where does that perfectly transparent system end?" And answer rhetorically, "At the DAC output?"; "Just in front of the speakers?"; "At the human eardrum?"; "In the afferent nerves?" - "In the yawning and unexplored - even unfathomable [?] - chasm between those impulses and the subjective experience of music?"

 

For me, a perfectly transparent system as per the audio technology of today can only be "practically" defined starting at the medium (ie. the data on your CD) and ends at the level of the transducer (speakers, headphones) in being able to create sound waves that reflect "exactly" that data (even then we can debate how this should be measured - anechoic? on tweeter axis?). Beyond that, no audio company has control of your room acoustics, the air between you and the speakers/headphones, speaker orientation and positioning... That's for you to navigate.

 

Remember that the recording itself can also dictate what kind of system it expects. For example, binaural recordings obviously expect headphone type systems. Q-Sound encoding has demands on how to best hear that "3D" sound, studios might make assumptions as to your speaker placement, etc...

 

That room and "space" is where modern techniques of DSP room correction "lives". Whether that achieves "transparency" is a different type of objective analysis that's more complex.

 

Quote

But the OP's remarks suggest we may be straying beyond the scope of the Thread Topic here and so I shall stop any moment.

 

Nah. This is good 🙂. All the best!