Why are objective assessments important...

[Kal Rubinson]

50 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

 

Maybe you would need one of this:

 

 

 

🤩 🤩 🤩

 

Roch

Yeah.  And I have a good idea what to do with it.  😛

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

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

 

 

There's a remarkably easy way to assess overall competence of the playback - wind up the volume so that it's really LOUD - that is, mimic the levels that the equivalent live sound would be for the type of music - and then deliberately engage in earnest conversation with someone besides you, preferably about something that's nothing to do with music ... if you are at total ease doing this, and have no issues flicking your attention now and again to what's going on in the music - then it gets a tick. If OTOH the urge builds rapidly to run over and "turn the bloody thing down!" ... then it's a fail ...

[Archimago]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

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.

 

Hello @barrows,

Yes, the brain is "plastic" in that the neural networks obviously can readjust and learn, but there are limits and things like neurogenesis is cool but tends to be overhyped in media for what it really is. Neuroimaging technology is advancing and inferences can be made with stuff like diffusion tensor looking at anisotropy and connectivity maps can be made but remember that these too depend on assumptions and typically are based on group effects.

 

A long way to go if we're aiming for understanding of detecting the perception of "high quality" sound versus "lower quality" when even for the most severe of neurological and psychiatric illnesses, the level of understanding is still rather marginal.

 

Again. IMO completely science fiction in this generation unless some kind of major breakthrough can be made in the technology.

[Bill Brown]

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

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

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

 

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

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

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

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

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

 

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

Yeah agreed, although looks to me like the quantum realm, and the cosmos are pretty open ended as well!

[tapatrick]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There's a remarkably easy way to assess overall competence

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

[DuckToller]

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

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

On a side note: When it's not like a computer, how can we use it for our computer audiophile interest ??? .. just joking ... 😉
Best, Tom

[Iving]

 

21 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

The Long Read  at The  Guardian's webpage called "Why your brain is not a computer"

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

 

It's a good article ... and an object lesson in the kind of "humility" I've mentioned once or twice.

 

Honestly ... some things just are. Science hates circular arguments. But that's where we're going (maybe necessarily!) with this one.

 

I just mean - @Archimago has been very lax and kind about scope on this thread lately - but even I'm thinking we're getting a bit wild for "Objective-Fi"!

 

All meant in good humour!

[tapatrick]

2 hours ago, DuckToller said:

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

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

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

[fas42]

9 hours ago, tapatrick said:

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

 

Which says it all, really ... people can't grok that why live, acoustic is so easy to "take in", is because the brain doesn't have to work hard to separate what's going on in the auditory world around it - if you're talking to someone, and there's music playing, there is merely the task of keeping the music separate from the conversation; if the music is distortion impregnated replay, then you're doubling the workload on our poor minds - it also wants to discard the anomalies it can hear in the music which is in the background ... "Overload, overload!!", and the poor Lost in Space robot starts spinning its arms wildly ...

 

There almost seems a perverse need to have reproduction be like solving a mathematical problem, amongst some  - unless the listener has to "work on it" when taking in the presentation, then it ain't good enough, 😜.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, Iving said:

and an object lesson in the kind of "humility" I've mentioned once or twice.

 

I think there is an inherent humility and honesty in the simple statement "I don't know'. This is in contrast to what I see as theory served up as dogma by some subjectivists and objectivists.All one can really do is look at all the available evidence (in the case of Audio Truth that would include measurements and listening) and decide what fits best into their current paradigm.

[fas42]

There's a huge amount of "I don't know" in audio - I spent decades scratching my head about what was going on; my current ideas are the integration, 😁, of my findings to date - I do know what the listening mind can 'see' in audio replay, but what are the key ingredients in terms of lack of anomalies that would be easily measurable, that guarantee this behaviour, I don't know; and why almost bizarre tweaking, which theoretically is almost of zero value, still has the ability to to ripple through and impact subjective SQ, I don't know.

[tapatrick]

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

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

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

 

22 hours ago, Archimago said:

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

I will read your article.

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

 

23 hours ago, Archimago said:

Have fun! Enjoy the music...

 

For sure, you too!

[tapatrick]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I don't know.

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

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

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

 

Agree, but quite often life throws little obstacles in our way, 🙂 - the want may be there, but as has been said, “A man's got to know his limitations.” ...

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

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

 

I had the remarkable good fortune that my first choice of 'bits' was good enough to do the job; it only required a touch of fiddling to get it to snap into shape. Hence, 'upgradeitiis' has never figured for me - when I checked out what supposedly better gear was doing, it was so far behind in key areas that changing anything I was using had zero appeal.

 

49 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

I will read your article.

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

 

 

For sure, you too!

 

Yes, getting lost in the listening experience is what it's about ... where nearly every ambitious rig fails is that they make key playback anomalies too obvious - and it's impossible to "get lost". The 'objective' way to assess this is to have a selection of recordings which are 'difficult' - which immediately give the game away, when you try them on a system .. the end goal is to have every single 'difficult' recording you own trigger the "getting lost in the music" sensation.

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which says it all, really ... people can't grok that why live, acoustic is so easy to "take in", is because the brain doesn't have to work hard to separate what's going on in the auditory world around it - if you're talking to someone, and there's music playing, there is merely the task of keeping the music separate from the conversation; if the music is distortion impregnated replay, then you're doubling the workload on our poor minds - it also wants to discard the anomalies it can hear in the music which is in the background ... "Overload, overload!!", and the poor Lost in Space robot starts spinning its arms wildly ...

 

 

Please provide evidence of this claim.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

Please provide evidence of this claim.

 

More importantly, how is any of it relevant to the topic of the thread?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Please provide evidence of this claim.

 

A trivially obvious fact to me, when I try to interact with a demonstrator in a hifi shop 😉 .. CPE, Cocktail Party Effect has been studied for over 50 years, there's a huge amount of research on myriad aspects of this - one particularly relevant is "A behavioral study on the effects of rock music on auditory attention", that popped up quickly, http://eis.bristol.ac.uk/~xf14883/files/conf/2013_hbu_musicattention.pdf

-

[Archimago]

On 2/27/2020 at 11:50 AM, tapatrick said:

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

 

Hi @tapatrickand @DuckToller. Nice article Duck and yes, tapatrick, McGilchrist's book is a great read and met him when he came for a lecture back in 2016. Smart man, talking about things hard to wrap our minds and words around...

 

I agree with the "brain is not a computer" article. Well said... And a big reason why in terms of consciousness and perception, we're not going to truly understand the unique subjectivity "owned" by each "mind". Quite likely we will never truly understand each person even if we have great knowledge of how brains work materially / mechanistically.

 

Yes, we're certainly wandering in to territory further away from audiophile stuff but I think that's good! The hobby and talking about this stuff ultimately must touch upon that which is ephemeral and emotional; some might even use the words "spiritual". Ultimately it is about nourishing our "souls" as human beings...

 

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

[tapatrick]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

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

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

 

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

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

• and secondly overall sound quality

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

• how do you make and record these?

• how can we 'view' them?

• what should we be looking for in the measurements?

 

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

The machines we use to reproduce the music are conduits for the art and IMO the job is to transmit the signals that encode the art. And objective analysis is the primary way of determining that these devices are performing to expectations.

 

So, if I listen to a system, and I think it sounds awful, and that it's a long way from sounding convincing; but conventional objective analysis says it can't find any issues - then my hearing is the one in the wrong?

[Iving]

1 hour ago, tapatrick said:

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

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

• and secondly overall sound quality

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

• how do you make and record these?

• how can we 'view' them?

• what should we be looking for in the measurements?

 

These are great questions, and in a few of my more recent posts (other than e.g. "Moon Music") I've attempted to approach some of them from a stance of logic / principle / research methodology.

Anything that is *measured* is in the domain of "Objective-Fi". This is also aka the "empirical approach". Its primary advantage is that it permits agreement based on the reproducibility of the Results of any given experiment / data exercise. The extent to which we may agree should not be based on our *biases* - but rather on the extent to which the hypothesis has been framed well, the Method unassailable in terms of its logic, the Design and statistics sound, the interpretation correct - again mainly a matter of straight thinking and logic - and the Conclusions drawn appropriate. This is *the* empirical/scientific approach to researching questions to which we would like answers. It is used in *all* the mainstream sciences. In fact, without empirical support for our position we are expressing mere opinion. Any strong assertion should always be supported with reference to empirical precedents. The problem for social media Forums like this is that we converse casually about this and that - and quite naturally many of us are not familiar with the Scientific Literature germane for any given conversational assertion. If we are speculating - we should say so really. If we speculate with strong assertions then we are being a little unfair on ourselves and others - and stifling reasonable debate. If we speculate with strong assertion and also ridicule - then we are trolling - and that prevents anything useful happening (except satisfying the ego of the troll in what is only ever a selfish and empty or hollow victory).

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

 

Both of these research approaches are *equally legitimate*. There is nothing unduly philosophical about the latter approach in 2. Absolutely, both approaches are *pragmatic for audiophiles* as much as for Scientists at large.

 

I know I am not addressing all your bullets @tapatrick. I am trying to make a simple contribution to "Objective-Fi".

"Subjective-Fi" is where we assert an experience - but we *don't* have direct evidence for it - except our personal experience of it. *There is nothing wrong with that* - and for all anybody knows - a person could be "right" about their assertion - and it is difficult (if not impossible) to *prove* a subjective experience false - unless the preceding premises for the assertion are illogical [but even then someone who believes they are Napoleon is in fact for all psychiatric intents and purposes Napoleon]. But that is not what we see [or used to see anyway] typically here on AS - we see people ridiculing a person for reporting an enjoyable tweak - when the logic for contradicting the subjective experience germane *has far from been established*. For example - and I am not advocating Myrtle Wood or whatever it is - but if a person hears a difference raising a cable on Myrtle Wood - it *could* be true that they *do* here a difference - whether that experience is a subjective "illusion" - or whether there is something *that we do not know about Myrtle Wood* that accounts for that SQ difference. Just because basic knowledge of physics combined with comparatively crude measuring exercises suggest that Myrtle Wood cannot have such an effect, doesn't mean that there isn't something *unknown* about Myrtle Wood that is affecting the person's "ears". I say all this "leading with the chin" I suppose - but please - I am talking about principles of logic - not Myrtle Wood.

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

 

I think I have provided a fair synopsis-answer to the thread Title.

Notes prepared before breakfast - please excuse any minor mistakes.

I repeat - I'm not on about Myrtle Wood OK? 🙂 [nice smile]

[jabbr]

13 hours ago, Archimago said:

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

Yes! From a pragmatic perspective, objective assessments are important if they increase our enjoyment of this hobby.

 

That could be ...

... improving the sound of our systems in a predictable way without needing to listen to a gazillion different components and combination of components

... allowing us to have the best sound for our individual budgets

... Improving the convenience of listening

... Allowing us to understand how components of our hobby work

 

Not everyone will value each element, or any of the above, and most people simply want to hit a button and listen!

[tapatrick]

4 hours ago, Iving said:

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

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

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