opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: I'm pretty sure that this differs person to person. You can try some of the easy to configure cross-feed plugins with headphones to get a sense of what is audible to you. I haven't figured out yet how to tell soundstage depth on headphones. Maybe there's a correlation with some parameter yet to be determined but I don't in general get a perceived image 'out of my head' enough to hear where the soundstage ends. Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 How could simulation software confirm the results of listening experiments? Do please outline how it could be done. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, sandyk said: That's up to Paul to explain. No it isn't. Its up to you. Its simulation software btw, not a measurement toy. pkane2001 and sandyk 1 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 15 hours ago, pkane2001 said: This one, between AN and I, was started many years ago, long before DISTORT. By nature I'm a skeptic and so I ask questions, just like AN does. But that's where we differ: I don't ask questions just to prove the other side wrong. I ask questions because I'm really interested in finding and understanding the answer, and if I don't believe or understand the answer, I look for ways to learn and verify. That's why I created DISTORT, that's why I created DeltaWave. What I'm getting from this is that @pkane2001's motives are pure and @Audiophile Neuroscience's aren't. Since this is the Objective forum - is there like, um any evidence in support of this (implied) claim? Or did I misinterpret the implication? Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: I suggest you start with AN. Why? I've not seen a claim, implied or otherwise about his motivations from him. Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: Just a suggestion. But it wasn't merely a suggestion, it was also a deflection. So - any evidence? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 An engineered deflection is still a deflection. So there isn't any? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 Just now, pkane2001 said: Hmm? No OK. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 1 hour ago, sandyk said: And those that think they know. No, he's already mentioned them - they're the ones who want to believe. pkane2001 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 18, 2020 59 minutes ago, John Dyson said: There is space for subjective evaluation (e.g. sounds better), and objective techniques (design improvement, testing, verification, etc.) Since I am an engineer (almost to the core) and I know that my own listening is not a very reliable measurement method, I try to use scientific techniques when possible. It would also be a good thing if more people would realize that their own hearing isn't very reliable for measurement purposes.* IMO, avoiding scientific methods on purpose is masochistic - or perhaps wish for a forever hobby of tweaking. As another engineer here I disagree that measurement is the foundation of science. This would appear to be a dogma held by 'objectivists'. I completely agree that 'my own listening is not a very reliable measurement method'. When I listen, I am making an observation, not a measurement. An observation is fundamentally a qualitative thing, not a quantitative thing. sandyk, The Computer Audiophile and manueljenkin 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 18, 2020 1 hour ago, pkane2001 said: I wouldn't say it's the foundation, but it is certainly one of them. Can you give an example of a hard science were measurements are not used as a key method for determining experimental results? I'm not saying measurements don't play an important role in science, of course they do. But I am saying they're not foundational, observation is foundational. 'Hard science' is used here because you believe other (non-hard) kinds of science aren't science? I'd say some kinds of science are characterized as 'hard' because of their heavy reliance on measurement so the intersection of 'hard science' with 'measurements being not a key method...' is indeed the empty set. manueljenkin, sandyk and pkane2001 1 2 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Dyson said: Measurement is a critical subset of observation. Biases/imprecision creep in with the typically less disciplined, relatively ad-hoc 'observation', therefore it is best/easiest to depend on more reliable, intrinsically more accurate objective measurement when at all possible. Yes, I understand that but I disagree - substituting measurement for (admittedly subjective) observation leads to reductionism. The solution to biasses in observation is more impartial observation, not measurement. sandyk 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted November 18, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: I can use my tongue on the battery terminals to get a subjective observation of the remaining charge, but a voltmeter is going to produce a much more useful and accurate "observation". The voltmeter doesn't produce an 'observation', its a measurement. I would of course agree, using a tongue to 'observe' the state of a battery is inapt. pkane2001, sandyk and plissken 1 1 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 1 minute ago, John Dyson said: I am for both, but you'll waste lots of time (per experience) if you live in the world of the subjective. Maybe some people like tweaking -- I don't. I certainly have spent (I wouldn't say 'wasted' myself) a lot of time in the world of the subjective. There aren't any short cuts to putting in the hours in the world of the subjective. I conjecture (but have no evidence for) that substituting measurement for subjective observation is an attempt to find a short cut, an attempt to avoid 'wasting' time. sandyk 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 12 minutes ago, John Dyson said: When you use a well considered 'measurement', it often does require more of an intellectual understanding of what is going on. A quickie human observation is easy, but not always so accurate. I think it makes sense also to turn this around. To wit : When you use a well considered observation it often does require more of an intellectual understanding of what's going on. A quickie human measurement is easy, but not always so accurate. It seems (subjectively of course) to me you're saying that it matters how a measurement is done. Absolutely no disagreement there - the quality of a measurement is always going to be important. Just as the quality of an observation is. But that's my point really - quality matters, numbers don't. sandyk 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Dyson said: I agree --in our discussion a quicky human 'measurement' is the 'tongue' technique. So, it all depends on how you define measurement -- I tend to see that (measurement) as with some clear 'measure'. The using the 'tongue' as a measurement device, 'tongues' measure isn't very precise or stable. I define a measurement as a subset of observation that produces a purely quantitative result. I.e. a number (or series of numbers). If the result is qualitative then the operation wasn't a measurement it was an observation. The use of a tongue on a PP3 doesn't produce a number hence can't be classed as a measurement, at least to my way of seeing things. Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 It looks like we are using 'reductionist' (or 'reductionism') in rather different ways. I would agree theories do simplify, or reduce things to simpler things but they're not 'reductionist' in so doing. pkane2001 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Dyson said: Geesh, subjective viewpoints are even somewhat dependent on metaphysics. To me a 'viewpoint' is not at all the same as an observation. Rather its more akin to an opinion. sandyk 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Dyson said: Being subjective when not absolutely necessary is like 'giving up' on actual engineering. Well yes - a tongue in place of a voltmeter would seem to be an example of this. Though if a voltmeter isn't available, then a tongue could be the only way to attempt a 'measurement'. 'Necessity' in my experience is typically a subjective determination. Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, John Dyson said: Unchecked subjective review is almost the same as relying on a high priest, and is even less valuable than a random choice Quite the opposite (though I am assuming 'review' here simply means 'reporting one's subjective observations') - the checking function historically was always the role of the priesthood. 'Go, show yourself to the priests' was said by Jesus after a healing for example. Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 I'd not point to 'qualifications' myself as those have the same status as numbers in my estimation😄 Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, fas42 said: always easier, if one doesn't answer the question ... 🙃 You ain't seen nothin' yet - just wait 'til the ducking stool comes out.....😄 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted May 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 3, 2021 28 minutes ago, March Audio said: On the other side of things we have significant problems with casual subjective comparisons. Who is the 'we' here? You? lucretius, numlog and manueljenkin 2 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 44 minutes ago, March Audio said: (+ 32768 for 16 bit). Point of pedantry - 16bit twos-complement signed numbers are limited to +32767 (or 0x7FFF hex). Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now