Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[opus101]

30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

"Good enough" is often all we can do. And Mr. Greene and Archimago appear to be all about trying to figure out what that "good enough" really is.

 

It seems Greene thinks electronics in general is 'good enough'. Fair enough for him, that's based on his experience. My own experience differs - to me, not all DACs are 'good enough'. So I must disagree - electronics quality IME affects how much sense is able to be made from reproduced music. When recordings make more sense the enjoyment level rises considerably.

 

In terms of 'objectivity' its clear Greene sets up a straw man about 'soundstage'. He says :

 

This idea of evaluating everything in terms of soundstage is potentially a major source of confusion.

 

I've not seen any argument from any reviewer or audiophile where everything's evaluated in terms of soundstage. But if anyone has a link for an example, I'm game to read it.

[opus101]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I didn't read it quite like that. What I thought Greene was stating is there are often very large errors in the transducer part of audio chain, with way, way smaller errors in the electronics. 

 

Yes, I agree that's what he's saying. But notice that 'way smaller' is from the point of view of our current measurement capabilities, not from the point of view of perception. Where I agree with him is that some things matter more than others, I disagree on what those things are. He's determining important ISTM from a numbers pov. I'd say that's non-sensical, what matters is what's perceived by the listener.

[opus101]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

Are you able to show any evidence that a swap of a power cord can make more of an audible difference (assuming both are functional, of course!) than swapping say, speakers or headphones?

 

I'm not at all interested in the question as its about 'audible differences'. To me they're a distraction.

[opus101]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. In order to be perceived, differences must be audible. The test subject must be able to differentiate between two devices by listening, otherwise any perception they claim is not due to audio differences.

 

I'm saying what Robert M Pirsig says in 'Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' :

 

“The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”

[opus101]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That, of course, is fine. But then you are disagreeing with Greene, Harley, and Archimago, since they all seem to think that there's a way to predict how much satisfaction an audio device will give to another user.

 

I haven't read Harley all the way through and only skimmed Archimago. I'm fine with that conclusion - seems then they are all over-confident in their views.

[opus101]

Going back to Greene's apparent lacuna on 'soundstage' for a moment. After stating his straw man he says this :

 

Since no one has any idea of what kind of soundstage ought to arise from most recordings, soundstage is not really a sensible criterion for evaluation of anything.

 

Hmm, dismissive over-much? In the course of my DAC development in the past week or so I've uncovered (in the limited context of multibit DAC design) something objective that appears to affect soundstage. That is - noise in the analog stage after the DAC chip. I'm using a passive filter followed by an opamp (which can't be a virtual ground because of the preceding filter). The opamp introduces noise as far as I can ascertain beneath the dither level of RBCD (-93dB) but a lower noise-gain circuit using the same opamp makes the soundstage bigger. I don't though have any evidence that the soundstage is clearer and larger beyond that of my own ears.

[opus101]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

So you found the soundstage to be "bigger".  Some will say that your testing method is not to be trusted. But let's say it really is true, how did you decide that the difference in the opamp noise level was responsible for the change? And how do you know that the change was for the better? 

 

I surmise that it was the noise in that particular opamp stage because I listened to a couple of options - one being a lower noise opamp and the other being lower noise- gain with a higher noise opamp. I'm not done yet though as I'm experimenting with a 3rd circuit  configuration which I predict to have even lower noise - to see what the results are. The first two produced similar improvements in the soundstage. I know it was for the better because my listening satisfaction increased.

 

The results turned out to correlate with an earlier 'mystery' - that of why an earlier DAC design had a much reduced soundstage which was improved by adding parallel DAC chips.

 

I'm not trying to persuade those who don't trust my (uncontrolled) methods. I'll extend the testing to other interested listeners in due course.

[opus101]

3 hours ago, semente said:

It must be taken into account that Greene's comments are entirely concerned with the reproduction of classical music.

And, as most people know, you can only achieve a reasonably realistic soundstage using minimalist mic'ing. But even that depends on the mic technique use (spaced vs. near-coincident) and the distance of mics to sources.

 

I agree - my diet is overwhelmingly of classical music and hence my comments were made in that context. I tend to gravitate towards the more minimally mic'd recordings too.

[opus101]

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Green basically said, there is more about speaker placement, room treatments, etc. that are important to deal with than with noise from the electronic chain.

 

Yeah and my experience is the opposite. I have done precisely zero about room treatment, small attention to speaker placement. And previously I hadn't paid enough attention to noise in the electronics chain but I have changed my mind as a result of the surprising result I got when I lowered noise.

[opus101]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

It is the noise that infests most audio playback that causes the problem; whether it's due to the behaviour of an opamp stage, or from a variety of other sources, is not really that relevant - the common factor is that the presence of the noise makes it too difficult for the ear/brain to unravel, decode the low level cues and clues in the recording; unconsciously, the mind "gives up" trying to understand the meaning of the low level 'hash' in the playback - and "soundstage" is severely diminished.

 

That's my take too - and its what's lacking in Greene's article. What makes sense to the listener isn't being considered in his approach, just what moves the needle.

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I have done what you did to my detriment.

 

What thing that I did have you done? I'd like to understand more here, please explain.

[opus101]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Any design process that relies solely on listening tests is doomed to fail. If we just listen, redesign, and then repeat, we fail to identify the root cause of the defect and we never approach perfection.

 

Since you identify the above as 'your philosophy' @pkane2001 is the 'redesign' here purely random or guided in some way by the result of the listening test?

[opus101]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Wait. What you quoted isn't my philosophy. That's what Benchmark said is wrong with just using listening tests during a design, and I agree.

 

 

You quoted Benchmark and said they cover your philosophy. That's what I quoted, your quote of them.

 

So when you agree with them in characterizing that process as 'wrong' I'm curious about the details of that purportedly 'wrong' process? To agree with them surely you must know what process they're talking about here?

[opus101]

I'm having trouble parsing your last sentence 'by random trial/error'. So  I take it the answer to my question is 'its random' in which case I agree and I think their process is probably just a strawman. After all, you quoted their marketing materials right?

 

<later> I see you've edited and my conjecture was correct. Thanks.

[opus101]

I'm getting it. Their marketing materials of course want to paint their approach in the best possible light, hence they set up a strawman and demolish that, hence implying they're the truly enlightened ones in the audio business and that others are by implication imbeciles.

[opus101]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

So do you think that's what I'm doing also?

 

If your question is 'Do I think you're trying to paint your own products in the best light by marketing them using strawmen?' then the answer's definitely a 'no'. I'm not even clear if you've got stuff to sell.

 

I rather suspect we're talking at crossed-purposes here. I've been focussing on what process Benchmark wish to discredit in their marketing. You've been talking about what your own philosophy is. Two rather different focusses no?

[opus101]

I'm interested in what Benchmark have to say about development using listening tests because in the past I had the pleasure of working with a guy who did (pro) audio design/development using an ABX box he built himself. Here's one of his posts on Gearslutz (the second post on this page) : https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/542885-paul-frindle-truth-myth-4-print.html

[opus101]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time. This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.

 

I disagree here - 'sound' is a percept. What you're talking about is vibrations in the air. They're the physical phenomena that can be measured etc. To get sound, one needs a listener.

[opus101]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You disagree that sound is a physical phenomenon? Sorry,  but in every science textbook I've seen sound is never defined as what a human perceives, it is indeed vibrations or waves propagating in a medium.

 

Well bully for the textbooks! I guess those are physics textbooks in the main where they're not interested in perception. But if you were to get some textbooks on perception you might find them making distinctions between what impinges on the ear and what impinges on consciousness.

[opus101]

Wikipedia Frank? Isn't that just another textbook? And not a particularly stable one....

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I thought I was very clear to make that exact distinction, between the physical and the perceived. 

 

Yeah that's what you thought - opinion. But I disagreed.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Can you clarify what it is you disagreed with? It appears to me that you just repeated what I said, only using an unexpected definition of "sound".

 

 

I disagreed with what I quoted :

 

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a physical phenomenon  — sound, at a different location and time. This part of the activity has nothing to do with the senses and can be studied and measured using existing instruments.

 

How I'd write this would be to say

 

Audio is an activity that aims to reproduce a percept - sound, using physical phenomena - waves in the air.

 

I'd omit saying that the physical phenomena have nothing to do with the senses as that's misleading - rather they are the raw material the senses use to construct sound. I would say that traditionally the wave aspect of audio has been studied separately from the perception aspect (except in certain fields such as codec development) and might express a hope that the traditional separation would lessen going forward.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

What Richard, opus101, is getting at is that, right here, you're confusing the different meanings of the word "sound".

 

Right Frank, the word I'd use is 'conflating'.

[opus101]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Hmm, no, audio is not about perception. It's about sound reproduction.

 

That's your perspective, I disagree as explained. Sound reproduction cannot take place in the absence of perception.

 

I think definitions and semantics are very important to get right. 'Semantics' is about meanings and so the meanings are indeed the substance of what's being discussed.

 

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You both are missing the fact that I specifically described the context that I used the word 'sound' in. 

 

So you say. Yet there is a very real disagreement here between us.

 

You claim that audio isn't about perception, I claim that perception is a very important aspect of audio. Perception is important not just in the perception of waves to form sound, but also in the marketing of products which we use to create those waves in the air. Perception of their value, capabilities most certainly impinges on how the listener perceives the final sound.