Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[botrytis]

Harley is the problem with this hobby. They think they know, oft times old urban legend type of things and take that as definitive.

 

Harley's attitude 9and others that think like them) is what is wrong with this hobby.

[botrytis]

I think Harley likes to pick at nits.....

 

He doesn't take into account that our perceptions interfere with us OBJECTIVELY listening. There are a few things that the human senses can discern more than than measurements (blue light is one) but hearing? As you get older, your hearing degrades and this is a fact. Your hearing range also degrades.

[botrytis]

17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have experienced a paradoxical effect where temporary hearing damage sometimes reveals signal impairments that I hadn't otherwise noticed.   When the damage subsides, I try to take advantage of what I have learned during the damage to try to still perceive the impairments, with limited benefit.   I would guess that it might partially be related to frequency selectivity or something like that.

 

The rest of this message is not intended as a direct response to the previous poster, but instead is intended as a general hard-earned word to the wise.

 

Trying to depend on subjective measurements can be hell -- from true kindness, I try to strongly discourage people from depending on methods that have so much variability.   This suggestion is NOT a matter of religion, it comes from experience.   This experience has taught me a LOT about the frailties of human perception, but ALSO human hearing's ability to discern certain signal characteristics and impairments can be AMAZING.   I am open to the subjective, but only as a secondary or last ditch method.

 

First, try the 'meter'.   Second, try the 'meter'.  If simple measurement fails, add some signal processing, then 'try the meter' on the processed signal.   If all else fails, fall back on combo subjective/objective, pray and be very careful -- maybe using signal processing to help discern signal characteristics.   Being able to use the 'meter' (or processed signal and meter) can save lots of tweaking, tuning, and complicated/error prone testing.

 

As always, a layer of smart statistics and experimental control can help mitigate measurement errors.  Process/method is VERY important also.

 

I have wasted TOO MUCH time when trying ad-hoc methods.   The true 'short cut' is often the more rigorous methodology.

John

 

 

 

When I mean objective listening, I mean double blind listening. Sorry, I should have made it more clear.

 

What I was trying to get to was Harley seems to think that measurements don't matter, period. I think they do and then it ultimately is on the listener to decide whether it is what they want or not.

 

I am a scientist by training so I live and die by numbers and measurement.

[botrytis]

36 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Perform Non Sighted testing as several members (including Audiophile Neuroscience and myself) did a few years ago.

We all independently came to the same conclusion that the more expensive cable did sound a smidgin better, resulting in a "cleaner" sounding presentation.

 

It was not sighted but was it informed test? The idea of a double blind is the researchers do not know which is which. Unless that is done, there is no way to remove brain bias from the test.

[botrytis]

Sound stage is really a psychoacoustic phenomenon. It is an interplay from the speakers, room, and ears. It is how our brain then discerns that soundstage. It may be we are so used to hearing music live, that we naturally and automatically assign soundstage to the music.

 

I mean from a studio, how can one actually have a soundstage when, in these times, people record alone and then compile those recordings?  

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Its also a venue property. Some halls just don't work for knowing where the instruments are on stage.

 

Mostly, I think we are talking studio LP's and even live, if they use one or 2 omnidirectional mics, how does that work?

 

I think soundstage is all in our heads.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Well, you could listen to recordings made with all the performers playing simultaneously.

 

I was using that as an example, is all.

 

Even still - Look how many recording studios are laid out, how is that a soundstage?

[botrytis]

Kal,

 

It is still  all in our head. I mean one needs to understand the complexity of how we detect were sounds come from. 

 

It does have to do with timing but it also has to do with how sound reacts with the ears, which then gets detected and processed.

 

Cheers.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Agreed but, if the source is manipulated and synthetic, so is the perception.  

 

Not always. Just like everything in life, there are always exceptions.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You have some evidence to back this up, Frank, or is this just an opinion? Sure, noise can cause all kinds of ills in sound reproduction, but noise is not the only issue in audio. 

 

Since Frank can't measure the noise (he has stated that previously), he seems to be parroting the 'urban legends' out there.

 

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.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, opus101 said:

 

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.

 

I have done what you did to my detriment. I now know that room treatments, etc are one of the most important things one can do, besides DSP to deal with room interactions. I can't measure the noise in my chain but could be that I my equipment is not sensitive enough but since I can't hear it, does it matter?

 

Frank and you sound like a friend of mine who is never satisficed with his equipment because he expects a certain level of response and is disappointed when it doesn't happen but all he does is plunk things down and expect it to be brilliant. It couldn't be further from the truth.

[botrytis]

Ears are actually the strongest for input. Just realize that people have more audio hallucinations than they do visual.