Archimago on Greene vs Harley

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Some of these tiny effects may be audible, but the important point is that there is seldom any mechanism for deciding if the changes are to the good or not. If there is no way to know why some change, of a power cord say, affected the sound, there is no way to decide whether the effect, if any, was positive or not. How could you tell? Believe the manufacturer? Believe reviewers, who have as little basis as you yourself? This is a major issue.

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.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, 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 seriously doubt that too many members would ever claim that, as you would be well aware.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

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.”

 

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.

[pkane2001]

7 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.

 

Alex, again, I ask you to stop. You keep saying the same things in every thread, with no evidence to back up anything you claim.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@sandyk You’re banned from this objective thread now. 

[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.

[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.

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, opus101 said:

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.

 

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? Phase response, larger cross-talk, increased uncorrelated noise can all "improve" the sense of the soundstage. Objectively worse results, such as with vinyl playback, can make the sound appear more spacious, less constricted to some. Others might hear the extra distortions. 

 

I think Greene is really pointing out the need to objectively understand the differences at a deeper level than "what sounds good to me", since that carries very little predictive value for other listeners.

 

Quote

Some of these tiny effects may be audible, but the important point is that there is seldom any mechanism for deciding if the changes are to the good or not. If there is no way to know why some change, of a power cord say, affected the sound, there is no way to decide whether the effect, if any, was positive or not. 

 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thinking more about this, and since this is the Objective-Fi forum, I don't think there is an objective way to determine appropriate soundstage because this is a subjective determination. Nobody knows how wide the sound stage of a recording should be and there is no way to measure it if anyone knew this. If we had a test file to play that sent audio out of each speaker exactly 5 feet to the right and left, then we could possible measure that (somehow unknown to me) to determine correct soundstage. 

 

Anything else to me is just subjective and a great topic for the other parts of the forum. 

[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?  

[davide256]

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

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?  

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

[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.

[davide256]

13 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

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.

like Dire Straits recordings?

[plissken]

I would love to be able take a $20,000 budget and have an objective/subjective build off. Each group would have to purchase and build according to their mantra's and an acoustically treated room provided.

 

So the objective crowd would spend $17K on speakers $3K on electronics and cables and the subjective crowd would spend $8K on speakers and $12K on electronics and cables.

 

I think that's what Archimago is getting at with DAC's and AMP's and I agree with him that these are solved problems and the measurements bare this out.

 

The listening would be done blind.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

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

------------------------------------------------------------

I think soundstage is all in our heads.

Sure, the illusion is all in our heads but the stimulus depends on the choice of recording/repertoire.   You could choose to listen to recordings made with all the performers playing simultaneously.

[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?

[Kal Rubinson]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I was using that as an example, is all.

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

I was thinking of this:

 

[bluesman]

13 hours 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.

And there is a way.  In fact, there are multiple ways using predictive analytics and a dataset that includes detailed info on a given audiophile's experiences with audio devices.  For me, trying to predict satisfaction from traditional technical metrics is usually a fool's errand.  I'm an old surgeon, so I always viewed behavioral science as weak when I was younger.  Now I realize that our behavior contains more information about our interactions with the world than most object-related direct measurements.  Many social scientists are not as rigorous about their data analyses and standards for significance as I'd like - but they're correct in believing that our behavior contains a lot of objective information if we look closely enough and think outside the box.

 

Give me enough good information and the job is as easy as pie.  The data must include purchase history, historical satisfaction, repeat purchases, mean time of ownership, how and why each device was dismissed from the stable, mods done, social media posts questioning how to improve each one, what his or her friends bought / sold and when,  etc.  Add in everything we can know about each of the devices themselves, including all technical data and what reviews the subject read before, during, and after ownership of each piece.  Accuracy improves with each additional subset, e.g. stability of interpersonal relationships, job security, illness, unexpected downturns, etc.  Facts like knowing that one purchase was rapidly followed by a flood of web posts asking for ideas on improving the new acquisition while another was followed by a year of quiet enjoyment add to the accuracy of such predictions.

 

With enough good data, it's easy to predict a given audiophile's satisfaction with the next device within a confidence interval that inversely reflects the number of devices and experiences, the consistency of the subject's behavior toward audio devices, the consistency of behavior toward the rest of his or her world, etc.  I'd build a model using random forest plots, recursive partitioning, or any of a number of other approaches that will identify the biggest dichotomies in behavior, i.e. kept 24 of 27 devices for more than 6 months that had at least one rave review after purchase, but sold 16 of 18 that were given lukewarm post-buy reviews in a major publication.

[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.

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, botrytis said:

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.

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

[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.

[pkane2001]

55 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Give me enough good information and the job is as easy as pie.  The data must include purchase history, historical satisfaction, repeat purchases, mean time of ownership, how and why each device was dismissed from the stable, mods done, social media posts questioning how to improve each one, what his or her friends bought / sold and when,  etc.  Add in everything we can know about each of the devices themselves, including all technical data and what reviews the subject read before, during, and after ownership of each piece.  Accuracy improves with each additional subset, e.g. stability of interpersonal relationships, job security, illness, unexpected downturns, etc.  Facts like knowing that one purchase was rapidly followed by a flood of web posts asking for ideas on improving the new acquisition while another was followed by a year of quiet enjoyment add to the accuracy of such predictions.

 

I suspect what you describe isn't as simple as it sounds. How many data points would you think you'd need to learn to accurately predict what drives someone's preferences? Five? Ten? A hundred? And how would you go about doing it, at a distance, by reading someone else's posts or reviews to determine what truly drives their preferences? Is it look and feel that affects them? Price? Brand name? Advertising? Influence of other reviews? Engineering or design principles or components used? Some interaction of components in their system?  Actual audio performance of the device you are interested in? Or is it some complex and variable weighted average of all of these and probably of hundreds more factors? Realizing, of course, that most people don't have a full understanding themselves of all the drivers that lead them to prefer something over something else. 

 

You are, in effect, suggesting that you'll be able to understand, explain, and predict choices and motivations of someone you hardly know at a distance, from a few known purchase decisions and a few posts on internet forums. I'd argue that this is a fool's errand, especially if you're interested in any sort of accuracy. I often can't predict what my wife would prefer, and I've spent most of my life with her, observing her preferences and talking to her about her choices thousands of times. So, no, I don't think it's as simple as you describe :)

 

[semente]

16 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Soundstage is mentioned quite frequently as the argument against measurements. As in "we don't know how to measure a soundstage". I've encountered this argument plenty of times myself.

 

"Soundstage" which is a surrogate effect and is often "enhanced" through the use of side-wall reflections (in spite of the negative impact that this has on sound and phantom imaging).

 

I think that many reviewers just spend too much time glowing over something which is, from a musical perspective, but a secondary or complementary aspect of music.