Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[fas42]

In the real world, objectivists fiddle around just as much as subjectivists to get a system sounding good to them - then, to justify that they've made the right moves, they will present a whole lot of impressive numbers that "proves" they did it the objective way ... subjectivists couldn't care less about those measurments - if it sounds good, it is good ... enough.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Making things up, Frank? For me it’s always been the other way around. When something doesn’t sound right, I try to figure out why using objective measures. I don’t fumble in the dark hoping to find one amazing combination that comes up once in 30 years and makes everything sound  ‘right’ by guessing and random flopping around. To me that’s like counting on winning the lottery to fund my retirement. It would be nice, but it’ll never happen.

 

Nice try, Paul 🙂 ... yes, "figuring it out" is the method - I noted that Chris mentioned this as something he is very aware of; the ability to "figure it out" is what counts, rather than via raw 'knowledge' being pumped in, by whatever means.

 

However, the figuring out can be done in more than one way - measuring might suit one person, but a far more direct route is to start varying things - and listening. You change some aspect of the system, or the environment - did the SQ alter, in any manner - for better, or worse? If better, then you are onto something ... you can bypass the measuring phase, and move straight into the 'fix it!" mode. That's what I did 30 years ago - and I'm still doing it ...

 

Intelligent guessing is a key part of the exercise, yes - from previous experience you have a hunch as to what is significant - and it rarely lets you down; doing this over and over again is what gives one the expertise to find causes very quickly.

 

You see, the albums that I heard 30 years ago sounding really good are sounding just as good with the new, super cheap, active speakers - and how long did that take, hmmm? The duration of the journey will depend on the qualities of the raw ingredients, the gear used; and this is getting better, each year.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So you bought speakers that sound good? Great, good for you. Do you know why they sound good? And if they don't, do you know why? And what happens when tomorrow you hear another set of speakers that you think sound better? Would you know why? Sure, you have lots of theories, like dirty power, etc., but the reality is not the same as what you might imagine. Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions, no matter how many times you claim it. Scientific research has shown this. You may want to review the bias thread for examples of how terribly wrong our perceptions can be when allowed to run unchecked. 

 

The speakers don't sound good ... the recordings, do. Like most, you believe the playback chain to be partially composed of magic dust that makes recordings sound better or worse, depending upon how expensive, or well they measure. Well, unfortunately 🤪, they are merely a conduit for hearing what the recording is all about - and the closer they get to that, the less personality they impose upon what you hear ... I would have thought logic would have provided that, er, understanding to the situation, 🙂.

 

"Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions" - my God, is that why every very high measuring rig sounds identical to the next - like peas in a pod - what a waste of time going to audio shows, 🤣.

 

As they say, wives can pick it in an instance - they know when the sound is wrong, without having the slightest clue as to what's going on ...

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...this could actually be your new Mission Statement. 

 

I like my current Mission Statement of making all the recordings I have sound good - rather than triumphantly proving how terrible most of them are; by carefully adjusting my rig to emphasise this ... 😉

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

A recording doesn't 'sound' at all.   it requires a whole complex of equipment and the software known as a 'recording' to manifest as sound.

 

Not quite sure what you're arguing, John ... consider this: you have a member of your family who plays a musical instrument well; you go to a high grade recording studio, and record a performance by her; which goes onto a file, with zero manipulation. Play that back at home - what you should get is something which triggers every sense in you that you are listening to that person playing, before you. A first requirement of a competent replay setup is that you get that ...

 

Quote

 

Also, there is a LOT of processing in some data/signal chains, so being prejudiced for/against one or another kind of processing doesn't make sense.

 

What one should really want -- what did the recording engineer who did the mixdown -- WHAT DID HE WANT TO CREATE?

 

What you want to hear is what was captured; including any extra processing, as intended by the producing people.

 

Quote

Since most consumer recordings are totally blotto quality, the first, wisest thing to do would be to use engineering decision making processes to convert the garbage recording into something much closer to the original mix.

 

It's only your opinion that the recordings are blotto quality; I have a totally different take on the matter.

 

Quote

 

Listen directly to a recording in mp3 format -- what do you hear?   Take your CD, listen to it...   What do you hear?

My CDs don't make any sound...   My digital data files that contain recordings, they make no sound either.

 

 

 

Not sure what point you're making here  ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

Second, all but a tiny fraction of the information cited as useful in this thread (starting with survey results) is entirely unvalidated and virtually never offered along with any measurement of variability, central tendency etc.  Most survey input about perceived quality is really just input about what respondents like.  The fickle factor is very important here, since we have no idea how consistently a given respondent will choose the same answer to the same question asked multiple times across multiple days.  If I were a betting man, I'd wager that every one of you on AS has "discovered" how great something sounds (equipment, music, etc) that you disliked a year before, even though othing changed in the interim except you.

 

 

The reality is otherwise, fortunately ... perhaps only someone who has had a system that could slip in and out the required SQ, almost on command, can really understand this - as I did over 3 decades ago.

 

The subjective experience can be quite dramatically different - and was so, with that particular configuration. Wanting it to sound good, or bad, does nothing to change how the the reproduction impacts ... and this is still precisely how it is now, with my latest setup.

[fas42]

As a quick answer, does my saying that I should have edited the quote a bit more, to only say

 

Quote

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that every one of you on AS has "discovered" how great something sounds (equipment, music, etc) that you disliked a year before, even though othing changed in the interim except you.

 

help?

[fas42]

9 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

Are you saying that your system has remained unchanged in all that time?  If so, the doubt-to-benefit ratio increases dramatically.  And if you're saying that you've kept your system at the state of the art with progressive upgrades for over 30 years, you are truly unique if you've never revisited equipment you haven't used and albums you haven't heard for years, only to find pleasures and qualities in them that you missed when you first got them.   Further, most of us have had to resort to using an older piece of equipment from time to time, e.g. while waiting for a repair or having sold one unit but not yet received its replacement.  Many take old stuff out of the closet years later to use as a second system somewhere. 

 

Sorry, busy morning, so only do a quick reply for now.

 

My equipment has changed many, many times over the years. But my goal is to hear the recording, not the equipment. If the equipment is good enough, then it gets out of the way - which happened to me 30 years ago. I'm different in that I tweak a system to the point that the latter gets out of the way - and then the same recording, as familiar to me as an old friend, again emerges. It doesn't keep "getting better" in dramatic ways - because the recording is what it is ... only minor gains are ever made.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

I think you're missing something you will enjoy.  Among the many discoveries to be made in revisiting recordings (and live performance of familiar pieces) that you think you know intimately is that there's so much more going on in almost every musical performance than meets the eye and ear.  A second or third violin line you never heard before will suddenly catch your ear.  One of the saxophones in Basie's band plays a weird and fascinating flatted 9th note in April in Paris that you never appreciated before.  There's the way Diana Krall's piano comping mirrors and buoys a vocal line she sings in Peel Me a Grape, the amazing bass line in Jack Mack's Hooray for the City that suddenly jumps an octave up for 2 really funky notes, the syncopated horn stabs in every Tower of Power cut ever made.......

 

Agree, if you hear precisely the same information as you did before, then you will likely perceive further nuances in the performance.

 

Quote

 

There's so much more content in almost every track I own that I still discover new things even after listening to them a thousand times (which, at 74, I've done to many many recordings).  It's impossible to absorb and retain it all for 250,000+ tracks in a library - there's simply more to discover than we've identified so far.  And if your system has advanced over 30 years like the rest of ours, you should be hearing things today that you simply couldn't hear well or clearly back then because stuff is better now and so are we.  I've become more attentive to progrm details I heard but didn't fully appreciate. 

 

This is where I disagree - yes, overall stuff is better, in terms of how good it performs in a 'raw' state, but the limit will always be the data on the recording. 30 years ago my system at its best was transparent to the recording, so there was no more to be heard of the captured event, in the technical sense. What I've been doing in the interim period is to experiment with different combos of gear, to have them achieve similar capability; and to be able to do it with much greater certainty that it won't be below par.

 

Quote

We listen and hear differently as we mature and learn more about what's there to discover.  Improved systems present the same program material differently, and hopefully better in some way.  Only if the audiophile and/or his or her equipment stops evolving is there nothing new to discover in our listening.  But for me and anyone else with open eyes, ears, and minds, the older I get the more I discover how much more there is for me to learn, experience, and enjoy.

 

Disagree on improved systems presenting differently - they should always be converging to what is on the recording; anything else is just mixing a setup's signature with that of the recording ... the open minded approach, as I see it, is keep learning how that unwanted signature can intrude, and to work out ways of preventing this.

 

[fas42]

Peter's in the position, as am I, of knowing that the conventional measurements are only a rough guide for predicting whether audio playback will be of an acceptable, subjective standard. We could spend our time thrashing around, trying to track down precisely what is happening to an audio signal when it crosses into the "unpleasant!" zone, say; when no normal measuring is telling us anything useful - but it's much more interesting working out ways to stop the 'badness' happening in the first place ... it's known as, priorities ... 😉.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, zerung said:

Is human subjective experience not derived at a quantum level? That is one theory. Which at the best is just that. Ultimately IMHO I opine that Objective/Subjective view is a blurred position, not a binary position as many think it to be.    

 

 

But people love conflict - especially when it's hyped up! The epidemic of 'reality' TV shows is testament to that - developing deeper understanding is such a boring pastime ... 🤣.

 

Step 1: Reject other people's experiences if they conflict with your own - I mean, how could they know more than you do!! 🤪

[fas42]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was thinking about this. The fact that this hobby has a subjective enjoyment part and an objectively measurable component makes it fairly unique. 

 

Hmmm ... I look at car motoring magazines - and every article has lots of measurement numbers about the vehicle; and then the seat of the pants evaluation by drivers - quite often the car with excellent numbers is not the one that gets the nod; the vehicle working as a system doesn't add up to a satisfying package, and doesn't get a subjective tick ...

[fas42]

What the problem in science is - because scientists are human - is that highly regarded people in the field contemptuously dismiss speculation as to where things can go, and what is possible. And may severely hamper movement forward. Interestingly, I yesterday watched a video on the development of the atomic bomb, where the key researchers of the underlying physics declared, beforehand, that the thought of harnessing nuclear energy was "nonsense!".

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The reason unsubstantiated speculation is dismissed in science is not contempt, but the fact that it's unsubstantiated.

 

Ah, it's not what you do, but how you do it ... speculation leads to further movement, but if it is derided in a dismissive way, by a person who's got a big stake in the story - that's the problem. Trying to be terribly rational about human behaviour, in the scientific world - just because it's science - does not help matters ...

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 Idle, unsupported speculation leads to writing fiction novels or sometimes to complaining that nobody ever listens to you.

 

Ah, magic words - of course, all good scientists never, ever indulge in such ... why, it would be impossible to look up scientific literature, and ever be able to come across examples of this 'wrong' thinking, would it now? 🙂

[fas42]

13 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what happened every time I've been improving the power supply chain. Earlier, not any more -- at some point, I suddenly realized clearly that I was hearing a difference/improvement for the first week or two only. And then I don't hear a difference anymore, everything sounds "as before". Human perception knows how to adjust. 

 

What human perception is excellent at, is being sensitive to something not being as good as it was a moment before. Good replay is very 'comfortable' to listen to - and frequently when it degrades, a distinct discomfort factor intrudes ... understanding that these are the clues of system misbehaviour is a very powerful tool, for making progress ...

 

Things don't always sound "better" - it's all about, is it sounding "worse" than I know it can sound like?

[fas42]

What gets me about audio "science" is that it is so badly done - I usually end up rolling my eyes, and giving up reading the paper; the methods used are so poor, and so many assumptions are made ... meaning that the conclusions are just stabs in the dark.

 

Now, if the audio researchers actually did use science, rather than a pale imitation of such, then it might be worth taking more seriously ...

[fas42]

Well, how about this for a start, https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396 ...

 

🙂.

 

[fas42]

Oh dear, you're taking me seriously - I threw that one up, as an example of research into a concept that is more and more being seen as a con, especially by members of this forum ... if people with an agenda other than advancing the art, have their 'work' treated as being meaningful by the establishment, heaven help research into genuine issues, 😉.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

You are conflating the commercial activities of MQA with "scientific methods".  One is not the other.

 

The irony of your gambit is comedic.  Its the act of scientific assessment of MQA that has exposed it as being nothing more than a land grab to attempt to monetise the music distribution chain.  Its MQAs deliberate avoidance and hindrance in allowing it to be scientifically assessed that has allowed it not to be exposed right from the start.

 

Ah, so there is now research by AES available that demonstrates that it in fact is a "land grab" ... examples?

 

As an example of 'research' that is freely available, that has a very obvious agenda - https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20210523/20891.pdf. The author is driven to "knock down the subjectivists", rather than investigate in any useful way claims made.

[fas42]

18 hours ago, March Audio said:

Again, please cite what your specific issues are with the paper, methods and conclusions (beyond you not liking the conclusion).  Please explain why you believe this to be an example of research being "done badly" or conclusions being "stabs in the dark".

 

Okay, back to this ... the objective is stated as,

 

Quote

While this paper does not address perceptual factors,
it does aim to definitively demonstrate that there are no
measurably significant differences in cumulative distortion products among 10 identical test circuits employing
different models of electrolytic capacitors

 

It achieves the latter, to some degree - but then ends with a sneer,

 

Quote

The author also suspects that the tests presented in this
paper will do little to assuage subjectivists who will almost certainly continue to insist that one brand of capacitor sounds different from another in this particular
application

 

So, this 'research' has achieved a big fat zero - it has not done a single thing to investigate what in fact may be happening when 'subjectivists' hear differences; and throws up a "measurements are everything!" smokescreen to pad out the paper.

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

The research did exactly what it set out to do, establish if there was a measurable difference in thd between various capacitors. Just because it didn't go on to research subjective impressions is irrelevant.

 

Yes, it was a repeat of what electrical engineering articles would have presented, decades ago - it has nothing to do with, science.

 

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

We know from other research that the differences in distortion levels between those capacitors tested are so small that they won't be audible.

 

Which was why the article was supposed to be useful - to someone 🙄. If there is disagreement between different groups as to the "nature of things", that's the role of science - to determine "what's going on" ... plenty of people in the audio industry believe that the type of capacitor is relevant to the perceived SQ - and that should be the area of focus of this, 'research'.

 

All we have here is something that could part of a designer's handbook - it is not, science.

 

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, March Audio said:

You are completely wrong Frank.  Of course its scientific. Be specific about what you think was unscientific in the the methods or data (beyond the fact that you just disagree with the findings).

 

What was unscientific about it, was that it was just engineering, you see ... there is a difference - one of the many explanations on the web of that difference, https://blog.eie.org/4-simple-ways-to-explain-the-difference-between-science-and-engineering 😉.

 

Now, if it was a decent bit of science, what should have been done was something like this:

 

1. Build the box of alternate circuits

 

2. Get a group of people who strongly believe they can hear differences in capacitors to play with the circuits, using any recordings they think make it easy for them to pick the part the quality of the capacitor plays in the SQ - completely sighted - until they are confident they can identify which circuit /capacitor combination is being used, with a particular recording, in any one playing - they have "learnt the signature".

 

3. If no-one can get this right, then, game over ... the setup is not good enough to allow discrimination.

 

4. If at least a few are confident that they can reliably identify at least a couple of instances, then you can continue. Repeat the exercise with these individuals, but now do it double blinded.

 

5. If no better than chance now occurs, then the confidence of these people was misplaced. And again, game over ... no point in continuing the research.

 

6. If, however, at least one or two people scored highly, then you have something to work with - there was some anomaly that these people could detect.

 

7. And here's where engineering can kick in - you measure like crazy everything that you can think of, to try and find the variation in sound that the people listening were cuing to ...

 

8. And the rest of the paper then follows, as normal

 

 

Now, do you think you can pick the very subtle difference in what I just described - as compared to what was actually done, in that paper? 😁

 

 

 

[fas42]

14 hours ago, Confused said:

It is not that freely available, the above link does not work?

 

Indeed it doesn't 🙂 ... not quite sure what's going on, because Alan, March Audio, found it OK - anyway, hopefully a more reliable link, https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20891

[fas42]

18 hours ago, March Audio said:

So why are you insisting that it should?  You have simply not understood the purpose and scope of the paper. You most certainly havent demonstrated thats is an example of research being "done badly" or conclusions being "stabs in the dark" as you previously claimed.

 

It's an example of research done badly, because it evaluates an area which has been shown, over and over again, to have little relevance to what is supposedly of interest - that is, the question of whether easily measurable distortion products are highly significant to the subjective presentation of audio playback. That the work actually done is fine as a technical exercise is irrelevant, if the point is to try and add weight to the argument that subjectivists don't know what they're talking about - it just fails at this.

 

This conversation is going nowhere,  of course - as usual with you, 😉... let's apply the "sleeping dogs" principle, now ...