Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

What sounds good/accurate/lifelike/real or whatever you want to call it is based on subjective experience. No matter if we are talking about live/unrecorded or playback. 

 

It's really obvious which are the people, say here, who have never experienced a rig working at a high level - a good analogy could be those who have never drunk a truly exceptional red wine; and keep arguing the qualities of such alcoholic drinks can always be assessed by doing chemical analysis ... those who regularly imbibe such delights look with pity upon those who have this perspective ... 🙃.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Frank isn't one to let facts get in the way of a good rant...

 

Ahh, the subjective experience, and facts, are two very different things ... good to know that ... 😉.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

It certainly can be when biases distort the individuals perception.

 

Yes, it can easily happen when people want "things to be better!" - a good technique, which I find effective, is just before hearing an unknown system is to deliberately think, "What I'm going to hear is the best system imaginable!!" - and then see how long I can hang on to that "false thought", once I'm dealing with the reality ... 🤪.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Frank, your postings over several forums over many years have demonstrated that you are possibly the most susceptible person I have ever come across to the power of suggestion and bias. I dont think I have once seen you use any method to verify what you think you hear.

 

Ah, you mean I haven't measured something that I heard? That is, our ears are so incompetent that picking up something annoying in the SQ means nothing until you can put up a number to it? To go back to the rattle behind the dash of the expensive car, this can't possibly exist, until you can show to someone a spectral analysis of the sound inside the cabin, and point to some aberration in the graphs?

 

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

If you want a small insight into the effects of bias please watch the video below.  It starts at the relevant point but the whole video is well worth watching.

 

s 

 

Sorry, Toole doesn't do a thing for me - his book is full of assumptions, and glossing over important issues ... I can't take anything he says as gospel ...

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Can you provide some reasons why you disagree with the scientific method, data, results and conclusions contained in the Toole research?  Can you tell us more about these "assumptions" and glossing over" you refer to?

 

Or are you just biased and dont want to listen? Are you sure you even have the book? 😜

 

Yep. I have no problem with the research that he has done - but he then extrapolates, and either specifically states, or implies, aspects of sound reproduction as it applies to human hearing of it, which do not follow, from what he has done. ... Lots of hand waving, in those bits, 😉.

 

24 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

I am the trainer for the UE software/hardware in which we use ultrasound to identify air, gas, electrical, and mechanical abberations that pinpoint failure before it is obvious. We analyze the .wav file if needed to further prove the bearing etc. is bad. So to answer your statement, yes, we use measurements to asses the integrity of components within the plant. In the case of the rattle, I could pinpoint it in a couple minutes. 

 

Science created a useful tool saving billions of dollars due to unseen failure. 

 

Which is exactly where it does serve a function - the problem in audio is that this is turned on its head, and used to "prove" that the reproduction is "perfectly OK" ... when it ain't, 😉.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

 

Be specific Frank.  You are the one that appears to be "hand waiving".  I suspect you are unable to specifically criticise anything hence your nebulous reply.

 

Ah, I forgot I have the whole text stored in my memory bank, and can retrieve any line of it, by pushing on the right part of my skull - just give me some time, while I work out the correct finger to use for this; and the precise pressure, to the milligram, to apply ...

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I also used to work in condition monitoring.  By analysing the vibration or acoustic measurements of a piece of plant you can tell whats wrong with it such as bearing faults.  You can even tell if the bearing fault is inner or outer outer race etc when its buried in a gigantic multi shaft gearbox!  You cant tell this information by externally listening or feeling.  You need measurement, you would otherwise never know the plant is failing.

 

Right, I'll give you a scenario ... a new design emerges, and starts blowing metal bits all over the room when it fails - but people using the "correct methodology" detect nothing, before it fails ... is the answer: the new design comes from subjectivists who know how to fool those poor measurers; or that the tools used are not sensitive enough to pick up the symptoms of this new part when  in trouble ... if the latter, could a possible answer be to evolve the methodology used, to try and measure "other things" ... ? 🙂

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Don't stick your finger in the wrong hole. 😃

 

Well, I'll make sure you're not next to me, when I start ... 🙂.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

I know what I have experienced, but it would be a little arrogant to assume the experiences of others.  Furthermore, "working at a high level" is rather subjective and subject to different interpretations.  For example, an individual might be confident that they have "heard a rig working at a high level" and have "drunk a truly exceptional red wine", but later experiences might cause that view to be revised, if something better was encountered.

 

I can think of 2 instances - in the red wine category ... what sets them apart was the sense of complete satisfaction with the experience; there was a "uniqueness" to the moment, which makes quibbling about whether it could have have been bettered somewhat meaningless ...

 

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

My rig is sounding great at the moment, by the way.  It was sounding good in the past, I found it immensely enjoyable to listen to, but my most recent "tweak" has given me the magic!  That said, I remain open minded about what I might experience in the future.

 

What might that that tweak have been, may I ask? Of course, "magic" is subjective, unless qualified by measurement, 😀.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

Frank will never use DRC, far too a scientific solution and of course uses measurements.

 

His head would rotate and spew green vomit!

 

You may not have noted that I've mentioned hearing setups using the DEQX box several times - yes, it changes things a bit, but it can't correct for non-linear system distortions .. the signature of the rig still comes through, load and clear. And of course if it's done in real time, then the processing can actually degrade the SQ, via an interference path.

 

A lack of integrity of a system is not a scientific question - though, good science may be needed to work out an optimum solution, to ensure peak operation at all times.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, Confused said:

Can you remember what those wines were exactly?  (which might be irrelevant if this was some time ago, in which case the said wine will probably be no longer available, and if it is available may have matured into something different) 

 

If not, let me know when you next stumble across one that provided complete satisfaction and a uniqueness to the moment and I'll see if I can find a bottle and have an similarly satisfying and unique moment.  We could then compare notes.  

 

(and keep a record of temperature and the time the bottle was open, we need to measure those pesky variables)

 

Gee, now you're pushing the friendship! 😜 ... One was a Huntington Estate Cabernet, '78 I think - a Mudgee wine, the maker was pushing for a Grange standard - I've had the latter, and was not that impressed, for the money. The former had exceptional overall balance, and enormous depth, in everything.

 

The other was, I think, a d'Arenberg "The Ironstone Pressings" - South Australian - from about the early 90's - it had aged for about 20 years ... and it had enormous fruit; all the other good characteristics were in place, but what stood out was the tremendous intensity of the "berryness" of the wine, which stood tall over the rest.

 

 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Erm that's exactly what it does.

 

Why does "real time" processing degrade the SQ?  What interference path?

 

Define system integrity.

 

So why do you conspicuously avoid any science?

 

Umm, you do know what non-linear distortion is?

 

In the case of the DEQX, it used less than stellar power supplies in the original versions - I listened to a unit where this area had been modded; but it still had warm up issues - there was a moment where it almost did a click! uptick to the SQ - before this moment there was a mediocrity to the sound, and afterwards, it was a much better standard. Of course, if it was using a purely digital path through the unit then these considerations should figure much less - but it wasn't, in this particular setup.

 

System integrity simply refers to every part of the chain being as good as necessary to not add discernible anomalies - nearly all playback setups fall short; which is why they sound like a hifi system, rather than be convincing.

 

Science is used to solve problems in getting accurate playback - it's brought into play when it needs to be.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

The best wines in my experience were by no means always the most expensive. For me, they were better only partly because of quality or taste, it also mattered how, when and with whom.

 

The two I mentioned weren't super expensive, at the time purchased - above normal pricing, but justified by the extra attention given to them by the winemaker.

 

I differ about other factors being important - both situations were relatively everyday when I had them, but the only thought I took away from the particular times was the sheer pleasure in consuming the contents of the bottle.