Is it worth it?

[Summit]

15 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Sorry to have such a kind of almost suicidal title here, but…

 

from my recent experiences on this forum, being objective gets you nowhere. I’ve tried explaining pretty basic stuff until I’m blue in the face, but because someone “believes” something, that is more important. If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed. 
 

I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky - I believed so hard a bit of poo came out, but I was still somehow still on the ground?

 

Are we wasting our time here? Does it matter?

 

*edit* this might actually be a subjective piece ;)

 

*edit of the edit* - I’m here as I don’t like stupid mad things posted as “fact” in a subject I’m interested in - there is genuine innovation going on by various players with graphs and everything, and I don’t like it being confused with swapping out one kind of voodoo for another

 

your friendly ( as always ) neighbourhood idiot 

 

My experiences of this forum, is that almost none of the threads are objective or even aiming on being objective. Just read the name of the topics and first post and you can see that they are not objective at all.

 

Objective means based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings. Sound and sound quality can only be determined by using at least one of our sense, our hearing. More senses can/are often used together IRL.

 

FYI: The human sense of hearing is subjective and depends on how electrical signals from the ear are interpreted by the brain. Psycho-acoustics is a discipline that studies this area and it turns out that in addition to purely technical factors, there are several aspects that affect how we perceive it to sound.

 

If something is truly objective, then it’s completely independent of the subject. Objective realities are not open to subjective opinions, they are facts. Music and sound quality are subjective no matter how much you want it to objective.

[Summit]

1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

@PeterSt - you see, this is where we aren’t going to see eye to eye - if I do something, and something changes I didn’t expect, I need to know *why* - otherwise how can I be sure I don’t undo it next time? Maybe there is an easier way? This whole trying things at random then trying to come up with plausible explanations isn’t engineering…

 

I’m all for people trying things out, but that can be dangerous - let’s imagine we think replacing a fuse with a bit of wire sounds better? 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

It's not about trying at random it's about doing observations. Without confirmed observations, everything are just hypotheses. I wish that you would know just how many inventions and theories that are based on things that happen in the natur and that we humans just copy. 

[Summit]

10 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

In an objective forum, why are the subjective opinions allowed to continually spam away without any factual basis. Your audio equipment does not function on subjective engineering. I wouldn't want to stifle the ideas people present, but the theory should be presented in an objective manner with some actual testing and trial to either prove or dispel the idea. 

 

There is only one way to determine sound quality and that is to use our hearing. But even then consider that not everyone wants it to sound the same IRL, so one should not think so just because we debate playback equipment. Some people think that Gibson Les Paul has the best electric guitar sound while others prefer Stratocaster and some do not like the sound of electric guitars and prefer acoustic guitars like Martin D-28. Is one objectively better?

[idiot_savant]

@Summit - you are, of course correct in saying that many advances in science often happen by accident, but the key thing is understanding what that accident meant. 
 

As for guitars, they are musical instruments so will have a character. My problem is that if we start thinking of hifi in this way, we are surely moving away from the “fi” bit - surely we are trying to reproduce whatever the artist intended, rather than mucking about with it?

 

think of it this way - I might enjoy a bit of “warmth” that 2nd harmonics give us, but what if there were already lots in the original, and then my CD player and my amp also add more 2nds? There’s going to be way too much?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[Summit]

39 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@Summit - you are, of course correct in saying that many advances in science often happen by accident, but the key thing is understanding what that accident meant. 
 

As for guitars, they are musical instruments so will have a character. My problem is that if we start thinking of hifi in this way, we are surely moving away from the “fi” bit - surely we are trying to reproduce whatever the artist intended, rather than mucking about with it?

 

think of it this way - I might enjoy a bit of “warmth” that 2nd harmonics give us, but what if there were already lots in the original, and then my CD player and my amp also add more 2nds? There’s going to be way too much?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

Its not really what I meant. Am talking about objective observations and evolution. The theory of evolution is one of our most comprehensive scientific theories, and applications of the theory are used in many areas of society. The theory of evolution is an overarching main theory that sheds light on all biological sub-sciences, such as genetics, biochemistry, physiology, behavioral science, etc. The theory is supported in return by all these sub-sciences. There are also a huge number of different branches of science that, both together and individually, confirm that an evolution has taken place and is taking place.

 

Yes all musical instruments have a character, a sound. The fundamental fact is that we all have preference for how *it* should taste, feel and sound like. If one believe that all people have the same food/beverage taste they would be laughed at. We all have bias. Bais as liking a type of sound or character. Which is objective?

 

Yes exactly, many studies show that most people prefer a little bit extra 2nd harmonics. The question is whether these tests are done on High End systems with really good recordings, or on more mediocre audio systems where a little harmonic distortion can actually sound  more lifelike.

 

I have said what I wanted to say and leave it to the rest of you to debate this and other things of interest further. Here's a little more about how I look at objectivity and subjectivity.

 

 

[firedog]

Okay, I'm going to put in my 2 cents.

I haven't read the threads in question, and I don't think it matters.

 

In general, the objectivists and subjectivists never convince each other. At all. Not even a little bit.

The back and forth is repetitive and pointless. 

 

There's an "objective" subforum. People who want to make subjectivist posts and argue that "bits aren't bits" (just one example) - don't go there. But if you do, don't comment. The people there aren't actually interested in what you have to say. Deal with it.

 

And the reverse is also true. If someone posts about different SQ of playback software or digital cables - he clearly isn't looking to argue with objectivists and defend his position - he already  knows what camp he is in. So if you are an objectivist and make the mistake of entering that thread or reading that post - leave without comment.

 

It really isn't that hard.

 

No one here needs to be "saved" by someone in the other camp. And no matter what you say, you won't save anyone.

 

Your opinion/POV isn't so important that it HAS to be expressed. The universe will do just fine without a few of your posts. 

 

And as Chris said, ask for moderating rights in a thread you start if it's important to you. I'd especially do this in a thread in the objective subforum, as the subjectivists really shouldn't post there - unless they are actually asking questions in order to learn, and not trying to argue or start an argument. 

[idiot_savant]

@firedog- I agree with the thrust of your post in general, but from my point of view I’ve never accused a “subjectivist” of not hearing what they’re hearing, or expressing a preference - it’s all cool here, but what I do object to is that preference then being ascribed in very objective terms - “less noise”, “less electromagnetic interference” and so on, that I feel should be challenged - not for the benefit of having an argument, or changing that persons mind, more for the silent majority who *dont* post, and maybe if that makes them think, if only for a moment “hmm, maybe there’s more ( or less ) to this than I thought” then that’s got to be good, right?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@firedog- I agree with the thrust of your post in general, but from my point of view I’ve never accused a “subjectivist” of not hearing what they’re hearing, or expressing a preference - it’s all cool here, but what I do object to is that preference then being ascribed in very objective terms - “less noise”, “less electromagnetic interference” and so on, that I feel should be challenged - not for the benefit of having an argument, or changing that persons mind, more for the silent majority who *dont* post, and maybe if that makes them think, if only for a moment “hmm, maybe there’s more ( or less ) to this than I thought” then that’s got to be good, right?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

Understood. I decided several years ago to be careful how I word my posts. I try to always write that my SQ impressions are mine only, and have no general application to anyone else's setup or situation. I also don't demand that people conduct DBTs, as the  truth is that in most situations it's impossible for us to do it.  So I can't know whether anyone "actually heard" something or not. And as long as they don't claim that their personal (sighted) listening impressions have some general application for others, I feel no need to challenge what they say.

 

As far as ascribing cause and effect, I also agree. But again, it's pointless to argue about it. At most it would be okay to point out that any such assertions are just assumptions, and no actual cause and effect is known.  I wouldn't take it any further than that. 

[botrytis]

It seems, in the audiophile arena, there are many urbans legends taken as fact, which never have been proven. It is pointless to discuss points when people already have made up their minds as to what is causing a particular effect, measurement not withstanding.

[Racerxnet]

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

It is pointless to discuss points when people already have made up their minds as to what is causing a particular effect, measurement not withstanding

My grass is pink today. Don't argue with me. I've already made my mind up.  😊

[PeterSt]

35 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

it’s all cool here, but what I do object to is that preference then being ascribed in very objective terms - “less noise”, “less electromagnetic interference”

 

I would heartedly agree with you that these terms don't go along with any "checkable" phenomena. But I'm afraid that people who don't really know, don't have other terms to use.

You could read back on what I had to say - or object to, and for example I would talk in terms of current spikes (or dips if you want). This is because this can be discretely be measured.

 

A more dangerous field for me (and that's why I bring it up) is when noise actually starts to be noise without further possibility to break it down in further discrete elements. Example of what I mean:

 

 

Without the ability to measure this, it would be inaudible. With the possibility to measure it, it would be audible because of the knowledge that it disturbs the signal.

This comes across as crazy of course.

But over here it goes the other way around; I hear a poor sound compared to "yesterday" and 2-3 weeks later after this happening often, I find the cause by measurement ... and this is WiFi transmission too close to the DAC by a PS2 which is in use some times (blame the DAC - this is unimportant for the story as such).

Anyway, this is discrete and I would not call it noise. It is a signal and it can be determined to be a WiFi signal. Found it ? eliminated it ? ... and what's next up is 20uVp-p of a next candidate. Just zoom in more and find the next "noise source".

But when does it stop ? When is noise really noise as such which can't be eliminated ? I really don't know.

 

 

 

Although this is the other way around, this sprung from a customer wondering what was the matter (for odd sound) with a certain DAC with a certain D/A chip used in there. I fully built a design around that same chip a few years earlier and never even listened to it because of this measurement.

This is audible (zero crossing distortion).

 

The moral: While the designer of that particular DAC tried to get away with it and bash on the bringers of bad news, I have learned a. that these things are audible and b. know what it sounds like.

This is always about noise, but with the "noise" between quotes because it is not noise but some discrete signal element.

People with a bit less knowledge will tell us that backgrounds are darker and that kind of thing. This indeed tells me nothing except that something will be different.

 

All audiophiles are always right and are hardly any times biased (though that surely exists of course). The key is to find the commonality so it really starts to tell something. And possibly more importantly - that we can start communicate over it (preferably with the same terminology). 

 

All I can do, being in a field where I myself can't measure any more, is reason what will be going on. After that, apply an improvement built on that reasoning. Does it work out ? then the reasoning was OK. Next improvement is around the corner ... etc. It goes faster and faster.

 

"Less electromagnetic influence" should be banned right where it started. It's a make-up if you ask me. Still and tbh, *I* don't know what I actually prevent with shielding in cables which 100% definitely was made for the purpose. All I know is that there's consensus world wide about how the shielding should "flow" (be configured) and that I could TDR-measure and some more. I have thee equipment but never unpacked it yet. But, by now, with 4-5 years of experienced on the cables, I could simply measure which config sounds best (and what sounds best is determined by 1000s and thus all come to the same (consensus)). This too I call science. But it emerged by empirical finding (and takes many years). Later, someone can reason how this specific shield configuration work out for the far better and what actually is shielded. Or, what is let in (don't underestimate the power of randomization of discrete noise sources).

 

Anyway, I hope you can follow me.

 

[PeterSt]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

Understood. I decided several years ago [...]

 

Very, very well put.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

@Summit

As for guitars, they are musical instruments so will have a character. My problem is that if we start thinking of hifi in this way, we are surely moving away from the “fi” bit - surely we are trying to reproduce whatever the artist intended, rather than mucking about with it?

 

 

If we are using an audio system to create a new sound, from a recording, then we have given up on accuracy ...

 

If we are trying to reproduce whatever the artist intended, this I regard as an impossibility - or an extremely long piece of string, 😉.

 

What we can reproduce accurately though, is what is precisely on the recording - if this is nothing like what the artist(s) intended, tough titties - he can go away and cry in his sandwich if he wants to, 🙂.

[fas42]

It's pretty clear that most people haven't experienced a setup that is so 'transparent' that it becomes easy to hear the individual tracks that were laid down in a complex mix - the acoustic of each of say a dozen different sound elements sits in the space in front of you, all on top of each other; completely different, individual, unique - but easily identifiable and standing out clearly from the others. Almost certainly not what the mastering engineer wanted - but that's what's there, on the recording ... and that's one of the signatures, of accuracy ...  🙂.

[March Audio]

18 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

No two people are alike, everyone has different opinions on all and every subjects. Why should there be no end to resentment and complaining from your side? What is wrong with you? Why take everything so personally? Is your life in danger?

Those points have nothing to do with "differing opinions".  They were referencing a member who was blatantly and repeatedly breaking forum rules with offensive personal attacks.  So yes I do take that personally.

 

Otherwise It was an objective thread where unsupported subjective opinion and speculation was being spammed.  Not just my view, Im not the OP of this thread.

[March Audio]

13 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

@firedog- I agree with the thrust of your post in general, but from my point of view I’ve never accused a “subjectivist” of not hearing what they’re hearing, or expressing a preference - it’s all cool here, but what I do object to is that preference then being ascribed in very objective terms - “less noise”, “less electromagnetic interference” and so on, that I feel should be challenged - not for the benefit of having an argument, or changing that persons mind, more for the silent majority who *dont* post, and maybe if that makes them think, if only for a moment “hmm, maybe there’s more ( or less ) to this than I thought” then that’s got to be good, right?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

Its not just those always nebulous pseudo "objective" descriptions, its the lack of objective evidence that supports the assertions and implied effects. Also the fact that effects need to be demonstrated (for example) in the output of the dac.

 

In an objective thread "i heard it therefore it is" counts for nothing.

[opus101]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 In an objective thread "i heard it therefore it is" counts for nothing.

 

Indeed so. As does 'I think we can do without moronic.... blah blah blah'.

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, March Audio said:

Those points have nothing to do with "differing opinions".  They were referencing a member who was blatantly and repeatedly breaking forum rules with offensive personal attacks.  So yes I do take that personally.

 

Otherwise It was an objective thread where unsupported subjective opinion and speculation was being spammed.  Not just my view, Im not the OP of this thread.

 

It wasn't about opinions, it was about endless complaining. Usually people who complain endlessly are severely lacking, in the final case, security. Hence the question, is your life in danger? It is about audio, stay relaxed, no danger.

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

It wasn't about opinions, it was about endless complaining. Usually people who complain endlessly are severely lacking, in the final case, security. Hence the question, is your life in danger? It is about audio, stay relaxed, no danger.

Who was complaining?  We were just discussing (trying to before it was spammed to death) how or if a piece of software did what it claimed.  Turns out it didn't.

 

Your interjections arent even vaguely relevant or meaningful to that, or this thread.

[AnotherSpin]

Ah, I see, you didn't bombard Chris with endless complaints. He must be exaggerating. Well, it happens... 😉

[Racerxnet]

10 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Ah, I see, you didn't bombard Chris with endless complaints. He must be exaggerating. Well, it happens... 😉

Why are you attacking March Audio? I have done the same with others and truely have no leg to stand on, but try to have enough self control to stay focused on the objective side of the conversation. Pot, Kettle, Black? I hope you have a great day! 🙂 I'm no angel either, just ask my wife... 

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Why are you attacking March Audio? I have done the same with others and truely have no leg to stand on, but try to have enough self control to stay focused on the objective side of the conversation. Pot, Kettle, Black? I hope you have a great day! 🙂 I'm no angel either, just ask my wife... 

 

First, it's a fun. Secоnd, I am merely reflecting... 🙃

[PeterSt]

On 6/6/2021 at 2:05 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

March Audio’s situation is different. Ever since he joined there have been tons of issues. Before him, we had plenty of objective discussions that didn’t end up worthless. Now, he can’t avoid trouble. 

 

HTH

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

Ah, I see, you didn't bombard Chris with endless complaints. He must be exaggerating. Well, it happens... 😉

I reported every post that was an ad hominem attack, or a foul mouthed personal insult.  All of which obviously completely against forum rules.

Chris has said he has subsequently had words with the individual in question, so obviously agrees the behaviour was unacceptable.

 

So can you stop disrupting this thread with your of topic  spam?

 

[March Audio]

10 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

First, it's a fun. Secоnd, I am merely reflecting... 🙃

So you admit are trolling.

 

I have just reported you.