or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys - Page 12

post #166 of 861

It didn't belong in sound science at the outset because the question was a question of values, and values aren't an area solely for scientific thought. (values are also quite possibly something unmeasurable for those who haven't been derailed) 

post #167 of 861

Fair enough - sound logical to me. 

post #168 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

By monitoring the nerve impulses output by the ear when it's driven by an acoustical stimulus.

 

se


seems to have been done...

"A final point is that VIIIth nerve activity patterns are not simply faithful neural replicas of the auditory stimulus itself." in DALES, PURVES, Neuroscience 3ed (very good textbook), chapter Twelve for the Auditory System.

post #169 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Why do we have MOT and members that clearly know better due to how long they've been here spamming and derailing?  If I was a lesser person, I could use it as a strawman and supposition as certain people in this thread have to claim they are purposely trying to prevent conversation by having this locked for their own gain/ego/goals.

I think the thread has ran its course.
post #170 of 861

The irony in this thread is who is being objective in this thread and who is being subjective.  Hint:  People who think electronic measurement tools are capable of measuring everything about audio are being just as subjective as those who form opinions about hardware without measurement.  In order to be objective about audio measurements, you'd first have to prove, empirically, that your electronic measurement system could measure all of the same information that an ear and brain gets.  If you've done that, please link me to the paper.

 

If I randomly sampled 1000 people on the street, I could easily conclude that no one in the world is capable of dunking a basketball.


Edited by TWIFOSP - 7/26/12 at 6:06am
post #171 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWIFOSP View Post

In order to be objective about audio measurements, you'd first have to prove, empirically, that your electronic measurement system could measure all of the same information that an ear and brain gets.  If you've done that, please link me to the paper.

 

If you know any electronics this is an easy one. Audio is a time varying signal. Typically (with sufficiently good gear) we deal with time varying voltage (though current sources exist, I believe SE has some experience with these?).

 

The ideal source/amplifier/transducer will transfer the entire information content (to use loose scientific terms) of the signal to planar sound waves at the ear (after that who knows what happens). In reality, distortions and interference appear at every step of the chain, but with good gear these differences are small.

 

As long as your analysis hardware is at least as high fidelity as the hardware you're analysing, then yes, you are measuring all the same information your ear and brain gets. That is apart from anything after the point of measurement obviously, e.g. distortion from the headphones if you are measuring the output of the DAC.

 

Then one is free to go about analysing and displaying this information for a human to look at in whichever way he wants.

post #172 of 861

You are mistaken.  Signal measurements measure one frequency response at a time.  There is not a single method of analysis that measures the aggregate of every frequency in a musical segment and is capable of displaying it in a meaningful fashion.  


Edited by TWIFOSP - 7/26/12 at 6:53am
post #173 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWIFOSP View Post

 In order to be objective about audio measurements, you'd first have to prove, empirically, that your electronic measurement system could measure all of the same information that an ear and brain gets.  If you've done that, please link me to the paper.

 

If I randomly sampled 1000 people on the street, I could easily conclude that no one in the world is capable of dunking a basketball.

I think there may be a problem of infinite regression with your need for verification here, how would we measure this new measure?  This need for verification could continue forever.

 

Backing up to the original question of the thread, "why choose DAC X at $1000 when DAC Y at $150 performs the same in a test?" Would you answer the question- because audio measurements and tests don't tell us everything we need to know? 


Edited by JadeEast - 7/26/12 at 7:50am
post #174 of 861

Can the ear sense signal artifacts not detectable by the best spectrum analyzers?  There are analyzers capable of seeing low-level spread-spectrum microwave signals buried under much stronger wideband signals.

 

Isn't the ear just a pressure transducer?


Edited by billybob_jcv - 7/26/12 at 7:28am
post #175 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWIFOSP View Post

You are mistaken.  Signal measurements measure one frequency response at a time.  There is not a single method of analysis that measures the aggregate of every frequency in a musical segment and is capable of displaying it in a meaningful fashion.  

Not sure what you're describing. Fourier analysis is precisely that - it measures the components of every frequency in a musical segment and displays the spectrum. Maybe you're saying that you can't use an infinite number of frrequency components? It works well as long as you use a sufficiently large number to make errors negligible.

 

Also I should really put out a discalimer before this goes any further: I studied physics at undergrad and have an interest in audio and electronics. These posts are mostly musings from the last few months of lurking head-fi and building DIY amps. I'm no professional!

beerchug.gif


Edited by joeyjojo - 7/26/12 at 7:31am
post #176 of 861

I think the inner workings of the ear->nerve->brain are irrelevant.  The input signal to the ear is differential pressure across the eardrum.  Describe that accurately, and you have described the entire audio spectrum.  Anything else after that interface is *created* by the listener's components in the system (ear, nerves, eyes, skin, nose, tongue, brain).

post #177 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWIFOSP View Post

You are mistaken.  Signal measurements measure one frequency response at a time.  There is not a single method of analysis that measures the aggregate of every frequency in a musical segment and is capable of displaying it in a meaningful fashion.  


i'm not sure but i think automatic music transcription  programs do this, but yes it's not accurate and it's just an estimation, research is on its way with teams like those of IRCAM, for example MULTIPLE FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY ESTIMATION OF POLYPHONIC RECORDINGS...(hard reading, i'm a biologist...)


Edited by Arietites - 7/26/12 at 7:50am
post #178 of 861

That centipede video!

 

Anyway, on Purrin's findings...I agree w/ Shike that others need to be able to hear this as well.  

 

(Preferably someone other than the sidekick, lol)

post #179 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

I think the inner workings of the ear->nerve->brain are irrelevant.  The input signal to the ear is differential pressure across the eardrum.  Describe that accurately, and you have described the entire audio spectrum.  Anything else after that interface is *created* by the listener's components in the system (ear, nerves, eyes, skin, nose, tongue, brain).

 

External measurement systems do not measure pressure differences though.  They measure specific frequency at a given point in time and plot those across time. Ok so what is a measurement of frequency?  Pressure waves.  But they are measuring the signal and not the differences in pressure.  The difference is important when you look at what waves do to each other.  Sound waves aren't some clean signal response like is illustrated by electronics.  There is a mess of collisions and pressure drops.


Edited by TWIFOSP - 7/26/12 at 8:41am
post #180 of 861

purrin's listening test is now also discussed at the comments section of the "ODAC May Update" article of a certain blog. He is invited to an ODAC blind testing challenge run by an independent third party, similarly to the not yet taken $500 one for the O2.


Edited by stv014 - 7/26/12 at 8:43am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys