Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint - Page 51

post #751 of 843
Sweet indeed. I'll let you know if I win. biggrin.gif

se
post #752 of 843

I always like it when I see reviews of equipment I have actually used. Today on the front page of HeadFi is a review like that. The reviewer it totally clueless. How many slips in logic can a person have in a publicly published piece of writing?

post #753 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I always like it when I see reviews of equipment I have actually used. Today on the front page of HeadFi is a review like that. The reviewer it totally clueless. How many slips in logic can a person have in a publicly published piece of writing?
Maybe you should write a review for once and show them how it's done. wink.gif
post #754 of 843

The problem is, my review would be "You probably don't need this at all."

post #755 of 843
You can also try constructive criticism and maybe point out where his logic is slipping.

There are plenty of reviews out there that says you don't need a certain product while providing a reasonable argument.
post #756 of 843

I think there is a purpose for reviews on the web. But that purpose doesn't necessarily include accurate descriptions of the product being reviewed or fitness for a particular use. In this case, it was to give vague conflicting impressions of multiple different sounds and to infer a relative place in the spectrum of status symbols. Perhaps that is all a review really needs to do.

 

When a particular piece of equipment exceeds your ability to hear by a power of ten, how do you compare that to something that only exceeds your ability to hear by a factor of five? Is the latter half as good? Or are they exactly the same? How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?

post #757 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?

With an O-scope, a data acquisition system, spectrum analysis, a little bit of math,  and a whole lot of "it's good enough for human ears".

 

Cheers

post #758 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post
 

With an O-scope, a data acquisition system, spectrum analysis, a little bit of math,  and a whole lot of "it's good enough for human ears".

 

Cheers


I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?

 

I ask this in all sincerity, since the 'good enough for human ears' statement is so simplistic as to be meaningless, and yet I come across it quite often in the Sound Science threads.

post #759 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by swspiers View Post
 


I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?

 

I ask this in all sincerity, since the 'good enough for human ears' statement is so simplistic as to be meaningless, and yet I come across it quite often in the Sound Science threads.

auditory cortex

 

You could read a book on it.

 

Cheers

post #760 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post

auditory cortex

You could read a book on it.

Cheers

And another freshman answer. Correct but incomplete. Want to try again?
post #761 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by swspiers View Post
 

I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?

 

Whoa there! You're putting the cart before the horse... It doesn't get to the brain until it's gotten through the ears. If people can't determine a difference between amps or CD players in level matched blind listening tests, then it can safely be said that the amps and CD players are audibly transparent, meaning that if there are differences, "it's good enough for human ears".

 

Sometimes simple has more meaning than attempts to complicate things.

post #762 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

I think there is a purpose for reviews on the web. But that purpose doesn't necessarily include accurate descriptions of the product being reviewed or fitness for a particular use. In this case, it was to give vague conflicting impressions of multiple different sounds and to infer a relative place in the spectrum of status symbols. Perhaps that is all a review really needs to do.

 

When a particular piece of equipment exceeds your ability to hear by a power of ten, how do you compare that to something that only exceeds your ability to hear by a factor of five? Is the latter half as good? Or are they exactly the same? How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?

Reading the review and then reading your complaints for reviewing a product, I barely see an issue. Maybe you are reading too hard into it. It seemed like a fair review, he didn't like the sound of the unit with some of his headphones but maintains it is a neutral device. To be honest, he seems to be just describing the sound differences of his headphones more than the unit itself.

post #763 of 843
Bigshot, I respect the heck out of you, but I strongly disagree with you. Yes, the ears are vital. But the processing of that information is far more complicated, and not anywhere near to being completely understood. There are countless theories of perception, but very few laws.

I find that very few objective arguments take that into account.
post #764 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post
 

To be honest, he seems to be just describing the sound differences of his headphones more than the unit itself.

 

That's precisely the problem. He says the amp sounds harsh with his headphones. The amp doesn't sound harsh. The headphones do. Then he says the amp sounds warm and neutral with the Oppo headphones. Which is it? Harsh or warm or neutral? He's just described the amp as sounding every different way it possibly can sound. Plus he says that it would be a good stepping stone to a better headphone amp, but he doesn't define what could be improved in this one. I can't imagine that anyone would have trouble with the menus. There are only four of them.


Edited by bigshot - 6/30/14 at 7:17pm
post #765 of 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by swspiers View Post

Yes, the ears are vital. But the processing of that information is far more complicated, and not anywhere near to being completely understood.

 

That may be true, but it's completely irrelevant if the difference between components is beyond our ears' ability to hear. No amount of brain processing is going to make a lick of difference if the difference is inaudible in the first place.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint