[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can we agree on what "all or most of qualities that might affect audio..." are since we cannot seem even to agree on what all or most of the qualities of audio reproduction are or if they are?

The qualities of audio reproduction that affect sound quality are...

Frequency Response
Dynamics
Harmonic Distortion
Signal To Noise
Channel Separation
Pitch (aka wow and flutter)
Phase / Timing

Did I miss any?

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

What I'm trying to do is find an equivalent to what sound mixers have told me using the octave definition. They say if you get the first two octaves right, everything beyond that is inaudible. Ballparking it, 330Hz to 42kHz is 7 octaves. 126 harmonics divided by 7 is 18 levels. So what they were saying translated into your definition is to get the first 18 levels perfect, and the next 18 as close as you can and the rest don't matter. That sounds pretty reasonable.

See ya
Steve

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The qualities of audio reproduction that affect sound quality are... Frequency Response Dynamics Harmonic Distortion Signal To Noise Channel Separation Pitch (aka wow and flutter) Phase / Timing Did I miss any? See ya Steve

I'm on the verge of getting beyond my depth even commenting, but...

? Intermodulation Distortion, for one

Overall, aren't these the currently defined and widely accepted ones not necessarily all that may or can be involved?

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not exactly... I think that the human experience of hearing is much more important than its measurable degree of accuracy, but that if we are going to draw conclusions about what effects sound reproduction, we should try to remove human error from the equation as much as possible.

I see the sense of this to a point, but to the extent that music reproduction is not identical to sound reproduction it may not. The chemistry involved in cooking may not be all that goes into gourmet cooking. The only measure of that is in the eating. We here are concerned with music reproduction not sound reproduction only. The former includes consideration of reproduction of the experience of musical performances. Only listeners can 'measure' that. I don't know if these are demonstrably different or how much, it just seems to me theoretically at least they are distinguishable. You would nail down the non-different part first, I take it. Audiophiles as opposed to sound engineers might lose interest feeling that you have put aside the nut meat to study the shell as a way of beginning to understand nuts. [an unusually apt metaphor maybe

]


Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those are good questions... The human ear isn't perfect, but neither is measuring equipment. There may be characteristics of the human ear that currently cannot be measured, or are not possible to measure because they are constantly changing--we're living organisms, after all. But still, there are areas where measuring devices can exceed human hearing, for example in the measurements of ultrasonic tones.

Where this is true the more it is true the more it is irrelevant to understanding music reproduction, no?



Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that makes sense. I was just speaking in general terms, but it might be better from a practical standpoint to examine one issue at a time with the same questions. Is there a difference, if so, why, and who is able to hear it? In other words, is it valid, what is the cause, and of what degree of importance is it?

Sounds good to me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif That would be pretty interesting. Hard to measure, but then you would have a group of known-good ears to use for testing. Really, the only way to prove whether a difference is audible is with a loooong string of double-blind tests with a decent-sized group of people. Some would argue that it's still not definitive proof, but at least it would be something. Objective measurements could fill in the details of what does or does not result in audible differences.

My point was that you don't have to PROVE it to proceed to study those that appear to do it well in order to look for what might correlate with this apparent discrimination. Which parts of the brain seem activated in correlation with one, say, cable vs the other might be indicative whether it is motivation difference or imagination based or auditory cortex based, etc, and thus indicative of it being about what comes in or what is added/altered from 'inside' or some such.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see the sense of this to a point, but to the extent that music reproduction is not identical to sound reproduction it may not. The chemistry involved in cooking may not be all that goes into gourmet cooking. The only measure of that is in the eating. We here are concerned with music reproduction not sound reproduction only. The former includes consideration of reproduction of the experience of musical performances. Only listeners can 'measure' that. I don't know if these are demonstrably different or how much, it just seems to me theoretically at least they are distinguishable.

Yes, but music reproduction is sound reproduction, the only difference is content. Just as gourmet cooking follows the same scientific principles as a guy heating up some instant noodles, the difference is in the judgment of the food's quality, which is subjective--maybe some people prefer ramen! I'm trying to differentiate between sound quality and sound reproduction. I'm definitely not proposing that accuracy is essential to the enjoyment of music. Inaccuracy can sound much more musical, for example tube amplifiers versus solid state; the introduction of even-ordered harmonics can make the sound richer, even if the output isn't a perfect representation of the original signal. My point is that it pays to know the objective differences between pieces of equipment ('what causes what'), because then a listener can use his personal preference to decide which route to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge My point was that you don't have to PROVE it to proceed to study those that appear to do it well in order to look for what might correlate with this apparent discrimination. Which parts of the brain seem activated in correlation with one, say, cable vs the other might be indicative whether it is motivation difference or imagination based or auditory cortex based, etc, and thus indicative of it being about what comes in or what is added/altered from 'inside' or some such.

That would be really tough to study... An objective measurement of when a person is ignoring what he hears and substituting his own reality

. So, theoretically, a DBT might fail with someone who normally could hear significant differences, if they were forced to imagine differences; for example as a result of nervous tension, blood pressure, increased heart rate, diet, amount of sleep, etc. changing their abilities of perception.

But I think what you meant is that the testing could take place in either order. If someone can reliably tell pieces of equipment apart (testing for this is the difficult part), then for him, there must be a difference. Then, knowing that there is a difference, we test the equipment to find out what the differences are and their causes.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but music reproduction is sound reproduction, the only difference is content. Just as gourmet cooking follows the same scientific principles as a guy heating up some instant noodles, the difference is in the judgment of the food's quality, which is subjective--maybe some people prefer ramen! I'm trying to differentiate between sound quality and sound reproduction. I'm definitely not proposing that accuracy is essential to the enjoyment of music. Inaccuracy can sound much more musical, for example tube amplifiers versus solid state; the introduction of even-ordered harmonics can make the sound richer, even if the output isn't a perfect representation of the original signal. My point is that it pays to know the objective differences between pieces of equipment ('what causes what'), because then a listener can use his personal preference to decide which route to take.

I'm not at all sure this is the case. What is compared to what in the determination of accuracy? I would take an expert listener's comparison of performance and reproduction to be what is most relevant in regard to accuracy, but I'm sure you wouldn't. Expert wine tasters can all pretty much taste the same things in a series of wines though they will probably differ on which they like best or would buy for themselves, rate as higher quality personally though they can tell you what would generally be considered higher quality, etc. I believe that at least some of our head-fi golden ears guys can do the same with cables, amps, sources, etc. They will all hear the same qualities of the reproduction and differences comparing items though their preferences may well vary. The experts in each area have become able to be objective through experience and training. That's what it is to be a true expert at these things. All notions of being a professional are based on this notion, that with training and practice one develops the capacity to maintain objectivity under the 'stress' of situations in which amateurs cannot. That's what makes them worth paying for what they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif That would be really tough to study... An objective measurement of when a person is ignoring what he hears and substituting his own reality . So, theoretically, a DBT might fail with someone who normally could hear significant differences, if they were forced to imagine differences; for example as a result of nervous tension, blood pressure, increased heart rate, diet, amount of sleep, etc. changing their abilities of perception.

I'm not sure what you are intending here, how much humor, etc, but it is also about what is added internally by the listener or changed not just what is missed. The objectivists here often assert that even when one is paying full attention and hears a difference between cables one is altering what is coming in internally to bring this about because it couldn't be coming from the cables. So I am saying lets look for what can be measured that's different coming in and once 'in the brain' that comprises the experience of differences reported to be heard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I think what you meant is that the testing could take place in either order. If someone can reliably tell pieces of equipment apart (testing for this is the difficult part), then for him, there must be a difference. Then, knowing that there is a difference, we test the equipment to find out what the differences are and their causes.

Yes, but all you have to know is that an expert listeners hears a difference. You don't have to KNOW it in the sense of full proof to study it.

 

[infinitesymphony]

But that begs the question, who is an expert listener?

The differences between wines can be measured before they reach the lips of an expert tester, so why not eliminate the tester? When I say accuracy, I'm talking about comparing the signal that's on the storage medium with the final output coming out of a transducer (headphones, speakers, etc.), or at any particular point in between.

If it was found that, for example, a cable was designed to intentionally add resistance in order to artificially extend bass response, we would know with measurements. Whereas a cable reviewer might say, "The bass response is unbelievably warm and extends super-low... Almost danceable!" If you find someone who shares your same ideas about what sounds good or not, then perhaps they could serve as your reviewer, but I think that some objective measurements (and determining how they affect the sound) might be of more use to everyone.

 

[bigshot]

Wine tasting is not a good analogy to listening to music. Wine is an organic product that varys widely from batch to batch, even when the manufacturing process is identical.

Sound reproduction is a purely mechanical/electronic process. It's consistent and it is possible to measure accuracy both by measuring the specifications and by comparing to real sounds.

I don't believe in "expert listeners". Everyone can hear. You can become an expert analyzer, and understand the acoustic principles behind what you hear, but experience won't allow you to hear things you couldn't hear otherwise. Given two sound samples to compare anyone with normal hearing can discern differences if they know what they're listening for.

I've observed an interesting thing about audiophiles in this forum though. They seem to lose the sense of proportion... as in "this makes very little difference" "this makes a big difference". Everything is a big difference and a dealbreaker for them, no matter how insignificant. I suspect that may be OCD cutting in, but those with a psychology background might know a better term for it than that.

See ya
Steve

 

[OverlordXenu]

Music = wine. Sound reproduction equipment = wine bottle and glass.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif But that begs the question, who is an expert listener?

Look, there are several people at head fi who have reported getting scores consistently above 6 out of 10 on their attempts at blind testing. A few have reported about other audiophile groups who have been able to do so, or some of them have. That's good enough for them to be promising subjects for searching for possible correlations. If some are found then there is something to go on. If you wait for proof in your sense of expertise, you will wait forever.
Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif The differences between wines can be measured before they reach the lips of an expert tester, so why not eliminate the tester?

The fact is that wine makers have many test they do to monitor and regulate the stages of fermentation and to decide when the wine is ready for bottling, etc. They do differentiate wines by measurable chemical characteristics. But they still consider tasting essential for overall and complete evaluation. (My neighbor in CA is a Napa vintner and I have observed all of this and participated in some with him.) I believe that will always be true for music reproduction as well

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I say accuracy, I'm talking about comparing the signal that's on the storage medium with the final output coming out of a transducer (headphones, speakers, etc.), or at any particular point in between.

I told you you wouldn't agree. I suspected you meant this.
Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it was found that, for example, a cable was designed to intentionally add resistance in order to artificially extend bass response, we would know with measurements. Whereas a cable reviewer might say, "The bass response is unbelievably warm and extends super-low... Almost danceable!" If you find someone who shares your same ideas about what sounds good or not, then perhaps they could serve as your reviewer, but I think that some objective measurements (and determining how they affect the sound) might be of more use to everyone.

This is a straw man. No cable maker of any merit intentionally adds anything or changes what they take to be the unadulterated sound, though some do. I could cite you one example among high end makers, but I believe they are the exception. Most seek clearer, more open, more detailed and such, to bring out things they consider more true to the music--whether or not some who listen find that colors or degrades the signal. But of course "some objective measurements might be of...use", more use than such over the top comments as you quote but perhaps not of more use than more measured reviewing.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wine tasting is not a good analogy to listening to music. Wine is an organic product that varys widely from batch to batch, even when the manufacturing process is identical.

But of course when a wine tasting is done among several people they are taking samples from the same bottle. And, of course, when a wine maker tries to evaluate his vintage he tastes more than one bottle to check for consistency, though also of course it will never be as uniform as copies of a cd.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sound reproduction is a purely mechanical/electronic process. It's consistent and it is possible to measure accuracy both by measuring the specifications and by comparing to real sounds.

Agreed, but for things to be analogous they do not have to match in ALL respects. Still it is meaningful to make analogies. To attempt to use them as proof is one of your fallacies of rhetoric or proof, on the other hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't believe in "expert listeners". Everyone can hear. You can become an expert analyzer, and understand the acoustic principles behind what you hear, but experience won't allow you to hear things you couldn't hear otherwise. Given two sound samples to compare anyone with normal hearing can discern differences if they know what they're listening for.

Surely this is one of the interesting questions related to our topic. However, I cannot believe you don't think some people have more golden ears than others. You yourself must be an expert at listening in your context of recording to do it as well as you do. You have claimed this, in fact, at other points as in when you talked of being able to remember live concerts you attended enough to evaluate the realism of reproduction at a later time, no? Training and experience do definitely improve ones listening skill. There ARE listening skills. Someone who has developed them to a high degree is what I call an expert

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've observed an interesting thing about audiophiles in this forum though. They seem to lose the sense of proportion... as in "this makes very little difference" "this makes a big difference". Everything is a big difference and a dealbreaker for them, no matter how insignificant. I suspect that may be OCD cutting in, but those with a psychology background might know a better term for it than that.

I couldn't agree more about the hyperbole (though not the diagnosis). It is annoying and misleading in a review though it does convey enthusiasm. I don't think, however, that this is a characteristic of subjectivists, if that is what your are implying. I believe it has more to do with under-developed verbal skills, not understanding the needs of ones reader and not being secure enough to speak in simpler terms.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Look, there are several people at head fi who have reported getting scores consistently above 6 out of 10 on their attempts at blind testing. A few have reported about other audiophile groups who have been able to do so, or some of them have. That's good enough for them to be promising subjects for searching for possible correlations. If some are found then there is something to go on.

I agree. If there are people who have proven themselves capable of discerning differences, then they should be the ones receiving attention for their reviews. The posts that people have issues with are the ones where it's unclear if a person has suitable experience to say, "This is what the equipment is doing, and here's why."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a straw man. No cable maker of any merit intentionally adds anything or changes what they take to be the unadulterated sound, though some do. I could cite you one example among high end makers, but I believe they are the exception. Most seek clearer, more open, more detailed and such, to bring out things they consider more true to the music--whether or not some who listen find that colors or degrades the signal. But of course "some objective measurements might be of...use", more use than such over the top comments as you quote but perhaps not of more use than more measured reviewing.

If high-end manufacturers had the same end goal in mind, it seems to me that most of their gear would sound nearly identical. Yet there are people who claim (and may be able) to hear huge differences.

The problem with anecdotal reviews is that they are most applicable to the test system. Parts of a given system can influence other parts when everything is working together (i.e. "synergy"); two people might have the same idea of good sound quality, but they could disagree on the performance of a piece of equipment if their other system components differed. One can only gain a general sense of how a given component might affect sound quality in a fair number of systems, but one can't determine its effects in every system.

I've said this before, but I believe that if we could pin down what causes audible differences, it would advance the cases for both accuracy and musicality. People would know exactly what to look for if they wanted more of a given musical quality, and they'd also know where to go for accuracy. It's true that discovering these cause/effect relationships to their full extents will be the difficult, if not impossible part.

I guess it boils down to this... Some people are more interested in the theory behind equipment, and others prefer to listen and draw their own conclusions. They're both valid methods. It's just that one is easier to prove than the other.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, if I want to make factual claims about the sonic properties of the equipment in public, I must accept the fact that I will be asked for evidence backing my claims. L.

What factual evidence is there for claims about the worth of headphones, in the headphones section, eg. the Stax 007 is the best electrostatic headphone? Just a lot of individual's opinions, some saying yeah and some saying nay.

What I will do is read these and try to decide whether I will trust some people's opinions more than others. Possibly one person will make really off-the-wall comments making me question their objectivity. Possibly one person will be using sources more similar to mine so that I would expect their conclusions to be more like mine, etc.

There is no discipline of scientific audiophile studies and probably never will be. There are studies of hearing, acoustics and perception but little of this is directly related to things that people in this forum care about.

There are engineering principles but these are far more directed to equipment per se than the human factor type issues of how people relate to the equiupment.

And then you have the proprietary issues of the manufacturers, generally controlled by engineers and/or beancounters who are primarily interested in making a buck.

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif What factual evidence is there for claims about the worth of headphones, in the headphones section, eg. the Stax 007 is the best electrostatic headphone? Just a lot of individual's opinions, some saying yeah and some saying nay. What I will do is read these and try to decide whether I will trust some people's opinions more than others. Possibly one person will make really off-the-wall comments making me question their objectivity. Possibly one person will be using sources more similar to mine so that I would expect their conclusions to be more like mine, etc. There is no discipline of scientific audiophile studies and probably never will be.

a good point.

all we have in audio that is truly useful is the collective experiences of users - which, while subjective individually can as a whole form objective opinions.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif a good point. all we have in audio that is truly useful is the collective experiences of users - which, while subjective individually can as a whole form objective opinions.

I value opinions of some people more then others. Especially of those that actually tried stuff themselves. Nonetheless, yes, there is stuff on the market way overpriced, not worth the money and stuff that makes your eyebrows go up sky high, but it's forums like head-fi where you can read personal opinions of stuff actually tried out and hands on experiences.

So, the truth lies somewhere in between; i heard cables that are much better then others and worth their higher price. I also heard alot of (expensive) cables that are not better at all and not worth their price, but that also goes for amps, cdplayers and any other hifi component. I treat cables like any other component in the chain, it is an important piece of the chain and flavour and preference is your liking.

Can cables make a system sound better, yes, in my system it does. Does it mean it is for everyone, no. Some higher end cables are soo good that they are ruthless in showing any weakness in the system.

In the end, any component, being cables or any other hifi component is dependent on personal taste (does it sound good to you), experience(is it a good cdplayer, longlivety) and preference( estatics etc.). This fact cannot be discussed since it is personal and not any scientific test will change this fact.