[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

If I buy a CD player, I don't expect it to produce any frequencies above redbook. If it does, it's probably broken. There's nothing up at 40kHz on a CD to reproduce anyway.

I think people just like making things complicated. All this theoretical talk does is confuse people who just want their stereo to sound really good. It isn't all that different from audiophile hoodoo in effect, even if that isn't the intent.

Plain old practicaliity and common sense seems to be in short supply on both sides of the aisle.

 
Well, if such is your attitude, I hope you never read a book covering neuroscience or quantum mechanics. You might have an aneurysm following a realization that practicality is just a perception aligned to a neurosocial emergent conception and not necessarily representative of actuality in this complex system we call the universe : 3
Basically, nature sets it's own complexity... it's our choice whether or not we wish to explore it's complexity, as well as how far we will go.

 
Gregorio, thank you so much for bringing your rationalized understandings and experiences here to share with us at Headfi, as your insights are truly a benefit to our understanding of audio reproduction.
 


 

 

[Uncle Erik]

Ah, I see we've come to the Great Mysteries of the Universe argument.

Yes, quantum mechanics is strange, wonderful and not understood.

In no way does that mean that some guy working out of his garage isn't trying to scam you for a few hundred.

You might as well say that because the Higgs Boson hasn't been discovered yet means that every email from Nigeria really could make you rich. Or that psychic surgery is real because dark matter isn't understood.

A scam is a scam.

If the best scientists don't understand something, neither does the average con man. However, the average con man understands very well that using some of that language is easy money from the credulous.

As for the cheap player, I really enjoyed reading about the Matrix test (http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm) where no one could tell the difference between a very expensive CD player, amp and RCA cables and cheap, ordinary ones. Digital sources, amps and cables are solved problems. High quality is inexpensive. Pair those with good speakers or headphones and you'll get great sound on the cheap.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

 
My criterion for success in life isn’t the acquisition of women as I do not view other women as objects (maybe because I have estrogen in my blood myself). Though I do feel compelled to note that my preferred style of prose attracts the sorts of folks whose company I enjoy.
 
In anycase, I don't dispute that on the surface what systems we perceive appear lacking in complexity, but, I will say that common sense and a skimming of said systems do not provide a detailed picture as to the nature of their inner workings. That's why I bring up quantum mechanics: we assume x to be true based on our first hand observations... our pragmatic observations. In fact, the world functions in a completely counter intuitive way once one digs deep enough. Does this mean that we should start a depth analysis if deciding to purchase a CD player? Of course not as a simple analysis will provide a player of quality that has no discernible difference from some $25k monstrosity. 
 
However, it's still fun for some of us to figure out how all this "stuff" operates in its entirety... also comes in handy when the inner workings of reality come spilling out on to the stage (as gregorio's example illustrated).
 
 

Quote:

As for the cheap player, I really enjoyed reading about the Matrix test (http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm) where no one could tell the difference between a very expensive CD player, amp and RCA cables and cheap, ordinary ones. Digital sources, amps and cables are solved problems. High quality is inexpensive. Pair those with good speakers or headphones and you'll get great sound on the cheap.

What an excellent link! Thank you for posting it... there certainly is some good reading there.
 

 

[mike1127]

The most absurd things about this thread are, in no particular order:
 

1. The idea that recorded music is the equal of live music -- anyone claiming this has poor hearing
2. The idea that evaluating an audio system has nothing to do with evaluating a musical performance
3. In particular, two of the participants here are just oozing condescension but bristle at any perceived insult

 

[gregorio]

The most absurd things about this thread are, in no particular order:
 

1. The idea that recorded music is the equal of live music -- anyone claiming this has poor hearing
2. The idea that evaluating an audio system has nothing to do with evaluating a musical performance
3. In particular, two of the participants here are just oozing condescension but bristle at any perceived insult

I certainly have not said that recorded music is the equal of live music, I've said the opposite. So if we use a sound system to playback say a film (without music) then according to you there is no way to evaluate that sound system, clearly a ludicrous proposition.

For the last time Mike, it's up to the musicians to create a musical performance, the sound system just records and re-produces the sound waves created by the musicians. We can compare the signal entering the sound system with the signal exiting the sound system and if they are the same we can say that the system is transparent. We can measure and compare the signal orders of magnitude more accurately with measuring equipment than we can with the ear. The sound system does not produce or create a musical performance, only musicians can. I guarantee, if you open up your DAC you will not find a whole bunch of miniature musicians inside, just a whole bunch of electronics. Please try and use your brain to understand this most simple of concepts.

G

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Quote:

The most absurd things about this thread are, in no particular order:
 

1. The idea that recorded music is the equal of live music -- anyone claiming this has poor hearing
2. The idea that evaluating an audio system has nothing to do with evaluating a musical performance
3. In particular, two of the participants here are just oozing condescension but bristle at any perceived insult

I certainly have not said that recorded music is the equal of live music, I've said the opposite.

Yes, but Mr. Bigshot has.
 
Quote:

For the last time Mike, it's up to the musicians to create a musical performance, the sound system just records and re-produces the sound waves created by the musicians.

 
Yes, but...
Quote:

We can compare the signal entering the sound system with the signal exiting the sound system and if they are the same we can say that the system is transparent

.. no system is perfect, the most obvious distortion occurring in the microphones and speakers (both their inherent distortion and the way they are used to approximate but not match the original 3-d sound field). To the extent the system distorts the signal, then it affects perception, and since what we are perceiving is a musical performance, then it alters that performance.
 
Quote:

We can measure and compare the signal orders of magnitude more accurately with measuring equipment than we can with the ear.

If systems A and B both have distortion, you can measure that distortion to your heart's content, but that won't tell you which one is more accurate as perceived. Well, perhaps if you are speaking of low-fidelity systems there are some rough measures, but not for the case of high-fidelity systems.
 
 
Quote:

I guarantee, if you open up your DAC you will not find a whole bunch of miniature musicians inside, just a whole bunch of electronics. Please try and use your brain to understand this most simple of concepts.

Try to use your brain to understand enough of what I'm saying that you don't address it with a caricature like this.
 
I suspect that the reason you make a distinction is that it makes things simpler. But it doesn't get you closer to the truth, that's only an illusion. You are

 

[mike1127]

The other absurd thing here is bring up illusions as "proof" that "perception is flawed" and therefore ears can't evaluate transparency. I've described several times why this is false. Ears and brains don't need to describe the word in objective terms-- they only need to perceive. And reproduction is simply making something that is perceived the same way as the original. So if the original is some kind of illusion, then the job of the system is to reproduce that illusion.
 
In fact, perceiving music has nothing, not one little thing to do with describing the world objectively. I would think that anyone with even half a brain would realize this. What does perceiving Beethoven's Fifth as art have to do with any objectively measurable aspect of the universe?
 
It's so absurd to put measurements more primary than perception that the only reason I can think anyone would do this is because it creates the illusion of having simplified the situation. It truly is sticking your head into the sand.
 

 

[gregorio]

... no system is perfect, the most obvious distortion occurring in the microphones and speakers (both their inherent distortion and the way they are used to approximate but not match the original 3-d sound field). To the extent the system distorts the signal, then it affects perception...  

Not true. You may perceive distortion where none exists or not perceive distortion where it does. I know no system is perfect, I know this because I can easily measure it, you however cannot know this. If you only believe in perception, how do you know that every single person on the planet will perceive the distortion? In actual fact you will find some out of the 6.5 billion population who would perceive almost every system as transparent and you will find some who perceive almost every system as distorted. Pretty useful conclusion and method of evaluation, every system is both perfect and hopeless! Perception is the only useful tool for measuring quality (a human concept) but perception is very poor at measuring quantity (a scientific concept).

If systems A and B both have distortion, you can measure that distortion to your heart's content, but that won't tell you which one is more accurate as perceived.

Of course not, as no instrument or measurement device can possibly measure perception. There again, your perception would be hopeless as well, unless you are trying to convince me that your perception is so perfect that you can use it to measure everyone else's perception. Please, apply just a gram of logic to this situation. If I can measure distortion below the human threshold of hearing, I can say it's transparent. I cannot with measurements and you cannot with your perception measure how people will perceive that transparency. The only thing your ears can do is evaluate your personal perception of transparency.

For the absolute last time Mike, a sound system makes no attempt at measuring or recreating your perception of Beethoven's 5th or your perception of any other illusion. A sound system is only concerned with measuring and recreating sound waves, period. Anyone with a quarter of a brain would be able to grasp this simple concept. I have no more time to waste on someone being so deliberately obtuse.

G

 

[mike1127]

You've nicely confirmed my suspicion, which is that you put measurements first because you are avoiding the messiness of a situation where there are no universal facts.
 
 
Quote:

If you only believe in perception, how do you know that every single person on the planet will perceive the distortion?

 
I have no need to know if every single person will perceive it, because I'm not trying to oversimplify the situation.
 
Quote:

In actual fact you will find some out of the 6.5 billion population who would perceive almost every system as transparent and you will find some who perceive almost every system as distorted.

Right, it's a complex situation. But switching to a definition of transparency as something measured is just a desperate hope of making the situation simpler.
 
 
Quote:

perception is very poor at measuring quantity (a scientific concept).

You are the one that thinks evaluating systems should be something universal and repeatable (i.e. qualities of science). I don't think that.
 
 
Quote:

The only thing your ears can do is evaluate your personal perception of transparency.

Actually I can find people who have a concept of perception similar to mine and we can share useful information. My current headphone system is mostly custom work by a guy who clearly perceives things similarly to me.
 
If you say, "But this makes it impractical because everyone needs to take the time and gain the experience to find similar sets of people," then I would say, yup that's the nature of the situation.
 
 
Quote:

I have no more time to waste on someone being so deliberately obtuse.

 
Kind of amusing that Mr. Bigshot is so concerned with politeness if it's someone he disagrees with, but he hasn't mentioned such obviously rude statements at this.

 

[rroseperry]

Mike, I think you have a serious category confusion going on here.

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

Mike1127, I couldn't agree more with you!
 
From what I understand of the audio hobby, it is an attempt to recreate (model?) as close as possible, a historical musical moment in time. That's why some recording companies go to such great lengths to capture music "naturally," including the cues that enable the brain to recreate an image of the space the performance took place in, e.g. Reference Recordings and Chesky come to mind. Yet, we fall so short of that goal! I certainly enjoy listening to my music with my audio system, but it pales in comparison to almost any live performance I ever attended. It's nice to think that we know so much about sound, and yet we can't even recreate the simplest aspect of the real event. Sometimes we come close, and sometimes we even fall prey to illusions of the real thing, so much so that we have similar emotional responses.   
 
Consider, if every time you wanted to listen to music you had the option of having the real band, orchestra, soloist, pianist (whatever) playing for you, or listening to your audio system, which would you choose? I don't think you'd question--using your simple ears--which one was real or which one was Memorex! 

 

[kwkarth]

I'm going to close this thread, as it has degenerated into a couple people vehemently arguing with and insulting each other, when neither one of them seem to understand what they're talking about.
 
Case closed.