[esldude]

Quote:

Bob Carver built equipment that put it up against  many well thought of audio equipment. His  sounded good to the human ear  not specifically to scientific measurement there is a difference as this thread disputes and discounts the "human" side of things in audio  only allowing purely electronic view points to be the accepted thing. It seems to be a case of "self denial" that we are human and that humans can do what robots cant and that's FEEL the music. Its an illogical fact and something that robots will never achieve. No robot can hear of feel the "spirit in music".and never will because they can never get beyond logic. It is non productive  to constantly "put down" human beings because they can hear more in music than a piece of electronics can. That's patronizing  and only has a basis in non human electronics  .Science is made to assist man not "standards" which are based on machines. There is no "standard" human beings some people get diseases that others don't and not because they don't eat such and such to make them ill but because their whole DNA  is different from person to person. Rules were made for man not man for rules. Science is not perfect and is a long way from being so so it isn't a "standard" on which to judge human beings.They keep on getting it wrong viruses   change and build up defenses to anti biotics .Humans change from generation to generation in a biological sense . But electronics no matter how good can never compete no matter how many SF films Hollywood throws out.. So if some people can hear differences in audio equipment it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because others don't. Our perception is different from person to person.And even though I cant hear all the things that are said I don't put down others that say they do. Capacitance/inductance/ resistance in connecting wires /active components all "gang up" to make it harder to design a stable and low distortion power amp. What works just fine on a bread board can oscillate to -ell in a beautiful PCB .I proved this by building a power amp whose components were "squashed together" just the high current output kept at a distance and I didn't need a compensation cap---but it looked Terrible.        

Mr. Carver's amps sounded the way he wanted them to sound.  The human side of things is most specifically what is not being discounted here.  There are a few simple colorations that enhance the perceived sound quality of music to many people (though everyone probably has slightly different preferences).  There are very human limits to hearing . Some parts of the electronic reproduction chain exceed those limits handily.   There is no 'spirit in the music' if two different boxes reproduce the same signal exactly enough.  The spirit is in the human who perceives it.  The qualia of human musical experience most likely varies much more than equipment of good fidelity except perhaps when it comes to speakers/rooms. 
 
So despite your opinion sound science is about deprecating humans I think you are mistaken.  It is about understanding humans.  To simply put a stamp on human perception as infallible is in fact devaluing them in my view.  Understanding what effects qualia of musical experience and what doesn't is to put more value on the human part.
 
No one here has told you some people can't hear better than others.  Rather that sometimes there isn't any difference to be heard.  In those cases some will think they hear a difference when none physically exists.  It might appear that is claiming human experience is of no value.  I rather believe it simply shows an understanding of it. I fail to see advancing understanding as being an act of devaluation.

 

[xnor]

@duncan1: You still don't seem to understand that DBTs are subjective tests.
 
If we go the pragmatic route then what you can really perceive is all that matters, even if that means wobbly and rolled-off frequency response, distortion products above -60 dB, higher crosstalk etc.
 
 
This thread does not dispute and discount the human side of things. It just points out that perception is not an objective measurement and as such is subject to loads and loads of bias. Nobody here denies that we are human, quite the opposite actually.
 
 
As for "standards": every person is different, right, but does that mean that antifebriles won't work on like the majority of people in the world? Nope. Similarly, you can try as hard as you want, most (and I dare to say all, under normal circumstances) people won't be able to hear a different roll-off at X kHz beyond the hearing limit when switching cables. Sure, we all evolve, but you won't grow bat ears over night, nor over your entire lifetime.
 
And as for science not being perfect, well nothing really is, but it's considered the best method for making useful and practical additions to human knowledge. If you know of more perfect methods, we're all ears.
 
 
Your point "if some people can hear differences in audio equipment it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because others don't" can be easily turned around: Imagine giving placebos (inert pills) to 100 people, and it works for a few like let's say 10. You are arguing that the pills are not inert but effective, because it triggered some effect for 10 people despite this phenomenon being well known as placebo effect.
 
It's the same with, for example, digital cables really. Physically there is no improvement of what's coming out of your transducers, but psychologically it can cause a difference for a few people. Write some rave reviews in a forum or magazine and some "special" people will believe you, biasing them towards also hearing differences where there are none. When someone cannot hear the difference just call him deaf. If someone fails in a blind test just discredit science and instead of thinking critically and rationally just disable that part of the brain, point to positive (subjective) reviews and bathe in confirmation bias. Then there are also people who will just buy the stuff for fear they might not squeeze the last percent out of their system as they were told, telling their peers they also hear a small difference to prevent to be labeled deaf. It's a vicious circle.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

@duncan1: You still don't seem to understand that DBTs are subjective tests.

 
Still doesn't seem to understand that paragraphs make things easier to read either.
 
se

 

[GSARider]

Still doesn't seem to understand that paragraphs make things easier to read either.

se

+1 why the heck do folk do this? Is it a copy & paste job?

 

[bigshot]

Bob Carver built equipment that put it up against  many well thought of audio equipment. His  sounded good to the human ear  not specifically to scientific measurement

You're missing the point of his experiment. He took a $400 solid state amp that measured clean, and he added coloration that made it sound like a tube amp. He wasn't trying to improve the solid state amp. He was trying to prove that tube amp distortions were possible to exactly duplicate by simply hobbling an acoustically transparent solid state amp.

Anyone can make solid state sound like anything they want, because they are starting from a baseline that measures and sounds perfectly flat and perfectly clean. The differences between other amps that don't measure perfectly flat and perfectly clean can be exactly duplicated through sound processing.

Why not start with clean and THEN muddy it up to your personal taste. It makes no sense to start with a colored amp that has the coloration hardwired into its design. Coloration should be adjustable to personal taste. That's the concept behind DSPs, equalizers and tone controls.

 

[bigshot]

No one here has told you some people can't hear better than others.

Actually, I will go out on a limb and say that.

There is a big difference between "some people hear better than others" and "some people don't hear as well as others". The limits of human perception are clearly established as fact. People may hear below that level but no one hears beyond it.

 

[ev13wt]

+1 why the heck do folk do this? Is it a copy & paste job?

Emotional response. No time to think, needs to write feeling down fast. In rl they are the guys that talk too loud and fast, thinking that that will get a point across. They usually cut off your sentences early too.

 

[esldude]

Quote:

Actually, I will go out on a limb and say that.

There is a big difference between "some people hear better than others" and "some people don't hear as well as others". The limits of human perception are clearly established as fact. People may hear below that level but no one hears beyond it.

Yes, that was my point.  Actually physical hearing ability varies.  Experience has some small effect though it won't enhance an ability to hear something that cannot be heard.  Limits of hearing in the main are well established.  20 khz is quoted and in fact beyond early adulthood few can manage even that.  Everyone's hearing ability declines with age.  Some develop ringing and difficulty dealing with loud sounds over their life.  That was what I meant about hearing varying.

 

[ev13wt]

Many people don't even realize what 20KHz is. There isn't even a lot going on up there in actual music. Heck, 15 KHz is a pretty darn high tone already!

A pianos higest note: 4186 Hz
A violin can do aprox. 10000 Hz
Guitar: 1319 Hz

Of course there are overtones, harmonics etc. But generally, I'd say much of this "flat till 20.000 is overrated.

 

[CantScareMe]

Quote:

I take it that you think my post a bit of a waste of time. Maybe you are right.
I thought long before I posted because I am very aware that this is a Sound Science forum and there are some very knowledgable technically minded people posting on here. There has been a bit of digression recently though and I also thought that I would try to put forward a less esoteric view.
I have had various systems over the years and headed down the "high end" route and got into cables.
Spent quite a lot of money with Russ Andrews.
Recently I realised that I was enjoying my music less than I did when I was a teenager with a music center ( remember them?)

I sold the lot.
I've got a portable set up that I am confident is way ahead of the Beats straight out of a phone that I see everywhere.
I just bought a Sonos system for home.
I am listening to more music rather than fretting about equipment.
This is not to denigrate those with fantastic systems but maybe don't lose sight if what it is all for.
Or accept that a lot of it is enjoyment of beautifully made gear.
I really apologise if this is not the place for these thoughts.

 
Listening to music is a hobby.
Collecting/experiencing varieties of headphone gear mainly in the pursuit of sound quality is another.
 
I see them as both distinct (and independent), but not mutually exclusive. There's 7 billion people on earth, and a large chunk of them will call listening music one of their hobbies, at one time of their life at least. Let's say 5 billion.
 
I find nothing wrong in being proud of a hobby that is not so common as 'listening to music.'  It's not synonymous with the act of buying crap gear just because it costs a lot. If one spends 10 years in this hobby and then decides to quit, they must have enjoyed it in large parts - otherwise it was 10 years of self inflicted hell and the best course of action immediately would be to see a psychotherapist/psychiatrist.

 

[Chromako]

Quote:

You mean in the ignorance is bliss kinda way? :-/

You said it! 
 
I mean, them uber-cable buying peoples are enjoying stuff, while we are kvetching. There is a certain benefit, if you think about it, of being blissful and unknowing. 

 

[Chromako]

Question all: 
 
Peoples spend so many hundreds on fancy asynchronous USB interfaces and proprietary reclockers... 
 
Firewire supports native asynchronous data transfer (20% of the bandwidth is always reserved for it). It's also peer to peer, and is hardware based (very little CPU load to theoretically add stuttering). That's 160Mb/s... way more than required for 24/192 stereo. Implementing Firewire is less than $5 in hardware.
 
And it's bragging rights. Only few multi kilobuck DACs support Firewire, so you, the manufacturer, could brag that you have a feature shared by just kilobuck and professional recording artists for such a low, low price of... anything. 
 
Frankly, I use Firewire whenever I can. It's so much more reliable in my experience. 
 
You could even have a cheap USB as a backup for the philistines. It all makes me so sad. 

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

I don't see the question out of all that

 

[esldude]

Actually Firewire is not asynch by default.  I found out the hard way.  My firewire interface has various glitches and dropouts etc.  My USB (which is asynch) has none of that.  Even when using a lowly netbook as a music server.  You are right.....it does  make me sad when I use firewire.
 

 

[krismusic]

We're friendly around here as long as you're honest and straightforward. Welcome to Sound Science!

Thanks for the reassurance.
I am very interested in what you say about cheap gear being capable of great performance.
I formed the opinion that one of the biggest frauds of Hi Fi and the prime area for snake oil merchants to operate is in gulling the "What Hi Fi" crowd ( I was once of their number)
That budget components could give "a taste of the high end" if only the "right" selection of components could be assembled.
If superb sound did not ensue then cables and accessories could correct the problem.