[liamstrain]

*backs away slowly
 
(though, you could probably correlate the amount of lithium needed to make them go away, as an audibility measurement)

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

My thoughts exactly.  Unless the joke's on us.

 
Must be.
 
Are you screwing with us kiteki?

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Then the burden is on you to show that there are things which are audible, which we cannot measure. 

 
Didn't The Band have a song about this?

 

[Tilpo]

So are you saying NwAv's various comparisons to video, and articles like this, are just flawed? - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_s

Or, is video a good example, when it suits you?  Video is electricity -> photons, Audio is electricity -> air, they operate at Hertz rates, which you can find in christmas lights, or Skullcandy headphones, this is called frequency response, are you following me so far?

Actually not electricity -> photons strictly. Ever heard of the wave-particle duality of light?

And just because NwAvGuy used it as a metaphor doesn't make it less flawed. Actually it's just that: a metaphor. A linguistic tool useful for explaining the phenomenon to people who do not yet understand it. But I think it's safe to say that everyone in this thread has a good understanding of simple concepts like harmonic distortion and frequency response.

 

[mike1127]

I believe that my current digital setup (modified PS Audio transport, custom DAC by K Works) is far superior to a basic CD player (by "basic" I mean, say, a commonly available CD player which measures with vanishingly low distortion) and I'd be willing to blind-test that if anyone in the LA area wants to help run the experiment.
 
EDIT: it would help if some of the professional audio folks here suggest such a "basic" CD player that I could find at a Best Buy or similar store, something they feel confident has practically perfect performance. I guess CD players aren't sold any more. Is an ipod playing a WAV file "practically perfect"?

 

[bigshot]

Why not set up a line level matched A/B switchable test first. Then at least you'll have an idea of how big of a difference you think you hear. Honestly, if something requires a blind test to determine if it actually exists, it probably doesn't matter even if there is a difference.

 

[mike1127]

Well, first of all, I need to know what kind of source is considered "measured perfect" so I don't waste my time with a source that is already known to have audible defects.
 
2nd, the goal is to prove to myself and/or others that I really hear a difference, so a blind test must be done and I need help with that.
 
3rd, I'll explain something. It's about the way I perceive the characteristic sound of something, and I believe many audiophiles hear things the same way. My transport/DAC has positive audible characteristics that I hear in a generalized way across many CDs at many volume levels. I haven't heard these in cheap CD players. I'm not saying I am above the possibility of placebo effect, just explaining how the sound is perceived.
 
It's the same way that analog sources have certain positive characteristics that are not typical of digital, taken as a class of perceptual phenomena across many recordings at many volume levels.
 
It's the same way that live music has beauty and power that I've never heard from any audio reproduction.

 

[bigshot]

Sometimes I wonder if people enjoy playing scientist more than just figuring out practical ways to improve their stereo systems. It's very simple. You do balanced A/B comparisons and try to eliminate the variables that might affect the outcome. If there isn't much difference, it doesn't matter. Look for ways to improve your sound that you can clearly hear without jumping through hoops.

"Generalized improvements" across long terms of listening and different music and listening volumes is a big fat red flag. Vague things like that almost always completely dissolve when you rack up a $50 Coby CD player and a fancy ass player side by side with balanced line levels. Usually if there really *is* a difference, you can clearly discern exactly what it is.

"Beauty" and "power" are aspects of performance, not sound reproduction.

 

[mike1127]

I've got something to point out. I am not interested in a flame war here -- I'll maintain a respectful tone, and anyone who tries to flame me will be ignored.
 
This is related to what Katei is saying. It's about epistemology, about the question of how we decide what it means to "know" something and how knowledge is acquired.
 
A measurement is a parameterized model, and models are never reality. E.g., to measure the frequency response, you model the system as linear, and perform a measurement to approximate the response at a series of frequency points. The system isn't actually linear but you get an answer anyway. And there is nothing in your answer that could possibly show your model is wrong.
 
Next point, a model is a way of predicting the behavior of the system. About prediction: to predict the behavior of a system that consists of audio equipment, your ear, and your brain, you need to predict the system's behavior for a broad set of inputs -- and the inputs of interest are musical signals (not test signals). If we say a system is "accurate" we are essentially saying something about its future behavior with respect to all musical input signals under a general set of operating conditions for all future time.
 
I've got about six more points but let's start with these.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Sometimes I wonder if people enjoy playing scientist more than just figuring out practical ways to improve their stereo systems. It's very simple. You do balanced A/B comparisons and try to eliminate the variables that might affect the outcome. If there isn't much difference, it doesn't matter. Look for ways to improve your sound that you can clearly hear without jumping through hoops.
"Generalized improvements" across long terms of listening and different music and listening volumes is a big fat red flag. Vague things like that almost always completely dissolve when you rack up a $50 Coby CD player and a fancy ass player side by side with balanced line levels. Usually if there really *is* a difference, you can clearly discern exactly what it is.

You are misreading my use of the word "generalized". They are specific improvements, but heard across many signals, which makes them a different perceptual phenomenon than a difference heard on one signal.
 
I would think nearly anyone would know what I mean about live music vs. audio. Look, I think anything needs to be blind tested for proof, but I think most people know what I'm talking about when I say live music has certain characteristics that one never hears in audio. Everyone perceives differently, so perhaps some don't perceive this.
 
Weird, audiophiles who claim improvements but haven't done blind tests are told they need a blind test to prove it, but now that I'm asking for help with a blind test I'm told I'm "playing scientist".
 
Small differences do matter because a bunch of small differences makes a large difference.

 

[bigshot]

I'm not flaming. I'm trying to drag your quest for good sound down to earth. Ten dollar words like "epistemology" and flowery descriptions of the "power and the grandeur" of the music won't do jack squat to make your stereo sound good. All this kind of stuff can do is serve to convince you of things that are purely theoretical and haven't been practically identified and put to work yet.

This isn't a test to see who is smarter and can speak the fanciest. It's the search for better sound. That comes from taking one piece of technology and directly comparing it to another with a level playing field.

Which one sounds better? What part of the sound does it improve? By how much? These are really simple questions and you don't need access to a PHd or a particle accellerator to answer them. But if you never bother to ask them, or refuse to answer them without a bunsen burner and a peer review, your stereo will never sound any better than it does now.

 

[bigshot]

You are misreading my use of the word "generalized". They are specific improvements, but heard across many signals, which makes them a different perceptual phenomenon than a difference heard on one signal..

No. It's the *same* improvement, just spread across a lot of unfocused listening... So much generalized listening that you can't even identify the qualities of the improvement or if it even exists. The place to start is to try to hear the improvement side by side so you can identify it and determine how big of an improvement it is. Odds are, there may very well be no difference. The improvement came as a phantom from your generalized unfocused listening.

Live music has all sorts of factors that don't even relate to recorded music. It's apples and oranges. Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about here. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole with you on that one.

In sound reproduction, the small differences do not add up to much. It's the main issues that always are a problem. It's silly to claim you want to dot every i and cross ever t for accurate sound and listen to tiny little speakers jammed in your ears. You're starting out from a place that is inaccurate on a whole level of magnitude greater.

 

[mike1127]

bigshot, I don't think you are flaming me. I think you have good points, but I disagree with them.
 
I do have a practical attitude. I choose components that make a big difference. I work with a designer/tech, to do modifications, who has a theoretical understanding of what he is doing that serves us phenomenally well. We make price/performance compromises. Etc.
 
The only thing is that we don't use blind tests. If I do a blind test and prove my "audible big differences" don't exist, that would save me a ton of money. So it's a very practical thing.
 
Theoretical understanding is very important and very practical. The ability to make predictions about performance is very practical. For instance, Ethan Winer wrote a book giving advice about choosing components. Not every audiophile can do blind tests of everything in their system-- and virtually no one can do quick-switch/blind tests of speakers. Giving broad advice is practical.
 
Hence, an analysis of the various paradigms and how they are arrived at is very important. There is an epistemology behind everything whether you are aware of it or not. You have an epistemology and/or paradigm or whatever we might call it. For instance, you believe that "if something requires a blind test to determine if it actually exists, it probably doesn't matter even if there is a difference." That's an operational paradigm. That's about making predictions of the behavior of a system.
 
And as far as "power and grandeur" (actually I wrote "power and beauty") -- all I can say is that this is the reason music exists -- for me anyway. The very reason music exists is a pretty darn important concept. How would you describe the things you like about music?

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

No. It's the *same* improvement, just spread across a lot of unfocused listening... So much generalized listening that you can't even identify the qualities of the improvement or if it even exists. The place to start is to try to hear the improvement side by side so you can identify it and determine how big of an improvement it is. Odds are, there may very well be no difference. The improvement came as a phantom from your generalized unfocused listening.

 
I'm not sure what you mean by "generalized unfocused listening".
 
I can identify the qualities of improvement easily. I can make a few points about that, but I wanted to address one thing at a time. But just to name one quality: microdynamic resolution
 
Quote:

Live music has all sorts of factors that don't even relate to recorded music. It's apples and oranges. Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about here

 
This is part of your paradigm but I couldn't disagree more. I listen to recorded music in order to have experiences similar to listening to live music. So the most important factors are shared. For instance, one can evaluate the microdynamic resolution of live music as well as recorded music. The m. r. in live music varies and is affected by the hall acoustics and the skill of the players, among other factors. It just seems like we are in such different places you don't recognize any of the concepts that I consider critical to music reproduction. I'm a musician and I have a B.S. E.E. and believe me, this stuff couldn't be more obvious to me.
 
 
Quote:

In sound reproduction, the small differences do not add up to much.

Again, that's your experience but not mine. Something about the way we perceive sound, the qualities we listen to, is so different that we come to opposite conclusions.

 

[bigshot]

When I say "generalized unfocused listening" i mean listening without making sure that you've eliminated as many variables that might skew your impression as possible... Specifically, putting two sound samples side by side with balanced levels and switching back and forth to allow you to identify the difference and its size. Just sitting in a chair with a glass of wine listening to Mozart isn't specific focused listening.

Significant dynamic differences are very easy to detect with balanced line levels. But if the two sounds you are comparing aren't at the exact same level, the louder one is going to always sound more dynamic than the softer one. It's unlikely that any CD player performing to spec is gong to have different dynamics than another CD player. Redbook sound by definition has a MUCh broader dynamic range than any music could possibly take advantage of. The internal dynamics of the music are a function of the performance and recording engineering, not playback.

If you want your recorded music to sound exactly like a live performance, you should move into a night club or concert hall. The acoustics of a live venue and PA system is something that recorded music can't duplicate. Recorded music has its own properties that can be exploited, but expecting two speakers to replicate the complex reflections and directionality in sound one experiences in a jazz club or arena rock concert just isn't going to happen. Those differences are to "microdynamics" as the planet Jupiter is to a grain of sand.