I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys

[billybob_jcv]

The "subjective experience" is also what gave some folks their belief in Bigfoot, Nessie, UFOs and Mermaids.  They know what they saw - nothing else matters.

 

[tzjin]

Quote:

 
RD, you are a better man than I.  You're still holding out hope, trying to convince people.  I gave up long ago.  Maybe it's time you did too.

Please don't. We need more of you.


 
 

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv 

I think the inner workings of the ear->nerve->brain are irrelevant.  The input signal to the ear is differential pressure across the eardrum.  Describe that accurately, and you have described the entire audio spectrum.  Anything else after that interface is *created* by the listener's components in the system (ear, nerves, eyes, skin, nose, tongue, brain).

 
Haha thank you for the biology lesson. I'm missing your point though. Sounds like you'd prefer to listen by watching the squiggly lines of a FR chart being drawn. 

 

[sridhar3]

These guys should quit the audio hobby and get into the measurement hobby.  The measurements are clearly more important to them than the music.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Gee, I thought we were talking about whether a person can really discern differences in sound between equipment that measures the same.  If we're just talking about sitting around and enjoying the music, then I don't know what we're arguing about.  Pass the cheese plate...

 

[tzjin]

-
 
Edit: Sorry missed the above post, I thought you were talking about how listening to music should be purely objective.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

The "subjective experience" is also what gave some folks their belief in Bigfoot, Nessie, UFOs and Mermaids.  They know what they saw - nothing else matters.

 
Yes but those are different.  Enjoying music is an experience.  A subjective experience.  There are truths to audio signals, which we can measure and narrow things down and help to cut down on the snake oil, but you can't have just measurements.  Gear doesn't just have to measure well, it has to sound good.  Usually those go hand in hand, but we need subjective affirmation of the measurements to make sure we are measuring the right things in the right way. 
 
We need both. 

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

 
Yes but those are different.  Enjoying music is an experience.  A subjective experience.  There are truths to audio signals, which we can measure and narrow things down and help to cut down on the snake oil, but you can't have just measurements.  Gear doesn't just have to measure well, it has to sound good.  Usually those go hand in hand, but we need subjective affirmation of the measurements to make sure we are measuring the right things in the right way. 
 
We need both. 

 
Actually, I agree with this - I'm really not the chest-pounding, measurements-only, all amps sound the same guy - I just have a hard time believing there are *significant* differences that can't be measured - like in every single audiophile power cord & USB cable review I have ever read.  There are certainly some folks that go to far on either side of the spectrum. 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

here are certainly some folks that go to far on either side of the spectrum. 

 
Yes.  There is, believe it or not, a middle ground between buying a rainbow colored assortment of inch thick 800 dollar USB cables and claiming that the Odac is just as good as every other dac ever made. 

 

[bellsprout]

well, any amp/dac that aren't misconceived sound the same to me so i spend actually listen to music than my equipment. and as for audio being a ****ty hobby, that depends. i obviously don't get the enjoyment of rainbows and unicorns when listening to uber expensive stuff, but that doesn't mean i can't enjoy things like DIY, and keeping up with technologies that are actually progressive, eg, compressed media, DSPs, etc. each to his own u know...
 
Quote:

These guys should quit the audio hobby and get into the measurement hobby.  The measurements are clearly more important to them than the music.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
Yes but those are different.  Enjoying music is an experience.  A subjective experience.  There are truths to audio signals, which we can measure and narrow things down and help to cut down on the snake oil, but you can't have just measurements.  Gear doesn't just have to measure well, it has to sound good.  Usually those go hand in hand, but we need subjective affirmation of the measurements to make sure we are measuring the right things in the right way. 
 
We need both. 

 
I think I'm starting to get your position much more, and if it's what I think it is I'd tend to agree.
 
The only reason we have a general understanding of what we believe the limits of audibility are for measurements is because of the ears originally used to test such limits.  Without those the measurements themselves would be worthless.  Without the measurements, we'll have drastically swinging issues in the quality and neutrality of gear and no baseline for what many currently believe to be outside the realm of audibility.  As such we need these both for context.
 
The people that advocate removing ears today in developing gear believe the measurement barrages are enough based on past findings to give context.  Some say this is not enough and still believe at least a basic listen for major problems is important (and I agree, I wouldn't have noticed the high DC off of the Asgard without listening).  Even NwAvGuy listened to the ODAC against something of established quality (DAC1), just to give context and make sure there were no gremlins in the woodwork.
 
 
 

and claiming that the Odac is just as good as every other dac ever made. 

 
It still is most likely though based on current understanding, and is where we need a case of ears that disprove said current understanding of measurements.  Case in point, Purrin doing a test with approved methodology and independent party.  With our current understanding of the limits of audibility, the numbers favor the Odac sounding like any other similar measuring DAC.  If and when this changes, the "objectivists" will include the new finding into limits of audibility and that becomes the new baseline.
 
Progress can be slow and tedious, but it adds what many would consider a degree of oversight in preventing widely inaccurate claims and holds manufacturers accountable when put under the microscope.

 

[anetode]

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. Music is fun, learning acoustics is fun, analyzing measurements is fun. My favorite is actually the psychological aspect of perception, subjective experiences which can be studied objectively (if that makes any sense).

You are missing the point.  Consider basic systems engineering.  The listeners head is a black box.  The input to that black box is all of the stimuli received.  That is ALL that can be affecting the black box.  Inside the black box can be all the magical deciphering you want to consider - but the input stays the same.  The audio signal being transmitted to the black box is a time-varying 3-dimensional differential pressure that strikes the ear drum.  If you know of some other input being delivered to the listener, please enlighten me.  If you want to consider each ear separately, fine - each ear is presented with a different differential pressure gradient.  

My point is that it was stated that you can't measure everything, therefore you can't know by measurement whether two systems are actually identical.  I claim that if the two systems produce exactly the same time-varying 3-dimensional differential pressure, then they are producing exactly the same sound.  All the nonsense about "complex music is different than sine waves" really boils down to air pressure - that is what sound is.  

The question you should be asking yourself is whether the time-varying differential pressure can be captured in a way that is at least as accurate as the human ear.

You're limited by the polar response of a speaker and room interactions. Unless you're listening from the sweet spot you will not get the illusion of a well-defined sound source when listening to a recording through a set of speakers. So we're far from creating a 3d sound field that can approximate a real live performance.

What we can do is combine recordings, sound synthesis and environmental modelling algorithms to render an interactive 3d scene, as in modern videogames. It is conceivable that an audiophile videogame can be created where you can experience the joy of waiting in line, sitting in the back of the orchestra hall and hearing people coughing around you in glorious 3d!

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. Music is fun, learning acoustics is fun, analyzing measurements is fun. My favorite is actually the psychological aspect of perception, subjective experiences which can be studied objectively (if that makes any sense).
You're limited by the polar response of a speaker and room interactions. Unless you're listening from the sweet spot you will not get the illusion of a well-defined sound source when listening to a recording through a set of speakers. So we're far from creating a 3d sound field that can approximate a real live performance.
What we can do is combine recordings, sound synthesis and environmental modelling algorithms to render an interactive 3d scene, as in modern videogames. It is conceivable that an audiophile videogame can be created where you can experience the joy of waiting in line, sitting in the back of the orchestra hall and hearing people coughing around you in glorious 3d!

 
Right - the sound pressure hitting the eardrums from a live performance is probably not the same as what is being generated by the speakers in your home.  But if it could somehow be exactly the same - then the sound would be the same.  And this is not just SPL - that is not what I'm talking about.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

 
Yes.  There is, believe it or not, a middle ground between buying a rainbow colored assortment of inch thick 800 dollar USB cables and claiming that the Odac is just as good as every other dac ever made. 

what's the difference between listening to an $800 USB cable and thinking that it's much better than a regular cable and listening to a $1000 DAC and thinking it sounds much better than an ODAC? because u know for a fact that USB cables don't make a difference? well, the USB cable believer doesn't know that, otherwise he wouldn't think that right?

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

what's the difference between listening to an $800 USB cable and thinking that it's much better than a regular cable and listening to a $1000 DAC and thinking it sounds much better than an ODAC? because u know for a fact that USB cables don't make a difference? well, the USB cable believer doesn't know that, otherwise he wouldn't think that right?

 
I'm afraid answering this question requires common sense. 

 

[bellsprout]

 which is why u didnt answer it?
Quote:

 
I'm afraid answering this question requires common sense.