[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Of course. We all look at the measurements. But you won't eventually be happy with a 24/24 hours nagging 34-28-34.

 
My point was that analogies rarely work.  For example, in this case, nagging is something that is either really there or is not really there.  If you had been shown a graph of nagging minutes per day for this woman, I'm guessing you would have walked away without ever meeting her (but others might have continued down the path).  What would you have done if you had been told she nagged by a self-proclaimed expert at nagging, but the graphs didn't show her to be a nag?  Would you be happy in your good fortune of having a chance to meet a beautiful woman, or would you have let the opinion of someone else convince you that the evidence doesn't tell the whole story?  If you did finally meet her, would you have been so preoccupied with what the self-proclaimed expert said that you would not notice how beautiful she is or that she did not seem to be nagging you?
 
Analogies rarely work...  

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Of course. We all look at the measurements. But you won't eventually be happy with a 24/24 hours nagging 34-28-34.

 
How about 24/24 hours nagging 36-36-42? LOL!

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
How about 24/24 hours nagging 36-36-42? LOL!

 
 
24/24 would include during sexual intercourse - likely to put you off your stroke me thinks

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

That's a hard question to answer. Then again my main focus is to just find musical enjoyment in my music still so I don't give excessive merit to objectivity. I find the middle path to be the best and least controversial. There is bias on the objective side of thing as well to be fair (expectations of negativity).

I agree it's a hard one. My perspective is that our subjective sensations do tell us information about the world but, the interpretation of that information isn't always complete or accurate. The sensations are trustworthy enough to "get by" but we are well served to interrogate the sensations that conflict with what our expectations and knowledge of the situation are. 
 
*Analogy alert*

The straw is going to look broken yet most people would not claim that the straw is broken.  I see most of the issues comes from the ontological claims (claims to what exists) based solely on one side of the objective or subjective side. Determining the truth of these statements can be pretty tricky, and sound seems quite problematic in this regard. My suspicion is that sensations aren't the kinds of thing that can be true or false- they just are. The relation of those sensations to outside (objective) truths are what can be claimed to be true or false. People report feelings from limbs that have been amputated, the sensations in themselves aren't true or false propositions, the relation of the sensation to the state of affairs of the world is what determines the truth.
 
Another aspect of examining the reliability of our sensations is that in the case of comparison we deal with memory of sensations. I've been a video editor for a number of years and part of that job means that I've got to do some sound mixing of some sort on every project. If I start a mix and just go by my ear, over time the level will drift: if I start my mix at the the first frame I know that without checking a meter I will be off later in the program. My memory of the sensation I had 10 minutes ago isn't accurate enough to match levels. I may suck at mixing, but I know that my sensations are unreliable and I have to work with that. 

 

[Clarkmc2]

My problem with putting much stock in the subjective impressions of others? The objective observation of what is actually produced by audio equipment is not influenced by the filter of what and how each individual hears. It is reliable and verifiable across the entire population. The variations between what individual listeners perceive are applicable to only each individual's ears/brain/background/conditioning etc. To their unique circumstances. I can not assume or know in any reliable way that the personal observations of another listener would apply to what I will hear in the same situation.

In other words, "trust your ears" is for each of us not only a personal verification of what we actually hear as individuals, but also acknowledgement that what others personally report that they heard pertains in no reliable or verifiable way to what we will hear.

 

[thrillmetoo]

Quote:

 
How about 24/24 hours nagging 36-36-42? LOL!

You know my wife...?!

 

[Draygonn]

But you won't eventually be happy with a 24/24 hours nagging 34-28-34.

time to invest in isolating IEMs

 

[thrillmetoo]

Quote:

 
My point was that analogies rarely work.  For example, in this case, nagging is something that is either really there or is not really there.  If you had been shown a graph of nagging minutes per day for this woman, I'm guessing you would have walked away without ever meeting her (but others might have continued down the path).  What would you have done if you had been told she nagged by a self-proclaimed expert at nagging, but the graphs didn't show her to be a nag?  Would you be happy in your good fortune of having a chance to meet a beautiful woman, or would you have let the opinion of someone else convince you that the evidence doesn't tell the whole story?  If you did finally meet her, would you have been so preoccupied with what the self-proclaimed expert said that you would not notice how beautiful she is or that she did not seem to be nagging you?
 
Analogies rarely work...  

Analogies, like language in general, are crippled but can be helpful when you want to bring across a point from another angle. I could have said something like :'measurements never give you the whole picture' or something of that nature. But you must admit, that is less fun.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

My problem with putting much stock in the subjective impressions of others? The objective observation of what is actually produced by audio equipment is not influenced by the filter of what and how each individual hears. It is reliable and verifiable across the entire population. The variations between what individual listeners perceive are applicable to only each individual's ears/brain/background/conditioning etc. To their unique circumstances. I can not assume or know in any reliable way that the personal observations of another listener would apply to what I will hear in the same situation.
In other words, "trust your ears" is for each of us not only a personal verification of what we actually hear as individuals, but also acknowledgement that what others personally report that they heard pertains in no reliable or verifiable way to what we will hear.

 
How does one rationalize tube amps?
Objectively, I know they are distorted, & I know that I am "seduced" by the second order harmonics.
But subjectively, I know I usually like the sound of them, depending on the design topology, etc.
I think tube amps are something you have to ear yourself before to can attempt to draw any conclusions, far more so than trusting some else's opinion on the sound quality of a DAC.
Obviously, this also applies to transducers.
So I am trusting my ears as I know I only need please myself.
 
Quote:

You know my wife...?!

 
Ummmm, no.    

 

[OJNeg]

Quote:

 
How does one rationalize tube amps?
Objectively, I know they are distorted, & I know that I am "seduced" by the second order harmonics.
But subjectively, I know I usually like the sound of them, depending on the design topology, etc.
I think tube amps are something you have to ear yourself before to can attempt to draw any conclusions, far more so than trusting some else's opinion on the sound quality of a DAC.
Obviously, this also applies to transducers.
So I am trusting my ears as I know I only need please myself.
 
 
Ummmm, no.    

 


I think the difference is that most DACs measure and sound the same. Vacuum tubes can have very distinct sounds due to their imperfect analog nature.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Quote:

 
How does one rationalize tube amps?
Objectively, I know they are distorted, & I know that I am "seduced" by the second order harmonics.
But subjectively, I know I usually like the sound of them, depending on the design topology, etc.
I think tube amps are something you have to ear yourself before to can attempt to draw any conclusions, far more so than trusting some else's opinion on the sound quality of a DAC.
Obviously, this also applies to transducers.
So I am trusting my ears as I know I only need please myself.
 
 
Ummmm, no.    

 


I think the difference is that most DACs measure and sound the same. Vacuum tubes can have very distinct sounds due to their imperfect analog nature.

 
I don't have the link handy, but as I understand it, it is possible to design tube or hybrid amps that are low distortion without the harmonics.
 
I have to say though, I have (and had) a variety of DACs here and they don't all measure or sound the same, though the differences are often quite subtle.

 

[lee730]

Those subtleties can add up and  make for a better musical experience.
 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

 


I think the difference is that most DACs measure and sound the same. Vacuum tubes can have very distinct sounds due to their imperfect analog nature.

 
BTW, transistors also have imperfect analog nature. In a few ways, they are actually less perfect than tubes.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Why can't we just take ears out of the equation?
Why couldn't we connect the dacs to identical amps, level to identical total harmonic distortion percentages, and then connect the amps to seperate side-by-side Oscilloscopes while playing MUSIC (not sine waves). We can then video record the waveforms on the oscilloscopes in slow motion and VISUALLY analyze the waveforms.
That way any and ALL differences will show up through a medium (visual) which all people can experience and verify accurately and precisely
This solution is stupid simple.
Music --> DAC(s) --> AMP(s) --> Oscilloscope(s) recorded by a slow motion camera.
Ofcourse you could take the amps out of the question, and probably should. It's worth noting that a pure sinewave source of electricity would be ideal. Nothing that a true online triple conversion ac -> dc -> ac Uninterruptible power supply can't do.

 
Good idea, but it may be difficult to make out exactly how deviations from the original translate to the subjective experience. That being said, I've actually used a similar technique in comparing amps: http://www.head-fi.org/t/620770/waveform-fun#post_8575650

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 
BTW, transistors also have imperfect analog nature. In a few ways, they are actually less perfect than tubes.

Yep.
 
Typically, a single tube is more linear than a single transistor, i.e BJT, JFET or MOSFET.
It's actually the topologies tubes amps use, not the tubes themselves.
Or to put it another way, you can build a good sounding line stage with one vacuum tube triode.
But you can't do this with a single transistor.   At least I am not aware of anyone marketing a line stage which uses only one transistor.
The bulkiness, cost, size and heater requirements of tubes enforce simpicity.
It is more cost effective to build a complex amp with several discrete transistors than it is to build a single triode tube amp.
 
Op Amps:  the integrated circuits typically use 20-40 transistors.