[castleofargh]

I believe we're all slowly but surely, at our own pace, getting sick and tired of repeating badly the same thing again and again to people who don't want to learn anything. so how about we try to make some cool posts addressing each typical subject? that would reduce the waste of effort toward people who don't deserve it, and provide a "best of" answer for the ones who are willing to look at the other side of the argument.
I would do something myself for at least the simple basic stuff, but be it in french or in english, I've tried enough to know now that I'm a total bore to read. (doesn't hurt to be honest about it, I'm proving it again right here).
 
so I don't really know how we should do it, maybe one topic per subject with a special title like "[work in progress] name of the subject". and your attempt at tackling it. then if others think they can do easier to understand (while still true), they go at it on the same topic. or try to address whatever needs addressing, is incomplete, or false. 
and after a few days or whenever it feels like the interest is dying(20mn? ^_^), we all vote for the post we believe will be the most effective, by quoting or something, I'm not super sure yet, maybe adding whatever interesting links from one to the main post of others, and we make a post of it that I could ask currawong to pin on the sound science main page or at least have one post with the links to every other of the kind. the little objectivist's index 101 if you will. 
 
for  PCM basics I guess monty's videos are a good starting point, I do believe in the educational power of videos.  if the guy doesn't get it, we try to explain whatever he's struggling with, if there is a rational argument we have our fun in it. but if he shows no intent to look at it and discuss it, that will be my signal that he might not be here for the right reasons.

 
some of those posts already exist, but they might be lost in page 254 of a locked topic, or just not get the attention they deserve. you can be writer or grave digger, whatever you fancy most.
 
 I believe the need is for some really really dumbed down attempts at explaining some subjects. the serious advanced stuff is usually already online and the hardcore guys can probably pay to join AES and get a lifetime of reading. so we're aiming way low here, then why not some deeper stuff under it, and of course the links to papers, videos etc.
 
 
 
 
#carepolice
I know I had the hardest time figuring digital signal, I had learned all the stuff, the need for twice the sampling rate to follow nyquist(but I didn't know why), that more bits lowered the noise floor(but I didn't know why), that higher sample rate increase the frequency etc etc. and when I thought I knew why, I was wrong(which is worst that not knowing). but someone made a remark about 1bit/-6db being half the voltage, another post about resistor ladder with each step cutting the voltage in half and eureka!!!!!!!! bits had become something real, one voltage getting cut in half X times by resistors there was nothing clever, no thinking chipset, only pipes opening and closing to deliver the right amount of voltage(of course that's not really working for pulse modulated signal but the hell with that for now^_^). 1 hours later everything had become one unique system that I actually understood instead of a group of independent facts(unified theory here I come, einstein and hawking are noobs, that's how I felt that day. but it was only the very basis of a R2R DAC). it had a pure domino effect on me. of course it's hard to guess what that trigger will be for others, but if it's really simple and rational, I don't see why it shouldn't have some impact. (wishful thinking is over 9000!!!!)
 
 
 
anyway tell me  what you think, what you want, what subject needs to be done, that it's a dumb suggestion, "if we have all the answers what's the point of having a forum?". or whatever you like, it will be hard to be off topic on this post ^_^.
this can also be seen as a permanent activity too, where when you believe someone made the right post for the job on a dedicated subject, you bring it as candidate to be in the list or to update it.
the logistic will suck as I might be part of it, but the rest might be cool.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

I think you are full of good intentions but...
 
Usually when a guy comes with a basic question and is ignorant about the subject nobody will answer him (one or maybe two will try) and instead of answers he'll get some jokes, end of post...
But, if a guy comes with claims about something (he thinks he knows about, but is completely ignorant) you'll have twenty guys with pages and pages of technical explanations, sometimes repeated ad nauseam to counterpoint those claims.
 
One example is the R2R post where one can learn a lot because some guys insist in misconceptions and ignorance.
Even if its painful to read such posts, one just have to read the replies to get some information about the subject, and if one wants to learn something better not ask but wait until some ignorant guy makes a claim or give a uninformed answer to another guy.
 
I think this post will die quickly without much feedback from anyone, doesn't give a good fight...you know?

 

[RRod]

The cynical part of me thinks there's simply too much nuance for such FAQ-like posts to be a whole lot of use. Either a guy doesn't really know much, in which case a link to Monty or Audio Myths will be where he needs to go, or the guy knows just enough to be dangerous, which is the more typical case. In this case, you can't just point to these basic materials because they'll be focused on some little nuance that they want to make a big deal about and then we're off to the races again.

 

[castleofargh]

all people read are arguments as you say, and the guy who's declared winner, when you don't have enough knowledge to make your own judgment, will be the one shouting louder, using the most silly but convincing fallacy, or the one not getting banned(which is more time than not, totally unrelated to the topic and who's right or wrong). if we have a few key pointers clearly acknowledged by most people here, wouldn't that be much more convincing to the curious newbie, than arguments needing to know the subject very well to see who's a fool?
and even for ourselves, when we try to explain something, to others we're just a noname dude giving his opinion, truth or not it has no weight. but if we link a post clearly labeled as "acknowledged by more than my uncle's wife who doesn't like music", wouldn't it have more influence and give birth to less polemic?
 
 
I agree with you, and have little expectations myself TBH, but doing nothing doesn't work at all and let ignorance become some kind of audiophile pride. "I don't need to know anything I have ears so I'm a fracking expert in all audio subjects!".
those are the guys teaching the innocent and curious newbies about audio nowadays. them and marketing.

I really don't have much of a solution, but I'm unhappy with how things are so I try stupid stuff (like becoming a quasi-modo when I can hardly take care of myself

).

 

[Me x3]

I think one of the most representative ideas normally attributed to objectivists is the one about transparency.
And it's also one of those ideas that push plenty of people away from the objective path. 
 
It's not that rare these days to have the opportunity to try two of more solid-state amplifiers which measure very well (and also pretty much the same). 
 
Each time someone tries at least two of these kind of devices and think that they do not sound the same, it's highly probable that the person will develop kind of a disbelief towards the "objective" community. 
 
Let's not discuss the attribution which can be right or wrong, let's just focus on the idea.
 
The general concept might be something like this:
 
If an amplifier or DAC measures within certain tolerances then it's transparent.
Two amplifiers or DACs which measure within those tolerances, should sound the same.
 
I think we could somehow agree about the tolerances considering some previous studies about the limits of human perception.
 
I also think, it would be very positive if we could develop this topic with a focus on the practicality of our claims and findings.
In simpler words, we need to talk about measuring science, human perception and other theoretical resources, but we should also talk about Fiio E10K, Modi 2 / Magni 2, Asgard 2, Violectric amplifiers, Burson, Ragnarok and so on. We need to put things in perspective. 
 
If the Violectric V200 sounds the same as the Fiio E10K when driving HD598 we need to prove it. If they sound different we should be able to say why.
 
For instance, I had the original Magni and compared it to the Asgard 2 and thought they sounded different.
At that time, I've measured frequency response for HD600 using Asgard 2 and Magni and both meaurments were pretty much the same.
 
Does the Asgard 2 sound the same as the original Magni driving HD600?
Does the Ragnarok sound the same as the original Magni driving HD600 too?
 
If they don't,
 
Are they transparent according to our rules?
If the answer is yes, we should re-think our rules.
Something might be missing.
 
Hopefully you get the idea.
We need solid stuff here. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

The short and narrow of it is that if you can find or make reliable measurements that show the DAC, amp, and transducers of any two setups should be audibly transparent, the next step would be to properly volume match the two different setups and ABX for any difference.  If the ABX results suggest a difference can be identified and the measurements indicate that the two setups should sound identical, then we need to figure out what other aspect might be attributed to the differences or the assumptions of what should be considered to be audibly transparent need to be researched further.

 

[RRod]

Really all we ever ask is that people a) don't know which amp/dac is which when comparing two of them and b) do things like volume matching that remove obvious sources of bias.

 

[Me x3]

  The short and narrow of it is that if you can find or make reliable measurements that show the DAC, amp, and transducers of any two setups should be audibly transparent, the next step would be to properly volume match the two different setups and ABX for any difference.  If the ABX results suggest a difference can be identified and the measurements indicate that the two setups should sound identical, then we need to figure out what other aspect might be attributed to the differences or the assumptions of what should be considered to be audibly transparent need to be researched further.

 
I've read about some blind tests which results were published here and there on the net, but people often compared similarly priced products.
Say Magni vs Objective2 or Yggy vs Antelope Zodiac Platinum.
 
Blind tests conducted by critical listeners using Objective 2 vs Ragnarok or Modi 2 Uber vs Yggy would be much more useful.

 

[castleofargh]

I'm afraid we're not even a that level of explanation and demonstration. many people express on a regular basic that they distrust measurements and blind tests(and sometimes science as a whole...). so showing measurements and showing how they exceed audibility threshold, even if it was done with the proper load at real life listening levels(one of my concerns when reading amp specs), it would still not speak to those people. it usually speaks only to the people who didn't need reading in the first place

.
 
there is a need to start way low. like why are people distrusting measurements? where do they get the idea that a roll off from a tube amp doesn't "corrupt" the signal, but an EQ will? (when they do the very same thing except the EQ has less distortions). for many situations, I can't even understand why they get the wrong idea. which obviously makes explaining difficult.
 
for highres it's easy to understand why they get the wrong idea. thinking  about digital audio as drawing a line using dots is way easy to apply in our mind. and those marketing frackers with their made up stair step graphs certainly do nothing to remove the misunderstanding.  too bad it's 100% not what is happening, but just saying it doesn't convince people. and telling about nyquist and low pass and stuff, how do you make this easy to get for someone who has a false but seemingly functional model already in his head? even harder, most of them don't care about learning anything in audio(something perfectly legitimate for the casual music listener).
 
if people don't get the basics, showing them 100000 test results won't change their mind I'm afraid.
 
 
that's why I was looking for anything interesting of course, but mainly, real basic dumb but true stuff, to rebuild the house starting with the foundations.
 
 

 

[Me x3]

  I'm afraid we're not even a that level of explanation and demonstration. many people express on a regular basic that they distrust measurements and blind tests(and sometimes science as a whole...). so showing measurements and showing how they exceed audibility threshold, even if it was done with the proper load at real life listening levels(one of my concerns when reading amp specs), it would still not speak to those people. it usually speaks only to the people who didn't need reading in the first place

.

 
I know plenty of people who respect measurements but refuse to believe (or accept as true) that they always tell the whole story.
They might say things like, yeah... both Objective2 and Ragnarok measure very well, but Ragnarok sounds so much better (which also means different)
There's a chance the Ragnarok actually sounds better/different, and if that's the case, then there's plenty of work to do in order to redefine the concept of measurable transparency.

 

[jcx]

but in the realm of amplifier listening tests, those claiming audible differences that they say aren't showing up in "conventional audio measurement" need to explain the Carver/Stereophile Challenge and Richard Clark's thousands of amplifier discrimination tests with $10k prize money - never claimed
 
and "conventional audio measurements" is usually a strawman construction by those eager to dismiss them - doesn't anyone know how to find Audio Precison's white papers, manuals?
 
its pretty much impossible to not find measureable differences with modern measurement equipment

 

[Me x3]

  but in the realm of amplifier listening tests, those claiming audible differences that they say aren't showing up in "conventional audio measurement" need to explain the Carver/Stereophile Challenge and Richard Clark's thousands of amplifier discrimination tests with $10k prize money - never claimed
 
and "conventional audio measurements" is usually a strawman construction by those eager to dismiss them - doesn't anyone know how to find Audio Precison's white papers, manuals?
 
its pretty much impossible to not find measureable differences with modern measurement equipment

I won't ask them to explain because they probably don't want to.

It's like asking every folk claiming the Objective2 is not transparent why he/she didn't show up going through the "subjective challenge" raised by Objective2's designer
(ABX, youtube video, $500 to charity, you know what I'm talking about)
 
Asking subjectivists to explain and/or prove their claims is not a wise take in my book since most of the times they simply don't want to.
 
Those tests made in the past are fine but they are not that fresh for our purposes.
We can come and say that the Ragnarok sounds the same as the Magni driving HD800 due to some tests made waay back in the past. Very little people will take that as fact.
 
I think we will never end up with myths waiting for subjectivists to run ABX.
 
Does the Ragnarok sounds the same as the Magni when driving HD800? 
What's your bet?

 

[Dark_wizzie]

If we could have one post to rule them all, that would be awesome. Keep in mind also, that Headfi isn't the only forum with people looking for audio stuff. In computing forums there are people who aren't anti-science. Many people are misled by popular Youtubers and marketers to believe multiple myths. People on Youtube say stuff like 'high impedance headphones need more power', with no explanation of what impedance even is, what happens when there isn't enough power, how loud is too loud, how the track we listen to matters, or how to even quantify 'power'. In a forum like LTT, that would be on a good day. On a bad day you have people asking if their headphones "has too many ohms".
 
There are a lot of people who are not headfi members who have not thought about the whole audio thing all that much. Those people are not fundamentally against science and are just fed BS and terrible reviews. The cure to that is good information that has a good tl;dr but also some longer explanation that the average person can understand given just a half-decent amount of effort.
 
I never want to see another person ask me how many ohms their headphone has anymore, lol. And of course, if i get impatient it is not fair to the person who asked the question last, since I shouldn't toss all my frustrations/annoyance from the previous 50 people at him.
 
So what I would love to see would be the ultimate post against common audiophile claims (need ultra mega power in my amp, my cables give the sound character, WAV better than FLAC better than poor pleb MP3) to some more involved claims (skin effect for cables). And isn't there that study that suggested that people actually tend to prefer a flat sound signature? And some basic EQ tips... So, a thread that has more practical uses, rather than learning how electrical engineering works or the specifics and physics of sound (although of course, some have to be brought up to explain some ideas or myths).

 

[castleofargh]

hey, thanks for the somewhat refreshing post. in fact I started writing about such a thing in a file on my desktop called "improving sound for real.odt" in august(I'm so great at making up titles....). and got on to talk about channel imbalance, and isolation from outside noise with some practical examples on my own gear. the obvious but effective stuff. then I started getting into what element brings what to the sound and how to solve problems that could come with each, and it turned into a nightmare to say something that would be true at all time for most devices.
your example of people oversimplifying impedance is a good one. we can certainly find low impedance low sensitivity headphones that ruin any oversimplified statement one could make, but strangely enough people keep using the "high impedance needs more power" incomplete logic.
 
because that's the thing, I wish to stay factual, and there is very little you can say with conviction when under such a rule as reality.  the forum is full of people saying flashy stuff, false 99% of the time but they couldn't care less. so it's easy for them to make grand statements on what sounds better. I find myself struggling a lot(and my writing style certainly doesn't help ^_^).
so I kind of forgot about it(well more like it's been drowned under all the other stuff I've starting to write about since, most of it having nothing to do with audio). but I still think it would be a good topic so I will try and go on with it.
 
about audio myth we have a few such topics already but you're write about them mostly trying to debunk things more than being focused on telling people what they should do to get actual good fidelity. truth is, nowadays they don't need to do much ^_^.

 

[getclikinagas]

This is a very good idea @castleofargh.
 
I, and many noobs like me are very interested in understanding the theoretical effects of the many many parameters that affect audio reproduction. Because like Dark_wizzie mentioned, they have to be brought up to explain more complex ideas/beliefs. I hope to see a factual series that starts off with the basics (that doesn't require a degree in engineering to comprehend) and builds into a series that can help us understand the limitations, capabilities, myths, tests, subjectivity in audio, and finally what we can do to enrich our experience/choose the right gear for us. Oversimplified conclusions aren't required if we are armed with the knowledge to draw them ourselves.
 
I read this post by ClieOS(on FR measurements of amps) a few days ago that left me bustling with questions. Yes, the information I need is definitely somewhere on the internet and I am already reading up. But, I would like to see this kind of information available on Head-fi.

  There are other things to consider besides frequency response - SNR / dynamic, current output, noise / distortion, transient, and importantly, how each of them reacts differently with a complex load (i.e. headphone = capacitance + resistance + inductance) with a dynamic signal (i.e. music). This all contribute to the sound of the amp. A frequency response is more like a snapshot of the amp in a relative simplified testing environment. One would expect a competent amp to sound just like any other competent amp, but that is usually easy said than done.

Taken individually, how do these parameters affect audio?
Now, how do they tie in with each other?
When is loud enough not good enough?
Why might two people listening to the same setup have a different experience. What are the Biological parameters(Physical and Mental) at play?
When should I, theoretically, not hear a difference? And if I do, what could be the reasons and how can I test this?