[438555]

I'm not sure when it became available, but I upgraded my Gungnir OG to multibit last year and it is worth every penny of the investment.

Oh, I was thinking of something more akin to Yggy A2, where it was still multibit but improved output stage. My Gungnir was multibit when I got it. Still waiting on sending it in for Unison, as I’m hoping there might be some more options like the less is more, more is less, etc as there are for Yggy.

 

[Sonic Defender]

The sort of argument as you are presently making does emerge over and over again in audio circles.

Its a variation/extension of the argument that if two pieces of equipment measure very similarly then they should sound essentially identical in blind tests —but we know beyond any reasonable doubt that this is simply not at all the case universally.

Let me offer a contrary perspective on this:

I would argue that such positions unfortunately represent rather extreme and Procrustean oversimplification, and as such, are not really logically supportable.

We know that psychoacoustic loadings are varied, and work in several ways to color perception. We tend to forget: human beings can be just as perceptually biased *against* perceiving actual sonic differences as they can be biased towards hearing differences that do not exist outside of their preconceptions.

Along with those who tend to “hear what they want to hear” there are perhaps just as commonly those who “don’t hear what they don’t want to hear”. Fortunately, it would seem most of us who enjoy quality reproduction of recorded music are not so rigid in our presumptions, in either of these ways, and can therefore freely make reasonably honest and meaningful observations and commentaries about qualitative sound differences when experienced.

This biggest problem with promulgating such a dogmatic argument, as I see it, is that this can unduly confuse people who are new to the enjoyment of quality audio reproduction and also intimidate them away from openly articulating what they are actually noticing when listening.

In my opinion, as such, there is simply a dead-end of unhelpfulness and inflexibility implied by the assumption of such a rigid stance.

And what you are advocating for is an approach where anything anybody says, as long as they really believe what they are saying is considered to be evidence of the same rigor as proper testing. Any theory that cannot be falsified is by definition an invalid theory. It feels like to me you are presenting a theory that can't be falsified or tested as the only evidence that can be offered is an inscrutable internal experience of another person. Somebody saying to me trust me I hear it is about as valid a piece of evidence as a psychic telling me they peered into the future and know when I'm going to die.

 

[438555]

And what you are advocating for is an approach where anything anybody says, as long as they really believe what they are saying is considered to be evidence of the same rigor as proper testing. Any theory that cannot be falsified is by definition an invalid theory. It feels like to me you are presenting a theory that can't be falsified or tested as the only evidence that can be offered is an inscrutable internal experience of another person. Somebody saying to me trust me I hear it is about as valid a piece of evidence as a psychic telling me they peered into the future and know when I'm going to die.

The costanza theorem

 

[macdonjh]

And what you are advocating for is an approach where anything anybody says, as long as they really believe what they are saying is considered to be evidence of the same rigor as proper testing. Any theory that cannot be falsified is by definition an invalid theory. It feels like to me you are presenting a theory that can't be falsified or tested as the only evidence that can be offered is an inscrutable internal experience of another person. Somebody saying to me trust me I hear it is about as valid a piece of evidence as a psychic telling me they peered into the future and know when I'm going to die.

But what if we eventually figure out how human perception works at a quantitative level? Then there would be testable, provable evidence.

What am I saying!? If that ever happens, forums like this would dry up and die. Forget I ever said that.

 

[TomSix]

And what you are advocating for is an approach where anything anybody says, as long as they really believe what they are saying is considered to be evidence of the same rigor as proper testing. Any theory that cannot be falsified is by definition an invalid theory. It feels like to me you are presenting a theory that can't be falsified or tested as the only evidence that can be offered is an inscrutable internal experience of another person. Somebody saying to me trust me I hear it is about as valid a piece of evidence as a psychic telling me they peered into the future and know when I'm going to die.

I’m afraid that is simply not a reasonable interpretation of what I have clearly expressed.

I am curious, however: why do you even make a presence here?

This is a forum that centers-upon the use of quality equipment for improved enjoyment of recorded music —no?

What specifically do you feel you are getting out of your interactions and participation in head-fi?

 

[Sonic Defender]

I’m afraid that is simply not a reasonable interpretation of what I have clearly expressed.

I am curious, however: why do you even make a presence here?

This is a forum that centers-upon the use of quality equipment for improved enjoyment of recorded music —no?

What specifically do you feel you are getting out of your interactions and participation in head-fi?

So now you are subtly trying to suggest that because I don't seem to agree with your position that I should have no right to participate and enjoy this community? Seems like a pretty big reach on your part.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I’m afraid that is simply not a reasonable interpretation of what I have clearly expressed.

I am curious, however: why do you even make a presence here?

This is a forum that centers-upon the use of quality equipment for improved enjoyment of recorded music —no?

What specifically do you feel you are getting out of your interactions and participation in head-fi?

But to answer your question, in a world that is suffering in a post truth period a small part of my participation is motivated to defend the applicability of science and that we don't get to pick and choose when the scientific method matters or when we decide to acknowledge how it is carried out. The hearing brain is a pretty well, but of course imperfectly understood system. Certainly the limits of what we accept as audibility are well established with extremely robustly vetted evidence. We don't allow people to question evolution unchallenged because we accept these truths are too well vetted. I am not at all proposing any acceptance of scientific inquiry into audio that is also not extremely well vetted.

I also participate here because I do love gear and I do love music. I listen to music for pleasure and I have done so since the early 1970s. Those are some of the reasons that I come here, but certainly not an exhaustive list.

 

[TomSix]

But to answer your question, in a world that is suffering in a post truth period a small part of my participation is motivated to defend the applicability of science and that we don't get to pick and choose when the scientific method matters or when we decide to acknowledge how it is carried out. The hearing brain is a pretty well, but of course imperfectly understood system. Certainly the limits of what we accept as audibility are well established with extremely robustly vetted evidence. We don't allow people to question evolution unchallenged because we accept these truths are too well vetted. I am not at all proposing any acceptance of scientific inquiry into audio that is also not extremely well vetted.

I also participate here because I do love gear and I do love music. I listen to music for pleasure and I have done so since the early 1970s. Those are some of the reasons that I come here, but certainly not an exhaustive list.

What utility is there in making empiricism a fetish and then chasing people around as though one is some sort of evangelical priest of science as religion? It’s a dubious stance. I have to question the motivations behind this.

If you do sincerely hold such rigid views, then why not simply buy a Bose Wave Radio and an entry level iPod with stock white earbuds and leave it at that?

 

[LCMusicLover]

… The hearing brain is a pretty well, but of course imperfectly understood system…

Missing key point here — human hearing system also has wide individual variability.

 

[Sonic Defender]

What utility is there in making empiricism a fetish and then chasing people around as though one is some sort of evangelical priest of science as religion? It’s a dubious stance. I have to question the motivations behind this.

If you do sincerely hold such rigid views, then why not simply buy a Bose Wave Radio and an entry level iPod with stock white earbuds and leave it at that?

I think we are having two very different conversations and it feels like you may be overextending my points to a somewhat ridiculous end. You are free to sling whatever lightly veiled insults that you wish, not a problem at all. Fortunately I am not going to take them personally.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Missing key point here — human hearing system also has wide individual variability.

It is widely variable, but within a well established range. But absolutely your point is valid, there can be significant individual variation person to person, but I have never seen evidence presented of people who have a hearing system so different from the rest of the species. I certainly cannot say that this isn't possible, I would have no way of knowing that, but any claim that is extraordinary requires evidence to support it.

 

[Alan Sk]

But to answer your question, in a world that is suffering in a post truth period a small part of my participation is motivated to defend the applicability of science and that we don't get to pick and choose when the scientific method matters or when we decide to acknowledge how it is carried out. The hearing brain is a pretty well, but of course imperfectly understood system. Certainly the limits of what we accept as audibility are well established with extremely robustly vetted evidence. We don't allow people to question evolution unchallenged because we accept these truths are too well vetted. I am not at all proposing any acceptance of scientific inquiry into audio that is also not extremely well vetted.

I also participate here because I do love gear and I do love music. I listen to music for pleasure and I have done so since the early 1970s. Those are some of the reasons that I come here, but certainly not an exhaustive list.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...lds-most-improbable-start-up.701900/page-3798

There are many ways to do blind listening test wrong so be very careful when you camp out with the fanatical objectivist. It is easy to do a blind listening test that is set up to pretty much guarantee a null result. In fact if you are getting nothing but null results with two products with known differences you are doing something wrong.

I like Mike Moffat’s take on it, largely because it matches my experience. Small differences in blind testing done with quick a/b switching become more apparent over time. Basically when you live with a product the differences become greater.

 

[TomSix]

It is widely variable, but within a well established range. But absolutely your point is valid, there can be significant individual variation person to person, but I have never seen evidence presented of people who have a hearing system so different from the rest of the species. I certainly cannot say that this isn't possible, I would have no way of knowing that, but any claim that is extraordinary requires evidence to support it.

It’s not that the biophysical mechanism of hearing varies much from one healthy person to the next. Who has stated that? That’s not where the variability in hearing perception lies.

The main perceptual differences between individuals lie in the psychoacoustic realm. To but it simply: “it’s a software issue, not a hardware issue.”

Also, let’s let the test equipment do the basic analysis of THD, IMD waveform, noise, dynamic range etc, because it is perfectly suited to produce accurate raw data. Let’s let listeners however, determine the best ways to describe and communicate intersubjectively the relative *subjective* qualities/signatures of various systems, equipment combinations etc. Test equipment simply cannot do this.

If you want to build an audio amplifier that measures *extremely* well according to essentially all standard measurement protocols, then this is relatively easy to accomplish: use the amplifier chain of a high-quality oscilloscope as a model. Problem is, this has been done many many times. The net result is almost universally an amplifier that indeed measures extreme well, but sounds quite sterile, unnatural, un-compelling, bland…. I challenge anyone to name any noteworthy exceptions to this.

Just because acoustic perception is very strongly subjective, that does not mean that it is entirely arbitrary, or that “anything goes“. That would be a very crude and erroneous interpretation of subjectivity.

 

[macdonjh]

I think this is being over-simplified. In one camp we have science/ measurements, in another there is biological differences/ psycho-acoustics (with a bit of overlap: "everyone does hear differently, but within a known range"). However, there's a third variable: personal preference/ priorities. Many of the debates about gear in these forums really boil down to how different people prefer to have their music presented to them. One man's "strong, authoritative foundation" is another's "bloated bass bleeding into the mids".

A good example of this is the Head Gear reviews for the Kennerton Rognir (if I do say so myself, and I did).

 

[artur9]

The objective stance does not seem to take into account the plasticity of the human brain. In this respect, one's experience with music in all the ways it is produced would have a profound effect on how one would perceive any particular system. The noise may be apprehended similarly but music is more than noise.

HST, I don't know why this is being discussed on the Gungnir board. My Gungnir OG with Gen5 USB still sounds fantastic. At least, I think it would have Gen5 being ordered in 2017....