[riverlethe]

I'm always puzzled when someone uses a single average (in this case THD) to summarize a complex transducer. The particular average chosen embodies assumptions about what's discernible that bias mathematical and measurement convenience over the (still poorly understood) subtleties of human perception. I learned this many times over when I worked on speech processing at Bell Labs next to scientists and engineers developing perceptual audio coding (what eventually became AAC). Actually, perceptual audio coding teaches us lessons two ways: on the one hand, perceptual masking effects allow surprisingly large mangling of the signal without discernible effects; on the other, some changes can be surprisingly discernible, at least to trained listeners. Which teaches that human hearing and its higher-level cortical components are way more complex and variable than any small set of averages (THD, bit rates, whatever).

Oh, definitely. Most manufacturers' "specs" are worthless. I just brought it up in response to Jason's comment about 0.0005% vs 0.0007% THD. Are you familiar with the GedLee metric? I believe it was partly inspired by the research you mention, but I won't pretend to understand how it's calculated. Can you give some examples of surprisingly detectable distortion? I assume these were established through blind ABX.

 

[johnjen]

The one factor often employed in these and similar discussions and that really gets me is when results of even several DBT's are used to justify that such and such has been proven to be NOT true.
This immediately falls into the logical fallacy trap.
It is not practically possible nor realistic to prove a negative assertion.
 
Such claims are all to often used in trying to win an argument but utterly fail when subjected to the light of reality.
Logic, like the empirical method, has rules which work quite well when followed, but can result in VERY misleading conclusions when not followed.
 
JJ

 

[riverlethe]

  The one factor often employed in these and similar discussions and that really gets me is when results of even several DBT's are used to justify that such and such has been proven to be NOT true.
This immediately falls into the logical fallacy trap.
It is not practically possible nor realistic to prove a negative assertion.
 
Such claims are all to often used in trying to win an argument but utterly fail when subjected to the light of reality.
Logic, like the empirical method, has rules which work quite well when followed, but can result in VERY misleading conclusions when not followed.
 
JJ

 
Of course we can't disprove "such and such."  It just means that we currently have no good reason to believe "such and such."

 

[Torq]

The one factor often employed in these and similar discussions and that really gets me is when results of even several DBT's are used to justify that such and such has been proven to be NOT true.
This immediately falls into the logical fallacy trap.
It is not practically possible nor realistic to prove a negative assertion.

Such claims are all to often used in trying to win an argument but utterly fail when subjected to the light of reality.
Logic, like the empirical method, has rules which work quite well when followed, but can result in VERY misleading conclusions when not followed.

JJ

As my ex-wife liked to say, "But ... but ... you're applying logic and common sense where it's clearly not allowed! Stop it!"

 

[riverlethe]

I think what I'm getting at is that value is completely subjective:
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Tiffany-Studios-Fine-Leaded-Lamp-in-the-Russian-Design-Circa-1910-/301860657996?hash=item46484c1b4c:g:AXQAAOSw5dNWrBQ7
 
However, I don't see the seller claiming that this will illuminate a room any better than a $20 lamp from Target (assuming it's not defective somehow).  Would I rather have the Tiffany lamp?  Of course.

 

[johnjen]

As my ex-wife liked to say, "But ... but ... you're applying logic and common sense where it's clearly not allowed! Stop it!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
And the degree of emotionalism (subjectivity, when 'pushed') that is brought into the situation to help prove the negative objective assertion, which can't be proved, is but icing on the cake.
 
And THEN to raise the bar just a touch higher, it is claimed that it's not personal, but simply an exchange of 'facts'.
 
Oh the tangled webs we can weave… 

 
JJ

 

[riverlethe]

I would only implore that you buy your electricity from a renewable source.

 

[johnjen]

   
Of course we can't disprove "such and such."  It just means that we currently have no good reason to believe "such and such."

I truly do understand this POV.
But there are some who will unequivocally state that "such and such" IS 'this and that' based upon this lack of direct evidence and experience (lack of belief).
 
I too tried many different methods and means to determine if "such and such" was true, or not.
And until I broke thru a 'barrier' I only had negative results as well.
 
But once thru that 'barrier' it became VERY obvious and it no longer required belief, as the changes were so obvious and significant that denial simply couldn't be applied anymore.
The results were so profound and beneficial that it ceased to matter if others were convinced (or believed) such results were not, or worse, could not be, 'real'.
 
And really the 'mechanism' by which these 'non-real' results were achieved becomes less than important because the changes were so wonderful, that while listening to music, it didn't matter why or what the 'cause' was.
 
IOW the results became all that really mattered.
And so if these sorts of changes have never been experienced then of course there is no basis for believing "such and such".
 
Still for those who have experienced "such and such", it is silly when anyone tries to 'convince' us that what we have experienced is a 'figment of our imagination', because it simply doesn't matter anymore.
 
I for one will opt for these wonderful experiences, every single time, over a didactic explanation that runs counter to what I have repeatedly tested and experimented with, but more importantly experienced.
 
But then these are my biases…
 
JJ

 

[earnmyturns]

Oh, definitely. Most manufacturers' "specs" are worthless. I just brought it up in response to Jason's comment about 0.0005% vs 0.0007% THD. Are you familiar with the GedLee metric? I believe it was partly inspired by the research you mention, but I won't pretend to understand how it's calculated. Can you give some examples of surprisingly detectable distortion? I assume these were established through blind ABX.

Not familiar with GedLee, it seems to have come up way later than when I was hanging out with those audio fanatics at Bell Labs in the mid-90s. Unfortunately I can't remember precisely very specific cases from back them, but I vaguely remember that they could throw away a lot of the signal because of auditory masking effects, but sometimes they'd get in a bit of trouble with some single-instrument recordings (organ?). My own subjective impressions of compressed music these days is that the most usual give-aways are in sustained complex harmonics such as in Wolfgang Muthspiel's guitar that I am right now listening to in "Driftwood."

 

[wink]

I never argue with anyone, I am just explaining why I am right.   

 

[lukeap69]

I never argue with anyone, I am just explaining why I am right.   

That's a very good argument IMO.

 

[AviP]

Ooops x2. Fixed.

As far as Mike's preference, you'd have to ask Mike. 

And again, I'd be happy with most anything we make. At the office, I use a Modi Uber/Vali 2. Eeeek! Delta-sigma, run!!!

Jason, do you use the stock tube on the vali2?

 

[Jason Stoddard]

Jason, do you use the stock tube on the vali2?

Yep, I do.

 

[catspaw]

I dont think it makes that much sense to talk about objective vs subjective in audio since we all hear differently and have different tastes (making us all subjective, whenever we like it or not).
 
That being said, I do like the objective measurements to know why something sounded bad to me and avoid it in the future.
 
But then again, I might yolo it the next morning because I love the sound of a Grado/Ultrasone.
 
You cant set something in stone in a hobby like this, its like trying to say you dont like a certain food without trying it.
 
 
So, happy hunting and sorry about your wallet.

 

[chipwelder]

I think a fundamental problem I have with objectivist thinking is that it would require no bias... every question you ask biases your answer. This is why science uses objective as repeatable... not without bias.
 
I have seen questions raised by a well-known tester that compared trained Frequency Response listeners to lay people and industry professionals... The end result was that the trained frequency response listeners could more readily identify the "better" speaker... but the "better speaker" was defined as the one with the flatter frequency response. This may be true if all else had been equal, but the  speakers was created from the same speaker... with the most digital correction applied to the setup sounding most flat... I have always liked less filtering in my sound... is that wrong?