Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint

[bigshot]

People seem to think any sort of volume pot or tone control introduces distortion. Crazy.

 

[xnor]

What gets me is when people are scared of equalization but use a hot source and amp with way too high gain so that they have to fiddle with the volume control somewhere around 8 o'clock until channel imbalance is acceptable. At 10 their ears would explode.
 
That's crazy.

 

[gnarlsagan]

I have a question about Tyll's recent IF post: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response

Should the findings of these studies apply to iems, since only headphones were used? If it doesn't apply, are they relevant in another way? They talk about etymotics and their famous 3k bump and lack of bass not falling within the preferred target, but I'm not sure what leads to that conclusion.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

What gets me is when people are scared of equalization but use a hot source and amp with way too high gain so that they have to fiddle with the volume control somewhere around 8 o'clock until channel imbalance is acceptable. At 10 their ears would explode.
 
That's crazy.

Also....the person who proudly claims his system is completely devoid of EQ of any kind, and all of the nasty distortion it causes, but he's listening to commercially recorded and produced music that is loaded with all sorts of EQ, some of it far more radical than anything a home user would apply.  
 
Add that to the craz-o-rama.  

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

I have a question about Tyll's recent IF post: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response

Should the findings of these studies apply to iems, since only headphones were used? If it doesn't apply, are they relevant in another way? They talk about etymotics and their famous 3k bump and lack of bass not falling within the preferred target, but I'm not sure what leads to that conclusion.

The findings relate to IEMS in that some IEMs include diffuse field comp, but they weren't specifically studied.  Others working on this have concluded that there is a different target curve for IEMs than other headphones.
 
The conclusion about the 3K Etymotic bump is one that is subjective, but popularly accepted.  Probably correct. I don't own a pair of Ety's, though I almost purchased a pair once, but backed out actually for that exact reason. 

 

[uchihaitachi]

Is it the outer ear or the inner ear that makes more of an impact in altering sound? 

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

If you don't go crazy the only problem I see is digital clipping. You can prevent that pretty easily though by using a digital preamp to pull down the EQ curve below 0 dBFS or not boosting stuff.

 
This is where ReplayGain comes in handy. 

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Is it the outer ear or the inner ear that makes more of an impact in altering sound? 

The ear is a complete system, both inner and outer ear work together as a transducer system, and the brain interprets the resulting signals. The pinna (outer ear) has a role in spacial hearing, as it alters the frequency response of hearing depending on direction of arrival, but it's only part of the spacial hearing machine which includes the head and chest as well. Because of its directional characteristics, you could say the pinna has more impact in altering sound.  

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

The ear is a complete system, both inner and outer ear work together as a transducer system, and the brain interprets the resulting signals. The pinna (outer ear) has a role in spacial hearing, as it alters the frequency response of hearing depending on direction of arrival, but it's only part of the spacial hearing machine which includes the head and chest as well. Because of its directional characteristics, you could say the pinna has more impact in altering sound.  

Thanks for the explanation. I have another question which is, why is the head and chest so significant over other parts of the body when it comes to hearing?

 

[bigshot]

You know what they say... If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're standing on your head!

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Thanks for the explanation. I have another question which is, why is the head and chest so significant over other parts of the body when it comes to hearing?

They are closest to the ears. 
 
The head is very significant acoustically because it establishes the spacing between the ears, and provides a baffle that presents frequency dependent diffraction effects to sound arriving to the ear more opposite to it's direction of travel.  The chest provides reflection, absorption and diffraction as well, all frequency dependent.  The extremities are much smaller and farther from the hear, and so have far less impact on sound arriving at the hears.  
 
Unless, of course, your feet smell, and nose runs. 
 
But I find the most intriguing and complex part of the hearing system to be the brain.  It has to sort out some pretty high speed data input from a rather complex acoustic system and derive 360 degree, spherical spacial hearing that is capable of determining distance, elevation, azimuth, identify the source specifically, evaluate for potential danger, musicality, etc.  That's a whole lot of processing going on, and it's actually not all that easy to fool. 

 

[Meremoth]

The great thing about science is that it can eventually be corrected and/or improved upon.  The PC world recently saw a change in scientific testing of GPU's that has solved arguments that have been raging on PC forums for over a decade.  It reminded me a lot of the arguments I see on here.  Without going into geeky details, there were two sides - a scientific side and a side that goes by what they subjectively experience.  The "scientific" people of course had graphs and tests on their side, while the subjective people could only state their opinion based upon what they experienced.  Well, new/better scientific tests show now that the scientific people were actually wrong, and the subjective people were actually correct.  Just goes to show you, you can't only rely on what graphs show you, or what a book tells you.  People dismiss what their mind and heart is telling them because a piece of paper tells them they're wrong.  There's being cautious, and then there's just down right not trusting yourself.  
 
I guess I've always rooted more for the subjective people, the ones that aren't gullible, and are smart enough to trust themselves without tricking themselves.  In person, those people seem to just be more fun to be around than the scientific curmudgeons that are hell-bent on deriding people based upon an article in a magazine they read.  Those people, time and time again, forget that science, in the present, can and will be much different 10 years from now.
 
Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  
 
Okay, now I'll show myself out, no need to shove...  

 

[xnor]

Quote:

The great thing about science is that it can eventually be corrected and/or improved upon.  The PC world recently saw a change in scientific testing of GPU's that has solved arguments that have been raging on PC forums for over a decade.  It reminded me a lot of the arguments I see on here.  Without going into geeky details, there were two sides - a scientific side and a side that goes by what they subjectively experience.  The "scientific" people of course had graphs and tests on their side, while the subjective people could only state their opinion based upon what they experienced.  Well, new/better scientific tests show now that the scientific people were actually wrong, and the subjective people were actually correct.  Just goes to show you, you can't only rely on what graphs show you, or what a book tells you.  People dismiss what their mind and heart is telling them because a piece of paper tells them they're wrong.  There's being cautious, and then there's just down right not trusting yourself.  
 
I guess I've always rooted more for the subjective people, the ones that aren't gullible, and are smart enough to trust themselves without tricking themselves.  In person, those people seem to just be more fun to be around than the scientific curmudgeons that are hell-bent on deriding people based upon an article in a magazine they read.  Those people, time and time again, forget that science, in the present, can and will be much different 10 years from now.
 
Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  
 
Okay, now I'll show myself out, no need to shove...  

If you're talking about average FPS vs. detailed frame time plots ... both are equally valid. Problems stem from people concluding that a higher average FPS will result in a smoother experience in all circumstances. They seem to ignore that average can mean mostly constant FPS or very erratic FPS. Or they ignore the additional time DX takes to finally output the frame.
 
And you make it sound like people look only at a measurement and say: "that's not audible". That's not the case. There have been done scientific, subjective tests with amps, cables, DACs and audible limits of FR differences, distortion etc.  In sound science we rely a lot on such tests, because we can measure stuff far beyond audibility. What matters in the end is if it is audible to us.
 
Also, I find it interesting how you distinguish from "scientific people" and "subjective people". Subjective tests are an important part of science. Problems come from people that don't know what the measurement data means and make wrong conclusions and people who do subjective "tests" in a non-scientific manner.
In the GPU case it would have been as simple as setting up two computers with different GPU configurations, with the test subject not knowing which is which, switching the monitors after each trial randomly. If the test subject can make out a difference we can look at detailed measurements of what he/she might have seen. If the test subject(s) cannot make out a difference, which is the case for many blind audio tests, there very likely is none and the people arguing for 10 years in forum might just have been talking out of their behind.

 

[Meremoth]

Quote:

If you're talking about average FPS vs. detailed frame time plots ... both are equally valid. Problems stem from people concluding that a higher average FPS will result in a smoother experience in all circumstances. They seem to ignore that average can mean mostly constant FPS or very erratic FPS.
 
And you make it sound like people look only at a measurement and say: "that's not audible". That's not the case. There have been done scientific, subjective tests with amps, cables, DACs and audible limits of FR differences, distortion etc.  In sound science we rely a lot on such tests, because we can measure stuff far beyond audibility. What matters in the end is if it is audible to us.
 
Also, I find it interesting how you distinguish from "scientific people" and "subjective people". Subjective tests are an important part of science. Problems come from people that don't know what the measurement data means and make wrong conclusions and people who do subjective "tests" in a non-scientific manner.
In the GPU case it would have been as simple as setting up two computers with different GPU configurations, with the test subject not knowing which is which, switching the monitors after each trial randomly. If the test subject can make out a difference we can look at detailed measurements of what he/she might have seen. If the test subject(s) cannot make out a difference, which is the case for many blind audio tests, there very likely is none and the people arguing for 10 years in forum might just have been talking out of their behind.

 
Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.
 
I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.
 
The main point I was trying to make was that science is ever changing, and the results of science today might be changed, altered, and sometimes downright disproved by the science of tomorrow.  Capiche?  Instead of focusing on that, you decide to whine about arbitrary points that are already implied.  Of course subjective tests are an important part of science, did you not even read what I wrote?  
 
"Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  "
 
After all, subjective experiences is what leads to scientific tests.  Talk about talking out of your behind...
 
The entire point of my post, which went right over your head, was that subjectivity, that couldn't at the time be backed up by science, was eventually proven correct BY SCIENCE!
 
Where's the mute button?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong..  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it's very comparative to the arguments displayed here.

I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.

Because when you go on an audio forum and bring up a totally unrelated topic as the basis for an analogy, it is the responsibility of everyone else to spend ten years studying said totally unrelated topic, otherwise you win the argument by default?

:rolleyes: