Zapp_Fan
Member of the Trade: Aiwa
Numbers that aren't contextualized as representing a measurement of something are just numbers, not data. Measurements of something, if you don't know what they're measuring, are also just numbers.
Testing audiophile claims and myths
Numbers that aren't contextualized as representing a measurement of something are just numbers, not data. Measurements of something, if you don't know what they're measuring, are also just numbers.
Who claimed numbers are equivalent to data?
Even with meaningful units, having a number does not imply having a datum, nor has anyone claimed as such.
Last edited:
Zapp_Fan
Member of the Trade: Aiwa
I think all phronesis was saying is that in order to call something "data" you would also need some kind of theory by which to interpret the data. I am not sure if you guys actually disagree on this point.
Phronesis
Headphoneus Supremus
Yes, that's what I was getting at. What we call "data" needs to have a theoretical context in order to represent data. Otherwise, we just have numbers which have no real meaning or usefulness. Here's the simplest thing I could quickly find online:
https://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/theory_ladenness.html
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
The context in this case is audibility. You need to understand what can and can't be heard to be able to interpret the numbers.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Have you tested it on less than amazing equipment like my $40 Walmart DVD player? Do you really think I would hear a difference if I played it on that and compared it to the output of my Oppo?
By the way, when it comes to transducers, I find that the piano is one of the most difficult instruments to reproduce. When it comes to the combination of purity of tone combined with massive and precise dynamics, it shows the warts in mediocre speakers fast. But my Walmart DVD player can still play it fine.
Last edited:
Phronesis
Headphoneus Supremus
... which leads to needing to understand how perception works via the ears and brain (otherwise, you can't talk about biases, effects of auditory memory, etc.). Not simple stuff.
Zapp_Fan
Member of the Trade: Aiwa
My guess is the DAC would make no difference on that particular point, and if it did, the transducer's flaws would swamp it. I have noticed a problem on that track only in 2 cases: lossy encoding below 320kbps MP3 and transducers or other analog parts that have difficulty with transients, or that lack breadth of frequency response such that transients come out with an audible hole in them.
To be clear, if I come across as giving importance to the differences between DACs, I am not personally worried about the actual converting of bits to analog signals, but in potential fillips of engineering introducing something audible in the analog parts of the device.
I hope we all recognize that whether the differences between DACs are or are not STRICTLY academic, nobody is trying to position them as more important to the listening experience than speakers / headphones.
Yeah and I can definitely imagine that subpar speakers would struggle with realistic piano, for the reasons you mentioned.
Last edited:
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
That is exactly what I've found... every DAC and amp and player I've ever gotten is audibly transparent. MP3 LAME is transparent at 320kbps and AAC 256 is transparent as well. No audible difference between 16/44.1 and so called "Hi-res" formats. Speakers, room acoustics, headphones and the quality of the recording itself are all variables that deserve addressing. In the meantime, everyone argues about the stuff that doesn't matter! Such is life!
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Nope. It's a matter of thresholds of perception. I don't think you've taken the time to investigate that subject very deeply.
Zapp_Fan
Member of the Trade: Aiwa
Acoustics is badly overlooked, but I think that's because it's very difficult to deal with. One of my axes to grind... It's sort of the invisible elephant in the room at audiophile shows. I've been to a few of the 'high end suites' at AXPONA and CES and maybe 1/15 of the rooms have any kind of acoustic treatment, and even when they do it's more symbolic than effective.
It's amazing because they spend tons of time and effort to move these $100K+ setups across the country or even around the world... and when they get there, they set them up in rooms with no acoustic treatment, so most of what you hear is an utterly average and acoustically unfavorable hotel room. The $95K in that system that differentiates it from a $5K system is hard to hear over the sound of mediocre wallpaper and large windows...
Getting a new DAC with lower jitter or whatever is easy. Re-arranging your room and building bass traps, etc is super hard in comparison. People tend to seek the path of least resistance.
analogsurviver
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Posts
- 4,480
- Likes
- 371
I agree - but, just a reminder; this is head-fi - not roomsound.org .
It is infinitely more easy to hear differences in audio gear using headphones than speakers ... - and now I hope no one will try to say otherwise.
The attention to room acoustics etc in audio fairs differs - A LOT. FM Acoustics from Switzerland arrive A WEEK before the opening the show to the public - and have professionals, who check the setups by other professionals within the firm. The quality of their gear is very well known and appreciated - at least by those, who can afford it. Usually, there is no or VERY little stock - most gear is built to order.
If they want to present their gear at its at-least-good-enough , they have to acoustically treat the room - and you can bet, that they start with the better/best available room to begin with.
However, also this attention to detail has its price - evenly distributed among their clients.
It is infinitely more easy to hear differences in audio gear using headphones than speakers ... - and now I hope no one will try to say otherwise.
The attention to room acoustics etc in audio fairs differs - A LOT. FM Acoustics from Switzerland arrive A WEEK before the opening the show to the public - and have professionals, who check the setups by other professionals within the firm. The quality of their gear is very well known and appreciated - at least by those, who can afford it. Usually, there is no or VERY little stock - most gear is built to order.
If they want to present their gear at its at-least-good-enough , they have to acoustically treat the room - and you can bet, that they start with the better/best available room to begin with.
However, also this attention to detail has its price - evenly distributed among their clients.
Phronesis
Headphoneus Supremus
Boiling it down to "thresholds of perception" greatly oversimplifies perception. Perhaps you don't know what I've investigated, and haven't investigated some of the things I have.
All they're saying there is that communication relies on a common terminology. I agree, but I doubt anyone would disagree. It's pretty much a truism.
Phronesis
Headphoneus Supremus
Well no, that's not "all they're saying." But anyway, at least other people understand the point.
Users who are viewing this thread
