[gregorio]

Okay, I need to clarify, and then see if your answer is different.
The facts I am referring to are the facts of which notes are played. That is an objective truth. The teacher who plays the chord progression can tell you what notes he played. This can be independently verified. If you turn in the right answer then your brain has succeeded at determining an objective truth about the universe that is very very difficult for a measurement tool to determine in the general case.

Sorry Mike you are way off base here. You seem under the mis-guided impression that notes, chords and chord progressions are some kind of universal truths. They are not. I understand you are studying composition but I think you still have a way to go (I'm not trying to be insulting, just pointing out that as a highly trained orchestral musician, there seem to be huge gaps in your understanding of western music). The equal tempered diatonic system of western classical music was not a discovery about the truth of the universe (like gravity or the existence of sound waves), it was a human invention! It evolved over a couple of centuries when it became obvious that the Pythagorean tuning system caused all sorts of problems when you start playing around with thirds and sixths, which John Dunstable popularised. The modal system was even more problematic when it came to key modulations, the equal temperament system (which we now use) was one of a number of competing solutions in the C17th and C18th. With works such as "The Well Tempered Klavier" and the "48 Preludes and Fugues" Bach proved the efficiency of the well tempered system and popularised it to the point that the competing systems died away. There is no objective truth about the western harmonic system Mike, it is an invention, it's all tricks and illusions based on human perception. Have a look at the area of ethno-musicology, the illusions of the western harmonic system crumble to dust when you take them to more remote areas of say Asia for example, where they have not been brought up with the western harmonic system. Even in the west, the harmonic system has been pulled apart and torn to shreds. Look at Atonalism, look at Microtonalism, the works of Ives, Schoenberg, Cage and Stockhausen for example.

Certainly one person trained in the western classical style can verify the notes played by another but all that proves is the existence of a group of people who are trained in a particular aural tradition having a common set of perceptions. There is no objective truth with notes, only objective perceptions. To use your example, let's take your world class conductor and say that he/she has never heard Indian classical music. Your world class conductor would have far less idea of which were right notes and which were wrong notes than an average member of the audience. Just because you are studying composition, the reality of your world is based on notes and chords but the real universe only has sound waves and everything else is perception, not reality. It's a simple distinction to make once you have a good understanding of sound and of music.

You write "Human beings are much better at measuring approximations and perceptions" -- so, is not the role of an audio system usually to assist in creating a perception?

No Milke it's not, that is the role of the musicians, the audio engineers and the producer. An audio system only exists to record and reproduce sound waves.

EDIT: ah, it occurs to me that you are talking about quantitative values. You are saying that tools are better at quantitative measurements?

The question "which notes were played" is what might be called a "quantized information." -- there are a finite set of possible answers.

No Mike, there are an infinite number of answers. There are only a finite number of answers if you narrow musical notes down to within western classical music during the late C18th and during C19th but not in C20th western classical music and not in other areas of the world. Again, I point you to the works of Cage and Stockhausen (Xenakis and many others) as well as to musical traditions in other areas of the world. Please Mike, loosen your blinkers and try to see the bigger picture.

If the application is to measure db SPL to six digits of precision, then no, a brain is not very useful. But of course that measurement doesn't help you evaluate an audio system.

That measurement (along with frequency measurements) is the ONLY reliable method of evaluating whether an audio system is accurately reproducing the sound waves encoded on the CD (or whatever format). Human perception is not a part of the equation to evaluate the accuracy of an audio system. However, when it comes to perception, whether or not you like the sound of an audio system, then the human ear is a much more appropriate tool for evaluation.

G

 

[K93George]

I agree to the fullest extent with you, Gregorio.  I could have sworn you made your way into my brains inner workings and stole some basic foundation then came up with a complex building of respectable structure.

+1  I teared up lol

 

[gregorio]

Hi George
 
Everywhere else on Head-Fi, you can make it up as you go along.   Anecdotes and mythology abound.  In Sound Science, however, if someone makes a bizarre claim, like "they can hear something that can't be measured", we have the right to ask for proof.  Repeatable and verifiable.

The McGurk Effect is a well known example of how one can hear (perceive) something which cannot be measured. In this example of the McGurk Effect we can only measure the word "bar", not the word "far", which proves there is more to the perception of sound waves than just what can be measured. This doesn't mean there is some hidden magic in sound waves which we don't understand, it just means that our brain's perception of reality can be manipulated as is not necessarily factually accurate. In my last post I tried to explain to the OP how music itself is a perception of reality rather than a factual reality. The very fact that we linguistically separate the word music from the word noise is also indicative of a perception, as indeed was the work of the composer John Cage who caused a huge argument regarding the philosophical boundary between music and noise and how it varies from person to person.

BTW, thanks K93George. I assure you I didn't enter your brain. I think that may just be an inaccurate perception on your part

G

 

[mike1127]

Gregorio,
 
You are just misreading my point. I'm already familiar with most of what you wrote about tuning systems, etc. You probably should ask before you spend that much time writing things I'm already familiar with. I think you are reading too much into the word "objective truth," as though this word means some kind of Grand Universal Theory of Everything. If a teacher is playing a harmonic progression on a piano, then there are a finite number of notes he can play, and which notes he played can be independently verified. That makes it an objective truth.
 
Quote:

That measurement (along with frequency measurements) is the ONLY reliable method of evaluating whether an audio system is accurately reproducing the sound waves encoded on the CD (or whatever format).

 
Okay, but once you account for microphones, variations in mic positions, the speakers, variations in speaker positions, listening room acoustics, etc. the audio system is measureably and perceivably not reproducing the sound waves of the original event (here I am assuming the "original event" is a live acoustic performance because that's what interests me-- if you want to say there are other situations, sure there are, but I'm not talking about those).
 
To me, the question isn't determining if an audio system is distorting something. We already know it's distorting something. The question is, given two audio systems that are both distorting the original, which one is better at conveying the performance intention of the original musicians?
 
If you say, but that's listener-dependent, then I say Yes!
 
 
Quote:

There is no objective truth about the western harmonic system Mike, it is an invention, it's all tricks and illusions based on human perception.

 
Nothing I have written contradicts this. Musicians create sound waves, but they craft their sound waves in order to facilitate the creation of a perception. I do think that an audio system generally distorts the perception. Distortion is not just something that can be measured, but also (generally) perceived in the sense that changing the sound waves changes the perception.
 
EDIT: let me mention something else. I think we need to make a distinction. As you may notice, my modus operandi is about thinking carefully enough to make distinctions. I think there are two senses in which we don't perceive objective reality and I am not sure you are sufficiently distinguishing them.
 
Sense 1: in the McGurk effect, we perceive something that is not in the sound. We perceive it as though it were sound. we perceive it the same way we perceive sound. But the sound isn't there.
 
Sense 2: we perceive notes, harmonies, etc. I think you are saying these 'aren't in the sound' in the sense that there isn't a direct correlation to measured frequencies. Is this correct? But in this sense, don't you think that there is a correlation between the sound and the perception? As evidence of this, if you change the sound sufficiently, then you change the perception.
 
Before I go further I want to establish if we are on the same page about these two senses.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Of course.  Sound stage is usually put in a recording by the mixing engineer.  They can make it super large or shrink it down to mono.  Sound stage has been measured and reproduced.  It's in the DSPs in your computer.  It's even in your surround receiver, where you can make the room smaller, larger or change the shape.  Heck, you can even choose to listen in a famous hall, like Albert Hall.    Even my old CRT TV has a DSP that increases the sound stage. 
 
 
 
 
 

It sounds to me like you are talking about computing a sound stage, not measuring a sound stage in a recording. Or measuring a hall's transfer function, which is not measuring a sound stage in a recording.
 
 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Sorry Mike you are way off base here. <snip>





No Milke it's not, <snip>




No Mike, there are an infinite number of answers.<snip>

 

Well said G.  Thank you for taking the time to write out that post.  It was enjoyable as well as educational.

 
Haven't listened to Verklarte Nacht in a long while...... have it on now......

 
Quote:

The McGurk Effect is a well known example of how one can hear (perceive) something which cannot be measured. In this example of the McGurk Effect we can only measure the word "bar", not the word "far", which proves there is more to the perception of sound waves than just what can be measured. This doesn't mean there is some hidden magic in sound waves which we don't understand, it just means that our brain's perception of reality can be manipulated as is not necessarily factually accurate. In my last post I tried to explain to the OP how music itself is a perception of reality rather than a factual reality. The very fact that we linguistically separate the word music from the word noise is also indicative of a perception, as indeed was the work of the composer John Cage who caused a huge argument regarding the philosophical boundary between music and noise and how it varies from person to person.

BTW, thanks K93George. I assure you I didn't enter your brain. I think that may just be an inaccurate perception on your part

G
 

I've seen that video before....

  
 
Unfortunately, I was attempting, rather poorly, to refer to that elusive and unmeasurable "thing" people report being able to "hear" when they describe the effects of various cables and tweaks. 

 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
 
Unfortunately, I was attempting, rather poorly, to refer to that elusive and unmeasurable "thing" people report being able to "hear" when they describe the effects of various cables and tweaks. 

 

 
This thread has nothing to do with cables and tweaks, which is evidence you aren't comprehending it

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

This thread has nothing to do with cables and tweaks, which is evidence you aren't comprehending it

Is that the best you can come up with?
 
You still haven't addressed the core questions from my first post:  If the answer to both questions is NO, we are in agreement.
 

1. Are you saying you believe your ears over instruments and computers ???? 
   

 

1. Are you saying that there are some instances where your ears can measure better than instruments and computers?
   

 

[gregorio]

You are just misreading my point. I'm already familiar with most of what you wrote about tuning systems, etc. You probably should ask before you spend that much time writing things I'm already familiar with. I think you are reading too much into the word "objective truth," as though this word means some kind of Grand Universal Theory of Everything. If a teacher is playing a harmonic progression on a piano, then there are a finite number of notes he can play, and which notes he played can be independently verified. That makes it an objective truth.

I dealt with this in my post number 46 in this thread. We seem to be going round in circles at this point Mike. You maybe familiar with tuning systems and ethnic genres of music but in my opinion you do not fully understand or appreciate their implications. If you did you would understand that you are talking about an extremely small subset of western classical music. I say again "Certainly one person trained in the western classical style can verify the notes played by another but all that proves is the existence of a group of people who are trained in a particular aural tradition having a common set of perceptions. There is no objective truth with notes, only objective perceptions.".

Okay, but once you account for microphones, variations in mic positions, the speakers, variations in speaker positions, listening room acoustics, etc. the audio system is measureably and perceivably not reproducing the sound waves of the original event (here I am assuming the "original event" is a live acoustic performance because that's what interests me-- if you want to say there are other situations, sure there are, but I'm not talking about those).
 
To me, the question isn't determining if an audio system is distorting something. We already know it's distorting something. The question is, given two audio systems that are both distorting the original, which one is better at conveying the performance intention of the original musicians?

We are in danger here of getting very deep into the philosophy of perception and this is not really the right forum for that discussion, as interesting as it may be. I'll try just to touch on this area to demonstrate a point. Say we both go and view an original Picasso, it's is unlikely that we will both form an identical perception of the painting or have an identical emotional response to it. The perception of art is influenced by a range of factors based on personal tastes and experience, some of which may have elements in common with other people, say a shared cultural background but ultimately, each person's perception is an individual response. So the best of the two distorting audio systems you mentioned is the one which distorts the least, because we are getting closer to the original art created by the musicians/producer/engineers. The ultimate goal of a sound system in my opinion is a perfectly linear system which would therefore allow our listening experience to be influenced only by our personal perception and the musician/producer/engineer team, rather than having a third unwanted influence (distortion) getting in the way. Of course, even this is just my personal opinion because many people are not really interested in musical art but in simply listening to sound which they find personally pleasing. That's why there is a market for tubes, consumer EQs, etc.

My point is that there are as many different perceptions as there are people in the world. There are also a number of different reasons why people listen to music and a large number of different types of music. The only base denominator of a sound system is it's accuracy or inversely it's lack of distortion, everything else is just one person's opinion, their personal perception and preference.

For a more in depth understanding of music perception I again recommend the works and writings of John Cage and to look carefully at the implications of the musical movements of Indeterminacy and Aleatoric music.

G

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I dealt with this in my post number 46 in this thread. We seem to be going round in circles at this point Mike. You maybe familiar with tuning systems and ethnic genres of music but in my opinion you do not fully understand or appreciate their implications. If you did you would understand that you are talking about an extremely small subset of western classical music. I say again "Certainly one person trained in the western classical style can verify the notes played by another but all that proves is the existence of a group of people who are trained in a particular aural tradition having a common set of perceptions. There is no objective truth with notes, only objective perceptions.".

 

I think we're going round in circles because you are reading way too much into my simple point. I'm trying to figure out why this is so complicated for you. Maybe you assign a different meaning to the word "objective." For me, objective means some aspect of reality which can be measured and confirmed repeatedly by different people. You seem to assign some super-grand meaning to the word "objective." It's not some universal theory of music or universal theory of perception. Which keys are pressed on a piano is an objective fact in the sense it can be witnessed and confirmed by multiple independent observers. That's all. That's my point.
 
In my sense of the word "objective" there are plenty of objective truths about notes. You can do a spectrum analysis on a note. That's objective data.
 
Also, it is tremendously significant that some groups of people have a common set of perceptions.
 

 
EDIT: I would be curious about your thoughts on the distinction I make at the end of post #49. I think this is an area where we can come to some agreement once we clarify the meanings of our words.
 
As a side note, it seems to me that you are projecting a lot of meaning into my words that I never intended. It seems like we define certain key words very differently. I'm trying to understand how you use these words, and it would be helpful if you would do the same for me-- before replying, please stop to think if perhaps you are projecting too much into my meaning.
 
 
 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Is that the best you can come up with?
 
You still haven't addressed the core questions from my first post:  If the answer to both questions is NO, we are in agreement.
 

1. Are you saying you believe your ears over instruments and computers ???? 
   

 

1. Are you saying that there are some instances where your ears can measure better than instruments and computers?
   

 
I've answered these questions several times. Sigh. Okay, I'll repeat it.
 
No, in the sense you mean it, I don't believe my ears over computers.
 
Many people can take complex harmonic dictation, which is an example of determining objective facts. But, computers are far less capable in this area. I call this a form of measurement because it is making an objective determination.
 
If I listen to a violin player and want to determine whether they are closer in spirit to Stern or Heifetz, well computers can't determine that.
 
Ears are good at what ears are good at, instruments are good at what instruments are good at.
 
EDIT: I just realized I didn't quite give a yes or no answer. I don't think these are yes-or-no questions. But, in the sense I believe you mean it, then I would say we are in agreement. In the sense that an instrument can make an objective determination of quantitative variables to a high degree of precision, then no, ears cannot match that.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I think the discussion of perception is a roundabout way of trying to demonstrate that cables and tweaks have some merit. They do not.

Go back and look at the history of electricity and electronics. Especially consider the vast number of filaments that Edison tried for the lightbulb. You'll find that pretty much everything was tried at one time or another. They had no idea what would work.

Interestingly, I worked at a patent firm last year. One case dealt with cables. Real cables, for high-power transmission lines. I went through a bunch of prior art and it reaches back over 100 years. I remember on from 1914 where a lot of transmission properties were discussed. Audio cables are not high-tech and besides, human perception has been outclassed by measuring devices for at least as long. Significant properties of cables have been known for a good 100 years. Further, modern testing supports and builds on what was discovered back then.

I should also add that commercial manufacturers of real cables (those who work in high power and high frequency applications) are completely aware of the audiophile cable nonsense and find it amusing. Two points to take here:

1. If some "miracle" cable came out of a garage, the big players (we're talking multimillion multinationals) would instantly buy the rights or patent it themselves, since miracle audio cables rarely have IP (wonder why); and

2. These guys would develop and market their own audio cables. They have big R&D budgets and are very interested in products that would have a margin of several hundred percent or higher. They are not stupid.

The reason the big players ignore audio cables is that they know there's nothing there. Further, their legal counsel advises them not to market bogus products because they'll probably get sued.

Since we're talking about professional experiences here, I'll share some of mine. I did criminal defense for about three years. Criminal stuff is fascinatin to me; I especially like con men, grifters, swindlers, corruption, scams and the like; they're much more interesting than someone stealing a car. I'll read anything I can find about Madoff and Ponzi is totally fascinating.

Every specialty cable manufacturer (save Monoprice, Blue Jeans, et al. who do not make wild claims) operates like a textbook con.

Con men are friendly, personal and smart. They go to where the costs and low and profits are high. And a whole lot of them have set up in audio. It's prime territory for BS and big margins.

So while we can debate the possibility of infinitesimal differences that might not be understood by science, there's about a 99% chance that the person who sold you your cable was a low-end Bernie Madoff.

And before you forget, Madoff is a nice man. He doesn't shout threats and intimidate people. If you had lunch with him, you'd enjoy his company and come away thinking he's a really nice guy. This is how cons are. And you'll find a lot of very friendly and nice people in audio who are selling completely bogus products.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I think the discussion of perception is a roundabout way of trying to demonstrate that cables and tweaks have some merit. They do not.

 

 
Do you realize that you just accused me of being deceptive? Give me a break. This is not about cables and tweaks. Please think about questions like the effects of mics, mic positions, speakers, speaker positions, and listening room acoustics.
 

 

[mike1127]

apologies to anyone who may have been composing a reply --- I have a test coming up so I don't have the time to participate in this thread any more, but I'm sure no one will miss me or the thread. I'm unsubscribing to it.
 
Enjoy your hi fi systems, all, and may you find work that is close to your heart. I am blessed to be pursuing my dream of music composition.
 

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

I think the discussion of perception is a roundabout way of trying to demonstrate that cables and tweaks have some merit. They do not.

Go back and look at the history of electricity and electronics. Especially consider the vast number of filaments that Edison tried for the lightbulb. You'll find that pretty much everything was tried at one time or another. They had no idea what would work.

Interestingly, I worked at a patent firm last year. One case dealt with cables. Real cables, for high-power transmission lines. I went through a bunch of prior art and it reaches back over 100 years. I remember on from 1914 where a lot of transmission properties were discussed. Audio cables are not high-tech and besides, human perception has been outclassed by measuring devices for at least as long. Significant properties of cables have been known for a good 100 years. Further, modern testing supports and builds on what was discovered back then.

I should also add that commercial manufacturers of real cables (those who work in high power and high frequency applications) are completely aware of the audiophile cable nonsense and find it amusing. Two points to take here:

1. If some "miracle" cable came out of a garage, the big players (we're talking multimillion multinationals) would instantly buy the rights or patent it themselves, since miracle audio cables rarely have IP (wonder why); and

2. These guys would develop and market their own audio cables. They have big R&D budgets and are very interested in products that would have a margin of several hundred percent or higher. They are not stupid.

The reason the big players ignore audio cables is that they know there's nothing there. Further, their legal counsel advises them not to market bogus products because they'll probably get sued.

Since we're talking about professional experiences here, I'll share some of mine. I did criminal defense for about three years. Criminal stuff is fascinatin to me; I especially like con men, grifters, swindlers, corruption, scams and the like; they're much more interesting than someone stealing a car. I'll read anything I can find about Madoff and Ponzi is totally fascinating.

Every specialty cable manufacturer (save Monoprice, Blue Jeans, et al. who do not make wild claims) operates like a textbook con.

Con men are friendly, personal and smart. They go to where the costs and low and profits are high. And a whole lot of them have set up in audio. It's prime territory for BS and big margins.

So while we can debate the possibility of infinitesimal differences that might not be understood by science, there's about a 99% chance that the person who sold you your cable was a low-end Bernie Madoff.

And before you forget, Madoff is a nice man. He doesn't shout threats and intimidate people. If you had lunch with him, you'd enjoy his company and come away thinking he's a really nice guy. This is how cons are. And you'll find a lot of very friendly and nice people in audio who are selling completely bogus products.

+1