[aimlink]

Quote:

The point I'm trying to make is that if the goal is to most accurately reproduce a piece of music, one must not be dismissive of objective measurements. Pursuing 'perceptual accuracy' is absolutely fine - but to claim that this pursuit is in fact identical to, or indeed is even more valid/effective than relying on scientific measurements in achieving the aforementioned goal, is simply not right.

I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion with irrefutable validity. 

 
Firstly, I'm not sure if it's right to go down the route of one method being more valid/effective.  If we do go there, from what perspective should one claim validity/effectiveness?  There's the perspective of the objectivist.  There's the perspective of the seller; and there's the perspective of the buyer/audience.
 
From my own perspective, accuracy of reproduction depends on my own comparison based on what I hear.  That's what matters to me.  If they don't sound the same to me and this is challenged, I'd rather do a more controlled evaluation with my own senses again, rather than stare at an oscilloscope that takes one aspect of the music and measures it.  By more controlled I mean, introducing a volume controlled comparison.  I would even concede that these controls should be implemented from the very start.
 
IMO, the measurements make for a useful guide, but the final word should go to the listener under controlled conditions.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

I am sure that if you have any two hifi products which have as flat a frequency response as possible, no matter the cost and construction, they are hard to differentiate between and are generally preferred as sounding good. Musical Fidelity and AKG are my preferred brands and both tend to have flat frequency responses, so that is the only measurement I look for.
 
I will go with subjective reviews, both here, other forums and in the audio magazines where the reviews tend to agree. Otherwise they are not very useful at all.

 
Do they sound the same when you compare them?
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

 
Do they sound the same when you compare them?
 

Sorry, you lost me, does what sound the same as what?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion with irrefutable validity. 

 
Firstly, I'm not sure if it's right to go down the route of one method being more valid/effective.  If we do go there, from what perspective should one claim validity/effectiveness?  There's the perspective of the objectivist.  There's the perspective of the seller; and there's the perspective of the buyer/audience.
 
From my own perspective, accuracy of reproduction depends on my own comparison based on what I hear.  That's what matters to me.  If they don't sound the same to me and this is challenged, I'd rather do a more controlled evaluation with my own senses again, rather than stare at an oscilloscope that takes one aspect of the music and measures it.  By more controlled I mean, introducing a volume controlled comparison.  I would even concede that these controls should be implemented from the very start.
 
IMO, the measurements make for a useful guide, but the final word should go to the listener under controlled conditions.

x2. As ever, there is a place for both.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Sorry, you lost me, does what sound the same as what?

 
I was referring to two pieces of equipment with a measured flat frequency response.  They may sound the same or you may even be unable to distinguish them. However, it wouldn't be surprising if they are easily distinguishable and if so, it would be because of other characteristics other than the measured frequency response.  So I may personally be attracted to the flat frequency response as a start.  However, the final decision comes from listening.
 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
mike1127, please observe the following image:
 
Suppose you're convinced that the lines are not parallel (where as in fact they are), but you are not allowed to use a ruler to verify this. You are now asked to re-create this image and you get most of the details right except your lines are not parallel. You are then shown two images - the one that you re-created, and the original itself. You are then asked as to which of the two more accurately resembles the image that you were first shown - but this time you are allowed to use a ruler. Since you believe that the original did not have parallel lines, you claim that the image you came up with is more accurate, ie, closer to the image you were first shown. Do you now see the problem that relying on perception alone can create?

What's the relevance of this to determining perceptual accuracy? This is not analogous to anything we do in audio.
 
It's more analogous to, say, a composer creating an effect in his music of accelerating tempo when in fact the tempo is the same. But accuracy is then asking if the effect is well-captured in the recording/playback system, illusion and all.
 
I could transmit a fax of your image, then ask if the effect of the fax copy is the same. That effect includes the perceived curving of the lines.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
  The lesser the change in the output signal relative to the input signal, the greater the accuracy.  

So let's say I have two devices, A and B. I put one minute of musical signal through each, and measure the input vs. output differential of each. Sampling at 44.1 KHz gives me 4.7 million numbers. I hand you two lists of 4.7 million numbers (one for A, one for B) and ask you, which is smaller?
 
 
That's an odd question. If I had ONE number I could determine which is smaller. But I'm handing you 4.7 million numbers. I would like to know how you answer.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

The point I'm trying to make is that if the goal is to most accurately reproduce a piece of music, one must not be dismissive of objective measurements. Pursuing 'perceptual accuracy' is absolutely fine - but to claim that this pursuit is in fact identical to, or indeed is even more valid/effective than relying on scientific measurements in achieving the aforementioned goal, is simply not right.

Audio exists to be perceived. So perceptual accuracy is the standard.
 
If a device is being used for some purpose other than perception... say to transmit text messages... then measurements are the standard.
 
That, however, is not the case on Head-Fi.
 
 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

The important thing to understand is what those measurements are for.  They don't tell you everything about a piece of gear and they aren't supposed to.  They serve to keep the discussion grounded in reality. 

You're implying the perceptions or experiences are less real than measurements. That's an epistemological stance that is often taken by scientists, but it's purely an assumption. It's something you assume in order to make your quest for knowledge seem easier. In my opinion, it's a mistake. In fact, it is patently absurd seeing as we are on a forum about audio.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I can agree that some types of audio DBT are flawed and not always the best for picking up very subtle differences.  What sort of tests would you consider flawed and why?  Also the converse.  What sort of tests would you consider correct and why?

Mainly I think that quick-switch tests make it impossible to hear musical feeling.

 

[ninjikiran]

Perception can be a funny thing though. especially if it is colored by some kind of placebo.  It is not your ears we don't trust, it is your brain. Everyone's ears are sensitive in different ways which is probably way all different kinds of headphones exist.  Most with different audiences.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Perception can be a funny thing though. especially if it is colored by some kind of placebo.  It is not your ears we don't trust, it is your brain. Everyone's ears are sensitive in different ways which is probably way all different kinds of headphones exist.  Most with different audiences.

Actually, I'll admit I don't trust either.  Well trust is the wrong word, but his perception and his hearing are both his own.  They only have direct relation to him, not me.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Perception can be a funny thing though. especially if it is colored by some kind of placebo.  It is not your ears we don't trust, it is your brain. Everyone's ears are sensitive in different ways which is probably way all different kinds of headphones exist.  Most with different audiences.

We know it's funny, but it's what gets you around. Without your perception there's no window to appreciating this worldly 'reality' that we hold so dear.  Surely you give it some credit on this basis.  While we have to be careful, it seems incredibly non-sensical to discredit it to the degree that you seem to imply.
 
Isn't it better to control for these funny hangups in order to minimize them?  Volume controlled or blinded testing conditions perhaps?  Afterall, your hearing is better in many ways than a lot of the measuring devices developed.  They're there to assist ... not to take over evaluation completely.

 

[sokolov91]

Firstly, I will commend you for being the first Cable Believer(?) to present in detail any kind of logical fallacy Anti Cable people may have (yes I know these tittles are ridiculous). Good work.
 
Unfortunately the figurative fire burnt out all to soon as you repeatedly shot yourself in the foot. You should have stuck to the numbers stuff.
 
Quote:

Audio exists to be perceived. So perceptual accuracy is the standard.
 
If a device is being used for some purpose other than perception... say to transmit text messages... then measurements are the standard.
 
That, however, is not the case on Head-Fi.
 
 

Audio does no such thing... audio existed before we did, it has nothing to do with us, other than we have developed sense to perceive it in an imperfect, and limited way.
 
Such statements arguably reinforce my argument that it is the work of inflated human egos (on some level) that allows people to think their personal, unique, and flawed perceptions supersede those of objective measurements in any way.

 
Quote:

You're implying the perceptions or experiences are less real than measurements. That's an epistemological stance that is often taken by scientists, but it's purely an assumption. It's something you assume in order to make your quest for knowledge seem easier. In my opinion, it's a mistake. In fact, it is patently absurd seeing as we are on a forum about audio.

Our perceptions are less real than measurements in the sense they are less accurate, subject to personal and cultural biases and many, many other factors. Measurements are not subject to any of this, they simply give you unfiltered information. The interpretation of said data, however, is subject to all the same factors of our perception... because you are perceiving the data. For you to perceive something, it must pass through all the psychological filters you have, machines do not have this process, they simply spit out pure data, instead of pure conjecture like some of humans do sometimes. THE WHOLE DAMNED REASON WE HAVE SUCH MACHINES IS BECAUSE MANY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS REALIZED THAT THE INFORMATION THAT LIFE HOLDS ECLIPSES OUR SENSE IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE. That is why we have machines, to aid our imperfect biological sense. Ultrasonic, infrasonic.. ultraviolet, infrared... do you really understand how little of the picture we work with on a daily basis? Apparently you don't.
 
Measurements are more real than our perception because the data, for arguments sake, is flawless. Machines are not emotional creatures (which by the way often gets in the way of logic). Our perceptions are more human, not more real. They are more real on human grounds, because we associate human emotions with our stimuli, like we are supposed to. Said stimuli however are not supposed to have an emotional context, they simply are. Does the sun shine on you so you can feel warmth? Does the wind blow so it can cool you down? Do cats exist because you find them cute and cuddly? Does air exist so we can make music?To think so is an extremely ignorant and selfish thought.
 


 
Quote:

Mainly I think that quick-switch tests make it impossible to hear musical feeling.

Music is the emotional response/feeling that a human derives from vibrating air, in and of itself, there is no feeling because it is a human abstraction. So, if you cannot hear feeling in a song, then why do you listen to music in the first place? Feeling is the whole reason why we have music, so the premise music is not musical without expensive cables is the most ridiculous, and self defeating argument there is. If you need cables to enjoy music, you do not enjoy music. End of story. You enjoy a hobby related to cables, that uses audio as its benchmarking system (which it just so happens DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK). You are not a music lover.

 

[sokolov91]

Anyone order a McPwned?