Do please explain the difference in terms people (including myself) can understand. To me hearing is hearing. Next time, when a girl says to you 'Are you hearing me' try asking 'do you mean am I subjectively perceiving you?' and see where it gets you
Please explain what 'audibility' means here and also why it needs to be 'established'.
Oooops. Since this is ostensibly science we're doing I'm going to call you on this. Evidence please for the above claims:
1) That I'm denying any established facts.
2) That there is such a thing as 'objective reality'.
3) That I follow any religion (institutional or otherwise).
Take a look at my latest blog posting - there I describe what I hear. The 'burden of proof' claim is nonsensical, its part of the objectivist religion to trot out this tired old mantra.
That sounds vaguely familiar...oh yeah, it's the cry that comes up every time some says that amplifiers sound the same!
Really, is that the average depth of understanding around here? That it is useless to do something if you can't make an 'improvement'? If you want to believe there is some magical sonic pot 'o gold at the end of the DIY rainbow, that is you right. If your only motivation for doing anything is for gain, you will be at odds with someone who does things for the challenge, or entertainment, or just because he wants to.
Oh, Lord, I might regret wading into this water. But my 2c worth goes something like this:
First of all, I don't think Total Harmonic Distortion is a very meaningful specification in the first place. Where and what kind of harmonic distortion is much more meaningful, but somewhat harder to digest. THD is a specification created by the marketing department to make things simpler for consumers to absorb.
What, exactly, is this "Total Harmonic Distortion" comprised of?
Even order harmonic distortion is difficult to discern; you really do need a trained ear to nail it down, because in reasonably small amounts it changes the character of instruments and voice ... you need to know what a Steinway Grand sounds like to know if the harmonic structure coming out of your system is changing it's character, and in what way. Even harmonics are what make up an instrument's character ... it's what makes a violin and a piano playing the same note sound different. It is always part of nature, when your wife is talking to you, when a car drives by your house, when a mouse is sneaking around your dog food bag, those sounds are comprised of a fundamental (or many) and a combination of even harmonics of that/those fundamental tones.
Odd harmonic distortion is a bit more interesting and in my own opinion more critical to whether a given system sounds "right" or "something's not right". Similarly, steady-state sine waves are not necessarily taxing on an audio system, so in the lab many components can give good odd harmonic performance yet fall apart with a complex musical signal. Even the standard Intermodulation Distortion test configuration is an almost laughable simplification of a typical audio musical signal. Again, its my belief and my own experience that this is audible and does come into play when discerning various products. Odd harmonics are not part of what we hear when we listen to un-amplified sound in our day-to-day lives.
A special case, finally, is third harmonic distortion. Although not found in nature like even harmonic distortion "could" be, we tolerate a great deal of 3rd HD without discomfort, or if you will, without a nagging sense that "something isn't right". Magnetic tape typically has relatively large amounts of 3rdHD, whole percentages are common at standard "clean" saturation levels, yet much of the music we cherish and enjoy came from tape. It is my suspicion, although I'm not ready to say it's the final word on the issue, that because the third harmonic does have a natural mathematical relationship to the fundamental and the second harmonic, our brains have few issues with it.
The above is not meant to be a definitive treatise on the matter, it's just my perspective, and I'm not really interested in debating about it.
But I repeat, a THD figure is relatively meaningless to me; it is not enough to tell me anything nor does it flag a component's overall sound quality in a meaningful way. You need your ears (and to a much larger extent) your brain to assess audio products, and you need the lab, both to seek an answer to what your brain tells you, and to design components that fundamentally are sound (is that a pun? ... sorry) which is, or should be, your starting point for refining or assessing the sonic character a product.
We must never forget that our brains are critical in how we discern things. If there is an annoying noise in our environment, after a short while our brains will ignore it on a concious level. I will leave it to you to decide if this means we still "hear" it or not. It is not much different than the rest of our senses ... a smell that some industrial plant nearby generates is noticed by strangers but not the ordinary residents. We could not sit or lay or even wear clothes if our brains didn't sort out the ordinary nerve response from the unusual. Were it not for this we probably would all be as 'crazy as a shithouse rat" to quote a favourite of someone I know. So, you do need to listen in a certain manner to "hear" a component, to a certain extent you need to fight your own brain's natural working processes to engage in critical listening.
Last edited:
Objectivist religion? That's an interesting take on it. It must be a perspective thing, I guess - a fish swimming in the ocean sees something and assumes it's another fish...but, what if it is in actuality an old work boot?
Last edited:
Thanks.
It must be a perspective thing, I guess - a fish swimming in the ocean sees something and assumes it's another fish...but, what if it is in actuality an old work boot?
Well you'll want to check with Steve Eddy about this 'seeing'. Let's ask him - does the fish see the thing or does he merely 'subjectively perceive' it?
Do you have some substantiation of all this, or did you just make it up? It sounds like a fun put down of the poor audiophool, but do you actually have any data, studies of other info to back this up? They are pretty bold claims. Or is this just your opinion?
Johnny2Bad. I generally agree with you post above, execpt for 2 points.
H3 can actually "fatten up" the bass and surprisingly can sound rather nice. (Well, I was surprised, anyway)
- THD was not made up by the marketing departments, it's a legit measurement. But the marketing types know a good thing when they see it. One number that tells you how good a an amp is, wow!
- The third harmonic is found in nature all the time. Just have a look at any violin or other bowed instrument. Lot's of nice H3 there, maybe more than then the fundamental.
H3 can actually "fatten up" the bass and surprisingly can sound rather nice. (Well, I was surprised, anyway)
The key here is that THD is the sum of the harmonics. As soon as you do the sum you throw out all the important information.
If all the distortion is 2nd or 3rd order then >>1% can be inaudible. If it is all high order then <<1% can be heard. The proportions are important too.
dave
Johnny2Bad. I generally agree with you post above, execpt for 2 points.
- THD was not made up by the marketing departments, it's a legit measurement. But the marketing types know a good thing when they see it.
It certainly is today, Pano. No argument there.
In the history of our hobby, the abbreviation "THD" originally meant "Third Harmonic Distortion", and it referred specifically to the distortion characteristic of tape machines. Over time the meaning has changed, at first in error, to mean "Total Harmonic Distortion".
That is what I was referring to; it means something different now than it was intended to, and that is partly because of a hijack of the term by copywriters, taking a cue from how consumers interpreted the specification, and it's application to non-tape components.
The third contains a component of one octave and one fifth octave above the fundamental; it is sometimes referred to as a "musical twelfth". (Note: musical keys which comprise scales are not precisely the same as harmonics, at least in terms of measuring audio, where harmonics have exact mathematical relationships of simple multiples and fractions). Thus your violin.
3rdHD can be easily discerned on pure sine waves, even by ordinary listeners, but is not so easy to discern on complex signals. Also, since it's the overall audio reproduction system that is asked to reproduce all sounds that we're talking about, there could be instances of 3rdHD on recorded sounds where they are not (by your example) naturally part of the harmonic structure of, say, violins.
You do bring up an interesting side of the debate ... exactly what effect does the kind of music you're listening to have on our perceived assessment of performance or distortion?
Last edited:
AVE...
This makes the whole "I can hear distortions" problem even more complex: how can you distinguish the harmonic distortions that are supposed to be and are much louder (they are typically -3dB to -10dB of base frequency) from those added by the device? THD and THD+N measurement looks good on paper, but it gets a bit problematic, when dealing with complex signals. Also very good tube amps used to have THD ranging from 1 to even 10% and people believed that they sound great (they still do)...
First keep in mind that the context here is about "differences."
"Hearing" is what we perceive through our sense of hearing, i.e. via our ears and the sound which is impinging on them. Such is the case when we speak of actual audible differences. They are differences which are picked up by our ears, sent to our brains and subsequently perceived in our minds.
So when someone says they "heard" a difference, they are effectively making a claim of an actual audible difference.
However not all that we may perceive in terms of differences is necessarily due to what our ears our picking up and sending to our brains. We know that humans are prone to perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences to be heard. You can call it "placebo effect" if you'd like though I think it's not quite as accurate a term.
Anyway, in these cases, the perception of a difference exists only within our minds. So it can't be said to be an actual audible difference.
So until actual audible difference is established, I prefer to use the term "subjectively perceived."
Now, if someone simply says something "sounds different" to them, then there's really nothing to argue because they're simply relating their subjective experience and there's no implicit claim of actual audiblity.
Next time, when a girl says to you 'Are you hearing me' try asking 'do you mean am I subjectively perceiving you?' and see where it gets you
I've already explained "audibility" above, and it doesn't need to be established unless someone makes a claim of audibility.
Ok, I wrote in haste and I'll exclude you from that.
Well, I guess one could argue that we're all living in the Matrix and that the world around us doesn't exist outside of our minds. But most folks operate on the assumption that it does.
See my reply to "1)."
While you're describing the differences you're perceiving, you're not necessarily describing what you're hearing as it's not known whether or not the differences you're perceiving are due to anything actually audible.
No nonsense at all. All objective claims come with a burden of proof. If you don't wish to accept the burden of proof that comes with making an objective claim, then don't make any objective claims.
se
I don't think it is the 1:100 ratio you suggest. $10 spool of wire will be 18/20ga and have loss at high levels , $50 spool will be 14/16 ga. and be all that much better. A $500 spool will be indistinguishable from the $50 one .
Same with amps, a $600 unit will be audibly superior to a 60$ one (bigger, badder PS and engineering). The improvement in the $6000 unit will be quite trivial by comparison , usually only hype , marketing,and cosmetics (even a white glove in some cases
). Most OEM products are CHEAP , they may sound "good" (not great ), but only for a year or until they FALL APART .I have taken them apart , stripped them for parts , smashed them with hammers
.... before the final burn 
OS
Sy, remember that other beer and popcorn thread, where you were going to go and run a true double blind test of interconnects? Got an email recently from that nice man, telling me that he and a noted audio reviewer tried a sited test between his reference, 5 figure, interconnects and the simple type 2 Litz wire, cotton jacketed, unshielded cables, with Radio Shack minimum metal, maximum polyprop, $1.59 for four RCA connectors, that I had sent along as a minimalist alternative, made of known materials.
They had serious trouble telling the difference, even sighted. Seems to me you might want to cook that test up again.
For the rest of you, just go to Q to obtain cables equal to either in the test I mention.
Well I'm not at all sure that it is about 'differences' - rather its describing two things, then noticing by comparing the two descriptions that there are two different things. So the differences are secondary, the descriptions are primary. I do not 'hear differences' in actuality, that's just an artifact of the English language. Its the same with looking for differences - in those puzzles where we compare two drawn images - in one I'll notice a button is missing on someone's coat. In that case, I don't 'see a difference' rather I see a button in one image, none on the other. This is not just a matter of syntactics - it could mean we're going to be talking somewhat at crossed purposes here, but let's continue....
OK, so far so good.
No subjectivist uses the scare quotes to my knowledge. They say they hear something with some kit, less or none of that thing with other kit. The thing has some quality, its not just presence or absence - it could be 'glare' or 'depth' or whatever.
I do call it placebo effect, to me its as good a term as any because its well established in the medical field. Why do you think its not an accurate term? I agree with you here - we can say that we hear differences when the two signals are in fact identical. I'd say that's still hearing, no need to change the language to something like 'subjective perception'.
Here is the point where you make a very basic philosophical error. All percepts are only in our minds. That's because in what you call 'objective reality' there are no sounds (because that's a percept) but only vibrations. To get sounds requires a hearer - to process vibrations. The processing of vibrations into sounds is the process of perception. So this phrase 'actual audible difference' cannot be sustained. The process by which you think it can is well known to psychology, its called reification.
Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This can only be established post-hoc, by some experiment to be determined. It thus renders the natural term 'hearing' rather useless to the person in the street. A person cannot decide if they should use the term 'hear' or 'subjectively perceive' until a suitable experiment is run. Until such an experiment, they simply don't know that what they're hearing is in fact merely 'subjectively perceiving'.
But hearing is subjective experience. What else are you postulating?
OK, so now its clearer. I'm not making a claim of audibility (assuming to claim that means I'm claiming that others will necessarily hear what I hear) in my blog. I'm simply describing what I hear. You're free to repeat my experiment and report what you hear. I'm not legislating for what you will hear. If you do repeat the experiment I shall be interested in your results whatever they turn out to be.
Yes, so we'll put this one to one side for now. It may re-emerge later though.
That's misrepresenting what I am saying, so I'll point out your error. I am using hearing in the normal way people use the word 'hearing'. I'm not bound by your own decision to redefine the word.
I've made no objective claim. So again you're misunderstanding me. Saying I hear something is not an objective claim, its a claim about my subjective experience.
And indeed I have not. Now do you realise why I offer none?
Trevor, I agree with all you have said. But I will make some comments.
It depends which part of the signal chain you are talking about when it comes to "technological advancements" My opinion is that amplifiers have probably come as far as they can go in terms of sonics - I don't think there is too much more that can be done with these. Class D amplification is resonably new, but I don't really like the sound of any I have heard - perhaps we need some advancement here?
Digital audio on the other hand does seem to be making some advancements but this seems to be lead by the IC manufacturers rather than the board designers. Also playback of digital audio is going in the direction of PC or flash drive or HDD based. Squeezebox, Olive and the like is enabling this to happen. Some argue that these playback devices provide "high end" sound and others disagree.
There are a few small companies designing nice DAC boards and USB audio interfaces. They do not come with fancy cases or high price tags but they provide excellent sound.
I think the well known established companies are falling behind when it comes to digital HDD / streaming transports and playback equipment. If they dont act on this soon they will be left behind by the squeezeboxes of the world.
I couldnt care less about the "high end" companies - I get a big thrill out of finding and modding cheaper gear to perform well beyond expection.
Well we never said it was easy!
If it were, then it would be no fun at all.THD (the modern variety) is usually done at 1Khz into an ideal load. And usually a some level that will make the device look good. After all, if you don't sell 'em, you won't be making them very long.
But there are other, better ways of looking at distortion. An FFT of the signal gives you a quick glimpse of what is going on. But for a further look one needs to do and FFT at different signal levels and loads, different frequencies, several frequencies at once, etc. (Most devices can not keep a consistent harmonic signature at different levels and loads.) The measurements start to quickly get complex. And the single THD number starts to get more attractive - because it's easy.
An interesting test might be to use Bill Waslo's Diffmaker software to null an original file and a recording of that file via the DUT - then look at the FFT of the difference file. Would different devices show significant differences on a musical signal?
Well, the tendency of consumers to defend their particular choices in product, and this is true regardless of what it is we're buying, is well known. I only say this because it is not unique to audio; it happens with shoes and everything else we may purchase.
Similarly, there are those that equate all virtues with price. Again, this is at least as common ... probably more so ... with non-audio products. I actually have a friend who won't shop at Wall-Mart. One time we had some winter work wear to buy, I bought mine at a discount store similar to Wall-Mart. My friend insisted on going across the street, to the "Work Wear" store, to buy the same thing at a higher price. Same brand, same everything. He was happy, I was happy. The whole world was so happy that day ;-)
But, I can assure you, I listen to the gear. I am not swayed by price or cosmetics ... I have seen the guts of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of components both cheap and exotic, I have been paid to listen many times to hifi, to live music, to recording mixes, and I still meet people who seek my advice thirty years after I left the audio industry. When I injured my ankle and could not work four years ago, not two weeks went by before someone asked me to work live events. I most certainly did not seek them out; they found me. I am not here to convince you, but I will say that for me it's about the music, not the jewelry. I am into HiFi because it helps me enjoy my true love, what comes out of a HiFi.
Unlike my friend, I do not equate price with value. They are not, and usually never are, equal, regardless of the item, audio or non-audio. I have never, and probably never will, own a new car. I prefer used vehicles, and not only because they are cheaper. I find them infinitely more interesting.
If a willow stick painted with aluminum paint from the dollar store sounds good to me as a loudspeaker cable, I'm going to say I like it. It's that simple.
And I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of High End Audio. It's about recognizing that we are at a primitive stage in the realistic re-creation of musical events, and seeking to get closer to that goal, while at the same time recognizing we must compromise because we are not infinitely wealthy, we do not know everything about anything, and do not have infinite time to devote to a hobby.
It's also about recognizing that we are not infinitely wise, and must make our decisions based on the best information each individual has available; because to wait for something better, or to ponder infinitely long about a choice, we enter the grave without buying or listening to anything.
I don't live and die by this hobby; everything I own now and everything I've ever owned is a compromise of one sort or another. i can easily live with that.
Last edited:
Johnny2Bad, got to agree with most of what you say. Been there too. Do some guys go overboard with stuff that bring them pleasure? You betcha. Is there a lot of snake oil and BS in audio? You betcha! To broad brush without listening yourself is not fair. We all have all sorts of preconceived notions - some valid and some not.
Like others here, I think bose stuff sucks too - always has (even back in the '70s - personally I think Dr Bose is deaf) ... but hey, that's my opinion ... if you like the sound buy it! Talk about snake oil (and his stuff is pretty low end). But ... if anyone thinks its easy to part $$ from a potential customer and get rich by providing snake oil and total crap - then go try to. When and if you are successful, we will dis you too!
Does a stroked chevy 350 (383) sound and run differently than a stock 350 - yep you betcha ... that is what DIY is all about guys. Since we typically know about stuff, how it works, and how to build it, we can take some rather common parts and turn it into a stroker that blows the doors off the stock unit costing many times more. (hey if you don't understand the analogy - that's OK as it is for car guys). Always loved the looks of 'vet, camaro, and 'tang guys I blew away! As an old friend who puts SBC V8s in Corvairs told me ... 'you can only imagine what the guy told his buddies about the Corvair that blew his $100k Maseratti away'. I guess some here would say that Maserati is snake oil and the guy that bought it was a fool. I'd bet the guys that built it would disagree. I'm sure that my old friend would disagree too (as the Corvair only wants to go straight).
Can you tell the difference between a Steinway and some no-name upright? Hope so or you might be in the wrong place. But without seeing it do you know it is a Steinway or is it a Yahama? How about between the baby, full, and concert versions? I'd bet a lot can't without seeing it. Depending upon what is playing and by whom - I bet a lot would say one sounds better than the other without seeing it, and I'd bet some would say the no-name is the best of the bunch - in any case, who is right and who is wrong? If you are happy with the no-name, then fine ... buy it.
For anyone to say that test instruments can tell me what sound better is total crap! Hey, I'm a real electronic engineer - I know how this stuff works. Tell me guys, can a test instrument tell me what looks better? Say the actual Mona Lisa compared to a fine digital re-touch by computer jpg of the same? My bet is the test instruments would pronounce less noise, less distortion, etc from the jpg ... do you think that your hearing is somehow different that your eyes? Nope ... so much of it is perception! Along the same line: there are some pretty good fakes of Mona that have fooled a lot. Question then, which one would look better to you? Could you pick out the fake?
Can anyone explain what 'flat' is based upon what electronic transducers compared to your ears? Is the mic / electronics / speaker this is claimed to be 'flat' actually so? It is IF test equipment, transducers, can actually measure what your perception is. I'm saying they can not do so - just as the example above.
So, can this old timer 'listen' to mp3s ... no way ... sounds like chalk on a board to me. I do hear them all the time, but listen - NO. CDs are better, but generally not so listenable on their own ... I guess that is why I like SE valves in my amps. May not be to you liking, but that's OK too. Its a big world with lots of technology - take your pick based upon what you perceive.
The issue is enjoy the hobby. The ability to do stuff that mere mortals that don't know what side of a soldering iron to hold, is a true Blessing. You can enjoy stuff that their wallets couldn't touch ... no matter what the price ... because you DIY'd it!
Like others here, I think bose stuff sucks too - always has (even back in the '70s - personally I think Dr Bose is deaf) ... but hey, that's my opinion ... if you like the sound buy it! Talk about snake oil (and his stuff is pretty low end). But ... if anyone thinks its easy to part $$ from a potential customer and get rich by providing snake oil and total crap - then go try to. When and if you are successful, we will dis you too!
Does a stroked chevy 350 (383) sound and run differently than a stock 350 - yep you betcha ... that is what DIY is all about guys. Since we typically know about stuff, how it works, and how to build it, we can take some rather common parts and turn it into a stroker that blows the doors off the stock unit costing many times more. (hey if you don't understand the analogy - that's OK as it is for car guys). Always loved the looks of 'vet, camaro, and 'tang guys I blew away! As an old friend who puts SBC V8s in Corvairs told me ... 'you can only imagine what the guy told his buddies about the Corvair that blew his $100k Maseratti away'. I guess some here would say that Maserati is snake oil and the guy that bought it was a fool. I'd bet the guys that built it would disagree. I'm sure that my old friend would disagree too (as the Corvair only wants to go straight).
Can you tell the difference between a Steinway and some no-name upright? Hope so or you might be in the wrong place. But without seeing it do you know it is a Steinway or is it a Yahama? How about between the baby, full, and concert versions? I'd bet a lot can't without seeing it. Depending upon what is playing and by whom - I bet a lot would say one sounds better than the other without seeing it, and I'd bet some would say the no-name is the best of the bunch - in any case, who is right and who is wrong? If you are happy with the no-name, then fine ... buy it.
For anyone to say that test instruments can tell me what sound better is total crap! Hey, I'm a real electronic engineer - I know how this stuff works. Tell me guys, can a test instrument tell me what looks better? Say the actual Mona Lisa compared to a fine digital re-touch by computer jpg of the same? My bet is the test instruments would pronounce less noise, less distortion, etc from the jpg ... do you think that your hearing is somehow different that your eyes? Nope ... so much of it is perception! Along the same line: there are some pretty good fakes of Mona that have fooled a lot. Question then, which one would look better to you? Could you pick out the fake?
Can anyone explain what 'flat' is based upon what electronic transducers compared to your ears? Is the mic / electronics / speaker this is claimed to be 'flat' actually so? It is IF test equipment, transducers, can actually measure what your perception is. I'm saying they can not do so - just as the example above.
So, can this old timer 'listen' to mp3s ... no way ... sounds like chalk on a board to me. I do hear them all the time, but listen - NO. CDs are better, but generally not so listenable on their own ... I guess that is why I like SE valves in my amps. May not be to you liking, but that's OK too. Its a big world with lots of technology - take your pick based upon what you perceive.
The issue is enjoy the hobby. The ability to do stuff that mere mortals that don't know what side of a soldering iron to hold, is a true Blessing. You can enjoy stuff that their wallets couldn't touch ... no matter what the price ... because you DIY'd it!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.