Trolling? Moi?
All I'm saying is that <u>listening</u> for the purpose of making judgements on the quality of the reproduction system has little value.
As was pointed out, what comes out of the recording studio may often not be a good representation of the actual performance and therefore should not be used as criteria.
As someone else said, studio equipment, home equipment and recordings are all used to evaluate each other in an endless cycle of mis-information. It's a case of the wolf watching the hen house.
The only source material that is consistently reliable is test equipment. The only measurement devices worth using is more test equipment.
When audio reproduction systems, excluding the room, can perfectly reproduce every conceivable test signal of value then the job is done and perfection has been acheived. Like I said earlier, this can be accomplished by very capable DEAF engineers. Now, with this perfect system as a reference, recordings can begin to fall properly into line. The only problem remaining will be the room.
If someone wishes to alter the characteristics of their system because of some perceived belief that the recording engineers have not done their job or to add that extra touch of bass that they have come to prefer, that's OK. This ability to twiddle one's own equipment however should ideally be avoided if used in a most often futile attempt to correct for faults in the system.
Not wishing to alter the course of this excellent thread, I repeat, as I mentioned in another thread, the bandwidth limited square wave is a test signal of much value. If the system can't duplicate it, there is something wrong with the system. Whether or not an otherwise perfect but square wave challenged system sounds inferior is not for me to say. I can only speculate.
All I'm saying is that <u>listening</u> for the purpose of making judgements on the quality of the reproduction system has little value.
As was pointed out, what comes out of the recording studio may often not be a good representation of the actual performance and therefore should not be used as criteria.
As someone else said, studio equipment, home equipment and recordings are all used to evaluate each other in an endless cycle of mis-information. It's a case of the wolf watching the hen house.
The only source material that is consistently reliable is test equipment. The only measurement devices worth using is more test equipment.
When audio reproduction systems, excluding the room, can perfectly reproduce every conceivable test signal of value then the job is done and perfection has been acheived. Like I said earlier, this can be accomplished by very capable DEAF engineers. Now, with this perfect system as a reference, recordings can begin to fall properly into line. The only problem remaining will be the room.
If someone wishes to alter the characteristics of their system because of some perceived belief that the recording engineers have not done their job or to add that extra touch of bass that they have come to prefer, that's OK. This ability to twiddle one's own equipment however should ideally be avoided if used in a most often futile attempt to correct for faults in the system.
Not wishing to alter the course of this excellent thread, I repeat, as I mentioned in another thread, the bandwidth limited square wave is a test signal of much value. If the system can't duplicate it, there is something wrong with the system. Whether or not an otherwise perfect but square wave challenged system sounds inferior is not for me to say. I can only speculate.
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
Since the only thing I value when listening to reproduced music is my own personal satisfaction, listening for the purpose of making judgements on the quality of the reproduction system has all the value in the world for me.
If your personal satisfaction in the pursuit of the enjoyment of reproduced music is based on the goal of objective perfection, fine.
But please don't attempt to assert your personal values as being somehow inherently superior to the personal values of others as you're doing here.
se
Steve:
My personal values have nothing to do with it. That's the point which I have, seemingly, failed to make with you.
What I am espousing is totally <u>impersonal</u> technical perfection. When that is achieved everyone, <i>subjectivists</i> and <i>objectivists</i> alike will be as happy as a bed of clams.
Engineering is not a subjective discipline. It's about getting things right. When this happens there will be no need to sit around, endlessly debating and trying to tweek out problems because there won't be any - not real ones anyway.
Why people continue to persue such insignificant details about the plastic wrap on caps, wire directionality, gold plated connectors, power line filtering, op-amps, etc. is beyond me. The flaws in speakers, their interface with amps and the room is many orders of magnitude more important. This is where the focus should lie.
As my mother used to tell me, "You've got to get the bull by the horns before you can start making love to it."
My personal values have nothing to do with it. That's the point which I have, seemingly, failed to make with you.
What I am espousing is totally <u>impersonal</u> technical perfection. When that is achieved everyone, <i>subjectivists</i> and <i>objectivists</i> alike will be as happy as a bed of clams.
Engineering is not a subjective discipline. It's about getting things right. When this happens there will be no need to sit around, endlessly debating and trying to tweek out problems because there won't be any - not real ones anyway.
Why people continue to persue such insignificant details about the plastic wrap on caps, wire directionality, gold plated connectors, power line filtering, op-amps, etc. is beyond me. The flaws in speakers, their interface with amps and the room is many orders of magnitude more important. This is where the focus should lie.
As my mother used to tell me, "You've got to get the bull by the horns before you can start making love to it."
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
How on earth did you reach THAT conclusion?
You erroneously presuppose that totally impersonal technical perfection results universally in totally personal subjective satisfaction.
It does not.
It may satisfy you. It may satisfy some others. But to think that it would, or worse, that it SHOULD satisfy everyone is simply absurd.
Engineering is the creative application of physics to achieve a desired result. The determination of whether something has been got "right" is not limited exclusively to some objective assessment.
This again erroneously presupposes that everyone's "problems" are the result of deviations from some objective goal of perfection. And again, this simply is not the case. If it were, no one would touch a SET tube amp with a ten-foot pole.
Objective perfection may be where YOUR focus should lie. But again, the notion that your focus has some inherent universal validity is again, absurd.
I was wondering why xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xx.
se
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
Guys, guys let's keep this calm.
Fitzpatrick is perfectly right, but only in the context of some technical perfection in the future. We can only know we have technical perfection if we can measure it. Our abiliy to measure this perfection does not exist today (i personally think i would be generous if i said we are 10% of the way there). So Bill's "technical perfection" is a science fiction right now, and we can only strive towards that goal.
So for now we might as well just enjoy our music
and use our ears as the only effective tool we have to ferret out avenues of endeavor to add to our knowledge.If Bill thinks we can measure perfection now (i don't think he actually does, he seems too smart for that), as long as he is enjoying that fantasy world, i say fine.
dave
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
I'm not arguing against perfection. I'm arguing against intolerance and the notion that everyone's SUBJECTIVE satisfaction must be predicated on OBJECTIVE perfection.
You're telling me that I should ignore my personal, subjective preferences and that my personal, subjective enjoyment and ultimately satisfaction must take a back seat to objective perfection.
In other words, you're saying that I must effectively become a slave to objective perfection as if I were some mindless, emotionless automaton. That I should simply accept the more objectively perfect even if it brings me less subjective satisfaction.
se
planet10 said:
How do you figure?
Where does this notion come from that when technical perfection is achieved, that EVERYONE will necessarily SUBJECTIVELY prefer it over everything else which may be LESS technically perfect?
Given that peoples' subjective preferences can vary by quite a wide margin, how can one logically conclude that all these peoples' preferences will all suddenly become one and the same simply by virtue of techincal perfection having been achieved?
Even now we have components which are closer to perfection than other components by quite a wide margin. So why isn't everyone using ONLY those components which are the most objectively perfect?
Let's say we reach technical perfection and subjectively, some of us prefer the less technically perfect. What then? Will be mocked and laughed at? Locked up in mental asylums? Made to wear badges in public to identify us as inferior beings?
Why do I feel like a human that's just landed on the planet Vulcan?
How do you figure?
This all just boils down to changes in air pressure versus time. We can measure changes in air pressure versus time pretty much down to the thermal noise floor of the air itself if not below. What more do you need?
se
Steve Eddy said:
This all just boils down to capturing changes in air pressure versus time at every point thru-out a 3 dimensional space, storing it perfectly, retrieving the information from storage, and then recreating these changes in air pressure in such a manner that despite the space (most likely) being different the perception by the listener is exactly the same as if he was listening to the original performance.
I don't think we are anywhere close to achieving this...
dave
Steve Eddy said:
How do you figure?
What about the price you have to pay? Usually those components are more expensive than average car. Some people still prefer to sacrifice some of that perfection and they quite satisfied with less perfect alternative. So even when we come to the point in a future when perfection would be available some people still won't be able to afford it. A few of them will be wearing badges saying:" DIY".
Sigh. How come there is never an engineer around when you need one?
You guys know better than this. As far as a reproduction scheme goes, if output = input the job is done - case closed. As Jeff G. said in the Lost World, "There are no versions of the truth."
The input is the signal source. The output is what the speaker launches. An audio reproduction system is a TOOL not a paint brush.
And yes, regardless of what Planet10 says, I do believe that all the techniques to make the measurements are available right now.
Interestingly, Steve, I find your responses becomming increasingly bizzare and defensive. You seems to be so firmly entrenched in subjectivism that the concept of input=output does not equate for you. What's the real story here?
You guys know better than this. As far as a reproduction scheme goes, if output = input the job is done - case closed. As Jeff G. said in the Lost World, "There are no versions of the truth."
The input is the signal source. The output is what the speaker launches. An audio reproduction system is a TOOL not a paint brush.
And yes, regardless of what Planet10 says, I do believe that all the techniques to make the measurements are available right now.
Interestingly, Steve, I find your responses becomming increasingly bizzare and defensive. You seems to be so firmly entrenched in subjectivism that the concept of input=output does not equate for you. What's the real story here?
Got to agree with you on that Peter. A big part of mastering a recording (depending on the music style) is coming up with a compromise mix that will work effectively for playback through a boom-box or cheap car stereo. Doing this means adding some ugly boosting of the mid-bass.Peter Daniel said:Would you rather listen to "correct" sound and torture yourself while doing that, or spice it your taste and enjoy?
"Correct" is only to the recording engineer's ears and it doesn't mean that he has the same ears as you (or should I say brain?)
I mix live music part time and I've found that mixing music is all about compromise. Sometimes you have to give up something good in order to avoid something bad. No reason why we can't undo that compromise (as much as is possible) when the reason for it doesn't apply.
I have absolutely no problem with changing the mix to match my sound systems capabilities, room characteristics and personal taste.
Phil
Actually this thread has nothing to with plastic insulation on filter caps, it is rather about the differences between how subjectivist and objectivists differ in how they perceive and take part in discussions about audio.Bill Fitzpatrick said:
Is a perfect amp possible? An op-amp can come really close (at least as far as noise, GBW and linearity are concerned). Funny that lots of people who care very passionately about audio don't like op-amps. I like op-amps, but that is mostly because for what I do they work acceptably and are easy to apply.
Perfect speakers? Not even close. The THD of most woofers can reach 10% when driven to high volumes. The comb filtering from multiple drivers reproducing the same signals mean that serious dips and null are going to happen throughout the frequency response of any multiple driver speaker system. The good news (if you can call it that) is that the room effects on a speakers response are usually so much worse that the speakers sins usually get covered up.
A perfect reproduction of any real performance is impossible with any conceivable speaker system since the real performance includes the effects of the room where the performance took place. No two or five.one speakers system, no matter how perfectly made are going to recreate the ambiance of a concert hall.
You want to approach audio perfection? Do your own binaural recordings and listen through headphones. This can really be breathtaking. I have some recordings I made this way and they have a stunning sense of actually being there in the room that no other recordings or sound system have ever come close to creating. And this is with my mid-fi (at least by audio-phile standards) portable minidisc recorder.
If I had to guess, I would bet that many of the posters to this thread so far are engineers. I have a BSEE but my day job is in designing signal processing gear not audio so I consider myself an amateur on this subject.
Being an engineer isn't about creating perfection, it's about meeting the design requirements for performance, cost, manufacturability and agency approvals while inventing as little as is humanly possible. No working engineer will claim that they are shooting for perfection in anything. Fanatics, now they are willing to try for perfection.
Phil
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
What do you need?
Of course there are! They're called <i>illusions</i>. And ANY REproduction of an actual musical event is just that; an illusion. Even that from a technically perfect audio system. A technically perfect audio system is no more a symphony orchestra playing in a particular venue than this cat that's laying down at my feet.
All a technically perfect audio system can do is provide us with a technically perfect <i>illusion</i> of some real event which has long since disappeared into the past. And that illusion is only of the AUDIO portion of that real event. Making it all the more illusory. Lacking is all of the other sensory input that would have occurred at the real event. The sights. The smells. Temperature and humidity. Etc.
It may be either, depending on the goals of the particular individual which the system is to serve. An audio reproduction system exists to serve the user, not the other way around.
The concept of input=output equates for me just fine. And I believe it's a perfectly valid approach for those individuals whose goal is one of technically perfect reproduction. But I also believe that output=subjective satisfaction in spite of technical perfection is also a perfectly valid approach for those individuals whose goals are different.
All I'm saying is that since EITHER approach is still results in an illusion, it should be left to the INDIVIDUAL to decide how they'll have their illusion served up to them. I don't attempt to promote EITHER approach as being any more valid than the other.
What you've been saying is that I can't decide for myself how I'll have my illusion served up. That I can only have my illusion served up the way YOU dictate. Any other way you claim is invalid. And that's what I take offense to.
se
Bill and Steve,
planet10 asked me to cut in as he is participant of this discussion and, as such, potentially partial. He felt the discussion between you two is becoming heated. I agree with him. Before you two were startting to peck at each other on page 4, this was one of the best discussions i have ever seen on diyAudio. I would like it to continue that way.
moderator order: stay civilized, stay away from attacking each other!
Is it possible that you two try to accept the other's POV as valid for him? The discussion has revealed so far that no universal POV exists.
I feel bad removing posts as both of you have made valid contibutions to the topic Therefore i will take the freedom to edit/blacken some of your personal and obscene remarks.
Steve,
i fully agree with Bill's point that listening alone is not valid to ensure that the audio gear in questions does what it is meant to do. I do as he does, i measure whatever i can. Just to be sure i do not fool myself, i do not compare apples and oranges. What i also do: i try to inderstadn how measuring results and subjective perception is linked.
Bill,
Steve wants his personal subjective preferences fulfilled and his personal, subjective enjoyment and ultimate satisfaction fulfilled. That is completely acceptable, me thinks.
Now you think you can cover that with engineering. But unfortunately it remains in the dark until today how the human ear/brain complex actually works and how the body (and, may i add, the soul) is connected to that too. Just observe: many audio geeks and music lovers prefer zero FB SET amps having percents of THD to flawless 0.0x% THD amplifiers with heaps of feedback. Methinks, if you start to explore how listnening works, you learn 1st how much is unknown. And if you open yourself to collecting listening experiences and judging those experiences in separate of collecting, you would possibly discover there exist perceptions to which your measurements have no link at all.
planet10 is right IMO if he thinks it is beyond our knowledges and abilities to measure 3D air pressure changes, means every point of the room simultaneosly and then drawing conclusion how this affects our subjective perception.
I would not dare to enter the slippery terrain of making universal claims. Way too early.
planet10 asked me to cut in as he is participant of this discussion and, as such, potentially partial. He felt the discussion between you two is becoming heated. I agree with him. Before you two were startting to peck at each other on page 4, this was one of the best discussions i have ever seen on diyAudio. I would like it to continue that way.
moderator order: stay civilized, stay away from attacking each other!Is it possible that you two try to accept the other's POV as valid for him? The discussion has revealed so far that no universal POV exists.
I feel bad removing posts as both of you have made valid contibutions to the topic Therefore i will take the freedom to edit/blacken some of your personal and obscene remarks.
Steve,
i fully agree with Bill's point that listening alone is not valid to ensure that the audio gear in questions does what it is meant to do. I do as he does, i measure whatever i can. Just to be sure i do not fool myself, i do not compare apples and oranges. What i also do: i try to inderstadn how measuring results and subjective perception is linked.
Bill,
Steve wants his personal subjective preferences fulfilled and his personal, subjective enjoyment and ultimate satisfaction fulfilled. That is completely acceptable, me thinks.
Now you think you can cover that with engineering. But unfortunately it remains in the dark until today how the human ear/brain complex actually works and how the body (and, may i add, the soul) is connected to that too. Just observe: many audio geeks and music lovers prefer zero FB SET amps having percents of THD to flawless 0.0x% THD amplifiers with heaps of feedback. Methinks, if you start to explore how listnening works, you learn 1st how much is unknown. And if you open yourself to collecting listening experiences and judging those experiences in separate of collecting, you would possibly discover there exist perceptions to which your measurements have no link at all.
planet10 is right IMO if he thinks it is beyond our knowledges and abilities to measure 3D air pressure changes, means every point of the room simultaneosly and then drawing conclusion how this affects our subjective perception.
I would not dare to enter the slippery terrain of making universal claims. Way too early.
Mr Pass,
agree with you wine /audio comparison.
I would like to add that wine is a matter of taste. And so are audio products. A matter of taste sonically as well as in other respects.
BTW, a friend who is a big admirer of Californian red wine invited me more than once to try out expensive ones. Those wines did never satisfy me particularly, i am a fan of balance of properties and the Californian wines were too spectacular in certain respects and weak in others, to my taste. I preferred Bordeaux wines with comparable price, i liked the balance of them better. I came to understand why he likes those spectacular Califorinian reds and i guess he meanwhile knows and accepts why i prefer the French ones.
agree with you wine /audio comparison.
I would like to add that wine is a matter of taste. And so are audio products. A matter of taste sonically as well as in other respects.
BTW, a friend who is a big admirer of Californian red wine invited me more than once to try out expensive ones. Those wines did never satisfy me particularly, i am a fan of balance of properties and the Californian wines were too spectacular in certain respects and weak in others, to my taste. I preferred Bordeaux wines with comparable price, i liked the balance of them better. I came to understand why he likes those spectacular Califorinian reds and i guess he meanwhile knows and accepts why i prefer the French ones.
dice45 said:
I never disagreed with Bill's point about subjective listening not being a valid assessment of the objective performance of a piece of audio equipment. The two are rather obviously mutually exclusive.
What I disagreed with was Bill's trying to tell me that I cannot use subjective listening as a means to determine my own subjective preferences and his subsequent assertion that the only way my subjective preferences can possibly be satisfied is by way of an objectively perfect system.
se
Steve Eddy said:
Neither you, nor anybody else for that matter have heard objectively perfect system, because one doesn't exist yet. How can you be so sure then, that this kind of system wouldn't satisfy totally all your subjective preferences and you would become slave to it, without any other preferences at all?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.