Digital, but not by the numbers - Page 43 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th April 2013, 09:54 AM   #421
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by marce View Post
electronic design is a NUMBERS based game, and digital more so than analogue design.
Indeed. And not understanding the numbers and the science leads to very bad design - not that we haven't seen some blatant examples of that, especially in "high end"...
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 02:04 PM   #422
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
No, I think most objectivists (and I am generalizing, too) claim that it is a *possibility* that your brain is fooling yourself (and I would not use the word "merely" there). That possibility should be taken into account.
On this, we agree. We absolutely should take the possibility of fooling oursleves into account. However, that would be a different thing than the reflexively dismissive mind set I too often among many (not all) of the objectivist persausion. That mind set doesn't presume to include all relevant possibilities, psychological as well as phenomenological, in an effort to explain what we claim to perceive. Rather, it presumes that the perception is faulty unless scientifically proven to be correct. While this may be proper experimentation rigor, the lack of such rigor doesn't automatically disprove some pereptual observation either.

Quote:
Absolutely. But at the same time, it would not hurt for the subjectivists to acknowledge that the human brain is rather good at fooling itself, and that there really is no way to know if you are hearing what you think you are hearing without some objective references.
I will certainly acknowledge that. However, objective measurement of human perception is problematic on many levels, particularly, for the hobbyist. Meanwhile, and this is key, the lack of such objective measurement of peception doesn't automatically prove the negative, that one is necessarily fooling oneself. I suspect that, perhaps, the lack of ready and easy to conduct objective testing of human perception (and, aural interpretation) has led some to improperly substitute objective testing of device parameters only.

Quote:
I think modern research has shown that the perceptual issues are totally normal and results of the way the brain adapts to it's environment, and have nothing to do with delusions or dishonesty.
On this, we also agree. The problems begin when some choose to reflexively decide that either dlusion or dishonesty must be behind any given reported perceptual observation unsupported by objective measurement.
__________________
Ken

Last edited by Ken Newton; 28th April 2013 at 02:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 02:43 PM   #423
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by marce View Post
Disagree, we were discussing digital and how to do that, sorry but you hear all folks is wrong.
Perceptions can be fooled, all the time....
Please see my response above to Julf.

Quote:
But digital, well I'm sorry but if you do digital design and want to do it right you have to do it by the numbers, as with any electronics design, you have to use numbers physics and maths, to think otherwise is total ignorance of the design cycle.
Your thinking is based on a critical assumption. Which is that we necessarily have complete and total understanding about which 'numbers' (the quantifiable and measurable parameters) need to be optimized for the application context of human aural perception, and how then to optimize them. You must keep in mind that we want to reproduce signals for the end objective of human listening, not simply for the satisfaction of a spectrum analyzer readout. So, for some numbers, yes, we certainly know what to optimize. However, perceptual observations still indicate that there is not universal understanding of all the relevant numbers, of all possible device parameters and exactly what it means to optimize them for human perception.

Please understand, I do not believe in audio magic. Like many others here, I have an electrical engineering background - as I feel certain does, Abraxalito. I believe that if the signal consistently sounds different, then the signal IS, somehow, different. I don't feel there is any conflict between the physical science of audio reproduction and the human perception of it. I feel the apparent conflict is due to our less than complete understanding of the relationship between the two.

Quote:
Now you'll all start waving you hands and shout at me, but it isn't gonna change the fact that electronic design is a NUMBERS based game, and digital more so than analogue design.
And before you shout and scream I am not dismissing listening tests from the design cycle, they are also an important part, but you still need to do the maths.
Funny, my response got exactly the reply I thought it would. If you read the thread you would realise we were discussing digital design and various points regarding such design to get the best results. As it did not fit the audiophile view of the world we were trolling, being dismissive etc, I do not agree, and have been party to many threads where we have discussed things from both sides of the equation to sometimes reach the same conclusion.
Of course all you subjective people often forget, and this may come as a surprise, that objectionist on this site probably listen to music....
Anyway bye bye for now.
Whether we are talking about digital design or analog makes no difference. The numbers certainly do determine our control over systems designed for either domain. No, I think the issue is, as I indicated above, whether our understanding of the relationship between the engineering numbers and human aural perception is yet full and complete. I think many subjectivists are merely saying that their perceptual observations consistently indicate otherwise. I will go further and suggest that the reason some of us having engineering educations have subjectivist sympathies is because our own perceptual observations also indicate otherwise. I hope it's obvious that the human perceptual half of an audio reproduction chain must be fully accounted for, since any audio system is ultimately intended for human perception.
__________________
Ken

Last edited by Ken Newton; 28th April 2013 at 03:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 08:17 PM   #424
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
I believe that if the signal consistently sounds different, then the signal IS, somehow, different.
And I feel that if the signal consistently sounds different, it should be trivial to prove that objectively (for example by controlled, blind ABX tests). The inability to reproduce a phenomenon under controlled conditions is a hallmark of pseudoscience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 11:43 PM   #425
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
If I were ever to do such a test with a large number of subjects, I'd throw in another variable: half of the subjects would be told they would get zero reward, compensation for going through the exercise; the other half would be told that it was a competition, the person getting the most right would get, say, $10,000 prize, and there would 2nd, 3rd, etc, prizes.

Humans being perfect test subjects, , I'm sure this would make no difference between the two groups ...
__________________
Frank "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2013, 01:15 AM   #426
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
And I feel that if the signal consistently sounds different, it should be trivial to prove that objectively (for example by controlled, blind ABX tests). The inability to reproduce a phenomenon under controlled conditions is a hallmark of pseudoscience.
The notion that measurement should be trivial assumes that you know not only every parameter that's relevant, but also the complete context under which those parameters matter, including dynamically versus time, and all with respect to the interrelated functioning of both the physical audio device and human audio perception. If you are willing to declare possession of such complete systemic knowledge, I suppose, that's your prerogative. However, then it would be my turn to be skeptical.

Meanwhile, I feel we've probably gone as far with this discussion as is useful for the time being. You can have the last word, should you wish.
__________________
Ken

Last edited by Ken Newton; 29th April 2013 at 01:20 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2013, 02:41 AM   #427
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Yeh here is that last word.

BUMP !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor White View Post
How come the same dude thinks it's ok to do an active crossover using numbers and dsp's or does he just pick and choose based on some arbitrary decision which is not based on any rational explanation ?
And since you claim to be an engineer perhaps you could explain the subjectivists acceptance of dsp's and digital filters which are only ever an approximation to their analog counterparts. How do you ever live with this conundrum or like most irrational subjectivists do you just pretend it is not an issue ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2013, 07:57 AM   #428
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I'll use my opportunity for a last word just to point out that your argumentation seems rather unrelated to what we are actually saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
The notion that measurement should be trivial
If you go back and read what I actually wrote, I did not say that *measurement* should be trivial. I said "if the signal consistently sounds different, it should be trivial to prove that objectively". Let me spell that out - if you claim that you can consistently hear a difference, then it should not be hard for you to prove that under controlled double-blind listening conditions. As I stated, the inability or unwillingness to reproduce a phenomenon under controlled conditions is a hallmark of pseudoscience.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tubes Numbers kmscouts Tubes / Valves 3 30th September 2012 05:19 AM
Confused by the numbers alexmoose Tubes / Valves 52 7th August 2006 04:06 AM
Still can't get reasonable numbers mashaffer Multi-Way 13 10th July 2006 05:55 PM
Where did these EL84 numbers come from? Sherman Tubes / Valves 2 13th June 2005 07:53 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:24 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2