I really don't know the correct place for this thread?
Just when a thread was getting interesting & about to have a breakthrough it was closed down http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/170972-modifying-usb-cable-supply-5v-11.html#post2265766
Sy, I believe, was going to post plots of analogue outs clearly showing jitter, sound stage, instrument timbre, sonic tails & all the things we audio freaks crave.
He claims that anything that can be heard is measurable so I'm presuming he either has these measurements & can produce them or he has never heard the effects of which I speak.
Maybe he can produce them here & others can give their measured opinion as to heard Vs measurements?
Just when a thread was getting interesting & about to have a breakthrough it was closed down http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/170972-modifying-usb-cable-supply-5v-11.html#post2265766
Sy, I believe, was going to post plots of analogue outs clearly showing jitter, sound stage, instrument timbre, sonic tails & all the things we audio freaks crave.
He claims that anything that can be heard is measurable so I'm presuming he either has these measurements & can produce them or he has never heard the effects of which I speak.
Maybe he can produce them here & others can give their measured opinion as to heard Vs measurements?
Last edited:
IMO, any signal defect that can be heard is measurable. IOW, if by signal you mean the time vs voltage characteristics measured on a wire, say between the input and output of an amplifier, there's no mystery there. More sensitive or more accurate instruments aren't going to reveal anything we don't already know.
Now, once you get into transducers and enter the 3-dimensional airspace, the ear and the brain, things get way complicated. We still have pretty good measurement capability, and more is known about perception than is sometimes acknowledged, but the number of variables seems huge and I don't think predicting how the brain will interpret them is very far along.
So, the electrical journey is well understood, but don't make the mistake of thinking that "best" sound is necessarily perfect reproduction, where noise and distortions have been reduced to zero. The acoustic journey is way complicated, transducers are far from perfect and even though we can measure the defects, you and I might prefer entirely different designs. Thus, the audio hobby will happily continue.
Now, once you get into transducers and enter the 3-dimensional airspace, the ear and the brain, things get way complicated. We still have pretty good measurement capability, and more is known about perception than is sometimes acknowledged, but the number of variables seems huge and I don't think predicting how the brain will interpret them is very far along.
So, the electrical journey is well understood, but don't make the mistake of thinking that "best" sound is necessarily perfect reproduction, where noise and distortions have been reduced to zero. The acoustic journey is way complicated, transducers are far from perfect and even though we can measure the defects, you and I might prefer entirely different designs. Thus, the audio hobby will happily continue.
Thanks Conrad, for your considered reply - I pretty much agree with what you say & don't believe for a moment that low distortion = best sound! it's well known that the ears introduce 2nd order distortion & who knows how the ear/brain interface behaves?
I was specifically asking about audible characteristics in the sound like sound stage, timbre, instrument tails & decay, etc.
Some people (SY & others) claim that anything that can be heard is measurable - what do you think?
I'm waiting for SY to produce the analogue plots that show this & I've been asking for a while now but so far no show!
I was specifically asking about audible characteristics in the sound like sound stage, timbre, instrument tails & decay, etc.
Some people (SY & others) claim that anything that can be heard is measurable - what do you think?
I'm waiting for SY to produce the analogue plots that show this & I've been asking for a while now but so far no show!
actually you have the presumption backwards - we can measure many types of signal distortion, frequency response, phase, and jitter effects on the analog signal - the issue is getting any reliable evidence of audibility thresholds in controlled perceptual testing
grab a handful of audiophile subjectivist speculations with "night and day differences" which seem to largely disappear under controlled testing with blinding protocols and then claim "you can't measure it" – seems to be begging the big question
as long as the "Golden Eared" refuse to use even basic controls that the rest of the world uses when turning human perceptual responses into reproducible data that can validate theoretical models and give quantifiable predictions there won’t be advances in measurement correlation with audibility
it is not that the problem of perceptual testing is too hard – the development of losey perceptual encoders that can “throw out” >75% of the Shannon-Hartley “channel information capacity” with vanishingly few able to detect the difference for the majority of music shows audio perceptual testing can give significant results
It's not my presumption, JCX, it's SY's - he claims that anything audible is measurable! I sense you disagree with this?
So can I ask you if you have ever heard an increase in sound stage? a more realistic instrument timbre? etc. If you have, have you ever measured the difference in analogue output before the increase & after? Can you show them please? Everything we hear is measurable, right? So these are measurable, correct? Show me please! Otherwise, I presume these are not yet measurable phenomena?
Now if you are going to reply that these are very subjective terms then I take it that you have never experienced such an improvement in your audio set-up?
Last edited:
Any thoughtful reply would be appreciated but I'm also interested in hearing from Sy & seeing his plots. I'm presuming you don't have these plots of analogue out showing sound stage, etc? Or I guess you would have posted them!
Can all that we hear be shown on an analogue out plot or not?
I'm going to take it from the silence & the lack of evidence to the contrary that this is proven to be a falsehood & anybody stating this in the future is also just promulgating a falsehood!
I have an open mind on this but need evidence to show that these sonic characteristics that we hear are actually evident on a plot of analogue out! If this is not the case then please stop pushing this line of needless argument & wasting everybody's time, energy & internet bandwidth!
Can all that we hear be shown on an analogue out plot or not?
I'm going to take it from the silence & the lack of evidence to the contrary that this is proven to be a falsehood & anybody stating this in the future is also just promulgating a falsehood!
I have an open mind on this but need evidence to show that these sonic characteristics that we hear are actually evident on a plot of analogue out! If this is not the case then please stop pushing this line of needless argument & wasting everybody's time, energy & internet bandwidth!
Last edited:
I didn't get the impression that that was going to happen any time soon. You and he were talking past each other rather a lot
I think as far as SY's claim goes, its a theoretical stance. In theory I also agree with him
But practically speaking he's a long way from proposing the kind of measurements which correlate with what we hear. His lexis is distortion, crosstalk, sidebands and yours is soundstage, timbre, reverberation. A bridge between the two ain't going to come from either of you methinks.For just one example, he has claimed that the differences could be seen in the output spectrum. I picked up on his claim, asking for more details, he provided the proposed acquisition length of 8192 samples. I've not received a reply to my latest question on that and I'm not holding my breath
A forlorn hope IMO.
Well, abraxalito, I believe his statement was that anything that can be heard, can be measured. I take it that he can hear differences in sound stage & timbre between different devices - if not we have a completely different frame of reference & no more discussion is needed.
I put it to him to show these differences in analogue output plots before he demands of others to show these differences. He says it's so simple! If he can't do this then his whole argument is a fabrication!
I put it to him to show these differences in analogue output plots before he demands of others to show these differences. He says it's so simple! If he can't do this then his whole argument is a fabrication!
I think that the problem is broader than merely a problem with just one side of the debate. Sure, the 'Golden Eared' don't wish to participate in DBTs - equally well the measurement inclined don't appear interested in adapting their research methods beyond DBTs.
Progress I believe can be made by those of us not affilated with either of the opposed (and seemingly entrenched, if this thread is anything to go by) camps.
Yep, I also believe that myself. But we need the right measurements, at present we simply do not have them. The kind of measurements SY's likely to suggest don't cut it.
From my relatively limited interactions with SY on this board, I'd say that's mistaken. I think he's likely to deny that things like 'sound stage' actually exist in the absence of them being measurable. So yes, you and he have completely different frames of reference and your hope of getting measurements which suit you is doomed to disappointment.
Abraxalito, I'm not in the "measurements are of no consequence" camp - I believe measurements get one to a point where it is known that a circuit performs within the boundaries expected of it. After that listening (& measurements) play a part in developing or modifying a product.
One can go rely on the ears if one has some experience because after all it is the ear/brain that is the final arbiter & is also the most exquisite of instruments.
One can go rely on the ears if one has some experience because after all it is the ear/brain that is the final arbiter & is also the most exquisite of instruments.
I completely agree (& I never thought I would with yourself as we have had differences in the past)
I'm beginning to think so too
If that's the case then I do occupy a different sonic world to him & he possibly occupies a different sonic world to a lot of people on this forum. I'm sorry for that - he's missing a lot! We better be careful of what we say here as this sort of talk seemed to get the last thread closed down!
I agree with you that what we hear (and enjoy of course) is indeed the final arbiter. But there are others - by and large the ones who talk most about measurements - who do not see audio that way. ISTM that progress is best made by harnessing the contributions of both groups, so that's my approach.
The thread topic was posed "what can measurements show/not show! - can this be agreed with - it's a question?
What is it your opinion wwenze?
Last edited:
At the risk of taking this deep into philosophy, we all occupy different (but nevertheless interlocking) worlds due to how our brains work and create our perceptions. One of the most enlightening books I have found on this issue is Walter Freeman's 'How Brains make up their Minds'. He also has an excellent website if you're not inclined to buy his book : http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/
I agree with you that what we hear (and enjoy of course) is indeed the final arbiter. But there are others - by and large the ones who talk most about measurements - who do not see audio that way. ISTM that progress is best made by harnessing the contributions of both groups, so that's my approach.
Again I agree (this can't go on
) - if measurements can tease out what we hear and help to improve the development of audio equipment as a result then bring it on but like all great science - it comes from observation of reality first & then attempts are made to measure this reality. (OK there are exceptions to this where certain phenomena are predicted based on theories & the proof looked for in the real world)AFAIK, "sound stage" has no consistent scientific definition, so it seems a bit daft to expect plots that show it. Break it down into fundamental components and then you have something that can be measured. I can't put words in Sy's mouth, but for me anything (differences) you can hear can be measured but that doesn't mean the results of the measurement will be in a format you happen to like or expect, nor can we yet say what aspect of those differences is the true parameter of interest. If you saw my recent capacitor measurements, the meaningful result is a scope screen of a bridge residual. Though I put a number on it, the picture is more revealing. I can say for certain which capacitors I don't want in my audio system, but I'd be kidding myself if I tried to describe the probable sound based on the test results. IMO, SA results are similar. I know what I don't want to see, but I'd hesitate to predict sound qualities (if any) from the plots.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.