The irony is that if sound quality is defined as a human perceptional metric it's the only method possible, whether as individuals or through a statistical analysis of large groups making sound quality judgements. Instruments can't yet directly measure experienced perceptions of quality. In properly - hairy word - conducted experiments the quality judgement outliers should minimise when large groups are used but that doesn't change its roots in individual perceptual judgements.
A valid school maintains that a device which displays no measurable deviation between input to output beyond amplitude will be inaudible. Likely so. One confusion arises from assuming simply dropping this perfect device into the long, complex and imperfect chain starting from at the acoustic input to the microphone and ending at the acoustic output of the speaker results in a more accurate chain. Or that existing measurements are complete, something the Scandinavian audio iconoclasts seem determined in taking head on. Will this school - IMO again after microphone techniques fully embracing auditory research advance beyond 2 mics 2 speakers thinking - eventually yield anticipated results? Probably, but probably not in my lifetime.
So does the mains cabling ;-)
Maybe it would sound better in not just an other room - how about an other town 🙂
//
rdf wrote, “The irony is that if sound quality is defined as a human perceptional metric it's the only method possible, whether as individuals or through a statistical analysis of large groups making sound quality judgements. Instruments can't yet directly measure experienced perceptions of quality. In properly - hairy word - conducted experiments the quality judgement outliers should minimise when large groups are used but that doesn't change its roots in individual perceptual judgements.”
logical fallacy alert! Sound quality is not defined as a human perceptual metric. Audiophiles have a whole big lexicon of terms for describing sound quality. We don’t need no neurologist or perception guru. But I’ll give you a hint: There is no such thing as an absolute sound, no final destination of 100%. Sound is relative. but it’s difficult to know, impossible really, to know where one is in the overall scheme of things, compared to some things that are below your level but also the things above. 90%? 75%? 30%? 😲
logical fallacy alert! Sound quality is not defined as a human perceptual metric. Audiophiles have a whole big lexicon of terms for describing sound quality. We don’t need no neurologist or perception guru. But I’ll give you a hint: There is no such thing as an absolute sound, no final destination of 100%. Sound is relative. but it’s difficult to know, impossible really, to know where one is in the overall scheme of things, compared to some things that are below your level but also the things above. 90%? 75%? 30%? 😲
"Think about it. Things that you keep on saying infer that you are correct and that all others are incorrect. In reality, most of what you are saying is simply bias and subjectivity."
That statement itself seems to be guilty of what it claims.
The author seems to have reconsidered, and has deleted his post.
That statement itself seems to be guilty of what it claims.
The author seems to have reconsidered, and has deleted his post.
Last edited:
Thanks for the warning. Next time I'm listening to the robins out back I'll try to remember their song is 'relative' and not 'absolute'.
BTW, your description of sound quality 100% misses the point. Metrics for sound quality don't pop out thin air. Sound quality isn't a universal constant like absolute zero. It's derived by testing humans preferences. It's a metric of human auditory perception.
Last edited:
May be of interest, https://interestingengineering.com/science/how-smell-affects-the-colors-we-see
Seems that smell may influence the colours we see, i expect it will be found that it affects what we hear as well.
And where we grow up. In the city where you may well be purposly hearing less, vrs the country where the opposite can happen.
dave
Isn’t that the whole point. The HiFi is there to let you experience teh emotion of the music.
dave
Not what i'm looking for: i expect accuracy to source. If there is emotional content then it'll be there. If not... But I'am biased i know, and not an 'audiophile' at all. 😉
Nothing is absolute.
You will never hear your robins two times the same way because they themselves will never sing the same way, and sometimes you may not even recognize them.
And you youself won't be the same either.
Nor the environmental conditions.
Is it clear now why it is relative and not absolute?
Of course, I know you're talking about that single sound that was sung in that single moment and that you consider absolute, but this is just a theoretical construct that your mind produces to uselessly defend its position.
Please give us an example of absolute apart from the Supreme Being.
Please point us to a reference with scientific validity of your statement: "Sound quality is a metric of human auditory perception".
Exactly.
Edit to add definitions from Oxford Languages:
hear
1. perceive with the ear the sound made by (someone or something).
hearing
1. the faculty of perceiving sounds.
Last edited:
You only hear what your conscious mind and subconscious allows you to hear. The Schumann frequency is an excellent example of that, the great dynamic live sound was in the room all along, you just couldn’t hear it accurately or completely because something beyond your control (your conscious or subconscious was preventing it. The Schumann frequency restored something that was missing, who knows what that something is? The mind, the final frontier! 😳
Last edited:
Stereophile (and others) generally can only review what the mfrs will send them.
This is not necessarily bad, since a component can have multiple revisions, known and unknown.
Some mfrs are very reticent about their new baby, and try to insist on a particular reviewer.
Very rarely, the reviewer will buy a component for his own use, and then later review it.
The omission of a particular component from the listings really means little, unless there
was a previous negative review.
Yes and yes, double thank you.
Just to add things in the fire, few know that in physiology the senses work one at a time and listening with your eyes closed makes sense to improve the way you listen to.
I didn't look for scientific references for this because it was handed down to me from ancient knowledge that I don't know if it is scientifically accepted today, though.
Given that colour influences taste, which is also mainly smell not suprised it works the other way. I suspect in years to come they will find out we all sit somewhere on the synesthesia spectrum.
From what I am told, it can be easy to get a review that way at ASR. Not so easy at Stereophile. They can only review so many products, and getting a good review there can result in a lot of sales. Many people have products they wish could win the Stereophile review lottery. Yes, spending a lot of money on advertising may help influence the odds, but most new and or small companies can't throw that kind of money at improving their chances.
To me not getting a review there does mean something. Doesn't indicate a conspiracy or anything. It means the editor and or some reviewer doesn't think it will be of enough interest to their readers, and or the advertiser hasn't spent enough on advertising so that Stereophile feels more or less obligated to give them a review on some product. Why wouldn't an expensive optical cart and EQ be of interest to most readers? Because what's popular is magnetic. Most readers have some kind of preferences as to what they want to read about, and most have some kind of budget even if it is more than the average guy can afford. IOW Stereophile doesn't create the market, they cater to it.
Last edited:
Stereophile used to require a mfr to have certain minimum number of dealers before a review would be allowed,
for good customer support, but with direct sales and the internet that seems to have gone by the wayside.
But there are now so many audio products, that no one publication could possibly keep up with all of them,
or even all of just one mfr's product line. Not at all like it was back in the 60s and 70s.
for good customer support, but with direct sales and the internet that seems to have gone by the wayside.
But there are now so many audio products, that no one publication could possibly keep up with all of them,
or even all of just one mfr's product line. Not at all like it was back in the 60s and 70s.
Back in my 20's there was a large swath of trees filled with birds across the street from the apartments. Why did I deliberately venture into the midst of that? To hear what it sounded like, of course!
Not the chirps, but the placement of them; above, to the front, behind me, left and right in full surround all happening more or less simultaneously.
If we ever, get the opportunity like that to experience what our spatial perception can do, take it. It was audibly fascinating!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.