f you have time to spend , google will leads you to the scientific papers , I read some of them time ago
.
.
It’s fairly clear from your lack of any response to my recent posts that you have no intention of responding. And that’s perfectly fine. You have no obligation to do so.
However, I thought that your recent tirade on me, calling me polemic not once, not twice, but five times was rather overboard and excessive. Perhaps that adjective really fits you better than me.
But aside from anything personal, which is best to minimize, you still refuse to engage in any discussion that involves the science behind the audio we all enjoy. That’s unfortunate because it cannot lead to any meaningful conclusions regardless of how hard you try. Without the science there would be no audio.
@ Classicalfan , if by science you mean all the sciences , you are perfectly right 😉
the goal here , seems to be how we judge the sound quality , and Logon propose us skills or preferences
we maybe should start by what do we mean by "quality" , is that word meaning the same for all of us , not sure at all , far from it 😳
are our skills based on our preferences , I am afraid so , we do and learn mostly what we like the most , we are more biased than we think 😉
there might be no true answer to the initial question 😎
.
the goal here , seems to be how we judge the sound quality , and Logon propose us skills or preferences
we maybe should start by what do we mean by "quality" , is that word meaning the same for all of us , not sure at all , far from it 😳
are our skills based on our preferences , I am afraid so , we do and learn mostly what we like the most , we are more biased than we think 😉
there might be no true answer to the initial question 😎
.
Yes, I saw that .
Impatient, yes I am. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Enjoy your thread.
I think we could probably get complete, or close to it, agreement on a system that sounded really bad. It could be from high distortion, limited frequency response, background noise, or other things. But regardless of the reason most people would categorize it as bad.
Likewise, we could probably get a great deal of agreement on a system that sounded really good. Free from any distortions, having wide frequency response, etc.
What I believe Logon is suggesting is that it is possible to create a system to actually grade the sound quality of everything in between. Something that might assign a numerical value as a grade. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but that's my interpretation of his remarks. And if that is the case, I disagree that it is possible to create such a system due to the wide variety of perceptions that people employ in listening to sound.
If it "sounds better", then you are comparing two presentations. As such you can 'measure' this difference using DBLTs.
But in every DBLT, you ask 2 questions. Firstly, "Is the difference audible?" What you will find is that only some people can tell the difference. You ask ONLY these people the second question. "Which one is better?"
When you conduct DBLTs, you quickly find out who are the deaf Golden Pinnae. Invariably, they are those who hear chalk & cheese differences between different cables bla bla.
If you persevere, you may be lucky to find the REALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES between different amplifiers, digital filters etc. These are usually NOT what the deaf Golden Pinnae claim.
This allows you to investigate a "subjective" difference and turn it into a fact .. which might be, "there is no significant audible difference/preference".
Not exactly.
See, one of the advantages of a Forum over a chat is precisely this, being able to take time when you have to take care of more important things.
However, generally speaking I'm not inclined to leave things pending. 🙂
Please note that it was not my intention to hurt you in any way.
The polemical adjectives I used were and are directed at your attitude on the Forum, not at you personally.
My personal impression is that your attitude on the forum is in some cases rigid, insistent and repetitive, and I do not like it very much.
Of course, each of us is convinced of our own ideas and thinks we are right, but time often disproves current beliefs.
Engineering is nothing more than current knowledge applied to build something, I already said about engineers who have my utmost respect, I'm not minimizing at all.
Engineering is not an absolute, nor does it mean that all engineers are right just because they are engineers.
When we talk about listening we are talking about a sense, and if it makes you uncomfortable because it does not fit into a well-defined box in which you can insert a well-defined number, it is not my fault.
You should accept your discomfort and try to realize that there is much more than your engineering in the world.
I like this attitude a lot and I believe that with your help and that of other willing contributors we could at least establish the right to be able to describe one's listening experiences without being unfairly attacked by those who are still tied to old principles that have never been demonstrated.
Or by those (I'm not saying you, but someone else) who are completely unaware of what a sense is, what hearing is and how much complexity such an intent requires to be simplified.
Thank you for your appreciated reply, which we will certainly look into further.
This is completely inaccurate, and I don't recognize myself at all.
See?
This is exactly what I don't like when people argue.
You just invented something out of thin air that you then attributed to me unjustifiably because I never said anything of what you attribute to me and then you start with your answers that don't tell me anything at all because they are a "response" to your invention, not to my positions.
I don't reject the science behind the design of audio electronics at all, on the contrary I admire good designers.
But how many of them are out there?
Engineering alone is not enough to build a good-sounding device, and you know it very well.
This is also not correct.
An audio designer does not necessarily have to be an engineer.
And we have a huge proof of that right here in without going too far. 😉
Please be more flexible in our attitudes, even though I understand that we are not teenagers anymore.
Then it will be a greater pleasure for everyone. 🙂
Exactly!
That's the real point!
I've been saying it over and over again for months and months in every thread I can reiterate it in.
In my vision it's just a concept that needs to be explored constructively with everyone's ideas and points of view.
About scientific references related to anything.
In this thread I prefer not to present scientific references of any kind, because I've noticed several times that they are not useful (at all) for most people.
At least this is just my opinion.
I've noticed several times that at least in the cases I have seen, no value is attributed even to acquired scientific evidence.
What instead seems to be preferred to any other consideration are the datasheets that instead seem to be considered on a par with the sacred.
This fact has always made me "smile", because it is very significant of what one's beliefs mean and how difficult it is for many to put them to the test.
I myself took on the burden of disclosing basic scientific knowledge from the point of view of Sound Propagation and air vibration in another thread, certain of finding favorable consensus and instead I found, excluding a couple of enlightened members who I had asked to share and who shared their direct experiences without effort, the systematic application of (their own) logic.
Even as a replacement for knowledge.
I found it disconcerting and I've not yet completely come to terms with it.
Logic combined with one's own convictions seems to prevail over everything (except datasheet content), even over knowledge that is not empirical, but scientifically proven and published in scientific and university journals.
A similar fact happened when Burn-in of new equipment was discussed in yet another thread.
Okay, we all have our points of view, but if one (me) does publish a reference to an American manufacturer of audio equipment that informs customers that burn-in is useful and also presents a series of documentations I expect at least a hint of interest, if not agreement.
And instead nothing, passed over in silence.
Let's be clear, I'm not complaining at all or criticizing anyone, I wouldn't even far think of doing so, but it's a description that I want to share in order to draw a useful "lesson" from it to identify other and hopefully more useful ways of proceeding.
The maximum was reached when even the designer of that device who is one of the most appreciated designers in the world (and afaik he is not even an engineer) capable of selling his own pieces of audio equipment for five-digit bucks replied indicating a certain usefulness of burn-in there was no reaction at all from anyone, not even the OP.
And I find this at least singular, even if it is a bit disconcerting.
There is also a very present member in the Forum who is able to report tons of scientific references and references of all kinds that does not seem to obtain great results in terms of convincing anyone.
Practically almost zero results.
What it does seem is that one's own beliefs, and poorly used logic, prevail over any other type of even very authoritative reference.
Datasheets seem to be above any other documentation and considered the maximum expression of what is important here.
But of course Audio is much more.
And if it cannot be evaluated numerically it is necessary to intercept an alternative way to do it.
Because it is right to do it, and because it can be done.
Enshrining the right to describe one's listening experiences is fundamental, in my view.
Even if at the moment it seems difficult, if not almost impossible.
But a first step has been taken here, maybe.
However, it needs all our commitment and everyone's help.
In this thread I prefer not to present scientific references of any kind, because I've noticed several times that they are not useful (at all) for most people.
At least this is just my opinion.
I've noticed several times that at least in the cases I have seen, no value is attributed even to acquired scientific evidence.
What instead seems to be preferred to any other consideration are the datasheets that instead seem to be considered on a par with the sacred.
This fact has always made me "smile", because it is very significant of what one's beliefs mean and how difficult it is for many to put them to the test.
I myself took on the burden of disclosing basic scientific knowledge from the point of view of Sound Propagation and air vibration in another thread, certain of finding favorable consensus and instead I found, excluding a couple of enlightened members who I had asked to share and who shared their direct experiences without effort, the systematic application of (their own) logic.
Even as a replacement for knowledge.
I found it disconcerting and I've not yet completely come to terms with it.
Logic combined with one's own convictions seems to prevail over everything (except datasheet content), even over knowledge that is not empirical, but scientifically proven and published in scientific and university journals.
A similar fact happened when Burn-in of new equipment was discussed in yet another thread.
Okay, we all have our points of view, but if one (me) does publish a reference to an American manufacturer of audio equipment that informs customers that burn-in is useful and also presents a series of documentations I expect at least a hint of interest, if not agreement.
And instead nothing, passed over in silence.
Let's be clear, I'm not complaining at all or criticizing anyone, I wouldn't even far think of doing so, but it's a description that I want to share in order to draw a useful "lesson" from it to identify other and hopefully more useful ways of proceeding.
The maximum was reached when even the designer of that device who is one of the most appreciated designers in the world (and afaik he is not even an engineer) capable of selling his own pieces of audio equipment for five-digit bucks replied indicating a certain usefulness of burn-in there was no reaction at all from anyone, not even the OP.
And I find this at least singular, even if it is a bit disconcerting.
There is also a very present member in the Forum who is able to report tons of scientific references and references of all kinds that does not seem to obtain great results in terms of convincing anyone.
Practically almost zero results.
What it does seem is that one's own beliefs, and poorly used logic, prevail over any other type of even very authoritative reference.
Datasheets seem to be above any other documentation and considered the maximum expression of what is important here.
But of course Audio is much more.
And if it cannot be evaluated numerically it is necessary to intercept an alternative way to do it.
Because it is right to do it, and because it can be done.
Enshrining the right to describe one's listening experiences is fundamental, in my view.
Even if at the moment it seems difficult, if not almost impossible.
But a first step has been taken here, maybe.
However, it needs all our commitment and everyone's help.
Logon,
I'm very confused by your responses to my post that read:
"you can't have audio without the engineering behind it no matter how hard you try. They are clearly inseparable."
First you said that:
"This is also not correct."
And then right below that you said just the opposite:
"Exactly!
That's the real point!"
So, which is it? Do you think my statement is incorrect or do you agree with it? It can't be both ways at the same time.
I'm very confused by your responses to my post that read:
"you can't have audio without the engineering behind it no matter how hard you try. They are clearly inseparable."
First you said that:
"This is also not correct."
And then right below that you said just the opposite:
"Exactly!
That's the real point!"
So, which is it? Do you think my statement is incorrect or do you agree with it? It can't be both ways at the same time.
Sometimes natural language responses are coded numerically for statistical analysis. Maybe something like: https://www.amazon.com/Scale-Develo...p-154437934X/dp/154437934X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
People see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear.
maybe we are all very, very biased. I'm a HiFi sceptic (not to speak of High End).
I think that in our quest for 'the best sounding set' we seem severely biased
by the 'printed word', price, visual appearance of the sets, power of friends.
Blinded tests in an adequate setting would teach us a lot.
I think that in our quest for 'the best sounding set' we seem severely biased
by the 'printed word', price, visual appearance of the sets, power of friends.
Blinded tests in an adequate setting would teach us a lot.
classicalfan,
It seems true, but you didn't quote everything else about my previous post.
And this convinces me once again that I don't like to argue in this way.
Of so many words of mine you have managed to grasp only an apparent and not true contradiction, this is what an exclusively polemical answer consists of.
This pushes me once again to no longer want to answer you.
However, just for the record, please note that there is a difference.
In the first case you had written a comment in which you had attributed to me untrue comments that I never said about engineering because perhaps you wanted to discredit my reply.
In the first case I answered you that it is not true that to design an audio circuit you have to be an engineer by force, and I repeat it.
An easy example is that one of the most accredited audio designers out there and in the forum is not an engineer.
Hence my reply.
Instead the second time you say it, since the tone of your comment was very different and with an attitude that I found much more constructive I replied in a different way because generally speaking it is obvious that a good designer must have certain engineering skills, even if he were not exactly an engineer.
I replied the above just because you compelled me to do so, but I took no pleasure in doing so.
Yes, this can happen.
Most of all if/when there are interests at stake, whatever type they may be.
Hence an unfair assessment.
I would like to establish the right to be able to describe with an acceptable accuracy what one hears, without being unjustifiably attacked by detractors to the bitter end.
Let's say in a heuristic way, not aiming at an absolute result which, since it concerns the senses, would be impossible to obtain, but at a result that is acceptable with dignity that it deserves, and still apprecciable.
That's right.
So, what?
You need to listen to in order to evaluate sound quality.
If you don't have good hearing for various reasons and you are aware of it then you will necessarily have to trust the judgment of another.
But someone has to listen to that device!
Even the most hardened supporter of instrumentation at all costs will have to do it.
Transforming himself into a reliable listener.
Of course, here I'm not talking about chaos, I'm talking about an honest listener who has to meet some basic requirements already listed as good health, good hearing, detached, and positioned in the act of calmly and impartially judging a sensory fact.
Just like sommeliers, master perfumers and others already mentioned do.
They certainly are, also because if nobody listened to a designer's piece of audio equipment it would remain just a meaningless brick.
Interesting, thanks.
However, I would be more inclined to a list of adjectives because I think a numerical scale is too complicated to put into practice here.
I strongly believe in a judgment related to the highs, mids and bass at first.
I believe that these are the three basic and useful pieces of information that someone who wants to buy an audio device needs to know.
Then comes the soundstage, and then everything else that may be there.
It shouldn't be too difficult with everyone's help.
Maybe something like the attached?
Also: https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/156/1/1/3300611/History-and-variations-of-Lindsay-s-wheel-of
Also: https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/156/1/1/3300611/History-and-variations-of-Lindsay-s-wheel-of
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.