That's not the point.
Here we do not want to generalize anything.
Here we want to valorize the listening experience of people with Audio experience in good health and good faith.
Not everyone, not anyone.
It is possible to do it, especially to ears trained to do so.
And it can be taught, but this is just a thread not a school.
Nevertheless it should be important for us to exchange reasonable opinions, not Manichean ones.
An impartial evaluation is not and does not want to be an absolute value, but it is a worthy and appreciable value.
On the other side of the road there is not even an absolute instrumental evaluation that is predictive of the sound of a device.
So, what?
Only thing we need is more adults! Adults who can discuss any topic in civil manner, strive to understand each other and then be helpful. People do not post stuff if everybody races to shoot them down. Subjective matters are the worst of course, as nobody needs to care about anything, everything is an opinion, free game, a shooting range. So, more adults that do not shoot stuff down first but for example say good morning first, something encouraging instead of discouraging.
Mechanisms. Also "social". Staying in a mainstream and not being able to be different, critical, i.e. not even realizing that you are not different, critical;-)
If this mainstream is also maintained...-) Stupidly gone, I mean;-)
If this mainstream is also maintained...-) Stupidly gone, I mean;-)
^yeah if I understand your post that's the norm in real life outside internets as well, haters hate. Today it's even worse, Us and Them has been really taken advantage off by social media, feeding people their own bubble to keep them activated all day long to make profits with selling their time to advertizers. Unfortunately hate and other negative emotions are more powerful than positive ones and this really pushes the whole society to a wrong direction. Just look at the show in US elections, crazy stuff.
Unfortunately this starts at young age in school, the one who doesn't afford some particular jacket or shoes, or wears their trousers differently is being targetted by others. This is some deep deep thing with humans I think, since no-one depends on each other anymore todays society, so there is less meaning for anyones life, there is possibility to try and get meaning bashing others, those who are different. If everyone were dependent on each other like in a community before human learned farming, nobody would do this, or they would be left outside the pack, possibly a death sentence. So, it takes some courage to do what one wants, and ability to ignore what others think about it. Luckily there is many people like this, but majority is not as it's easier just to follow what everyone else does and not take any personal responsibility of anything, be on autopilot.
Since participating on forums is not paid activity, but volunteer, and anonymous, there is only so many that would be adults, as adults likely have other things to do than stay on guard on forums 😀 Thus, wild west it is. Although, there is some possibility to affect the culture by behaving like adult, there is no way to force it, and no reason to. Anyone could be an example though, help to make a "better" culture.
Unfortunately this starts at young age in school, the one who doesn't afford some particular jacket or shoes, or wears their trousers differently is being targetted by others. This is some deep deep thing with humans I think, since no-one depends on each other anymore todays society, so there is less meaning for anyones life, there is possibility to try and get meaning bashing others, those who are different. If everyone were dependent on each other like in a community before human learned farming, nobody would do this, or they would be left outside the pack, possibly a death sentence. So, it takes some courage to do what one wants, and ability to ignore what others think about it. Luckily there is many people like this, but majority is not as it's easier just to follow what everyone else does and not take any personal responsibility of anything, be on autopilot.
Since participating on forums is not paid activity, but volunteer, and anonymous, there is only so many that would be adults, as adults likely have other things to do than stay on guard on forums 😀 Thus, wild west it is. Although, there is some possibility to affect the culture by behaving like adult, there is no way to force it, and no reason to. Anyone could be an example though, help to make a "better" culture.
Last edited:
Everything and everyone takes the path of least resistance;-)
It is easier to maintain the self-image as an "expert" for a lifetime than to face the fear of having to realize that this is incorrect and to sit down and practice the simplest observations/experiments;-)
I can only wish every fan of e.g. classic, for example, to start facing up to it;-) So that one day they can also enjoy classic via audio equipment;-) What ever;-)
It is easier to maintain the self-image as an "expert" for a lifetime than to face the fear of having to realize that this is incorrect and to sit down and practice the simplest observations/experiments;-)
I can only wish every fan of e.g. classic, for example, to start facing up to it;-) So that one day they can also enjoy classic via audio equipment;-) What ever;-)
Yeah it takes more effort and energy to behave than to get wild. Not calling any names, I think anyone could behave better or worse at times in this sense. Anyway, it's just the way it is and anyone could refrain participating such activity and rather try to be more on the constructive side of things, personal choise. There is only so much time on anyones life to spend on forums, so try to be effective what ever it is one wants from it. Someone might not have other activity so could get a bit lost in the forums, as it is not personal face to face thing but a screen with types on it, there is no stake, nothing to loose. Long enough and brain defaults to some deep mode, not social people mode, especially if there is lots of triggers in life like health issues or anything really, it becomes an outlet.
Being adult is not easy in real life either, just this morning yelled to my kids, for a reason, but then had to explain that when tired it's hard to behave like a responsible adult. Multiple triggers on simultaneously and it's too easy to forget that the kids need the adult, adult solutions, love and stuff like that. Yelling is not very adult behavior to kids, especially if it escalated right away. It's dumb *** behaviour, and they would rather be with a reasonable person than with a dumb ***, if communication is impossible it's just waste of time and energy. At least that's what I'm trying to teach them, don't waste your time with dumb *****, not worth it 😀 so, better stay reasonable most of the time in real life at least, there is real risk to be left alone if always repelling everyone away. Occasional outbursts are humanly though, even adults are humans.
Being adult is not easy in real life either, just this morning yelled to my kids, for a reason, but then had to explain that when tired it's hard to behave like a responsible adult. Multiple triggers on simultaneously and it's too easy to forget that the kids need the adult, adult solutions, love and stuff like that. Yelling is not very adult behavior to kids, especially if it escalated right away. It's dumb *** behaviour, and they would rather be with a reasonable person than with a dumb ***, if communication is impossible it's just waste of time and energy. At least that's what I'm trying to teach them, don't waste your time with dumb *****, not worth it 😀 so, better stay reasonable most of the time in real life at least, there is real risk to be left alone if always repelling everyone away. Occasional outbursts are humanly though, even adults are humans.
Last edited:
I suppose the intention of this thread is to ask whether audio, hifi can also be approached collectively scientifically or whether it only remains an individual science and scientificity. And I think that audio can certainly also be approached collectively, scientifically and systematically. A language of what is heard and an analysis of the causes and correlations can certainly be developed collectively. And key experiments to enable key observations and theses in the field of audio, which can be carried out individually or collectively worldwide, can also be developed and are tradable. But here you can recognize the level of education of those involved very early on. The vast majority cannot, or do not want to (?), recognize that they have to leave the field of "quantitative methods" because the topic cannot be grasped and analyzed with "quantitative methods" taught, and they MUST switch to the field of "qualitative methods" - probably because they have no scientific training at all that includes and contrasts both quanti and quali! A degree from a university does NOT guarantee the ability to be methodic or scientific! The best evidence is the past almost 5 years: complete failure of almost all "academics" in all areas;-)-;
The sovereignty of discourse does not lie with any "science" or "truth" but with the majority and believe;-)
The sovereignty of discourse does not lie with any "science" or "truth" but with the majority and believe;-)
Last edited:
Major hurdle is that the forum doesn't share perception. Even if you and me would perceive exactly same thing in our homes, we cannot effectively communicate it without sharing the same experience, same space and time basically. We could if we knew each other in real life and knew about or relative experience on things, knew something about both of our listening environments and so on.
All of it becomes much easier when two people share same space and listen together. Now the experience is shared and it's much more easier to talk about. This is what the scientific studies do, right, people would share the exact same audible experience in a listening test. Here on forum this doesn't happen, everyone listens their own stuff on their own, and there is so much variables involved it's hard to make sense what perceptual effect is due to what, why is it that you say things I don't recognize and vice versa. Even if we had exactly same dimension room with exactly same speakers, there could still be about a million differences. If nothing else our experiences differ as we are not same person but individuals. It's just a huge pile of things that makes our listening experience differ and if we do not know or understand our own context, or each others, and how they relate, the communication is just noise: everyone talking about something without knowing what others mean with their words. Almost like people were talking in different languages.
Only common thing between any of us is the auditory system we have, which is relatively similar between all individuals from evolutionary perspective. Even though hearing ability varies the underlying processes and mechanisms are the same, like localization mechanism and things like that. So, any successful communication might need to be based on auditory system, at least in some level. At least there has to be mutual understanding there is an issue with communicating this stuff so that context gets shared sufficiently enough so that participants can build some kind of relation to others and have slight chance of successful communication on the subject. Sufficient context sharing is very important, often missing.
All of it becomes much easier when two people share same space and listen together. Now the experience is shared and it's much more easier to talk about. This is what the scientific studies do, right, people would share the exact same audible experience in a listening test. Here on forum this doesn't happen, everyone listens their own stuff on their own, and there is so much variables involved it's hard to make sense what perceptual effect is due to what, why is it that you say things I don't recognize and vice versa. Even if we had exactly same dimension room with exactly same speakers, there could still be about a million differences. If nothing else our experiences differ as we are not same person but individuals. It's just a huge pile of things that makes our listening experience differ and if we do not know or understand our own context, or each others, and how they relate, the communication is just noise: everyone talking about something without knowing what others mean with their words. Almost like people were talking in different languages.
Only common thing between any of us is the auditory system we have, which is relatively similar between all individuals from evolutionary perspective. Even though hearing ability varies the underlying processes and mechanisms are the same, like localization mechanism and things like that. So, any successful communication might need to be based on auditory system, at least in some level. At least there has to be mutual understanding there is an issue with communicating this stuff so that context gets shared sufficiently enough so that participants can build some kind of relation to others and have slight chance of successful communication on the subject. Sufficient context sharing is very important, often missing.
Last edited:
Thanks for saying that.
I was just thinking, even though I was busy with other things in so-called real life, that one might even be happy to find a way to share one's listening experiences without the fear of being unjustifiably attacked by those who use logic as if it were a weapon without realizing that it destroys without any justification the little we have.
I would like more for Audio, this is why I ask for collaboration...
"It is easier to maintain the self-image as an "expert" for a lifetime than to face the fear of having to realize that this is incorrect and to sit down and practice the simplest observations/experiments;-)" 👍
I see it more simply:
A key prerequisite is speaker placement (#225). Almost anyone can do that.
This set-up also enables the practical testing of a supposedly subjective auditory impression, e.g.: does a component sound supposedly smaller, narrower, do I have to physically move the speakers apart so that the sound image becomes homogeneous again, balanced in its dimensions? If I now have to get off my butt and move around, then it is evidence of an objective fact;-) Beside - the question about the sound image size of parts does not answer with lines or numbers.
Everyone involved in the audio discourse should be familiar with these arguments and this positioning of speakers It's up to you whether you want to put your boxes somewhere in the corner at home, because the corners are there, or your hi-fi rack is 4 meters long. He should not be surprised if he does not understand many of the experiments and observations of others, so he should not participate aggressively in the discussion;-)
An important key experiment is the connection of channel-separated ("double mono") power supplies. And here would be the steps of observation and description:
1: is a change, difference audible
2: are these changes, differences in a describable framework - how do I describe them (since worldwide the language, the concept follows the observation, describes them, and it is about a contrastive, comparative description),
3. could be: What do I like more, what less;-)
to 1: And this is where it gets interesting: if 100 have tested, 80 say: difference is audible and 20 say no, then it will not be random, arbitrary. Then these 20 should ask themselves whether they should have the beans rinsed out of their ears, for example, or whether they want to be honest, in whatever respect, or others;-)
to 2: If the remaining 80 are also able to describe the differences in a contrastive, comparative way, and these descriptions can be sorted into two categories (pos. a = description x: pos. b = descr. y) (after a sufficiently precise comparison of the interpretation of the language-s), then this is also an objective finding
to 3: if 40 of these 80 say they like position 1 more, and 40 say they like pos. 2 more, then that is subjective. No problem: "preference"-)
This is a little, first initial suggestion for discussing experiments in audio. Including the suggestion of a key experiment that will orient almost the entire audio discourse. An answer whose question you didn't even ask on purpose - because you didn't know what questions to ask;-)
A key prerequisite is speaker placement (#225). Almost anyone can do that.
This set-up also enables the practical testing of a supposedly subjective auditory impression, e.g.: does a component sound supposedly smaller, narrower, do I have to physically move the speakers apart so that the sound image becomes homogeneous again, balanced in its dimensions? If I now have to get off my butt and move around, then it is evidence of an objective fact;-) Beside - the question about the sound image size of parts does not answer with lines or numbers.
Everyone involved in the audio discourse should be familiar with these arguments and this positioning of speakers It's up to you whether you want to put your boxes somewhere in the corner at home, because the corners are there, or your hi-fi rack is 4 meters long. He should not be surprised if he does not understand many of the experiments and observations of others, so he should not participate aggressively in the discussion;-)
An important key experiment is the connection of channel-separated ("double mono") power supplies. And here would be the steps of observation and description:
1: is a change, difference audible
2: are these changes, differences in a describable framework - how do I describe them (since worldwide the language, the concept follows the observation, describes them, and it is about a contrastive, comparative description),
3. could be: What do I like more, what less;-)
to 1: And this is where it gets interesting: if 100 have tested, 80 say: difference is audible and 20 say no, then it will not be random, arbitrary. Then these 20 should ask themselves whether they should have the beans rinsed out of their ears, for example, or whether they want to be honest, in whatever respect, or others;-)
to 2: If the remaining 80 are also able to describe the differences in a contrastive, comparative way, and these descriptions can be sorted into two categories (pos. a = description x: pos. b = descr. y) (after a sufficiently precise comparison of the interpretation of the language-s), then this is also an objective finding
to 3: if 40 of these 80 say they like position 1 more, and 40 say they like pos. 2 more, then that is subjective. No problem: "preference"-)
This is a little, first initial suggestion for discussing experiments in audio. Including the suggestion of a key experiment that will orient almost the entire audio discourse. An answer whose question you didn't even ask on purpose - because you didn't know what questions to ask;-)
Many thanks, I will delve deeper into your interesting proposal for experiments, but in my opinion this phase would still come later.
Because here with Audio and the sense of hearing it is as if we were starting from scratch.
I think that we need to first lay the foundations of a simple discussion with simple and easily shared indications, which over time, if it ever happens, could evolve and become even more complex.
Also because we are not looking for how to optimize your system, but how to describe it or a part of it with reasonable reliability.
Yes, this might even be partially correct, but this topic takes time...
And to go out on a limb now would distance us from something that perhaps seems to be taking shape.
It takes time and patience, since it's not an easy task.
Thank you again.
Thanks for your interesting contribution, but I don't want to get to that yet, for now it's enough for me that the description of a system or a part of it can be considered reasonably valid.
Then if we're there, we could expand the topic step by step...
Perhaps at this early stage it would be nice if we brought in some sensory analogies that are accepted in other fields and that basically use the senses rather than tools (precisely because there aren't any).
The diamond quality evaluation and rating comes to mind.
I'll look into it as soon as I can and report it here, if I remember correctly it should be fitting too.
Right now, I ask you all to contribute something like this kind of analogies, if possible.
Its not necessarily fear. Sometimes its laziness, other times it can be overconfidence (e.g. "I already know the answer so I don't have to the experiment").
The "scientific" thing is that methods work. The usual "blind test" is not necessarily "scientific".
Another thing to consider. And it doesn't necessarily have to be worked out in the course of many analysis steps either: Organisms are oscillating systems, mechanical and electrophysical. In hearing comparisons, they need a swing in time and swing out time. So please don't switch while listening! Switch off, rest for at least 10 seconds (you can, for example, change devices, reconnect them, minutes are no problem) and then continue;-)
Another thing to consider. And it doesn't necessarily have to be worked out in the course of many analysis steps either: Organisms are oscillating systems, mechanical and electrophysical. In hearing comparisons, they need a swing in time and swing out time. So please don't switch while listening! Switch off, rest for at least 10 seconds (you can, for example, change devices, reconnect them, minutes are no problem) and then continue;-)
Audio memory is not that good. Waiting minutes between comparisons render them useless. Switching while listening is essential to obtaining any meaningful results.
I'm afraid all this could lead mostly into a dead end.
"Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his "Philosophical Investigations" (1953), considered whether language could adequately describe internal experiences like color perception. He suggested that color words (like "red" or "green") are learned through public, shared experiences, but how individuals experience those colors might vary without the possibility of knowing. This relates to his larger concerns about the limits of language in expressing subjective phenomena."
"Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his "Philosophical Investigations" (1953), considered whether language could adequately describe internal experiences like color perception. He suggested that color words (like "red" or "green") are learned through public, shared experiences, but how individuals experience those colors might vary without the possibility of knowing. This relates to his larger concerns about the limits of language in expressing subjective phenomena."
What you report is not limiting, it is just a characteristic of the senses that is not limiting.
It is only not absolute.
Just as a numerical evaluation is not absolute and itdoes not predict about the quality of the sound.
But do you do it on purpose?
How many times do you want me to repeat this?
When and if you build a speaker, do you then listen to it or not?
And maybe you even modify it, listening to it again.
And what does it matter if your listening does not offer an absolute result.
Share it anyway!
Maybe you will do something pleasant to someone in your same condition.
Again, does it not have an absolute value?
And for this we should give it up?
We cannot afford it, because it is the only thing we have.
And we are mistreating it like this.
What is the aim of your contributions?
Do you think they are constructive?
No, they are not and you are also aware of it because you just wrote it.
No prediction is necessary, least of all if it is pessimistic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.