It will always likely be the starting point.
Upon closer inspection, objectivists and subjectivists may have more in common than they like to believe...
Yes it might, but here again we have to make (subjective) choices where to start and where to stop questioning our subjective impressions, because otherwise we would end up in total nihilism and achieve nothing, because we wouldn’t know where to start at all.
In this case, I do trust my ears in that something is missing that is present (in different degrees) in non-digital amplifiers. If I feel uncertain about my impression, I can ask some colleagues that I respect. If they have the same impression, I may feel a little bit less uncertain, but I will never have any proof or certainty.
If I would adhere to the total scepticism that seems to befit some objectivists, then this lack of certainty could completely destroy my motivation to do any further investigation...
And there is nothing that you state that I wish to discourage. But ask yourself what would it take to convince you that something you perceived and therefore that you believed was real was in fact a delusion? Trusting our ears in applications such as we are discussing here - or even the beliefs of others we describe an effect to (that are potentially then the subject of bias) - can be a significant source of error.
Time envelope blurring?
Yes, we may lack the appropriate vocabulary for now, and a lot of more testing should be done here, but my impression is that time behaviour is the most important and underrated quality in audio. Measuring sine waves has brought us further, but has also limited our scope and mind-set…
Upon closer inspection, objectivists and subjectivists may have more in common than they like to believe...
Hopefully the overlap due to the uncertainty of both camps is now apparent
And there is nothing that you state that I wish to discourage. But ask yourself what would it take to convince you that something you perceived and therefore that you believed was real was in fact a delusion? Trusting our ears in applications such as we are discussing here - or even the beliefs of others we describe an effect to (that are potentially then the subject of bias) - can be a significant source of error.
Yes, it can be a significant source of error, and I have experienced this from time to time myself. If a subjectivist would deny this, he would simply be dishonest to himself.
The German expression "verschlimmbessern" comes to mind, and taking a step back is sometimes a wise thing to do.
Yet, when I make up the balance, I would be nowhere as far as I have come by accepting my senses to be a sort of rudder when riding the waves...
Last edited:
Hopefully the overlap due to the uncertainty of both camps is now apparent
Hear, hear, is what you English chaps used to say!
In this instance the ears are the only thing we can trust.....if we make a physical change and by happenstance it is perceptually ‘better’ to us....then undo the changes and it comes back to the same point repeatedly, I’m going to assume (since repeatable) it’s at least real in my little universe!
Yes, we may lack the appropriate vocabulary for now, and a lot of more testing should be done here, but my impression is that time behaviour is the most important and underrated quality in audio. Measuring sine waves has brought us further, but has also limited our scope and mind-set…
Then you refer to higher order measures such as the bispectrum? As commented previously, our perception does indeed employ the means for (at least) bispectral analysis of audio signals. And in higher order measures you might find evidence for the audibility of noise floor modulation and for phase response deviations that many reports indicate should not be audible (Ohm's Acoustical Law, for example).
Hear, hear, is what you English chaps used to say!
I am not sure if that was a mistake because your first language is not English or a very clever remark in spite of of English not being your first language. I shall assume the latter
In this instance the ears are the only thing we can trust.....if we make a physical change and by happenstance it is perceptually ‘better’ to us....then undo the changes and it comes back to the same point repeatedly, I’m going to assume (since repeatable) it’s at least real in my little universe!
Or you just continue to affirm the delusion in your mind. That process of affirmation is acutely important in the way our perceptions develop. I am not saying you are wrong, because it is what you perceive, but you would do well to also acknowledge the possibility that you are deluded in your repeated perception.
The ultimate sighted test?In this instance the ears are the only thing we can trust.....if we make a physical change and by happenstance it is perceptually ‘better’ to us....then undo the changes and it comes back to the same point repeatedly, I’m going to assume (since repeatable) it’s at least real in my little universe!
Or you just continue to affirm the delusion in your mind. That process of affirmation is acutely important in the way our perceptions develop. I am not saying you are wrong, because it is what you perceive, but you would do well to also acknowledge the possibility that you are deluded in your repeated perception.
Somewhere you just have to trust that you’ve done all in your power to verify and label your perception as a temporary reality. Otherwise, like Lucas says.....we’re in a permanent limbo.
The ultimate sighted test?
If it’s verifiable through repetition (especially if it’s the result of bumbling blindly!) then it’s real to me
Edit.......Bumbling Bob, blindly beseeching bipartisanship!
Last edited:
Somewhere you just have to trust that you’ve done all in your power to verify and label your perception as a temporary reality. Otherwise, like Lucas says.....we’re in a permanent limbo.
What's the difference between temporary reality and permanent limbo?
The use of a third loudspeaker is also an exceptional means to improve the reproduction of stereo material that is also conspicuous by its absence in many "audiophile" systems.
Please indicate in the picture below where you would like me to put the 3rd speaker.
(Not that there is anything at all wrong with the existing stereo illusion.)
Attachments
Somewhere you just have to trust that you’ve done all in your power to verify and label your perception as a temporary reality. Otherwise, like Lucas says.....we’re in a permanent limbo.
No, to reduce the chance of "limbo", you need apply an appropriate analysis that strives to remove the uncertainty in the claims.
If it’s verifiable through repetition (especially if it’s the result of bumbling blindly!) then it’s real to me
But "real to you" is not necessarily representative of reality. Nobody can doubt the veracity of your beliefs, only the certainty that you ascribe to them being representative of reality, and especially so when their perceptions differ to your own.
Please indicate in the picture below where you would like me to put the 3rd speaker.
I would suggest that you should have thought of that beforehand.
(Not that there is anything at all wrong with the existing stereo illusion.)
You cannot assert that with any certainty whatsoever until you have heard what would have been possible with an appropriately driven central third loudspeaker. And I am in a position where I can reliably inform you with a high degree of certainty that the stereo image you do experience will be comprised significantly to that you could have enjoyed had you employed such a third loudspeaker.
Does it occur to anyone else that shufflers are effects boxes, the exact thing that Scott Wurcer so strongly objects to?
If shuffler effects are okay, then how about a little 2nd harmonic if it improves the illusion?
If the room is a little dry, add a little reverb, that should be okay too...
If shuffler effects are okay, then how about a little 2nd harmonic if it improves the illusion?
If the room is a little dry, add a little reverb, that should be okay too...
And here you assume that those of us lumped into the subjective side of the venn diagram do not work on optimising the hell out of things. It's just that DACs are the least of the problem unless you are building one for fun.It’s a final frontier of sorts, quite interesting to you, me, and a handful of others.....but dismissed as hoodoo by most. Maybe just for the sake of laziness!
A common understanding of Ambience is needed here. But if you mean the feeling of the recorded space that's certainly worthwhile, but it's room, speakers and EQ (DSP or otherwise) that matter there not the DAC IMO. There are gross errors to correct (and seasoning to add)Ambience is one one of the things I find dial-able with dsp phase manipulation.......I really think the time envelope blurring is what makes digital so sterile to some, if you get all the stars and planets to align like I seem to have stumbled upon (I’ll also reference wesayso again, and not in a direct comparison to myself Bill!) It’s really quite impressive, and the interesting part is it doesn’t seem dependent on $$, just that it is correct (whatever that might be!)
Does it occur to anyone else that shufflers are effects boxes
They are absolutely NOT effects boxes! They are the tool required to compensate for well-known, well-documented, long-established problems in stereo reproduction. You might, however, regard the room response that acts to necessarily blur the defects in stereo as an effect - and I use blur in a genuine technical sense.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?