Why? I worked in programming and we always started with the requirement.
What do you intend to do with your non zero listening experience value?
I ask because it's clear now that I've misunderstood...
Again the structured engineering process steps in.
A problem is addressed by creating a requirement, from there a feasibility study into how would the problem be solved using existing technology that can be adapted or having to create a new technology.
For instance, the Russians are listening in on our phone lines we need to put a stop to it (a requirement). Lets assume an existing technology is frequency hopping. The feasibility study would ask how will we do it and do they have a counter for this? It is a long process to actually get to the solution and the design of whatever product, methodology or thing is created eventually.
Now let us examine the task at hand, how do we interpret a system sound quality by only listening if it is good or bad or somewhere in-between. A feasibility study may delve into different approaches but, it is limited to using the human ear, besides it must also induce a conscious neutralising of any subjectivity.
Well that seems a tough one but can be done, maybe through a process of brain washing so that subjective or perceived things are processed by the brain in an ordered and systematically way to neutralise these variables in order that it is free from well being, emotion, prejudice, diversity, cultural, sex, intelligence, education or any impediment affecting the outcome....
A problem is addressed by creating a requirement, from there a feasibility study into how would the problem be solved using existing technology that can be adapted or having to create a new technology.
For instance, the Russians are listening in on our phone lines we need to put a stop to it (a requirement). Lets assume an existing technology is frequency hopping. The feasibility study would ask how will we do it and do they have a counter for this? It is a long process to actually get to the solution and the design of whatever product, methodology or thing is created eventually.
Now let us examine the task at hand, how do we interpret a system sound quality by only listening if it is good or bad or somewhere in-between. A feasibility study may delve into different approaches but, it is limited to using the human ear, besides it must also induce a conscious neutralising of any subjectivity.
Well that seems a tough one but can be done, maybe through a process of brain washing so that subjective or perceived things are processed by the brain in an ordered and systematically way to neutralise these variables in order that it is free from well being, emotion, prejudice, diversity, cultural, sex, intelligence, education or any impediment affecting the outcome....
Last edited:
Ok, bluntly, why do we even care about system or sound quality?
My answer would be to maximise listening enjoyment with as few false steps or cost along the way to arriving at a system that fulfills that specific objective.
My answer is the requirement. How we meet it may or may not be engineering, social or otherwise. But clearly it's going to be like an iceberg, mostly common characteristics, capped by stuff that basically matters to the individual.
Or not 😉
My answer would be to maximise listening enjoyment with as few false steps or cost along the way to arriving at a system that fulfills that specific objective.
My answer is the requirement. How we meet it may or may not be engineering, social or otherwise. But clearly it's going to be like an iceberg, mostly common characteristics, capped by stuff that basically matters to the individual.
Or not 😉
Actually, you don't make yourself clear at all.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Or how it relates to the Cashmere example you gave that was the point of my response.
And yet, when those same engineers, the ones who design the equipment you use and enjoy, tell you that certain things are possible and other things are not, you choose to ignore them and make up your own version of things in the hope that someday it will become true.
We hear the same old story over and over again. The engineers don't know everything. Just enough to get thing started, but we the non-engineer listeners have better ears than all those fancy, high-precision instruments that the engineers use to measure things. So, forget the measurements and trust our ears instead. We know what we hear despite the fact that no one can find it.
Last edited:
Perhaps you could take the time to read and understand the post.
And to be clear, diyAudio would not be what it is without the generosity of those who understand more engineering than the rest of us. Whether currently employed as engineers or not, their understanding helps those of us who want to diy an Audio device worth taking the time to do.
I'm beginning to understand why the most knowledgeable people are so often economical with their words.
Maybe you could give me the time I need if you only realized the amount of words and concepts that have been written by many people, while I am just me and I have to deal, if you allow me, also with the so-called real life.
Be patient and give me time and, please, do not appear so arrogant and surly, here we are exchanging opinions not waging a holy war, okay?
You replied to my post and I assumed that meant you'd read it. I was just responding. Noone's in a hurry. Don't worry. Take your time.
The news from the EU we get here sounds like things are pretty tough in many places there. Wishing you all the best, wherever you might be.
The news from the EU we get here sounds like things are pretty tough in many places there. Wishing you all the best, wherever you might be.
Please note tha you made this up completely from nothing just because I have never written anything similar and I have not even seen here or elsewhere what you describe written by anyone else.
What you really do not want to realize with your stubborn polemic is the fact that what you describe simply does not exist if not in your mind.
It seems to me that you use the same polemic in any thread and with any topic.
See, I studied engineering (mechanical) at the Polytechnic of my city, but then I was unable to graduate for family reasons.
In my extended family there is more than one engineer (electrical, civil, mechanical).
You will understand well that I do not have and could not even if I wanted to have anything against engineers.
If I am not mistaken, you once told me that you are an Engineer, but allow me to say that in addition to being an engineer you are also very polemical, in fact you are polemical to the bitter end.
And in this thread no one needs so much polemical.
I repeat that this is not an Engineering Forum, simply because it is true and I do not understand why you show off as offended.
I repeat that this forum is an Audio forum and that Audio implies listening and there is no escape from this.
I have always said that engineers and listeners should go hand in hand and frankly I am tired of arguing (but this is not a real arguing with your replies) this way in The Lounge.
Last edited:
Many electronics "engineers" claim that they measure audio visibly. It may well be that they have not even visibly measured a single tone: a frequency complex that is distinct from before and after, and neighboring tones;-) It may well be that they do not even fulfill the simplest engineering condition: to measure what is to measure;-)
Could it be that many only claim to have some kind of academic and scientific or engineering training?
Could it be that many only claim to have some kind of academic and scientific or engineering training?
Don't paint engineering with a broad brush because you have no understanding of the profession. I it is unfair We do measure things because we have to comply with a set specification and proof of concept while developing (see I skipped design) a product, whatever it may be. I think the word designing would better fit an architect.
Besides how do you measure a single tone visibly, with a ruler?
"a frequency complex" what does that mean, it is not even a term used anywhere. Before and after, and neighbouring tones"
Good grief where does this rubbish fit in? Mr cumbb, I think these are the most idiotic things that I have read in this forum. I have lost all faith in your abilities, whatever you thought they were. Your statements are unfounded and just plain nonsense..
Besides how do you measure a single tone visibly, with a ruler?
"a frequency complex" what does that mean, it is not even a term used anywhere. Before and after, and neighbouring tones"
Good grief where does this rubbish fit in? Mr cumbb, I think these are the most idiotic things that I have read in this forum. I have lost all faith in your abilities, whatever you thought they were. Your statements are unfounded and just plain nonsense..
I know the @Mooly MOSFET is going to work to specification, be stable, safe, handle various loads and continue to run for years because it was carefully designed and measured.
I have some confidence I'll like the sound it makes because a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum have said that it's a 'keeper'. But obviously that conclusion will only be confirmed when I've finished building it.
There's a need for both objective and subjective assessment. Neither supercedes or replaces the other.
What we need it a more ordered and reproducible way of recording a subjective opinion.
I have some confidence I'll like the sound it makes because a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum have said that it's a 'keeper'. But obviously that conclusion will only be confirmed when I've finished building it.
There's a need for both objective and subjective assessment. Neither supercedes or replaces the other.
What we need it a more ordered and reproducible way of recording a subjective opinion.
Logon,
I was responding to your earlier post in which you said,
"Yes, but this is not an Engineering Forum.
This is an Audio Forum."
The point is that you cannot separate the two. Without the requisite engineering there would be NO audio.
So, it is perfectly reasonable, in fact quite necessary, to include discussing the basics that underly the reproduction of sound in the home, i.e., the engineering.
Me too.
In fact, after many years, I have learned to do it also with reviews of audio equipment pieces.
Once I have identified not only the intellectual honesty of the reviewer, but also his vocabulary, it is never too difficult to understand how the description of that device would have been able to fit into my system.
Then I try it to confirm the above, and it worked pretty much practically every time.
My vision is that the sound that comes out of a system is not that complex in the end, as I have already said several times, at the end of the day it is about highs, mids and lows.
Obviously I am simplifying as much as possible for reasons of expediency and description.
Just as an example, if I have a system that is a bit unbalanced on the highs that are also a bit dry, I will never buy a device that is described as having dry and tiring highs and in evidence.
Everyone recognizes a sound of that type, if they are not prejudiced, if they are healthy and have no economic or other interests.
Putting together several simple parts you can arrive at the creation of a system that sounds averagely satisfactory and without too many defects.
And this is absolutely possible.
Thank you for your constructive contribution that coming from an experienced member and with many other qualities that I will not mention so as not to embarrass you, it acquires an even more important value.
Thank you.
I've always thought exactly the same thing about @Mooly's amp.
And I totally agree with what you said as well.
Thank you again, also for your ability to summarize.
Yes, I share your point of view, although I would not remove those posts not only because it would be impossible (!) to do so, but also unfair given that anyone has the right to have any type of opinion, if he doesn't stalk.
Also because I do not seek universal suffrage, but simply to establish a right: that the description and sharing of personal listening experiences are not so personal as to not be reliable, provided that those few necessary requirements are respected (honesty, not economic interests, adequate experience, etc) that in one way or another almost all of us have here in the forum and elsewhere, except for the expected exceptions of those who are not healthy or have poor descriptive skills.
Even though your comment wasn't directed at me, I completely agree with you and your analysis here too.
So, goal for the thread is to find some ways to discuss about this subjective stuff at some meaningful way, right?
That's achievable if people can relate to each other, have something in common and know how the discussion relates to it. At least one of the participants need to understand this to conduct the discussion in a meaningful way. Otherwise it's just noise, no-one understanding what anyone is talking about. So the goal is actually to find some common grounds for discussions to work out better. Not just the topic title, but the discussion itself.
And there is many levels to all this. If someone has no understanding of a phenomenon under discussion, and no prior knowledge they could relate it to, it is very hard to get any hold on to it. They would participate from their own perspective, no-one else understanding it because looking from theirs and it's noise.
Thus, there has to be discussion on many levels, basic stuff at start and with experience there is possibility to meaningfully participate on more advanced topics, right? And the experience of each individual on the Internets is something that is hidden by default, anyone could fake anything.
For example discussing about the sound quality, most often there is no knowledge how much experience people have on listening because most people don't know even what is their own listening skill is so there is not even a chance to connect with anyone. Sometimes there is someone whose posts include enough context so you can relate to them a bit, someone who seems to have similar thoughts, likely has similar listening experience or at least is currently interested on things one is familiar with. Now there is remote chance to have some meaningful discussion between the two, but everyone else are still outsiders and contribute to noise, which makes it harder to everyone.
Good example, as I'm into speaker building good frequency balance is about one of the most important things for good sound as you say logon, and it is so obvious and relatively easy to get right it is the baseline to all discussion for me by default. But, I have to understand it's my level and I have to make effort to successfully discuss at any other level. I have to see the context of people I'm interacting with, try and get to same level to have meaningful conversation, right? It takes some effort.
We cannot expect anyone would reveal anything about them selves on the Internet, or use any effort. I think everyone are much more likely to hide it than be open about it simply because it takes less energy to not write long posts 😉 occasionally people reveal something by accident and in long run some kind of mutual understanding can emerge.
So, all we can do to better the discussion is try to be as open as possible ourselves and our experience and about the context so that many people could have chance to relate. Basically all we can do is try to reduce noise for the part we can.
Well, long posts might seem noise though, so not sure if that helps either 😀 It's the Internets. For meaningful discussion, have it face to face.
That's achievable if people can relate to each other, have something in common and know how the discussion relates to it. At least one of the participants need to understand this to conduct the discussion in a meaningful way. Otherwise it's just noise, no-one understanding what anyone is talking about. So the goal is actually to find some common grounds for discussions to work out better. Not just the topic title, but the discussion itself.
And there is many levels to all this. If someone has no understanding of a phenomenon under discussion, and no prior knowledge they could relate it to, it is very hard to get any hold on to it. They would participate from their own perspective, no-one else understanding it because looking from theirs and it's noise.
Thus, there has to be discussion on many levels, basic stuff at start and with experience there is possibility to meaningfully participate on more advanced topics, right? And the experience of each individual on the Internets is something that is hidden by default, anyone could fake anything.
For example discussing about the sound quality, most often there is no knowledge how much experience people have on listening because most people don't know even what is their own listening skill is so there is not even a chance to connect with anyone. Sometimes there is someone whose posts include enough context so you can relate to them a bit, someone who seems to have similar thoughts, likely has similar listening experience or at least is currently interested on things one is familiar with. Now there is remote chance to have some meaningful discussion between the two, but everyone else are still outsiders and contribute to noise, which makes it harder to everyone.
Good example, as I'm into speaker building good frequency balance is about one of the most important things for good sound as you say logon, and it is so obvious and relatively easy to get right it is the baseline to all discussion for me by default. But, I have to understand it's my level and I have to make effort to successfully discuss at any other level. I have to see the context of people I'm interacting with, try and get to same level to have meaningful conversation, right? It takes some effort.
We cannot expect anyone would reveal anything about them selves on the Internet, or use any effort. I think everyone are much more likely to hide it than be open about it simply because it takes less energy to not write long posts 😉 occasionally people reveal something by accident and in long run some kind of mutual understanding can emerge.
So, all we can do to better the discussion is try to be as open as possible ourselves and our experience and about the context so that many people could have chance to relate. Basically all we can do is try to reduce noise for the part we can.
Well, long posts might seem noise though, so not sure if that helps either 😀 It's the Internets. For meaningful discussion, have it face to face.
Last edited:
I really liked your analysis except for the mention of "good sound quality" (and no, in your case too, I haven't gotten around to reading some of your previous posts).
Not because it was wrong, but because in my view it's still too early for that.
What I mean is that at this stage of the process (of establishing the sacrosanct right to description and shareability of personal listening experiences) thinking of being able to say "good, bad or average sound" would be more relevant to one's personal preferences and therefore, at least in this first stage, I would set it aside for possibly better times.
Right now what I would pay more attention to instead is the description of the three main frequency ranges (high, mid, bass) should be reproduced for a most generally accepted idea of Hi-Fi, that's high fidelity in sound reproduction of a recorded track, but I don't know exactly how yet...
However, thank you for your appreciated contribution.
@tmuikku
You mention noise so many times it made me revisit my research in ECCCM. Why don't we listen to White Noise to define system sound characteristics. It is a standard, there is no input deviating because of recording deficiencies it is generated by a noise source.By listening to white noise while swapping between two (identical) speakers on my desk using white noise, each speaker lacked or added something different that is very audible. The noise changes "pitch" even by only slightly changing the tone controls. I can tell when the response is flat without measuring or looking at the control settings. One speaker after inspection revealed a small indentation in the tweeter suspension. I have no idea where or when this happened as these speakers are 50 years old.
With white noise, the brain is not processing it emotionally, like music or single tones. There is zero distortion in the signal source. I find it pleasant and relaxing. I wonder why people prefer to live by the sea and not in a city or even a desert.
Also keep in mind to mask discrepancies and distortion on recorded medium, they dither (add noise). Maybe that is why LPs sound better than CDs because there is no dither used in LPs besides the odd click or pop.
This is not what I think, but know as fact that military comms (maybe cell phones as well) when it is unintelligible, evidence proved that raising the noise floor improves intelligibility.
Please note that I've never (I repeat, never) mentioned "noise" in this thread.
And now that I think about it, not in any other thread either.
However, I still found interesting your comment.
Hi Nico Ras,
Noise on my previous post pointed that text and discussion becomes noise, when there is no common context but every post (person) talks things from their own perspective with realizing it, and if no-one thinks or understands about each other perspectives and context the discussion is noise, not meaningful to anyone. Noise would reduce if the understanding increases during the discussion. For less experienced it's hard to notice what in a discussion is noise and what is relevant (to their own context).
Same for judging audio quality: do you know what you are perceiving? Can you understand what the perception consists of? If there is no sufficient understanding one might say that "good sound is due to brand x amplifier" when it likely has very little to do with the sound, because sound is no just the amplifier but million things together, including your own brain processing it all. Simply changing listening postion changes the perceived sound and without understanding that this might affect the perception it's tough to say anything meaningful about it.
And yeah I also talk about noise on listening tests on other topics yes 🙂 Noise is good on some tests as it is purely synthetic with full spectrum, no spatial information in it. Associate your movement to the sound and it's easy to hear interference change for example, it's easy to perceive the noise changes and with logic one can reason something about it, like turning your head changes the treble so it's likely head masking related. Now you have piece of understanding of your perception.
Also, if you think about it everything in the playback chain that has it's own sound, that does not relate to the music, contributes to noise of the system = something that is not the signal but kinda in between. Resonances, non-linear distortion, early reflections, jitter, you name it, are sounds of the system and not sound of the music, which means it's noise.
Noise on my previous post pointed that text and discussion becomes noise, when there is no common context but every post (person) talks things from their own perspective with realizing it, and if no-one thinks or understands about each other perspectives and context the discussion is noise, not meaningful to anyone. Noise would reduce if the understanding increases during the discussion. For less experienced it's hard to notice what in a discussion is noise and what is relevant (to their own context).
Same for judging audio quality: do you know what you are perceiving? Can you understand what the perception consists of? If there is no sufficient understanding one might say that "good sound is due to brand x amplifier" when it likely has very little to do with the sound, because sound is no just the amplifier but million things together, including your own brain processing it all. Simply changing listening postion changes the perceived sound and without understanding that this might affect the perception it's tough to say anything meaningful about it.
And yeah I also talk about noise on listening tests on other topics yes 🙂 Noise is good on some tests as it is purely synthetic with full spectrum, no spatial information in it. Associate your movement to the sound and it's easy to hear interference change for example, it's easy to perceive the noise changes and with logic one can reason something about it, like turning your head changes the treble so it's likely head masking related. Now you have piece of understanding of your perception.
Also, if you think about it everything in the playback chain that has it's own sound, that does not relate to the music, contributes to noise of the system = something that is not the signal but kinda in between. Resonances, non-linear distortion, early reflections, jitter, you name it, are sounds of the system and not sound of the music, which means it's noise.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.