Your statement is so easy to debunk, it's embarassing.
Take a guy that swears with SE tube amps as being the best ever.
Take another guy that swears class D is the top.
You really think that when listening to the same installation/music together they will 'hear' (and judge) the same?
They will not, and the difference is perception.
May I invite you to my ignore list? Lots of interesting dudes there.
Jan
Take a guy that swears with SE tube amps as being the best ever.
Take another guy that swears class D is the top.
You really think that when listening to the same installation/music together they will 'hear' (and judge) the same?
They will not, and the difference is perception.
May I invite you to my ignore list? Lots of interesting dudes there.
Jan
You have mentioned and not described at all the word "perception" 9 times on this thread saying absolutely nothing about perception.
Maybe because you know absolutely nothing about perception?
Interesting. I listened to some of those, on headphones... I can tell what the illusion is supposed to be, but it doesn't work well for me. It's fine when the sound is left ear only, that's obvious. But central just sounds like two equal volumes, and the depth... well it just gets quieter which, I know I'm supposed to interpret that as moved away, but it's just not like real life hearing! And it's all within the headphone space.
If we could find a way to measure or categorise people's perception of the stereo soundstage illusion for the same system, I suspect they'd all be hearing very different things, but able to agree because they know what it's supposed to be. A bit like your actual perception of "red" may be very different to others, but we all agree to call it the same thing.
I've never had trouble hearing soundstage with headphones and these holophonic examples sound very real to me. Once again goes to show how differently we perceive sounds.
This is an area I have always wanted to research and have no excuse not to as I have both in ear and on ear headphones of not shabby quality. Binaural often doesn't work for me and I have been wondering if that is becuase dummy head recordings really need to be listened to with IEMs to bypass the outer ear or with a special Eq for on-ear . I really ought to check back Tyll Hertsens stereophile archive as ISTR a lot of discussion on how headphones might be EQ for most convincing performance.
timely tip for headphone users (and speakers, too),
Play a YouTube binaural beats Schumann frequency continuously on your iPad or cell phone while listening to headphones. You can put the iPad or cellphone nearby. You should notice the sound is much more open, defined, dynamic and natural sounding. And entertaining! I’ll leave it to the EEs and philosophers to explain it.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too chicken to change
here’s one,
Play a YouTube binaural beats Schumann frequency continuously on your iPad or cell phone while listening to headphones. You can put the iPad or cellphone nearby. You should notice the sound is much more open, defined, dynamic and natural sounding. And entertaining! I’ll leave it to the EEs and philosophers to explain it.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too chicken to change
here’s one,
Last edited:
It's not so easy to judge sound quality purely by perception.
Not only because people perceive differently, but also because perception is most of the time "colored" by confirmation bias and tunnel vision.
Most socalled "audiophiles" suffer from confirmation bias and tunnel vision.
It is quite easy to fool someone('s perception) by setting up blind testing in my experience.
Another example: read comparative amplifier reviews in more or less commercial magazines / webzines. Starting point is that the more expensive amplifier will sound better; it's not a conclusion after blind testing and auditioning but a starting point....totally ridiculous. Not just ridiculous by the way but also a tragical development in audio.
Not only because people perceive differently, but also because perception is most of the time "colored" by confirmation bias and tunnel vision.
Most socalled "audiophiles" suffer from confirmation bias and tunnel vision.
It is quite easy to fool someone('s perception) by setting up blind testing in my experience.
Another example: read comparative amplifier reviews in more or less commercial magazines / webzines. Starting point is that the more expensive amplifier will sound better; it's not a conclusion after blind testing and auditioning but a starting point....totally ridiculous. Not just ridiculous by the way but also a tragical development in audio.
Regarding in-ear buds, used to have a pair of Etymotic. IIRC they have a built-in EQ to compensate for average ear canal resonance. Didn't match my ear canals. Always sounded sort of like the audio was fed through a stuck wah-wah pedal. Could semi get used to it, but not entirely.
depends on the model. I lost my EQ cable down the back of the bookcase as bought them for listening on trains and planes. BUT tyll has the measurements so it is possible to use that as a starting point to adjust to taste. I am aware that some on the more rabid headphone forums are convinced you cannot enjoy headphones without a custom EQ. I'm on the fence but intrigued.
I don't skip what you call the emotional part at all - remenber i told you i'm a musician too- and i'm more than aware it can be a disturbance when you look for hard cold facts. And why i'm more in the camp of ABX ( double blind test) than sighted tests for example: let me explain: our mind play tricks on us, constantly.
It's not a posture it's true and from all our senses ( visual illusion is the easyest way to experiment it as visual take something like 90% of our attention regarding overall senses). It is true for our hearing capability too but it's at the same time more discrete and more complicated...
Have you ever heard about cocktail party effect? If not look for wikipedia's explanation please. It's way more complex than a visual morphing with pictures ( eg) but way less evident to be aware of it. In fact until we had the ability to record and replay and make direct comparison probably no one ever realised we had this capability...
If your eyes are opened you'll subconsciously read on lips... without ever noticing it...
But at the same time to be able to recognise someone's voice we only need something like 2,5 octave range ( telephone bandwidth) which is low bandwith overall... and our brain seek to give coherency over a flow of informations ( why you 'hear' words or sentence sayed when you play music backward).
It's all to be ranked into the emotional part once our brain treated the info in my view and as such should be discarded when you want meaningful results about a listening test, hence ABX or at least non sighted ones.
I totally get what you mean and it is the reason i try not to use this kind of description which does not mean anything except for the people saying them. Really that is BS. And when you work with musician into a recording or mixing session you don't want to hear about such thing outside of work! Once had a guy which wanted his sound to be more 'blue'... hmm, ok could you be more accurate please? Answer yes: pale Blue... ok go to hell! Lol.
UHH! I can tell you no as beautiful is an acquired trait ( in the sense of the innate and acquired in social science).
Then i don't have any sense as there is instruments i don't like the sound they have! Like traditional french brittany's 'bombarde' or the 'accordion' or,... and it's cultural as i'm sure you wont' find any delight in listening to Einstùrzende Neubauten '1/2 Mensch' live act which i really like the sound of the 'instruments' they used...
Lol.
If it isn't preference related what it is related too?
I never mentioned any patent. Knowledge certainly so but if i understand you right you ask me to defend the interest academical knowledge in many whole field ( physic, acoustic and electronic) could have versus someone feelings? Apologize but that do not make sense at all, not even mentioning the time it would take...
I a'm asking a question to myself: have you ever designed an electronic circuit? I mean all this is very philosophical and electronic can be ( or open doors to such thougts) but it's way more trivial than how you see things in my view: you have 'buildings blocks' ( kind of circuits) which you assemble together to reach a result.
As you say good electronic designers experimented most of this building blocks, their pro and cons, sometime have an inttimate understanding of what happen in them and how to 'improve' things or make them behave more as they want... in my experience it's most about experience but so girls/ guys have intuition which comes into play too... some people are gifted. Life is unfair.
In your world maybe. In academic and pro field we know a lot ( not all for sure) and a lot have been studyed already. But it's not availlable without seaarch about it,and sometime it's not free ( become an AES member and you'll have enough to read for 2 or 3 life only about audio study).
IF and only IF you want to make it so ( the 'mystery' i talked about. Otherwise start to learn electronic, acoustic, physic and so...
It is the creativity part of the game. What makes designer 'imprint' or 'signature'. Never read what N.Pass wrote? He clearly explain his own design philosophy and teach it too.
It'll remain a mystery if you want it to stay like it. If not you'll have to learn what a reactive load have as impact on the design of the output stage of the amp in question, if there is a passive xover in the loudspeaker what kind of interaction it'll have, etc,etc,... it's called electronic and it's very interesting field to study. Took some years to gain the knowledge but it's worth it in my view.
Mathematical model which predict pairing device error? Line level it's called 'bridging' topology ( low Z out, high Z input, garantee you freq response is not messed up and the output stage only have to generate voltage rather than current, standard in line level since 60's, at least in studio).
That's a wnole different thing than electronic. It's called marketing and a 'defect' (or the way) or economical system work.
Price of gear is in no way related to electronic and as i have tried to run a company which produced studio gear in the past i know hiw to define retail price for this kind of gear. It can be costly to produce, people can wan't to have their 'genius' rewarded or follow capitalism rule ( asked price is the max customers accept to pay). Whatever it is in no way it should be mentioned into evaluation of gear: you talked about emotional impact and this does have a huge one!
How can you be sure topology and components are all the same? It's like saying this truck have 4 wheels and a stirring wheel so it's the same as a Formula1...
Don't take me wrong i'm playing devil advocate, i can't justify the asking price compared to a chipamp... but have never heard the beast so maybe it's worth the asking price i don't know and'll never know... 🙂
It's only you who think audio is not studied. 😉 I gave starting way to do your own research, in my view i made my part, now it's yours to make your own research. 😉
And you mix things together: marketing and quality of reproduction have nothing to do together. 🙂
It's two different fields.
As well measurements are a tool amongst others to reach a goal, they don't give an answer, they evaluate some quality ( whatever they are).
This is a defect: seeking for perfection. And i can tell as i'm plagued with it ( like an OCD). This is a bad thing as it's a 'failure strategy' which end up making someone feel like he/ she is worthless...
In my case it is a symptom of my psychological profile, which happily i've been aware and it help keeping my brain relatively 'sane'.
Perfection can be bought?
Typical capitalism induced BS.
It's just a 'status statement' product in my view, one of the thing which could make you feel belonging to the 'ultimate class' in the hierarchical scale which rank your social status. Nothing to do with audio: it's like havinb a supercar, dating a supermodel, whatever...
In sociology E.Durkheim called it 'l'anomie': the will of a lower class to access and made them the social attributes of the next class in the social hierarchical ranking. You know gangsta driving Mercedes or customised Maybach... Lol!
At least how i see things.
Mark,
Slightly off topic, but reacting to your earlier positive optical cart opinion.
All optical cart’s in Stereophile are in class B, not the top but the subtop.
In the SAT, their best tested p.u. arm’s, they exclusively use expensive Lyra’s or Ortofon MC’s.
I wouldn’t say that Stereophile is the measure of all things, but it makes me wonder nevertheless what the references are that you used, cart’s and preamp’s.
Hans
Slightly off topic, but reacting to your earlier positive optical cart opinion.
All optical cart’s in Stereophile are in class B, not the top but the subtop.
In the SAT, their best tested p.u. arm’s, they exclusively use expensive Lyra’s or Ortofon MC’s.
I wouldn’t say that Stereophile is the measure of all things, but it makes me wonder nevertheless what the references are that you used, cart’s and preamp’s.
Hans
Hans,
The DS Audio phono carts in Stereophile are entry level or slightly above.
I am inclined to suspect there are a couple of things going on with the ratings:
1. Optical models are not even mid-tier in DS Audio's lineup. Even the DS-E1 was described as, "...this optical cartridge was fast and remarkably transparent." Also wondering if they find the best tonearm/head shell combination for this type of cart, or if they use whatever is best for the most expensive mag carts? More transparency in the cart may expose more problems in the other parts of the system. In fact, my friend used to use a highly rated tonearm and mag cart. When I listened to his system, I thought it must have too much 2nd order HD. Too warm to be real. He insisted there was no audible 2nd HD at all. It was when he was testing another tone arm that the false warmness was suddenly gone. The 'warm' tonearm got sold not long after that.
Also, another factor that affects DS Audio cart sound is the model of EQ box. They are quite simple NGF designs at the entry level end. They are not uncolored themselves. The custom EQ (and cart power supply) in use here was A/B compared to the DS Audio model that may go for around $10k now. Does the higher level EQ box make the entry level carts sound better? Absolutely, yes. Also, the custom EQ used here sounds better than the model above we A/B compared with. Guess I forgot to previously make clear that everyone who has listened here has heard the cart through the custom EQ box only.
2. What do you think would happen if Stereophile rated optical at the top? Loss of advertising from mag cart manufacturers? (sometimes such reality can influence ratings).
Mark
The DS Audio phono carts in Stereophile are entry level or slightly above.
I am inclined to suspect there are a couple of things going on with the ratings:
1. Optical models are not even mid-tier in DS Audio's lineup. Even the DS-E1 was described as, "...this optical cartridge was fast and remarkably transparent." Also wondering if they find the best tonearm/head shell combination for this type of cart, or if they use whatever is best for the most expensive mag carts? More transparency in the cart may expose more problems in the other parts of the system. In fact, my friend used to use a highly rated tonearm and mag cart. When I listened to his system, I thought it must have too much 2nd order HD. Too warm to be real. He insisted there was no audible 2nd HD at all. It was when he was testing another tone arm that the false warmness was suddenly gone. The 'warm' tonearm got sold not long after that.
Also, another factor that affects DS Audio cart sound is the model of EQ box. They are quite simple NGF designs at the entry level end. They are not uncolored themselves. The custom EQ (and cart power supply) in use here was A/B compared to the DS Audio model that may go for around $10k now. Does the higher level EQ box make the entry level carts sound better? Absolutely, yes. Also, the custom EQ used here sounds better than the model above we A/B compared with. Guess I forgot to previously make clear that everyone who has listened here has heard the cart through the custom EQ box only.
2. What do you think would happen if Stereophile rated optical at the top? Loss of advertising from mag cart manufacturers? (sometimes such reality can influence ratings).
Mark
Last edited:
Where I come from there is no difference between hearing and perception. That’s why it’s so difficult to distinguish subconscious influences on the sound from “ordinary” influences of things in the signal path - better speakers, better cables, better fuses, better electronics, room treatments, etc.
In the town where I come from the streets don’t stop at the edge of town. They keep going, they go to other towns and cities.
In the town where I come from the streets don’t stop at the edge of town. They keep going, they go to other towns and cities.
But wouldn't you say that hearing involves the, ehhh, hearing sense, while perception involves all 6 senses in various amounts, plus your memory, plus pressure from your ego, etc, etc.
Maybe you could say that hearing is a subset of perception?
Jan
Maybe you could say that hearing is a subset of perception?
Jan
No, I wouldn’t. What YOU hear is what YOU perceive. I perceive the web you weave. You’re making it complicated than it has to be. Just wait til we get to the chapter on Extra Sensory Perception. 😳
Try this, remove all clocks and watches from the room. Now listen to the sound again. You should be able to hear noticeably better sound. Is that your hearing or your perception?
And this, remove all cellphones, iPads etc. from the room. Do you hear the better sound? Is that your hearing or your perception?
Try this, remove all clocks and watches from the room. Now listen to the sound again. You should be able to hear noticeably better sound. Is that your hearing or your perception?
And this, remove all cellphones, iPads etc. from the room. Do you hear the better sound? Is that your hearing or your perception?
Last edited:
<pedant> There are a lot more than 6 senses. Still arguments over exactly how many but 21 seems to have a lot of support in the science community</pedant>
- Status
- Not open for further replies.