It is all the problem. This kind of study, that involves statistical studies on population samples are long, difficult to implement, imprecise by essence. Like the Fletcher & Munson curves.
And we don't even know where to begin, what to measure that is computed the same way our brains compute.
More than this, I do not see a major interest, apart to satisfy those who want numbers, proofs, evidences etc. while it is so easy to listen and judge for oneself.
And it is all the fun in this discipline. The part of art. Like in photography.
And I do not understand this obsession of some against the manufacturers, the hardware dealers and their marketing bull..t. it is everywhere in our society. Especially here, I think we are quite mature and experienced enough to balance things out without any help from others.
What else would you like us to do? Copy distortion numbers? We all know how to read, I think, and we all think that 0.001% of errors is better than 0.1%.
Yes. Science just can explain a little part of the way things are working in our known univers, nothing more. This part is growing with its progress. The people that makes this progress are the contrary of believers, full of doubt, never satisfied, always curious to observe and explain. Ask Enstein a proof of his theorry !!!!
it is accepted just because it works.
Verification is done a posteriori. Not to priori.
Last edited:
Baseline of scientifc work beside mathematics/logic. Whenever you leave an axiomatic framework you´ll enter the field of observations.....
I am interested to learn what kind of "proof" or evidence you´d consider as sufficient even if the evidence contraditcs your prior belief.
Exactly the same kind and amount of proof you would expect from me if I would emphatically state "I can hear the grass growing".
Now, if you care to investigate any extraordinary claim on audibility (or accept by default any such claims, until somebody proves them wrong) then I have to push back; I'm not retired yet.
It was neither a rhetorical nor a fun question and not a trick question as you might have thought.
So could you please try to provide an answer? Surely it does not depend on what Jakob2 would expect, doesn´t it?
Well said, John! Something which would be truly helpful and innovative would be trying to come up with new tests to substantiate perceived differences, that would take the discussion out of the realm of "sorry if you can't hear it, I can." Surely designers like yourself and others here have an inkling as to what stimulus signals could be designed to suss out the circuit performance aspect under discussion.
Cheers!
Howie
I would rather not, actually. However, when people start demanding proof because,"...you can't prove a negative," philosophy is only part of where it leads.
I'm somewhere between the objectivists and the subjectivists camps. Generally speaking, if something measures well, we except it to sound well. If it doesn't sound good/great, that doesn't mean the intrinsic sound is NOT good. It just means it doesn't sound good to you. I'm not sure, how many of us would knowingly purchase a piece of kit with sub-par specs and then expect it to sound great! There has to be some basic rationale whereby we start our sonic purity experiment/quest. And the only sure way to determine how a system in a showroom will sound in your space, is well... that's impossible to know for obvious reasons.
I don't have the electronic credentials that many have on this forum, but do know that the sonic quality of the meager system (Lafayette and RatShack stuff) I had in the mid-60s has been VASTLY improved technologically in the last 50yrs. And, I certainly don't have anything that would qualify as audiophile grade gear today. For me, the constant quest for the holy grail of audio - be it with turntables, or DACs (or any other source), speakers, etc seems to have hit a plateau where the sound of what I like to listen to is pleasingly enough. And for me, that's all that matters.
I also know that my hearing is not what it once was years ago, so when my son is home from school on occasion we sit and listen to a variety of genres we like and if I've switched out something, I always get his impression. I guess he can hear things that I can't at suitable listening levels.
Could there be something more out there that I'm missing? Sure, but for now, I simply don't want to chase rabbits into all the audio holes there are in search of some sonic nirvana.
I don't have the electronic credentials that many have on this forum, but do know that the sonic quality of the meager system (Lafayette and RatShack stuff) I had in the mid-60s has been VASTLY improved technologically in the last 50yrs. And, I certainly don't have anything that would qualify as audiophile grade gear today. For me, the constant quest for the holy grail of audio - be it with turntables, or DACs (or any other source), speakers, etc seems to have hit a plateau where the sound of what I like to listen to is pleasingly enough. And for me, that's all that matters.
I also know that my hearing is not what it once was years ago, so when my son is home from school on occasion we sit and listen to a variety of genres we like and if I've switched out something, I always get his impression. I guess he can hear things that I can't at suitable listening levels.
Could there be something more out there that I'm missing? Sure, but for now, I simply don't want to chase rabbits into all the audio holes there are in search of some sonic nirvana.
redjr,
It is probably simply that we choose to measure some things, but not others. For instance, there is no standard measurement for the tendency of some types of dacs to drop some types of sonic information, say, for example one characterized so far as a 'loss of reverb tails,' but perhaps to otherwise measure as SOA, and in addition that may sound generally superior to most other dacs. We also don't measure why one dac can sound superior to another when they both measure very well, or perhaps when one dac measures slightly better yet sounds slightly worse.
When we do talk about such things, it doesn't help anything that some people refuse to discuss things rationally and choose instead to respond using exaggeration and ridicule as a means of trying to 'win.'
It is probably simply that we choose to measure some things, but not others. For instance, there is no standard measurement for the tendency of some types of dacs to drop some types of sonic information, say, for example one characterized so far as a 'loss of reverb tails,' but perhaps to otherwise measure as SOA, and in addition that may sound generally superior to most other dacs. We also don't measure why one dac can sound superior to another when they both measure very well, or perhaps when one dac measures slightly better yet sounds slightly worse.
When we do talk about such things, it doesn't help anything that some people refuse to discuss things rationally and choose instead to respond using exaggeration and ridicule as a means of trying to 'win.'
Last edited:
My tuppence worth....
There's probably several classes of subjective stuff...
From, at one extreme, stuff people hear that isn't there (perhaps due to distortion in their own listening hardware / wetware), and can never be measured, to stuff that can be heard by some, and can be measured, though we may not yet know how exactly..
Then you need to decide if any of it matters.
I think, for most, the current measurement regimes (not just THD as some like to claim, but the sort of depth that ASR go to) correlate well with what is heard.
If that is the case, then what should be done about the smaller population who can hear stuff that may well be measurable, but is not yet understood?
If you can't hear that - you don't need to care.
You only need to care if you can hear it. So surely that makes it incumbent on those who can hear that case, to research it - but even then only if they want to buy generic equipment that sounds good to them, otherwise they can build their own, play about until happy.
Seems to me that the most useful areas of research are improved LS (eg JN's ideas), and finding out if it is the case that LS distortion is less intrusive than something else.
At the end though, there will always be subjective differences, and that should be recognised as what it is - not "right" but "what I hear, and like" - then there is no argument.
There's probably several classes of subjective stuff...
From, at one extreme, stuff people hear that isn't there (perhaps due to distortion in their own listening hardware / wetware), and can never be measured, to stuff that can be heard by some, and can be measured, though we may not yet know how exactly..
Then you need to decide if any of it matters.
I think, for most, the current measurement regimes (not just THD as some like to claim, but the sort of depth that ASR go to) correlate well with what is heard.
If that is the case, then what should be done about the smaller population who can hear stuff that may well be measurable, but is not yet understood?
If you can't hear that - you don't need to care.
You only need to care if you can hear it. So surely that makes it incumbent on those who can hear that case, to research it - but even then only if they want to buy generic equipment that sounds good to them, otherwise they can build their own, play about until happy.
Seems to me that the most useful areas of research are improved LS (eg JN's ideas), and finding out if it is the case that LS distortion is less intrusive than something else.
At the end though, there will always be subjective differences, and that should be recognised as what it is - not "right" but "what I hear, and like" - then there is no argument.
Yeah, that point is certainly unmistakable in this thread. That's why I've stay away from posting. Online slug-fests - while enjoyable to read - often don't add anything of substance to the discussion. Guess that's the reason this thread is in The Lounge.
Yes, there is no winning.
I've also found this to be the case, that electronics can be evaluated through speakers,
even though speakers are regarded as much less "perfect". They are quite different animals.
All current scientific theories are technically "effective" or provisional, and are known to be wrong
in an absolute sense. For example, relativity does not include quantum mechanics, and so cannot
be fundamental (correct). Quantum mechanics likewise does not include gravity (general relativity)
and so is incomplete, though considerable effort has been made in this direction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.