killdozzer
Major Contributor
No, you're conflating yourself with a smart and free thinking person.You are conflating audiophiles & audiophools
No, you're conflating yourself with a smart and free thinking person.You are conflating audiophiles & audiophools
Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
@diegooo1972 It is also interesting to note there is very little if any crossing over. Audiophiles find flat, neutral, uncoloured to be dull and unexciting so none of their gear boasts with accuracy. Not just that, but I am still to find an audiophile who would subscribe to Toole's conclusion on correlation between good measuring equip. and listener's satisfaction.
And another thing, audiophile usually embark on the wrong way. After convincing themselves of hearing huge differences and being disputed by measurements, they start coming up with ways of disprooving measurements. One of my favorite is that what they hear and enjoy and love about their equipment's preformance can't be measured because the measuring equipment lack the abilityis not yet perfect enough (usually it's timbre).
Now, this is silly for numerous reasons, but what I'm most interested in is how do these people imagine we managed to develop the equipment that will react tot imbre when recording, and the equipment that will reproduce the timbre when listening, we just somehow never managed to make equipment to measure it??
I mean, recording equipment must react to whatever it registers in order to record it.
audiophile usually embark on the wrong way
Well this is quite strange. If your signature stay below audible range it just didn't exist for you and you can't hear it. Exactly as the extra Db over audible range in measured equipments that you don't care too much. If you can't measure it and you can't hear it because is below audible range what are you talking about ? Where emerge audible signature then ? What you think it is materially ?Nope not at all. In my path I allow certain alterations to the original signal that remain below audible thresholds. That means devices don't need to be THE best (your HiFi) but need to be good enough to NOT be audible (my HiFi) which obviously is higher in parameters than DIN45500.
What you believe is my path is merely stating things just have to 'sound good'. That is not my path but do not think people taking that path are wrong to do so. My 'path' (good enough is good enough and better is not audibly better) is just as scientific based as just assuming only the lowest achievable is good.
VFM is highest priority on my list as well.
I said good in 1 or 2 post considering the budget factor. I always refer at that concept as best possible reproduction. Which means in any case best possible measure I can buy with my budget. Don't put in my mouth concept like good, bad, relaxed or warm because this is exactly what I put in subjectivity range and fall outside objective and measurable science facts.Nope- not a misunderstanding of the core concepts of objectivity and subjectivity, not a misunderstanding of the principles involved. With all due respect the way you phrase some of your assertions just isnt clear full stop. And when someone tries to clarify- you tend to rephrase things again, but dragging in different or modified concepts and assertions. Rather than saying "yes, that is exactly what I mean" . We get it:- so paraphrasing 8 pages i think we are at your position of:
Fidelity = good measurements = objectively good and chosen for that reason (except no, you can objectively know your kit adds distortion but subjectively prefer that in full knowledge)
Audiophile = No concept of measurements or ignores them= subjectively designed or chosen based on ears, reviews etc (again, I doubt this- I think many designers and buyers of less than ideally measuring kit know full well how it measures, just prefer it)
What folks on this site tend not to like is someone who says something is fidelius or superior without measuring or questioning the sales fluff, or because someone else says it is, or praises it, or sticks some zeroes on the price tag- an audiophool if you will.
We all get it, truly.
But then you throw in a statement like this :
"But if the quality is measurable it resides in the objective side."
Which I hate to tell you, means literally nothing. Not just to me , it just cant be parsed. And then you say that the Mola Mola is objectively good (it is) but audiophile simply by virtue of the price tag- which defeats your own argument that something cant be both objective and subjective.
So we hit solderdude's scale of greyness.
This is like watching the original Star Trek series, except less entertaining.
The battles between our inner Spock and Kirk lol
Well this is quite strange. If your signature stay below audible range it just didn't exist for you and you can't hear it. Exactly as the extra Db over audible range in measured equipments that you don't care too much. If you can't measure it and you can't hear it because is below audible range what are you talking about ? Where emerge audible signature then ? What you think it is materially ?
What is signature in term of signals for you ? To me is just distortion of the original signal. Maybe it sound good but it must be only that. FFT work that way. If you feed 1khz sinewave to an amplifier, for example, the harmonics are just differences between the original sinewave you feed to the amp, which has to be a better then what you are going to measure, and the resulting sinewave in amp out that is simply not perfect and generate harmonics. FFT do exactly that. It must be something you can hear or measure or there's nothing there. Like the db you can avoid to consider under -90db distortion in an amplifier. You obviously don't listen harmonics in that low volume. I say 90 just to put a mark. I'd love to have best possible in that case too. Probably useless but I certainly don't want harmonics I can hear generated from an amp. These are signature in audiophiles. Difference from original signal otherwise too flat as they always say. Which is a non sense.I don't understand ANY of your questions.
What signature are you talking about ?
extra Db over audible range ? Do you mean dB ? what extra ? What do you consider audible range ?
If I can't measure it and can't hear it ? Where does this come from. If you can't measure nor hear anything it is either perfect or the device is off.
Emerging of an audible signature ? I don't get this at all.
What I think is materially ? Do you mean what do I think is important ?
To make it clear everything between 'perfect' and 'changed from the original signal but below audible limits in any aspect' is good enough for me.
Reason there is no audible difference at all. Let's call this my binary '0'.
Then there are audible differences (regardless what aspect(s)) and let's call that binary 1.
Then I am for binary '0' and do not believe improvements over inaudible are consequential, fun to have, fun to strive for, desirable but NOT essential.
in'1' I would like to step a bit further (lenient) and don't really mind 'changes', that are not objectionable to me, are not a big issue for me either as long as it sounds good enough for me. I don't strive for that.
This way I can even 'enjoy' music over a half decent BT speaker in a workshop for instance.
That's just me.
I draw the line between my '0' and my '1' where you draw the line at a different amount of 'alterations' and lowest possible is just barely deserving your approval.
Now.. I don't mind is someone else has huge coloration, uses snakeoil and likes it.
I said good in 1 or 2 post considering the budget factor. I always refer at that concept as best possible reproduction. Which means in any case best possible measure I can buy with my budget. Don't put in my mouth concept like good, bad, relaxed or warm because this is exactly what I put in subjectivity range and fall outside objective and measurable science facts.
Well in that way you can put good and bad in every kind of consideration. I don't really get your point. That's the reason I was using "best possible" in my explanation."Good measurements" are exactly the opposite of subjective. SINAD of 120 is "good" - SINAD of 60 is "not good" . Or you can equate (in distortion terms ) good as "transparent" or "inaudible" .
Well in that way you can put good and bad in every kind of consideration. I don't really get your point. That's the reason I was using "best possible" in my explanation.
I like to see audio as a grey (gray) area.
had a bit of fun with this.
Got zero points. I'm an extremist!
But I still don't like going on crusades or putting people in boxes. I'd prefer if we just focus on quantising the things that have real impact on the experience of music reproduction, instead of trying to redefine expressions that already have a million different meanings.
What is signature in term of signals for you ?
To me is just distortion of the original signal.
These are signature in audiophiles.
These folks (your 'they) consider themselves 'music lovers' or 'audiophiles' but are what I (we ?) call audiophools/audiofools.Difference from original signal otherwise too flat as they always say. Which is a non sense.