• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Card carrying objectivists

rebbiputzmaker

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,099
Likes
463
Thread reply ban issued to member @Wombat , I asked you to take further grievances up though the conversation system , you ignored this multiple times, I started a conversation with you but still you ignore that in favour of posting said grievances here , not only that but creating a new thread for your grievance too boot.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
<snip>

That's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the point that if listeners naturally gravitate toward the audio truth, as it were, then the roll of audio engineering is to translate the reproduction into a coherent set of technical parameters and metics which deliver that truth. Such that the set of objective metrics alone serves as a reliable predictor of the subjective perception, which the listener can reliably depend on entirely from the objective metics.

However, empirically, there frequently seems a disconnect between the ability of present objective metrics to serve as an reliable predictor/proxy of the subjectively experienced performance. I do believe that the two will eventually be made to fully reconcile, but as of now, the objective metrics are lacking in some manner, and so, do not yet serve as a reliable predictor of the listeners subjective experience. Therefore, there's still an important role in the component evaluation process for simply listenening.

There still will be subjective impact, either in the recording team or due to subjective evaluation by a listener to the recorded content. The somewhat standardization of the recording environment would break partly the usual circle of confusion (term created by Toole) in which we never know about the recording/production conditions and subsequently can´t know about the inherent sound quality possible when reproducing a record.

See my remarks to the "neutral illusion" or reproduction; if we knew at least about the main parameters during the production then it would be easier to approximate the intended reproduction parameters.

In the current situation people imo often overestimate Toole/Olive´s findings as they tend to forget that generalization isn´t always warranted. One has to analysze carefully the experimental conditions for a given result to evaluate the conclusions.
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
If the system is still built around a known objectively inferior setup (passive crossovers) then we can't say that the specifications of the individual components are not reflecting the subjective reality. We have effectively built a system from the finest components but have not used enough of them, and have wired them up badly...

I'm not suggesting that the perceived subjective physical reality of an audio system doesn't reliably correlate with it's objective physical reality. I'm suggesting that our present understanding of the relevant context (the full conditions under which each objective criteria matters, and to what degree), and of the objective physical reality (the design targets through to the tested performance) don't as yet sufficiently correlate as to be a relaible predictor of the subjective perfomance. Upon short listening, I suspect that they do positively correlate on a gross scale, however, whether they fully correlate often isn't apparent until after longer term listening. This, to me, as an very interesting area of potential discussion. I've heard any number of systems which subjectively sounded neutral, nothing calling undue attention to itself, yet the result subjectively sounding nothing like live or natural music being reproduced. Odd.

Of course, arguments can be made that the above might only be true to the degree that, perhaps, we simply aren't sufficiently specifying, or interpreting the specifications, of the objective physical system. Not that objective specifications are superfluous. Which really is all that I'm suggesting. My only issue is with the notion that present specifications and their interpretation tell us all that we need to know about how an given component will sound to us, and so, serve as a reliable pre-purchase predictor or proxy for the indicated subjective physical reality.
 
Last edited:

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
To illustrate the specification issue I'm talking about, let's take the example of THD. Once, THD was given simply as a a single metric. A percentage number, that was presented as though it was all of the relvant information needed to assess the subjective impact of distortion on the sound of an given component. Later, we started seeing 2-dimensional graphs and FFT plots of distortion versus frequency, and more importantly, the harmonic order of the distortion. Also relevant to the sound, however is the distortion versus signal or power level. But how best to present that information. Logically, a 3-dimensional waterfall plot makes sense. But, wait, there's yet another aspect to harmonic distortion (without even addressing intermod. distortion here) which is, of course, distortion versus impedance. This parameter is often presented as it's own 2-dimensional plot, but it interrelates with the other three aspects of harmonic distortion. So, perhaps, a 4-dimensional presentation is required to properly show the complex interrelationships? How would that information be presented so as to be usefully interpreted by humans? What complex 4D shape would indicate superior subjective performamce over some other variation in shape? And this is only for the parameter of harmonic distortion, what about for all the other system parameters?

The logical engineering approach to solving this problem is to design components with objectively inaudible distortion for ALL conditions. Very high amounts a negative feedback is, of course, the current solution - to varying degrees of success. But this solution brings us to the conclusion that we should then all own nothing better mass market receivers or integrated amps, or listen only to CD. Better, has no practical meaning, once a pramater is beyond human perception. Except, our subjective experience leads us to often conclude otherwise. Perhaps, more guilding of the distortion Lilly, or that of some other parameter, will yet bring uniform approval of component subjective sound quality.
 
Last edited:
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
I'm not suggesting that the perceived subjective physical reality of an audio system doesn't reliably correlate with it's objective physical reality. I'm suggesting that our present understanding of the relevant context (the full conditions under which each objective criteria matters, and to what degree), and of the objective physical reality (the design targets through to the tested performance) don't as yet sufficiently correlate as to be a relaible predictor of the subjective perfomance. Upon short listening, I suspect that they do positively correlate on a gross scale, however, whether they fully correlate often isn't apparent until after longer term listening. This, to me, as an very interesting area of potential discussion. I've heard any number of systems which subjectively sounded neutral, nothing calling undue attention to itself, yet the result subjectively sounding nothing like live or natural music being reproduced. Odd.

Of course, arguments can be made that the above might only be true to the degree that, perhaps, we simply aren't sufficiently specifying, or interpreting the specifications, of the objective physical system. Not that objective specifications are superfluous. Which really is all that I'm suggesting. My only issue is with the notion that present specifications and their interpretation tell us all that we need to know about how an given component will sound to us, and so, serve as a reliable pre-purchase predictor or proxy for the indicated subjective physical reality.

Some of this goes back to some of your earlier posts. Rather that split up I'll put it all here.

I think you have stepped over the fact that Toole and others did indeed determine what speaker parameters a good speaker should have. They determined the objective requirements for a speaker to be preferred subjectively. Enough so they have 86% correlation between their 72 point anechoic measurements and what the actual test results will be using listeners. So how does that, "not sufficiently correlate as to be a reliable predictor of subjective performance." When evaluating bookshelf or monitor speakers without deep bass reproduction the correlation is much higher.

Unfortunately the same work in the field indicates one's assessment of sound quality is skewed from those objectively and subjectively reliable measurement guidelines when one is influenced by price, appearance and reputation. Not far fetched to think these extraneous factors will have more influence as time passes. The idea long term listening is superior in defining high fidelity reproduction seems unsupported by evidence. It naturally feels subjectively far stronger.
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
To illustrate the specification issue I'm talking about, let's take the example of THD. Once, THD was given simply as a a single metric. A percentage number, that was presented as though it was all of the relvant information needed to assess the subjective impact of distortion on the sound of an given component. Later, we started seeing 2-dimensional graphs and FFT plots of distortion versus frequency, and more importantly, the harmonic order of the distortion. Also relevant to the sound, however is the distortion versus signal or power level. But how best to present that information. Logically, a 3-dimensional waterfall plot makes sense. But, wait, there's yet another aspect to harmonic distortion (without even addressing intermod. distortion here) which is, of course, distortion versus impedance. This parameter is often presented as it's own 2-dimensional plot, but it interrelates with the other three aspects of harmonic distortion. So, perhaps, a 4-dimensional presentation is required to properly show the complex interrelationships? How would that information be presented so as to be usefully interpreted by humans? What complex 4D shape would indicate superior subjective performamce over some other variation in shape? And this is only for the parameter of harmonic distortion, what about for all the other system parameters?

The logical engineering approach to solving this problem is to design components with objectively inaudible distortion for ALL conditions. Very high amounts a negative feedback is, of course, the current solution - to varying degrees of success. But this solution brings us to the conclusion that we should then all own nothing better mass market receivers or integrated amps, or listen only to CD. Better, has no practical meaning, once a pramater is beyond human perception. Except, our subjective experience leads us to often conclude otherwise. Perhaps, more guilding of the distortion Lilly, or that of some other parameter, will yet bring uniform approval of component subjective sound quality.

Sorry no sale.

You are assuming uncorroborated subjective sighted listening can serve as useful determiner of quality. You indeed are gilding up the old lily of sighted subjective listening.

Agreed that once any parameter is beyond human listening ability better has no practical meaning. Not agreed is that our subjective experience concluding otherwise is indicative of some failure of the idea. Instead it is indicative that determining reproduction quality is not best done using that subjective method. Humans are wired so this may never seem to be the truth, and yet it will be. Endorsing, entertaining or boosting the idea we have to make audio perfect under sighted listening so nothing sounds different is not what this forum is about because the idea is a bankrupt one misleading rather than illuminating the path to better reproduction.

Your comments about THD are not really relevant except as events occurred in the press. It was always known THD was one number made up of many aspects. It was an attempt at short hand to better quality and can be used correctly. The adding to it as being important is usually some subjective magazines attempt to differentiate products for the market when results indicate there should be none. The relation between than an speaker loads or impedance has been well known for some time. If anyone wanted to make headway, or discount the relevance then doing the regular tests with a speaker load would be helpful. It is rarely done. We do have some acoustic testing of speakers since such gear is affordably available now indicating speakers of quality can have distortion levels below .5% regularly. So the driving amps must be doing at least that well. More often impedance alters perceptibly frequency response rather than distortion. That is no surprise or anything such sounds different.
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
The idea long term listening is superior in defining high fidelity reproduction seems unsupported by evidence. It naturally feels subjectively far stronger.

Not what I suggested. I suggested that long term listening sometimes indicates there is more taking place than is indicated by the current specifications deemed as sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, this was clearly the case when CD was introduced, although I think it is much less true of CD today. Subjective assessment originally indicated that CD was not the advertised perfect-sound-forever. Something objective, apparently, was being overlooked, and the audio scientific/engineering community proceeded to identify most of what that was. Without dissenting subjective listening reports, would there have been any reason to improve beyond the traditional audio parameters (noise, distortion, FR, etc.), which were uniformly excellent from the start? I don't see why there would have been.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Not what I suggested. I suggested that long term listening sometimes indicates there is more taking place than is indicated by the current specifications deemed as sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, this was clearly the case when CD was introduced, although I think it is much less true of CD today. Subjective assessment originally indicated that CD was not the advertised perfect-sound-forever. Something objective, apparently, was being overlooked, and the audio scientific/engineering community proceeded to identify most of what that was. Without dissenting subjective listening reports, would there have been any reason to improve beyond the traditional audio parameters (noise, distortion, FR, etc.), which were uniformly excellent from the start? I don't see why there would have been.
It’s intresting you mention ‘old digital ‘ , i was keen to see us measure some of the early CD players just for fun And a reference .
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
So, perhaps, a 4-dimensional presentation is required to properly show the complex interrelationships? How would that information be presented so as to be usefully interpreted by humans? What complex 4D shape would indicate superior subjective performamce over some other variation in shape? And this is only for the parameter of harmonic distortion, what about for all the other system parameters?
That's surely what I was saying when I said:
"We may never create a set of measurements that usefully represents the crapness of existing systems, and indeed it may be a waste of time. Two speakers may differ in, say, 136 dimensions, and sound equally poor but in different ways. "
The logical engineering approach to solving this problem is to design components with objectively inaudible distortion for ALL conditions.
And the way to achieve that, I suggest, is to go active = minimal stress on all components.
Very high amounts a negative feedback is, of course, the current solution - to varying degrees of success. But this solution brings us to the conclusion that we should then all own nothing better mass market receivers or integrated amps, or listen only to CD.
As far as I am aware there is no real evidence to the contrary :)
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,779
Location
Oxfordshire
Not what I suggested. I suggested that long term listening sometimes indicates there is more taking place than is indicated by the current specifications deemed as sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, this was clearly the case when CD was introduced, although I think it is much less true of CD today. Subjective assessment originally indicated that CD was not the advertised perfect-sound-forever. Something objective, apparently, was being overlooked, and the audio scientific/engineering community proceeded to identify most of what that was. Without dissenting subjective listening reports, would there have been any reason to improve beyond the traditional audio parameters (noise, distortion, FR, etc.), which were uniformly excellent from the start? I don't see why there would have been.
Funnily enough I found nothing wrong with CD from the beginning. I think some preamps were overloaded by the 2 volt standard output of CD players and lots had been optimised for a standard 150mV line level input. I also think a lot of hifi systems had been balanced to suit LP systems which frequently had a rolled off frequency response. That meant a lot of systems sounded bright and/or harsh when a CD player was added. Luckily for me my preamp was OK and I was using an Ortofon cartridge with even frequency response.
My view is that we now have systems more suited to CD players high output and even frequency response than many old systems optimised for a particular record player/cartridge rather than any considerable advances in CD players.
One of my best CDs is from the first month of CD production and when I did an extensive subjective listening test of DACs when I fell into the trap of feeling I needed a "high res" system 7 years ago. With matched levels I was unable to hear any difference of consequence between Dacs varying in price by a factor of 10, and on CD if anything, my 20 year old CD player sounded best by the tiniest of margins. I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell which was which listening blind anyway, on the sort of music I listen to.
As a keen amateur recordist (is that a word?) I have been recording concerts since the 1960s by various means.
The best tape recorder I own is a Revox B77. Even with very careful level setting I never had an output indistinguishable from the microphone feed.
The first digital recorder I used, a Stelladat, gave an output indistinguishable to the microphone feed on the sort of recordings I was making, voice. That was decades ago.
The oft repeated story you mention does not agree with my experience.
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
Sorry no sale.

Frankly, I'm really not concerned over whether you are sold or not at this stage of our interactions. You usually seem unnecessarily salty, looking to ridicule thinking which differs from you own. I've frequently encountered this attitude from, so called, objectivists over at diyaudio too. They proudly assert their intolerance and hostility toward thinking which differs from theirs. All while piously standing beneath the banner of defending scientific truth and rationality, of course.

You are assuming uncorroborated subjective sighted listening can serve as useful determiner of quality.

No, I'm not. I'm stating that it can sometimes serve as important indication that something has been overlooked in the objective criteria. Please, tell me that you are not suggesting something as suspect as stating that subjective assessment cannot ever serve a legitimate role in the system performance evaluation process. By the way, if you do believe that, then you necessarily must have an audio system based around some mass market receiver, and the least expensive CD playback source you could find.

Agreed that once any parameter is beyond human listening ability better has no practical meaning. Not agreed is that our subjective experience concluding otherwise is indicative of some failure of the idea. Instead it is indicative that determining reproduction quality is not best done using that subjective method.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not suggesting that current specifications are wrong or failed. I'm suggesting that, sometimes, they are lacking in capturing the full relevant context of how objective parameters affect the subjective experience. The issue in short, is that they don't always reliably tell a prospective purchaser how an component will subjectively sound after purchase. Often, yes, but not reliably so, I contend. Not becuase the established metrics are wrong, but because they may in some way be incomplete, or wrongly interpreted in importance.

...Your comments about THD are not really relevant except as events occurred in the press. It was always known THD was one number made up of many aspects. It was an attempt at short hand to better quality and can be used correctly.

I wrote nothing contrary to that. What the history of THD specification serves to demonstrate is that what was once deemed to be sufficient information for identifying the subjective sound of the distortion of an component, was later deemed insufficient for that purpose - although, the single figure THD metric is still quite prevalent. When a single THD metric is what customers are told is sufficient for them to predict the subjective sound, then the vast majority of engineering teams will optimize that single metric, regardless of what they may know about the impact of the harmonic spectrum of that distortion.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
<snip>


No, I'm not saying that. I'm not suggesting that current specifications are wrong or failed. I'm suggesting that, sometimes, they are lacking in capturing the full relevant context affective the subjective experience. In short, that they don't always reliably tell a prospective purchaser how an component will subjectively sound to them after purchase. Not becuase the established metrics are wrong, but because they may in some way be incomplete, or wrongly interpreted in importance.



I wrote nothing contrary to that. What the history of THD specification serves to demonstrate is that what was once deemed to be sufficient information for identifying the subjective sound of the distortion of an component, was later deemed insufficient for that purpose - although, the single figure THD metric is still quite prevalent. When a single THD metric is what customers are told is sufficient for them to predict the subjective sound, then the vast majority of engineering teams will optimize that single metric, regardless of what they may know about the impact of the harmonic spectrum of that distortion.
You are going to have to be more exact and provide some supporting evidence for this assumption youv made here.

You maybe right you may not but with no hard facts established we will never know.

The ‘ I reckon this ‘ ‘ I reckon that ‘ dynamic is not of intrest to us in the main .
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,779
Location
Oxfordshire
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Frankly, I'm really not concerned over whether you are sold or not at this stage of our interactions. You usually seem unnecessarily salty, looking to ridicule thinking which differs from you own. I've frequently encountered this attitude from, so called, objectivists over at diyaudio too. They proudly assert their intolerance and hostility toward thinking which differs from theirs. All while piously standing beneath the banner of defending scientific truth and rationality, of course.

It is only an intolerance to be hobbled by continuing to use second or third best means of evaluation when we already know such methods are suspect.
No, I'm not. I'm stating that it can sometimes serve as important indication that something has been overlooked in the objective criteria. Please, tell me that you are not suggesting something as suspect as stating that subjective assessment cannot ever serve a legitimate role in the system performance evaluation process. By the way, if you do believe that, then you necessarily must have an audio system based around some mass market receiver, and the least expensive CD playback source you could find.

Here you create a fictional character and respond to that. Not furthering the discussion much.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm not suggesting that current specifications are wrong or failed. I'm suggesting that, sometimes, they are lacking in capturing the full relevant context affective the subjective experience. In short, that they don't always reliably tell a prospective purchaser how an component will subjectively sound to them after purchase. Not becuase the established metrics are wrong, but because they may in some way be incomplete, or wrongly interpreted in importance.

The problem is you haven't unwound the effects of subjectivity beyond just component performance. When that has been done we find the specifications well applied quite relevant and very predictive of how something will sound just as one would expect. Yet you don't agree such is the case apparently. The source of your disagreement, that long term sighted listening leads to a different result. Such a method is too easily influenced by many things beyond component performance. So as Thomas posted the unreliability of this method as counterpoint to measured performance is something we don't bother with. Waste of time.
 

cjfrbw

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
410
Likes
472
I still have a stored sample of the Sony PCM-2500 dual chassis DAT recorder. I haven't used it in ages. I guess I should sell it or release it to a collector. I had it when I was still interested in recording digital sources.

I remember that it was cumbersome to hook it up as a DAC only, but it could be done by putting it into recording mode and channeling the sound through it. I thought the DAC sounded amazing with 16 bit material, even though it was a now ancient and obsolete 4x oversampling DAC chip. I attributed the excellence of the sound quality to stellar construction and industrial quality control of the unit i.e. massive power supply, discrete circuitry with heavy chassis and copper construction.

I kept it with the notion that I would somehow figure out how to use the DAC section as standalone, which I never did, so it has been sitting on a shelf for many years now. I don't even know if it still works since I abandoned my DAT tapes as well.
 
Top Bottom