Card carrying objectivists

[svart-hvitt]

Actually a flat curve is preferred. The sloping target curves are an artefact of measurement limitations.

I was referring to Toole (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839).

What’s your reference?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Actually a flat curve is preferred. The sloping target curves are an artefact of measurement limitations.

Yes, but that was not known until controlled experiments determined that subjectively "measures flat" sounds too bright to humans. The downward slope is also estimated for "perceptually flat" via testing, again of humans reporting their subjective responses.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Geddes on subjects’ preferences:

«I found early on that perceptions were often quite different from what the objective measures might indicate or what one might expect them to be. People were much more sensitive to some things and much less sensitive to others than the historical beliefs of these relationships had suggested».
Source: https://www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-dr-earl-geddes-of-gedlee-llc/

I guess a scientist who can work across very different fields is a better one than a one-handed scientist.

I think Audio Science Review should be open for people who think psychoacoustics is as important as physics. A balance is, in my view, better than the unbalanced view.

Subjectivism is important for the relevance of audio research and user-oriented products. A research program can contain both objectivist and subjectivist themes.

 

[RayDunzl]

I think Audio Science Review should be open for people who think psychoacoustics is as important as physics.

Is it not?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Is it not?

Well, Ray, you are my man. So, this is not a about you, my friend.

But, a few others are under flaming heat here in the process of seeking some sort of reasonable balance between worship of "objective", "rational" scienceism, its' limits, and the belief system it entails. That, versus any attempts to understand the inevitable limits of that science and any attempts to verify whether all that truly makes any audible difference.

I hate to suggest this, but is there not from time to time here, in the "land of the objectivists", some sort of objectivist Nazisim? That implies we as objectivists have all the answers, as in 100%. But, sorry, if I do not see that as true. Yes, of course, I am not saying that audio science is wrong, and every arbitrary listener anecdote must be worshiped. But, the reverse may not necessarily be true, either, in all cases.

Yes, I am a card carrying objectivist. But, to me, that means I should be more open minded and critically accepting or rejecting of any new evidence, based on concrete logic and evidence. That should be the objective of all science, including audio science.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I was referring to Toole (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839).

What’s your reference?

The same document will do. If you read it, flat on axis anechoic or open field measurements with a non-bumpy response was preferred. Then there is the attempt to match in room measurements with that. In room you need long enough windowing to measure lower frequencies. They call some of these measures direct+early reflections in that article. Skipping lots of details, a flat on axis anechoic response measurement will result in a slightly sloping in room response. If you get the in room response flat, then such a speaker measured outdoors or anechoic measure will have an up-tilted response. The exact curve can vary from reflectivity and size of a given room. The old 3 db per decade is close to what they chose. That is a point commonly over-looked when people say you don't want flat response. You do, but you can't measure flat speaker response flatly inside a reflective room.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, but that was not known until controlled experiments determined that subjectively "measures flat" sounds too bright to humans. The downward slope is also estimated for "perceptually flat" via testing, again of humans reporting their subjective responses.

This is a common point of misunderstanding. I had the same idea for years. In room measures need a slope to match flat free field response.

So the common knowledge that flat sound is too bright is typically misinterpreted. And btw, I may have to dig it up, but an old B&K paper makes the same point for the same reasons without the need for listening tests way back in at least the 1970's if not the 1960's. The same knowledge is why Peter Walker said way back then that in room speakers should have a 3 db per decade downward slope. He amended that saying in some rooms you only wanted that above 200-300 hz.

The reason you don't need listening tests is measure flat speaker in free field, get flat direct response. Measure same speaker in a room and get a sloping response. What listening tests did were confirm that humans prefer a flat free field response which is a downward sloping in room response.

 

[SIY]

And btw, I may have to dig it up, but an old B&K paper makes the same point for the same reasons without the need for listening tests way back in at least the 1970's if not the 1960's.

Yes, the famous B&K 1974 curve, basically a tilt.

 

[Sal1950]

So the common knowledge that flat sound is too bright is typically misinterpreted.

You guys have a much better understanding of the various tests done by Toole , HK , etc that lead to the sloping high end as the preferred tuning.
But I wonder if a three way listening test was set up using a live source, a flat reproduction, and a sloping one, would the sloping one still be preferred?
Is this making sense?

 

[tomelex]

Well, Ray, you are my man. So, this is not a about you, my friend.

But, a few others are under flaming heat here in the process of seeking some sort of reasonable balance between worship of "objective", "rational" scienceism, its' limits, and the belief system it entails. That, versus any attempts to understand the inevitable limits of that science and any attempts to verify whether all that truly makes any audible difference.

I hate to suggest this, but is there not from time to time here, in the "land of the objectivists", some sort of objectivist Nazisim? That implies we as objectivists have all the answers, as in 100%. But, sorry, if I do not see that as true. Yes, of course, I am not saying that audio science is wrong, and every arbitrary listener anecdote must be worshiped. But, the reverse may not necessarily be true, either, in all cases.

Yes, I am a card carrying objectivist. But, to me, that means I should be more open minded and critically accepting or rejecting of any new evidence, based on concrete logic and evidence. That should be the objective of all science, including audio science.

I post this not directly to you, but in general about the idea of objective Nazisim.

I think when someone enters a thread called card carrying objectivist that right there is a clue to the thread, and if there were anywhere on this site where folks would demand some sort of evidence for audio theories it would be here. I believe that the only thing that separates this site from all the others around is kind of expecting evidence to back up statements, and I think if we don't do that we are not the stand out site that we are. I believe and enjoy the other audio related sciences, such as acoustic science as well, and its worth discussing as long as its some sort of credible science, and I think that's your point, and I think most of us here expect that.

Now there may be a few super card carrying objectivists here, but if there were any site for them to be at, this I would think is the one to be at. You can count me as a super card carrying objectivist when it comes to measuring any audio signal and its components, and while there may be magic in someones ears when they hear variations of the actual Hi Fi signal, no one here is going to tell me we cant measure a simple audio signal or even a whole bunch of them.

Some of the stuff I have worked on over the years and some of the test gear I have seen buggers belief. We are fully advanced in audio signal measurement but yes there is lots of room for the acoustic interpretation of the severely limited two channel stereo system many of us use. I think if we lower standards (which you do not advocate and neither do I) of evidence here we are going to lose some really talented members who do their research, do the hard work to scientifically prove what they are saying, and those guys make this site a stand out site for all of us.

A member who demands proof on this site of someones statement is not a Nazi, in fact, it has been stated many times here that evidence needs to be provided, over in the fight club is a place for folks to just slosh around opinions and not expect to be asked to bring some information to the table, but in the body of the site, I hope we can stick to the "science".

This site has BIG potential to be the place people come to for some truth, and I see folks showing up here who are long experienced in audio, in DIY and other areas, and it is making this place great.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You guys have a much better understanding of the various tests done by Toole , HK , etc that lead to the sloping high end as the preferred tuning.
But I wonder if a three way listening test was set up using a live source, a flat reproduction, and a sloping one, would the sloping one still be preferred?
Is this making sense?

Yeah sure it would. Wouldn't it???

Darn you Sal. A good question. Remember don't confuse flat anechoic and flat in room. The slope is flat anechoic.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip..........

This site has BIG potential to be the place people come to for some truth, and I see folks showing up here who are long experienced in audio, in DIY and other areas, and it is making this place great.

Excellent post. I think that last sentence is what the site aspires to be. The place people come to for some truth. Such a site might not ever be the biggest, but has the potential to be big enough and have some useful influence.

We'll have to work out a fair and honest etiquette for dealing with those who don't quite get what we are about. It isn't nazism, but you do have some limits of what to accept if you plan on being different. You'll have to work out dealing with people who don't know, and are in the habit of deciding upon listening alone from other sites, but who really do want to see if they can learn something. You need to teach them a bit before throwing them out as unfit to take part.

I also have to say. At least so far, the breath of fresh air this particular forum has been so far makes it difficult for me to spend much time on the other forums. There is just so much confusion there is not much of an SNR. There is stuff to be learned those other places, and people to learn from, but it takes quite a sifting and filtering to get to that. This site isn't that way which is the benefit to it so far.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, the famous B&K 1974 curve, basically a tilt.

https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf

Here is a copy of the paper that is from. Thanks to you narrowing down which year to look for in search criteria.

 

[Thomas savage]

Excellent post. I think that last sentence is what the site aspires to be. The place people come to for some truth. Such a site might not ever be the biggest, but has the potential to be big enough and have some useful influence.

We'll have to work out a fair and honest etiquette for dealing with those who don't quite get what we are about. It isn't nazism, but you do have some limits of what to accept if you plan on being different. You'll have to work out dealing with people who don't know, and are in the habit of deciding upon listening alone from other sites, but who really do want to see if they can learn something. You need to teach them a bit before throwing them out as unfit to take part.

I also have to say. At least so far, the breath of fresh air this particular forum has been so far makes it difficult for me to spend much time on the other forums. There is just so much confusion there is not much of an SNR. There is stuff to be learned those other places, and people to learn from, but it takes quite a sifting and filtering to get to that. This site isn't that way which is the benefit to it so far.

This is precisely what I try and do, it’s not easy and I come under fire from all sides at times for it but giving folks a chance to acclimatise here is vital. I think we as a group have some way to go on this but are doing great and I’m grateful to you , Alan and Don in particular , unfortunately it only tkes one extremist to ruin the patience shown by you guys . In terms of etiquette You will just have to continue to rely on my ( and your own) judgment for this as I’m not sure if there’s really any other way of doing it.

The flip side to that coin is at some point if guys turn out to be disingenuous and just here to poke at you guys I must deal with that. I believe I do that and the balance being struck is the right one however it’s always tempting to go full Rambo straight off the bat

Things are going well, I think while looking at ourselves in the mirror from time to time is good we’d be wise not to chew on our own bones. Big picture , we are on the rise and have dealt with a huge increase in membership while keeping ‘what we are about’ in tact, A job Well done.

 

[DonH56]

Thanks, and I don't have any problem with your judgement, Thomas. Being one of the moderators on a trumpet forum I understand and appreciate the tightrope walk. I figure if an equal number are annoyed on each side then the moderation must be about right.

I do have a problem with Nazi being thrown around so loosely. Like many words with deep historical meaning it is IMO diminished when used to describe a "mere" war of words or as a label for folk whose level of obnoxiousness, albeit high, does not approach the level of genocide.

Not sure I've ever had so many folk on "ignore" but I figure it is better for them and for me as the temptation to antagonize is eliminated. At the moment I am dealing with funeral stuff for my wife's mother so my sensitivity is higher than normal, trying to just shut up until my head's on straight again.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is precisely what I try and do, it’s not easy and I come under fire from all sides at times for it but giving folks a chance to acclimatise here is vital. I think we as a group have some way to go on this but are doing great and I’m grateful to you , Alan and Don in particular , unfortunately it only tkes one extremist to ruin the patience shown by you guys . In terms of etiquette You will just have to continue to rely on my ( and your own) judgment for this as I’m not sure if there’s really any other way of doing it.

The flip side to that coin is at some point if guys turn out to be disingenuous and just here to poke at you guys I must deal with that. I believe I do that and the balance being struck is the right one however it’s always tempting to go full Rambo straight off the bat

Things are going well, I think while looking at ourselves in the mirror from time to time is good we’d be wise not to chew on our own bones. Big picture , we are on the rise and have dealt with a huge increase in membership while keeping ‘what we are about’ in tact, A job Well done.

You have my vote of confidence. You've done an excellent job so far. I've been trying to learn from it. Part of what I meant about "we'll have to learn". I don't know how Amir came to choose you as moderator, but he made an excellent choice.

 

[Thomas savage]

You have my vote of confidence. You've done an excellent job so far. I've been trying to learn from it. Part of what I meant about "we'll have to learn". I don't know how Amir came to choose you as moderator, but he made an excellent choice.

as I remember it there were only about 20 of us at the time and amir had 19 ‘ thanks but no thanks ‘ messages in his inbox.

 

[stalepie]

Flat curve? Did you guys fail geometry?

 

[RayDunzl]

Ears, trust? Me?

McGurk for President?

 

[svart-hvitt]

@Blumlein 88 , flat in-room vs open field is a great distinction. I think that distinction often gets lost in translation.

On subjectivism vs objectivism: Subjectivism is important to guide audio research in the right direction, to make priorities. And here I see a sign that I take as unintelligent subjectivism masquerading as intelligent objectivism. On this site, the interest for measurements of DACs (and other boxes) is high and generates great traffic. But how intelligent is it to focus so much on a DACs ability to suppress noise and distortion below audibility?

An alternative, more intelligent approach could be to use subjectivism research in order to make a ranking order of priorities for research focus. So if acoustics and psychoacoustics are more important than say 120 dB SNR of a DAC, focus should be shifted away from measurements below audibility to what counts more; always based on empirical research of subjects’ preferences, of course.

Amir does a great job smoking out a few of the schitty producers of audio gear, but is focus too much on what can easily be measured, cfr. the drunkard searching for his keys below the street light because that’s where the light is?

This is written in good will. I think this site is great so this is just to provoke reflections on what good is objectivism without understanding the subjects’ preferences (and thus resulting priorities in intelligent audio research).