Challenge for Objectivists: Bottlehead crack emulation (w/ Sennheiser HD6XX)

[Pugsly]

I guess forcing a failed null test depends on how much gain is applied at some point, but tubes will be more difficult than a chip amp, op amp, or transistor to emulate. Some of the same factors are going to apply to a solid state device too, so I wouldn't say tubes will fail and SS will pass due to circuit design. It would be safer to make a specific assertion such as, if you adjust null test gain to be barely inaudible with a Schiit Heresy then a Darkvoice and Bottlehead will fail a null test against any emulator. That specific test may go for any tube amp really though, due to noise from microphonics, etc... once I get through Toole and move on to Morgan Jones I should know enough to give a better answer about the extreme limits of tube performance, but basically, you should be able to achieve audible transparency with tubes but not with the same low noise levels as the best solid state...

The issue is that an emulator won't be able to null out the noise floor of a bottlehead in a null test. You could model the frequency response with an emulator, but you would still hear the noise in a null test.

Hi Helicopter,
An interesting point re noise floor that I hadn't (but should have) thought of. I hope you will share your findings re Toole and Morgan Jones!

 

[DWPress]

It’s doable (assuming we define specifically what needs to be done and how it’s validated), but it’s significant work and no particular upside. Thus my non-joke about being compensated.

What SIY said...

 

[SIY]

Hi Helicopter,
An interesting point re noise floor that I hadn't (but should have) thought of. I hope you will share your findings re Toole and Morgan Jones!

Morgan has done excellent analysis of noise sources, but the more relevant info for simulation would be the analyses by Merlin Blencoe in his preamp book and his JAES paper on tube noise.

 

[Pugsly]

Hi All,

Wait so you want one of us to create a emulation profile that is usually done by companies trying to emulate certain hardware?

So basically do the work an entire company does? And at first I see you say, enough to fail a blind test against, meaning basically sending you the files, and taking your word for it? But then you start talking about null tests (which obviously wont be entertained, since you're an audio engineer you should know why due to noise floors, tube warm up variance, etc..)

And this all for what exactly? To prove the point of some generalized statement some long gone internet character made?

When people say DSP for tube sound (idk why this Nwa dude is always being brought up, I guess he was the OG internet objectivist to light a fire under subjectivists asses) they don't mean it in the same way you presume it's possible for any normal person to do (DBT failing against). In the same way no one says "yo take this EQ of the HD600 to match it with the LCD-X EQ, and you're done, now u have an Audeze LCD-X". In fact, it may actually be easier to achieve that, than the request you make. The only problem with blind-testing different model headphones, is the size, and weight give them away. But emulating a tube amp, and for which tube? Like who do you imagine is going to go out and do all this? Gotta buy the gear, gotta have the software programing know-how potentially, and be an electronics and audio engineer potentially if you're going to do this proper.

But I ask again, for what purpose? No one actually makes the claim in the literal sense you seemed to think it was being passed off.

Hi,

(1) I have bounced around the forums, and while you might think that my characterization of 'objectivists' is unfair, but should admit that there are some people who make incautious or misleading claims, these claims get repeated, and this sows confusion amongst those of us who lack the expertise/experience/training of other members particularly since readers cannot tell if they are receiving a message from someone with experience/credentials, or just some guy who read something in some other forum and is repeating half-understood claims off the top of their head. (This is one of the downsides of internet communication, yes? It is also a sad fact that people on the 'other side' will tend to take the worst moments/examples as emblematic of an entire community...) In other words, you you don't need to take this characterization/caricature to represent yourself, or your position, or all self-identified objectivists.

(2) If you search the ASR forums, the question has been asked not just by me, and not just once, if it would be possible to emulate a tube amplifier using VST plugins. The answers given have been not just unclear, but conflicting (some say yes, others no, some suggest using things like 'Tube Saturator Vintage' or the 'ignite amp' while others will say that these things will not sound like a tube amplifier at all, having been designed for recording and so imparting very different coloration/flavor.)

(3) I am fully aware that that I lack the expertise of a good number of members in this forum, and likewise that for this reason my challenge might be posed out of misunderstandings. I don't mind being told that what I am suggesting is impossible for various reasons, unreasonable, would be too labor intensive, etc. To the contrary, being told why this is the case is itself educational, both for me and for other members/visitors who would want an answer regarding if such an emulation would be (a) possible, and (b) practical - and if not, why not.

(4) As I understand it, it would be insane to expect two headphones with different speaker typologies, driver sizes, etc. to sound the same just by using an EQ. The physics just of driver size, reflections, ear interaction, etc. alone would, I believe, make this impossible, even ignoring the fact that almost all headphones and speakers produce clearly measurable and audible levels of distortion (and not to mention, as you suggest, that trying to double-blind headphones would be rather difficult if not impossible, as it would be hard to not notice the physical differences between gear sitting on one's face!)

(5) I had not thought that the same principle applied to amplifiers, that the latter are a mature technology such that we can now claim that (a) we have reached the level of auditory transparency, and (b) once that threshold is reached, the only differences between amplifiers would be added distortion (of various sorts, including noise, etc.) Such coloration might even be desired by some people, but it is distorting and thus changing/adding to the signal. Once this has occurred, you can't use filters to 'go back' to transparent, but the reverse is or should not the case - one can go from transparent to changing/distorting the sound.

Finally, (6) you don't have to do anything, No one does, and no one owes me anything. My thought was 'I wonder what the response to this suggestion will be?' It seemed possible in principle, given the results of the Carver Challenge. For all I knew, it could have been easily done by one of you, and then I and anyone else could see if that much vaunted tube sound was worth the fuss, and those on the fence about about subjectivism/objectivism in audio could be pulled back to reality, and unlike the Carver Challenge everyone could actually 'listen for themselves.' I also thought, 'If this proposal is rejected, then I might at least get a proper explanation as to why this is impossible, and thereby learn something from those who have the expertise.'

 

[SIY]

Hi All,



Hi,

(1) I have bounced around the forums, and while you might think that my characterization of 'objectivists' is unfair, but should admit that there are some people who make incautious or misleading claims, these claims get repeated, and this sows confusion amongst those of us who lack the expertise/experience/training of other members particularly since readers cannot tell if they are receiving a message from someone with experience/credentials, or just some guy who read something in some other forum and is repeating half-understood claims off the top of their head. (This is one of the downsides of internet communication, yes? It is also a sad fact that people on the 'other side' will tend to take the worst moments/examples as emblematic of an entire community...) In other words, you you don't need to take this characterization/caricature to represent yourself, or your position, or all self-identified objectivists.

(2) If you search the ASR forums, the question has been asked not just by me, and not just once, if it would be possible to emulate a tube amplifier using VST plugins. The answers given have been not just unclear, but conflicting (some say yes, others no, some suggest using things like 'Tube Saturator Vintage' or the 'ignite amp' while others will say that these things will not sound like a tube amplifier at all, having been designed for recording and so imparting very different coloration/flavor.)

(3) I am fully aware that that I lack the expertise of a good number of members in this forum, and likewise that for this reason my challenge might be posed out of misunderstandings. I don't mind being told that what I am suggesting is impossible for various reasons, unreasonable, would be too labor intensive, etc. To the contrary, being told why this is the case is itself educational, both for me and for other members/visitors who would want an answer regarding if such an emulation would be (a) possible, and (b) practical - and if not, why not.

(4) As I understand it, it would be insane to expect two headphones with different speaker typologies, driver sizes, etc. to sound the same just by using an EQ. The physics just of driver size, reflections, ear interaction, etc. alone would, I believe, make this impossible, even ignoring the fact that almost all headphones and speakers produce clearly measurable and audible levels of distortion (and not to mention, as you suggest, that trying to double-blind headphones would be rather difficult if not impossible, as it would be hard to not notice the physical differences between gear sitting on one's face!)

(5) I had not thought that the same principle applied to amplifiers, that the latter are a mature technology such that we can now claim that (a) we have reached the level of auditory transparency, and (b) once that threshold is reached, the only differences between amplifiers would be added distortion (of various sorts, including noise, etc.) Such coloration might even be desired by some people, but it is distorting and thus changing/adding to the signal. Once this has occurred, you can't use filters to 'go back' to transparent, but the reverse is or should not the case - one can go from transparent to changing/distorting the sound.

Finally, (6) you don't have to do anything, No one does, and no one owes me anything. My thought was 'I wonder what the response to this suggestion will be?' It seemed possible in principle, given the results of the Carver Challenge. For all I knew, it could have been easily done by one of you, and then I and anyone else could see if that much vaunted tube sound was worth the fuss, and those on the fence about about subjectivism/objectivism in audio could be pulled back to reality, and unlike the Carver Challenge everyone could actually 'listen for themselves.' I also thought, 'If this proposal is rejected, then I might at least get a proper explanation as to why this is impossible, and thereby learn something from those who have the expertise.'

Difference is that Carver made money in his challenge. Expecting someone to do a product development for you at no cost and no upside was unreasonable right from the start.

A more reasonable question would be toward a high level explanation of how YOU could go about doing that development. Of course, you might find in the first stage that the sim might be trivially easy, but of course, that’s a function of your exact definition of the problem and an exact specification of how the solution is validated. The last is key- it would be easy to define it in a way that’s inherently impossible.

 

[MrPeabody]

Hi All,
... and those on the fence about about subjectivism/objectivism in audio could be pulled back to reality....'

Why do you believe, and continue to imply, that the success or failure of this "challenge" has anything in particular to do with any debate over subjectivism vs. objectivism? This is what confuses the hell out of me, about what you are trying to do. This is the reason that it isn't making sense. I very strongly encourage you to take the subjectivism/objectivism aspect of it out, completely. I encourage you to think about your challenge as long and as hard as you need to until you come to the realization that it has nothing in particular with a debate over subjectivism vs. objectivism, and nothing in particular to do with either of the two philosophical perspectives for evaluation of audio gear. You've tried to explain it several times now, and each time you have, you have explained it in a horrendously convoluted way and have made it seem that it has something to do with subjectivism vs. objectivism, while not actually explaining why you view it as being about subjectivism vs. objectivism. I'm telling you that you really, really, really, really need to take this subjectivism/objectivism aspect out of it and then rethink it to see what's left of it, then start over and make it as simple as you can possibly make it.

 

[Pugsly]

Moreover,

Why do you believe, and continue to imply, that the success or failure of this "challenge" has anything in particular to do with any debate over subjectivism vs. objectivism? This is what confuses the hell out of me, about what you are trying to do. This is the reason that it isn't making sense. I very strongly encourage you to take the subjectivism/objectivism aspect of it out, completely. I encourage you to think about your challenge as long and as hard as you need to until you come to the realization that it has nothing in particular with a debate over subjectivism vs. objectivism, and nothing in particular to do with either of the two philosophical perspectives for evaluation of audio gear. You've tried to explain it several times now, and each time you have, you have explained it in a horrendously convoluted way and have made it seem that it has something to do with subjectivism vs. objectivism, while not actually explaining why you view it as being about subjectivism vs. objectivism. I'm telling you that you really, really, really, really need to take this subjectivism/objectivism aspect out of it and then rethink it to see what's left of it, then start over and make it as simple as you can possibly make it.

Fair enough. Perhaps you could tell me how would you define subjectivism/objectivism, and I can then either be corrected, drop those terms if I am using them in an illegitimate fashion, or of we are using the terms in the same sense, pinpoint why I think this my proposal would be relevant to that debate/discussion.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Pardon me if this sounds flippant, but since the Crack works well with the HD600 and you want to learn about building an amp - why not just order one and build it? The emulation part is going to be way more expensive.....

 

[MrPeabody]

To my way of thinking subjectivism and objectivism are self-explanatory. You have not made it apparent why you regard this challenge you've come up with as being a challenge to objectivists specifically. Since you haven't thus far explained this, all I'm able to do is take a guess as to what happened and as to the underlying thought process.

At some point you found yourself involved in some discussion about the funky noise inducing amplifier, and at some point during this discussion, someone that you identify with the objectivist school said something to the effect that the distortion of the funky amplifier could be emulated using DSB techniques in software. Something along these lines most likely happened. The comment was presumably made by someone that you thought of as an objectivist, and in your mind, you associated the comment with objectivism. You filed the comment away in a mental folder where you keep everything that you've ever encountered that was said by someone that you associate with objectivism. The claim was made by an objectivist, therefore it is an objectivist notion, therefore it is fair and appropriate to throw down this challenge at the foot of objectivism.

With something like this, the only thing that can be said, that needs to be said, is that it simply does not make sense. To the point of being bizarre. If someone that you associate with objectivism says something about lawn gardening, the fact that it was said by an objectivist does not make it part of the objectivist philosophy. In order for it to be sensible for you to put some particular notion at the foot of objectivists, you need to have a good reason for associating the notion with the objectivists' belief that measurements are important, i.e., a reason to believe that anyone who subscribes to the objectivist philosophy will also adhere to the notion in question. It is not sufficient for the notion to merely have been introduced to you by an objectivist.

In other words, you need to be able to complete this thought: It follows logically, from the fact that objectivists believe that measurements are important, that objectivists must also believe that ___________. You first have to fill in the blank with the notion, whatever it is, then you have to have a reason for believing that anyone who believes that measurements are important will also believe this notion, whatever it is. From what I've gathered, the notion that goes in the blank is the notion that it is possible to emulate the funky amplifier using DSP in software. Okay, but now you need to have a reason to think that anyone who believes in objective measurements will also necessarily hold to this other notion. This is the piece of the puzzle that is missing, that you haven't filled in and seem not to understand that this is a missing piece of the puzzle.

You are evidently not able to supply a reason for the implied assertion that objectivists as a rule should adhere to the notion that it is possible to emulate the funky amplifier using DSP methods in software. I am very much an objectivist, but I have no strong opinion on the question of whether an emulation of this particular kind ought to be implementable in software DSP, and I have no clue why you think that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that this emulation is possible.

It befuddles me very greatly, that you evidently think that because I am an objectivist, that I should believe that this emulation is possible. This is thing that I would very much like for you to explain. Why do you believe that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that it is easily possible to carry out this emulation? I do not understand why you believe this, and thus far you have not shed any light on why you believe this. I am therefore going to ask you to explain this one thing, and nothing more than this one thing, and to give this explanation in the most succinct manner that you can muster. Why do you believe that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that it is easily possible to carry out this emulation?

 

[Pugsly]

SIY,

While it is true that Carver made money from his challenge, there are some people who decide to try to combat woo and educate others - Amir, for example, since he has said that this site does not make him money... Likewise, you (and others) have taken time to respond to me, and are not getting paid for doing so. I'm not sure what your motivations for doing this are, but I believe that most people here are attempting to share their knowledge and thus educate me and others who might come across this thread.

Perhaps, however, I should have titled this 'a modest proposal' rather than calling it a challenge. This was mere rhetoric, aiming to attract responses from people with the technical expertise to do so. This might have been a misstep nonetheless, since while I have actually learned a great deal and most people have kindly explained if/why they think what I am asking is problematic, some individuals (and you at times) seem to think that I am setting myself up as the arbiter of truth who has come up with a once-and-for-all panacea for overcoming audio woo.

I also do not think that anyone is under any obligation to build such a DSP for me. I did not know if it would be a simple process to make such an emulation. I know that there are people here with a great deal more kit and expertise than I will ever have. I know that it is possible to get a free suite of VST plugins that would allow one to easily add 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order harmonic distortion at the required level, as well as to apply an equalizer. These are the main two features that are usually credited with the 'euphonic distortion' of tube amplifiers and used to explain why some people find them pleasing despite their introducing measurable distortion (since coloration is also distortion.) I was not sure if there were other factors that people would know about. I attempted to whittle down/eliminate those factors that I know could easily produce audibly different results (different tube amplifiers, interaction with different headphones)

My hope was one of the following:

(1) I would have it explained to me why what I was proposing was far more difficult than applying harmonic distortion and an equalizer, and thus I (and potentially others) would learn something about music reproduction, and potentially the appeal of tube amplifiers, from the exchange
(2) If I was told it was possible to easily satisfy the terms of my proposal, but only when other factors were taken into account (maybe there would be changes in response that would be dependent on the volume level which would be far too complicated to model) this would also be interesting and I would learn something.
(3) If someone actually did what I proposed, that would be educational and informative, since the distinct VST settings/programs would make it clear precisely what was necessary in order to produce 'tube sound.' Assuming it was successful, moreover, it would also be something that could be shared with the broader community as a kind of 'Carver Challenge' for the masses. There are undoubtedly people that will never be swayed if they are too deep in the woo,[/QUOTE]

 

[Pugsly]

To my way of thinking subjectivism and objectivism are self-explanatory. You have not made it apparent why you regard this challenge you've come up with as being a challenge to objectivists specifically. Since you haven't thus far explained this, all I'm able to do is take a guess as to what happened and as to the underlying thought process.

At some point you found yourself involved in some discussion about the funky noise inducing amplifier, and at some point during this discussion, someone that you identify with the objectivist school said something to the effect that the distortion of the funky amplifier could be emulated using DSB techniques in software. Something along these lines most likely happened. The comment was presumably made by someone that you thought of as an objectivist, and in your mind, you associated the comment with objectivism. You filed the comment away in a mental folder where you keep everything that you've ever encountered that was said by someone that you associate with objectivism. The claim was made by an objectivist, therefore it is an objectivist notion, therefore it is fair and appropriate to throw down this challenge at the foot of objectivism.

With something like this, the only thing that can be said, that needs to be said, is that it simply does not make sense. To the point of being bizarre. If someone that you associate with objectivism says something about lawn gardening, the fact that it was said by an objectivist does not make it part of the objectivist philosophy. In order for it to be sensible for you to put some particular notion at the foot of objectivists, you need to have a good reason for associating the notion with the objectivists' belief that measurements are important, i.e., a reason to believe that anyone who subscribes to the objectivist philosophy will also adhere to the notion in question. It is not sufficient for the notion to merely have been introduced to you by an objectivist.

In other words, you need to be able to complete this thought: It follows logically, from the fact that objectivists believe that measurements are important, that objectivists must also believe that ___________. You first have to fill in the blank with the notion, whatever it is, then you have to have a reason for believing that anyone who believes that measurements are important will also believe this notion, whatever it is. From what I've gathered, the notion that goes in the blank is the notion that it is possible to emulate the funky amplifier using DSP in software. Okay, but now you need to have a reason to think that anyone who believes in objective measurements will also necessarily hold to this other notion. This is the piece of the puzzle that is missing, that you haven't filled in and seem not to understand that this is a missing piece of the puzzle.

You are evidently not able to supply a reason for the implied assertion that objectivists as a rule should adhere to the notion that it is possible to emulate the funky amplifier using DSP methods in software. I am very much an objectivist, but I have no strong opinion on the question of whether an emulation of this particular kind ought to be implementable in software DSP, and I have no clue why you think that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that this emulation is possible.

It befuddles me very greatly, that you evidently think that because I am an objectivist, that I should believe that this emulation is possible. This is thing that I would very much like for you to explain. Why do you believe that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that it is easily possible to carry out this emulation? I do not understand why you believe this, and thus far you have not shed any light on why you believe this. I am therefore going to ask you to explain this one thing, and nothing more than this one thing, and to give this explanation in the most succinct manner that you can muster. Why do you believe that my being an objectivist is a reason why I should believe that it is easily possible to carry out this emulation?

If objectivism merely means that "objectivists believe that measurements are important" then I have never met or read a subjectivist, and the entire distinction is meaningless. I can't imagine even the most uninformed individual not recognizing that the power output of an amplifier is something you should consider when buying gear, or that (at least in in some instances) measurements will show that a piece of equipment is fundamentally broken. So no, what you mean by the distinction between subjectivism and objectivism is not self-evident, and accordingly you cannot ask me to logically deduce anything from the conditional here.

 

[SIY]

SIY,

While it is true that Carver made money from his challenge, there are some people who decide to try to combat woo and educate others - Amir, for example, since he has said that this site does not make him money... Likewise, you (and others) have taken time to respond to me, and are not getting paid for doing so. I'm not sure what your motivations for doing this are, but I believe that most people here are attempting to share their knowledge and thus educate me and others who might come across this thread.

Perhaps, however, I should have titled this 'a modest proposal' rather than calling it a challenge. This was mere rhetoric, aiming to attract responses from people with the technical expertise to do so. This might have been a misstep nonetheless, since while I have actually learned a great deal and most people have kindly explained if/why they think what I am asking is problematic, some individuals (and you at times) seem to think that I am setting myself up as the arbiter of truth who has come up with a once-and-for-all panacea for overcoming audio woo. That would be as absurd as expecting to

I also do not think that anyone is under any obligation to build such a DSP for me. I did not know if it would be a simple process to make such an emulation. I know that there are people here with a great deal more kit and expertise than I will ever have. I know that it is possible to get a free suite of VST plugins that would allow one to easily add 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order harmonic distortion at the required level, as well as to apply an equalizer. These are the main two features that are usually credited with the 'euphonic distortion' of tube amplifiers and used to explain why some people find them pleasing despite their introducing measurable distortion (since coloration is also distortion.) I was not sure if there were other factors that people would know about. I attempted to whittle down/eliminate those factors that I know could easily produce audibly different results (different tube amplifiers, interaction with different headphones)

My hope was one of the following:

(1) I would have it explained to me why what I was proposing was far more difficult than applying harmonic distortion and an equalizer, and thus I (and potentially others) would learn something about music reproduction, and potentially the appeal of tube amplifiers, from the exchange
(2) If I was told it was possible to easily satisfy the terms of my proposal, but only when other factors were taken into account (maybe there would be changes in response that would be dependent on the volume level which would be far too complicated to model) this would also be interesting and I would learn something.
(3) If someone actually did what I proposed, that would be educational and informative, since the distinct VST settings/programs would make it clear precisely what was necessary in order to produce 'tube sound.' Assuming it was successful, moreover, it would also be something that could be shared with the broader community as a kind of 'Carver Challenge' for the masses. There are undoubtedly people that will never be swayed if they are too deep in the woo,

Never use ten words where three hundred will do.

Also, you haven’t yet determined that anything is needed beyond simple EQ and maybe a little noise. Nor validation criteria.

 

[Helicopter]

Never use ten words where three hundred will do.

Also, you haven’t yet determined that anything is needed beyond simple EQ and maybe a little noise. Nor validation criteria.

Agree. I suspect EQ would get you 85% of the way to sounding the same, noise might get you to 95% and a bit of distortion maybe 99.5%. Just EQ and noise is likely close enough for most listeners in a double blind test.

 

[MrPeabody]

If objectivism merely means that "objectivists believe that measurements are important" then I have never met or read a subjectivist, and the entire distinction is meaningless. I can't imagine even the most uninformed individual not recognizing that the power output of an amplifier is something you should consider when buying gear, or that (at least in in some instances) measurements will show that a piece of equipment is fundamentally broken. So no, what you mean by the distinction between subjectivism and objectivism is not self-evident, and accordingly you cannot ask me to logically deduce anything from the conditional here.

Good Grief. Please provide YOUR definition of what it means to be an "objectivist" and then explain why you think that objectivists should all believe that the emulation you're proposing is doable and that there is something worthwhile for them to prove by doing it. This is the thing that you have not explained and that you need to explain before your challenge will make even a sliver of sense.

 

[Pugsly]

Never use ten words where three hundred will do.

(1) I have this weird response, where when someone ignores my actual statements, and then ascribes motivations and claims to me that as I see as having no connection with or basis in my actual statements, I try to actually explain where I am coming from in detail on the assumption that they have misunderstood me and I miscommunicated, rather than dismissing them as just being - let's call it 'unpleasant'. I am always willing to see if the evidence will disprove my assumptions in this regard (and others), but attempt to practice hermeneutic charity until this becomes impossible.

Also, you haven’t yet determined that anything is needed beyond simple EQ and maybe a little noise. Nor validation criteria.

(2) This statement is unclear to me. No, I don't know if a simple EQ + noise would be sufficient to make it impossible to null the signal, much less render the two sources identical within the threshold of human hearing, much less in an ABX test. That was actually my point - I don't know; is there a consensus amongst experts in audio science/psychoacoustics/ or? This is what I wanted to learn, because if so, then people spending money on multiple amplifiers are being conned, or at least wasting their money.

 

[SIY]

Agree. I suspect EQ would get you 85% of the way to sounding the same, noise might get you to 95% and a bit of distortion maybe 99.5%. Just EQ and noise is likely close enough for most listeners in a double blind test.

It's remarkable how insensitive we are to distortion when using music or voice until it becomes gross. I'd predict that EQ and noise alone will do it.

 

[Helicopter]

(1) I have this weird response, where when someone ignores my actual statements, and then ascribes motivations and claims to me that as I see as having no connection with or basis in my actual statements, I try to actually explain where I am coming from in detail on the assumption that they have misunderstood me and I miscommunicated, rather than dismissing them as just being - let's call it 'unpleasant'. I am always willing to see if the evidence will disprove my assumptions in this regard (and others), but attempt to practice hermeneutic charity until this becomes impossible.



(2) This statement is unclear to me. No, I don't know if a simple EQ + noise would be sufficient to make it impossible to null the signal, much less render the two sources identical within the threshold of human hearing, much less in an ABX test. That was actually my point - I don't know; is there a consensus amongst experts in audio science/psychoacoustics/ or? This is what I wanted to learn, because if so, then people spending money on multiple amplifiers are being conned, or at least wasting their money.

The consensus is that frequency response is the vast majority of what you hear in such a comparison, noise is virtually all that's left, and trivially, distortion might make a small difference but only sometimes.

The problem with a null test is that noise and distortion likely have a random component, so inverting one signal and adding it to the other won't get rid of them even if both signals are audibly identical. If you get your EQ right, the null test will likely output the noise and distortion, and the noise will be way louder so that is all you will hear.

Still, you can probably get very close to the same sound just with EQ (FR) and some noise will basically get you the rest of the way there.

 

[Pugsly]

Good Grief. Please provide YOUR definition of what it means to be an "objectivist" and then explain why you think that objectivists should all believe that the emulation you're proposing is doable and that there is something worthwhile for them to prove by doing it. This is the thing that you have not explained and that you need to explain before your challenge will make even a sliver of sense.

I did not claim that everyone who identifies themselves using this term holds the same set of beliefs, and would instead suggest that these terms denote a rough family of claims/positions, not all of which are held by everyone, and which admit of various gradations. These two camps, as I see it, are more like two political parties/identities (say Republicans and Democrats.) There are positions taken by individuals in each camp that would be considered fringe in the party, and there are positions/claims that if one had identified as a Republican but argued for would be disqualifying and you would be forced out, shouted down, etc. It is sort of like the old 'I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.' No one will mistake HUSTLER for the statue of David. Likewise, no one will mistake ASR for some other sites. There are things that one cannot ask or say here and expect to go unchallenged, and vice versa, and if one persists they will be open to ridicule.

You had claimed that I was using the terms subjectivist/objectivist inaccurately or imprecisely, that the distinction was obvious, and then when you formulated your desiderata in terms of an argument that implicitly used the term 'objectivism' in such an empty manner that no one would count as a subjectivist. Since you were implicitly asking me to use that sentence as a premise to define what would follow logically from the position of objectivism but not from that of subjectivism, what you were asking was impossible. You don't get to insist on logical rigour, claim that I have used terms in an illegitimate manner, fail to define your terms in a way that is meaningful so that nothing falls outside of the Venn diagram of one of the terms, insist that I formulate an argument on the basis of such a definition, and then object that I am being obtuse and proclaim 'good grief'.

How about this: How do you answer the following quiz and are you willing to share your answers to this quiz with me?
https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/about/subjectivist-objectivist-or-intermediativist/

Further questions:
Are you willing to share your answers here and defend your answers against those who hold a contrary position? Would you be willing to let some things go in forums here if people answered differently, but not others? Why?

 

[weasels]

Philosophically, objectivism is belief that something is true whether or not you perceive it to be so. The truth of the thing is independent of your perception of it.

To me, that means that if I perceive an audible difference between two options, there are a limited number of possibilities to consider:

1) The difference is independent of my perception. This is typically proven either through measurements or a test designed to eliminate perceptual bias.

2) The difference is dependent on my perception, and thus cannot be objectively considered to be proven true. It may be true, but it is not proven to be so.


To @MrPeabody's point, your proposed experiment has nothing to do with objectivism. We already know there is an objectively audible difference. What you seek to test is the capability of an engineer to develop a model to alter the native characteristics of a device to sound like a different device. We also already know this is possible - see any number of excellent guitar effects processors like FractalFX as an example - so I'm not sure what the point would be.

 

[JustJones]

That test reminds me of school, I scored a 0. Why not go to a pro audio site and find a tube emulator plugin, run a song through it until it sounds close to the bottle thing and do some blind tests?