Does Op-amp Rolling Work?

[RexrothPigeon]

Dune has the best dry music

Dry and spicy, but too much grit for me

 

[Raiju]

I had a lot of back and forth with AI about amp rolling, and I know AI isn't much liked here, but I like this answer

A $200,000 analyzer is “better” at detecting and quantifying small electrical phenomena.
But the human ear–brain system is “better” at processing complexity in context and assigning meaning to sound.

 

[Raiju]

Me personally, I like to believe that 3.5 billion years of evolution is better at some things than a $200,000 analyzer.

 

[voodooless]

Me personally, I like to believe that 3.5 billion years of evolution is better at some things than a $200,000 analyzer.

Some things, yes, others, definately not.

A $200,000 analyzer is “better” at detecting and quantifying small electrical phenomena.
But the human ear–brain system is “better” at processing complexity in context and assigning meaning to sound.

We don't need context or meaning to compare two opamp signals. If they turn out to perform better than human hearing, there is nothing assign meaning to.

 

[Raiju]

We don't need context or meaning to compare two opamp signals. If they turn out to perform better than human hearing, there is nothing assign meaning to.

Human hearing relies on insanely complex biological and possibly quantum processes shaped by millions of years of evolution. No electronic measurement—no matter how advanced—can fully capture that.

 

[antcollinet]

If they turn out to perform better than human hearing, there is nothing assign meaning to.

Exactly - if there is no difference big enough for the ears to detect, the 3.5billion years of evolution has wasted its time getting out of bed.

 

[Raiju]

Exactly - if there is no difference big enough for the ears to detect, the 3.5billion years of evolution has wasted its time getting out of bed.

I am so sorry you think that.

 

[antcollinet]

Human hearing relies on insanely complex biological and possibly quantum processes shaped by millions of years of evolution. No electronic measurement—no matter how advanced—can fully capture that.

Our measurement instruments are far more sensitive than our hearing. We can trivially measure things that the human ear is completely unable to detect.

This is why we invented measurement tools in the first place. Because our senses are not accurate enough. Ever tried to eyball the length of a piece of timber as accurately as you can measure it with a tape measure?

 

[solderdude]

I am so sorry you think that.

I'm not...

 

[JSmith]

No electronic measurement—no matter how advanced—can fully capture that.

What are you on about? Thread is about opamps... an analyser is measuring an electrical signal.

There is nothing mystical about this.

We listen to the sound from the speakers or headphones.

At the moment you seem to be just talking nonsense and replying for the sake of it.


JSmith

 

[Raiju]

Our measurement instruments are far more sensitive than our hearing. We can trivially measure things that the human ear is completely unable to detect.

This is why we inveneted measurrement tools in the first place. Because our senses are not accurate enough. Ever tried to eyball the length of a piece of timber as accurately as you can measure it with a tape measure?

Yes, we engineered stuf that’s way sharper and more precise than our biology. But the human ear and brain handle complexity that can't be decoded yet. So being technically “more accurate” doesn’t mean capturing how we actually hear and feel sound.

 

[voodooless]

 

[solderdude]

Yes, we engineered stuf that’s way sharper and more precise than our biology. But the human ear and brain handle complexity that can't be decoded yet. So being technically “more accurate” doesn’t mean capturing how we actually hear and feel sound.

Aaaahhhh 'the missing signal'
Yet .. audiophiles seem to love certain recordings on their (analog) systems ... doesn't that mean that lovely sound can be recorded (and thus measured) and reproduced ?

 

[Raiju]

all I am saying here is that the human ear tops all we made

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, we engineered stuf that’s way sharper and more precise than our biology. But the human ear and brain handle complexity that can't be decoded yet. So being technically “more accurate” doesn’t mean capturing how we actually hear and feel sound.

But it does tell us whether the ear (A biomechanical machine for detecting sound that has neither infinite bandwidth, nor infinite sensitivity) is able to detect any difference for our brain to decode the complexity of in the first place.


And while we are at it - evolution is a ridculouslly crude mechanism for constructing accurate measruement AND decoding cabability. Else we would all be able to echo-locate, and hear ultrasound like bats can. Basically it stops making improvements when there is no survival advantage from doing so.

There is no biological imperative to be able to hear tiny changes in music (or any other sound), so our hearing hasn't evolved to be able to.

 

[antcollinet]

all I am saying here is that the human ear tops all we made

That is so laughable - I'll probably still be laughing at midnight.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Me personally, I like to believe that 3.5 billion years of evolution is better at some things than a $200,000 analyzer.

And yet you quote AI…

 

[MAB]

all I am saying here is that the human ear tops all we made

Can you describe how you came to this conclusion? Over a century of research indicate it is actually quite limited. Perhaps I've been studying the wrong materials. Please enlighten me with some references demonstrating these claims you make about human hearing.

 

[voodooless]

all I am saying here is that the human ear tops all we made

So, why can't you hear an 18 kHz tone then?

 

[DVDdoug]

But the human ear–brain system is “better” at processing complexity in context and assigning meaning to sound.

True... Measurements can't tell you anything useful about a rock concert or symphony... Only a human can tell you if they are enjoying it. If you want to discuss MUSIC nobody is going to tell you to take measurements.

BUT when we are talking about the EQUIPMENT to reproduce a recording, measurements, can measure BETTER than and more reliably than we can hear.

And our brains often fool us.

What is a blind ABX.
Controlled Audio Blind Listening Tests.

If you can reliably and repeatably identify op-amp "A" or op-amp "B" in a proper blind ABX test, and the differences can't be explained with measurements that would be amazing!