Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[afinepoint]

Dude, he made a joke. You missed it. Let me help you. Reactors get ‘glowing’ reviews. Get it?

Got it. He should have put in quotes or just explained it himself. He had three opportunities to do so. But apologies if it was misconstrued. That is funny.

 

[afinepoint]

I'm 62. I was doing OK until I had nearly two years on a painkiller that did a better job killing my high frequency hearing than the pain! Fortunately I'm off it again now.

Glad to hear it.

This a bit off topic but related. If you are wanting to have your ears tested for range let the tech know up front. Otherwise they are looking for a loss in the normal range of hearing. Which for him is 250hz to 10k. After seeing the results I had to tell him what I wanted. I think he later stopped at 16k because he saw the plummet. I might have heard higher but he would have had to boost the tone significantly.

 

[KenA]

Measurements. Not just a few, but lots and lots of measurements. That weeds out the under-performing (or non-performing) stuff.

The next step is understanding whether you have any specialized needs in you setup, like a wonky phase load or extreme power needs, or not. More weeding out.

Out of what's left, you can choose as you please.

Some people can't understand this process. They want measurements to tell them what's best, or what they should buy. That's backwards. That's not what the primary purpose of tests and measurements happens to be. The primary purpose of tests and measurements is to find fault, to find the weaknesses. Its purpose is not to affirm, but to reject and condemn. If something is not condemned, not rejected and has no fault, then it by definition performs to standards and the function is acceptable.

Look at it this way; when the doctors run you through a battery of tests, what are they looking for? They're looking for disease .... IOW, for faults. What is a radiography test looking for in welds? They're looking for weaknesses. What about testing concrete to destruction? People say that is actually testing for strength .... and in a way, it is. But the truth is that it's testing for weakness to make sure that the weakness is above a certain level.

Ears are notoriously unreliable. Compared to instrumentation, they are extremely insensitive .... and inconsistent.
Don't let others tell you what to buy, either. They might not have the same agenda that you have, nor are they likely to listen under the same circumstances. Not only that, but many of them give you advice simply to re-affirm their own prejudices.

So in the end, the only reliable and consistent source of information is tests and measurements. Not your ears, not the dealer and not your friends. And certainly not YouTube.

Just tests and measurements.

Jim "tests and measurements" Taylor

(Sorry @rdenney , I just couldn't resist! )

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

 

[JustJones]

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

? I really don't understand the comparison.

 

[Galliardist]

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

In high fidelity, your argument applies to the music, but not the delivery.

We can tell which wine glass may give the best result from assessing the wine, which is closer to assessing an audio system.

The art assessor may not be able to tell you you'd like the painting, but someone from a gallery may be able to assess your room to say if the artwork would be properly appreciated there.

While we don't fully understand the sighted listening response, we can't be 100% certain that you will find an audio system to your taste: but that is different from your argument. The audio system is not the art being appreciated.

 

[Galliardist]

The audio system is not the art being appreciated.

I should qualify that after the discussions in other threads here.

The audio system is not the art being appreciated, in the actual process of listening.

 

[antcollinet]

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

As usual a wine analogy done wrong.

The wine is the music (the thing we enjoy). The bottle/box and or glass is the thing that delivers the wine to our lips, just as our reproduction gear delivers the music to our ears. We can measure the cleanliness of the glass, or the chemical composition of the plastic in boxed wine, and find out if it is going to contaminate the wine, and if so by how much and are we likely to be able to taste the contamination.

Just like we don't measure music to find out if we will enjoy it, we don't measure wine for that purpose either.


EDIT Arrgggh - or what @Galliardist said.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

It's best not to confuse subjective obsessions with scientific data. The rigorously controlled tests of science are meant to show what something is, and show it with dispassionate (non-affected) clarity. The scientific method was developed to eliminate personal bias from skewing results.

Subjectivism is an expression of how much we like something, not what it is. It's easy to get these mixed up. For instance, perhaps someone has an opinion about a painting, perhaps a Mondrian or a Klee. They may use (or more accurately, misuse) a scientific analysis to bolster their personal opinion, especially if they feel the need to defend their opinion.

This is a misuse of science and logic. Affection (whether we like something) is emotional, and emotion is not logical.

Do I have affections? Am I emotional? Absolutely! But my emotion is directed at the music, not the equipment.

Jim

 

[IPunchCholla]

Ah, the blinkers of the Ignore button. And in response to a perfectly reasonable post that matched yours for tone, to boot.

For the benefit of other readers, which part of your "but with a consistent system setup, how much I like the sound I am listening to varies over time/mood/substance consumption etc" is not even remotely readable as applying to sighted listening? Straw man claim looks pretty thin and intolerant, to me.

For the benefit of other readers, if Toole gets consistent predictable preference for the sound waves of accurate reproducers from a huge range of listeners, without subjecting them to substance consumption or mood testing as a variable, then it's pretty obvious that individual listeners are consistent too. If it weren't so, then results would have been all over the place and he would have had to correct for those factors, and it would get a mention.

That’s not true. Populations can be consistent without individuals being consistent. I always took that remark to be about populations, not individuals.

 

[Dimitrov]

Kunchur's past papers have had errors (see @Newman's post above). He has shown in the past an agenda to try to prove standard measurements and double blind measurement technique inadequate to assess audio reproduction, and the language is there in the draft article again. He has made mistakes in previous papers as well.

However, to condemn the draft paper as shown here would be unfair to the peer reviewers, now a reviewed version has been published.

Okay but disregarding previous papers, if we just focus on the paper I linked to, what is there that you disagree with? Do you disagree with what he says in principle, is it because there is a lack of evidence? I'm just trying to understand the various points of view on this because there is always nuances and rarely is anything cut and dry. I don't know the author, I get the feeling people here don't take him seriously, so I'm just trying to put 1+1 together.

 

[Ricardus]

I don’t actually disagree with you, Jim, but I must ask. If measurements and tests told you that a certain bottle wine was excellent, would you buy it and know 100% you will enjoy the taste?

What about art? Would you buy a piece of art without first seeing it? Why not, the test and examination by a fully qualified art assessor said its perfect, so you must like it right?

Another low post account making absurd anti-science comparisons.

WINE IS NOT ELECTRICITY. ART IS NOT ELECTRICITY. These comparisons are just STUPID.

 

[egellings]

Dude, he made a joke. You missed it. Let me help you. Reactors get ‘glowing’ reviews. Get it?

I also viewed the "glowing" comment as humor.

 

[ahofer]

Just BTW, since we've hit on one of my hobby horses, the chemical make-up of wine most certainly can be measured, and is highly predictive of taste, hence the world of Frankenwines and Rudy Kiernawan.

However, as others have pointed out, wine is the music, and the audio system is the glass, whose function is to hold the wine, make it accessible for drinking, and allow the wine to breathe and express all of its flavor without any other chemical interference, all of which can be described easily in material and shape measurements.

 

[ahofer]

I had an audiogram done last week to see where I stand. I'm 64. The results were quite surprising.

In quick summary my hearing begins to roll off above 10k but extends to 16khz where the test was stopped.

Not a hearing test, a listening test. Can one hear these minor phase differences when you don't know they are there? I'll assume no until it is demonstrated.

The irony.

 

[MarkS]

Okay but disregarding previous papers, if we just focus on the paper I linked to, what is there that you disagree with? Do you disagree with what he says in principle, is it because there is a lack of evidence? I'm just trying to understand the various points of view on this because there is always nuances and rarely is anything cut and dry. I don't know the author, I get the feeling people here don't take him seriously, so I'm just trying to put 1+1 together.

I didn't need to read past the second sentence in the Abstract: "Customary relationships between frequency, time, and phase—such as the uncertainty principle—that hold for linear systems, do not apply straightforwardly to the hearing process."

This is garbage. He wants to claim that hearing has some mysterious nonlinear signal-processing capabilty that gives it magical powers. Total BS.

It's sad and embarrassing, but a small fraction of academic scientists end up as crackpots. This happens especially when they stray from their original areas of expertise (though many good scientists are able to move into new areas and make good contributions).

Brian Josephson is the poster child for this: https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/brian-josephson-merging-physics-and-the-paranormal/

 

[KenA]

Another low post account making absurd anti-science comparisons.

WINE IS NOT ELECTRICITY. ART IS NOT ELECTRICITY. These comparisons are just STUPID.

Wow, some people bite quickly. Love it. Caps and all, eh, makes your point a little louder? it’s okay, I happen to believe in science too, even if I am obviously a scum dumb low-poster account holder and all.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

he has credential in another area of science , a common fallacy among intellectual people , assuming because you know a lot you then know everything and have authoritive opinions outside your core expertise . Also common among leaders and other people in some position of power or status , to claim authority in all parts of life because your are an authority in some circumstances.

Another example of such an academic who drives way out of his lane is Dr. Jordan Peterson.

 

[KenA]

It's best not to confuse subjective obsessions with scientific data. The rigorously controlled tests of science are meant to show what something is, and show it with dispassionate (non-affected) clarity. The scientific method was developed to eliminate personal bias from skewing results.

Subjectivism is an expression of how much we like something, not what it is. It's easy to get these mixed up. For instance, perhaps someone has an opinion about a painting, perhaps a Mondrian or a Klee. They may use (or more accurately, misuse) a scientific analysis to bolster their personal opinion, especially if they feel the need to defend their opinion.

This is a misuse of science and logic. Affection (whether we like something) is emotional, and emotion is not logical.

Do I have affections? Am I emotional? Absolutely! But my emotion is directed at the music, not the equipment.

Jim

Thanks Jim and Gilliardist for those replies and without reverting to vitriol for my apparent anti-science blasphemy . You make excellent points.

I am science orientated. eg, I don’t own flash cables, interconnect etc, but do EQ. Floyd Toole is the man.

I have two amps, AHB2 for probably 90% of my listening. But when I want to listen to music of mainly top vocals at a quieter level I switch over to an old tube amp. Head to head by Amirm, the tube amp will test crap compared to the AHB2. But I love it.

What I’m kinda getting at is, that if I‘d just look at the tests (rather than experimenting with different gear over the years and using my ears and subjective opinion) I wouldn’t own that tube amp, and then I truely believe I’d be missing out on a different, but no less quality nor enjoyable (for me!) experience. My music room brings a smile to my face and that’s what counts most.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What I’m kinda getting at is, that if I‘d just look at the tests (rather than experimenting with different gear over the years and using my ears and subjective opinion) I wouldn’t own that tube amp, and then I truely believe I’d be missing out on a different, but no less quality nor enjoyable (for me!) experience. My music room brings a smile to my face and that’s what counts most

I think liking tube amps is fine. I studied tubes at university, and don't have a problem with them when used in well designed settings. For most tube power amplifiers, harmonic distortion is introduced at audible levels. So, as long as owners know that they are listening to and enjoying distortion and are not listening to an accurate rendition of the recording, then all is well.

 

[Dimitrov]

I didn't need to read past the second sentence in the Abstract: "Customary relationships between frequency, time, and phase—such as the uncertainty principle—that hold for linear systems, do not apply straightforwardly to the hearing process."

This is garbage. He wants to claim that hearing has some mysterious nonlinear signal-processing capabilty that gives it magical powers. Total BS.

It's sad and embarrassing, but a small fraction of academic scientists end up as crackpots. This happens especially when they stray from their original areas of expertise (though many good scientists are able to move into new areas and make good contributions).

Brian Josephson is the poster child for this: https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/brian-josephson-merging-physics-and-the-paranormal/

Someone has attempted to tackle this complex field. I am sure the paper will stimulate responses from many quarters but that is how science and our understanding are furthered.