• 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!

There is nothing holy about the signal

Is the signal holy?

  • Yes it is

    Votes: 35 20.0%
  • No it isn't

    Votes: 130 74.3%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    Votes: 10 5.7%

  • Total voters
    175
You are mixing up rational and objective. They are not the same.

If I have a subjective preference for steak over chicken, then it is a rational act to order steak, rather than chicken.

If on a particular day I feel like a change from steak, then it becomes rational to order chicken.

I have edited to clean that up. In short, yes, subject opinions can be used to make rational decisions for one's self but the resultant decision does not then itself become some sort of objective fact or have any predictive value. I prefer steak over chicken so I will order steak- rational decision for me. It doesn't mean that steak is "better" somehow than chicken, that you will order steak, or that I can infer you will prefer steak because I do....
 
Last edited:
Motivations have a place in things along with rationality. Global warming is something determined if possible by facts and rational processes. What to do with the results can vary due to motivations and what is possible. Those too can be rational in how they are pursued even if the motivation is subjective.

Rationality alone won't work. Choices have to be driven by something. People who had brain injuries that left them fully rational and aware, but devoid of emotion could not cope with life. They never had desire, motivation or anything to cause them to chose to do or not to do something. I think that sort of thing is what Matt Hooper has in mind.

Yes, that’s getting at.

I hold that reasons for action arise from desires. You can put all the facts you want in a column, but you won’t get any reason to act until you add a desire (at which point you get, using Kant’s phrasing, a hypothetical imperative). And then we can reason about what action will most likely fulfill a desire or set of desires.

So you will trace any rational action back to a desire as the basis for motivating that action.

So desires are bound up with any rational action, any rational choice.

The source of desires can vary: they can be, for instance innate, not arrived at by a process of deliberation, such as our evolutionarily developed desire for food.
But many desires are malleable and can be arrived at via reason, for instance whether it makes sense to cultivate a desire for specific foods that will fulfil some set of goals (EG choosing healthy food to meet the goal of maintaining health, which itself may be a rational desire given how being healthy allows us to fulfill so many of our other strong and connected desires).

We have the ability to survey our sets of motivations and desires, and to use second order reasons - consider if our reasons themselves are good ones. So we are not always stuck just helplessly “having” desires but we can reason about which desires are better than others - which cohere more in terms of that wider view of our connected desires and goals. Plus as I mentioned, many if not most of our new desires arise from a process of rational deliberation.

So that means some desires can be evaluated as being more or less rational to have, the same as actions can be evaluated as rational or not.

(Admittedly this edges in to views of epistemology/ morality / free will and all that fun stuff..)
 
Yes, that’s getting at.

I hold that reasons for action arise from desires. You can put all the facts you want in a column, but you won’t get any reason to act until you add a desire (at which point you get, using Kant’s phrasing, a hypothetical imperative). And then we can reason about what action will most likely fulfill a desire or set of desires.

So you will trace any rational action back to a desire as the basis for motivating that action.

So desires are bound up with any rational action, any rational choice.

The source of desires can vary: they can be, for instance innate, not arrived at by a process of deliberation, such as our evolutionarily developed desire for food.
But many desires are malleable and can be arrived at via reason, for instance whether it makes sense to cultivate a desire for specific foods that will fulfil some set of goals (EG choosing healthy food to meet the goal of maintaining health, which itself may be a rational desire given how being healthy allows us to fulfill so many of our other strong and connected desires).

We have the ability to survey our sets of motivations and desires, and to use second order reasons - consider if our reasons themselves are good ones. So we are not always stuck just helplessly “having” desires but we can reason about which desires are better than others - which cohere more in terms of that wider view of our connected desires and goals. Plus as I mentioned, many if not most of our new desires arise from a process of rational deliberation.

So that means some desires can be evaluated as being more or less rational to have, the same as actions can be evaluated as rational or not.

(Admittedly this edges in to views of epistemology/ morality / free will and all that fun stuff..)
 
jaws ice cream
1721375618002.png
 
Environmentalist, vegans [or is that vegetarians?] and cows/chickens may think eating either is irrational human activity! :facepalm:
Environmentalists: they care about sustainable agriculture and local consumption to avoid transport CO2 emissions. Can eat meat.

Vegetarians: they only eat vegetables and some animal derived products, milk, eggs, honey.

Vegans: is a lifestyle and affects things beyond food. They reject animal exploit and maltreatment, so they don’t eat anything derived from animals and avoid tissues like wool, leather…

Cows: they eat only grass, so can be considered either vegans or vegetarians. Nobody knows if they are environmentalists, enquire may be necessary …

Chickens: they eat all kind of things, I saw them eating even other chicken’s meat. They don’t care about nothing
 
So… I contribute nothing new:

1. The Initial Signal is Holy - it is the Absolute Beginning
2. Once in the Reproduction Process, the signal will change, driven by the listener’s preferences
3. What hits the ear/brain at the speakers, room position of the listener is a matter of taste
4. See my tag line below

Tillman
 
Environmentalists: they care about sustainable agriculture and local consumption to avoid transport CO2 emissions. Can eat meat.

Vegetarians: they only eat vegetables and some animal derived products, milk, eggs, honey.

Vegans: is a lifestyle and affects things beyond food. They reject animal exploit and maltreatment, so they don’t eat anything derived from animals and avoid tissues like wool, leather…

Cows: they eat only grass, so can be considered either vegans or vegetarians. Nobody knows if they are environmentalists, enquire may be necessary …

Chickens: they eat all kind of things, I saw them eating even other chicken’s meat. They don’t care about nothing
Bedawk!
 
i voted yes because if you ever experienced full scale digital noise from a poor usb type b connection (i had a VERY beaten up interface at the time) you would too
 
Reading again the OP, I have one doubt about Harman curves:

They reproduce the anechoic response of a flat speaker in a moderately reflective room, somehow an “average” room.

But why to not try to EQ to a totally flat response? If the ideal is an anechoic chamber (or am I wrong?), why don’t attempt to a flat curve in an apartment?
 
I’m sure the totally flat response on a headphone would not be preferable at all with zero presence in the midrange to lower treble
 
Reading again the OP, I have one doubt about Harman curves:

They reproduce the anechoic response of a flat speaker in a moderately reflective room, somehow an “average” room.

But why to not try to EQ to a totally flat response? If the ideal is an anechoic chamber (or am I wrong?), why don’t attempt to a flat curve in an apartment?
I am not sure I understand your question. The Harman curve is a preference curve, the frequency response most listeners preferred in listening tests. A flat response is not the ideal preference curve for most listeners, it is shaped like the Harman curve. Thus the goal is (may be) for listeners is to recreate the Harman curve (or whatever they prefer) in their own room. The actual EQ applied to attain the Harman (target) curve measured at the listening position will vary. If your room is such that it produces the Harman curve from speakers having flat frequency response, great, you are done! No more EQ needed. For most rooms, some EQ is needed to adjust the response to match the Harman curve (or whatever curve the listener finds pleasing). Same applies to headphones; either they provide the Harman curve by themselves, or need EQ to match it, but chances are listeners would not prefer a flat curve.

As always, the goal is to stat with flat frequency response as a design goal, then EQ as needed for preference. If you design to a target curve, that will only work in one room, one environment, so most people would not like the sound.
 
Reading again the OP, I have one doubt about Harman curves:

They reproduce the anechoic response of a flat speaker in a moderately reflective room, somehow an “average” room.

But why to not try to EQ to a totally flat response? If the ideal is an anechoic chamber (or am I wrong?), why don’t attempt to a flat curve in an apartment?
The speakers Harman (Dr Olive and colleagues) used have flat anechoic response. They are not EQ'd to a "target room response" using the measured steady-state in-room frequency response. Quoting Dr Toole:
...
Let me state now: there is no, nor can there be, a single ideal steady-state “target” room curve. The room curve is a result of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex semi-reflective listening environment. If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests – but it is the anechoic measurements that are definitive of sound quality, not the room curve. If the loudspeaker is not “well designed”, and many are not, especially in off-axis behavior, the steady-state room curve will not be a smooth decline. Equalizing it to have that shape guarantees nothing. The loudspeaker is at fault, and the solution is most likely a better loudspeaker. That is why, these days, it is such a powerful advantage to have anechoic spinoramas available on so many products. It takes much of the guesswork out of getting genuinely neutral sound reproduction.
...
 
The speakers Harman (Dr Olive and colleagues) used have flat anechoic response. They are not EQ'd to a "target room response" using the measured steady-state in-room frequency response. Quoting Dr Toole:
...
Let me state now: there is no, nor can there be, a single ideal steady-state “target” room curve. The room curve is a result of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex semi-reflective listening environment. If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests – but it is the anechoic measurements that are definitive of sound quality, not the room curve. If the loudspeaker is not “well designed”, and many are not, especially in off-axis behavior, the steady-state room curve will not be a smooth decline. Equalizing it to have that shape guarantees nothing. The loudspeaker is at fault, and the solution is most likely a better loudspeaker. That is why, these days, it is such a powerful advantage to have anechoic spinoramas available on so many products. It takes much of the guesswork out of getting genuinely neutral sound reproduction.
...
Thanks, now I have no doubts. I misunderstood the definition of the Harman curve from another post.

The reference speaker has on axis flat response, and smooth of off axis decline. I missed the off axis part and took only “flat”, and didn’t make sense to me.

Now I self-correct my post: if the average room response is flat, surely the on axis response will be totally non-flat with not enough bass and exaggerated mid-high and high end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NTK
Reading again the OP, I have one doubt about Harman curves:

They reproduce the anechoic response of a flat speaker in a moderately reflective room, somehow an “average” room.

But why to not try to EQ to a totally flat response? If the ideal is an anechoic chamber (or am I wrong?), why don’t attempt to a flat curve in an apartment?

This is how the Harman curve is derived.

1. Start with a loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber. Tune it to measure flat at 1m.
2. Place the speaker in an ideal listening room. Measure the response from 2-3m away. You will notice a falling frequency response.
3. Swap out the omnidirectional microphone and place a listener dummy in its place. Now the frequency response will be modified by the HRTF. Comparison of HRTF with the Harman curve:

1724773368124.png


HRTF of a few individuals. You will notice a few things: there is a rising treble response above 1.5kHz, but how much it rises varies between individuals. This is because of differences in the shape and size of ears, head, neck, shoulders, etc.

1724773404554.png

Harman target for headphones (blue) and IEM's (red).

4. Tune your headphone to the HRTF target and submit it to a listening panel who can tilt the frequency balance to their preference.

The reality is a bit more complex than this. Pitfalls of the Harman target for headphones:

- as seen, above 1.5-2kHz the HRTF varies quite a bit between individuals. Also, the Harman curve is tuned to the B&K 5128 measurement dummy they are using.
- below 300Hz or so, the response can become variable depending on fit issues - e.g. adequacy of seal, clamping force, glasses, positional variation, etc.

Take home message: (1) When reading headphone reviews for compliance, don't read too much into it. Egregious departures from the curve (by more than a few dB) are unlikely to be preferred. (2) Compliance to the curve between 300Hz - 2kHz is the most important. (3) Always look at the distortion figures because it is more than likely you will have to tune the headphone to your own taste, preferably with your own in-ear microphones. I don't care how my headphones measure on a B&K dummy, I care what it measures like on my own head.
 
My basic idea about the signal is that it is Holy an not to be temperd with because all original intended information is in the signal/recording like imaging staging reverb (of the venue or artificial created) an intended volume frequency recorded on the multitrack/master tape for each instrument vocals. So the original signal as intended/recorded is king IMO. Now do you get this information reproduced in 99% of the cases i don't think so because of bad room acoustics in the average home compared to a proffesional studio control room with expensive room treatment (an guess what that is on your audio equipment the original source) So room Treatment or DSP or combination of both is the way forward to get as close to reproduce the original signal/recording IF it is a quality recording that is more or less linear/neutral recorded.
 
Last edited:
Cows: they eat only grass, so can be considered either vegans or vegetarians. Nobody knows if they are environmentalists, enquire may be necessary …
They wear leather -- and apparently do so without the least compunction.
I am just sayin'.
:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom