|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.189.30.99
In Reply to: RE: You're really grasping at straws. posted by Pat D on June 20, 2010 at 16:53:41
There will never be anything approaching any kind of semi-universal certainty or consistency with high-end artisan products. Just because some manufacturer uses electrical engineering methodology to achieve a certain "sound," - does not mean that their goal is to either define or achieve something approaching "accuracy;" that will be agreed upon by all or many.Hearing and listening is interpretation, - (and that does not mean arbitrary beliefs), - the goal is often "sounds good:" - or possibly too, an accurate interpretation of a recorded event, as the designer hears it.
All of this stuff falls within the realm of a very uncertain interpretation, and experience. To try to go beyond experience, and subject different components to some kind of provable standard, almost borders on the ridiculous as there are no universally acceptable standards: (and they are certainly not provable). We certainly can measure the resistance of any given set of cables. But whether or not different cables make any given sound system sound different, - is subject to a whole host of different circumstances, including the people who are listening: so much so that we just need to experience them.
This is an entirely different world, (interpreting an artistic event), than manufacturing an effective drug, or determining a car's acceleration: the latter of which can be easily tested and proven.
I've experienced Home Depot lamp cord, Speltz Anti-Cables, Audience AU24 and Cardas cables in my system. They all affected how the system sounded, and they all made the system sound different. (If I would've connected these cables to my Denon all-in-one system in the bedroom; they would've been different still, and I bet that their differences would've been less pronounced, if at all).
Denigrating experience, in a paradigm that has goals of interpreting an artistic event, is not going to help anyone acquire value. In a world where both perceptions and goals vary greatly, the best we can do to determine value is to acquire as many experiences as we can, and then try to determine the degree of differences, (if any), bring in the other factors besides sound quality as we perceive it, - then make the call.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Edits: 06/21/10 06/22/10Follow Ups:
All of the above is true if all you're trying to reach is a purely subjective evaluation. But if what you're trying to determine is whether or not something is audible when the listener expectations are disengaged, or how faithfully a component reproduces the signal it receives, you've entered a world where objective observation and measurement is critical and interpretation is irrelevant, even counter-productive.
Of course we listen subjectively, and that's all that matters in the end. If you believe that a meter of copper, with no filtering capacity or characteristics, sandwiched between miles of copper in the grid system and many feet of it in your listening system, can change the quality of your music, you WILL hear it. Enjoy.
P
But the "goal" can either be "accuracy" or "beauty," and since accuracy is not defined, all choices become reduced to subjective, artistic ones.
Do you use Vishay or Hovland resistors? Do you use Hovland capacitors, or pour your own?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
But accuracy IS defined. How faithful is the output signal to the source signal? The more faithful, the more accurate. It's that simple. Now you may prefer a different reflection of the recording. You may even find it is more natural, but that's where it gets subjective, and complicated. Whatever they are, seek your preferences and enjoy them. But I know my own very well: I have, for decades, preferred the less dramatic, the less colorful, the more faithful. What many call dry, boring, clinical, I find to be a clear window into the recording. Sometimes it looks upon something pretty ugly. At its best, It reveals something quite beautiful, something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible
That's what I seek.
P
care to take a shot?
""I have, for decades, preferred the less dramatic, the less colorful, the more faithful. What many call dry, boring, clinical, I find to be a clear window into the recording.""
""I have""
I would think that a good definition would want to take any one individual's subjective preferences out of the mix.
Wouldn't we have to define accuracy to be something akin to THD distortion rate, or some kind of distortion rate across a detectable bandwidth? And if so, how would we define "detectable" and "distortion."
And, this is not to mention the stuff, (and it's probably considerable), that I'm missing.
""something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible""
As you wrote above, - that's just about as "subjective" as one can get: and a great support of my argument.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
The problem is you created my definition of accurate from the part of my (short) post in which I was expressing my personal opinion. The part in which I was defining accurate shouldn't have been hard to find, it was right up top and clearly identified itself:"How faithful is the output signal to the source signal? The more faithful, the more accurate."
Is this really simple? It's not terribly complicated. You want to measure the accuracy of a preamp? Measure the analog signal that is being fed to it by the DAC, across every reasonable, measurable parameter you can, then measure the signal coming out of the preamp by the same metrics. The variance is the inaccuracy. This used to be SOP for manufacturers and reviewers. Are there things we cannot yet measure that may also be audible? Maybe. Measurement is not perfect. It's just a whole lot better than deciding it is meaningless, tossing it off, and declaring that everything is subjective out of one side of our mouths while swearing gear that is deliberately colored is more natural out of the other. I'm not accusing you personally of doing that, by the way, but it happens every day in the audiophile community.
p
Edits: 06/29/10
again,
It relies on some kind of undefined, and subjective vagary. A "good" definition is something that reaches the "essence" of that thing, to the exclusion of all other things.
For example, a chair is an object that is designed for the act of sitting. This excludes any other item/object/concept to that specific thing.
Something like "good sound" cannot be defined in a universal sense, only in individual sense. (The essence of your definition was "good sound" not accuracy)"
No two or two hundred people will ever agree on the "accuracy" of a particular recorded trumpet, (for example), because your definition of accuracy relies on the basis of your hearing/hearing-interpretation of a comparison and/or your unique perception of that trumpet. Which will be different from the player of that trumpet, or of a listener who has had one of their eardrums blown out in that scuba diving accident.
""Is this really simple?""
No, it's incredibly difficult.
""It's not terribly complicated.""
Yes it is incredibly complicated, - In my opinion, you're trying to make it simpler: but it really is not.
""Measurement is not perfect""
That is most correct. And, sometimes what we choose to measure does not necessarily best test the conclusions that we draw from it.
""Measure the analog signal that is being fed to it by the DAC, across every reasonable, measurable parameter you can, then measure the signal coming out of the preamp by the same metrics.""
Of course we'd have to get specific. And.... of course, there would be some measurements that will definitely be different, yet a majority of people could possibly say that they they hear and measure no difference. But that would not mean that the DAC would or the pre-amp would be accurate. You could have a very "inaccurate" sounding DAC and a very inaccurate sounding pre-amp measure very similarly.
""This used to be SOP for manufacturers and reviewers""
Based on the number of reviews that I've read, and I certainly have less experience than some: there has never been, nor will there ever be, a standard SOP amongst reviewers or manufacturers. I know several manufacturers who build as they go, and only write up their schematics after they are done: basically, listening and testing as they go; not knowing the final outcome until they get there.
""Measurement is not perfect.""
I'll say. I never said or implied such. Neither is listening.
""declaring that everything is subjective""
Everything isn't subjective, just the goals and final character, and the means to get there. Whether or not the component in question functions is not subjective.
""I'm not accusing you personally of doing that, by the way, but it happens every day in the audiophile community.""
I understand: but that is also a bit hyperbolic. I mean, most audiophiles are just trying to enjoy the music that they love and feel that they improve that listening experience by getting better equipment that enhances the beauty of the artistic event. This could mean that they purposely are selecting equipment to mitigate the sound of scratchy violins. Two, or three, or four, people might listen to another system next door and say that the former is less "accurate," - yet prefer the system that makes the violins less sibilant.
Yes, maybe these people can be convinced that what most pleases them is not accuracy: but it doesn't reduce their value: they just have different values.
That is the problem, even if we could define accuracy to everyone's satisfaction, - you would still have people seeking out inaccuracy: choosing their view of beauty instead.
You would rather own a system that encompasses your version of accuracy instead of someone's version of beauty: that's great for you. But please don't try to say that your vague and undefined version of accuracy is "better" or "objective" (as it's quite subjective), than someone elses.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"You would rather own a system that encompasses your version of accuracy instead of someone's version of beauty: that's great for you. But please don't try to say that your vague and undefined version of accuracy is "better" or "objective" (as it's quite subjective), than someone elses."
Let's just say we are using words like transparency and faithful very differently. I'm talking about a signal exiting the component that is measurably unchanged from the one entering it. And I understand that measurement is imperfect, but I know it is still useful, because my ears tell me so. I can add a component to my signal chain that measures very well and the effect it has is extremely subtle, if audible at all. By contrast, I have put other components, the designs of which are known to color the sound, are even intended to color the sound (Often these components are not measured; their designers and proponents don't believe in measurement, imagine that) and the effect IS audible.
Whether or not you like that color is another question, of course. But transparency can be measured and it can be heard. It's not an effect. It is the lack of one.
p
You can "measure" and hear what comes out of the analog outs of a GAMUT CDP and I would say that perhaps FEW people would call that accurate. So, - if I measure and listen to what comes out of a Gamut, and into a ARC preamp, and it measures "relatively" the same coming out of the ARC pre-amp it just means that the ARC may be accurate, - not the GAMUT. We can then add a Meitner CDP to the mix and few would probably say that the GAMUT would be more accurate. Or would we? I bet you that the manufacturers of Gamut will tell you that their player is accurate? Who's "right" and who is "wrong."
Yet, how would we "prove" with a definition to exclude all others that the Meitner is more accurate? Could we do it?
""But transparency can be measured and it can be heard.""
No it cannot. Prove it. Not until it's defined. And until then, one person's interpretation of transparency is another's SCRATCHY.
""By contrast, I have put other components, the designs of which are known to color the sound, are even intended to color the sound""
Are you sure about that? Are you sure that it's just not the manufacturer's interpretation of accuracy? Who's vague definition of transparency and accuracy is more right? How do you know that the measurements that the manufacturer is using aren't better or worse than yours or someone elses? Or their perception of the sound?
"even intended to color the sound"
That's at best, a guess on your part. Can you name and quote a manufacturer who "intends" to make inaccurate or colored gear?
What if they're building a CDP player and their reference amplifiers, speakers, cables, are colored very dark, (the equipment that they're using to voice their CDP), would they be producing a CDP that might be considered bright in another system?
""(Often these components are not measured; their designers and proponents don't believe in measurement, imagine that"
Could you be making another assumption here? Isn't that rather insulting of you to insinuate such? Maybe they use different measurements, maybe they feel that some of those measurements, or scopes used, do not accurately reflect what they or their customers here. Maybe their testing equipment isn't capable of measuring certain elements of particular components that are in the product: (capacitors and resistors bleed).
Transparency and accuracy are ABSOLUTELY NOT objective terms.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Most likely you can use a test disk and measure the difference between players, if there is such a big difference as you claim. Then one could say which one was right and which one was wrong, since there is a standard that determines what a CD player is ideally supposed to do with a given disk. So you are left in the same situation as the preamp: if you don't get the correct signal then the player isn't transparent. If you start messing around with the high frequencies then that's a different matter, as CDPs are now being deliberately built to counteract the limitations of early analog to digital converters. But this shouldn't affect the low bass. However, there is still a definition of "right" and Ayre, for example, accommodates this through his "measure" switch position. If you have to reach a decision using music then you can still determine transparency, but like your example of the preamp you will have to work with an ADC paired up to a DAC. And if you mix brands, you will not necessarily get consistent results. This is the same as it has always been with tape machines.
Nothing wrong with selecting components that aren't transparent or accurate if they work together and make your recordings enjoyable. However if you are making recordings for others to play on their equipment then this will be perilous.
While some manufacturers who produce "colored" sound do so unintentionally (and it may even be debatable that any coloration is the result of their products) there are undoubtedly others who deliberately create a colored "house sound" to obtain market differentiation.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I would assert that given the dramatic disparity in sound between CD players that there certainly never has been, nor will there ever be a standard......
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Not so dramatic as the disparity in position you take on the subject with certain members of the esteemed Boston Audio Society. :-)
I don't happen to believe it is possible to get transparency with the 44/16 format. This leaves room for various compromises over what should be discarded and what should be left. This is not such a problem as the digital resolution increases, which is a very good reason for avoiding RBCD wherever possible.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't happen to believe it is possible to get transparency with the 44/16 format.
optimizes phase response over extended HF response. Hence, it measures 0.25 db down at 20 kHz using balanced connections and 1 db single ended. Some might consider that "warm" sounding.
rw
Just kidding, from someone who has no interest in classical music, - SACD or hi-rez simply is not available. But that's another story for another day.
AND, - not to be overly obnoxious, - there IS a big disparity between redbook players. If you don't have that experience, - then I don't want to be obnoxious, (again), but I'd humbly suggest that you seek out more players.
I've had an Arcam FMJ, an Audio Aero, a NAD, an AYRE, and an APL all playing redbook in and out of my system and the differences were pretty big. There's a lot of testimony out there too, corroborating big differences in CDPs.
Plus having a player on hand that is great with both redbook and SACD; IME, there are more than a few great redbook recordings out there that rival in sound quality to SACDs. And a few SACD recordings that are WORSE sounding than their redbook counterparts, Jazz at the Pawnshop, the Simple Minds, and the Pixies SACDs are most notable here. There are also some excellent Reference Recordings in redbook that are excellent and rival their SACD counterparts. In players like Meitner, Ayre, Esoteric, Audio Aero, and APL, - the redbook sections are so good that they are very close to many SACDs. YMMV
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
I don't know the GAMUT, but of course you have to begin with the source. Measure the source. Listen to the source. insert a component - your preamp - into the signal chain. Judge the effect, with ears, and instruments. The component that you can't hear, inserted in an existing signal chain, is transparent. That's what the term means in this context, and the process described above is done by guys running studios all the time. Is it absolutely objective? Of course not. The measurements, to the extent that you believe in them, come pretty close. They can be verified by rigorous, statistically significant blind listening tests, though they seldom are.
Regarding builders who deliberately color the signal, there have been many DACs and preamps advertised to make digital audio sound "more analog." Other audiophile gear adds "warmth," or is "more musical." More "musical" than what? Other manufacturers have talked about how their products have more "PRaT." What do you think these folks are talking about? If their objective was the simple, unaltered reproduction of the recording, if that was even the audiophile's objective, the language would be very different.
I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive. Can I, or anyone, "prove" that one piece of gear more accurately re-produces the signal it is given than another (ie: is more transparent)? It can only be proven to those who believe in measurement and/or blind listening tests. And of course many audiophiles, unsatisfied with their subjectivity, usually do not.
P
I can go back and say it again..... but.... back to work.
The Gamut player is a source.
It sounds much different than an Arcam, it measures much different than an Arcam. You can measure a pre-amp, you can listen to a pre-amp. It can be the same going in and coming out. The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp. Then, we an always bring a very in-accurate turntable into the mix.
""Regarding builders who deliberately color the signal, there have been many DACs and preamps advertised to make digital audio sound "more analog." Other audiophile gear adds "warmth," or is "more musical." More "musical" than what? Other manufacturers have talked about how their products have more "PRaT." What do you think these folks are talking about? If their objective was the simple, unaltered reproduction of the recording, if that was even the audiophile's objective, the language would be very different.""
Right, there is no standard. Some manufacturers call these "warmed up" players more analog-like and more accurate. Others say that analog-like is a paltry ambition and that is not accurate.
It just goes to show that there is no definition of accurate, and it's certainly not universally recognized and not objective. Besides, almost all manufacturers try to assert that their product is more accurate: it is the reviewers and consumers who use terms like warmed-up.
""I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive.""
I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive. Wait a minute, - you just said that.... :-)
""Can I, or anyone, "prove" that one piece of gear more accurately re-produces the signal it is given than another (ie: is more transparent)?""
If it was a well defined, objective fact: then you would be able to both adequately define "accurate" and you would be able to prove that something was more accurate than something else. You'd be able to make a clear, provable statement along the same lines as: "A Manley Stingray is an tubed integrated amplifier."
""It can only be proven to those who believe in measurement and/or blind listening tests.""
No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact. The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity. This is why no manufacturer would ever be permitted to claim: "I have built the most accurate source, no other source is as accurate," - and have it be universally recognized as such. Halcro states that they have made an amplifier with the lowest amount of distortion: this is probably provable given allowances for those particular measurements that they have made: but they do not claim, nor do people universally support the notion that it is the most accurate: even if the term accurate had an agreed upon definition.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
...and I answered it. "Of course you have to begin with the source." Did this not concede that sources will vary to you? Of course if you had the access and resources, you could measure the recording on the system upon which it was mastered, compare that against the output of the source and its transparency would be as demonstrable as any other electronic component in the signal chain.
"The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp."
Duh. What defines the accuracy or transparency of the components in the chain after the source is their ability to leave the source unaltered. Of course they'll measure differently with different sources. That's like saying all measurement is meaningless because the numbers change when you change recordings.
"No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact."
Cool. Prove to me that the earth revolves around the sun.
"The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity."
The very act of listening for subjective judgement eliminates objectivity. The act of conducting blind, rigorously controlled AB/X listening tests through enough trials to reach a statistically significant sample yields pretty objective results. Proof? I guess that depends on what you call proof, and I know it is very popular not to believe in such tests in audiophile circles. But done properly, it will give you as much solid data as you're likely to come up with to support that earth revolving around the sun thing. We can argue about this all night and neither of us will yield. May as well agree to disagree.
P
You're right in that we can go on and on about this.
This is also not a new fight: people have been fighting about this here a lot.
Let me leave you with this to consider though: If we/the audiophile community had agreed upon objective definitions of accuracy: the fine folks at LAMM and the fine folks at Halcro would not be both asserting that their respective amps are more accurate than the other. One of them asserts a lower rate of THD, the other questions that relevancy, and asserts that it doesn't matter as much as harmonic feedback. Indeed, listeners fall on each side of this argument asserting one is more accurate than another.
How do we resolve this? We resolve this by saying that one can never be UNIVERSALLY accepted as being more accurate and we give up. We say that each manufacturer and listener must decide for themselves what is more accurate, and if not accurate, then some other SUBJECTIVE term.
As human beings, our hearing varies from person to person. For it is not only our ears that hear, but it is our brains that interpret what we hear. And, what is "accurate" for an older person may have changed from another younger person, or perhaps even in the same person when she was younger.
I bet you that if you and I sat down over a couple of beers and listened to the same music and the same gear and ran a comparison between Halcro an LAMM, we might come to similar conclusions listening to a certain recording of Stradivarius violin. But, perhaps a player of that violin might come along and disagree. When we hear a normal, rock, recording, it is at least 5 generations removed from when it was played in the control room. I can tell you that when my band was recorded, the lead bass guitar sounded different in the room, then different on the rough mixes, then different on the final mixes, then different being cut to lacquer, then on the final vinyl, then different on the final CD.
Cripes, this happens all of the time, another subjective variance removing us from objectivity accuracy. Have you ever heard a small system, in a small room, (with stand-mount speakers), ever deliver the real bass weight of the lower register of an acoustic piano?
My point in saying this is in order to have objectivity, you must have universal acceptance: otherwise it's subjective. Objectivity is like theoretical math. 2+2=4 always, anyway: it's either right, or it's not, and we all agree. "Natural," - is always subjective.
From All Experts:
"" Generally, demonstration is limited by a set of assumptions, and also by acceptance of what given observations mean. If you therefore reject either or both of these, it's doubtful that whatever I provide will be found satisfactory.
First, one must assume that: Earth is a planet and not some confection of the mind, or "virtual entity" within we all find ourselves. In other words, there exists an objective and independent reality.
Also, one must assume that whatever I can tell you that I can see, or observe, you can also. If you are blind, for example, even partially, this assumption fails and what I provide is useless.
Third, we must assume that the language I am referencing is also understood by you to mean the same thing. Else, all bets are off.
In terms of the observations, it must be clear that what I describe is reasonable to you, and moreoever can be confirmed and duplicated where you are. It must also be at least approximately true, that the meaning of the observations as I interpret them, is also shared by you.
If any of these breaks down, then what I tender will be dismissed.
That out of the way, let's get to specifics. If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:
i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky
ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon's N, S points) of the Sun.
The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.
This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.
A further observation to reinforce this is *revolution* and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations *year after year* and making notes of the objects seen.
In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.
This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)
Second, the position, altitude of the Sun. If you do the same thing for the Sun, you will note its changing positions both in altitude - at specific calendar dates - and its rising (and setting) positions along the horizon.
Thus, it ought to be obvious - again, say over a 6-month period of observation - that these are changing.
Again, if you repeat them *year after year* you will see the exact same positions duplicated, suggesting that the Earth is returning to its same position in space relative to the Sun. (The seasons, of course, are also indicators of this)
Of course, you can refine measurements - say of the Sun's changing altitude - through the use of an instrument like an astrolabe (which can easily be made using a lead bob attached to a string, and affixed to a wooden or cardboard protractor).
Hopefully, this will help you to see how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun - even though I do not claim it is "proof". ""
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Yeah, I've logged a few hours in the studio myself, I know exactly what you're talking about, and we're talking about two different things. I usually don't have this much trouble getting a point across, but I'll just assume it's a communications failure on my part, because what I'm getting at is not at all abstract, and you keep replying with abstractions. Enjoy the music.P
Edits: 06/29/10
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
a
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Your concept of "accurate" posits a distance relationship: closer for more accurate, further for less accurate. This is likely to be the case for perceptions that correspond to a single physical dimension. However, in the case of audio components there are numerous separate physical "dimensions" which apply. It will be generally impossible to find a consistent ordering, since each listener will place different emphasis on each dimension and one listener may even vary his emphasis as a function of the recordings being played. In some cases, preferences won't even be ordered linearly by a single listener. A may be preferred over B, B over C and C over A.
Of course if you compare two components that have widely different quality levels then the superior component will dominate in all categories in which case a preference will be clear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry Tony, I'm probably being dense, but I didn't follow that at all. "Distance relationship?"
P
If you found my explanation difficult, then I think I made my point. The question of transparency is not simple. :-)
This concerns preference theory. I see there is quite a bit of literature among the marketing theorists on this subject, but most of the interesting looking articles are not worth the $30 that seem to be the cost to read them. A simple example of how objects that have multiple attributes are difficult to rank in a consistent order is the game of "rock, scissors, paper". Which one of these is better? It depends on how you compare them, the basis of the game. The important point to understand is that preferences (as manifest in specific choices, be they answers to questionnaires or purchase decisions) are not just a property of the objects being compared. They are also affected by how the decisions are approached, the order of presentation, etc.
If a collection of audio components differed solely along a single technical dimension, e.g. had the same frequency response and distortion properties but differed only in the level of white noise, then it would be easy for subjects to rank these components according to transparency, and the results would likely be consistent (for most subjects) with the measured results. With multiple dimensions as actually exist with imperfect audio components, the situation is much more complex, even potentially paradoxical.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It's not the concepts I'm struggling with, Tony, it's the language. It's not at all clear what you're referring to as "distance relationship." What is meant by "physical dimensions" is no more clear, nor is "consistent ordering." At least they're not clear to me.
P
So as to make things concrete, I will talk about objective measurements, although I believe that subjective perceptions are ultimately more important. I will also confine myself to electronics, indeed only mono electronics, just to keep things simple. Even simpler, a line level amplifier.
One can characterize the performance of this device in three basic ways, noise, frequency response, and distortion. Oversimplifying, these separate concepts do not interact. Noise corresponds to output when there is no input. Frequency response corresponds to differences between input and output that are proportional to the input (linear), and distortion corresponds to differences between input and output that are not linear. All three of these categories can be further broken down since the effects will depend on frequency. You can not characterize the distortion of this amplifier by a single number. You will need a table of dozens of numbers. You find this in over simplified detail on a spec sheet or in more detail in the "measurement" section of articles in magazines. Now if you are comparing a few amplifiers and you are working with a few dimensions, say two to keep it very simple, you can plot the measurements on a piece of graph paper. At the origin you would have the "perfect" amplifier. I think most would agree that such a device, were it to exist, would be what you called "transparent". You could plot other devices as points on the paper. Now if you took a ruler you could measure the distance on the paper between two points and it would provide a measure of similarity. If you measured the distance between the point corresponding to the device and the origin you would have a "distance" that characterized how transparent the device was.
Here you see already the difficulty. If there is only a single dimension all the devices will plot on a line and it will be clear which device is more transparent than the other. But as soon as you have two axis a question of scale comes up. If you expand one axis and contract the other the ruler will place more emphasis on the attributes associated with the first axis and less on the attributes associated with the second axis. There is no obvious way to compare a given amount of noise vs. a roll-off of high frequencies above 10 kHz, for example.
Consistent ordering is simple. If I rank devices and always come up with the same order of preference, no matter what tests I perform, my ordering is consistent. This is possible, at least for some audiophiles who aren't suffering from audiophile neurvosa and if a small range of reference recordings are used for comparison. If many recordings are used or if many listeners get to express their preferences, it is unlikely that consistent results will be observed.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony I agree that it is not as simple as a few measurements at a few points along the path. I agree that those snapshots, taken for convenience and often abused, don't tell the whole story. I even agree that subjective listening is the most important measurement. So let's just say it's all subjective. My active rig in which the amplifiers, with great, though limited, imperfect numbers and loads of excess headroom are matched by design to the individual drivers in my speakers, is no more accurate than a turntable into a SET tube amp into speakers with an efficiency rating in the high 80s. Trust me, there are plenty who would say that such a thing. Never mind the wow, the flutter, the compression, the clipping, the very measurable and high harmonic distortion. If the lover of that vinyl/valve system thinks its best, it is.
And my little active monitors are better than the most elaborate custom midfield system, because I think they are. The very essence of subjectivism. Measurements don't tell the whole story, so they don't matter. Let's throw them out. Let's abandon the goal of accurate reproduction because accuracy is in the ear of the beholder. If it sounds good it is good.
Cool. Close down the discussion boards, brother. We have absolutely nothing left to discuss.
P
Enjoy the Chaos, that's what an artisan, interpreting the artistic experience is all about. More choices aren't bad, (although it may all seem overwhelming), follow your own path and enjoy the diversity.
Why does everything need to be so black and white?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
It doesn't have to be black and white; it really CAN'T be black and white. If the guy with the vinyl/valve rig tells me he LIKES it better, cool. Enjoy the music. THAT'S subjective. If he tells me it IS better, more natural, more musical or some other poetry devised to imply superiority (an objective value), I'm going to tell him he's wrong, by my ears AND by the numbers, and discussion will ensue.That's why we call them discussion boards.
P
Edits: 06/29/10
then those terms are very subjective....
"Natural," "musical," "transparent" are subjective terms.
Those flowery terms are not defining, nor are they implying (universal) superiority, - they are terms that describe an individual's preference.
Individual preferences are outside objectivity, - always.
You can say that the Manley Stingray is a tubed, integrated, amplifier. That is an objective fact.
You can also say that the Manley Stingray presents an absolutely lifelike transparency and accurate reflection of the recording: well, you're stating a subjective interpretation at that point. Wherein one can plug in an even better Manley NeoClassic amplifier and someone else will assert that it is lovely sounding. Or, someone could plug in a pair Audio Physic speakers and warm up the whole sound of the whole system, making it "less wonderful"
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"You can also say that the Manley Stingray presents an absolutely lifelike transparency and accurate reflection of the recording: well, you're stating a subjective interpretation at that point."
-- We'll have to disagree on that point. "accurate reflection of the recording" is not a subjective interpretation in my view, it is saying that the Manley Stingray puts out exactly what goes into it, with gain. And as I just told you in the other thread, that is also exactly what "transparency" means in this context. "Absolutely lifelike?" You got me there. That one is pretty subjective, and extremely vague.
Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music. The problem, as I see it, is when audiophile manufacturers, and audiophiles, use quasi objective language in the description of purely subjective attributes. And it is the rule, not the exception. Is it terribly serious? Nope. But it gives us something to talk about.
P
> Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music <
I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. Then the responses are "I prefer the lifelike sound of real instruments in real space rather then incomplete measurements"... and the arguments that have been going on for decades continue. :)
Sordidman and Tony seem to think that accuracy and transparency are moving targets. Perhaps that's the essence of the schism between so-called subjectivists and objectivists.
Nice thread!
Cheers,
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. "
Yes, an unconstructive response, and one I've used more than once, I'm afraid. Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, even though "enjoy the music" works much better. If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying.
P
> Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, <
That's the whole point; no one knows if it's truly correct at the same time they're using it.
> If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying. <
True. And if someone loves their new-and-not-improved technology, the same goes. Again, the problem is the frame of reference i.e the subjectivity of it all. The bottom line is that whatever sounds the most "real" or "accurate" or "lifelike" to the listener is what IS the most lifelike. Unfortunately, chasing accuracy to music means I would have had to be there when it was recorded. Aside from a couple of occasions, I haven't had that pleasure. In the end, it's all subjective.
Even in its heyday as something similar to a science, back when reviewers who used measurement instruments were considered valuable contributors to the hobby, not fringe fanatics, hifi didn't chase the accuracy you're talking about. Studio monitoring systems don't even chase that accuracy directly. Microphones don't hear the way people do, so it is compromised before it even gets to the monitoring system. The accuracy you CAN chase, however, is fidelity to the source (high fidelity ring a bell? Not the excellent John Cusack movie...). That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue, because audiophiles, their vendors and their press have mostly abandoned it to subjectivism.
P
> That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue <
Unfortunately, they'll never know when and if they get there. It'll simply be yet another belief system. Best of luck to the pros.
I don't believe that accuracy is a moving target. It is an unattainable target, although an excellent goal. If it appears moving, it is because each time we attempt to corral it we catch only a partial glimpse of the situation, limited by the particular circumstances of our observations, be they subjective or objective.
Too many times have I compared components (or alternate versions of a recording) and concluded they sounded "the same" only to discover upon further listening that there was a distinct and repeatable difference. The same thing happens with purely objective measurements. With a new test or new test equipment two devices that had previously measured identically can measure differently.
There is a deep truth behind all of this and it goes far beyond the reproduction of music through the use of audio technology.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
agree with this assessment....FWIW
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
nt
Nothing to argue with, there, Tony. Data gathering is imperfect. But there is a sizeable gap between what you're saying and the usual, "it's all subjective, you can't prove anything" argument which, upon further discussion, is too often revealed to mean "you can't demonstrate anything, you can't show valid evidence of anything, there is nothing in the world of science and engineering to show that any component might be more accurate than the ones I've chosen." This argument, made by manufacturers, reviewers and users, has resulted in the abandonment of that excellent goal to a sloppy subjectivism that broadly imagines, and then believes, a plethora of audiophile absurdities, many much more widely-adopted than shakti stones and black CD discs.
Proof is evasive. Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey. And it doesn't make clipping valves, just to use one common example, more "natural" than a well-designed solid state amp with more headroom than the load will ever require. I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense.
P
more meaningless words "well designed" another moving target with no real meaning....
"Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey"
Of course not: do you think that those are the only two choices? Do you think that Evolution theory is the best explanation that we have available?
Does it have a high probability of being "accurate?" Is it closer to the "truth"
Do you need to have a higher authority than your own listening comparisons to determine what is more accurate?
Whenever there are undefined, "moving targets" like "well designed," and "good sound," and "accurate" sound; how do you resolve a potential conflict or dispute when someone asserts something to be accurate?
Take the LAMM vs Halcro example. Are you saying that because the LAMM has tubes/valves it is less accurate? Are you saying that the LAMM is poorly designed?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Not sure what you're referring to. Is there a classic battle of subjectivity between the Gods LAMM and Halcro? I'm blissfully unaware.
P
in this thread.
Don't know if you're worn out by it all. But I did want to thank you for helping me to think about a number of things, as well as bringing some pretty good arguments and reason.
Thanks,
As I mentioned, I used the Halcro/LAMM stuff as an example. As I read it, and I don't know if you agree, - but your definition of ACCURACY has to do with correspondence: like the correspondence theory of truth. (We listen to the trumpet live, then we listen to the trumpet through the audio playback system. The closer the audio system sounds to the real trumpet, the more accurate it is. As I see it, this can never, ever, be objective because human hearing is poor, varies (sometimes widely) from person to person, depends on other things like training, moods, level of distraction, and is by it's very nature, inaccurate).
It's like having several witnesses at a traffic accident each telling a slightly different story through slight variances in their perceptions: (like getting the color of one of the cars slightly wrong because they saw the accident from inside Starbucks).
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Thanks, but sorry, that's your definition of accuracy, not mine. Mine is much simpler and much more quantifiable. Let's say the component you're evaluating is an amplifier. Take a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal going into the amplifier and a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal coming out of the amplifier. The amplifier that doesn't change the signal at all is absolutely transparent. Pretty rare, I'd guess. What's not all that rare is the one that doesn't change the signal audibly, when compared to the reference amp, assuming the reference amp itself is designed for high fidelity to the source, not a "house sound," and is of very high quality, and assuming the two amps both generate enough current and wattage to properly drive the transducers without driving them into clipping.
I would love it if "transparency" could be defined relative to real instruments, but there are far too many compromises, beginning with the very first component in the signal chain, the microphone. Measuring and listening for the transparency of components relative to the source signal and a reference system, however, is not impossible and is done effectively all of the time. Belief in measurement is not popular in audiophile circles, and a lot of mythology and mystery has been built up over the last couple of decades to dismiss it, but it is, actually, a pretty reliable indicator of how both trained and untrained listeners will respond in listening tests. Go to Sean Olive's (Research director for Harman International) blog, Audio Musings. It hasn't been running that long; you can probably read through the entire archives in a couple of hours. You will be enlightened.
P
Can people tell the two pieces of equipment apart from the sound alone?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I now understand why you have trouble relating to other's conversations and always resort to only what you've been told .
rw
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
observation has always been a critical component. At least for those who experience the world instead of just talking about it.Here's a reminder for the scientific method:
"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
rw
Edits: 06/23/10
""A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
I should point out that listening without knowing the DUT is observation. Meyer and Moran did some testing of a hypothesis. Their report of the tests passed through peer review. So their tests meet the definition you have supplied.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
N/T
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
... coupled with the fact that you apparently don't hear either, makes conversation with you absolutely pointless.
Have another doughnut.
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: