|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.154.55.230
In Reply to: RE: No: accuracy has never been defined posted by Sordidman on June 29, 2010 at 08:39:29
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: 06/29/10Follow Ups:
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"
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: