On Perception
Pete Goudreau
There are several threads of late that discuss the nature of
perception in its relation to art and science. While it is
peripherally related to this ng, the psychology of perception seems to
have become a very large part of the market forces at the bleeding
edge of audiophilia today and thus begs discussion here. I make no
claims as to any overarching knowledge of this subject but there are a
few points that I have noticed along the way that others may find of
some interest...
Particular types of electromechanical systems are claimed to provide,
by their nature, a path by which the listener may obtain a more clear
sensation of the artist's intent by expression. Can a souless machine
which performs the same function ad infinitum be capable of this in
and of itself?
The argument is made that a violin is such a machine and it *is*
capable of this action but note that it requires intervention by an
artist to form the sound to his liking...the violin will do nothing in
and of itself. This can be said to define the difference between that
created by man (a machine) and man himself. Thus it seems
inconsistent to insist that a machine creates magic through its
ability to transport the artist's intent to the listener as the artist
is not involved in the operaton of the mechanism. Perhaps the mystery
of the operation of the machine imparts a sense of magic to the
listener...
If it were to be considered to be true that a machine could provide
this path to the listener, however, by the argument that the builder
of this machine provides this action through its design then by
definition there can be one and only one transformation performed by
the machine according to the designer's actions and thus the artist's
intent must then be overlayed by another's. Each artist's intent
would then be mixed with the same "perceptual distortion" of the
machine's designer and thus it would seem impossible to separate the
two as it is equally impossible to have been physically present during
the recording of the original event. To know otherwise is to have
knowledge of an unknowable event and is simply inconsistent with
reality. It is possible, however, to have a broad enough experience
of live events that allows the separation of the two, but then why
would one need the machine designer's intent in the first place?
If this is to be accepted then it follows consistently that the
machine's designer must not impart to the machine any intent that
might disturb that which the recorded artist originally intended.
This builds a case against non-linear mechanisms and for linear
mechanisms so it would seem, however, this does not explain the clear
observation that there are those listeners who prefer the former over
the latter.
The question is whether or not this preference is related to the
reality of the original artist's intent or to the internal preferences
of the listener. To some, it would seem that using a mechanism
whereby the original event is reproduced exactly would provide the
most direct link to the artist's intent by allowing for the listener
to directly interpret what he hears. On the other hand, some prefer a
perceptual distortion that in some manner aids their interpretation of
the artist's intent through the intervention of another artist. This
choice is a personal one and seems quite unrelated to any arguments
outlined above i.e., there exists only one possible solution for any
listener to obtain the artist's intent.
Why a particular solution is chosen by any particular listener is a
matter for philosophy, not science...at least at present, IMHO. There
are those who hear but do not listen and thus find it difficult to
distinguish the subtlties in music or the machinery used to reproduce
it; would they find it useful to have the aid of another intervening
artist? Likely not as the entire process of perception is aimed
elsewhere. That leaves the remaining group of listeners that in one
way or another are capable of distinguishing these differences, albeit
by varying methods.
For some it would appear that reproducing the live event as closely as
possible, without the intervention of another artist, provides the
closest connection between the soul of the artist and the soul of that
particular listener. This method allows these listeners to listen to
the entire expression and select that which they would interpret as
truth, in whole or in part, in much the same fashion as they would
when present at the live event.
On the other hand, there are those that prefer the additional intent
provided by the designer of the machine used to reproduce the original
event. This method seems akin to viewing a sculpture through a
stained glass window...interesting but not clearly the artist's intent
in its purest form. However, note that a magnificent painting will
look rather unappealing under flourescent light but rapturous under
the diffuse glow of a properly set incandescent. The painting cannot
stand alone without the light that allows the viewer to see it and
thus it can be said that he who displays the painting adds to the
original artist's intent, indeed augments it, through the artistic use
of lighting. There are bad gallery owners and there are good gallery
owners but the painting remains independent of these ancillary
considerations although it may be difficult to see it clearly (pun
intended).
This seems to be the crux of the subjective and objective arguments.
There are those who wish to observe the pure event, without the
intervening perceptual distortion, and interpret it as they wish and
there are those that find that they can, with the help of another
artist, enhance the beauty of the artistry present in the music, as
they perceive it. Note the same effect is perceived as a distortion
by the former and as an enhancement by the latter.
The fundamental dichotomy observed by the objectivist may be that in
understanding this subconciously, it is clear that each artistic
expression must by its nature be augmented differently, independent of
the listener's perception, and since a non-linear mechanism must only
provide one kind of augmentation, by definition, it is then impossible
to have that mechanism be useful for any expression other than that
which it properly augments. This is no problem for the subjectivist
as he has fashioned a mechanistic system that provides the desired
augmentation for the musical expressions to which he wishes to listen.
Much in the same way as physical art is arranged, lighted, and
displayed, the subjectivist arranges his listening environment to
provide the maximum amount of esthestic enjoyment.
The subjectivist however cannot see how the objectivist can live with
the raw, harshly lit, mechanical (as he perceives the linear
mechanism's reproduction to be...) nature of the artist's intent as
this is anathema to his esthetic tastes. To him it is as
unconcionable as exhibiting fine sculpture at a K-Mart. To his sense,
objectivists must appear as neanderthal and thus beneath contempt as
thus they must obviously not *know* art. Unfortunately this attitude
is taken as snobbish behavior at best, inexcusable rudeness at worst,
by objectivists convinced by their own prejudices that they too *know*
art.
It should be clear by now that the differences between these two
"camps" is defined solely by the difference between the left and right
brain dominance of the individuals within them. It should also be
clear that art in and of itself does not exist without interpretation
through perception and thus it is essentially impossible to define
what is and is not proper perception of art other than that which the
artist intended. If the way in which this intent is obtained is
radically different from one person to the next, is there any
difference between them? It would seem so in that different
left/right characteristics imbue each of us with a different set of
perceptual templates upon which we base our interpretations. This
would appear to form a basis for discussion of art but not, as it
turns out, the mechanisms by which art is appreciated as that is a
purely personal choice and cannot be determined a priori whereas the
artist's intent is clearly available from the artist himself, or his
writings, etc. otherwise, this too is open to debate.
The conclusion seems to be that there does indeed exist a rationale
for the relative preference of non-linear and linear mechanisms in the
reproduction of music. To one group the non-linearity is defined as a
perceptual distortion and to the other, an augmentation. The nature
of the individuals within these groups, by the very definition of
their catagorization, perceive the same thing differently with vastly
different results. Does this make one right and the other wrong?
Without an absolute basis for judgement the answer is moot; esthetic
perception cannot be catagorized, it is purely personal.
--------------------------------------------------------
I started writing this little screed without thought as to where it
would end and was pleasantly surprised that it found its way to a
conclusion that seems self-consistent and logical yet explanatory, to
me at least, of the differences observed among those involved in this
hobby. Does it change anything for me? Well, to some degree it does
make more clear the source of the acrimony in the debate, as I hope it
will to others, but by no means should it be taken as an attempt by
myself to be the end all of debate, far from it, it should at least
provide a more clear view of the ground over which the battle is
fought...even if the battle is fratricide....
Cheers,
Pete
Bob Olhsson
In article <4t8a5b$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, cadam...@aol.com
(CAdams1471) wrote:
>The distinction between the subjective approach and the objective
>approach is philosophical in nature. One "camp" believes in paranormal
>phenomenon which defies explanation by contemporary science where by
>the other "camp" is rooted in rational, scientific thinking.
Only according to people who are really hung up on rational thinking.
I would suggest that the subjectivests are skeptical of the validity
of some measurements and the objectivists are skeptical of the
validity of some observations. Both sides are often right, both sides
are often wrong and both sides are often absolutely correct about each
other!
Since it is possible to both design devices that measure perfectly by
common methods yet sound terrible and vice-versa, the only logical
approach to progress must be subjective observation combined with
scientific knowledge, experience and methodology. Less than that is
cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio | O tongue, thou art a treasure without end.
Box 555,Novato CA 94948 | And, O tongue, thou art also a disease
415.457.2620 | without remedy. == Jelal'uddin Rumi ==
415.456.1496 FAX |
CAdams1471
In article <4t3i89$i...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Pete Goudreau
<pgou...@lsi.dsccc.com> writes:
>This seems to be the crux of the subjective and objective arguments.
>There are those who wish to observe the pure event, without the
>intervening perceptual distortion, and interpret it as they wish and
>there are those that find that they can, with the help of another
>artist, enhance the beauty of the artistry present in the music, as
>they perceive it. Note the same effect is perceived as a distortion
>by the former and as an enhancement by the latter.
No. This is not correct.
The distinction between the subjective approach and the objective
approach is philosophical in nature. One "camp" believes in paranormal
phenomenon which defies explanation by contemporary science where by
the other "camp" is rooted in rational, scientific thinking.
The difference between these two world views has nothing at all to do
with rather one prefers liner or non-liner systems or accurate systems
verse euphonic systems. The difference is in how we interpret what is
going on. The subjectivist believes that vacuum tubes, for example,
are somehow magical and able to convey the true spirit of music. The
objectivist understands that the electrical properties of vacuum tubes
are different than those of transistors and that tube amplifiers and
solid state amplifiers have sonic differences grounded in physics. The
preference of one over the other is a matter of personal taste.
Myself, I'll take my 15 watt 2A3 based amp over any solid state beast.
Not because it is magical but because I like it. I like the sound, the
look, the fit 'n finish. I really just love the antique technology. If
someone were to tell me that it is not as accurate or as technically
sophisticated as a Rotel solid state amplifier I would probably agree.
I would also not care one damn bit, nor would try and argue.
I am an objectivist. I am a skeptic. But by golly, I prefer tubes not
because of any pseudo-scientific claptrap or mystical idiocy but
simply because I like them.
On the other hand, I prefer CD over LP. Go figure!
You can not categorize people based on broad generalizations.
It never works that way. Personal preferences are just that.
Christopher G. Adams
Pete Goudreau
> On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, j...@research.att.com wrote,
>
> In article <4t3i89$i...@agate.berkeley.edu> Pete Goudreau
> <pgou...@lsi.dsccc.com> writes:
>
> >Why a particular solution is chosen by any particular listener is a
> >matter for philosophy, not science...at least at present, IMHO.
>
> complain a bit about this.
>
> While it is quite true that an individual's preference is not
> addressable (in terms of value) by science, I'd also argue the same is
> true of philosophy. I can see no reason why one would even try to
> justify a preference. Just sit back and enjoy it.
I couldn't agree more. I was trying to find out if a self-consistent
logical proof to this conclusion could be found so that at least my
thinking on the matter would be clear to myself. Not having studied
psychology or the current sciences relating to perception, I couldn't
be sure if there did or did not exist a methodology for determining, a
priori, the selection of a solution by any given individual. It seems
to stand to reason, however, that at least some general
classifications could be made based upon the knowledge of a given
equipment's transformation characteristics and a given individuals
preferences available through test and observation of the individual.
I have no idea how accurately the latter may be determined, though...
> What I must also say, though, is that there are some "solutions" that
> are known to produce particular effects that some or many listeners
> regard as a particular kind of illusion, that to some may be pleasing,
> and in this respect, the kind of illusion, although not the preference
> for or against, is indeed inside the realm of science.
Agreed. I suppose my statement was meant primarily to state this but
I wasn't very clear about it. Thanks very much for clarifying the
point for me. It should be interesting to see if the argument made in
the original post clarifies the positional stands, taken by both
sides, for both sides and helps eliminate or at least mitigate much of
the animosity evident in the current debate.
Thanks again,
Pete
Bob Olhsson
>The argument is made that a violin is such a machine and it *is*
>capable of this action but note that it requires intervention by an
>artist to form the sound to his liking...the violin will do nothing in
>and of itself.
The most amazing (to me) part of this is the incredible differences in
sound from the same instrument played by different musicians. This is
as true of electric guitars and even electronic keyboards as it is of
violins, pianos and other acoustic instruments. One of the larger
surprises I ever had was discovering that a certain artist's
incredible piano "touch" carried over perfectly to a very primitive,
non-touch-sensitive electronic keyboard playing piano samples. All the
gimmicks on earth can't make up for medeocre playing.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
>Why a particular solution is chosen by any particular listener is a
>matter for philosophy, not science...at least at present, IMHO.
While I agree pretty well with the rest of the article, I've got to
complain a bit about this.
While it is quite true that an individual's preference is not
addressable (in terms of value) by science, I'd also argue the same is
true of philosophy. I can see no reason why one would even try to
justify a preference. Just sit back and enjoy it.
What I must also say, though, is that there are some "solutions" that
are known to produce particular effects that some or many listeners
regard as a particular kind of illusion, that to some may be pleasing,
and in this respect, the kind of illusion, although not the preference
for or against, is indeed inside the realm of science.
--
Copyright akalice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Pete Goudreau
> On 25 Jul 1996, cadam...@aol.com (CAdams1471) wrote,
>
> >This seems to be the crux of the subjective and objective arguments.
> >There are those who wish to observe the pure event, without the
> >intervening perceptual distortion, and interpret it as they wish and
> >there are those that find that they can, with the help of another
> >artist, enhance the beauty of the artistry present in the music, as
> >they perceive it. Note the same effect is perceived as a distortion
> >by the former and as an enhancement by the latter.
>
> No. This is not correct.
Okey Dokey...
> The distinction between the subjective approach and the objective
> approach is philosophical in nature. One "camp" believes in paranormal
> phenomenon which defies explanation by contemporary science where by
> the other "camp" is rooted in rational, scientific thinking.
I was speaking to those differences that are expressed not by voice
but by the selection itself, explanations notwithstanding. A
subjectivist expressing a theory is by definition a bit like a
christian scientist with appendecitis...the obvious contrast between
the selection and the explanation should be clear.
Whether or not a non-scientific mode of explanation is utilised is
immaterial, it is the selection by the individual that expresses the
difference between objectivist and subjectivist, IMHO. Of course I'm
quite an objectivist myself, which should be quite clear from the
original post, and find no useful information in the verbally
expressed explanations of subjectivists as the theories espoused to
explain the superiority of that selection, while being silly at best,
are objectivist in nature, by definition, and are not related to the
actual non-verbally expressed rationale for their particular
selections. This is the point that I was trying to make.
> The difference between these two world views has nothing at all to do
> with rather one prefers liner or non-liner systems or accurate systems
> verse euphonic systems. The difference is in how we interpret what is
> going on. The subjectivist believes that vacuum tubes, for example,
> are somehow magical and able to convey the true spirit of music. The
> objectivist understands that the electrical properties of vacuum tubes
> are different than those of transistors and that tube amplifiers and
> solid state amplifiers have sonic differences grounded in physics. The
> preference of one over the other is a matter of personal taste.
I have to differ with this in that the difference is a reality and is
grounded in the reality of system design. One of the main points made
was that there is no magic involved in the operation of a non-linear
mechanism and that mechanism will perform the same task, without
editorializing, ad infinitum as it is inanimate as a violin. Again,
regardless of the verbalization of those in the subjectivist camp,
they construct a system based on personal preferences that satisfies
their particular esthetic, whether they know it or not, IMHO.
> Myself, I'll take my 15 watt 2A3 based amp over any solid state beast.
> Not because it is magical but because I like it. I like the sound, the
> look, the fit 'n finish. I really just love the antique technology. If
> someone were to tell me that it is not as accurate or as technically
> sophisticated as a Rotel solid state amplifier I would probably agree.
> I would also not care one damn bit, nor would try and argue.
Absolute agreement here and it expresses clearly the main point of the
original post. You find that this choice of mechanism provides you
with what you perceive to be the accurate musical expression
possible...that is a personal choice and that choice is independent of
whether the reason for the choice clearly expressed or not.
> I am an objectivist. I am a skeptic. But by golly, I prefer tubes not
> because of any pseudo-scientific claptrap or mystical idiocy but
> simply because I like them.
Ditto, all 2 out of 3...
I used to prefer tube equipment but as I age (somewhat gracefully, I
hope...%-) I find that the added euphony too annoying removed from
reality and thus now prefer solid state, or at least some solid
state...;-)
> On the other hand, I prefer CD over LP. Go figure!
Ditto...
> You can not categorize people based on broad generalizations.
> It never works that way. Personal preferences are just that.
No attempt was made to do this...just an attempt to find a base cause
for choice...
Sure it does...ask an actuarian...
Exactly.
Cheers,
Pete
Ton Maas
In article <4tb8h7$l...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
o...@hyperback.com (Bob Olhsson) wrote:
>>The argument is made that a violin is such a machine and it *is*
>>capable of this action but note that it requires intervention by an
>>artist to form the sound to his liking...the violin will do nothing in
>>and of itself.
>
>The most amazing (to me) part of this is the incredible differences in
>sound from the same instrument played by different musicians. This is
>as true of electric guitars and even electronic keyboards as it is of
>violins, pianos and other acoustic instruments. One of the larger
>surprises I ever had was discovering that a certain artist's
>incredible piano "touch" carried over perfectly to a very primitive,
>non-touch-sensitive electronic keyboard playing piano samples. All the
>gimmicks on earth can't make up for medeocre playing.
Cybernetician and learning theorist Gregory Bateson helped solve this
riddle a long time ago, by stating that we have to consider
player+instrument as the learning system. Focusing on the separate
elements of the system leads to false reification of where the
learning happens. We tend to think of the player as the only learning
element involved and the violin as a "dead" piece of wood, but every
violin player knows that one should *not* let a six-year-old kid
fiddle with a Strad, since the kid will probably make it scratch and a
*lot* of good playing will be needed to "restore" the sound.
Ton Maas, Amsterdam NL
Bernhard Muller
Ton Maas (ton...@xs4all.nl) writes:
> element involved and the violin as a "dead" piece of wood, but every
> violin player knows that one should *not* let a six-year-old kid
> fiddle with a Strad, since the kid will probably make it scratch and a
> *lot* of good playing will be needed to "restore" the sound.
Well, as a violin/viola player for more than 50 years, I have not
heard _this_ particular bromide. But what _is_ generally agreed among
violinists is that a good instrument must be played, or it will 'go to
sleep'.
One theory of what happens in the 'sleep' phenomenon is that parts of
the instrument (particularly the purfling) loosen up with vibration
and add some high level harmonics with their movement. Allowing the
instrument to sit unplayed allows the varnish and glue to 'restick'
the loose parts so they don't vibrate any more. It then takes some
playing to loosen them again. A good player is better at exciting
resonances than a poor player, so may 'wake up' the instrument sooner
than a poor player.
--
We can choose to Throw Stones
to Stumble over them
Bern Muller to Climb over them
or to Build with them.--William Arthur Ward
Scott Frankland
>> Why a particular solution is chosen by any particular listener is a
>> matter for philosophy, not science...at least at present, IMHO.
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) responds:
> While I agree pretty well with the rest of the article, I've got to
> complain a bit about this.
>
> While it is quite true that an individual's preference is not
> addressable (in terms of value) by science, I'd also argue the same is
> true of philosophy. I can see no reason why one would even try to
> justify a preference. Just sit back and enjoy it.
Let me try to show that there is a reason for discussing personal
preference. There is a vast body of writing already available to us
under the heading of "aesthetics". Needless to say, this was a major
branch of Greek philosophical thought. The definition of what is
"beautiful" occupied Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, among others. And
aesthetics is precisely the "problem" of what individual preference
means. The problem breaks down into at least two parts: (1) What is
beautiful?; and (2) What is the relative valuation of a preference in
light of what has been defined as beautiful?
> What I must also say, though, is that there are some "solutions" that
> are known to produce particular effects that some or many listeners
> regard as a particular kind of illusion, that to some may be pleasing,
> and in this respect, the kind of illusion, although not the preference
> for or against, is indeed inside the realm of science.
And now we have a tie-in to a previous thread that, I feel, never got
very fully developed. I will quote from that thread and then I will
comment:
In article <4sj5s0$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> tomk...@ix.netcom.com
(Tom Kelly) writes:
... Subject: Re: What the heck is transparency in Music???
>> It's hard to imagine that a greater sense of realism - individual
>> instruments sounding more distinct and separated, more
>> three-dimensional, that sort of thing - could be attributed to
>> inaccuracy. (That would be an inaccuracy we'd want to cultivate,
>> right?)
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) responds:
> I'm sorry, but it's not harder for me to imagine at all. Furthermore,
> there are entire racks full of such devices that record producers
> routinely put all their stuff through in order to add such euphonic
> distortions.
>
> On top of that, there are particular LP distortions that make LP's
> sound better as well. Perhaps you ought to read here a while first,
> before you decide what to "believe"?
I think that while it is possible to add "hall sound", i.e., change
the size and scale of a recording venue, and to change the timbre of
instruments in a rather crude way, what Tom is talking about here are
so-called colorations that make a musical performance sound more
"real". The question is, how much of this realism can be ascribed to
accuracy? If one goes into it "believing" that such and such a medium
is measurably colored, doesn't that also inhibit one from believing
that, in spite of those distortions, the medium is perhaps more
accurate in certain ways that are not so measurable? JJ would have us
believe that all such discrepancies are (ultimately)
measurable. Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. I guess it all depends
on what you choose to "believe". The question reduces to this: if all
such phenomena as Tom describes can be measured, then, ipso facto,
they can also be reproduced. But my ears tell me that we have yet to
accomplish this feat. Should I trust my ears or should I believe jj?
That is the question. To me it's a no-brainer.
~SF~
P.S. JJ, this is *not* a personal attack. Please, no email bombs.
SDuraybito
In article <4tj0di$o...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> The question is, how much of this realism can be ascribed to
> accuracy?
Yes, this is EXACTLY the question. And I hear no linkage between the
two.
Some people hear tube amps as more real, some people solid-state.
Ditto for LP vs. CD. There's nothing wrong with this.
[ Except, of course, for that fact that those on both "sides" of the
issue make the fatal mistake of claiming absolute superiority, in
areas that can't be meaningfully quantified, for one format over the
other. Doing so inevitably turns an otherwise useful discussion
into a pointless shouting match. If everyone remembered this, we
might have less talking at each other and more talking to each other
(plus, moderator sanity would be preserved -- something in short
supply these days). -- jwd ]
What I continually can't understand is why some people insist that
accurate is more real. The constant refrain of trying to get the most
accurate reproduction possible doesn't necessarily mean trying to get
the most "real" reproduction.
Some argue that since we can't ever hope to get "real" reproduction,
that there's no "absolute sound," we must strive for accuracy. I
think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
obvious.
Steven Abrams
In article <4tlc31$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
> What I continually can't understand is why some people insist that
> accurate is more real.
Which people?
> The constant refrain of trying to get the most accurate reproduction
> possible doesn't necessarily mean trying to get the most "real"
> reproduction.
Who says that it does?
> Some argue that since we can't ever hope to get "real" reproduction,
> that there's no "absolute sound," we must strive for accuracy.
An actual interesting sentence, this.
I think that what happens is quite the opposite of this. That is,
pretty much everyone agrees that if we could exactly and accurately
reproduce the soundfield that was present during the original event,
we'd be spending our time discussing music, not audio.
The rational seems to be that since we can't do this, we might as well
do whatever helps us create the illusion that we're at the original
event. For some people, the more accurate the better, and for other
people, the euphonic distortions seem to help.
I very much enjoyed JJs recent posting where he talked about the
various aspects of the stereo image that different people find more
convincing. Very interesting stuff.
> I think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
> strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
> obvious.
There is a attitude inherent in this sentence. It's right up there
with the "Do you still beat your wife" question. It presupposes that
there are people who say, "should I get a more ACCURATE system, or a
mor REALISTIC one?" I certainly don't ask myself that question. I,
for one, would be shocked to find out that JJ, Dick, Gabe, or anyone
here, for that matter, selected their personal speakers, amp, or
recording device by conducting experiments, measurements, and
selecting the one which measured out to be the most accurate.
Instead, I'm sure they did very much what you do, i.e. listen and
select the ones that they like the best. If it turns out that one
prefers a more accurate system then, well, I guess that person prefers
accuracy over euphony, but they may not have even known that before
going shopping! If it turns out that they prefer a system with some
euphonic distortion then, well, I guess that person prefers euphony
over accuracy.
Don't presuppose that those who end up with more accurate systems do
so because they decided a priori that they want accuracy over realism.
To them, more accurate *IS* more realistic.
The dichotomy exists only in your mind, and not in the real world. In
the real world, we choose what we like.
~~~Steve
--
Steven Abrams abr...@cs.columbia.edu
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
-Lennon/McCartney
Bob Trosper
Steven Abrams wrote:
> In article <4tlc31$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>
sdura...@aol.com > (SDuraybito) writes: >
> > I think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
> > strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
> > obvious.
>
> There is a attitude inherent in this sentence. It's right up there
> with the "Do you still beat your wife" question. It presupposes that
> there are people who say, "should I get a more ACCURATE system, or a
> mor REALISTIC one?" I certainly don't ask myself that question. I,
[quote deletion - wsr]>
> Instead, I'm sure they did very much what you do, i.e. listen and
> select the ones that they like the best. ....
[quote deletion - wsr]
> The dichotomy exists only in your mind, and not in the real world. In
> the real world, we choose what we like.
I wouldn't suppose, based on what I've read over considerable time in
this newsgroup and others, and the continuing (mis)use of
Stereophile's recommended components list that everyone DOES chose
"what they like" (assuming that means what they like in the way of
SOUND).
People often DO seem to ask the question "Should I get a system I LIKE
better, or one that's supposed to BE better?".
The answer to the question may even vary over time given that we
assume our knowledge and taste improve (or at least change). Certainly
when I was starting this hobby, I was more willing to be dependent on
the advice of others and I did learn to hear differences which I could
not before. All of which has cost me considerable money. :=)
People also seem to choose on the basis of (in no particular implied
order):
1) Recommendations of friends
2) Recommendations of magazines
3) Look of component
4) Budget
5) Availability for purchase and/or audition
6) Size of component
7) Reliability of component
8) Status
9) Sound
and on, and on, and on ...
Oh yes, I too have "sinned", sometimes buying stuff swayed more by the
opinion of others than mine own. And then, like the match-made couple
I have sometimes learned to love after the fact - or not.
Indeed, if all we're buying is SOUND, high-end dealers are wasting
considerable money promoting IMAGE.
Living is indeed easy with eyes closed, but even easier if you have
them open with the proper filters and projection lenses installed
:=). (As in projecting one's own opinion - oh, never mind). As
Jedediah says in Citizen Kane, "The People! You talk about the people
as if you OWNED them!".
Perhaps that last paragraph is inflamatory, but, if so, I suggest that
we consider the cumulative effect on the psyche of reading a .sig
indicating that one misunderstands all one sees again, and yet again.
-- Bob Trosper (Darn, forgot the amusing .sig file!)
P.S. Before responding consider that I substantiated what might be
considered personal projected opinion with a reference to "based on
what I've read over time in this newsgroup and others". I didn't
actually dig up quotes from the archives but one would be well advised
to browse a bit among the many, many requests for opinion particularly
in rec.audio.opinion before indicating that I am completely full of
it. Just partially :=).
John Nunes
In message <4tlc31$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> - sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito)30 Jul 1996 12:09:05 -0400 writes:
>What I continually can't understand is why some people insist that
>accurate is more real. The constant refrain of trying to get the most
>accurate reproduction possible doesn't necessarily mean trying to get
>the most "real" reproduction.
>
>Some argue that since we can't ever hope to get "real" reproduction,
>that there's no "absolute sound," we must strive for accuracy. I
>think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
>strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
>obvious.
Wrong, not so simple at all.
I have two very good recordings of what is generally considered to be
an successful pipe organ. One is CD and the other is LP. They are
taken off the same master. To people who have no knowledge of how
this instrument sounds, (never been there) they always prefer the LP.
It's 'warmer', 'darker', has more 'sparkle', etc. However, to those
who know the instrument and its setting, the CD generally sounds more
like what you hear in the church listening to the organ and they
prefer it.
So, what's more 'real' (which is a lousy philosphical word) <in this
case>? I'm often amazed by the answers some give.
Education is important.
- John Nunes <cha...@WCO.COM>
Gabe M. Wiener
In article <4tlnf2$3...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Steven Abrams <abr...@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>I, for one, would be shocked to find out that JJ, Dick, Gabe, or anyone
>here, for that matter, selected their personal speakers, amp, or
>recording device by conducting experiments, measurements, and
>selecting the one which measured out to be the most accurate.
>
>select the ones that they like the best.
When I go speaker shopping, I bring recordings I've made...and thus
recordings where I have had the benefit of hearing the performers
live, and I listen to the speaker choices and purchase the ones that,
to my ears, reproduce the original musical experience as best they
can.
It just so happens that I prefer accurate reproductions of musical
events rather than euphonic distortions introduced by the electronic,
and which have nothing whatsoever to do with the music.
--
Gabe Wiener Dir., PGM Early Music Recordings |"I am terrified at the thought
A Div. of Quintessential Sound, Inc., New York | that so much hideous and bad
Recording-Mastering-Restoration (212) 586-4200 | music may be put on records
ga...@pgm.com http://www.pgm.com | forever."--Sir Arthur Sullivan
Scott Frankland
Pete Goudreau <pgou...@lsi.dsccc.com> writes:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
In article <4t8a5b$3...@agate.berkeley.edu> cadam...@aol.com responds:
> No. This is not correct.
> The distinction between the subjective approach and the objective
> approach is philosophical in nature. One "camp" believes in
> paranormal phenomenon which defies explanation by contemporary
> science where by the other "camp" is rooted in rational, scientific
> thinking.
> The difference between these two world views has nothing at all to
> do with rather one prefers liner or non-liner systems or accurate
> systems verse euphonic systems. The difference is in how we
> interpret what is going on. The subjectivist believes that vacuum
> tubes, for example, are somehow magical and able to convey the true
> spirit of music. The objectivist understands that the electrical
> properties of vacuum tubes are different than those of transistors
> and that tube amplifiers and solid state amplifiers have sonic
> differences grounded in physics. ...You can not categorize people
> based on broad generalizations. It never works that way. Personal
> preferences are just that.
This post is a good example of an objectivist run amok. First he
characterizes all subjectivists as believers in magic; then he
conludes by telling us that "you can not categorize people based on
broad generalizations." Exactly who is doing the categorizing here?
This avowed objectivist seems to have the attitude that science can
now explain everything we need to know about audio. The poster's
boundless faith in science leaves out one very important element: the
human capacity to learn and to surpass previous standards. One analogy
is physical training. Very much is known about physiology, nutrition,
and kinesiology. Yet, every year, old records are broken. The same
thing happens in audio design. Every year an increment of improvement
is obtained.
What I object to is the tendency by many objectivists to simplify--to
"sew things up"--as if everything that *can* be known *is* known. This
attitude is tantamount to saying that amplifiers need not be improved;
that they are now "essentially transparent"--as Gabe claims in a
related post (he then denounces Sig for contradicting him). This
sentiment concerning amplifiers appeared in the literature as early as
1952, by the way.
I don't mind one camp correcting the other camp; what I object to is
one camp trying to *kill off* the other camp. The impulse to dismiss
and to circumscribe is, IMO, the wrong way to approach *any* body of
knowledge--especially if one assumes, as any reasonable person would,
that there is more there than meets the ear. From my reading of this
newsgroup, the objectivist camp is as irrational as much of the time
as is the subjectivist camp. This is to say that within both camps are
extremists who are in need of a balancing and a corrective
influence. By the same token, there also exist people who consciously
attempt to build bridges between the two camps (I noticed, for
example, that Sig paid jj a compliment in a related thread). When one
side gets something right, it's only just to give them credit for it.
And while they do exist, the balanced and reasonable middle core of
this group seems to be missing much of the time. The loud, strident
voices of the two extremes is what one notices most often; and that is
discouraging (as our moderator, jwd, echoes in a related post). The
very terms, "subjective" and "objective", represent polar extremes.
It follows that anyone calling himself a strict objectivist is
therefore just as extreme in his position as any hard-core
subjectivist. Perhaps we need a new term to describe the golden mean,
i.e., the approach taken by those rare individuals who have been
trained by extremists in *each* camp; who have learned the value of
such cross-training; and have set out to establish the new frontiers
of our collective audio future.
~SF~
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4tj0di$o...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>Let me try to show that there is a reason for discussing personal
>preference. There is a vast body of writing already available to us
>under the heading of "aesthetics". Needless to say, this was a major
>branch of Greek philosophical thought. The definition of what is
>"beautiful" occupied Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, among others. And
>aesthetics is precisely the "problem" of what individual preference
>means. The problem breaks down into at least two parts: (1) What is
>beautiful?; and (2) What is the relative valuation of a preference in
>light of what has been defined as beautiful?
Irrelevant. You're talking about discussing what one likes. There's
no problem with that, but you simply canNOT say that one person's
likes are "better" than another's. Many societies have tried to
define aesthetics, the "atrrtractive female image" is a good example,
and the way that they interact with other there is just downright
amusing.
>I think that while it is possible to add "hall sound", i.e., change
>the size and scale of a recording venue, and to change the timbre of
>instruments in a rather crude way, what Tom is talking about here are
>so-called colorations that make a musical performance sound more
>"real".
You may think that, but it's my 20+ years of experience that you're
wrong. Furthermore, you're telling me what I think, which I very much
wish you would cease doing. Tom very well may be talking about stuff
that makes things sound "much more real". That's what I think he's
talking about. THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
>The question is, how much of this realism can be ascribed to
>accuracy?
Surprisingly little.
>If one goes into it "believing" that such and such a medium
>is measurably colored, doesn't that also inhibit one from believing
>that, in spite of those distortions, the medium is perhaps more
>accurate in certain ways that are not so measurable?
The input is an electrical signal, the output is an electrical signal.
Unless you are engaging frankly in parapsychology, there is NO
difference if there is no difference in the electrical signal. QED.
(Measuring that signal in situ, of course.)
What you propose is simply impossible without engaging in
parapsychology for the simple reason that the electrical signal can be
very carefully and accurately characterized in a remarkable number of
ways. Unless you propose some parapsychological effect that changes
what comes out of the transducers when the same thing goes into it,
there's no chance that something is missed at the electrical end.
I let CSICOP address the paranormal.
>JJ would have us
>believe that all such discrepancies are (ultimately)
>measurable. Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. I guess it all depends
>on what you choose to "believe".
Please don't lie about this. It can be SHOWN that such discrepancies
(sic) are measurable. The sensitivity of the ear is well known, and
characterized in a remarkable number of ways, and the electronic
measurements are much much MUCH better. It's that simple. There is
no BELIEF involved in any way, shape or form beyond pure solipcism (or
however you spell that theory that Moore keeps putting forth). It's
that simple. The differences are repeatable, measurable, confirmable,
etc. Such measurements have been made time and time agian. Would the
physical scenario you propose be actually existant, our computer
memories would fail several times a second (using the temperature of
the chip, the fermi gas distribution, and the sensitivty of the ear at
100Hz to noise masked by a tone). They don't. Therefore your
contention is shown to be outright absurd by a simple
gedanct-experiment.
>But my ears tell me that we have yet to
>accomplish this feat.
Actually, what your ears do is very well characterized. If you're
referring to that same old hack set of measurements that manufacturers
actually PUBLISH, you're in the dark ages.
>Should I trust my ears or should I believe jj?
I don't ask for belief. I present proof. You may reject the proof, but
in doing so you must also reject the scientific method and proclaim
yourself a parapsycholgist. I must say that there are many debates
among the scientific community, but the ability to measure better than
human hearing is NOT the subject of any serious debate.
>That is the question. To me it's a no-brainer.
Suit yourself. Be religious. But if you persist in being religious,
then please go to soc.religion.misc, and get OUT of here.
>P.S. JJ, this is *not* a personal attack. Please, no email bombs.
It most certainly is, and I don't send e-mail bombs.
And you have a nice day, too.
John Nunes
In message <4tqm34$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> - Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org>1 Aug 1996 12:30:28 -0400 writes:
>Perhaps we need a new term to describe the golden mean,
>i.e., the approach taken by those rare individuals who have been
>trained by extremists in *each* camp; who have learned the value of
>such cross-training; and have set out to establish the new frontiers
>of our collective audio future.
'New' term(s)? Why would this be new? It's in every philosophy 101
textbook. (as many here probably already know - bear with me)
dualism
phenomenalism
pluralism
To name just a few.
Now, there are basically two ways to approach a problem from a
philosophical point of view.
Arguement - which is mostly what happens here. And it works just
fine, providing everybody behaves as adults and don't manage to take
things personally.
Philosophical positions - seeing the field as a body of
knowledge. (good and bad)
Now, doesn't everybody's audio system sound better? :-) :-) :-)
- John Nunes <cha...@WCO.COM>
CAdams1471
In article <4tqm34$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
In responding to my post, please be kind enough not to edit out
relevant text. You have, by omission, grossly misrepresented the
message of the original post and twisted it to your ends. This is not
only unethical, it really PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!
>This post is a good example of an objectivist run amok. First he
>characterizes all subjectivists as believers in magic; then he
>conludes by telling us that "you can not categorize people based on
>broad generalizations." Exactly who is doing the categorizing here?
The post to which I wrote this in response to claimed that all
objectivists preferred solid state "accurate" amplifiers and that
subjectivists preferred "euphonic" tube amplifiers.
I disagreed and stated that the difference was really one of outlook.
Objectivists rely on science; reproducable data and evidence.
Subjectivists don't. I still maintain that this is true. What problem
do you have with this? How is it wrong? If one rejects the evidence
presented by science in favor of anecdotal evidence and then claims
that the anecdotal is right and science is wrong because of "unknown"
phenomenon or things "outside the realm of understanding by modern
science" then what else do we call it. By definition, if a claimed
phenomenon defies explanation by normal science then it is paranormal.
I did not say there was anything wrong with believing in such things
if that's what you want to do. I did not pass any judgments. All I am
doing is stating what the difference is.
>This avowed objectivist seems to have the attitude that science can
>now explain everything we need to know about audio. The poster's
>boundless faith in science leaves out one very important element: the
>human capacity to learn and to surpass previous standards. One analogy
>is physical training. Very much is known about physiology, nutrition,
>and kinesiology. Yet, every year, old records are broken. The same
>thing happens in audio design. Every year an increment of improvement
>is obtained.
Lighten up. Don't put words in my mouth that I never used.
Physical training eh? Assinie and irrelevant analogy. Apples and
oranges. Don't waste my time with flawed logic.
>What I object to is the tendency by many objectivists to simplify--to
>"sew things up"--as if everything that *can* be known *is* known. This
>attitude is tantamount to saying that amplifiers need not be improved;
>that they are now "essentially transparent"--as Gabe claims in a
>related post (he then denounces Sig for contradicting him). This
>sentiment concerning amplifiers appeared in the literature as early as
>1952, by the way.
How do you figure that I ever said such a thing? Outrageous claptrap!
>I don't mind one camp correcting the other camp; what I object to is
>one camp trying to *kill off* the other camp. The impulse to dismiss
>and to circumscribe is, IMO, the wrong way to approach *any* body of
>knowledge--especially if one assumes, as any reasonable person would,
>that there is more there than meets the ear. From my reading of this
>newsgroup, the objectivist camp is as irrational as much of the time
>as is the subjectivist camp. This is to say that within both camps are
>extremists who are in need of a balancing and a corrective
>influence. By the same token, there also exist people who consciously
>attempt to build bridges between the two camps (I noticed, for
>example, that Sig paid jj a compliment in a related thread). When one
>side gets something right, it's only just to give them credit for it.
I am not trying to "kill off" any camp. READ WHAT I SAID!!! I just
wrote a lengthy piece the other day, in fact, where I specifically
said that this ongoing bickering was horseshit and that we needed to
all learn how to get along. Why, even in this piece I attempted the
same. You, however, saw fit to delete those remarks.
>And while they do exist, the balanced and reasonable middle core of
>this group seems to be missing much of the time. The loud, strident
>voices of the two extremes is what one notices most often; and that is
>discouraging (as our moderator, jwd, echoes in a related post). The
>very terms, "subjective" and "objective", represent polar extremes.
>It follows that anyone calling himself a strict objectivist is
>therefore just as extreme in his position as any hard-core
>subjectivist. Perhaps we need a new term to describe the golden mean,
>i.e., the approach taken by those rare individuals who have been
>trained by extremists in *each* camp; who have learned the value of
>such cross-training; and have set out to establish the new frontiers
>of our collective audio future.
I clearly and simply stated in my post that I was of the objective
mind set for the most part. I then went on to state that I preferred
vacuum tubes over transistors. I have also, in other posts, stated
that I was skeptical of differences in cables based on scientific
information, yet based on anecdotal listening I felt that I could
sometimes hear differences and that I even owe Kimber interconnects
for that very reason.
You have taken what I said, blown it out of proportion, misrepresented
it, trashed it and generally catagorized me as being an extremist. I
am not an extremist. I assure you I am not. Not in
anything. Certainly not is something like audio for Christ's sake!
So, I congratulate you. You have managed to really piss off one of the
few people in this group who walks the middle ground between the two
extremists camps. You have just given me a little more reason to blow
off the whole lot of fools, on BOTH SIDES, as the petty, bickering
irrelevancy obsessed slush heads that they are.
I've got better things to do with my life and my time than deal with
this shit.
[discontinuity]
OK. Now I have had a chance to calm down. I was going to simply delete
the above as it represents an emotional response. Well, I think that
is the kind of response that this message deserves. It angered me and
it insulted me and the above text shows that. I will let it stand.
However, I will also state what I have been trying to say now, on and
off, for some time. I will state this clearly and simply so that there
will be no more misunderstandings.
I believe that there a two positions on the extremes in audio.
The purely objective and the purely subjective.
The objectivists adhere to the rigors of scientific methodology. They
require repeatable proof of a phenomenon, under controlled conditions,
to accept the phenomenon.
The subjectivist relies on anecdotal evidence and typically rejects
the finds of science which contradict their experience. They believe
that the phenomenon they perceive is not yet understood by science or
that science is flawed.
The objectivist believes in science.
The subjectivist believes in magic or, if you prefer, the paranormal.
This is not intended to put down one side or the other. It is intended
to state clearly what I see. I know what I believe and what I
accept. And I don't feel that I need to justify it to anyone.
Latter folks.
Christopher G. Adams
Clive Backham
In article <4tlc31$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) wrote:
>What I continually can't understand is why some people insist that
>accurate is more real. The constant refrain of trying to get the most
>accurate reproduction possible doesn't necessarily mean trying to get
>the most "real" reproduction.
>
>Some argue that since we can't ever hope to get "real" reproduction,
>that there's no "absolute sound," we must strive for accuracy. I
>think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
>strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
>obvious.
Yes indeed, the answer really is very, *very* obvious:
Some individuals may prefer less accurate reproduction, and to them it
may well sound more "real". Other individuals may prefer a *different*
deviation from accuracy. Therefore, for someone to suggest that audio
equipment should deviate from accuracy so that it more closely
resembles their own idea of "realism" inevitably imposes their own
idea of "realism" onto others who may have a different
preference. This is quite simply audio fascism.
The inescapable conclusion is that the compromise which is fairest to
the greatest number of people is one of accuracy. Individuals are then
at liberty to make modifications to the sound in their own playback
systems, presumably via little black boxes that can sit between the
preamp and power amp.
Clive Backham
Capita Managed Services Ltd. (+44) 1442 872121
cl...@capita.nildram.co.uk
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
>> The question is, how much of this realism can be ascribed to
>> accuracy?
>Yes, this is EXACTLY the question. And I hear no linkage between the
>two.
On one thing, at least, we agree.
>Some people hear tube amps as more real, some people solid-state.
>Ditto for LP vs. CD. There's nothing wrong with this.
There is NO evaluating of another's preference. AGreed.
>[ Except, of course, for that fact that those on both "sides" of the
> issue make the fatal mistake of claiming absolute superiority, in
Jim, who is claiming superiority in preference? I think I'm the most
vocal here, and I simply REFUSE to judge preference. I make it clear
that I want an accurate system so that I can add DELIBERATE changes,
in a controlled and understandable fashion.
[ No one accused you of falling into the trap. There are those on both
sides, however, who do. Claiming absolute superiority based on
personal preference is a slippery, slippery slope. The sooner people
in this newsgroup stop running towards it with open arms, the sooner
the discussions here will get a whole lot more productive. -- jwd ]
> areas that can't be meaningfully quantified, for one format over the
> other. Doing so inevitably turns an otherwise useful discussion
> into a pointless shouting match. If everyone remembered this, we
> might have less talking at each other and more talking to each other
> (plus, moderator sanity would be preserved -- something in short
> supply these days). -- jwd ]
>What I continually can't understand is why some people insist that
>accurate is more real. The constant refrain of trying to get the most
>accurate reproduction possible doesn't necessarily mean trying to get
>the most "real" reproduction.
Who's arguing that? I think, (since I don't claim editic memory) that
the only person to make that claim lately is in the "subjectivist"
side, and has claimed that he can't imagine distortion "sounding
real". (No, that's not you, Seigfried.)
>Some argue that since we can't ever hope to get "real" reproduction,
>that there's no "absolute sound," we must strive for accuracy. I
>think this misses the point: given a choice between a system that
>strives for accuracy and one that strives for realism, the answer is
>obvious.
I really don't see people doing that, either. I see people arguing
that you do what ever you do ON PURPOSE, not as side effects of
amplifier stablity and output impedence vs. loudspeaker impedence and
cable capacitance, for instance.
Yes, I've run into the occasional engineering weenie who insists that
"accurate is best, you idiot, it has to be" but, you know, I seem to
scare that type right down the road, screaming "help".
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4tqm34$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>The very terms, "subjective" and "objective", represent polar
>extremes. It follows that anyone calling himself a strict
>objectivist is therefore just as extreme in his position as any
>hard-core subjectivist.
Nonsense.
One can objectively evaluate subjective responses. We talk about that
here all the time.
Furthermore, speaking as an "extreme strict objectivist", I spend all
my time understanding subjective results of objective, determinate
processes.
There is NO polar extreme involved. Objectivists and subjectivists
are not natural enemies.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
SDuraybito
In article <4ttsv0$4...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>> That is the question. To me it's a no-brainer.
> Suit yourself. Be religious. But if you persist in being religious,
> then please go to soc.religion.misc, and get OUT of here.
I'm not sure why someone who believes in audio in a religious manner
cannot participate in rec.audio.highend. Does the r.a.h-e FAQ address
this issue? Why must jj's choice in the matter be imposed on this
group?
[ My dearest Siegfried, me thinks you confuse JJ's personal opinions
with the official policies of the newsgroup. They are not now, nor
have they ever been, one and the same. Please take the remainder of
this particular discussion to private email. -- jwd ]
SDuraybito
In article <4tu5gu$s...@biosun.harvard.edu>, cadam...@aol.com
(CAdams1471) writes:
>The objectivists adhere to the rigors of scientific methodology. They
>require repeatable proof of a phenomenon, under controlled conditions,
>to accept the phenomenon.
True.
>The subjectivist relies on anecdotal evidence and typically rejects
>the finds of science which contradict their experience. They believe
>that the phenomenon they perceive is not yet understood by science or
>that science is flawed.
I would re-phrase: The subjectivist relies on personal observation and
does not require repeatable proof of a phenomenon. The efficacy of
their observation is limited to their own experience.
>The objectivist believes in science.
>
>The subjectivist believes in magic or, if you prefer, the paranormal.
I don't think it's fair to assert that subjectivists don't believe in
science. They make the choice to place greater emphasis on their own
observation than in science. They are less inclined to require an
explanation of a phenomenon, or at the very least, may continue to
believe in a phenomenon despite evidence to the contrary.
Scott Frankland
>> Let me try to show that there is a reason for discussing personal
>> preference. There is a vast body of writing already available to us
>> under the heading of "aesthetics". Needless to say, this was a
>> major branch of Greek philosophical thought. The definition of what
>> is "beautiful" occupied Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, among
>> others. And aesthetics is precisely the "problem" of what
>> individual preference means. The problem breaks down into at least
>> two parts: (1) What is beautiful?; and (2) What is the relative
>> valuation of a preference in light of what has been defined as
>> beautiful?
In article <4ttsv0$4...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> jj (curmudgeon and
all-around grouch, etc.) <j...@research.att.com> writes:
> Irrelevant. You're talking about discussing what one likes. There's
> no problem with that, but you simply canNOT say that one person's
> likes are "better" than another's.
Without saying that one's preference is "better", one can nonetheless
influence (or be influenced by) the taste of others. This is what I
call the *process of connoisseurship*. It is an odyssey toward the
beautiful, toward what is grand in life. It is possible, in other
words, to improve one's taste, and in that sense it is worth talking
about. It is not irrelevant, therefore, if we can agree upon what
constitutes beauty. It seems to me that that is exactly what the
high-end tries to do, i.e., to create a forum for the discussion of
what is beautiful vs. what is truthful. Of course, these categories
should be discussed with the understanding that our recordings are not
yet perfect.
>> I think that while it is possible to add "hall sound", i.e., change
>> the size and scale of a recording venue, and to change the timbre
>> of instruments in a rather crude way, what Tom is talking about
>> here are so-called colorations that make a musical performance
>> sound more "real".
> You may think that, but it's my 20+ years of experience that you're
> wrong.
You're not the only one with 20+ years of experience, JJ. My 20
against yours.
> Furthermore, you're telling me what I think, which I very much wish
> you would cease doing.
I am telling you what I think *Tom* is talking about. Where does it
say otherwise?
> Tom very well may be talking about stuff that makes things sound
> "much more real". That's what I think he's talking about. THAT IS
> WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
We're going around in circles here. You are claiming that the things
Tom is talking about are euphonic distortions (correct me if I'm wrong
here). I am making the suggestion that what Tom is describing is a
degree of resolution that cannot be fully ascribed to euphonic
distortions--and that the difference has yet to be fully explained.
Which is why I posed the following question:
>> The question is, how much of this realism can be ascribed to
>> accuracy?
> Surprisingly little.
Where we disagree, it would seem, is in our current capacity to
measure every significant hearable parameter, including the *gestalt*,
or overall soundfield (perhaps the most important parameter, and the
one that the great subjectivist, HP, refers to most often in his
various essays on music and sound).
>> If one goes into it "believing" that such and such a medium
>> is measurably colored, doesn't that also inhibit one from believing
>> that, in spite of those distortions, the medium is perhaps more
>> accurate in certain ways that are not so measurable?
> The input is an electrical signal, the output is an electrical signal.
> Unless you are engaging frankly in parapsychology, there is NO
> difference if there is no difference in the electrical signal. QED.
> (Measuring that signal in situ, of course.)
Please define your test signal.
> What you propose is simply impossible without engaging in
> parapsychology for the simple reason that the electrical signal can be
> very carefully and accurately characterized in a remarkable number of
> ways.
A remarkable number, yes, but not necessarily IN EVERY SIGNIFICANT
WAY.
> Unless you propose some parapsychological effect that changes
> what comes out of the transducers when the same thing goes into it,
> there's no chance that something is missed at the electrical end.
Unless, of course, your test is flawed.
> >JJ would have us
> >believe that all such discrepancies are (ultimately)
> >measurable. Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. I guess it all depends
> >on what you choose to "believe".
> Please don't lie about this.
I appreciate the sugar coating on the implication that I am a liar.
Perhaps in the future you can find a more civilized means of debating
your points. I think that if you examine your own logic you will find
that the only way I can be lying is IF I ALREADY BELIEVE YOU. Which I
don't.
> It can be SHOWN that such discrepancies (sic) are measurable. The
> sensitivity of the ear is well known, and characterized in a
> remarkable number of ways, and the electronic measurements are much
> much MUCH better. It's that simple.
It's only simple if one is a simpleton. What does mere sensitivity
have to do with testing comprehensively and IN EVERY SIGNIFICANT WAY?
> There is no BELIEF involved in any way, shape or form beyond pure
> solipcism (or however you spell that theory that Moore keeps putting
> forth). It's that simple.
Everything is simple now. Perhaps I am the simpleton. It still seems
complicated and mysterious to me.
> The differences are repeatable, measurable, confirmable, etc. Such
> measurements have been made time and time agian.
Such measurements are IRRELEVANT if they are FLAWED. You say they are
not. The anecdotal evidence of the high-end community says otherwise.
> Would the physical scenario you propose be actually existant, our
> computer memories would fail several times a second (using the
> temperature of the chip, the fermi gas distribution, and the
> sensitivty of the ear at 100Hz to noise masked by a tone). They
> don't. Therefore your contention is shown to be outright absurd by
> a simple gedanct-experiment.
This is a stretch.
>> But my ears tell me that we have yet to accomplish this feat.
> Actually, what your ears do is very well characterized. If you're
> referring to that same old hack set of measurements that
> manufacturers actually PUBLISH, you're in the dark ages.
I don't believe your measurements are significantly better than, e.g.,
what Stereophile routinely publishes.
>> Should I trust my ears or should I believe jj?
> I don't ask for belief. I present proof.
Your proof is bogus. That's why I don't believe it.
> You may reject the proof, but in doing so you must also reject the
> scientific method and proclaim yourself a parapsycholgist.
What's wrong with studying the paranormal scientifically? One cannot
reject the paranormal without also stating that everything is
explainable. So far everything is NOT explainable. Having an open
mind is the first prerequisite of the successful scientist. I cite
Newton and the apple as the most obvious example. And where would we
be if Einstein did not question Euclid's axioms?
> I must say that there are many debates among the scientific
> community, but the ability to measure better than human hearing is
> NOT the subject of any serious debate.
Then something is not being measured. That is my contention. And
that is, I think, the contention of most skilled listeners. Before
one can measure something one must first become thoroughly familiar
with its physical manifestations. What I am suggesting is that you
and your ilk have yet to become adequately familiar with the physical
manifestations presently being discussed by the central core of the
high-end community.
> Suit yourself. Be religious. But if you persist in being
> religious, then please go to soc.religion.misc, and get OUT of here.
I will leave when you go to rec.audio.sounds-alike.
>> P.S. JJ, this is *not* a personal attack.
> It most certainly is,
If I am attacking anything here it is the issue of what can currently
be measured. You have chosen to identify yourself strongly with one
side of this issue. Therefore it is difficult to at all times
separate the two. Nonetheless, I shall endeavor to do so in the
future. I am, after all, an accomodating and approachable sort of
fellow. Not in the least curmudgeonly, you understand.
>> Please, no email bombs.
> ...and I don't send e-mail bombs.
Now HERE is a good example of when to call someone a liar, JJ. I
shall refrain from doing so, however, because, being generous, I like
to think you are still corrigible.
~SF~
Scott Frankland
In message <4tu4u2$s...@biosun.harvard.edu> cha...@wco.com
> In message <4tqm34$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> - Scott Frankland
> <audi...@svpal.org>1 Aug 1996 12:30:28 -0400 writes:
>> Perhaps we need a new term to describe the golden mean,
>> i.e., the approach taken by those rare individuals who have been
>> trained by extremists in *each* camp; who have learned the value of
>> such cross-training; and have set out to establish the new frontiers
>> of our collective audio future.
> 'New' term(s)? Why would this be new? It's in every philosophy 101
> textbook.
Thanks for the philosophy lesson, but I think you missed the point.
The point is not to rename the "golden mean" (I would hardly be so
bold) but to find a name for "the approach taken by those rare
individuals [etc.]", whom I have equated with the principle EMBODIED
by the golden mean. Which is, I think, pretty much what you say below:
> Now, there are basically two ways to approach a problem from a
> philosophical point of view.
> Arguement - which is mostly what happens here. And it works just
> fine, providing everybody behaves as adults and don't manage to take
> things personally.
> Philosophical positions - seeing the field as a body of
> knowledge. (good and bad)
The question is, when does productive dialog turn into non-productive
argument for the sake of being right? I would say that this occurs
primarily whenever someone ceases to be dispassionate. Secondarily, it
occurs when someone loses the point.
~SF~
Scott Frankland
In article <4tu5gu$s...@biosun.harvard.edu> cadam...@aol.com
(CAdams1471) writes:
> In responding to my post, please be kind enough not to edit out
> relevant text. You have, by omission, grossly misrepresented the
> message of the original post and twisted it to your ends. This is
> not only unethical, it really PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!
Say buddy, have you had your blood pressure checked lately? If you
reread my comments (more dispassionately this time) you'll find that I
haven't twisted anything. I simply responded to what was there in the
thread. You don't expect me to go back and pull quotes from every
thread you've chatted in, do you? I think the moderator dudes draw the
line at that. If you think I've taken something out of context all you
have to do is say so. You don't need to make a federal case out of
it. This stuff isn't written in stone you know (is it James?).
> By definition, if a claimed phenomenon defies explanation by normal
> science then it is paranormal.
Well, yes, and no. The word "paranormal" has become a whipping boy in
this group. Better, therefore, to say "things not yet explained by
science".
> I did not say there was anything wrong with believing in such things
> if that's what you want to do. I did not pass any judgments. All I
> am doing is stating what the difference is.
On the contrary, you implied that all subjectivists believe in
"magic", which, in turn, allowed your attitude to leak out.
> Physical training eh? Assinie and irrelevant analogy. Apples and
> oranges. Don't waste my time with flawed logic.
This analogy is meant to throw light on the current opinion by many
objectivists in this group that amplifiers and cables are "good
enough". Sorry you didn't copy the point.
>> What I object to is the tendency by many objectivists to
>> simplify--to "sew things up"--as if everything that *can* be known
>> *is* known. This attitude is tantamount to saying that amplifiers
>> need not be improved; that they are now "essentially
>> transparent"--as Gabe claims in a related post (he then denounces
>> Sig for contradicting him). This sentiment concerning amplifiers
>> appeared in the literature as early as 1952, by the way.
> How do you figure that I ever said such a thing? Outrageous claptrap!
Did I say you did? Look at the syntax. The grammatical subject is
"many objectivists". Next time don't read so fast.
> I am not trying to "kill off" any camp. READ WHAT I SAID!!!
You're doing it again. You are reading yourself into what has been
plainly stated as "one camp" vs. "another camp". You are causing your
own pain here fella.
[quote deletion - wsr]
[Okay, tit for tat. This side thread ends here. - wsr]
CAdams1471
In article <4u879f$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
>I don't think it's fair to assert that subjectivists don't believe in
>science. They make the choice to place greater emphasis on their own
>observation than in science. They are less inclined to require an
>explanation of a phenomenon, or at the very least, may continue to
>believe in a phenomenon despite evidence to the contrary.
Many subjectivists do insist that the results of scientific study in
the area of audio are flawed because the results fail to backup their
beliefs. That is a demonstrable fact as seen in publications such as
Stereophool and The Absolute Clown.
If someone wants to believe in some phenomenon, no matter how absurd,
that's their right. But I have a big problem with people arguing that
their perception of the paranormal is correct and science is wrong. I
don't care what people believe in. I do care when "believers" attack
reason and critical thinking because it contradicts their personal
world view.
Christopher G. Adams
CAdams1471
In article <4u897o$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>What's wrong with studying the paranormal scientifically? One cannot
>reject the paranormal without also stating that everything is
>explainable. So far everything is NOT explainable. Having an open
>mind is the first prerequisite of the successful scientist. I cite
>Newton and the apple as the most obvious example. And where would we
>be if Einstein did not question Euclid's axioms?
Oh, yes! I love this kind statement.
There is nothing wrong with studying the paranormal scientifically. In
fact, it is done quite often. Carefully controlled experiments are
used to determine the validity of claims of ESP, telekinesis, remote
viewing and a host of other magical powers. You know what? Thus far,
no credible, repeatable evidence has been found to support the
existence of any of these claims.
Much like what happens in high end audio. And the responses are
exactly the same; 1) the tests are flawed 2) we don't know what to
measure 3) there is too much stress in the test situation which
interferes with the special power 4) non-believers and skeptics
"spoil" the subject.
An open mind is very important in science, but so too is
skepticism. You have to ask a question, come up with a theory, design
an experiment that controls the variables and then examine the results
and make your conclusions. You can't throw away the results because
you don't like them. And if you wish to contest the results of
experiments you must provide evidence to the contrary or show why the
tests are flawed. That's the way science works.
The universe obeys a certain set of laws, people. And no matter what
you "feel" or want to the contrary, there ain't a damn thing you can
do about it. Believe in all crazy stuff you want- but don't come
crying to me when I tell you that your ideas are nutso. I don't
care. Neither does the universe.
BTW- Newton and the apple is folklore. Never happened.
Christopher G. Adams
SDuraybito
>> I must say that there are many debates among the scientific
>> community, but the ability to measure better than human hearing is
>> NOT the subject of any serious debate.
>
>Then something is not being measured. That is my contention. And
>that is, I think, the contention of most skilled listeners. Before
>one can measure something one must first become thoroughly familiar
>with its physical manifestations. What I am suggesting is that you
>and your ilk have yet to become adequately familiar with the physical
>manifestations presently being discussed by the central core of the
>high-end community.
I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It is
pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are often
preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube amplifiers
and analog LPs are preferred by many.
What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
playback, respectively. Despite numerous (real and perceived) design
enhancements, tube amplifiers and LP playback have a unique sound that
has not yet been emulated to the satisfaction of all listeners. As
such, there exists physical manifestations beyond the realm of our
current understanding. It is just so sad to see people hiding from
it...
Scott Frankland
In article <4ue524$g...@biosun.harvard.edu> cadam...@aol.com
(CAdams1471) writes:
> There is nothing wrong with studying the paranormal
> scientifically. In fact, it is done quite often. Carefully
> controlled experiments are used to determine the validity of claims
> of ESP, telekinesis, remote viewing and a host of other magical
> powers. You know what? Thus far, no credible, repeatable evidence
> has been found to support the existence of any of these claims.
Maybe the magic powers are a one-shot deal? ;-) I'm not arguing a case
for paraphenomena here. My point is that "so far everything is NOT
explainable." Einstein proved that and physicists were blown away by
his theory. Suddenly, what they thought had been a neat and tidy
universe was blown into bits. The same thing happened when Irving
Langmuir showed why vacuum tubes could work by a pure electron
discharge (and that the residual gas--the "blue glow"-- was not needed
to produce current flow in a vacuum). Only a small handful of
physicists in the world at that time believed otherwise. Again, the
scientific community was rocked to its foundations. When will you
hard-line skeptics realize that not everything in the universe is sewn
up yet? You talk like you are in complete control of the world's
reservoir of knowledge. This is another sore point with me. I agree
that hard-core subjectivists are guilty of a similar hubris. That's
why I've been advocating a new dialectic, wherein the two poles are
made to synergize and converge. Simply drop the hubris and listen more
carefully to what the other side has to say. Especially you guys at
the frequency extremes. So far all I've got is a lot of static from
both sides (except from Sig). It's a bit frustrating. And in spite of
jj's recent declaration that "objectivists and subjectivists are not
natural enemies," I remain unconvinced.
> Much like what happens in high end audio. And the responses are
> exactly the same; 1) the tests are flawed 2) we don't know what to
> measure 3) there is too much stress in the test situation which
> interferes with the special power 4) non-believers and skeptics
> "spoil" the subject.
This is a case in point. You feel that your side (and you are clearly
being the objectivist hard-liner here) is completely right and that
the high-end is irrelevant insofar as science is concerned. Why do
you continue to post here then? Last time I looked this newsgroup was
called rec.audio.high-end. You guys are just frustrated because there
is no group yet for rec.audio.know-it-alls.
> The universe obeys a certain set of laws, people. And no matter what
> you "feel" or want to the contrary, there ain't a damn thing you can
> do about it. Believe in all crazy stuff you want - but don't come
> crying to me when I tell you that your ideas are nutso.
And you are, I take it, the head know-it-all?
> I don't care. Neither does the universe.
I can believe that YOU don't care, but you can't prove that the
universe doesn't care (just as I can't prove that it does care).
> BTW - Newton and the apple is folklore. Never happened.
In spite of that, the point is made.
~SF~
Tim Takahashi
SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
><audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>>> I must say that there are many debates among the scientific
>>> community, but the ability to measure better than human hearing is
>>> NOT the subject of any serious debate.
>>Then something is not being measured. That is my contention. And
>>that is, I think, the contention of most skilled listeners.
>I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It is
>pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are often
>preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube amplifiers
>and analog LPs are preferred by many.
In a simpler era, there was at least some scholarly research performed
on this subject. If one looks through audio engineering texts, such as
the famous RCA Radiotron manual, you will see a discussion of
bandwidth.
One of the more interesting assertions from the 1940's was that
wide-bandwith was not beneficial for good "tone quality," particularly
in the sense that the ear is sensitive to HF distortion - and that an
error of omission was a better engineering decision than reproducing
HF hash.
But this gets to the whole crux of the matter, a craze for technical
perfection as represented by a very limited suite of measurment
parameters. I've written before that probably 40dB S/N ratio and
50-10,000hz (+/- 3dB) frequency response sources can display what I've
called musical "verisimilitude." (The feeling of life-likeness - not
the absence of surface noise, etc.).
Now the craze for technical perfection has lead to some very sweeping
generalizations. On the tube vs. transistor debate - tube are
consistently described as promoters of "euphonic" distortion...... oh
really? all thermionic devices? some? I don't buy that... a 12AX7 is a
really linear AF amp with a remarkably extended bandwidth and
non-existant slew-rate limiting... the AF gain stages in my homebrew
pre-amp can pass 250kHz square waves, have non-existant distortion on
1kHz sine waves. No euphonic distorion there.... just simple,
obsolescent engineering.
Oh, you mean tube POWER AMPS? well then maybe.... but the levels of
distortion are not particularly high (even those famous single ended
triode jobs which are 5%THD at maximum ouput.... what's the distortion
at 250mw????? well?) and the distortion (more due to the transformer
than to the thermionic nature of the output drivers) is confined to
the deep, deep bass. Is the introduction of 0.001% 3rd Harmonic
distortion on a 1kHz sine wave audible on a "0.5% THD from 50 to
10,000 Hz @ 35 watts per channel" amp? yes.
And then, what about the harmonic distortion of the loudspeaker. Is
the distortion (or lack thereof) of an amplifier important in the
"real" world context? Or is it better to have some sort a
frequency/output level weighting scheme like the "dB/A" scale?????
There are some really arrogant statements made on both sides. Music is
served by neither.
-tim
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4u897o$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> Where we disagree, it would seem, is in our current capacity to
> measure every significant hearable parameter, including the *gestalt*,
> or overall soundfield (perhaps the most important parameter, and the
> one that the great subjectivist, HP, refers to most often in his
>v arious essays on music and sound).
And I reply, it is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any signal
converted to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced, CAN BE
MEASURED IN ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear can
hear.
Does this relate to your hearing of a soundfield? Nope. Stereo is a
very weak illusion, what makes it sound good for you may not sound
good to me <although you might be surprised>. The question of what
information is present is an objective and simple question as well.
Does THIS relate to 'overall soundfield'. Nope. Your perception of a
given presented soundfile dillusion may and most likely will vary
quite a bit from mine, or anyone else's. Stereo is an ILLUSION of a
soundfield. A weak, easily broken, fairly easily enhanced one. The
trick is that what is an enhancement to one is a distortion to
another, and there is simply no "right" in that domain, it is PERSONAL
PREFERENCE. No more, no less. If anybody tries to tell you that you
don't like what you like, well, they're just plain, flat-out rude. If
they tell you that while you like it, it is less accurate, and may
sound nicer to you for some reason, that's not rude.
> Please define your test signal.
Any electronically recorded audio signal.
> A remarkable number, yes, but not necessarily IN EVERY SIGNIFICANT
> WAY.
YOU ARE WRONG. It is easily shown that the electronic measurement is
more sensitive in EVERY WAY than human hearing.
Sorry. Them's the facts.
> It's only simple if one is a simpleton. What does mere sensitivity
> have to do with testing comprehensively and IN EVERY SIGNIFICANT
> WAY?
Perhaps you should study the field a while, first. Then maybe you
might understand that the electrical signal conveys all the
information that can exist, and that methods of measuring electrical
signals are much more sensitive than the human ear. You persist in
your "SIGNIFICANT WAY" nonsense, when in fact it is possible to say
that "the total error from all sources whatsoever is X" for an
electronic signal. That includes all ways, significant or not, unless
you enter the realm of the parapsychological.
Sorry. Again, but them's the facts.
> Your proof is bogus. That's why I don't believe it.
You claim my proof is bogus. Ok. That's a start on a solid, positive
statement from you. Can you even state what my proof is? If you
claim it's bogus, that means you understand it. Now either state it,
or retract your factual claim.
STAND AND DELIVER.
> What's wrong with studying the paranormal scientifically?
Who suggested that was wrong? Only you.
> One cannot reject the paranormal without also stating that
> everything is explainable.
One can reject the paranormal completely while knowing full well that
some things cannot be explained. One can even use physics to show
that some things CANNOT be explained, now or ever, because THERE IS NO
EXPLAINATION, only blind probability. You engage here in the most
pathetic use of the fallicy of the excluded middle (yes, look it up,
you might learn from the experince) that I've seen in a while.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
Michael Wong
In article <4ug4a4$2...@biosun.harvard.edu>, sdura...@aol.com says...
> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
It's good to see that this viewpoint is finally being generally
accepted, rather than the olded "LP's are more accurate" nonsense that
is finally dying away.
> What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
> particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
> playback, respectively. Despite numerous (real and perceived)
> design enhancements, tube amplifiers and LP playback have a unique
> sound that has not yet been emulated to the satisfaction of all
> listeners. As such, there exists physical manifestations beyond the
> realm of our current understanding. It is just so sad to see people
> hiding from it...
What "science" has failed to do? You make it sound like the
scientific community has been trying desperately to accomplish this,
when in reality no one cares except for hardcore tube and LP
afictionados. The general audio market dwarfs the high end audio
market, and in the high end audio market, the standard CD + transistor
amp market dwarfs the LP + tube market. If there was some real
economic incentive to accomplish this thing, I'm sure someone would
have done it by now. As for mystical "physical manifestations beyond
the realm of our current understanding", we're not talking about
poltergeists here. We're talking about electrical signals.
BTW, somebody in rec.audio.opinion recently said that he recorded some
LP's onto DAT, and the resulting DAT's possessed all of the air and
"musicality" of the LP. Anyone else tried this?
Andrew N. Carpenter
On 2 Aug 1996 17:46:08 -0400, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
all-around grouch) wrote:
>>Let me try to show that there is a reason for discussing personal
>>preference. There is a vast body of writing already available to us
>>under the heading of "aesthetics".
>Irrelevant. You're talking about discussing what one likes. There's
>no problem with that, but you simply canNOT say that one person's
>likes are "better" than another's.
This in itself is a substantive philosophical claim. You clearly
beleive this, and you clearny do not WANT to believe otherwise, but
philosopihcally you are being as domgmatic as those folks who insist
that whatever they can't measure cannot exist.
>Suit yourself. Be religious. But if you persist in being religious,
>then please go to soc.religion.misc, and get OUT of here.
The perceptual claims that are being discussed here are no less
'religious' than the so-called scientific principles that are being
bandied about so freely.
Namely, people seem to have 'faith' that the TRUE one scientific
method proves any of a number of claims about how our discussions here
should be conducted. The worst of all are those dogmatists who say
that if their particualr experimental apparatus won't masure
something, then we shouldn't discuss it. Next are those who say that
if current studies by any researched can't measure it, then we
shouldn't discuss it. You seem to be of a slightly different opinion,
that if something is not measurable then we shouldn't discuss it.
All of these views are philosophically and scientifically absurd. At
the very least, they are reductionistic in a way that is supremely
arrogant. What we are able to measure, and what we count as
measurable in principle, changes over time. That we don't know now how
to measure something is no evidence that it cannot be measured.
Take this as a claim for tolerance and pluralism as we discuss
perception. There are more ways fruitfuly to discuss these issues
than your dogmatisim allows.
--
_________________________________________________
Andrew Carpenter, phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu
Doctoral Candidate Instructor, Dept. of Philosophy
Dept. of Philosophy, U.C. Berkeley Western Maryland College
fax: (410) 857-8778 Westminster, MD 21157
Tim Takahashi
Scott Frankland <audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> Where we disagree, it would seem, is in our current capacity to
> measure every significant hearable parameter, including the
> *gestalt*
jj, the net curmudgeon writes :
> And I reply, it is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any
> signal converted to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced,
> CAN BE MEASURED IN ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear
> can hear.
I'm rather curious, though since we bat around dB and "%" distortion
so interchangeably what it all means.
Let us presume that we have the famous, subjectivists pride /
objectivists pitful 8 watt single-ended vacuum tube amp. And let us
suppose that it actually develops 5% THD, it would appear (unless my
mathematics are faulty) that 5%THD has the noise components 26dB down
from the signal. Of course, since the actual amplifier has a rising
distortion/ power output behavior, let us say the typical distortion
is 1% (so the THD+noise (of all components) is 40dB down).
How audible is this distortion? Wasn't 40dB amplitude differential
given as the limit of audibility? Of course, since we've measured
TOTAL distortion, the actual amount of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
etc. harmonics are much less.
Does this make the argument moot? false? more persuasive?
I believe to have heard differences between amplifiers : amplifiers
which should differ at least -40db down from the signal level. Is my
hearing specious? placebo effect? Does the Dyna really sound like the
Krell? or are there other sensitivities?
THD+Noise % THD+Noise THD+Noise decibel scale
----------------------------------------------------------
1 part in 10 ( 10%) -20 dB
1 part in 20 ( 5%) -26 dB
1 part in 50 ( 2%) -34 dB
1 part in 100 ( 1%) -40 dB
1 part in 200 (0.5%) -46 dB
1 part in 500 (0.2%) -54 dB
1 part in 1000 (0.1%) -60 dB
1 part in 10000 (0.01%) -80 dB
1 part in 65536 (0.0015%) -96 dB
1 part in 100000 (0.0010% -100 dB
-tim
CAdams1471
In article <4ug57r$t...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> ....When will you hard-line skeptics realize that not everything in
> the universe is sewn up yet? You talk like you are in complete
> control of the world's reservoir of knowledge. This is another sore
> point with me.
My statement, which you seem to be upset about, is centered on my
notion that claimed phenomenon that defy measurement or verification
are, almost by definition, paranormal.
I stand by that statement. You are, of course, free to disagree. I can
not, however, see any reason to debate this topic any farther.
Nor will I.
Christopher G. Adams
Andrew N. Carpenter
cadam...@aol.com (CAdams1471) wrote:
>My statement... is centered on my
>notion that claimed phenomenon that defy measurement or verification
>are, almost by definition, paranormal.
It isn't clear to me how you interpret this claim. There are two ways
to take it, one extreme and one much more mild.
The extreme claim would be that any purported phenomena that cannot be
measured or verified using CURRENT practices are paranormal and
therefore could not be the subject of scientific inquiry. The moderate
claim would be that any purported phenomena that cannot be measured or
verified by any PRESENT or FUTURE scientific practices would be '
paranormal'.
The first view is too extreme in that it does not allow for the
devlopment of scientific practices over time. Yet the second position
is so moderate that it doesn't allow us to classify phenoma like the
"Green Pen Effect" as paranormal because we DON'T KNOW what these
future advancements will bring. I think, therefore, that you face a
dilemma. If your position is the more extreme one, then it is quite
implausible on its face. However, if your claim just boils down to the
moderate one, then I don't think you have any disagreement with the
people you seem so vehemently opposed against.
Are either of these positions what you have in mind? If not, please
say more!
Scott Drysdale
In article <4uh8rl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>BTW, somebody in rec.audio.opinion recently said that he recorded some
>LP's onto DAT, and the resulting DAT's possessed all of the air and
>"musicality" of the LP. Anyone else tried this?
i do it all the time. i won't tangle with the word "musicality,"
though. i get plenty of musical enjoyment with the sound cranked up
in my truck going 80MPH with the windows open. high end audio to me
offers the fun of sitting down to listen to music and hearing bits
i've never heard before.
turntable: rega planar 2, RB250 arm, sumiko BPS cartridge.
DAT: sony TCD-D3 walkman.
DAC: adcom GDA-700.
preamp: adcom GTP-500.
amp: adcom GFA-5800.
speakers: snell type D.
cables: yes. except the toslink between the DAT and the DAC.
i'm letting the DAT be the A/D converter, but use the outboard adcom
D/A converter. before i got the outboard D/A converter, it was pretty
easy to tell the difference between an LP and a DAT of the LP. with
the adcom, it's much harder.
i'd guess that i can tell the difference between the LP and the DAT on
about 80% of the material i've seriously listened to for that purpose.
the difference seems to be a change in high frequency information,
kind of like HF rolloff. i've got a couple of theories about what's
causing it:
1) the turntable system is producing HF trash which is being removed
by
the A/D's low-pass filter. the BPS is a moving coil cartridge, and
they as a class are known to have such problems. i could test this
by
trying a shure V15 type cartridge, which is known to be very
frequency
flat and otherwise very nice technically. i'll probably do that
this
year, since shure is supposedly producing the things again.
2) the sony's A/D converter is less than great. this is a "put 10
pounds
of shit in a 2 pound bag" design - the power supplies are
especially
wacky. to test this, i'd have to find an outboard A/D converter
for
cheap. not bloody likely.
3) the analog signal is making two trips through the preamp's analog
switches when playing an LP via the DAT (turntable->preamp->DAT,
DAT->DAC->preamp) and the preamp is doing something bad to high
frequencies. i could easily test for this by routing "record out"
to the CD input with the record selector set to phono and the
listening selector to CD. i haven't become bored enough or
critical
enough of the preamp to try this yet.
4) toslink is *obviously* a product of the devil.
5) i *obviously* need to paint my DAT tapes green.
6) digital audio is *obviously* doesn't work.
i'll stop now :)
--
Scott.D...@scala.com // Sanitation Engineer // Scala US R&D
1960 HD FLH (the deerslayer) & 1957..69 HD FLH (the mongrel) // AMIGA!
Chuck Ross
>
> BTW, somebody in rec.audio.opinion recently said that he recorded some
> LP's onto DAT, and the resulting DAT's possessed all of the air and
> "musicality" of the LP. Anyone else tried this?
That sounds as if it may have been me who posted that.
I really hate the chore of playing LPs, with the cleaning, wiping,
brushing, turning the damned things over, etc. One day, not too long
ago, just for the hell of it, I tried taping an LP to DAT. I was
pretty amazed! I'd have to say I couldn't hear much, if any
difference.
An audio pen pal of mine and I have been exchanging DAT copies of our
"audiophile" LPs, and they sound incredibly good on both ends. I began
making DAT copies of quite a few LP albums that I like to listen to
often, especially the larger sets of 2-3 LPs.
There is no so-called "digititis" of the type that one hears LP-lovers
complain about; the sound is exactly the same as the LP.
Equipment in use here includes:
Krell KSA-100 power amp
Krell KSP-7B preamp
Sony DTC-690 DAT tape
Denon DCD-3000 CD (which has digital inputs and outputs and which I
often use for DAT tape playback via it's DAC
SOTA Sapphire tt w/Premiere FT-3 arm and Audio Technica OC-9 cartridge.
My audio pen-pal and DAT trading buddy also uses the Sony 690 for this
and also uses the OC-9 cartridge. We have both remarked on the uncanny
ability of this system to perfectly record the sound and air and
musicality of LPs. In fact, we wonder why, when making LP transfers
to CD, the manufacturers don't do it this way, preferring to
re-digitize the LP signal and mess with it, often resulting in a
rather horrid-sounding product on CD.
Admittedly, such defects as pops, crackles, surface noise, etc. are
all perfectly recorded to DAT as well, but it sure beats playing LPs.
--
Chuck Ross KC9FL South Holland, IL ckr...@ais.net
Scott Frankland
In article <4uh5p5$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>In article <4u897o$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Scott Frankland
><audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>>Where we disagree, it would seem, is in our current capacity to
>>measure every significant hearable parameter, including the *gestalt*,
>>or overall soundfield (perhaps the most important parameter, and the
>>one that the great subjectivist, HP, refers to most often in his
>>various essays on music and sound).
>And I reply, it is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any signal
>converted to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced, CAN BE
>MEASURED IN ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear can hear.
And you are, I take it, the leading authority on what "any ear can
hear"? From your tone it would seem so. Allow me to quote R. Duncan
Luce--a recognized authority on hearing physiology--from his recent
book on sound and hearing [2]. This book provides an excellent update
on the hearing mechanism, by the way. It clearly explains frequency
coding, intensity coding, firing rates, and internal tuning curves in
light of current research. About music perception, Luce has this to
say: "Complex matters of music perception--for example, one's ability
to single out individual instruments--and of speech perception are far
beyond any physiological explanation at this time. To a degree, the
behavioral results establish a challenge to neural scientists, telling
them what to look for in the brain."
Which just goes to show that not all scientists are know-it-alls. :-)
Luce's views represent the mature attitude of an enlightened
scientist, IMO. And this is the attitude that I suggest this newsgroup
take as concerns objective research in general. In our case, the
"behavioral results" ought to come from the hard-core subjectivists,
who "establish a challenge" to the scientists. The very BEST
challenge, I would argue. So far, a great many of the scientists seem
to be running away from the subjectivists. Apparently the challenge is
too great. jj, you claim to be a hearing expert, yet you refuse to
open your mind to new possibilities. Why? Could it be because your
world is so neat and tidy that you simply refuse to jeopardize your
intellectual comfort zone? Case in point: one of the leading
subjectivists of our time, Michael Gindi, personally invited you to
come to listen to his stereo and to discuss the process of
listening. You refused. Your reason? You refused to subject yourself
to the "inadvertent self-delusion" you believed you would find there
due to the lack of "controlled conditions". Your belief then kept you
from the possibility of a transformational experience. Ergo, your mind
is closed to new possibilities. You need to transfer to
rec.audio.satisfied (or else open your mind to new possibilities).
>Does THIS relate to 'overall soundfield'. Nope. Your perception of a
>given presented soundfile dillusion may and most likely will vary
>quite a bit from mine, or anyone else's. Stereo is an ILLUSION of a
>soundfield. A weak, easily broken, fairly easily enhanced one.
I'm not just talking about the stereo illusion. I hear differences
between so-called "acoustically transparent" components in mono,
too. Differences in frequency balance, texture, bloom, and inner
detail (among others).
>>Please define your test signal.
>Any electronically recorded audio signal.
And how do you compare this input signal with what comes out?
>You persist in your "SIGNIFICANT WAY" nonsense, when in fact it is
>possible to say that "the total error from all sources whatsoever is X"
>for an electronic signal. That includes all ways, significant or not,
>unless you enter the realm of the parapsychological.
Let me invoke just one REAL authority in this field, perhaps the only
authority we need cite in this instance. Barry Blesser, now a
consultant, was formerly a professor of electrical engineering at
MIT. He was also a staff scientist at MIT's Research Laboratory of
Electronics where he maintained a research program in perceptual and
cognitive processes. In 1978, Blesser wrote a seminal paper on the
digitization of audio. The AES published this paper [1] and named
Blesser the senior editor of all things digital (or some such title of
preeminence). On page 766 of his article, Blesser lists 17 sources of
error in digital systems, and explains why they accumulate
statistically. He then suggests that "a true 16 PCM system having 96db
dynamic range is almost beyond the range of possibility." He goes on
to say that "to achieve our specification, the individual errors need
to be reduced by a factor of at least 3 in order for the composite
system to have the required performance." He concludes by stating that
"these tradeoffs are sufficiently complex that it may be at least 10
years before the standardization process will begin to converge." But
this is not the point.
In his article, Blesser frequently comments on what he calls "golden
eared" individuals who are able to hear things not falling within
normal statistical bounds. On page 743 he comments on the perceived
differences between analog and digital: "The auditory system often
tolerates relatively high levels of harmonic distortion in
reproduction equipment because these components are at similar
frequencies as the naturally appearing overtones. Moreover, the
fundamental of the musical tone is unusually large and can mask the
higher harmonics. With the digital system, the new components are not
masked since they appear at sensitive frequencies. Specifically,
high-frequency tones can create low-frequency error signals. This kind
of error process is often called "granulation" noise since it has the
quality, to some listeners, of granular particles being rubbed
together." Note Blesser's qualification re "some listeners". This
willingness to concede that not everybody can be so easily classified
(as jj would have us believe) is a persistent thread that runs through
Blesser's paper, and is part of what makes it a superb example of
scientific research done right.
>You claim my proof is bogus. Ok. That's a start on a solid, positive
>statement from you. Can you even state what my proof is? If you
>claim it's bogus, that means you understand it. Now either state it,
>or retract your factual claim.
It is not for me to state your proof, jj. From what I have seen of it,
your conclusions are premature. If you care to state your proof here,
and I cannot disprove it, I will amend my statement. So far as I am
concerned, it is you who are making the extravagant claims here, not
I.
>>One cannot reject the paranormal without also stating that
>>everything is explainable.
>You engage here in the most pathetic use of the fallicy of the excluded
>middle (yes, look it up, you might learn from the experince) that I've
>seen in a while.
I will look it up if you will learn how to spell fallicy [sic]. If my
reasoning is so pathetic, then why do you react so strongly to it? I
have never called your reasoning pathetic--although, if you give me a
moment, I think I can find the right word for it. Ah, yes,
*self-righteous* is, I believe, the right word.
~SF~
[1] Barry A. Blesser, "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive Examination
of Theory, Implementation, and Current Practice," *J. Audio Eng. Soc.*,
26:10, Oct 1978, pp. 739--771.
[2] R. Duncan Luce, *Hearing, A Conceptual Introduction* (L. Erlbaum
Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1993).
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ug4a4$2...@biosun.harvard.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
>I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It is
>pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are often
>preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube amplifiers
>and analog LPs are preferred by many.
This is dishonest. JJ suggested them TO YOU, you denied their
existance for at least a year, and now you say "even jj" knows
something about euphonic distortions. Siggy, dear, I introduced you
TO the idea, and you spent a year fighting it.
>What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
>particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
>playback, respectively.
Wrong, actually, what marketing has failed to do is to turn these into
products.
>Despite numerous (real and perceived) design
>enhancements, tube amplifiers and LP playback have a unique sound that
>has not yet been emulated to the satisfaction of all listeners.
Hrmm. Perhaps, there's no proof that what you claim is true, but to
prove you wrong, one must prove the negative.
>As such, there exists physical manifestations beyond the realm of our
>current understanding. It is just so sad to see people hiding from
>it...
There's no proof at all of this claim. Perhaps you are not aware of
what goes on in research labs, which is not your fault, perhaps you
are not aware of the laughter that comes from a marketing department
when one suggests making, for instance, an LP emulator, but there's
absolutely no proof, even in this state of ignorance, for your claim.
You have yet to describe any "manifestation" that isn't pretty well
known, Seigfried.
Andrew N. Carpenter
On 10 Aug 1996 01:13:09 -0400, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
all-around grouch) wrote:
>It is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any signal
>converted to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced, CAN BE
>MEASURED IN ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear can
>hear.
As you point out yourself, what you count as the measurable objective
aspects exludes the "illusion" which we perceive as the overall
soundfield.
Given that perceiving this soundfield is the heart and soul of
litening to reproduced music, I'm confused by all the fuss you make
about measurement and scientific objectivity, and the like.
You state that "there is simply no 'right' in that domain" of
illusion. This can be taken in two ways. If you mean that there no
basis to judge as "correct" or "incorrect" someone's personal
preferences for a certain sort of soundfield, I tend to agree with you
(although with the caveat that this is a substantive question of
aesthetics, and there are some aesthetic theories according to which
our belief would turn out to be false).
In an important way, though, there is a "right and wrong" even in the
domain of what you call subjective illusion. Namely, researchers can
set up experiments to DESCRIBE the soundfield and can create theories
and models of what is happening when we perceive it. These
descriptions, models, and theories can be correct or incorrect -- and
indeed, there can be and are rigorous <gasp> scientific investigations
into them.
When you talk about the paranormal and parapsychological, etc., is
your point that these scientific inquiries into perception are bogus?
I don;t agree, although a case can be made for this. What if you
right? Doesn't it then turn out that the heart and soul of listening
to recorded music cannot be investigated at all by your beloved
science? Surely this isn't your point, so I must be missing something.
Personally, I'm an optimist: I see no reason why there can't be good,
scientific inquiry into our perception of recorded music.
--
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ug57r$t...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>Einstein proved that and physicists were blown away by
>his theory.
Wrong, guy. Einstein explained a set of observations that were not
until then put together in a way that was nice and tidy. Things like
Etherington and Michaelson-Morley, e4tc.
>This is a case in point. You feel that your side (and you are clearly
>being the objectivist hard-liner here) is completely right and that
>the high-end is irrelevant insofar as science is concerned.
Please don't put words in Chris' mouth. He's said that what YOU offer
is at least bordering on the parapsychological. You go on and about
"unknown properties", simply ignoring the processes that you address.
One may not know what the "differences" mean in a measurement of an
electronic device, but one can know very well the error bound sand
such on the difference, and compare the magnitude of the difference to
well-substantiated research into the sensitivity of the human ear, and
draw a conclusion. That all without claiming to know it all.
Claiming in such a situation that there is something unmeasured is a
simple argument for parapsychology. The voltage in the case we've been
discussing contains ALL the information, and that v(t) is measureable
to well-understood bounds, a physical quantity with well known
properties.
If something other than that voltage, which is the only connection
between two machines, makes a difference, then you have proof of
parapsychology (leaving out engineering mistakes that allow other
communications pathways, of course).
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ul1u9$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>
t...@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes:
>I'm rather curious, though since we bat around dB and "%" distortion
>so interchangeably what it all means.
Well, %distortion and dB SNR, without knowledge of the spectrum and
time structure of the error, is simply a useless quantity. I can make
a signal that can be reproduced with 5 dB snr such that cannot be
distinguished. I can also make a different signal such that a 70dB
SNR in reproduction CAN be distinguished easily in a quiet room. Both
are easy signals to generate, actually. Go read Moore and Yost,
you'll probably even be able to see what they are. :-)
>How audible is this distortion? Wasn't 40dB amplitude differential
>given as the limit of audibility? Of course, since we've measured
>TOTAL distortion, the actual amount of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
>etc. harmonics are much less.
What distortion? The spectrum of the distortion is very relevant, and
you MUST know what the distortion spectrum is in order to know the
answer to your question, even approximately.
>I believe to have heard differences between amplifiers : amplifiers
>which should differ at least -40db down from the signal level. Is my
>hearing specious?
Not necessarily.
>placebo effect?
Could be that too.
>Does the Dyna really sound like the Krell? or are there other
>sensitivities?
See above. ThD and "Total SNR" are pretty much meaningless quantities.
I think I've said this before (about 666 times or so...).
John Nye
Andrew N. Carpenter wrote:
> On 10 Aug 1996 01:13:09 -0400, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
> all-around grouch) wrote:
> >It is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any signal
> >converted to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced, CAN BE
> >MEASURED IN ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear can
> >hear.
I am not certain that this is true any more. Re: The presumption that
all objective aspects can be measured to much better than any ear can
hear. After spending a little time over the last year going over the
literature on stochastic resonance, it seems that some of the
threshold studies may not be sufficient for a variety of claims.
Let me elaborate: Many engineers typically argue that if tone X or
distortion Y cannot be heard in steady state listening tests then they
should not influence the sound of a system, being below the threshold
of hearing.
However, published work on stochastic resonance by Frank Moss and
others indicates that introducing a small amount of noise makes some
inaudible tones audible.
This phenomenon is not fully understood (although the basics are
clear) by the experimenters and Moss and others are continuing to do
work although not in audio related areas.
The important point to note is this: Since hearing is non-linear and
not all noise will make these inaudible sounds audible, then one
cannot even say, since background noise is ever present this work is
irrelevant.
A reasonable hypothesis would actually say that given the
nonlinearity, it is not possible to fully predict the combinations of
distortion or noise under which a variety of tones are audible and to
what extent. This means that some changes in sound once thought to be
inaudible might not be in real world systems in unpredictable ways.
this is all speculation at the moment, but I don't believe it is at
all inconsistent with the work on stochastic resonance. If someone
has more information about audio related work on sr, I would be happy
to hear from them.
regards,
John Nye
Bob Myers
Andrew N. Carpenter (phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> On 10 Aug 1996 01:13:09 -0400, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
> all-around grouch) wrote:
>> It is a simple, provable, scientific fact that any signal converted
>> to an ELECTRONIC medium, stored, and reproduced, CAN BE MEASURED IN
>> ALL OBJECTIVE ASPECTS to much better than any ear can hear.
> As you point out yourself, what you count as the measurable
> objective aspects exludes the "illusion" which we perceive as the
> overall soundfield.
Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, but thanks anyway for playing....:-)
Read what JJ wrote again - he's talking about the electronic signal
that will eventually BECOME the sound and provide you with this
illusion. No, we don't know ALL about how the brain fools itself into
believing that sounds coming from THIS source here and THAT source
there appear to be a "continuous" sound field. But we DO know how to
measure the daylights out of the electrical signal which PRODUCED that
sound, and we know that there is a relatively small, finite set of
properties of this signal which have to do with the sound. We further
know that we can measure these properties to a much finer level of
accuracy/resolution than the ear is capable of objectively, repeatedly
distinguishing.
> When you talk about the paranormal and parapsychological, etc., is
> your point that these scientific inquiries into perception are
> bogus? I don;t agree, although a case can be made for this. What if
> you right? Doesn't it then turn out that the heart and soul of
> listening to recorded music cannot be investigated at all by your
> beloved science? Surely this isn't your point, so I must be missing
> something.
The inquiries into the paranormal are not themselves "bogus", although
I think there's a distinct possibility that this is a field of study
with no subject matter (a possibility shared with theology, for
example), but I don't see the relevance of that here. The "heart and
soul of listening to recorded music" is primarily an issue for the
psychologists - again, I'm at a loss to see what this has to do with
whether or not electrical signals can be sufficiently well
characterized.
An additional example - what we're discussing is the technology used
to RECORD sound, and to play it back. We're trying to see how closely
such can approximate the original signal the recording/playback
technology was handed in the first place. Your concerns about the
perception of sound are certainly valid, but they don't have much
NECESSARILY to do with the technology - these questions apply equally
well to the original sound, produced by "natural" sources.
> Personally, I'm an optimist: I see no reason why there can't be
> good, scientific inquiry into our perception of recorded music.
I don't think anyone here is objecting to this. It's just that you're
looking for the psych department, which is two doors down on the left.
We're talking about engineering and physics here.....
Bob Myers | "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
my...@fc.hp.com | - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein
|
Andrew N. Carpenter
CAdam...@aol.com wrote:
> What else do we have aside from present scientific practices?
WE have nothing else, of course, when we want to do science. What we
can't rule out, however, is that the future will bring new practices.
This is all that I meant in the passage you were questioning; I hope I
did a better job this time getting my point across <G> .
> Paranormal is any claimed phenomenon that is unexplained and
> unproved and that defies current scientific understanding. If you
> can not measure it, nor even confirm it exists, it is paranormal.
This is a strange way to define paranormal. Wouldn't this make all
unsolved scientific problems "paranormal"? (If they didn't "defy
current scientific understanding", they wouldn't be problems for
science.) This doesn't sound right to me, but perhaps I was taught an
aberrant meaning for 'paranormal'. What that word implies to me is an
occult phenomena that operates outside the bounds of the "laws of
science" altogether. As you said, some of our disagreements may be
merely verbal.
> Now, lets say that your beloved green pen is discovered to
> actually have an effect. Lets say that repeatable blind listening
> tests turn up with positive results. There is still no scientific
> theory to support that why the pen works, but there is
> experimental evidence. Therefore, the phenomenon is confirmed
> by experiment.
This sounds right, but don't you agree that confirmation is done by
degrees? Developing a scientific theory that explained the evidence
would give our account of the Green Pens a higher degree of
confirmation that your example here. Likewise, the anecdotal evidence
provides a lower degree of confirmation than your example.
> Let's look at speaker cables. There are theories that provide
> some indication that audible differences are possible in cables.
> These deal with RLC networks and such things. Here at least is
> a plausible mechanism for a difference in sound. I accept the
> possibility of differences in cables because of this and because
> my own listening, though purely anecdotal, indicates that I can
> hear differences.
If you didn't know the RLC hypotheses, would you really not count your
listening as evidence at all that cables matter? Why not, exactly? To
my mind, this attitude would be needlessly to shut out a big source of
evidence for further research.
> I if you have no plausible theory that provides a mechanism
> for a phenomenon to exist, and there is no experimental data, if
> every test of the phenomenon in question produces a null, then I
> tend to be very skeptical of the existence of the phenomenon.
Right -- I agree completely. But don't forget where our discussion
started, namely whether anecdotal evidence should be counted as
(low-grade) evidence at all. I've argued that not doing this is
needlesly dogmatic and is unscientific to the extreme. I don't
understand the reasons for your belief that anecdotal evidence should
not count as evidence.
According to the arguments I gave earlier, your hard-line stance
against anecdotal evidence amounts is as unreasonable as many of the
"sujectivsts'" sins that Stu and Richard have cataloged. Alas, the
"objectivists" here are sometimes just as out of line scientifically
as the rabid "subjectivists"!
> Does this mean that we will never, at some future time, discover
> something new that overturn our current understanding? No, of
> course not. But until we do have some new discovery and new
> understanding...
Good -- here is a way to really focus on our substantive disagreement.
You say that for something to count as evidence, there must be both
"something new" that is discovered and a "new understanding" of this
discovery. I deny the second part; my position is that "something
new", even before it is explained, counts as evidence. Namely. the
subjectivists' listening reports can count as important evidence that
we objectivists can and should treat as (low grade) evidence.
> I hope this explains my position a little better.
It does. I hope that I've been able to focus on our disagreements. I
think that "subjectivists" and "objectivists" alike on rage could
beenefit from thinking hard about these topics. Carry on!
David Bath
SDuraybito wrote:
> What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
> particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
> playback, respectively. Despite numerous (real and perceived) design
> enhancements, tube amplifiers and LP playback have a unique sound that
> has not yet been emulated to the satisfaction of all listeners. As
> such, there exists physical manifestations beyond the realm of our
> current understanding. It is just so sad to see people hiding from
> it...
Oh, I don't think people are hiding from it. What's happening is that
certain people prefer these euphonic distortions and are satisfied
with the systems that produce them. Most people DON'T want these
distortions and are perfectly satisfied with their SS CD systems, and
they DON'T want them corrupted with added distortions, euphonic or
not. I sure don't.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bath mailto:ba...@aud.alcatel.com
Lightwave Systems Engineer Alcatel Telecom, Richardson, TX
Standard Disclaimers
Richard D Pierce
[ Once upon a time, this lived under the "On Perception" thread. It
doesn't now, for fairly obvious reasons (see below). -- jwd ]
In article <4ug4a4$2...@biosun.harvard.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
Seigfried, this has to be THE most incredible bold-face lie you have
EVER propogated. For the last 18 months, you have gone through
incredible convulsions to, in fact DENY the role of euphonic
distortion in listener preference, DIRECTLY arguing with people such
as JJ. The quotes from you would alone make a several hundred line
post of incessant railing against the very notion.
How DARE you suggest that it is "pretty much accepted, even by jj,
that euphonic distortions are often preferred by listeners." Sir, you
are, again, a LIAR. JJ, among many others, has been trying to get you
to understand that for years, and you turn around and imply that HE
now accepts it? This is one of the most obviously dishonest,
libelous, outrageous examples of your offensive misrepresentations.
What an utterly sorry example of your revisionist nonsense. I am
almost more offended by this then I was by your public claim last year
that I had specifically recommended against the purchase of vacuum
state amplifiers, a claim of yours that was made in complete
contradiction to the public record.
How dare you! You have accused me and others of "audio fascism." And
with the likes of the above, you have shown yourself even unworthy of
polite consideration because your are nothing more than an annoying
schoolyard bully that has no ethics when it comes to complete and
dishonest fabrications of lies.
How dare you!
Moderators: if Seigfried is allowed to bandy his dishonesty and
intellectual cheating in such a fashion without even the most basic
consideration of simple fairness, then he must be held responsible for
his egregious public actions by allowing public repsonses to his
cheats.
[ Fine, if you two (three, four, ...) want to hash this out in full
public view, have it. I've moved it out of the "On Perception"
thread, as it's not directly relevant to the subject of that
discussion. Please, try to keep this respectable. We've lost all
hope of keeping it civil already. Sigh ... -- jwd ]
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
SDuraybito
In article <4unh84$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
>> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
>> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
>> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
> This is dishonest. JJ suggested them TO YOU, you denied their
> existance for at least a year, and now you say "even jj" knows
> something about euphonic distortions. Siggy, dear, I introduced you
> TO the idea, and you spent a year fighting it.
While not wanting to denigrate jj's invaluable efforts to further
elucidate the idea of "euphonic enhancement," I'd like to set the
record straight. I've been an avid reader and music contributor to
The Abso!ute Sound for some time and the idea of euphonic distortion
has been tossed around for some time. I would refer to a very
compelling interview with Kevin Hayes of VAC that I read circa 1993,
well before I knew of jj's curmudgeonly existence.
>> What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
>> particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
>> playback, respectively.
> Wrong, actually, what marketing has failed to do is to turn these
> into products.
Splendid! Please reference me those solid-state amplifiers that sound
like tube amplifiers. I'd love to hear one.
> There's no proof at all of this claim. Perhaps you are not aware of
> what goes on in research labs, which is not your fault, perhaps you
> are not aware of the laughter that comes from a marketing department
> when one suggests making, for instance, an LP emulator, but there's
> absolutely no proof, even in this state of ignorance, for your
> claim.
Well, then, please provide proof of existence of the LP emulator box.
I'd love to try one.
SDuraybito
In article <4uh8rl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>What "science" has failed to do? You make it sound like the
>scientific community has been trying desperately to accomplish this,
>when in reality no one cares except for hardcore tube and LP
>afictionados. The general audio market dwarfs the high end audio
>market, and in the high end audio market, the standard CD + transistor
>amp market dwarfs the LP + tube market. If there was some real
>economic incentive to accomplish this thing, I'm sure someone would
>have done it by now. As for mystical "physical manifestations beyond
>the realm of our current understanding", we're not talking about
>poltergeists here. We're talking about electrical signals.
First of all, throw out mass-market consumer electronics, please.
This is rec.audio.HIGH-END. And if you would care to review the
advertising claims of many (not all) solid-state amplifier
manufacturers over the last 15-20 years, you'll discover a concerted
effort to make their amplifiers sound more like tube amplifiers. Does
anyone dispute this?
There IS demand for the tube sound and, to date, only tube amplifiers
can satisfactorily create that sound. They reproduce electrical
signals a certain way and engineers have not yet come up with a way
for solid-state amplifiers to reproduce electrical signals in the same
way. More work to do - not stick one's head in the sand hoping the
problem will go away.
>BTW, somebody in rec.audio.opinion recently said that he recorded some
>LP's onto DAT, and the resulting DAT's possessed all of the air and
>"musicality" of the LP. Anyone else tried this?
I have seen several CLAIMS to this effect. To me, they're about as
useful as claims about green pens and Shakti stones. They work for
that person under those circumstances. To date, they haven't worked
for me.
Stewart Pinkerton
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
>In article <4unh84$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, j...@research.att.com
> (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>>> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
>>> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
>>> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
>>> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
>> This is dishonest. JJ suggested them TO YOU, you denied their
>> existance for at least a year, and now you say "even jj" knows
>> something about euphonic distortions. Siggy, dear, I introduced you
>> TO the idea, and you spent a year fighting it.
>While not wanting to denigrate jj's invaluable efforts to further
>elucidate the idea of "euphonic enhancement," I'd like to set the
>record straight. I've been an avid reader and music contributor to
>The Abso!ute Sound for some time and the idea of euphonic distortion
>has been tossed around for some time. I would refer to a very
>compelling interview with Kevin Hayes of VAC that I read circa 1993,
>well before I knew of jj's curmudgeonly existence.
Which has nothing to do with the FACT that you spent many months
insisting that LP was technically superior to CD and that it was CD
which was somehow distorting the music. You've been caught out,
nobody's going to let you get away with it so you may as well forget
the waffle.
Steven Abrams
In article <4uh5p5$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
> If anybody tries to tell you that you
> don't like what you like, well, they're just plain, flat-out rude. If
> they tell you that while you like it, it is less accurate, and may
> sound nicer to you for some reason, that's not rude.
Mark the date and time. JJ is giving out advice on how not to be
rude.
As odd as you may think that notion to be, he happens to be correct,
in my opinion.
~~~Steve
--
Steven Abrams abr...@cs.columbia.edu
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
-Lennon/McCartney
John Nunes
In message <rewwz4x...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> - Andrew N.
Carpenter <phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu> writes:
(commenting on a post by Christopher Adams)
>I don nderstand the reasons for your belief that anecdotal evidence should
>not count as evidence.
I wouldn't throw out anecdotal evidence completely, but I veiw it with
a high degree of caution because such information is so prone to
errors.
There was a review of a harpsichord recording by Pearson in TAS
several years ago. In it he went on and on about how good the
recording was and provided an example with how he could hear the
strings from the upper manual a few inches above those for the lower
manual. What he didn't know was that the strings for the two manuals
are coplanar, and the jacks for the lower manual are longer - thus
premitting strings to be coplanar.
What does this mean? Well, he went into reviewing a recording without
sufficient knowledge for one thing. But what might be more
significant for audio people is that he was doing an all too common
thing: listening for something that doesn't really exist and the
something certainly didn't have anything to do with the music!
Another one is a post made by George Cardas, commenting about his
observations a demonstration on TV about the effects of the green pen
on CD's. He mentioned that the music was "Ella, I think", but then
proceeded to go on about how audible the green pen was, even over the
TV, and how it affected him.
Very SURE about the green pen, but not sure it was Ella. Again,
strange listening priorities.
And now, an semi anecdote to show I'm prone to anecdotism too...
A few months ago, I was having a conversation with an acquaintance, in
which the subject of CD's came up. He asked me if I listened to CD's
and I answered 'yes'. He then went into a long tirade about how bad
he thought CD's were and finally asked: 'how can you stand to listen
to those things'? About all I could answer was, 'I just listen to the
music - is that okay'?
Fortunately, he laughed.
And I don't subscribe to the fanzines.
- John Nunes <cha...@WCO.COM>
Bob Myers
Chuck Ross (ckr...@ais.net) wrote:
> An audio pen pal of mine and I have been exchanging DAT copies of our
> "audiophile" LPs, and they sound incredibly good on both ends. I began
> making DAT copies of quite a few LP albums that I like to listen to
> often, especially the larger sets of 2-3 LPs.
> There is no so-called "digititis" of the type that one hears LP-lovers
> complain about; the sound is exactly the same as the LP.
This sort of experience should be seen by all as evidence that the
supposed problems with the CD or DAT formats have nothing at all to do
with "being digital". I think everyone is starting to realize what a
ruthlessly transparent, unforgiving (of poor practices at the front
end) medium digital recording can be.
> My audio pen-pal and DAT trading buddy also uses the Sony 690 for this
> and also uses the OC-9 cartridge. We have both remarked on the uncanny
> ability of this system to perfectly record the sound and air and
> musicality of LPs. In fact, we wonder why, when making LP transfers
> to CD, the manufacturers don't do it this way, preferring to
> re-digitize the LP signal and mess with it, often resulting in a
> rather horrid-sounding product on CD.
I don't know that they're "re-digitizing" the LP signal - whatever
that means - as much as they're either giving in to the temptation to
go back and play with the mix, and/or NOT trying to match to the "new"
medium. What you LIKE about the sound of LP comes in large part from
the disc and its playback process itself - but the signal required to
produce that doesn't necessarily translate well to a more neutral
medium.
Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4uo4op$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>
DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
>[ Fine, if you two (three, four, ...) want to hash this out in full
> public view, have it. I've moved it out of the "On Perception"
> thread, as it's not directly relevant to the subject of that
> discussion. Please, try to keep this respectable. We've lost all
> hope of keeping it civil already. Sigh ... -- jwd ]
With violations like this, not a chance, I fear.
I'm only going to say 2 things:
1) I've been trying to tell Sigfried about euphonic distortions for at
least a year or so, his "finally jj accepts" is dishonest, and he
knows it, having railled incessantly about the idea of euphony for at
least 8 or 9 months.
2) anybody can go to DejaNews and find this out for themselves,
showing his full, mindblowing duplicity in its full, ugly light.
Don't believe me, don't believe Siggy, don't believe Dick, just go to
DejaNews and read his words for yourself.
You will be entertained by his flip-flop on the issue.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4unpnj$3...@agate.berkeley.edu> John Nye
<n...@wuecon.wustl.edu> writes:
>However, published work on stochastic resonance by Frank Moss and
>others indicates that introducing a small amount of noise makes some
>inaudible tones audible.
Of course it does, because stationary, simultaneous tone masking noise
and absolute threshold tests aren't the whole story. The problem here
(well, not a problem) is that the noise around the tone is raising the
loudness in that part of the cochlea, and bingo, it's detectable.
I'm at home and not with books, but that effect has been cited ages
ago by somebody pre-Zwicker, and the effect expained.
There's no need for any 'stoichastic resonance' claim here, it's a
simple issue.
Furthermore, it applies both to masking and absoulte threshold. It's
true that for a perceptual audio coder that is JUST below threshold,
it very often enhances the stereo image, adding other 'sources' and
making a 'richer soundfield'. Same problem no magic no need to invent
new terms.
The mistake in the interpretation of the experiment as you describe it
is that the total energy in the critical band was NOT considered, only
the tone energy, and the envelope of the resulting filtered tone+noise
not calculated. If that envelope reaches a certain size, bingo you
hear it. If the noise is still sub-threshold, that meansyou hear the
tone.
This is new? NOT!
>This phenomenon is not fully understood (although the basics are
>clear) by the experimenters and Moss and others are continuing to do
>work although not in audio related areas.
Arrrghhhhhhh! Please send me this citation. There's some lost news
here, I can see. I'm not sure, but I recall that it was one of
Fletcher or Sharf who reported the effect, or maybe one of their
students/coworkers. What's more, it sounds, from your description,
totally predictable. The original test was in fact to see if the
understanding of cochlea as filterbank was valid, and the effect was
hypothesized, and then tested FOR.
So not only is what you appear to have described old, it was predicted
from very near to first principles a very long time ago.
>The important point to note is this: Since hearing is non-linear and
>not all noise will make these inaudible sounds audible, then one
>cannot even say, since background noise is ever present this work is
>irrelevant.
Wrong wrong WRONG. If the envelope of the cochlear excitation at some
point comes above the detectibillity point as a result of the
noise+signal, then it makes something marginally detectable. If you
assume a shape for background noise,or know the shape, the levels
involved certainly appear to become calculable to me. There's nothing
to suggest otherwise in your description of the effect.
CAdams1471
In article <4ul6sa$g...@agate.berkeley.edu>, "Andrew N. Carpenter"
<phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>It isn't clear to me how you interpret this claim. There are two ways
>to take it, one extreme and one much more mild.
>
>The extreme claim would be that any purported phenomena that cannot be
>measured or verified using CURRENT practices are paranormal and
>therefore could not be the subject of scientific inquiry. The moderate
>claim would be that any purported phenomena that cannot be measured or
>verified by any PRESENT or FUTURE scientific practices would be '
>paranormal'.
>
>The first view is too extreme in that it does not allow for the
>devlopment of scientific practices over time. Yet the second position
>is so moderate that it doesn't allow us to classify phenoma like the
>"Green Pen Effect" as paranormal because we DON'T KNOW what these
>future advancements will bring. I think, therefore, that you face a
>dilemma. If your position is the more extreme one, then it is quite
>implausible on its face. However, if your claim just boils down to the
>moderate one, then I don't think you have any disagreement with the
>people you seem so vehemently opposed against.
>
>Are either of these positions what you have in mind? If not, please
>say more!
What else do we have aside from present scientific practices?
Look, this is really very simple if you drop the semantic games
and look at the idea.
Paranormal is any claimed phenomenon that is unexplained and unproved
and that defies current scientific understanding. If you can not
measure it, nor even confirm it exists, it is paranormal. OK?
Now, lets say that your beloved green pen is discovered to actually
have an effect. Lets say that repeatable blind listening tests turn up
with positive results. There is still no scientific theory to support
that why the pen works, but there is experimental evidence. Therefore,
the phenomenon is confirmed by experiment.
Let's look at speaker cables. There are theories that provide some
indication that audible differences are possible in cables. These
deal with RLC networks and such things. Here at least is a plausible
mechanism for a difference in sound. I accept the possibility of
differences in cables because of this and because my own listening,
though purely anecdotal, indicates that I can hear differences.
You can have a theory that supports a possible phenomenon. You can
have experimental data that supports the existance of a
phenomenon. You can have both a theory and experimental evidence. You
can theory alone and not yet have experimental evidence.
But, if you have no plausible theory that provides a mechanism for a
phenomenon to exist, and there is no experimental data, if every test
of the phenomenon in question produces a null, then I tend to be very
skeptical of the existence of the phenomenon.
Does this mean that we will never, at some future time, discover
something new that overturn our current understanding? No, of course
not. But until we do have some new discovery and new understanding I
will maintain that these things fall in the realm of pseudo-science
and the paranormal, just like ESP, flying saucers and any of the other
unproved and unsubstantiated claims of phenomenon based solely on
anecdotal evidence.
I hope this explains my position a little better.
Christopher G. Adams
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4uja12$8...@biosun.harvard.edu> "Andrew N. Carpenter"
<phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>This in itself is a substantive philosophical claim. You clearly
>beleive this, and you clearny do not WANT to believe otherwise, but
>philosopihcally you are being as domgmatic as those folks who insist
>that whatever they can't measure cannot exist.
I support it by historical reference to aesthetics and how much they
change with time and culture.
One can confirm this for one's self, aesthetic philosophy aside.
>The perceptual claims that are being discussed here are no less
>'religious' than the so-called scientific principles that are being
>bandied about so freely.
That is incorrect. The scientific issues discussed here have been
tested, retested, verified, shown to work, etc. Despite the lies of
the subjective crowd, nobody has claimed that "we can measure
everything" only that 'there are some things we CAN measure",
likewise, nobody has claimed that "because I can't see any mechanism
such a thing doesn't exist", only "your mechanism is abject nonsense,
regardless of your claim of what you percieve", and so on.
>Namely, people seem to have 'faith' that the TRUE one scientific
>method proves any of a number of claims about how our discussions here
>should be conducted.
There is nobody claiming a "one true way". Associating such with
science is absurd, there is no such thing as a "one true way", in
fact.
>You seem to be of a slightly different opinion,
>that if something is not measurable then we shouldn't discuss it.
Please correct your misstatement, I've never even suggested such a
positively absurd position, furthermore I've browbeaten them into the
ground a number of times.
>All of these views are philosophically and scientifically absurd.
Perhaps that's why nobody is making them. The only claims that the
'objectivist' makes them come from the SUBJECTIVIST camp. This is,
furthermore, a long-standing lie put forth by some subjectivists for
the exact purpose you stand here demonstrating, that of
disenfranchising the "objectivist" BY LYING AOBU THEM so that others,
less familiar with their unsupportable lies, will fall in with them.
I hate to be blunt, but in the future, PLEASE confirm the positions
you wish to attack before you start attacking people's professional
reputations.
>Take this as a claim for tolerance and pluralism as we discuss
>perception. There are more ways fruitfuly to discuss these issues
>than your dogmatisim allows.
Please retract you claim to dogmatism in its entirety. The absurd
positions you attribute to the "objectivist" are not the positions
held, at lest by any of the current crop of objectivists. They are
soley and entirely the fabrication of several subjectivists who use
them in order to cause people to react just as you have.
Be sure that you and your credentials will be quoted, time and time
again, as support for the subjectivist camp.
And have a nice day.
Tim Takahashi
David Bath <ba...@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com> wrote:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
>Oh, I don't think people are hiding from it. What's happening is that
>certain people prefer these euphonic distortions and are satisfied
>with the systems that produce them. Most people DON'T want these
>distortions and are perfectly satisfied with their SS CD systems, and
Most people want equipment which is "supposed" to be accurate, and
supposed to sound good. They also like cranking in about +12db of bass
boost, and about +6dB of treble boost (so much for phase coherence)
and "straight-wire plus gain."
Louder is usually considered "better" too.... more watts also seems to
sell.
I fear that musicality is low on the priority scale.
What is the interesting thing about high-end gear is that different
products exist that optimize one facet of the total listening
experience (perhaps to the detriment of others). That stable, solid
"image" excites me; and I've figured out how to enhance that sort of
optimization. Oddly, in my case, the psychoacoustics work in the
favor of analogue sources rather than mega-watt, Dolby-Surround.
-tim
Bob Myers
John Nye (n...@wuecon.wustl.edu) wrote:
> Let me elaborate: Many engineers typically argue that if tone X or
> distortion Y cannot be heard in steady state listening tests then they
> should not influence the sound of a system, being below the threshold
> of hearing.
> However, published work on stochastic resonance by Frank Moss and
> others indicates that introducing a small amount of noise makes some
> inaudible tones audible.
Again, though, this has nothing to do with whether or not something
can be audible but not measureable. You've brought up an interesting
phenomenon regarding the way hearing behaves, but even here the
"inaudible tones" and the noise were clearly *measureable*. Whether
or not we could clearly and unambiguously predict whether or not
something would be audible is not the issue here.
SDuraybito
In article <4uo4o0$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, David Bath
<ba...@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com> writes:
>> Despite numerous (real and perceived) design enhancements, tube
>> amplifiers and LP playback have a unique sound that has not yet
>> been emulated to the satisfaction of all listeners. As such, there
>> exists physical manifestations beyond the realm of our current
>> understanding. It is just so sad to see people hiding from it...
> Oh, I don't think people are hiding from it. What's happening is that
> certain people prefer these euphonic distortions and are satisfied
> with the systems that produce them. Most people DON'T want these
> distortions and are perfectly satisfied with their SS CD systems, and
> they DON'T want them corrupted with added distortions, euphonic or
> not. I sure don't.
Regardless of whether you PREFER the "distorted" sound of tube
amplifiers or the "accurate" sound of solid-state amplifiers, the FACT
remains that science has yet to come up with a way for tube amplifiers
to sound like solid-state amplifiers and vica versa. I, for one,
would much prefer the convenience, reliability, low-operating
temperature, etc of a solid-state amplifier, but cannot live with one
because of its amusical sound. Same with CDs vs. LPs. I'm looking
for a solid-state amplifier and a CD player that will make me want to
get rid of my funky old tube amp and moldy records. Anyone out there
care to rise to the challenge?
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4uo82a$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
> While not wanting to denigrate jj's invaluable efforts to further
> elucidate the idea of "euphonic enhancement," I'd like to set the
> record straight. I've been an avid reader and music contributor to
> The Abso!ute Sound for some time and the idea of euphonic distortion
> has been tossed around for some time. I would refer to a very
> compelling interview with Kevin Hayes of VAC that I read circa 1993,
> well before I knew of jj's curmudgeonly existence.
Irrelevant. Your claim was simply that 'even jj finally accepts
euphonic distortions'. I pointed them out to YOU the VERY first time
you entered the discussion. You refused to admit to or believe in the
existance of same for at least a year.
You have no evidence, in any shape or form, that I have ever claimed
that euphonic distortions do not exist, yet you made exactly that
claim. Your claim was forthrightly dishonest, misrepresentational,
and without any justification.
Why?
> Well, then, please provide proof of existence of the LP emulator box.
> I'd love to try one.
I've seen a few. Most (including mine) exist as software programs that
work on PCM files. No, I can't give away software. Sorry. Such boxes
have about 2 dozen dials, btw, and you'd have to experiement to find
your "truth".
SDuraybito
In article <4uo4op$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, DPi...@world.std.com
(Richard D Pierce) writes:
>> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
>> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
>> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
>> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
> Seigfried, this has to be THE most incredible bold-face lie you have
> EVER propogated. For the last 18 months, you have gone through
> incredible convulsions to, in fact DENY the role of euphonic
> distortion in listener preference, DIRECTLY arguing with people such
> as JJ. The quotes from you would alone make a several hundred line
> post of incessant railing against the very notion.
Man, you sure think very highly of yourself. Has it not occurred to
you that the idea of euphonic distortions enhancing listening pleasure
PRECEDED your playing big-man on campus on r.a.h-e?
As I posted on another thread, it was an interview with Kevin Hayes of
VAC in The Abso!ute Sound circa 1993-4 that got me thinking (again)
about euphonic distortion. And I'd been through all this before in
the great accuracy versus musicality debates of the mid-80s. In the
late-70s, this whole thing was trotted out with the concept of
"soft-clipping." Dick, you may think I was born at night, but I'm
here to remind you I wasn't born last night.
> How DARE you suggest that it is "pretty much accepted, even by jj,
> that euphonic distortions are often preferred by listeners." Sir,
> you are, again, a LIAR. JJ, among many others, has been trying to
> get you to understand that for years, and you turn around and imply
> that HE now accepts it? This is one of the most obviously
> dishonest, libelous, outrageous examples of your offensive
> misrepresentations.
Gee, your outrage belies a certain insecurity. What, exactly, are you
going to do about it? Why should I be worried?
> How dare you! You have accused me and others of "audio fascism."
> And with the likes of the above, you have shown yourself even
> unworthy of polite consideration because your are nothing more than
> an annoying schoolyard bully that has no ethics when it comes to
> complete and dishonest fabrications of lies.
Are you not of the school that insists that accurate reproduction is
the ultimate goal of audio? Come on, Dick, say it ain't so. Do you
not see why imposition of such a standard impinges on my right to
pursue realistic reproduction?
Do you not laugh at those who prefer tube electronics and LPs? Simply
because they are not "accurate?" Can you try to see the parallels
between that posture and fascism? How dare YOU promote accuracy over
realism? It is YOU who are unworthy of consideration by those who
love music and wish to hear it reproduced without interference by
those who think they know better.
> Moderators: if Seigfried is allowed to bandy his dishonesty and
> intellectual cheating in such a fashion without even the most basic
> consideration of simple fairness, then he must be held responsible
> for his egregious public actions by allowing public repsonses to his
> cheats.
Moderators and other interested observers: Can someone please explain
to me how a difference of OPINION leads to be attacked as a liar, a
cheat, lacking in fairness, etc? When exchanging views on matters,
such concepts carry no weight at all. If I prefer Mozart to
Beethoven, by what premise may I be called a liar and a cheat? It is
Dick Pierce who must learn and understand that he has violated
standards of civility by carelessly accusing myself and others of
being liars, cheats, etc. It is simply a lot of hot air that has no
basis in the reality that we have differences of opinion.
[ Hey guys, stop appealing to the gods for help. They're not listening
today. Hot weather, cool drinks, ... You get the idea.
You've got your sandbox, now go work this out amongst yourselves.
The rest of the readership can opt in or tune out as they wish. The
blood bath is rather self contained.
Now, where did I put my sun glasses ... -- jwd ]
Last I heard, differences of opinion were not punishable by death...
Stewart Pinkerton
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
>Last I heard, differences of opinion were not punishable by death...
Better stay out of Bosnia then. On second thoughts.................
SDuraybito
In article <4uqb37$g...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
> Irrelevant. Your claim was simply that 'even jj finally accepts
> euphonic distortions'.
Why don't you re-read what I posted: "It is pretty much accepted, even
by jj, that euphonic distortions are often preferred by listeners."
Do you see the word "finally" there?
> I pointed them out to YOU the VERY first time you entered the
> discussion. You refused to admit to or believe in the existance of
> same for at least a year.
Fully acknowledged that you pointed them out. That's why I wrote that
you accept the idea. Nothing about "finally" was ever written or
implied. Can you understand that or are you so caught up in yourself
that it's beyond your comprehension?
> You have no evidence, in any shape or form, that I have ever claimed
> that euphonic distortions do not exist, yet you made exactly that
> claim. Your claim was forthrightly dishonest, misrepresentational,
> and without any justification.
You are right that I have no evidence BECAUSE I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM!!
I would politely ask that you retract your allegation that I ever
wrote that you "finally" believe anything.
>> Well, then, please provide proof of existence of the LP emulator box.
>> I'd love to try one.
> I've seen a few. Most (including mine) exist as software programs that
> work on PCM files. No, I can't give away software. Sorry. Such boxes
> have about 2 dozen dials, btw, and you'd have to experiement to find
> your "truth".
With so many audiophiles crying out for analog-like digital
reproduction I am vexed by the possibility that a privileged few get
to use such boxes.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4uqb66$g...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
>>> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
>>> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
^^^^
Here is your forthright dishonesty. Your phrasing here shows that you
intend to forthrightly suggest that somehow jj has become enlightened
here. At the most charitable, it suggests that somehow jj grudgingly
accepts such an idea, when in fact jj is the one who put forth to you,
at least in THIS forum, the very idea.
JJ tried for at least a year to enlighten YOU, you railled, laughed,
slandered, insulted, misquoted, and otherwise abused him.
NOW YOU AGREE WITH HIM!
But somehow you don't want to admit what you said a while ago,
claiming that you were immune to inadvertant self-deception. You went
through a phase claiming that I said you were "deluded", when I said
nothing of the sort, and on and on. The results, like everything
else, ought to be on DejaNews.
I suggest to anyone who cares to JUST GO LOOK. His record is clear,
and from the point of view of this discussion, well, scatalogical.
>Man, you sure think very highly of yourself. Has it not occurred to
>you that the idea of euphonic distortions enhancing listening pleasure
>PRECEDED your playing big-man on campus on r.a.h-e?
Irrelevant ad-hominem attack. He expects you to be accurate, and
you're being inaccurate. Is there something wrong with being expected
to be accurate? If you were so taken with the idea, why did you
resist it so strongly for at least a year? Just having fun? Playing
games, trying to make sure that the objectivists don't get any work
done? Or is there another, ahem, mistake here?
>Gee, your outrage belies a certain insecurity. What, exactly, are you
>going to do about it? Why should I be worried?
The rage is very simple, Seigfried, after you railled so violently
against the idea, you submit that "even jj...", never mind it was jj's
statements putting forth 'euphonic distortions' that you were
absolutely LIVID with rage about.
>Are you not of the school that insists that accurate reproduction is
>the ultimate goal of audio?
Warning, warning. Again Seigfried confuses preference with accuracy.
Dick has repeatedly, so many times I've stopped trying to count, told
you to prefer what you like. You like, it appears as you now say,
some euphonic distortions. Other people don't.
Either could be pre-added to the CD, IF PEOPLE's PREFERENCES WERE THE
SAME, but they aren't, so you can't, so you just do your best
delivering what's there. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THE OUTPUT.
(Suggestions come to mind here, ahem.)
Is that clear? You like some audio processing methods, other people
prefer others, and there's no such thing as a valid 'average' to a
multimodal distribution, so there's no "average" to shoot at, be it a
high-end average, a low-ender average, or just a 50th %ile. There's
not even such a thing as a 50th %ile, since the distribution is not
only multimodal, but the correlations are of opposite sign for
different kinds of processing. In the lack of anything better, GET IT
RIGHT, and let the user do what she or he would prefer.
>Come on, Dick, say it ain't so. Do you
>not see why imposition of such a standard impinges on my right to
>pursue realistic reproduction?
Horsepucky. Now it's "right to persue realistic reproduction." You
can persue what you want. Spend your MBA bux where you want. I'll
spend my hard-technology-develping ones where I want (hmm, that lego
set the 6yr old was drooling at looks neat...).
Vote with your pocketbook. But don't claim that "realistic" to you is
"realistic" to anyone else, which you at least imply above, because IT
IS NOT. What you would pursue does not exist, only a bare and not
usually very good illusion of same, subject to your preference, not
any absolute trVth.
Just keep your own preferences, feel free to tell us what they are,
and when somebody is rude enough to question your PREFERENCE, tell
them to get off. Just don't claim trVth to your preference, because
when it goes beyond you, for which your preference is abject trVth,
your preference is IRRELEVANT. I'm not saying I'm not interested, but
it's NOT relevant to what I prefer, or what anyone else prefers.
>Do you not laugh at those who prefer tube electronics and LPs?
Does he? That's not what I see he does. He hoots at people who claim
such are "more accurate", which is quite a bit more than a preference
judgement. Stop confusing the issues.
Blah de blah blah. Is this hissy-fit for Scott Frankland's benefit?
That one's dug his own grave by quite obscenely attributing a whole
boatload of "opinions" to me that I never held, have held forth, or
even considered, except as I have quite demonstrably, in public
forums, technical meetings, published referred papers, book chapters,
tutorial talks, netnews and standards meetings, roasted to a very
crisp and deserving doneness. It's interesting, I had assumed that
the rather rude rhetorical fallicies (I don't care if he likes my
spelling, either) were accidentally coming from a civilian
bystander. In a pro, they shouldn't be, and are much more
objectionable, accidental or not. A pro should know better.
SDuraybito
In article <4uq25o$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>> The perceptual claims that are being discussed here are no less
>> 'religious' than the so-called scientific principles that are being
>> bandied about so freely.
> That is incorrect. The scientific issues discussed here have been
> tested, retested, verified, shown to work, etc. Despite the lies of
> the subjective crowd, nobody has claimed that "we can measure
> everything" only that 'there are some things we CAN measure",
> likewise, nobody has claimed that "because I can't see any mechanism
> such a thing doesn't exist", only "your mechanism is abject nonsense,
> regardless of your claim of what you percieve", and so on.
But what you and other objectivists fail to recognize is that there is
still a belief system at work here. You BELIEVE that repeated testing
and consistent results PROVE that something is true. How is this any
different from my belief that certain things cannot be fully tested
and do not return consistent results but still may be true?
>> Take this as a claim for tolerance and pluralism as we discuss
>> perception. There are more ways fruitfuly to discuss these issues
>> than your dogmatisim allows.
> Please retract you claim to dogmatism in its entirety. The absurd
> positions you attribute to the "objectivist" are not the positions
> held, at lest by any of the current crop of objectivists. They are
> soley and entirely the fabrication of several subjectivists who use
> them in order to cause people to react just as you have.
Certain objectivists claim that accurate reproduction is the only true
goal of audio. Where is the tolerance and pluralism in that position?
Scott Frankland
In article <4unrjt$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com
(Bob Myers) writes:
> Andrew N. Carpenter (phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>> When you talk about the paranormal and parapsychological, etc., is
>> your point that these scientific inquiries into perception are
>> bogus? I don;t agree, although a case can be made for this. What if
>> you right? Doesn't it then turn out that the heart and soul of
>> listening to recorded music cannot be investigated at all by your
>> beloved science? Surely this isn't your point, so I must be missing
>> something.
> The "heart and soul of listening to recorded music" is primarily an
> issue for the psychologists - again, I'm at a loss to see what this
> has to do with whether or not electrical signals can be sufficiently
> well characterized.
To characterize fully an AUDIO signal means to correlate it with what
the ear/brain/heart PERCEIVES. That's why it's called an audio signal
and not simply an *electrical* signal. That's what this thread is all
about--CORRELATION to human perception. If you don't correlate audio
engineering with perception what WILL you correlate it to? Objective
accuracy is fine as far as it goes. What the audiophiles in this group
are trying to say, IMO, is that the correlation you claim to be
"transparent" is not quite so. You downplay their findings with
statistics from controlled experiments, but my contention all along
has been that many of the scientists within this group have yet to
come to terms with what it means to be an audiophile in the full sense
of that term. Accuracy is an abstract ideal, encompassed by error
bounds; human perception is the central criterion here and should be
addressed as such--i.e., particularly with respect to the most skilled
listeners. Many of the scientists in this group seem to think that
they are themselves the most skilled listeners. This is an identity
crisis of the first magnitude, IMO.
> An additional example - what we're discussing is the technology used
> to RECORD sound, and to play it back. We're trying to see how
> closely such can approximate the original signal the
> recording/playback technology was handed in the first place. Your
> concerns about the perception of sound are certainly valid, but they
> don't have much NECESSARILY to do with the technology - these
> questions apply equally well to the original sound, produced by
> "natural" sources.
Again, CORRELATION is what we are trying to achieve. The perception of
sound is presumably the same whether live or reproduced. That is not
the point. What we have failed to do so far is to create a sonic
hologram that is acceptable to the most *skilled* listeners (that's
why this group is called rec.audio.high-end, guys). I am claiming that
amplifiers--even so-called "acoustically transparent" amplifiers--are
still a factor in this scenario. And while some feel that this is the
most negligible part of the problem, I personally feel that it is a
far more important problem than many within this group give it credit.
>> Personally, I'm an optimist: I see no reason why there can't be
>> good, scientific inquiry into our perception of recorded music.
> I don't think anyone here is objecting to this. It's just that
> you're looking for the psych department, which is two doors down on
> the left. We're talking about engineering and physics here.....
Don't let me turn this into a shrink joke.... We're talking about
PERCEPTION here, Bob. Uh, didn't you catch the sign on the door?
~SF~
Stewart Pinkerton
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
> In article <4uq25o$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, j...@research.att.com
> (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>>> The perceptual claims that are being discussed here are no less
>>> 'religious' than the so-called scientific principles that are being
>>> bandied about so freely.
>> That is incorrect. The scientific issues discussed here have been
>> tested, retested, verified, shown to work, etc. Despite the lies of
>> the subjective crowd, nobody has claimed that "we can measure
>> everything" only that 'there are some things we CAN measure",
>> likewise, nobody has claimed that "because I can't see any mechanism
>> such a thing doesn't exist", only "your mechanism is abject nonsense,
>> regardless of your claim of what you percieve", and so on.
> But what you and other objectivists fail to recognize is that there is
> still a belief system at work here. You BELIEVE that repeated testing
> and consistent results PROVE that something is true. How is this any
> different from my belief that certain things cannot be fully tested
> and do not return consistent results but still may be true?
No, objectivists accept that consistent test results give very good
reason to believe that something is true. Your position is one of
blind faith with no hard evidence. There is a MAJOR credibility gap
there.
>> The absurd positions you attribute to the "objectivist" are not the
>> positions held, at lest by any of the current crop of objectivists.
>> They are soley and entirely the fabrication of several
>> subjectivists who use them in order to cause people to react just
>> as you have.
> Certain objectivists claim that accurate reproduction is the only true
> goal of audio. Where is the tolerance and pluralism in that position?
Well, perhaps certain objectivists do, but I've never seen any of them
post to this newsgroup. Where is the tolerance and pluralism in your
statements concerning vinyl and tubes, especially in the absence of
any good reason for your beliefs other than your own monomania?
David Bath
SDuraybito wrote:
> Man, you sure think very highly of yourself. Has it not occurred to
> you that the idea of euphonic distortions enhancing listening pleasure
> PRECEDED your playing big-man on campus on r.a.h-e?
But, you argued against the idea that the output of YOUR preferred
system of sigle-ended tube amps and LPs was anything less than the one
true accurate method of reproduction in existance. The word "euphonic"
was never used by you until you were beaten about the head with it.
You actually argued against such a thing as distorions in your
preferred system.
You may have a short memory, but the readers of rahe don't.
SDuraybito
In article <4uqm0f$h...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>> Last I heard, differences of opinion were not punishable by death...
> Better stay out of Bosnia then. On second thoughts.................
Interesting. The problems in Bosnia are rooted in religious
differences. Are you inferring that the acrimony here on r.a.h-e has
a parallel to religious conflict? I thought all you objectivists
reject any notion of religion. The universe doesn't care, remember?
[ OK, enough with humor and philosophy. Let's get back to hurling
sharp objects and generally trying to inflict the most harm on each
other's reputation. Priorities gentlemen, priorities ... -- jwd ]
Scott Frankland
In article <4unh9c$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> j...@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
> In article <4ug57r$t...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> Scott Frankland
> <audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>> Einstein proved that and physicists were blown away by
>> his theory.
> Wrong, guy. Einstein explained a set of observations that were not
> until then put together in a way that was nice and tidy. Things like
> Etherington and Michaelson-Morley, e4tc.
Your evaluation of Einstein's contribution to physics is
underwhelming, to say the least. A typical know-it-all perspective, in
other words. Why don't you address yourself to what this analogy
points to--i.e., to the major point? And if you persist in nitpicking,
why don't you rebut my Langmuir argument as well? It's in the same
vein, you know. The point is that scientists get blown away from time
to time because the world order is shown to be vastly more complex (or
different) than they had become accustomed to viewing it (as when the
quarks were discovered, etc., etc.).
> One may not know what the "differences" mean in a measurement of an
> electronic device, but one can know very well the error bound sand
> such on the difference, and compare the magnitude of the difference to
> well-substantiated research into the sensitivity of the human ear, and
> draw a conclusion. That all without claiming to know it all.
Then perhaps in the future you can confine yourself to such
constraints. Your conclusions have been far too sweeping, IMO. Not
knowing "what the differences mean" is prima facie evidence that
skilled subjectivists are needed to fully evaluate the results. Your
paragraph (above) is, BTW, one of the most productive I have yet seen
in this string.
> Claiming in such a situation that there is something unmeasured is a
> simple argument for parapsychology. The voltage in the case we've been
> discussing contains ALL the information, and that v(t) is measureable
> to well-understood bounds, a physical quantity with well known
> properties.
You must not go on saying this so blithely. A voltage is not simply a
voltage in the sense of being sui genris. What the voltage contains is
the mic feed plus the error of the device used to store the voltage
(plus the error of the measuring device itself)--and not "ALL the
information" as you claim.
> If something other than that voltage, which is the only connection
> between two machines, makes a difference, then you have proof of
> parapsychology (leaving out engineering mistakes that allow other
> communications pathways, of course).
This leaves out just one or two factors, jj. The voltage may be
affected by (1) the influence of local EMI; (2) the influence of any
stored electric fields in conductor dielectrics; (3) the influence of
any stored magnetic fields in any of the ferric materials used in the
circuitry or chassis. There are probably a few others that could be
classified as non-parapsychological. I will end it here because I
think the point is made that you tend to make sweeping statements
about electrical phenomena.
~SF~
John Nye
Bob Myers wrote:
>
> John Nye (n...@wuecon.wustl.edu) wrote:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
> Again, though, this has nothing to do with whether or not something
> can be audible but not measureable. You've brought up an interesting
> phenomenon regarding the way hearing behaves, but even here the
> "inaudible tones" and the noise were clearly *measureable*. Whether
> or not we could clearly and unambiguously predict whether or not
> something would be audible is not the issue here.
I suppose this breaks down to what we mean by measurable. I mean that
the audibility factor cannot be fully characterized. JJ says in email
that it can. But I am not convinced that the models are fully worked
out to provide predictability at all levels. In that sense some
aspects are measurable. But the one we care about, which interactions
will produce what effects, in advance, are not.
Perhaps these are semantic distinctions stemming from different
disciplines. I think the important issue is, if we cannot fully
characterize the sound through measurements --- i.e. predict the
effects and "sound" in advance, the model is not fully closed.
Some will argue it is. Given the limited sorts of tests and modelling
that have been done, I would be skeptical that such has been
accomplished. Perhaps closed for the purposes of some but not
definitively so.
Frankly, I don't think an extended discussion on methodology belongs
in this newsgroup.
John Nye
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4unh7o$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> About music perception, Luce has this to say: "Complex matters of
> music perception--for example, one's ability to single out
> individual instruments--and of speech perception are far beyond any
> physiological explanation at this time. To a degree, the behavioral
> results establish a challenge to neural scientists, telling them
> what to look for in the brain."
OF course, in your typical fashion, you ignore completely the issue at
hand, which is "WHAT CAN THE EAR DETECT". In that, you are referred
to anyone from Helmholtz to Fletcher to Moore to Yost, all of how are
very specific about what the mechanisms in the ear can detect, and
with more and more accuracy.
You're not citing anything to do with either absolute or relative
detection thresholds, you're citing a subset of the ability of the CNS
to distinguish between different expectations, something that is just
wonderfully complicated indeed, which is different indifferent
individuals, being part of what leads to different preferences, and
which I simply haven't brought into the discussion at all BECAUSE IT'S
IRRELEVANT.
I look at the cochlea, and simply observe that if the DETECTOR at the
head of the system cannot distingish something, i.e. if its output
doesn't change, then the rest of the system isn't going to notice.
It's that simple.
> Which just goes to show that not all scientists are know-it-alls. :-)
All this shows is that you can completely move outside the context of
a discussion for what is so obviously a personal attack.
> jj, you claim to be a hearing expert, yet you refuse to open your
> mind to new possibilities.
Since this is abjectly false, how can you even make this claim. My
mind is not in the least open to what YOU have had, so far, to say,
because your proposals make no sense. Please, in the future, do not
confuse my acceptance of your parapsychological suggestions with my
acceptance of verifiable, examinable claims.
Your suggestions to date have been repeats of oft-suggested
misunderstandings that have been put forth since at lesat the time of
Von Bekesy', and I see no reason to consider them at this point, when
you have offered nothing new whatsoever.
> You refused. Your reason? You refused to subject yourself to the
> "inadvertent self-delusion" you believed you would find there due to
> the lack of "controlled conditions".
So, Scott, are you claiming that double-blind tests are not necessary?
That was the germane issue at hand. Now, please, state your opinion on
double-blind testing. And let's be honest, I said I wasn't opposed to
visit, drink his wine, and enjoy his music, but that that wouldn't
prove anything because the whole process wasn't a blind test. Be
honest, please.
> I'm not just talking about the stereo illusion. I hear differences
> between so-called "acoustically transparent" components in mono,
> too. Differences in frequency balance, texture, bloom, and inner
> detail (among others).
No kidding. Haven't you been reading the threads about HRTF and
soundfield that have been going on lately? In the discussion, the
context was stereo, not mono, so I mentioned issues for STEREO. Now
that you have widened the context, please see elsewhere in this
newsgroup for discussions relevant to soundfields that refer to any
signal source. Again, your attack arrises WHOLELY from changing the
context of the discussion. This tactic is getting a bit tired, isn't
it?
> And how do you compare this input signal with what comes out?
By subtracting them. With an electronci subtractor, something that
has very well and very measureable performance. This is, in essense, a
more sophisticated version of Carver's null test. It's the basics of
what an "error signal" has meant in the art for at lesat 100
years. For heavens sake, PLEASE go study a bit, before you blast off
straight down!
> He then suggests that "a true 16 PCM system having 96db dynamic
> range is almost beyond the range of possibility."
AT the time, he was right. Now it's not true. What's the problem?
It's still NOT easy, to be sure, but it is accomplished, and in
inexpensive hardware, as well, nowdays.
> In his article, Blesser frequently comments on what he calls "golden
> eared" individuals who are able to hear things not falling within
> normal statistical bounds.
That's funny, it seems like I said this a few days ago. Your expert
and I agree. What's the problem. Well, there's no problem, really,
you just don't bother to read citations and understand them.
> Note Blesser's qualification re "some listeners". This willingness
> to concede that not everybody can be so easily classified (as jj
> would have us believe) is a persistent thread that runs through
I have made no such claim. Please do not lie about what I have said.
> Blesser's paper, and is part of what makes it a superb example of
> scientific research done right.
Blesser is not disagreing at all. In all of the papers I cite, the
outliers are detailed quite clearly, do exist, and are accounted for
when one discusses the sensitivity of the human ear. You would, if
you would bother to study the field, find out this information, and
you wouldn't have to make attacks against people's professional
reputations, either.
Maybe I ought to ask Dick P to make a phone call on this one.
Hmmmm. Could be INteresting.
> It is not for me to state your proof, jj. From what I have seen of it,
It is YOUR task, since you assert something is wrong, to state WHAT is
wrong. You have abjectly failed to do so. You say "proof", but I
didnt' ask for a proof, I asked for MY POSITION. You have incorrectly
summarized it above, in a absurdly mistaken fashion, so I must
conclude that your claims of incorrectness are just as accurate as
your summary of what I think.
It is utterly irresponsible to NOT say WHAT you think is wrong, when
you attack a proposition. First, you are obliged to state what
proposition you are attacking, and you can't even do that. Yet you
persist in tilting at windmills, making endless attacks, engaging in
insult, defaming reputations, and claiming error. YET YOU CANNOT EVEN
STATE WHAT PROPOSITION YOU ARE ATTACKING.
What's really provoking, AND revealing, is your citations:
Your citation of Luce is forthrightly irrelevant in its entirety,
because we're NOT arguing about musical understanding, we're arguing
about the absolute and relative sensitivities of the human ear.
Your citations of Barry's old paper show that you haven't read the
literature, have failed to realize that there are quite well defined
error bounds, descritions of outlier listeners, and so on, in fact all
those things that you claim I'm not taking into consideration. Not
only that, you fail to acknowledge that technology changes in 1 year,
or 5 years, or 10 years. In short, you show utter ignorance of the
field in which you make completely relentless ad-hominem attacks.
You simply refuse to even bother to read the literature, instead
looking until you find something you can mis-cite, and then you use it
to lauch a political attack.
Martin Leese - OMG
>> sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
>> > But what you and other objectivists fail to recognize is that
>> > there is still a belief system at work here. You BELIEVE that
>> > repeated testing and consistent results PROVE that something is
>> > true. How is this any different from my belief that certain
>> > things cannot be fully tested and do not return consistent
>> > results but still may be true?
(I can't find the article in which SDuraybito actually wrote this, so
the attribution may be wrong.)
Science is not a set of beliefs, it is a METHOD. Science uses this
method because it seems to work and have given us major contributions
to civilisation, such as colour TV, a better golf ball, anti-cancer
drugs, etc.
It is perfectly possible your belief, that certain things cannot be
fully tested and do not return consistent results but still may be
true, is correct. But if you want other people to share your belief
then "proof by vigourous assertion" is unlikely to be sufficient. (It
only works for prophets. Trust me, you are not a prophet.)
The scientific method seems to be the most effective bullshit and
Snake Oil detector yet devised. It also makes scientists appear to
have closed minds (only some have) and slows progress to a crawl. If
you have a better method then let's hear it, but it will be judged on
its ability to throw out the crap.
Regards,
Martin
E-mail: mle...@omg.unb.ca
WWW: http://www.omg.unb.ca/~mleese/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to know how Ambisonics can improve the sound of your LPs and CDs?
Read the Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ. Version 2.7 now on my WWW page.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4unhbs$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> "Andrew N. Carpenter"
<phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>In an important way, though, there is a "right and wrong" even in the
>domain of what you call subjective illusion. Namely, researchers can
>set up experiments to DESCRIBE the soundfield and can create theories
>and models of what is happening when we perceive it. These
>descriptions, models, and theories can be correct or incorrect -- and
>indeed, there can be and are rigorous <gasp> scientific investigations
>into them.
Absolutely. That's what I do for a living.
Yes, you can find ways that allow/permit/cause people to build certain
illusions. These ways are often "personal", i.e. different people use
different cues, different kinds of signal manipulation are "euphonic"
and so forth, but for a given listener you can indeed make a theory,
and test it. No doubt about that.
It would be quite unwise to try to build a general theory, though,
because of the difference between individuals, i.e. the population is
not "unimodal" in distribution, or anything at all like it.
>When you talk about the paranormal and parapsychological, etc., is
>your point that these scientific inquiries into perception are bogus?
No, it's what I do for a living. I suspect you've been suckered in by
Frankland's or Dury-Bito's false (and damn near libellous) summaries
of what I think here.
The problem in this newsgroup is that when you reject the same old
tired saw, from yet another person freshly launched into the
controversy, your are misquoted, lied about, and accused of making
absolute statements that are simply constructed of whole cloth, and
that have no resemblence to the statements that are actually made.
My reference to parapsychology is very simple. AT one point Frankland
was arguing about the properties of an electronic signal. I've pointed
out, repeatedly, that such electronic signals, sent over a wire, have
one ONE set of properties, and that is v(t) and i(t). No more, no
less. Arguing for something else "unknown" is simply arguing for
parapsychology. It is arguing that something is transmitting
information without any physical manifestation at all.
Stewart Pickerting
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
>In article <4uqb37$g...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, j...@research.att.com
> (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>> Irrelevant. Your claim was simply that 'even jj finally accepts
>> euphonic distortions'.
>Why don't you re-read what I posted: "It is pretty much accepted, even
>by jj, that euphonic distortions are often preferred by listeners."
>Do you see the word "finally" there?
Who on earth do you think you're trying to fool? Your admitted phrasing
is a clear indication to anyone unfamiliar with the history of these
exchanges, that you accepted the position and then persuaded JJ, which
is of course the exact opposite of what actually happened.
>> I pointed them out to YOU the VERY first time you entered the
>> discussion. You refused to admit to or believe in the existance of
>> same for at least a year.
>Fully acknowledged that you pointed them out. That's why I wrote that
>you accept the idea. Nothing about "finally" was ever written or
>implied. Can you understand that or are you so caught up in yourself
>that it's beyond your comprehension?
Are you so determined to hang on to your tissue of self-delusion that
you continue to try to bluff your way out of a bare-faced lie?
>>> Well, then, please provide proof of existence of the LP emulator box.
>>> I'd love to try one.
>> I've seen a few. Most (including mine) exist as software programs that
>> work on PCM files. No, I can't give away software. Sorry. Such boxes
>> have about 2 dozen dials, btw, and you'd have to experiement to find
>> your "truth".
>With so many audiophiles crying out for analog-like digital
>reproduction I am vexed by the possibility that a privileged few get
>to use such boxes.
Bullshit. This sort of thing was tried as far back as 1985 with Bob
Carvers 'Digital Time Lens' on the Carver CD player. If 'so many
audiophiles' were crying out for analogue-like CD replay, then that's
how the market would have gone. It hasn't because they aren't, apart
from a VERY small but EXTREMELY noisy minority like yourself.
Chris Sommovigo
I hope you don't mind my jumping in :)
In article <rewwz4x...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, Andrew N.
Carpenter <phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> CAdam...@aol.com wrote:
> According to the arguments I gave earlier, your hard-line stance
> against anecdotal evidence amounts is as unreasonable as many of the
> "sujectivsts'" sins that Stu and Richard have cataloged. Alas, the
> "objectivists" here are sometimes just as out of line scientifically
> as the rabid "subjectivists"!
>
> > Does this mean that we will never, at some future time, discover
> > something new that overturn our current understanding? No, of
> > course not. But until we do have some new discovery and new
> > understanding...
>
> Good -- here is a way to really focus on our substantive disagreement.
> You say that for something to count as evidence, there must be both
> "something new" that is discovered and a "new understanding" of this
> discovery. I deny the second part; my position is that "something
> new", even before it is explained, counts as evidence. Namely. the
> subjectivists' listening reports can count as important evidence that
> we objectivists can and should treat as (low grade) evidence.
The OBJECTIVIST becomes SUBJECTIVIST because of the process of
evaluation. That evidence of any nature would be ascibed a degree (or
grade) of importance is a classification based upon the Value that the
evidence seems to have for the Classifier (according to whatever
principles the classifier uses to interpret reality). I don't disagree
with the method of classification per se, I disagree that any person
can be OBJECTIVE in interpreting data of any source, regardless of the
system used to interpret the data. In order for meaningful conclusions
to be reached in any query, a person must first define what would
constitute 'meaningful,' and this seems as subjective as anything else
I have encountered.
Now, having said that, I wish to convey that nothing derogatory or
particularly defamatory is meant here. What I am positing is that much
of the stress between the 'two groups' is chiefly due to a problem of
semantics. The OBJECTIVE point of view seems not only to intimate that
there *can* be an absolute, unimpeachable perspective and methodology
- it also seems to intimate that there *IS* one and, by virtue of its
existence, the SUBJECTIVE point of view is flawed. The SUBJECTIVE
point of view holds that there cannot be an OBJECTIVE point of view
since data must ultimately be interpreted (which is a creative act)
and evaluated (which is a creative act), all by the nervous systems of
human beings.
In the interest of peaceful coexistence and productive interaction I
would like to propose the replacement of these (objective/subjective)
classifications with two Major Groups and myriad Minor Groups. The two
Major Groups would be (in no particular order of importance) the
DOUBTFUL and the FAITHFUL. Between these two reference-extremes would
then exist all the Minor Groups, which are combinations of Doubtful
and Faithful ranging from "More Doubtful than Faithful" to "More
Faithful than Doubtful". It seems to me that, in this age of quantum
probabilities, no living person can exist as purely Doubtful or
Faithful (for even the Doubtful can be Faithful to the methods of the
Doubtful - which is dogma, and vice versa - which is also dogma) - so,
then, we all do have some common ground upon which to walk.
I would also like to propose that we reject any notion of science ever
having proved anything absolutely, but instead adopt the notion that
science has proven probabilities. I think that by adopting this style
of thinking about things we can avoid any need to defend static-dogmas
and, instead, work toward creating models which better represent the
realm of experience (instrument enhanced or otherwise). I think it
unlikely that there would be little disagreement if I were to suggest
that most of us would like to continue advancing the "State of the
Art" in the fidelity of music reproduction.
Chris
Steven Abrams
In article <4usqe0$i...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
> But what you and other objectivists fail to recognize is that there is
> still a belief system at work here. You BELIEVE that repeated testing
> and consistent results PROVE that something is true. How is this any
> different from my belief that certain things cannot be fully tested
> and do not return consistent results but still may be true?
Taken to its logical conclusion...
The "belief" that the earh is flat is no different than the "belief"
that it is round. Sure, repeated testing consistently show that it's
round, but what's the difference? It's just a BELIEF.
I'm going to ignore the fact that repeated testing and consistent
results are not used by good scientists to PROVE that something is, as
an absolute, true or false. That some people think this is the way
things are done is an artifact of bad education.
> Certain objectivists claim that accurate reproduction is the only
> true goal of audio. Where is the tolerance and pluralism in that
> position?
I haven't seen a single person make that claim on this forum. Others
may make that claim, but not herre. If here, then not JJ, Dick, Bob,
Stewart, or any of the other "objectivists" against whom you seem to
be railing.
Compare this with your publicaly stated position that your sense of
asthetics is inherently superior and that audio gear should be
designed to optimize for those distortions that you personally like,
and we very clearly see who is lacking in tolerance and pluralism and
who is not.
~~~Steve
--
Steven Abrams abr...@cs.columbia.edu
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
-Lennon/McCartney
Steven Abrams
> VAC in The Abso!ute Sound circa 1993-4 that got me thinking (again)
> about euphonic distortion. And I'd been through all this before in
> the great accuracy versus musicality debates of the mid-80s. In the
> late-70s, this whole thing was trotted out with the concept of
> "soft-clipping." Dick, you may think I was born at night, but I'm
> here to remind you I wasn't born last night.
Unfortunately, we're all well aware of the fact that you weren't born
last night. DejaNews is also aware of this fact. It's pretty well
convinced that you've been around for a while, posting
self-contradictory rubbish about euphonic distortions. It told me so,
over lunch.
In article <4d4557$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>, SD wrote:
: But then why do on-line scientists maintain that certain listeners
: prefer LPs because of added euphonic distortion? Is there a double
: standard at work here?"
In article <4et8to$n...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>>, he wrote:
: The general answer that euphonic distortions account for much of
: these preferences is so hazy and untestable that, at present, it can't
: be used to advance the state of the illusory art."
In article <4a5u8c$4...@decaxp.harvard.edu>, he wrote:
: I define quickness as the perception that transient attacks sound as
: close to the way they do in real life as possible. LP listeners would
: point to an ease of transient attacks versus digital, where the attack
: seems smeared in time and "shouty," or stressed.
:
: I know of no "euphonic distortion" that can account for this effect.
: Which, in my view, blows a big hole in the "LPs sound better than CDs
: because of euphonic distortions" theory.
In trying to understand what he likes about LPs, he wrote (article
<4b7g6o$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>):
: This exactly the conundrum. CDs exhibit greater measured high-end
: response but it is LPs that SOUND like they have better transient
: "snap," "detail," "sharpness," good knows what else I can call it.
: How do you explain it?
Totally unaware of the answer that had been put forth, totally
disregarding euophonic distortions.
Last, but not least, in article <431mhb$i...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>:
: It's easily proven that analog has no "pleasant" distortions. Take
: a sample of a stylus riding in a blank groove and mix it with music
: from a digital source. When blind-tested against an analog version of
: the same music (signal never going through A/D/A conversion), any
: idiot can pick out the true analog source in a second.
Showing a total misunderstanding of what is meant by "euphonic
distortion" in the first place.
To be fair, these posts are mixed in with some posts mentioning his
quest for the optimal amount of euphonic distortion, and mention of
this Kevin Hayes article, as well. Littered throughout is the
evidence of this beliefe that his truth, his preference, his sense of
musicality, was somehow inherently better, more musical, and contains
more TRVTH, than anyone else's. "There's only one version of
musicality for those who have a high sense of aesthetic
understanding."
And he accuses us of Audio Facism?
I am posting all of this in the hope that the readership will see the
inconsistencies in his postings, his flip-flops, and his dishonesty
on the subject.
So, Sigfried, Mr. "strength of conviction" himself, can't figure out
where he stands on this.
I submit that his sole purpose on these groups is to attempt to shoot
down science and engineering solely because he neither likes nor
understands these fields. When it suits him, he raises scientific
issues, usually by disguising them or claiming that they were
discovered by Stereophile. The rest of the time, he ignores them.
Through it all, he misunderstands them.
I certainly hope the moderators will let this through, since they've
stated that this little battle can be fought in public. I'm fed up
with SD and decided to let everyone else know exactly why.
Andrew N. Carpenter
On 12 Aug 1996 14:02:37 -0400, my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
>> [to JJ:] As you point out yourself, what you count as the measurable
>> objective aspects exludes the "illusion" which we perceive as the
>> overall soundfield.
>Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, but thanks anyway for playing....:-)
>Read what JJ wrote again - he's talking about the electronic signal
>that will eventually BECOME the sound and provide you with this
>illusion.
What is this, net.reading.comprehension.police? <G> Since you brought
it up, if you were to read ALL of JJ's post, you would see that your
alleged reconstruction of what he said misses this point of what he
and I were talking about.
We were talking about the extent to which research into audio
perception has come up with lots of correlations between what
perceived sonic properties in the soundfield and objective meaurements
of the electronic signal.
JJ takes what must be a fairly skeptical position for a perceptual
researcher: He claims that the variations between listeners are so
great that there are very few correlations of this sort that are of
any use. This surprises me, but he's the one doing the research and I
admit that this is compatible with his views on "subjective
aesthetics" that he has mentioned several times.
What you say above is true, but isn't anything that JJ or myself would
disagree with. Where I was pushing JJ was in the utility of doing
objective measurements if, in fact, his skepticsm about generating
lawlike "bridge laws" (at least that's what we call them in phil. of
science) between the "objective" signal and the "illustory" perceived
soundfield.
This was the point of my comments on "the heart and soul of soul" of
listening to recorded music. As an intersted audio enthusiastists, the
"science of perception" stuff becomes a lot less interesting to me if
there are no bridge laws of this kind. The point was for JJ to say
more about the value of his research into the objective measurements
of the electronic signal, given his skeptical claims about the bridge
laws.
Now, did you get all that? I'd hate to see you violate
net.comprehension norms! <BG>
>> Personally, I'm an optimist: I see no reason why there can't be
>> good, scientific inquiry into our perception of recorded music.
>
>I don't think anyone here is objecting to this. It's just that you're
>looking for the psych department, which is two doors down on the left.
>We're talking about engineering and physics here.....
We are? I thought the topic was PERCEPTION, and that JJ is doing doing
research in this field and not in engineering or physics. In any case,
in a non-technical forum like rahe, I think it is more enjoyable and
more rewarding to stay within a multi-disciplinary perspective where
all sorts of viewpoints can be synthesized.
--
Andrew Carpenter
Dept. of Philosophy, U.C. Berkeley
http://violet.berkeley.edu/~phlos-ad/ fax: (410) 857-8778
John Ongtooguk
Bob Myers (my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com) wrote:
: ...... - what we're discussing is the technology used
: to RECORD sound, and to play it back. We're trying to see how closely
: such can approximate the original signal the recording/playback
: technology was handed in the first place. Your concerns about the
: perception of sound are certainly valid, but they don't have much
: NECESSARILY to do with the technology - these questions apply equally
: well to the original sound, produced by "natural" sources.
This seems to be a large part of the problem with the 'objective'
argument, that the measured signal captures all that is important
for a realistic illusion of playback, and that by merely looking
for differences in the signal one can state which system is more
accurate or realistic than another. I spent some time talking to
a piano and organ player last week and he commented that it is
very difficult to find good organ and piano tuners anymore, that
one can't just tune to some black box and expect good results.
As far as original sources go what if we tried to provide spec
sheets for instruments, not unlike we try to do with stereo
systems, and expected players to choose their instruments by the
numbers rather than by how they sound ? I suspect that many would
be unhappy with the sound of their chosen instruments, not unlike
people who buy their systems only by the numbers. I do agree that
good engineering goes a looooong way towards developing good
systems, but without a complete understanding of what it takes
to float a good illusion of what the original sounded like one
is left with deciding what is realistic and accurate by how a
system sounds. Of course some people have much better ears than
others, not unlike good musicians, and are more sensitive to
different types of errors encountered during playback. In short
I don't believe that one can dismiss the illusion of the
soundfield, like most objectivists do, merely because it is
difficult to measure and quantify.
John Ongtooguk (jo...@vcd.hp.com)
Pete Goudreau
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Scott Frankland <audi...@svpal.org> wrote,
<high order snippage>
> ...You downplay their findings with
> statistics from controlled experiments, but my contention all along
> has been that many of the scientists within this group have yet to
> come to terms with what it means to be an audiophile in the full sense
> of that term...
Oh I don't know...I suspect most are aware of and luckily immune to
the "tyranny of hyperbole"...;-)
<yet more snippage...>
> Again, CORRELATION is what we are trying to achieve. The perception of
> sound is presumably the same whether live or reproduced. That is not
> the point. What we have failed to do so far is to create a sonic
> hologram that is acceptable to the most *skilled* listeners (that's
> why this group is called rec.audio.high-end, guys). I am claiming that
> amplifiers--even so-called "acoustically transparent" amplifiers--are
> still a factor in this scenario. And while some feel that this is the
> most negligible part of the problem, I personally feel that it is a
> far more important problem than many within this group give it credit.
Ummmm...wouldn't the transducers that attempt to recreate the live
soundfield using only two non-linear, non-point-source, ambient
dependent, complex input impedance acoustic radiating elements located
in a far from ideal RT60 environment be just a tad more important to
this end? Somehow the point of the criticality of the amplifier
escapes me at the moment...oh, that's why, it's lunchtime...
Cheers,
Pete
Andrew N. Carpenter
abr...@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) wrote:
>Taken to its logical conclusion...
>The "belief" that the earh is flat is no different than the "belief"
>that it is round. Sure, repeated testing consistently show that it's
>round, but what's the difference? It's just a BELIEF.
I too think that Sduraybito sometimes overplays the subjectivist hand,
but from my perspective a lot of you are eager to jump down his throat
without trying to eek out the sense in what he says. Maybe flaming and
quick, clever responses are more fun, but tends to lead to dogmatisim
and polarization rather than pluralism and productive inquiry.
To my mind, you attack passes over what is correct in the correct
point in Duraybito's post. There might be audio effect, he claims,
which cannot yet be tested and about which we do not yet have
consistent evidence. As JJ points out, despite fairly similar
anatomies, there is considerable variation between how different
individuals perceive reproduced audio. This implies that it might be
easy for a single perceptual effect to give rise to inconsistent
evidence.
The point of the post was that the available evidence for an
hypothesis being sketchy or inconsistent does not prove that the
hypothesis is false. This is a truism of science methodology, and is
hardly the anti-intellecual noise that you make it out to be. Is is
particularly important to keep in mind for the study of perception in
audio, just because perception is no enormously complex and researches
likeJJ report that the individual variations are so great.
In practice, these differneces may be so great that a lot of
perceptual mechanisms won't be well understood anytime soon. But to
dismiss them wholesale, which I think was the point of Duraybito's
post, would be going too far.
Now, I'm less sure about what he meant about the "belief system" of
the objectivists. One thing which has come forward in one or two posts
here recently, and which I've tried to attack, is a rather naive view
of how easy it is to disprove certain hyptoheses (green pen, etc.)
with "hard science". Perhaps he had something like these assumptions
in mind.
SDuraybito
In article <4usptl$i...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>>>> I would have to entirely agree with this point. Case in point. It
>>>> is pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
> ^^^^
>
>Here is your forthright dishonesty. Your phrasing here shows that you
>intend to forthrightly suggest that somehow jj has become enlightened
>here. At the most charitable, it suggests that somehow jj grudgingly
>accepts such an idea, when in fact jj is the one who put forth to you,
>at least in THIS forum, the very idea.
Well if this isn't a case of jumping to conclusions and reading into
something that isn't there, I don't know what is. Where is it implied
from my language that you have somehow become enlightened? Please be
very specific.
You should change your signature to "curmudgeon, all-around grouch and
paranoid."
>JJ tried for at least a year to enlighten YOU, you railled, laughed,
>slandered, insulted, misquoted, and otherwise abused him.
>
>NOW YOU AGREE WITH HIM!
Mmmmm. Referring to yourself in the third person. Interesting...
Well as I've said before, the idea of euphonic distortions not new to
me. And I must further point out that, while there's a lot of merit
to euphonic distortions being more pleasing to listen to, I'm sure I
still don't view the whole thing the same way you do. I would still
maintain that there exists an idealized state or set of states of
euphonic distortions that is actually MORE realistic to the ear than
notions of mathematical accuracy. This is why I continue to point out
the fallacy of pursuing accuracy for its own sake as opposed to
searching for a better understanding of which particular set or sets
of distortions best suit the spectrum of high-end listeners.
Do you agree with that?
>But somehow you don't want to admit what you said a while ago,
>claiming that you were immune to inadvertent self-deception. You went
>through a phase claiming that I said you were "deluded", when I said
>nothing of the sort, and on and on. The results, like everything
>else, ought to be on DejaNews.
In that I believe in the stereo illusion, it is pretty obvious that I
can't and never have claimed immunity from self-deception, inadvertent
or otherwise. Who can?
>Irrelevant ad-hominem attack. He expects you to be accurate, and
>you're being inaccurate. Is there something wrong with being expected
>to be accurate? If you were so taken with the idea, why did you
>resist it so strongly for at least a year? Just having fun? Playing
>games, trying to make sure that the objectivists don't get any work
>done? Or is there another, ahem, mistake here?
I expect you to be accurate, too, and not imagine that my phrase: "is
pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are"
contains the word "finally" in it.
With respect to my exploration of the subject, I suppose you guys
would prefer that no one would play devil's advocate. "All is known
in science, nothing can be questioned." Is this *honestly* how you
feel? Please respond, for all to read.
>>Gee, your outrage belies a certain insecurity. What, exactly, are you
>>going to do about it? Why should I be worried?
>
>The rage is very simple, Seigfried, after you railled so violently
>against the idea, you submit that "even jj...", never mind it was jj's
>statements putting forth 'euphonic distortions' that you were
>absolutely LIVID with rage about.
Livid? I have pursued answers to my questions as passionlessly as you
have attempted to answer them. Remember, the universe doesn't care...
>>Do you not laugh at those who prefer tube electronics and LPs?
>
>Does he? That's not what I see he does. He hoots at people who claim
>such are "more accurate", which is quite a bit more than a preference
>judgement. Stop confusing the issues.
And here is where we differ. Hooting at people who claim tubes and
CDs are more accurate is based simply on mathematical accuracy and not
what's accurate to the ear. Last time I checked, we're humans, not
robots (though I wonder about you). Hence accuracy to the ear takes
precedence over mathematical accuracy. Get it?
>Blah de blah blah. Is this hissy-fit for Scott Frankland's benefit?
>
>That one's dug his own grave by quite obscenely attributing a whole
>boatload of "opinions" to me that I never held, have held forth, or
>even considered, except as I have quite demonstrably, in public
>forums, technical meetings, published referred papers, book chapters,
>tutorial talks, netnews and standards meetings, roasted to a very
>crisp and deserving doneness.
Difference being that Scott Frankland's actually offered something
that I can listen to instead of mysterious black boxes that only a
privileged few can claim to own. I'm referring, of course, to the LP
emulator you claim to have in another thread.
Are your academic credentials the best you can do?
Stewart Pinkerton
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
>Interesting. The problems in Bosnia are rooted in religious
>differences.
True, and perhaps uncle Bill should remember that it was the Muslim
Croats who perpetrated most of the atrocities before he sends a bunch
of Marines to screw up a kidnap attempt on the Christian Serb leader.
>Are you inferring that the acrimony here on r.a.h-e has
>a parallel to religious conflict?
Your expressed opinions are undoubtedly of a religious nature, being
blind faith with no basis in evidential knowledge. Does God exist? Are
LPs more musical than CDs? Who knows - who cares?
>I thought all you objectivists
>reject any notion of religion. The universe doesn't care, remember?
But OTOH, many scientists are devoutly religious without losing their
scientific objectivity.
>[ OK, enough with humor and philosophy. Let's get back to hurling
> sharp objects and generally trying to inflict the most harm on each
> other's reputation. Priorities gentlemen, priorities ... -- jwd ]
But Andy Carpenters contributions are ENTIRELY philosophical and
(perhaps unintentionally) humorous in nature! It's audio Jim, but not
as we know it.
Andrew N. Carpenter
mle...@hudson.cs.unb.ca (Martin Leese - OMG) wrote:
>The scientific method seems to be the most effective bullshit and
>Snake Oil detector yet devised. It also makes scientists appear to
>have closed minds (only some have) and slows progress to a crawl. If
>you have a better method then let's hear it, but it will be judged on
>its ability to throw out the crap.
Actually, the methods scientists use are quite robust and creative,
and can lead to breathtaking, quick progress. I dislike claims that
there is ONE SINGLE method of science, because it harkens back to
school day explanations of "scientific method" that really miss out on
the nuances that make science such an exciting, interesting
enterprise.
The "monolithic scientific method" assumption also has bad
consequences for our discussions of audio. Not only do some
objectivists use this as a club to beat up on others, but by passing
over nuances of scientific inquiry the "that's not scientific" crows
can really do a dis-service by severely limiting the scope of
scientific inquiry.
What we need to throw out the crap is a healthy criticism and honest,
probing, reasonable discussions. Despite the blatant irrational things
asserted by both objectivists and subjectivists, the worst thing about
our discussions is the unthoughtful, nasty tone that many of them take
on over time.
Let's hear it for the DISUNITY of sciencee, and for the freedom of
CIVILIZED intelligent inquiry!
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4uspq7$i...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
>> I pointed them out to YOU the VERY first time you entered the
>> discussion. You refused to admit to or believe in the existance of
>> same for at least a year.
>Fully acknowledged that you pointed them out. That's why I wrote that
>you accept the idea. Nothing about "finally" was ever written or
>implied. Can you understand that or are you so caught up in yourself
>that it's beyond your comprehension?
Well... "even jj accepts" is pretty clear, Seigfried, it puts me out
on the "edge" of who accepts things.
That's a pretty interesting place to put one of the most forthright
proponents of an idea, isn't it?
>With so many audiophiles crying out for analog-like digital
>reproduction I am vexed by the possibility that a privileged few get
>to use such boxes.
Um, talk to the marketing department. In our case, we do services,
not hardware, so I dunno how to get it out (now, PRE-trivestiture that
would have been different, but nothing ever got out then either).
I've talked to several other companies, and we all have approximately
the same gadget, give or take.
Their marketing departments have approximately the same willingness to
deal with the idea that your average Greenpeace member has for eating
whale meat.
I can't change that, I fear. I really do tend to agree with your
point, but I'm tired of being laughed at. While various people here
insist that I claim 'all can be measured' and "measurements are that's
important", the fact of the matter is that such people DO exist, in
quite a few places, and I'm often regarded as a forthright quack by at
least some of them, simply becuase I point out the well-known
perceptual facts involved in audio. I give a tutorial on perceptual
coding of audio here and there, takes 3 hours, and fills it up more or
less 100%. In it is a short clip of music reproduced 4 times, in the
order:
Original
13.6 dB SNR, sample-modulated white noise
13.6 dB SNR, perceptually injected noise
Original.
The effect (hard to play over the internet) is that the first, third,
and 4th signals sound the same to 75% of listeners, and that the
remaining 25% hear a very slight difference. The second track sounds,
well, um, beyond the veriest conception of horrid.
(Those of you at an AES meeting may have heard this as the "13 dB
miracle" that several of my co-workers and ex-coworkers use for demo,
as well.)
After playing this, I've been asked to "prove the SNR", "did I delay
the signal to make the SNR bad", and all sorts of things that imply
I'm cheating, when, of course, there's nothing of the sort going on,
in one case the noise is very audible, in the other case it's nearly
impossible to hear due to short-term frequency shaping.
I've given away several copies of this tape to people who have read it
into their own computer to verify the fact. All who have tried have
succeeded, of course, because there's no magic. None the less, I've
been questioned on the tape all but one time I've presented it, that
once being at Princeton in a room full of people who do video and how
know that perception can be at the very least "interesting".
So talk to the marketing department. Why do I write here?
Education, to put it bluntly, and not just for the "high-ender".
Unfortunately, the high end vs. the engineer is such a strong
stereotype in audio that I'm starting to think that there's no hope in
making them realize they are both right, in their own domains, and
that they should listen to each other, rather than hollar and shriek
at each other.
Believe it or not, that's why I have such a short fuse here. I've
been being POLITE for years, and not a goddamned person has listened.
Now that I've spent a few years being really obnoxious, a few people
are noticing enough to GET IT.
Sad, but true.
Andrew N. Carpenter
illum...@inetnow.net (Chris Sommovigo) wrote:
> I hope you don't mind my jumping in :)
I'm glad that you took the time to contribute to this conversation,
Chris! Welcome aboard....
I agree with you that the strength we attribute to any evidence
depends, in part, on our interests, desires, goals, and other
"values". This is why I argued, over in the Green Pen thread, that
engineers may not want to bother much with the anecdotal evidence that
the pens work -- this isn't the sort of evidence that gets a project
or grant approved.
OTOH, all of us on usenet have different interests, and we all have a
shared interest in discussing audio. For this reason, the same
anecdotal evidence may very well be useful for and even <grasp>
rigorous discussions in this forum. This is why I like your plea that
we treat science as something more broad than a single method for
"proof". Not only does this more closely model both the practice of
science as well as the philosophy of science, but as you point out it
will lead to more fruitful and less dogmatic discussions.
Now, a question for you:
One of the things that has most interested me in this thread is the
prospect of establishing lots of interesting correlations between
properties of the electrical audio signal and properties which
listeners perceive in the reproduced music.
People have had a wide range of opinions about the prospects and
usefulness of this endeavor. One view is that this should be a matter
of "physics" and that scientists shouldn't need to bother the
psychologists down the hall. Another view is that the project of
correlating properties of the signal with perceptual properties is
good in theory, but limited in practice because of the great variation
between individuals.
As a designer of digital audio products, what do you think? Did
designing several highly acclaimed digital cables teach you anything
about these sorts of correlations?
Also, any other comments on our other recent "theory" discussions, for
example on the placebo effect or on future directions for front end
digital design? (I've argued that, if there are widespread
correlations between "magic" things like speaker box color and
perceived sound quality, then we have the opportunity to use the
placebo effect to our advantage in audio, just as doctors do in
medicine. About transports, I wanted feedback on a separates system
that would include a RAM buffer to help improve re-clocking at the DAC
and which used something like the I2S standard instead of SPDIF)
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ut27p$j...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> sdura...@aol.com
(SDuraybito) writes:
>Interesting. The problems in Bosnia are rooted in religious
>differences. Are you inferring that the acrimony here on r.a.h-e has
>a parallel to religious conflict? I thought all you objectivists
>reject any notion of religion. The universe doesn't care, remember?
>[ OK, enough with humor and philosophy. Let's get back to hurling
> sharp objects and generally trying to inflict the most harm on each
> other's reputation. Priorities gentlemen, priorities ... -- jwd ]
Yes, this is in some sense a religious conflict. As you (Seigfried)
have said several times, you have superior aesthetics, superior
listening ability, you are a great person, and I am a joke both as a
person and a scientist (I saved that e-mail, dearest). That makes it
clear that you think you are God.
I don't believe in god.
Conflict? I think so.
<so there, does that suffice, Jim?>
[ Sorry JJ, that question requires thought. The weather is too nice at
the moment for me to strain my neurons. I think I'll have to get
back to you on that. In the meantime, you all just have fun doing
whatever it is you're doing here. -- jwd ]
David Bath
Scott Frankland wrote:
> This leaves out just one or two factors, jj. The voltage may be
> affected by (1) the influence of local EMI; (2) the influence of any
> stored electric fields in conductor dielectrics; (3) the influence of
> any stored magnetic fields in any of the ferric materials used in the
> circuitry or chassis. There are probably a few others that could be
> classified as non-parapsychological. I will end it here because I
> think the point is made that you tend to make sweeping statements
> about electrical phenomena.
But if the voltage is measured either at the otuputs of the amp or at
the inputs to the speaker, then all of the above effects are included.
What seems to be misunderstood here is that for two audio systems to
sound different, they MUST measure differently. Simple physics folks.
The only mechanism than can cause the same speaker to put out a
different sound when driven by different electronics is if the voltage
(actually voltage or current) is DIFFERENT. The is no other possible
mechanism since the speaker moves by applying a voltage to it. Some of
the subjectivists here forget that the scientists and engineers study
and apply electrical theory and practice their entire professional
life starting in college. They can make "sweeping staetments" becuase
they thoroughly under the subject, and can't explain why things work
they way they do without getting VERY technical and use advanced math
that is beyond the intention of this newsgroup.
Just becuase one doesn't undertand doesn't mean no one understands.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ut9vt$c...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> John Nye
<n...@wuecon.wustl.edu> writes:
>Perhaps these are semantic distinctions stemming from different
>disciplines. I think the important issue is, if we cannot fully
>characterize the sound through measurements --- i.e. predict the
>effects and "sound" in advance, the model is not fully closed.
I haven't seen anybody make that assertion. I have said, as have
others, that there are some things about the HAS that can be
established, one of them is absolute audibility.
That says nothing about "predict the effects in advance". It can't,
ever. Why? Because that involves predicting peoples' preferences, and
I'm not holding my breath for that one. Especially since I know
there's no "one right answer".
Pete Goudreau
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Scott Frankland <audi...@svpal.org> wrote,
> > j...@research.att.com (jj,curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
> You must not go on saying this so blithely. A voltage is not simply a
> voltage in the sense of being sui genris. What the voltage contains is
> the mic feed plus the error of the device used to store the voltage
> (plus the error of the measuring device itself)--and not "ALL the
> information" as you claim.
Blithely or not, the statement is true and oddly you proved it...if
the voltage contains errors then by definition you can measure that
error within the bounds of your measurement and thus the voltage in
toto is real and does indeed contain all the information. Whether or
not you can make use of the information or not is another subject
entirely...
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
> This leaves out just one or two factors, jj. The voltage may be
> affected by (1) the influence of local EMI; (2) the influence of any
> stored electric fields in conductor dielectrics; (3) the influence of
> any stored magnetic fields in any of the ferric materials used in the
> circuitry or chassis. There are probably a few others that could be
> classified as non-parapsychological. I will end it here because I
> think the point is made that you tend to make sweeping statements
> about electrical phenomena.
These factors are:
(1) measurable additive error
(2) definable non-linear capacitance, a function of geometry and
material properties.
(3) definable non-linear inductance, ditto.
yep, like measurable multiplicative error (distortion) for example...
Uhhh...they aren't sweeping statements in any way other than they are
demonstrably true. I, for one, fail to see the point of this inane
discussion. To posit that the voltage does not represent "all of the
information" is utterly absurd...it *is* the information! Where the
hell else would it be? Any argument otherwise automatically invokes
paranormal superstitions...geez, obtain thineself a life...this is a
hobby fer chrissakes!
Cheers,
Pete
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <4ut9la$d...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
>In article <4unh9c$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> j...@research.att.com (jj,
>curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
>You must not go on saying this so blithely. A voltage is not simply a
>voltage in the sense of being sui genris. What the voltage contains is
>the mic feed plus the error of the device used to store the voltage
>(plus the error of the measuring device itself)--and not "ALL the
>information" as you claim.
Wrong, again, Scott. I must say first as an aside that I find the
fact that Scott continuously builds straw men much more obscene given
the fact that he is now known to be a PROFESSIONAL WRITER, something
that raises my expectation of his performance.
Having said that, IN CONTEXT, when the electrical signal is
communicating the audio experience, signal, what-have-you, then ALL
THE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE PLACE IT GETS LISTENED
TO IS IN THAT SIGNAL. ALL OF IT. The errors in the mic feeds, etc,
are PURELY IRRELEVANT, since they will be included in ALL OF THE
REPRODUCTIONS. (Now, if somebody did a bad job, it sounds bad, but we
all have heard at least one bad recording, haven't we?)
Please stay in context. The context wass about the electrical
transmission and storage, until you changed it. It is more than
simply discourteous to change the context of a statement in order to
attack it.
The voltage, furthermore, does not contain the error of the device
used to store, that's what we're MEASURING. Nor does it contain the
error in the device used to measure. They are NOT added to the
original. Furthermore, the device used to measure has
well-characterized error statistics, after all, that's the whole point
of a measurement device. The device used to store is being tested,
and you can measure THAT to the accuracy of the measurement device.
The total error in the process, using modern equipment, is very, very
small, much smaller than the ability of the human ear to resolve a
change in the best relevant listening conditions.
No, this doesn't tell us what the error sounds like IF it's big enough
to be heard, that's why I haven't, despite the completely obscene
accusations that have been flying around lately, claimed any such
absurd thing. That, by the way, is what Frankland's first expert
"quote" was all about, in his previous attack on my professional
reputation.
>> If something other than that voltage, which is the only connection
>> between two machines, makes a difference, then you have proof of
>> parapsychology (leaving out engineering mistakes that allow other
>> communications pathways, of course).
>This leaves out just one or two factors, jj. The voltage may be
>affected by (1) the influence of local EMI; (2) the influence of any
>stored electric fields in conductor dielectrics; (3) the influence of
>any stored magnetic fields in any of the ferric materials used in the
>circuitry or chassis. There are probably a few others that could be
>classified as non-parapsychological. I will end it here because I
>think the point is made that you tend to make sweeping statements
>about electrical phenomena.
Wrong. IF THE VOLTAGE IS BEING AFFECTED BY LOCAL EMI, etc, you can be
DAMN SURE that the measuring device will pick that up and measure it.
Guess how you find out that such things happen, Scott? You do just
what I keep suggesting, you MEASURE them.
When you measure something, to be anything close to correct, you MUST
measure it in-situ. If you're putting the measuring device at the end
of the plug into the amplifer, or even the loudspeaker, then you see
the results of everything to that point. And, yes, such measurements
are possible, and yes, people do them. And, yes, such measurements
are annoyingly accurate.
Annoyingly?
Some of you may recall that I've objected violently to people who
claim "they all measure the same". When applied to the above test
method, there's damn little that measures "the same", where "the same"
is summed resolution of the testing method. Now, some things (but not
all) measure "below the threshold of hearing" but that's a different
issue. An annoying number of peices of good equipment, also, do NOT
measure like that. Some bits of not so expensive equipment do.
That's a different problem, and I'm not going to speculate on it in
THIS article.
Chris Malcolm
In article <4unh84$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> j...@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>In article <4ug4a4$2...@biosun.harvard.edu> sdura...@aol.com
> (SDuraybito) writes:
>> pretty much accepted, even by jj, that euphonic distortions are
>> often preferred by listeners. The particular distortions of tube
>> amplifiers and analog LPs are preferred by many.
>> What science has failed to do to this point is replicate these
>> particular sets of euphonic distortions from solid-state and CD
>> playback, respectively.
> Wrong, actually, what marketing has failed to do is to turn these into
> products.
Not in the UK. There have been a number of such add-on euphonic
distorters produced and sold. As I recall, the one which enjoyed the
most successful reviews was based on low level delayed feedback from
the speakers via a small microphone and amplifier placed on the
amplifier. In other words, it added a small amount of echo, which as
we all know, increases airiness, smoothness, liquidity, etc.. It
claimed that valve amplifiers naturally did this via valve
microphony. It was supported not only by its own reviews, but an
interesting experiment which claimed to find, in a double blind test,
that tube amplifiers in another room sounded worse than the same
models playing in the room with the speakers.
Unfortunately in the UK hifi market of the time, those who liked valve
sound were unwilling to accept the idea that it might be due to
euphonic distortion.
Before all you valve & LP enthusiasts start snorting, try a simple
experiment. Switch on your system, switch to LP input with its RIAA
equalisation and high amplification levels, crank up the volume, and
while playing no source, tap the valves with a pencil.
Steven Abrams
In article <4v2bko$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> Scott Frankland
<audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> My contention is that most of the scientists in this forum (and you
> included) have yet to encounter a high resolution system of the sort
> that I have described above.
And you know this, exactly, how?
What's JJ's system consist of? What types of systems does he listen
to? How about Dick Pierce? Me? Bob?
> Gindi's method is so convincing that it renders
> double-blind testing unnecessary IMO except perhaps as a means of
> corroborating his (admittedly uncontrolled) judgements. I have no
> doubt that Gindi would render the SAME judgments under controlled
> conditions that he does under uncontrolled conditions (given the two
> qualifications explained above ).
This opinion of yours would be very difficult to defend. It is
tantamount to saying that he is completely immune to the placebo
effect, and to any effects of bias, intentional or otherwise.
> Very well, anybody who believes that jj does NOT act
> like a condescending know-it-all at least HALF the time he is
> contradicted, please chime-in now.
I'm chimed.
While he isn't the most polite person in the world when it comes to
this sort of thing, condescending know-it-all is a bit much. Maybe
that's because I've seen him spend years trying to respond to people
who haven't got a clue as to what's going on out there but act like
they do and immediately pigeon-hole him as a THD-measurement-crazed
tin-ear.
Scott Frankland
In article <4uta1c$d...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> j...@research.att.com (jj,
> In article <4unh7o$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> Scott Frankland
> <audi...@svpal.org> writes:
> So, Scott, are you claiming that double-blind tests are not necessary?
> That was the germane issue at hand. Now, please, state your opinion on
> double-blind testing.
It's interesting the way you go about softening me up, jj, making it
appear that my opinions are universally worthless, then soliciting my
opinion about one of your pet theories. Not terribly inviting, if you
didn't know. Very well, I'll give you my worthless opinion about
double-blind testing. I think it is, IN PRINCIPLE, the BEST way to
verify judgments about what is, or is not, being
perceived. However--and this is a big IF--I feel that the current
methodology of this test is terribly flawed in at least two
aspects. Firstly, in my experience, A/B testing is best accomplished
by listening at length to one component BEFORE switching over to a
second component. This gets the effect of the first component deeper
into the bones of the listener, and gives a much better idea as to
what that component is doing or not doing. As a corrolary, a switching
system, with its attendant conductors and connectors, must NOT be
used. Secondly, ALL components that are used in these tests MUST be
of the high resolution variety; with the exception of the device under
test, which is, of course, the variable. I define "high resolution" as
a system that allows differences between recordings to be easily
perceived by the average listener (this does not necessarily imply
absolute accuracy).
> And let's be honest, I said I wasn't opposed to visit, drink his
> wine, and enjoy his music, but that that wouldn't prove anything
> because the whole process wasn't a blind test. Be honest, please.
My contention is that most of the scientists in this forum (and you
included) have yet to encounter a high resolution system of the sort
that I have described above. You were given the opportunity to listen
to one such system and refused (your loss, IMO). One of the things
that Gindi is good at is finding recordings that bring out the
strengths and weaknesses of a given component to make the differences
even more obvious. Gindi's method is so convincing that it renders
double-blind testing unnecessary IMO except perhaps as a means of
corroborating his (admittedly uncontrolled) judgements. I have no
doubt that Gindi would render the SAME judgments under controlled
conditions that he does under uncontrolled conditions (given the two
qualifications explained above ). That jj was unwilling to explore
this possiblity renders all further discussion of this point moot so
far as jj is concerned.
>> And how do you compare this input signal with what comes out?
> By subtracting them. With an electronci subtractor, something that
> has very well and very measureable performance. This is, in essense,
> a more sophisticated version of Carver's null test. It's the basics
> of what an "error signal" has meant in the art for at lesat 100
> years. For heavens sake, PLEASE go study a bit, before you blast off
> straight down!
In the first place, the basis for what is meant by an "error signal"
has NOT referred to a "null", but to a negative feedback signal--i.e.,
a percentage of the output fed back to the input in inverse
phase. Please consult your control theory before you go redefining
well-understood terms. In the second place, what does a null test tell
us besides the total percentage of error?
>> Note Blesser's qualification re "some listeners". This willingness
>> to concede that not everybody can be so easily classified (as jj
>> would have us believe) is a persistent thread that runs through
> I have made no such claim. Please do not lie about what I have said.
You deny, then, that there are people who own audio systems that allow
them to quite easily hear differences between cables and between the
so-called "acoustically transparent" amplifiers?
> Maybe I ought to ask Dick P to make a phone call on this one.
> Hmmmm. Could be Interesting.
Why don't you send out the Thought Police while you're at it.
>> It is not for me to state your proof, jj. From what I have seen of it,
> It is YOUR task, since you assert something is wrong, to state WHAT
> is wrong. You have abjectly failed to do so. You say "proof", but
> I didnt' ask for a proof, I asked for MY POSITION. You have
> incorrectly summarized it above, in a absurdly mistaken fashion, so
> I must conclude that your claims of incorrectness are just as
> accurate as your summary of what I think.
> It is utterly irresponsible to NOT say WHAT you think is wrong, when
> you attack a proposition. First, you are obliged to state what
> proposition you are attacking, and you can't even do that.
Don't be so impatient, I'll get around to it. My first contention is
that you don't yet appreciate what a golden ear really means. If you
did you wouldn't be so damn cocky. You blew your chance to witness one
up close and personal (M. Gindi). As far as Blesser is concerned, it
was his STYLE OF PRESENTATION that I meant to draw attention
to. Blesser's presentation, as Luce's, is decidedly NON-DOGMATIC;
leaving ample breathing space for new possibilities to emerge in
future discussions. This is how mature scientists discuss issues, in
my experience. That was the point, in case you missed it. Your
position as I understand it regarding "acoustically transparent
amplifiers and cables is false, IMO. That is what I was referring
to. Secondly, the idea of a null test being able to fully characterize
a signal voltage is also patently absurd. It characterizes nothing but
the total error energy, and not necessarily "in situ" either.
> Your citation of Luce is forthrightly irrelevant in its entirety,
> because we're NOT arguing about musical understanding, we're arguing
> about the absolute and relative sensitivities of the human ear.
You have arbitrarily narrowed the field of this discussion to include
only those matters with which you are familiar. This thread is not as
narrow as you claim.
> Your citations of Barry's old paper show that you haven't read the
> literature, have failed to realize that there are quite well defined
> error bounds, descritions of outlier listeners, and so on, in fact
> all those things that you claim I'm not taking into consideration.
Yes, I believe there a few things you have neglected to take into
consideration (but not necessarily the ones you refer to above). As
far as error bounds, they tell the tale only if you are able to
interpret them properly.
> Not only that, you fail to acknowledge that technology changes in 1
> year, or 5 years, or 10 years.
Did you miss my analogy of the athletes in a previous article in this
thread? Adams almost choked on it. No one has failed to notice change,
jj. If I feel the need to quote more recent references I will do
so. How do you infer that I have not read the literature. You are
being offensive.
> In short, you show utter ignorance of the field in which you make
> completely relentless ad-hominem attacks.
Ad hominem, you say? jj, you are the master of it. Subtle innuendo? It
is a part of your everyday speech. Don't believe it? I have no doubt
that I could go through this thread and find AT LEAST a dozen
instances of explicit condescension on your part. I have been trying
to break you out of the mold of the know-it-all and you keep on
recasting it. Very well, anybody who believes that jj does NOT act
like a condescending know-it-all at least HALF the time he is
contradicted, please chime-in now.
> You simply refuse to even bother to read the literature, instead
> looking until you find something you can mis-cite, and then you use
> it to lauch a political attack.
Ah, yes, the wounded cry of the fallen innocent! You accuse me of
political manipulations, and yet from you Machiavelli is busy taking
notes from the grave! If you go back into the RAHE archives I think
you will be hard put to find a posting from me wherein I did NOT call
for a reconciliation of the extremists in this group. Why, you
yourself have been known to say that "objectivists and subjectivists
are NOT natural enemies." Judging from your posture here, I would say
that those were merely empty words on your part. There are a few in
this thread, on the other hand--such as Andy Carpenter and John
Nye--who take a TRULY moderate position; i.e., coming down strongly on
neither side. Even then, you persist in trying to bludgeon your
opposition into total submission. You are a good fighter, jj, but a
terrible peacemaker.
~SF~
Scott Frankland
In article <4upv89$n...@biosun.harvard.edu> cha...@wco.com (John Nunes)
writes:
>There was a review of a harpsichord recording by Pearson in TAS
>several years ago. In it he went on and on about how good the
[ quoted text deleted -- rgd ]
>What does this mean? Well, he went into reviewing a recording without
>sufficient knowledge for one thing. But what might be more
>significant for audio people is that he was doing an all too common
>thing: listening for something that doesn't really exist and the
>something certainly didn't have anything to do with the music!
True enough, but this doesn't prove that Harry can't hear. It only
proves that Harry sometimes comes up with specious reasons for what he
DOES hear. Something unusual has been heard, you can be sure of
that. Remember, if you discount anecdotal evidence then you are ipso
facto coming out in favor of a purely double-blind A/B form of
verification (so far as the hall monitors in this group are
concerned). Is that your intent?
~SF~