Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
Hi Steve,
Yep, that's where I took Logic. So in Kansas, burden of proof rests with claimant David et al.
By my reckoning of course. In Wonderland, well....we have me defending my old pal Amirs position.
cheers,
AJ
That's a complete Red Herring and Strawman argument. Rational folks don't claim to know it all. The subject is specific. As long as science explains soundwaves, that's all that's needed.
Now if you'd make it clear that this site strictly forbids discussion of the rational/science "side" of things, obviously threads like this wouldn't exist! Perhaps you could add it to the TOS?
As was I, but why would a "winner" need to be declared from simple online discussions about audio science, on what purports to be an audio site?
cheers,
AJ
Nelson Pass will give me a technical explanation as to how you (or any other audiophile) parsed the sound of the amp changing from the sound of the 20 other things changing the sound at the same time?
Ok thanks, I'll forward your specifics in an email to see if he knows how each of those specific things sound warming up vs his amp warming up.
cheers,
AJ
O.k. I may not have made myself very clear. I like Amir's charts, for example, and I have learned from them. I also find it interesting to hear that listening tests play a large part in audio science, next to measurements. So yes, there are very interesting aspects to audio science. It is interesting what audio science already can explain, and measurements can be meaningful indeed.
Yet like many others I am put off when some 'objectivists' here appear to claim that audio science explains everything, or that we currently already know how to measure every subjective phenomenon that is found in audio, and when we cannot currently measure a difference, then the phenomenon does not exist. This is false and ridiculous -- no science explains everything (otherwise, what would be the point of further research?), and real scientists know that, the more we know, the more we know what we don't know. Don't make a cheap caricature of science, please. And when I find the same ridiculous claims repeated over and over by 'objectivists', as if they could convince others of their cheap caricature of science, then this, and the resulting stalemate between them and others who do not share their opinion, is what I find boring.
Yet like many others I am put off when some 'objectivists' here appear to claim that audio science explains everything, or that we currently already know how to measure every subjective phenomenon that is found in audio, and when we cannot currently measure a difference, then the phenomenon does not exist. This is false and ridiculous -- no science explains everything (otherwise, what would be the point of further research?), and real scientists know that, the more we know, the more we know what we don't know. Don't make a cheap caricature of science, please. And when I find the same ridiculous claims repeated over and over by 'objectivists', as if they could convince others of their cheap caricature of science, then this, and the resulting stalemate between them and others who do not share their opinion, is what I find boring.
I don't consider the OP offensive. Opening a discussion he no doubt knew would draw serious debate (and that's not trolling, that's discussing, on a discussion forum), Peter made his own position clear with the thread title. It's not like we don't all know there are people who don't believe science tells the whole audio story, or even addresses a small part well. That POV is pretty well-established here, and it's one of the things that regularly takes us deep into the rabbit hole where this place gets interesting. Offensive? No. Provocative? Yes.
But the post that Amir answers above is an unfettered and uninformed attack on the work of Toole and Olive. It is an insult to them and everyone who believes in the scientific process. It is an indictment of incompetence against the research and the researchers, and what's worse, it is obvious that the accuser didn't have a clue about how the research was designed and executed.
This debate, this thing we simplistically call objectivist vs subjectivist, is the central debate in the audiophile world. There are people who don't believe, as the OP states, that audio science explains or can measure everything that can be heard/percieved. I can't argue, not knowing what every question and discovery in the future might be, and I respect those who hold this belief understanding what is known and what can be measured.
There are people in the audiophile community who don't seem to want to know what is known; they simply want to trust their ears to tell them what's good, and enjoy listening. I have a lot of respect for that as well. I veer closer to that camp every day, as I find I'd rather enjoy what I have than always long for the next thing. The people I don't respect are those who don't seem to want to know, but still want to pick apart everything that is studied beyond listening. I don't even understand them, and can only conclude that they don't want to look at or accept anything that disagrees with their preferences; they don't want to admit that they are just preferences and would rather dismiss all research and measurement that might indicate that what they like is not superior, is not what everyone should like.
Seriously, it is arrogance from ignorance, and when we see it, all intelligent, inquisitive humans should be offended by it.
Tim
But the post that Amir answers above is an unfettered and uninformed attack on the work of Toole and Olive. It is an insult to them and everyone who believes in the scientific process. It is an indictment of incompetence against the research and the researchers, and what's worse, it is obvious that the accuser didn't have a clue about how the research was designed and executed.
This debate, this thing we simplistically call objectivist vs subjectivist, is the central debate in the audiophile world. There are people who don't believe, as the OP states, that audio science explains or can measure everything that can be heard/percieved. I can't argue, not knowing what every question and discovery in the future might be, and I respect those who hold this belief understanding what is known and what can be measured.
There are people in the audiophile community who don't seem to want to know what is known; they simply want to trust their ears to tell them what's good, and enjoy listening. I have a lot of respect for that as well. I veer closer to that camp every day, as I find I'd rather enjoy what I have than always long for the next thing. The people I don't respect are those who don't seem to want to know, but still want to pick apart everything that is studied beyond listening. I don't even understand them, and can only conclude that they don't want to look at or accept anything that disagrees with their preferences; they don't want to admit that they are just preferences and would rather dismiss all research and measurement that might indicate that what they like is not superior, is not what everyone should like.
Seriously, it is arrogance from ignorance, and when we see it, all intelligent, inquisitive humans should be offended by it.
Tim
Last edited:
No need to bother Nelson. It's the AC outlet. Specifically it is the AC outlet's temperature relative to room temperature. Get that sucker up to 76.5 in 74-degree room and everything just gets right (yes, that's the technical term). It's particularly important in the temporal range because, you know, if you don't get your PRAT right, you'll never be able to tell 3/4 from 6/8.
Tim
Ironically that is applicable to some 'vocal-reiterative objectivists' here and especially in this thread who think they are arguing from a point of objective reason.
Cheers
Orb
Nor would I try, so not sure where you got such an idea. I thought this was a "Discussion" forum. Why even allow such pretense if it is so disruptive to believers?
Why not make it clear rationality/logic/reason>science discussion is strictly forbidden on the website and not what it was founded for?
cheers,
AJ
There are plenty of forums like that, if affirmation, not discussion is what someone is looking for. That Amir is one of the founder's of this forum, and Steve is the other, makes it pretty clear that this place is for looking at both points of view, not for head-nodding. And yes, AJ, I understand that you get that.
Tim
Orb, by all means, abandon the thread if you think you have nothing more to gain from it. I'm hoping for more objective reasoning and pretty multi-colored graphs from Amir.
Tim
Tim
Reminds me of the folks who get extremely irate at talk radio. Yet somehow, they are tuned in daily, screaming, unable to change stations or turn off the radio....
cheers,
AJ
cheers,
AJ
Yes, you did try, and you tried too hard. Precisely your repeated posts that screamed at others demanding "scientific proof" or "data" for what they heard prompted my remark about 'boring'.
And nobody is against rationality and science -- I am the last one to be against that, being a scientist myself (a biochemist). Yet the repeated claims that subjectively established phenomena in audio are not real if we cannot yet measure them with our current rudimentary methods make a mockery of audio science in the name of science.
I repeat: real scientists know that, the more we know, the more we know what we don't know. Only some -- not all! -- engineers, who themselves are not scientists, think that science already has all the answers. And yes, while perhaps all phenomena in audio can be measured once we know how to measure them, does not mean that we already know how to do so in all instances.
Wrong. I asked for scientific evidence/data for their objective claim that they "heard" an electrical device "warm up". It is clear you don't know the difference between subjective and objective, despite the constant use of such terms in such discussions. I have never challenged subjective perceptions per se, just the claimed objective cause.
If someone says X sounds better than Y, or they prefer this to that, great!! Party on. So do I.
But when they start giving objective reasons as to why 100% pure silver blah blah blah...
So nothing to do with electro-acoustics or perception. Ok. It is acceptable in your field for completely subjective claims to be accepted as Biochemical facts?
Name one "real" "subjectively established phenomena" that is unexplained by science. That seems the whole point of this thread!
One more time. Name one.
Btw, why on earth would a "real scientist" like a JJ, Toole, Greisinger, Olive, Geddes, et al, post here and share their knowledge if science is so disruptive to believers and possibly forbidden!?
cheers,
AJ
O.k., call it an objective claim, based on subjective perceptions. My points still stand.
Digital engineers had no clue about the severity of the phenomenon of jitter before people were complaining about digital 'harshness' and 'fatigue', a subjective perception. Now of course we know that jitter is an objective, readily measurable phenomenon, and that it is one of the fundamental problems in digital audio -- and digital audio has made great progress over the last three decades precisely because, among others, it has addressed this issue to a serious extent.
A flat frequency curve does not tell everything, neither in digital audio nor in any other area of audio.
As does mine. I certainly can't claim to have made only objective decisions when it comes to women, money or audio.....but I sure do try.
Now it's time to go to this weekends local audiophile club meet...no kidding.
cheers,
AJ
With respect to warm-up, I suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biasing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_transistor_biasing for starters. Here are some key excerpts, which explain what the quiescent point (aka bias) of a circuit is, why it's important and how it relates to distortion (which is of course measurable, and no sane manufacturer relies on distortion measurements when cold); thus, to argue that warm-up effects are not audible is to argue that we can't hear these distortions (and no I am not going to prove that it's easy to hear them, but for starters, think harsh sound from transistors):
What it is:
One of the reasons why we need it:
Why we need to let electronics warm up (thermal considerations):
What can be done to stabilize the quiescent current of a circuit:
The takeaways:
What it is:
One of the reasons why we need it:
Why we need to let electronics warm up (thermal considerations):
What can be done to stabilize the quiescent current of a circuit:
Not sure if the last bullet point refers to servo biasing, but it doesn't matter, servo biasing is another technique.
The takeaways:
- We bias circuits in order to bring them to their optimal operating range
- Proper bias lets transistors and tubes operate in the optimal range of their transconductance or other operating curves, to minimize various distortions (e.g. crossover distortion)
- Bias will vary with heat fluctuations in these devices, thus they must be thermally stabilized
- For quick stabilization, servo-biasing can be employed - otherwise, warm-up can take a long time, depending. Heat sinks are also used
- Status
