i can agree with all of your conclusions, but i experienced a different result.
Audiophile Fundamentalism
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
i can agree with all of your conclusions, but i experienced a different result.
Hopefully, I'm ony fashionably late. Interesting topic. I listened to Wilson's video regarding his opinion about "audio fundametalism" and it sounded rather mature. Who could argue it, right? As Dave seems to be approaching this strictly from an audio fundamentalism perspective in which the industry happens to be about as close to 100% subjective as one could hope for.
Regardless, if we remove audio from the term we're left with fundamentalism and to the best of my knowledge fundamentalism or a fundamental core for which everything is built on. For example. If we don't have the fundamentals of basic math down, we may as well be taking calculus or string theory in another galaxy. When we discuss some religions or faiths, we get to the fundamentals of that faith that generally are immovable. And as participants if we don't understand or comprehend those fundamentals then it doesn't take long before we've invented a whole new religion and whole new gospel if we build on the incorrect fundamentals. Fundamentals are the foundation for any industry.
IOW, fundamentalists practicing their fundamentalism mean absolutely everything. Provided the fundamentals in which they adhere are correct / accurate. In contrast, fundamentalism also mean absolutely everything even when the fundamentals are entirely wrong. But building on the correct fundamental foundation at least gives us a fighting chance while building on top of it. In contrast, building on the wrong fundamentals ensures failure right out of the starting gate. With one there is hope and with the other all hope is lost.
Take listening skills for example. There are some fundamentals that exist that if understood will allow us to evaluate, respect, and improve our abilities to discern / interpret what we hear. OTOH, if we're convinced the only fundamental to listening skills is that we're born with two ears and we passed a hearing test last year... well, that's a fundamental built on quicksand that goes nowhere and sadly, there seem to be far too many adhering to this second example.
So I think I get Wilson's point and it's a nice one on paper anyway. But I get the impression he approached the subject as thought there are no fundamental / core rights and wrongs in this industry - or he chose to leave it out of the conversation and if so, why? Regardless, that should be fundamentally incorrect, as even in the most subjective industries/hobbies of which high-end audio is, there always exists at least a few hardcore undeniable immovable fundamentals upon which we must build toward success or failure and that will be determined by our recognizing, adherence, and our execution of those fundamentals. Listening skills is just one example of that.
Sure there are degrees of fundamentalism. There always exists the hardcore fundamentals that when applied / followed, will potentially benefit greatly. Then there are also the more softcore or secondary fundamentals which if followed should provide minor benefit. I suspect Wilson's focus in the video is on the softcore fundamentals perhaps implying he lacked any hardcore fundamentals??? At least that's how he came across to me. Otherwise, I suspect he would haven't spoken so quite so negatively about fundamentalists.
So IMO, fundamentalism regarding core elements is nonnegotiable and an absolute requirement. Fundamentally speaking of course.
Could this just be boiled down to human nature of not liking change?
One example I like to point to is the bicycle industry. It can take decades to come up with simple changes. Flat handlebars are a great example: they are found as stock items on every new mountain bike, but they are not ergonomic. The only reason they exist at all is because in the early days of downhill back in the 1970s, racers in the Marin County area took handlebars off of clubman motorbikes and used them on their heavyweight clunkers for going downhill. Some how the mountain bike has held on to that all this time- but its nothing more than tradition.
One example I like to point to is the bicycle industry. It can take decades to come up with simple changes. Flat handlebars are a great example: they are found as stock items on every new mountain bike, but they are not ergonomic. The only reason they exist at all is because in the early days of downhill back in the 1970s, racers in the Marin County area took handlebars off of clubman motorbikes and used them on their heavyweight clunkers for going downhill. Some how the mountain bike has held on to that all this time- but its nothing more than tradition.
There is certainly that aspect.
Although I've owned bicycles as a teen and even lived in Marin county for a time (San Rafael) I know very little about your example.
However, I'm rather confident that tradition for the sake of tradition can be rather blinding and often times is no different than maintaining the status quo. Both of which includes much folklore, for which high-end audio has much or many.
Good point.
Here's a nice link for you then, if you are interested:
HISTORY | Marin Museum of Bicycling and Mountain Bike Hall of Fame
MOUNTAIN BIKING HISTORY There’s a lot of history, information and mis-information floating around about the origins of mountain biking—some that’s well rese ...
mmbhof.org
Speaking of fundamentalism, start off in the wrong direction and get it utterly wrong.
Ergonomic for who?
While an MTB flat handlebar may not be 'ergonomic' in the sense of comfort and aero in some circumstance they most certainly are fit for purpose. Sure it's possible to get through singletrack on say a cross or gravel bike with drops of whatever shape, in fact whatever alternative shape handle bar one cares to try. No chance when it gets technical and tight at high speed. Knees will see to that on a drop, quick smart. Flat and wide is what you need, be it XC, downhill or enduro, all have gone in this direction. No way XC racers would ride flat and wide if the down side of the poor aero or lack of comfort wasn't more than made up for in other areas. Don't know about UCI events but all local MTB events I'm familiar with allow you to ride pretty much what you like, no one is winning on a modern MTB course on anything other than a specialist MTB - with flat bars!
In contrast to road, one thing MTB has always embraced is technical change. If you want to change geometry, wheel size, type of fork, handle bar, add suspension, a different gear system, whatever, it's embraced. MTB bars have continued to evolve, bar ends and risers have come and gone, lately negative rise is the craze. It'll continue to evolve and bare in mind it's always a balance between weight, function and ergonomics at the sharp end. Be sure if there is a better way, it'll be adopted by MTB.
You might want to look into SQLabs. They make bars that are ergonomic and 'flat' at the same time. With my stock bars no amount of stack height could stop the wrist pain because my hands were at the wrong angle (and this is the sort of bar sold on every full squish ride). The SQLabs bars fixed that (as do the Jones bars on my other mtb). When you're young you can overlook this sort of thing; as you get older you realize that bikes have many traditions that make them torture racks. Dropped bars are another example- great for racing because you have lower drag, but if you're commuting you probably have no business using them. I tend to do ultras and because of the long distances (the Tour Divide is over 2700 miles) little things like this show themselves as injuries over a period of days or weeks.
Like I said, ergonomic for who? SQLabs make a wide variety of bar to suit different requirement
To say that flat bars in MTB exist for archaic reason is just wrong
If you have specific requirement, that's fundamental to you. Not fundamental
I'd be willing to entertain a constructive discussion on your points thus far in the devoted bike thread. Where I suspect you would face more opposition than support for providing the public at large no choice but ergonomic bars on new purchases.
Like I said, ergonomic for who? SQLabs make a wide variety of bar to suit different requirement
To say that flat bars in MTB exist for archaic reason is just wrong
If you have specific requirement, that's fundamental to you. Not fundamental
These reactions are excellent examples of what I'm talking about.
Fundamentalism in audio works exactly the same way. We're really talking about human nature.
Put in a nutshell: As humans we exist as reason and meaning making machines. As such we make up stories all the time, often with the notion that the stories are real. But life does not care what our stories are. When life does not agree with them, we suffer unless we are able to drop our made up stories and work with something that is in harmony with what is.
How this applies to audio is there is a lot of mythology (made up stories) about how things work. For example one common myth is that certain speakers or amps are better for certain genres of music. Its quite pervasive. As a designer, I know better- if someone could find a way to make audio equipment favor a certain genre of music they could make soooo much money.
Adherence to SETs or super low THD amplifiers are two more examples where there are made up stories about how it all works. But the 'what is' is engineering and how the ear/brain system works.
Yes and SETs adhere better to ear/brain masking and natural distortion progression than any other amp topology...within the limits of a particular design of course. Show me a single example from nature that has predominantly odd or only odd harmonics. There really isn’t one...some man made instruments, like clarinet, have a dominant third but not all odd. Only fundamental to science...
The 3rd harmonic is the only odd ordered harmonic that the ear finds innocuous. IOW its treated by the ear the same way it treats the 2nd.
Because this is so, an alternative method of 'getting there' becomes available. If you build an amp that is fully differential it will express the 3rd instead of the 2nd as its primary distortion component. If in sufficient amount, it can mask the higher orders as effectively as the 2nd does in an SET.
However such an amp will be seen to have the 3rd at a level less than the 3rd is seen in an SET. And the succeeding harmonics will be at a lower level too, and their amplitude falling off at a faster rate as the order of the harmonic is increased. This is because distortion is not compounded as much from stage to stage. The result can be an amplifier that is inherently smoother and more detailed, owing directly to the fact that its inherently lower distortion.
No, it is not treated the same, yes it is innocuous but has a different character and it is more audible than 2nd order. An amp that has 3rd dominant will also have 5th, 7th, 9th etc. Either dominant or exclusive of even harmonics. This is not a natural pattern...the whole pattern matters not just a single dominant harmonic...your brain hears (or doesn’t hear) a pattern. We are big pattern recognition machines.
The 3rd harmonic is the only odd ordered harmonic that the ear finds innocuous. IOW its treated by the ear the same way it treats the 2nd.
Because this is so, an alternative method of 'getting there' becomes available. If you build an amp that is fully differential it will express the 3rd instead of the 2nd as its primary distortion component. If in sufficient amount, it can mask the higher orders as effectively as the 2nd does in an SET.
However such an amp will be seen to have the 3rd at a level less than the 3rd is seen in an SET. And the succeeding harmonics will be at a lower level too, and their amplitude falling off at a faster rate as the order of the harmonic is increased. This is because distortion is not compounded as much from stage to stage. The result can be an amplifier that is inherently smoother and more detailed, owing directly to the fact that its inherently lower distortion.
I get that the simple third harmonic story fits a narrative friendly to your amps, which bring differential, will have relatively little even harmonics but to say the ear treats 2nd and third the same is not really true nor is it by any means the whole story...the pattern all the way out matters. All odd harmonics is probably the least natural pattern as there is no mechanism in nature to create it so that we could have evolved to mask it or recognise it as natural.
Also masking depends also on the amplitude of the harmonic. A lower level third will have less masking power for higher harmonics. Also, audibility of harmonics increases exponentially with increasing order such that a third is often audible even when a much higher 2nd is not.
The 3rd harmonic is the only odd ordered harmonic that the ear finds innocuous. IOW its treated by the ear the same way it treats the 2nd.
Because this is so, an alternative method of 'getting there' becomes available. If you build an amp that is fully differential it will express the 3rd instead of the 2nd as its primary distortion component. If in sufficient amount, it can mask the higher orders as effectively as the 2nd does in an SET.
However such an amp will be seen to have the 3rd at a level less than the 3rd is seen in an SET. And the succeeding harmonics will be at a lower level too, and their amplitude falling off at a faster rate as the order of the harmonic is increased. This is because distortion is not compounded as much from stage to stage. The result can be an amplifier that is inherently smoother and more detailed, owing directly to the fact that its inherently lower distortion.
You might want to read this:
Nelson has some interesting comments on this topic.
He hints at but does not go into depth about the mathematical differences (quadratic and cubic non-linearities) of which we've been discussing. But you will see from Nelson's article or if you did the math that your comment isn't exactly right about how the harmonics manifest.
I apologize for this exchange; its really another example of audio fundamentalism. I didn't expect you to respond but you provided a great example. That is why I put up the emoji in my prior post. We as audiophiles tend to wear our issues on our sleeve. I'm just as likely to react to comments I deem incorrect as the next guy.
If it could all be done one way, things would be so much easier. But its not like that- life does not care about our made up stories.
You can get a class D amp to sound as smooth and detailed as a good tube amp if you have the distortion signature right. Heck, if you have the right distortion signature, it really won't matter what the amp is. I'm not talking Carver here. I'm simply talking about the distortion signature.
It is curious that this nice theory goes on along such long time without any quantification and without any experimental verification. All the serious work about audio distortions was carried long ago, when typical distortions were one , two or even three orders of magnitude higher than today.
If this aspect (natural progression) was a fundamental one, people would simply introduce a preamplifier with these distortions and use an extremely linear power amplifier. Audiophile reality is much more complicated and interesting than fundamentalism's ...
Not to my ears they don’t . If you have the lone exception in the world I would love to hear it. I am not a fundamentalist at all...I have followed my ears and this is where it led me...as a scientist I then endeavoured to find out why that might be. You can’t tell me my argument is mainstream or fundamentalist because it dredges up long discarded concepts from “the establishment “ that says ultra low distortion is the key to sonic perfection.
If you are referring to class D here, maybe I can help you out on that one. Would you be up for an audition?
Actually work was done not that long ago by Geddes and Cheever.It is curious that this nice theory goes on along such long time without any quantification and without any experimental verification. All the serious work about audio distortions was carried long ago, when typical distortions were one , two or even three orders of magnitude higher than today.
If this aspect (natural progression) was a fundamental one, people would simply introduce a preamplifier with these distortions and use an extremely linear power amplifier. Audiophile reality is much more complicated and interesting than fundamentalism's ...
Although Geddes work on loudspeakers includes subjective listening tests and was published and refereed, his work on on amplifier distortion is just a proposal - he carefully and honestly writes "To be useful we must show this metric provides a better correlation to actual subjective evaluations than current metrics." (quote from his site) The tests carried in his paper on audibility of non linear distortions were carried with headphones. His work focused on finding a metrics that correlated with subjective sound considering that THD and IMD have no correlation to the perception of the distortion that they are intended to represent, but was just preliminary and IMHO can't support any firm practical conclusion on relative subjective evaluations .
Cheever work is a Master Thesis, nothing else, we addressed it before in WBF. Anyone reading if fully can see it was supposed to be a starting point, proving he has the competence and capacity to go on more in depth studies. It is outdated, and as we can expect most of the time from a master thesis, superficial in fundamental aspects - no one has time to carry significant work in such a reduced period.
IMHO not enough to support any fundamentalism, unless you carry some listening tests in scientific conditions to pursuit and validate their work - no one except you seems currently interested in their work.
Similar threads
