Objectivism explained...

[rockitman]

What's with all this objectivist/subjectivist hub bub ? Life is too short. I consider myself objective but don't enslave myself to specs to determine what's supposed to sound best. In fact my source gear whether RTR or Vinyl measures objectively much worse than digital and by a fair margin in terms of dynamic range and S/N ratio and I'm sure in some other spec area's. Analog to me sounds much better in my implementation. Go figure. Enjoy the music...that's what it's all about in the first place. YMMV

 

[rbbert]

What's with all this objectivist/subjectivist hub bub ? Life is too short. I consider myself objective but don't enslave myself to specs to determine what's supposed to sound best. In fact my source gear whether RTR or Vinyl measures objectively much worse than digital and by a fair margin in terms of dynamic range and S/N ratio and I'm sure in some other spec area's. Analog to me sounds much better in my implementation. Go figure. Enjoy the music...that's what it's all about in the first place. YMMV

Just looking at your system and your hobbies you know it's not that simple

 

[FrantzM]

The problem with all this is the subjective nature of science which isn't being admitted to. Let's face it everybody, science is not as objective as is being made out here. What to measure? How is this decided? What to research? How is this decided? What results are discarded? How is this decided? etc.

Jkeny

Care to elaborate? Let's not bring epistemology to the level of audiophilia where words meaning are regularly mangled ... To repeat: do you want to elaborate on this?

 

[rockitman]

Just looking at your system and your hobbies you know it's not that simple

LOL, I knew my simple life explanation wouldn't work...I guess you have to pick and choose where you need to be objective vs. subjective or go crazy...Personal preferences, goals, resources dictate.

 

[jkeny]

Jkeny

Care to elaborate? Let's not bring epistemology to the level of audiophilia where words meaning are regularly mangled ... To repeat: do you want to elaborate on this?

Frantz, how are the research topics decided in a academic lab - funding considerations, tenure considerations, peer prestige, mainstream acceptability, etc? Tell me where the objectivity comes in. Now how is it decided what experiments to conduct, measurements to take - subjectively decided?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's very hard to imagine that a DAC with noticeable pre-ringing (whether minimum-phase filtering or not) is truly audibly transparent.

Perhaps the simple answer to that is that the pre-ringing in this device is not noticeable.

Meaningful audio DBT's are very difficult to design and perform, as has been repeatedly noted.

I

Statistically meaningful? No, they are not easy. Not nearly as difficult (unobtainable, it seems) as those dying not to believe in them would have it, but not easy. Personally meaningful? Easy as pie. Find a way to blindly switch back and forth between two components or file types; make sure the volume levels are matched. Will you get any statistically significant findings? No. Will you prove anything to anyone else? Probably not. But if that dramatic expansion of sound stage and deepening of inner detail you were hearing in the Excellence Audio Superresolution Whatchamacallit when you could see its pretty lights suddenly becomes...."ummm...need to play that again," followed by an inability to get it right more often than you could get heads out of flippping a coin, you will may learn something about your personal perceptions. I did.

using an audio DBT to try to test for more than 1 or 2 specific sonic characteristics is difficult to the point of impossibility except for gross sonic differences (as anyone who has participated in one knows).

amir's first post is an excellent statement of most problems with the current "objectivist" position

What is and is not a "gross difference," or even an audible one, defines the problems with the current "subjectivist" position. MHO. YMMV

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Perhaps the simple answer to that is that the pre-ringing in this device is not noticeable.

You are surmising! I can tell you that with a PCM5102 DAC chip has two switchable digital filters - a pre-ringing linear phase filter & a minimum phase filter with no pre-ringing. The difference in sound between the two is obvious. Is it due to the pre-ringing? I'm surmising but I have experimental evidence - which one is more likely to be correct?

Statistically meaningful? No, they are not easy. Not nearly as difficult (unobtainable, it seems) as those dying not to believe in them would have it, but not easy.

Really, care to elucidate?

Personally meaningful? Easy as pie. Find a way to blindly switch back and forth between two components or file types; make sure the volume levels are matched. Will you get any statistically significant findings? No. Will you prove anything to anyone else? Probably not. But if that dramatic expansion of sound stage and deepening of inner detail you were hearing in the Excellence Audio Superresolution Whatchamacallit when you could see its pretty lights suddenly becomes...."ummm...need to play that again," followed by an inability to get it right more often than you could get heads out of flippping a coin, you will may learn something about your personal perceptions. I did.

I agree, if things sound so close to one another then bias/placebo is probably very likely

What is and is not a "gross difference," or even an audible one, defines the problems with the current "subjectivist" position. MHO. YMMV

Tim

 

[andy_c]

It's very hard to imagine that a DAC with noticeable pre-ringing (whether minimum-phase filtering or not) is truly audibly transparent.

This brings up an interesting subject. For a normal digital linear-phase brick wall filter used in DAC playback, if there is no input signal energy at the filter's cutoff frequency (ideally 22.05 kHz for CD), no filter pre-ringing will be excited whatsoever. The best illustration of this that I've seen is in a post by Werner on Audio Asylum.

A little background to that post is in order. The type of digital filter usually used in DAC applications is a so-called "half band" filter. Although it cuts off abruptly, it is still only 6 dB down at the Nyquist frequency (again, 22.05 kHz for CD). So if this were used as an anti-aliasing filter in an A/D converter, it would allow some aliasing and violate the sampling theorem. One could say its bandwidth is just a wee bit wider than what would be required to truly eliminate aliasing if used as an anti-aliasing filter internal to an A/D.

He simulates an analog impulse (which has a spectrum that's constant over all frequency) applied to the input of a minimum-phase filter having no pre-ringing, only post-ringing. Further, the cutoff frequency of this filter is chosen so as to completely eliminate aliasing in the A/D application. The resulting digital signal is applied to the input of the linear-phase DAC filter.

But there is no pre-ringing at its output! That's because the bandwidth of the anti-aliasing A/D filter is just a smidgen narrower than that of the half-band DAC filter, so there is no energy present at the cutoff frequency of the DAC filter. Since the filter is linear, it does not generate signals at frequencies not present at its input.

Another way of looking at this is to suppose a linear-phase filter were used as an anti-aliasing filter of the A/D in the recording process. Since this type of filter has pre-ringing, said pre-ringing would be present in the recording itself, assuming the analog input signal had some energy at the cutoff frequency of the filter. It's too late to get rid of it in the DAC.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, how are the research topics decided in a academic lab - funding considerations, tenure considerations, peer prestige, mainstream acceptability, etc? Tell me where the objectivity comes in. Now how is it decided what experiments to conduct, measurements to take - subjectively decided?

The decision to research Audio reproduction rather than Whales reproduction is subjective. The finding about the studies must remain objective and overall repeatable, else it is not science. This is no way proving your earlier post. This is a basic argumentation fallacy...

 

[jkeny]

The decision to research Audio reproduction rather than Whales reproduction is subjective.

As is the decision of what part of audio reproduction to investigate! As is what experiments to conduct. As is what measurements to take. I'm afraid you stop short in your analysis.

The finding about the studies must remain objective and overall repeatable, else it is not science

Did I say that it wasn't?

 

[Ethan Winer]

To me, it is a form of censorship that says no data can be shared if it is not accompanied with a formal listening test.

As I read TOS #8 there, it says that no subjective opinion can be presented as fact without results of a blind listening test. This is very different from "no data" as you wrote.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I can show you a vast number of times where Ethan has ducked the perfectly valid & correct explanation given to him, ignored it & continued to make simplistic arguments.

Why don't you and I do a one-on-one alone, as Amir and I did with jitter last year. We each post once, and nothing continues until everything is addressed fully. This way neither of us can duck anything, and neither of us can claim the other ducked something. And the first person to throw an insult instead of a logical on-point reply loses. Even better, we'll request that nobody else post to keep the s/n high. Deal?

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

The decision to research Audio reproduction rather than Whales reproduction is subjective. The finding about the studies must remain objective and overall repeatable, else it is not science. This is no way proving your earlier post. This is a basic argumentation fallacy...

Yes, the objectives must be objective, but the objectives selection does not need to be objective.

 

[jkeny]

Why don't you and I do a one-on-one alone, as Amir and I did with jitter last year. We each post once, and nothing continues until everything is addressed fully. This way neither of us can duck anything, and neither of us can claim the other ducked something. And the first person to throw an insult instead of a logical on-point reply loses. Even better, we'll request that nobody else post to keep the s/n high. Deal?

--Ethan

Ethan, if I thought for a moment that you are open to learning I would gladly put in the time into it but you have proven over & over again that you have no interest in this - the subtleties either escape you or you ignore them, I don't know which?:

Post from here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...m-vs-Ethan-Winer&p=13666&viewfull=1#post13666

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer
I agree, and I have learned to say "at normal levels" when discussing jitter and dither and the benefit of 24-bit recording. I'm pretty sure I never said "jitter is never audible in any circumstance," but if I did I meant any normal circumstance.

I just did a quick web search on your name and jitter and the second Google link said this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/

"Digital recorders have a unique type of timing deviation called jitter, but with all modern equipment, jitter is so much softer than the music that you’ll never hear it. "

Again you duck the scientific information that Jneutron gives you here to show how power cords can make a difference. Post from here http://72.9.159.100/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10630322&postcount=50

John,

One needs only to review what bad things a power cord is capable of to see that it can indeed make a difference.

I have never been talking about "bad" or broken components. I'm talking about a perfectly competent stock AC power cord that costs less than $5. There is no way to "improve" on that since a good power cord already does what it's supposed to perfectly well - deliver AC power efficiently to a device. Unless the load is 30 amps and the wire is 26 gauge it will work fine.

depending on it's construction, it can be the cause of hum.

How can one 3-wire cord have less hum than another? Wait, don't answer that. Here's the real issue:

The claims made by these snake oil vendors are based on magic, and on the premise that the improvements in clarity can be heard but not measured. This is pure hogwash. If one cord is able to deliver AC power "better" than another, then the improvement can be easily measured at the line level or speaker output connections. This is all I care about, and all I've been addressing.

Twist: The intent of a twist is to average out the magnetic field, so that any proximity loop ...

I'm also not considering badly shielded signal wires in proximity to an unshielded power cord picking up 60 Hz interference. The correct solution for that is move the wires, not waste $1,000 on a new power cord.

--Ethan[/QUOTE]
I could go on but this is probably enough evidence of your ducking!

 

[FrantzM]

Yes, the objectives must be objective, but the objectives selection does not need to be objective.

I don't fully get your point but humans beings deal with emotions and these determine the course of many of their actions, or the choice that they make.. For example Some methods and/or protocols although objective would be judged reprehensible by most people ... that the subjectivity part... The studies themselves have to abide to the notions of objectivity and repeatability. Jkeny claims in his post on the "subjectivity of science" remain unproven by his argumentation ...

 

[jkeny]

I don't fully get your point but humans beings deal with emotions and these determine the course of many of their actions, or the choice that they make.. For example Some methods and/or protocols although objective would be judged reprehensible by most people ... that the subjectivity part... The studies themselves have to abide to the notions of objectivity and repeatability. Jkeny claims in his post on the "subjectivity of science" remain unproven by his argumentation ...

I already gave you the details & Microstrip has said the same - just repeating your claim does not make it true. Try dealing with the details of what I said, please - it's much more productive than a pi**ing contest, don't you think?

 

[Ron Party]

Ethan, if I thought for a moment that you are open to learning I would gladly put in the time into it but you have proven over & over again that you have no interest in this - the subtleties either escape you or you ignore them, I don't know which?:

Post from here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...m-vs-Ethan-Winer&p=13666&viewfull=1#post13666


Again you duck the scientific information that Jneutron gives you here to show how power cords can make a difference. Post from here http://72.9.159.100/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10630322&postcount=50


--Ethan

I could go on but this is probably enough evidence of your ducking!

You state you've no interest but then do exactly that in which you stated disinterest. Moreover, I know you at least scanned Amir's and Ethan's thread and as been readily acknolwedged, Ethan definitely learned something from that thread and included the same in his book, so the evidence is that Ethan indeed is open to learning. I would hope you share the same openness.

It is readily apparent (to me, at least) that you have vast experience and knowledge and, as such, I personally would like to ask you to please reconsider. Please understand that in such a thread you are posting not only to have a respectful one-on-one dialogue with Ethan but just as if not more importantly you are posting for many, many others (including me) who would benefit greatly in our understandings of the topic(s). It is indeed rare and therefore something to be valued to have such an opportunity in an on-line A/V forum.

 

[FrantzM]

I already gave you the details & Microstrip has said the same - just repeating your claim does not make it true. Try dealing with the details of what I said, please - it's much more productive than a pi**ing contest, don't you think?

I backed my position you haven't. Now if you take it as a pissing contest, not my inclination... Claims need to be substantiated that's all you made a big one and your rationale IME is flawed I pointed you to it .. Microstrip post doesn't prove your point either...

 

[jkeny]

You state you've no interest but then do exactly that in which you stated disinterest. Moreover, I know you at least scanned Amir's and Ethan's thread and as been readily acknolwedged, Ethan definitely learned something from that thread and included the same in his book, so the evidence is that Ethan indeed is open to learning. I would hope you share the same openness.

Ethan learned that HDMI has high jitter - is this what you mean? This is so basic as to be trivial, moreover he goes on to make the qualification that he doubts it is audible. I don't consider this a movement or progress, do you?

It is readily apparent (to me, at least) that you have vast experience and knowledge and, as such, I personally would like to ask you to please reconsider. Please understand that in such a thread you are posting not only to have a respectful one-on-one dialogue with Ethan but just as if not more importantly you are posting for many, many others (including me) who would benefit greatly in our understandings of the topic(s). It is indeed rare and therefore something to be valued to have such an opportunity in an on-line A/V forum.

I already stated it - he has been presented with the deep scientific detail better than I could produce from the likes of Amirm, Jneutron - the information they have presented is not trivial or equivocating, yet he still maintains that power cords can make no audible difference & jitter is inaudible.

There is nothing I can add which will be of any use.

BTW, I appreciate the new tone in your posts towards me

 

[jkeny]

I backed my position you haven't. .....

Great! But i can spell my name in the snow