What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[jkeny]

There are several such tests in my AES Audio Myths video, and you can download the original files from my web site using the link in the video description.

What I asked you for was a link to the detailed test setup & results of a null test not some promotional video. If you can't provide such a link then you have no experimental evidence which can be repeated - the first criteria needed to qualify a test as scientific.

You make claims about a perfect null of a music signal to 0 volts - I say rubbish until you provide the evidence!

I take it you haven't been arguing in audio forums for very long. Rule #1: Saying "wrong" with no further explanation is not saying anything at all. If you believe Fourier was wrong, I don't know what to tell you. But rather than just call you wrong back, I'll actually provide evidence:

Fourier Series

--Ethan

Here's a clue
- No information about how frequencies evolve over time
- Not suitable for impulsive signals

Any idea now why a sine wave is not the same as music when testing?

You have already shown that you can't read an FFT & make the mistake, pointed out by AndyC, that you interpret it as a graph & misrepresent SNR

 

[andy_c]

My post with the FFTs was in response to this post. It seemed to me that said post was making the implicit assumption that the SNR could be determined by inspection of the FFT plot. But Bruce did not state that explicitly, so I did not address my FFT post to him specifically, as I'm not certain that was his intent, and still am not.

 

[rbbert]

^^^ We regularly provide treatment at all the major audio shows, even if we don't attend in person. We just had a bunch of products at the Montreal show.

--Ethan

Not even close to what I meant. If you are merely providing products, or even ad hoc simple room analysis from a distance, you aren't really setting up a room to optimally demonstrate equipment or provide good sound. Setting up a room is what Bruce B. did very well at last year's RAMF (and I think he may have used some of your products).

 

[Ron Party]

Apparently, though, our hardware is already perfect and the only frontiers worth investigating are multi-channel and room acoustics. I suspect that more investigation in those areas will show we already have all the answers there too

I have not seen any real evidence presented, or even an opinion (from the objectivists), that they do listen.<snip>

Please. WBF should be above blatant mischaracterizations. I, for one, am not interested in furthering such a comical conversation.

 

[Ron Party]

IMHO, one of the more inane posts I've read anywhere.

I would think that, given the growing importance of audio shows and the inherent difficulty of getting good sound at them, that Ethan's services would be much in demand in setting up any number of rooms. Why isn't that happening?

Not even close to what I meant. If you are merely providing products, or even ad hoc simple room analysis from a distance, you aren't really setting up a room to optimally demonstrate equipment or provide good sound. Setting up a room is what Bruce B. did very well at last year's RAMF (and I think he may have used some of your products).

And, again, please. If you want to play games of semantics and deem yourself holier-than-thou, WBF is not the place for you. If you want to have a respectful, intellectually honest dialogue, you will be greeted with open arms, even including Ethan's. Focus on the post, not the poster.

 

[rbbert]

Please. WBF should be above blatant mischaracterizations. I, for one, am not interested in furthering such a comical conversation.

You know, I would much prefer to be able to choose and evaluate audio equipment based on appropriate measurements. Life would be simpler and more enjoyable.

Double-blind testing is an accepted scientific method; Google my name and you will see it as an author on several scientific papers utilizing this methodology. The problem is (as has been pointed out) designing a study to be truly neutral toward outcome, and then implementing it appropriately is so rare as to be notable when it occurs. Although I'm not intimately familiar with the spectrum of DBT's in audio and psychoacoustic research, I have not run across any which would actually stand up to a rigorous analysis. As Myles Astor noted in another thread recently, none or almost none utilize internal controls to test the study design's validity. And I know from personal experience with audio DBT's that concentrating on more than one or two audio qualities during switching is extremely difficult, a fact Tim alluded to in his comment about certain listeners like amir and IDing MP3's.

So to hang one's hat on audio DBT's as a method of identifying and/or furthering the state-of-the-art is foolhardy from a scientific perspective. IMO, the objectivists' viewpoints posted on this forum fail simple tests of logic; so do many of the subjectivists', but they probably don't put as much stock in being logical and scientific.

I fail to see how it is a "blatant mischaracterization" that objectivists don't listen. Haven't you been to concerts in halls designed by objectivists and based on measurements? Haven't quite a few had to be redesigned and rebuilt or simply abandoned because of the resulting poor sound?

 

[rbbert]

And, again, please. If you want to play games of semantics and deem yourself holier-than-thou, WBF is not the place for you. If you want to have a respectful, intellectually honest dialogue, you will be greeted with open arms, even including Ethan's. Focus on the post, not the poster.

What in the world are you reading? Ethan "thanks" Bruce for dismissing Ethan's opinions as not worthy of continued discourse? And what part of "setting up" audio rooms was unclear?

If the objectivists want to be regarded as scientists, they had better start acting like them. I've said my piece and I'm out of here as well.

 

[Steve williams]

Hey guys

let's keep the debate polite and not let it go down hill

 

[mep]

A big problem I (and I suspect others here) have is that blind tests similar to those you reference also show that moderate bit-rate MP3s are indistinguishable from CD-quality audio, a claim that I don't think you wish to make (but I could be wrong).

Nope. No one who is being intellectually honest is making that claim.

Ron-I’m really not so sure that no one is making that claim on WBF. I think Tim’s statement below comes real close to saying exactly that and that is not the first time that I have seen people make similar statements on WBF since its founding:

For my part, here's what I believe: I believe there are listeners out there who are trained to hear codec compression artifacts. Amir is one of them. I think the most experienced among them can't not hear these artifacts, even when listening to very high quality codecs at 320kbps and above. But most have to listen for them, not to the music to hear them. Civilians? If just your average room full of audiophiles were claiming they could ID 320kbps AAC file from lossless, 8 out of 10 times on average, I'd lay serious money on the table. Tim

 

[Ron Party]

Hi Mark. I don't read any inconsistency. rbbbert's statement is absolute. Tim's is not. Those who we label as *objectivists* when being intellectually honest do not. IOW, some people cannot tell the difference, some can. As such, do we or do we not have a mischaracterization?

Seriously, Mark (and others), re-read the first post, but do so being intellectually honest, and tell me this is not stereotyping:

Objectivists tend to focus on bass because it is relatively easy to get the midrange and top end flat, and aligned in time and phase. It is bass which is tricky. In contrast, subjectivists tend to place less weight on the importance of subwoofer setup and concern themselves more with tone, imaging, dynamics, PRAT, etc. (you know, the things that make music sound nice). As a result - most objectivists have linear but boring sounding systems. Subjectivists have engaging but flawed sounding systems.

My theory is - objectivists have forgotten how to listen, and subjectivists have ignored the importance of measurements. [Emphasis original.]

I'd like to think we here at WBF are above that.

 

[Gregadd]

Thus my confusion, rbbert. Has anyone (and, in particular, Ethan & Tim, since Tom just replied) posted perfect reproduction is attainable?

Ron. I don't think they have. But that at least is not my point. How close can we get? My point is we can get hauntingly close. Of course it is an illusion. Near hologrphic is possible. It would be easy to discard it for not being perfect. Then why even bothter with binaural or mutlichannel. I guranntee they are not perfect either. Indeed binauaral and multichannel may do some things better than a stereo pair. They bring on thier own set of problems. That't true of almost anything man made.Saying stereo is imperfect in imaging is red herring that does nothing to aid in our quest to recreate live music.

Our quest then is not to be the best we can from microphone to speaker to room. It mus be judged by the ear/brain interface. I face this in my own profession where psychiatry is this least favored of the forensic scineces (beleive a lot of junk science has sent defendants to jail). Not just disfavored often ridiclued.

I do readily concede that I could hear a 3 dimensional image in my living room. As Tim points out I might go back and find that the musicians were not in the same room when the recording was made. Like Jill Scotts' Live in Paris CD. I can play the CD and DVD and determine that the image is very close to the video. And might even be better with the appropriate size room and higher quality equipment.

 

[mep]

Ron-Of course it’s stereotyping and I think it was intentionally meant to be. I took it as an opening salvo to get the conversation started and not that either of his statements were absolute truths about objectivists or subjectivists.

 

[Gregadd]

Tom, It's simple - Ethan makes a claim, I'm asking him to show the evidence - I'm sure you understand this type of request - it happens all the time with subjective claims. This is very pertinent to the topic of the thread, don't you think? Let's hope we can all learn a thing or two from one another?

So rather than talking about theoretical & mathematical concepts - let's talk about the real world, no?

If Ethan doesn't understand FFT's & their limitations as AndyC has already pointed out Ethan's misunderstanding about FFTs, maybe the whole concept of the difference between a single sine wave test Vs a test using real music escapes him? Let's see?

OK, just to clear things up - Ethan has made wild & inaccurate claims that about null test - that the null test will cancel each other completely - I asked for examples & test procedures of an actual test. Firstly, there is no such thing as absolute null - it has a resolution depth - maybe AndyC can say something about this using Diffmaker. Secondly, let's see some real-world tests rather than talking theoretically - here's one that I'm sure will give rise to some discussion http://www.thuneau.com/MPC/results.htm

For me at least the nice bell shaped sine wave used for demonstrations is quite different from the jagged eratic curves we see in real music

 

[microstrip]

Time for a commercial for those who want to learn about high-end

Just received the lastest TAS -issue 223. It includes a great series entitled Amplifier Designer Roundtable with interviews with nine well known high-end designers about amplifier design. Many aspects these debates are addressing are covered there, although not in great depth, as each designer only gets two pages, including advertisements.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My statement about 320kbps vs lossless is not absolute. And if I bet serious money with that roomful of audiophiles, I might lose, but I sincerely do believe the odds would be deep in my favor, because the difference between good 320 and lossless, in spite of it having been greatly exaggerated on audiophile forums, is very small. Has anyone here used AB/X software to compare them? I have.

If I really wanted to stack the deck, I wouldn't do an ABX at all, I'd just have a party in which a roomful of audiophiles listened to a new system or speakers or component -- where we gathered together and compared something altogether different -- and I'd slip a couple of 320s or two in to the rotation, along with a buch of redbook and maybe even a couple of hi-res files and see if anybody noticed anything. I very seriously doubt they would. That doesn't mean there's no audible difference. It just means that it doesn't amount to squat unless that's what you're listening to.

rbert, by the way, I have a pair of Etymotics, and some Audio Technicas I don't like very much, but the phones that are plugged into the cheap Panny are essentially the same as your own; they're HD-580s. And I don't say that cheap Panny sounds good lightly. I have compared it to several expensive and respectable dedicated headphone amps and to the headphone sections of better integrated amps and receivers. It wins. I think the secret is that it is one of Panny's early all-digital AV receivers, so it converts everything coming into it immediately to 24/192, processes everything in the digital domain, then converts just before it runs the analog signal into an unidentified opamp. And FWIW, all I use if for is a headamp. There are no speakers plugged in, the main amps are always turned off, even the display is shut down. I'm sure the power supply is nothing to write home about, but I guess running an opamp to put out a few hundred milliwatts must not be much of a challenge as it is dead quiet (below the noise floor of my head, anyway) and controls the bass on the Senns beautifully. Go figure. It shouldn't sound this good, but it does.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-I really feel like you are dancing around on the head of a pin. You are saying that your statement about 320kbs vs lossless in not absolute, but yet you imply it's damn near absolute. The bottom line is that you are willing to get out your wallet and bet that audiophiles won't/can't hear the difference because the difference "doesn't amount to squat."

I guess that leaves the definition of "squat" open to interpretation, but it means damn little in my book.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I really feel like you are dancing around on the head of a pin. You are saying that your statement about 320kbs vs lossless in not absolute, but yet you imply it's damn near absolute. The bottom line is that you are willing to get out your wallet and bet that audiophiles won't/can't hear the difference because the difference "doesn't amount to squat."

I guess that leaves the definition of "squat" open to interpretation, but it means damn little in my book.

Oh I think you've got me about right, Mark. Absolute is a really big word. It's like perfect. There's no room for ambiguity in there. Am I dancing on the head of a pin? No, I'm avoiding the sharply defined, utterly unambiguous point of the pin. On the point of that pin, the difference is inaudible. I'm not going there. Does that mean I believe many of you would be able to consistently differentiate between 320kbps and lossless? No. Given a good quality codec, I'd guess only a handful of guys on this board could consistently tell between 320 and lossless. Some material, listening for artifacts, maybe. Consistently? Very doubtful.

You've got a server. Go out there and download an ABX comparator program. Convert a lossless file to 320. Then just listen to music and switch back and forth. Don't try to find the one little detail where an artifact will stand out and play it over and over again. Do what you do with your system; listen to good music. Just switch back and forth and write down what you hear. Then check your results. It's a damned interesting exercise.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

If I really wanted to stack the deck, I wouldn't do an ABX at all, I'd just have a party in which a roomful of audiophiles listened to a new system or speakers or component -- where we gathered together and compared something altogether different -- and I'd slip a couple of 320s or two in to the rotation, along with a buch of redbook and maybe even a couple of hi-res files and see if anybody noticed anything. (...)
Tim

Tim,
Thanks for letting us know how one should NOT carry listening sessions! Next time I should carry my listening sessions without light refreshments.

 

[Ron Party]

Hi Greg. Hope all is well.

Ron. I don't think they have. But that at least is not my point. How close can we get? My point is we can get hauntingly close. Of course it is an illusion. Near hologrphic is possible. It would be easy to discard it for not being perfect. Then why even bothter with binaural or mutlichannel. I guranntee they are not perfect either. Indeed binauaral and multichannel may do some things better than a stereo pair. They bring on thier own set of problems. That't true of almost anything man made.Saying stereo is imperfect in imaging is red herring that does nothing to aid in our quest to recreate live music.

All of us, for whatever reason(s), have different abilities to suspend disbelief. As such, one may feel we have come exceedingly close to recreating the mythical live event. I for one don't think we have come close. Having stated that, I don't think this a right or wrong statement.

For at least some of us who think the goal post is at the other end of the field, we're looking/hoping that some new format, recording technique, surround processing, etc., will move us closer to the goal post. And for at least some of us, we look to understand why we're a field apart and how something will move us closer. As such, we cannot a priori dismiss any part of the process.

I do readily concede that I could hear a 3 dimensional image in my living room. As Tim points out I might go back and find that the musicians were not in the same room when the recording was made. Like Jill Scotts' Live in Paris CD. I can play the CD and DVD and determine that the image is very close to the video. And might even be better with the appropriate size room and higher quality equipment.

No fair bringing the wonderful Jill Scott into the equation!

 

[jkeny]

My post with the FFTs was in response to this post. It seemed to me that said post was making the implicit assumption that the SNR could be determined by inspection of the FFT plot. But Bruce did not state that explicitly, so I did not address my FFT post to him specifically, as I'm not certain that was his intent, and still am not.

Ok, I agree he may not have intended this but in other respects he has shown a lack of understanding with regard to the statements he has made
- a prefect null is achievable
- no difference between sine wave & music as a source for testing
- no understanding of the limitations of FFT as a measurement technique
- no understanding of the parameters outside of the bit-perfectness that may influence D/A conversion

If he is purporting to use objective measurements to do analysis of music signals & make categorical statements about this, then he should at least know some of the above, don't you think?