What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

Greg,

AFAIK, multichannel will have its problems, but if properly done should be a much more reliable and higher quality system to deliver music with 3D, recreating the illusion of reality, than stereo. I can see no reason why a system with much more directional information and the same fidelity should not be better. The great issue is the lack of proper recordings - no manufacturer will put great effort to perfect a system for a potential market of half a dozen of tittles and few customers.

Every system has its problems - but some problems are more problematic than others!

 

[andy_c]

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

With regard to the "perfect null" issue, I believe it was mentioned in connection with comparing a WAV file with one that had been losslessly compressed via FLAC or some other method, then converted back to WAV again. Upon subtracting the two files, one will come up with all zeros in the digital domain for the sample values.

I was talking about a total null, to zero volts. That's what I'd expect when nulling a Wave file against a lossless copy of itself, which was the context:

"Zero volts" is probably not the correct term, as it won't be exactly zero because of noise and such, but in the digital domain you will get a sequence of all zeros for the situation mentioned above.

Regarding the other issues, I don't agree with Ethan about everything, but Ethan is not the topic of this thread. There's legitimate issues to be discussed, but these should be separated from the people. Even after doing that, it's hard to discuss them because of the divisiveness surrounding these issues.

 

[Gregadd]

Hi Greg. Hope all is well.


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.


No fair bringing the wonderful Jill Scott into the equation!

A wonderful diplomatic response. I invite you to come over to my thread, http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6309-What-s-wrong-with-stereo, with a more detailed response on the shortcomings of stereo and what you espect from a "better format."

I have expereinced a linear progression from mono reproduction where the vocalist and the instrumentalist bunched up along the speakers and had sound quality with no resemblance to reality. The very best of today combined with the best recordings exhibit a 3 dimensionlaity and tonal quality rivaling reality.

I don't like change. I recall Harry Pearson lamenting, where we could have been had the research lavished on solid state focused on tubes instead. Our capitalisitc society requires new inventions and patnents. I question those who want pursue a new technology when they have not exhausted the old. Not tosay technology can't be improved on. We both have heard a system the clealry demonstrates what stereo can do.

If I can borrow your football anology? I don't want to kick a field goal on first down. I'll take a few more shots to the end zone.

 

[Gregadd]

Greg,

AFAIK, multichannel will have its problems, but if properly done should be a much more reliable and higher quality system to deliver music with 3D, recreating the illusion of reality, than stereo. I can see no reason why a system with much more directional information and the same fidelity should not be better. The great issue is the lack of proper recordings - no manufacturer will put great effort to perfect a system for a potential market of half a dozen of tittles and few customers.

Every system has its problems - but some problems are more problematic than others!

I am not familiar witht the advantges of multi-channell. I wonder how long we will wonder int the wilderness in pursuit of yet another format. Oft hand I see problems with mutiple drivers firing in the genral direction of each other.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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

You're welcome! Point well taken, it's not scientific, but it can be instructive. Back when I was working in audio retail, there was a young guy there, a grad of full sail recording school trained in mastering. The kid had great ears. We played a little game. I'd bring in CDs I'd burned with a mix of lossless files and AAC files. He'd walk into the speaker demo room when I was playing them and ID the compressed music. He always got 128, spotted 256 pretty often. Never got 320. Always thought it was lossless. I still haven't told him. I,figure he was doing good getting the 256 as often as he did.

Tim

 

[fas42]

The kid had great ears. We played a little game. I'd bring in CDs I'd burned with a mix of lossless files and AAC files. He'd walk into the speaker demo room when I was playing them and ID the compressed music. He always got 128, spotted 256 pretty often. Never got 320. Always thought it was lossless. I still haven't told him. I,figure he was doing good getting the 256 as often as he did.

Tim

So far, it's apparent to me that the actual format of the file at the time of playback is more important, at least on the equipment that I've experienced this phenomenon on, then how much information is lost along the way. As an example, if I took a high quality RB, compressed it with a high quality encoder like lame to 128, then used Audacity to resample the 128 back up to RB, then the order of SQ would be RB, RB from 128 a little down, and the native 128 would be quite a long way back, with markedly flawed treble.

Frank

 

[Keith_W]

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.

+1. Like you I am familiar with designing double blind experiments, carrying them out, having them analysed by statisticians, peer review, and criticism of published results. I am sure you would agree with me if I were to say that it is very easy to get a null result from an improperly designed test, even if one were measuring something "objective" like a Creatinine level (to say nothing of studies that look at "subjective" metrics like the Geriatric Depression Scale).

What disturbs me in audio is that the double blind tests do not square with my own experience. It is very easy to demonstrate the difference in sound between two amplifiers, but I am surprised that the DBT's seem to indicate no difference. This is enough to make one question the validity of the studies.

 

[fas42]

What disturbs me in audio is that the double blind tests do not square with my own experience. It is very easy to demonstrate the difference in sound between two amplifiers, but I am surprised that the DBT's seem to indicate no difference. This is enough to make one question the validity of the studies.

Once you start to appreciate the subtleties in both electronics behaviour, and how the ear/brain responds to repeated stimuli it makes perfect sense why the two things don't square up. Audio reproduction and hearing are complex mechanisms, and the tests do not appropriately match in their sophistication.

Frank

 

[wgscott]

false dichotomy?

I wonder whether calling someone an "objectivist" (or a "subjectivist") is as counter-productive as calling people who you disagree with politically "socialists" or "communists"? It saves you having to think about what they are saying, but it seems intellectually sloppy. I am not really sure what the term "objectivist" even means, but when I am (frequently) dismissed as one, I assume the term is being used in the sense that Karl Popper used it to describe "objective knowledge" in the context of scientific discovery.

If so, I don't get why people regard this as problematic, any more than they might regard someone who is interested in the organic chemistry of oil painting pigments somehow less able to appreciate art than someone who simply admires paintings.

 

[JackD201]

false dichotomy or misappropriated nomenclature?

 

[Ron Party]

What disturbs me in audio is that the double blind tests do not square with my own experience. It is very easy to demonstrate the difference in sound between two amplifiers, but I am surprised that the DBT's seem to indicate no difference. This is enough to make one question the validity of the studies.

Keith, have you ever taken a DBT re 2 amplifiers? Forget about other tests and test takers. For me, I am less concerned with whether *anyone* can discern a difference and am more concerned with whether I can.

 

[Keith_W]

Keith, have you ever taken a DBT re 2 amplifiers? Forget about other tests and test takers. For me, I am less concerned with whether *anyone* can discern a difference and am more concerned with whether I can.

No I haven't, because it would be rather complex to set up and level match in my own system in its current evolution. Before I converted my speakers to have an active crossover, it was possible to compare amps but not any more! If someone wanted to do it I wouldn't mind participating.

 

[jkeny]

With regard to the "perfect null" issue, I believe it was mentioned in connection with comparing a WAV file with one that had been losslessly compressed via FLAC or some other method, then converted back to WAV again. Upon subtracting the two files, one will come up with all zeros in the digital domain for the sample values.

These are the details I wanted to hear about from Ethan but so far no dice.

"Zero volts" is probably not the correct term, as it won't be exactly zero because of noise and such, but in the digital domain you will get a sequence of all zeros for the situation mentioned above.

Exactly, it won't be 0V - it will have a finite resolution - this is exactly what I was asking him, yet he answered 0V showing me that he had either never done such a test or had done it in a manner which needed some investigation.

Regarding the other issues, I don't agree with Ethan about everything, but Ethan is not the topic of this thread. There's legitimate issues to be discussed, but these should be separated from the people. Even after doing that, it's hard to discuss them because of the divisiveness surrounding these issues.

Sure, Ethan is not the topic of this thread - "what objectivists & subjectivists can learn form each other" - but he has made such bullish & gung-ho statements which are patently untrue, I felt that he had to be challenged. One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that many false claims are made on BOTH sides of the debate. It always seems to me that there is a condescending attitude adopted by the objectivist side in these types of debates as if they have "science" on their side & that claims of "subjectivists" are derided as placebo, imagination & bias. My point in my posts was to show that the so-called "science" adopted by Ethan's strident comments should be likewise queried, tested & validated just as rigorously as any claims by subjectivists.




His repeated objectivist bullish statements about sine waves are the same as music for testing, FFTs are the proof of this, bits is bits & there is nothing else has given me & perhaps others an insight into some of the thinking that is used in the typical objective side of this debate. It has shown me that in fact, it's not an argument between objective science Vs subjective reports but more to do with unfounded claims from whatever side they might emanate.

 

[Ethan Winer]

With regard to the "perfect null" issue, I believe it was mentioned in connection with comparing a WAV file with one that had been losslessly compressed via FLAC or some other method, then converted back to WAV again. Upon subtracting the two files, one will come up with all zeros in the digital domain for the sample values.

Right, that's all I meant when I said "zero volts." A total null, which is not only possible but happens all the time, as shown clearly in my Audio Myths video and the accompanying files.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

Well then, lets get rid of the word perfect...would you say that distortions of any kind, that are down 85db, are inaudible? There is a limit to your ears my friend.

I specifically asked Ethan for the resolution of his claimed tests - he stated a "perfect null" so are you now saying he is wrong? Maybe you should ask him what the resolution of his test were before entering into hypothetical "what if" questions?

- no difference between sine wave & music as a source for testing

in a band limited system, what would that be?

I gave the answer already - Did you miss it?

- no understanding of the limitations of FFT as a measurement technique


Enlighten us please.

I gave the answer already - Did you miss it?

- no understanding of

the parameters outside of the bit-perfectness that may influence D/A conversion


Hey, I might like to know a bit about that if you dont mind

Sure, jitter & noise are two possibles.

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?[/QUOTE]

That goes for you to, thus I asked!

Tom

Sure, goes for everyone - that's why I ask questions too!

 

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by andy_c
With regard to the "perfect null" issue, I believe it was mentioned in connection with comparing a WAV file with one that had been losslessly compressed via FLAC or some other method, then converted back to WAV again. Upon subtracting the two files, one will come up with all zeros in the digital domain for the sample values.

Right, that's all I meant when I said "zero volts." A total null, which is not only possible but happens all the time, as shown clearly in my Audio Myths video and the accompanying files.

--Ethan

I seem to remember that it was in reference to this "My challenge not to Mark in particular, is for the "we can't measure everything thats audible" is to find the article that shows what particular "missing thing" is lurking about in an audio signal." nothing to do with WAV to FLAC & back to WAV - see post 114 if you need to refresh your memory.

You came in with 50+ years ago this was already decided - was WAV & FLAC around 50+ years ago?

Again, I ask you to provide details of the test set-up & results as you haven't done so far!

 

[Gregadd]

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.

Ron

I prefer to think I have high standards that have been met by the best that current stereo has to offer. Others may differ. I suggest the problem is in thier sytem and source material. The shortcominfs of stereo not ignored.

 

[Gregadd]

We are trapped in a "Catch 22" problem here. Those that claim they can measure everything we hear neither can hear nor measure many things subjectivists claim we hear.

 

[Bruce B]

IAgain, I ask you to provide details of the test set-up & results as you haven't done so far!

you won't get any details of a test set-up because he already said he doesn't own any test instruments.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Good tip , i might buy one tomorrow

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.