Funded by who, and what repeatable verifiable evidence have they come up with? Where are their peer reviewed papers? .... or is this more like high end audio cables and fuses?read your own post :) you accuse me of being idiot audiophile when we speak about serious medical testimonies of perception out of the brain... Then you dare to ask where is that documentation.... It is mockery not interest, a child can google and verify books sources and references by himself.... Do you need me?
IM Distortion, Speakers and the Death of Science
One topic that often comes up is perception vs. measurements.
"If you can't measure it with common, existing measurements it isn't real."
This idea is and always will be flawed. Mind you, maybe what you perceive is not worth $1, but this is not how science works. I'm reminded of how many doctors and scientists fought against modernizing polio interventions, and how only recently did the treatment for stomach ulcers change radically due to the curiosity of a pair of forensic scientists.
Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual data. Lets take an example.
You are working on phone technology shortly after Bell invents the telephone. You hear one type of transducer sounds better than another. Why is that? Well, you have to figure out some way to see it (literally), via a scope, a charting pen, something that tells you in an objective way why they are different, that allows you to set a standard or goal and move towards it.
This person probably did not set out to measure all possible things. Maybe the first thing they decide to measure is distortion, or perhaps frequency response. After visualizing the raw data the scientist then has to decide what the units are, and how to express differences. Lets say it is distortion. In theory, there could have been a lot of different ways to measure distortion. Such as Vrms - Vrms (expected) /Hz. Depending on the engineer's need at the time, that might have been a perfectly valid way to measure the output.
But here's the issue. This may work for this engineer solving this time, and we may even add it to the cannon of common measurements, but we are by no means done.
So, when exactly are we done?? At 1? 2? 5? 30? The answer is we are not. There are several common measurements for speakers for instance which I believe should be done more by reviewers:
- Compression
- Intermodulation ( IM ) Distortion
- Distortion
and yet, we do not. IM distortion is kind of interesting because I had heard about it before from M&K's literature, but it reappeared for me in the blog of Roger Russel ( http://www.roger-russell.com ) formerly from McIntosh. I can't find the blog post, but apparently they used IM distortion measurements to compare the audibility of woofer changes quite successfully.
Here's a great example of a new measurement being used and attributed to a sonic characteristic. Imagine the before and after. Before using IM, maybe only distortion would have been used. They were of course measuring impedance and frequency response, and simple harmonic distortion, but Roger and his partner could hear something different not expressed in these measurements, so, they invent the use of it here. That invention is, in my mind, actual audio science.
The opposite of science would have been to say "frequency, impedance, and distortion" are the 3 characteristics which are audible, forever. Nelson pass working with the distortion profile, comparing the audible results and saying "this is an important feature" is also science. He's throwing out the normal distortion ratings and creating a whole new set of target behavior based on his experiments. Given the market acceptance of his very expensive products I'd say he's been damn good at this.
What is my point to all of this? Measurements in the consumer literature have become complacent. We've become far too willing to accept the limits of measurements from the 1980's and fail to develop new standard ways of testing. As a result of this we have devolved into camps who say that 1980's measures are all we need, those who eschew measurements and very little being done to show us new ways of looking at complex behaviors. Some areas where I believe measurements should be improved:
We have become far too happy with this stale condition, and, for the consumers, science is dead.
"If you can't measure it with common, existing measurements it isn't real."
This idea is and always will be flawed. Mind you, maybe what you perceive is not worth $1, but this is not how science works. I'm reminded of how many doctors and scientists fought against modernizing polio interventions, and how only recently did the treatment for stomach ulcers change radically due to the curiosity of a pair of forensic scientists.
Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual data. Lets take an example.
You are working on phone technology shortly after Bell invents the telephone. You hear one type of transducer sounds better than another. Why is that? Well, you have to figure out some way to see it (literally), via a scope, a charting pen, something that tells you in an objective way why they are different, that allows you to set a standard or goal and move towards it.
This person probably did not set out to measure all possible things. Maybe the first thing they decide to measure is distortion, or perhaps frequency response. After visualizing the raw data the scientist then has to decide what the units are, and how to express differences. Lets say it is distortion. In theory, there could have been a lot of different ways to measure distortion. Such as Vrms - Vrms (expected) /Hz. Depending on the engineer's need at the time, that might have been a perfectly valid way to measure the output.
But here's the issue. This may work for this engineer solving this time, and we may even add it to the cannon of common measurements, but we are by no means done.
So, when exactly are we done?? At 1? 2? 5? 30? The answer is we are not. There are several common measurements for speakers for instance which I believe should be done more by reviewers:
- Compression
- Intermodulation ( IM ) Distortion
- Distortion
and yet, we do not. IM distortion is kind of interesting because I had heard about it before from M&K's literature, but it reappeared for me in the blog of Roger Russel ( http://www.roger-russell.com ) formerly from McIntosh. I can't find the blog post, but apparently they used IM distortion measurements to compare the audibility of woofer changes quite successfully.
Here's a great example of a new measurement being used and attributed to a sonic characteristic. Imagine the before and after. Before using IM, maybe only distortion would have been used. They were of course measuring impedance and frequency response, and simple harmonic distortion, but Roger and his partner could hear something different not expressed in these measurements, so, they invent the use of it here. That invention is, in my mind, actual audio science.
The opposite of science would have been to say "frequency, impedance, and distortion" are the 3 characteristics which are audible, forever. Nelson pass working with the distortion profile, comparing the audible results and saying "this is an important feature" is also science. He's throwing out the normal distortion ratings and creating a whole new set of target behavior based on his experiments. Given the market acceptance of his very expensive products I'd say he's been damn good at this.
What is my point to all of this? Measurements in the consumer literature have become complacent. We've become far too willing to accept the limits of measurements from the 1980's and fail to develop new standard ways of testing. As a result of this we have devolved into camps who say that 1980's measures are all we need, those who eschew measurements and very little being done to show us new ways of looking at complex behaviors. Some areas where I believe measurements should be improved:
- The effects of vibration on ss equipment
- Capacitor technology
- Interaction of linear amps with cables and speaker impedance.
We have become far too happy with this stale condition, and, for the consumers, science is dead.
Showing 29 responses by mahgister
pure speculationThis is a non scientific name when someone want to tell ill about what is in fact a research program... Penrose came up with the concept of the quantum brainNot at all.... You have not even picking his main point at all For Penrose consciousness DOES NOT emerge from the brain.... His conception of consciousness is linked to cosmology , it is the brain that emerge from consciousness.... That you want to believe it is true to support a preferred world view does not change the total lack of evidence.Where is your evidence I will repeat mine, enormous medical literature, mathematics of high level, physician like Penrose, but I can suggest others if you want...Neurologist also.... Where is yours? give some lecture about consciousness? not neural network mathematicals formulas tough I already know that... Richard Dawkins literature? no thanks.... |
where Penrose makes the rather obvious (if you have AI knowledge) conclusion that the human brain is not "algorithmic", and by extension cannot be modelled by a Touring Machine.This is not true, some aspect of the brain can be modelled like a Turing machine, even Penrose will say that... His point is Consciousness is not the brain at all....It is like a quantum computer linked to a classical computer in some approximation and in some parts, some parts of the brain are like a computer, but the entire brain is working also at the microtubules level linked with the universal external memory, where is the consciousness that survive death... Memory dynamic is not reducible to neurons, that go another second scale under: microtubules; and that go another third level under: quantum states....The consciousness is not in the brain at all... By the way mathematics is concept creation first, not only Turing machine.... |
A HYPOTHESIS of consciousness. A scientist would never call what was written a theory as theory would imply significant evidence in support of said theory, and there is not. It is a hypothesis.Sometimes it will be helpful to read other books than engineer one....There is theory of consciousness now, and no theory of matter in the 19 century meaning of the word survive1925... Matter is a hypothesis now, in fact matter exist hypothetically for our convenience,not a fundamental reality anymore.... Consciousness was a superfluous hypothesis few decades ago but no more that, it is a hypothesis beginning to be a reality... You pick it? This is called paradigm change, this change does not appear first in engineering studies... |
The perception of sound is not entirely the signal. And the noise and distortion is not entirely that comprised in the measured Signal to Noise + Distortion ratio.This is also my understanding....I cannot negate that at all... Phenomena are so interlinked with one another, that to understand some we must separated them artificially...This separation is necessary, but this impose a limitation to the understanding that we must be conscious of... If not, we begins to be dogmatic.... Sorry heaudio... |
Sheldrake and Penrose are not contradictory theory at all... and Geoff I apologize for not knowing Peter Belt theory sorry...I am mostly interested by mathematics.... IMHO Penrose went a little bit crazy later on you know, with the Emperor’s New Mind and the quantum mechanics of the brain/mind. Way too philosophical.This is not true by the way, a theory of consciousness implicating quantum theory, a reinterpretation of the role of gravity, and a cosmological theory and microtubules biology and neurology, linked together in some experimental research programs is not only a philosophical one, sorry.... Read Hameroff and Penrose they worked together...You must refresh your reading because Penrose and Hameroff collaboration begins after the publication of the Emperor`s new mind 35 five years ago ... :) By the way all that Penrose conceptions are only one example of an interesting theory, they are other one...Personally I even have mine, implicating linguistic and mathematic... The only point of view in common with all the theories that interest me: they are not materialist one.... Materialism is gone now for good after 1925... Except for crowds....But I know for sure you know that already....Heaudio does not seems to know that at this moment.... My best to you all... |
I can only say "huh"? "Indepedence of conscious" ....Medical reanimation research that confirm many times perception without brain function does not count? Scientific literature for that is vast now, medicine is a science also you know.... Personal experience is lies or hallucinations also for you, the cannot be facts even if correlated and corroborated? Mathematics you dont know has no value either? Grothendieck concept of universe no value? Penrose reading of Godel no value? Godel valuing intuition over logic: the hallucination of a moron in logic? Cantor advocating the creation of new concepts in mathematics over formal logic, an idiot? You make me smile , fact without philosophical interpretation exist? A rock is a rock when your feet push it.... All reality is there ? But there is a glimpse of hope in your dogmas, if you think seriously at "this something we can agree on" you will understand my point about the creation of concepts... This may be something we can agree on, though more likely co-existence in the same space could be incompatible.I apologize for being a bit arrogant but you are yourself at least on par with me.... :)and would be at some point incompatible with the survival of the human race... I will not try to convince you, consciousness transform itself only at the right moment in his evolutive dynamic.... Arguing is of no value it is better to see by ourselves... My best to you... |
heaudio123 It is easy to guess that you are a competent engineer....I will not discuss dac with you... :) The human brain is just a biological implementation of what amounts to a computerThis is false for almost all thinkers(not for most A.I. engineers tough because claiming contrary help to fund them, the human brain project of Markham for example) This is even false mathematically speaking...Penrose and others to numerous to cite here...Like for example Kurt Godel, but Godel point is so subtle than it is missed buy most...This subtle point can be guess if you think about the necessary condition for concepts creation that I suggest in this post... but if you have a hard concept of a computer only being digital logic then you will not understand where AI will go.Even with the coupling of quantum computer to classical computer you will not create a real conscious intelligence... You know why if you have read my post :creating concepts is possible only for an entity grounded in the living universe and able to see it from an outside point at the same time... This polarity condition is the basis of linguistic and the basis of mathemathical concept creation also...The apparent superiority of computers is precisely at the same time the reason why they cannot create concepts valid between worlds but only schemas valid in their own and unique artificial world... Conceptual thinking linked to metaphorical thinking is not only and mainly static schemas but a dynamical engine embodied in language and a powerful seeds for new worlds...Robot dont speak even if you listen to them speaking, because they were never born and will not die either, they cease to be functional, they are not grounded in the cosmic universal living memory like the brain that is only a creative filter and antenna...Computer has no values.... They are amoral programmed, or auto programmed "learning" machine...Like a hammer... A complex A.I will only be able to create an artificial world of his own, and will coincide totally itself with this closed artificial universe, unlike humans or unlike living entities and would be at some point incompatible with the survival of the human race...Man and living conscious entities die, they go from a universe to another one...Read some other books than engineer manuals... :) Science is not what you think....Science is a complex endeavour of the free human spirit not dogmas... For example reanimation medicine validated scientifically the independence of consciousness in relation to the brain... This is one only of the new direction of scientific research ... For the mathematics linked to these new science era and describing abstractly the link between consciousness and universe, they are beyond the mathematics of all the 20th century and too new to be discussed here...They are not A.I neural network algorithm for sure... |
When you understand AI learning and architecture you realize in many ways that aspects are much like evolution and happening in real time. And yes, more creative that Beethoven and an even farther reaching mind than Einstein.You are right on only one aspect: This apparent superiority is an illusion....The map is not reality, never mind the sophistication of the map... "Far reaching mind" ? Goethe cannot be replicate, nor Bach, they are living organism that speak to other living organism.... A machine will speak numbers in so much complicated strings to another machine , no human mind can understand them not even their creators... But it is not something that have to be understood, it is a closed code between two machine or more and synchronizing them.... A machine will live in a sea of numbers without being able ever to see numbers from the outside and creating concepts about numbers....( this is an important point about what is really a concept) Sorry it is elementary mathematics for the mathematical mind...Read Godel, Cantor, Ramanujan, Grothendieck, even Archimedes will do... One of the greatest genius to ever lived is Archimedes, and do you know what is his central idea? the concept of the infinite....(Reviel Nietz is specialist of Archimedes). No machine will ever invent a concept? It is simple to know why.... To invent a concept you must live grounded internally in a universe, and you must at the same time see it from the outside.... I will not explain it here but this fact is the basic of linguistic and not only of mathematics...Read Ernst Cassirer, a philosopher and a scientist friend of Einstein, that discuss relativity with him, that know enough quantum mechanics to discuss with Bohr... Not an audiophile...:) Life is among other things a universal connected cellular "active" infinite memory, and A.I. artificial memory, so powerful it will be, is nothing to compared with....By the way my ideas comes mostly from mathematics, but more sophistical ideas than just algorithmic theory for engineer...The mathematics linked to this universal memory of life are so new they are created 8 years ago by a Mathematician from Japan (Shinichi Mochizuki under the title Inter-universal geometry or arithmetic deformation theory)... Enjoy the read....And dont think audiophile are all stupid....I dont think that all engineers are stupid.... |
Only, only, if the validation by humans is reproducible under controlled conditions, otherwise it is just conjecture.Ok take a piece of shungite around 500 grams, put it on the electrical central panel of your house, or anywhere in the audio system, the sound will change...For the worse or for the better.... The important thing is not fine tuning the effect for the time being, but only to induce an objective effect that is not measured …. This effect will be audible worsening or improving the sound by anyone putting it in his system and listening to a files that he knows already well.... After that observation of change, we will discuss how to improve this change and transform it in a definitive positive improvement in all case with any sound system? is it not simple? By the way accusing all vendors a priori to be crooks is not only not fair diplomacy, it is plainly false on common sense ground judgment... My self I replicate or create homemade all my tweaks... I dont buy any material that cost more than peanuts... The more costly electronic component I modified for my needs cost me 10 bucks... There is no relation whatsoever between the audio system I owns now for years, and the same electronic components rightly embedded in the vibrational-resonant mechanical dimension, in my electrical grid, and in the acoustical fiel of my room.... Total transformation of the same speakers-dac-amplifiers....same electronics components but they produce a sound now at his real potential S.Q..... And you will said to me that is an illusion? I will smile for sure.... Try my experiment if you are serious about audio more than about dogmas... Is it too complicated to verify an audible change when putting a rock on an electronic component or on the electrical main box of your house ? |
If you are intentionally modifying the signal that is not engineering that is art, in which case don’t make up characteristics for equipment that are simply not true, not validated, not verified, and reproducible and disappearThanks, your answer about spirituality is fair enough... But when I say that engineering is also " art" I dont say that in the sense of your wording in this extract of your post...I dont say that as if I was speaking about taste or fancy....Or illusion.... Some of the tweaks I use modify the sound in a reproducible way and can give new ideas to an engineer...Some ideas I replicate came even from some engineers... Engineering is not only about measuring, it is also innovating, design is not reducible only to numbers and measure....And dont confuse measuring with reproducible....validation by other human beings also count even if not measurable at the moment....And dont call "not true" what is not measured nor measurable at some point in time but validated tough by many human ears...Do you get my point? If not, you reduce yourself to less than what you are.... If you are faithfully recreating the signal that is engineering and science. If you are intentionally modifying the signal that is not engineering that is art, By the way, the frontier between art and science is absolutely not clear cut like you pre supposed it to be....Luckily, because creativity is linked to break artificial frontiers, artificial methods, habits, and false rigid distinction that has no link to a living complex reality in biology and in physical reality also....Art is not synonym for illusion and science synonym of reality....This is for common sense and for philosophy absurdly simplistic view... |
Sure it can’t measure your tastes and the way your ears translate the air movement to your brain!Very good point... We understand each other a little more... It is just that there exist many other points that cannot be measured or that are not measured at this moment by scientist now in audio experience...One by one these points can be explained, many of them.... But when an audiophile create his room he plays with some basic science, and also with other factors to improve the sound...These factors are not always only the regular one studied by engineers that’s all... They exist.... I play with them with great success....My very real " illusion" of sound comes from them not only from good design electronic components.... If someone negate science I will not complaint if you call him an idiot, but negating some experience not directly linked to usual engineer experiment and calling audiophiles idiot is not good diplomacy.... By the way I am sure the OP was not speaking of the death of science " per se" but the narrow vision of some in audio science....Is it not clear? Or do you feel better in classifying anybody that is not engineer in idiot crowds? |
So called audiophiles without any real technical knowledge repeatedly try to use this false argument that the complexities of sound field interpretation somehow translate to equal complexities AND variables for electrical signal transmission and use that logical fallacy for their justification of all kinds of never measured, never characterized and certainly never validated effects and characteristics in electrical signal recording, transmission and playback.It is not an argument that the electrical audio signal is conveyed trough an electrical grid of a particular house, in the mechanical resonant constraints of a particular audio system, through a very specific acoustical field in a particular room to be recreated by the ears-brain in some individual qualitative experience, irreducible to our actual measuring process...It is a simple fact....But I think that the improved measuring process can improve this experience yes.... And you contest a great physician mathematician about something you dont understand it seems...And accuse us "idiot" audiophiles ... :) I smile because engineering for you is a bit distant of mathematics ( those of Penrose are not kitchen mathematics of 19 century) and philosophy it seems...Engineering is not only science , it is based on science, it is an art like medecine… There exist engineers that are also "idiot" audiophiles themselves and they work to create great audio....They dont buy the " fallacy" you speak about because all engineers are not scientist ideologue....They create for the human ears-brain, for the idiot audiophile to buy their products... I know what your work or hobby is for sure: it is measuring.... Nothing against that at all... It is very good and necessary thing to do for improving Audio for sure.... But remember: «for a hammer all is nails» |
andy2 A computer can perform addition much faster than any person on earth but that does not mean the computer is smarter or even better. You are right and even in actual A.I. the clever new algorithm( that beat any human in any finite game) can only reconstruct a totality with external parts.... This is an external connection to the whole....Even a quantum computer linked to a modern classical computer would not be able to be connected to the Life evolution source like we are and all humans through the Billions of cellular life in us....The soul is this connection with life that makes any life the whole....Without any calculus... The link is internal without distance …. With the calculus of the Turing Machine linked to a quantum computer the link will be whatsoever external....Out also of the universal memory field of life... Like say Roger Penrose : " consciousness is not computable" The engineering transhumanism is a myth of a less evolved nature than the myths of the past, because myths of the past were first step to evolution of the spirit and always are.... Transhumanism myth is the abolition of the spiritual freedom, by childish fear and faustian refusal of death, reducing the internal living link of all life to an external dead one... A technocratic totalitarian inferno... |
I dont understand your point.... the ears-brain create the sound in some particular room...This is truism evident for all... «A computer can detect tones that are 1/1000 of an octave apart with ease, even 10 times that. The ear/brain, not even close.» This is a fallacy.... Using a measured number precision in one dimension parameter against the many parameters complexities of the ears-brain, and saying that the ears is less able to resolve information linked to sound... But that simple signal in the audio chain before it becomes sound .... it is simple, and to assign the complexity of "sound" and "human hearing", and "human interpretation" to a simple electrical signal .... well that is the "audio complexity fallacy", and it is a fallacious argument that has 0 merit.The simple signal in the audio chain does not become magically a sound, it is the ears-brain that create the sound in a particular room...And i never attributed myself the complexities of the ears-brain to a simple electrical signal... It is precisely my point, that it is not possible to attribute the complexities of the ears-brain to the electrical signal....A musical sound is create by the ears-brain, in a particular acoustical field, from a particular electrical grid, in a controlled mechanical resonant-vibrating audio system.... Measures systematically implemented are necessary to improve engineered Electrical component....This is good.... But if the engineer is not an audiophile also, who want to buy his design? |
You are applying the "audio complexity fallacy". You are taking the very high complexity of a 3d, time variant sound field coupled with the high complexity of human hearing and human preference and applying that to simple things in the audio chain.You judge too swiftly, I only said that the ultimate judge is the ears.... The eye must read the results of measurements and the ears must decide and work to correlate his experience with numbers and curves to improve measures in a increased ongoing experiments.... I want some audiophile engineers measure more and more and always better.... Who is the fool who dont want that? Perhaps you suffer of the "Engineer fallacy" saying that numbers and curves are all that exist ? This reduce simply to the maps and territory fallacy or confusion... « Behind the cloud of numbers are ideas» Husserl I am sure that you dont like philosopher then I will make a citation by a great statistician: « The numbers are where the scientific discussion should start, not end » Steven Goodman Steven N. Goodman is an American Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology) at Stanford School of Medicine.[1] He has extensively contributed to statistics and probability analysis within the biosciences, and in 1999 he coined the term "p-value fallacy".[2] I can assure you that the " p-fallacy" in statistics is more interesting to read about than your homemade " audio complexity fallacy" that is only a game for audiophile thread forums ...Concocted "fallacy" and real one are not the same....You have now a real one to ponder about.... |
Measuring process, and listening experience in a controlled environment, are not opposites things... They are complementary... Except for some who are allergic to good engineering design research, or for those who want to reduce anything to what they call " science" which is only bad "scientism"... I am with the people who want to correlate, and improve ears and design....This correlation between the ears and the measure process is and will be without end to an unlimited improvement... «History of science IS science» Goethe |
the high number of available options for each system component and the variability of how well specific system component parts perform with other specific system component parts.This is very important for sure.... But after you have linked compatible components, the most important factors are their embeddings in 4 dimensions: mechanical resonance-vibrations grid, electrical grid of the house not only of the system or of the room, the passive treatment of the acoustical space, and after that an active treatment of the acoustical space.... Measuring is an active temporal evolutive process, be it at his best for speakers for example, it cannot replace the 4 embeddings to guarantee a good S.Q. ….My opinion is we need feed-back measuring process not only in a designer shop but also in our room with our particular embeddings methods and particular electronic components...With the progress of science this is already there, if not this will be possible tomorrow... |
You are applying the "audio complexity fallacy". You are taking the very high complexity of a 3d, time variant sound field coupled with the high complexity of human hearing and human preference and applying that to simple things in the audio chain.Thanks for your interesting point... I am not sure if I understand it clearly... My point is I am interested in all design improvement with measurement for sure... But the main point in Audiophile experience (not in engineering " per se" ) is to controls embeddings, with whatever electronic component...But I wish for the best electronic component there is to begins with, and for that measurement are important to define norm... Using "audio complexities" to make void any measurement theory is not my point at all...Only fool are against improved engineering. But the main point for all users after making some buying choice, reading design goals and measurements, is to embed finally in the optimal way this electronic component....This fourthly complex embeddings is not reducible to measurement... Is this the " audio complex fallacy" ? Happy Easter to you.... |
It is the human ears that judge the superiority of any electronic component, not in the abstract, disembodied standardized field of measurement necessary for implementation of the engineering protocols, but in the embodied particular multiple embeddings of your room and house and in a particular individualized audio system.... Then the most important underestimated facts in audio are the controls of the 4 basic embeddings : mechanical, electrical, and the passive and active controls of the acoustical field of the room ... There are others dimensions but these 4 one are fundamentals... Buying first a high quality design electronic component is very important, but the evolution of the design of electronic component in the last 50 years, as big as it is, is not on par, nor on the same scale, than the difference in S.Q. gained by a rightful implementation of controls protocols for the 4 embeddings... This is my audiophile journey lesson...Nobody explain me that clearly, I discover it myself by listening experiments, slowly first in the first 5 years, and swiftly in the last 2 years... Improving electronic design is very important, but learning to listen and resolving in a simple and affordable manner the 4 embeddings problems are the crux of audio and the more fundamental problem... Most of us we owns already a good audio system, the real question is not about the way to upgrade the design of an electronic component by buying a new improved one; the real question is : Do I know from having heard it already, how my audio system, as it is now, behaves in an optimal controlled environment ? The answer for most people will be no....Frustrated by the limitations of their actual system, without knowing that the limitations comes from the lack of control of the embeddings, more than from the already good design of their actual system " per se", they turn themselves prey to marketing ploy and upgrade, without even having heard their system in his optimal possibilities to begins with... This is what I learned ... Note: I am not a closed mind, and I am conscious of the importance of improved engineering methods and products... I looked about that suggested here and it seems interesting : the GedLee Metric.. I am interested for sure also in new design, for example ZOTL technology... |
Very interesting thread thanks.... Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual dataI understand the motivation of your inquiry....Very good questions... I will only add that what the human ears think of and create of his own, cannot be totally exhausted by any actual or future measurements....Anymore than life can be replicated in laboratory.... But your question is an appeal to a more creative path to innovate new ways in audio and I think you articulate very well your points and questioning ….I will read with pleasure and curiosity all the answers of more talented and knowledgeable people about it than me here.... Thanks.... |