@markwd ”But are you worried that the imprimatur might give new audio equipment "seekers" some kind of false belief that all they need is this particular kind of ASR science? I’m not too worried!”
Sorry I missed this, markwd. The thing is, when I started my audiophile journey, I knew nothing. Like most others. It would have been so easy to be sucked into the convenience of measurements to justify all my purchases, as anyone wanting to get best value for dollar would. However, i have never been one to take the easy road, and found it necessary to first understand the multiple viewpoints of any one issue, and then the relationships between them all for balanced decision making. It takes immense effort to slowly build that comprehension of what hifi audio is about, and not an undertaking most would want to see through.
What got me truly started was the definition of high fidelity.
I realised most of us start our journey with a misconception of what the term means. The exact origins of the expression will probably never be known, but it is generally agreed that its usage was first seen in Billboard magazine back in 1933. Even before that however, the obsession existed to recreate the sound experience of live music through the recorded medium.
High Fidelity has always been about the reproduction of high quality sound through electrical equipment to be as similar as possible to the original sound.
Back then, distortion was so completely everywhere, it wasn’t even an issue - all that mattered was a medium that could just deliver some semblance of realism to the reproduced sound. They found it in vinyl. However awful those needles were back then (and they were practically big ugly heavy crappy needles) that semblance was reached. Everything thereafter became one long road of refinement to bring sound reproduction closer and closer to the original sound. To make sound reproduction more realistic. The absolute fidelity of the signal was never a goal - what mattered was how the reproduced sound compared to the original sound.
We turned high fidelity into signal fidelity at some point.
It really was to help make things, decisions, easier; to have some quantifiable and rational basis for commonality and reference. And so, our original reference that was the original sound, became marginalised, and for many, forgotten. We don’t need to make the effort to improve listening ability any more - the measurements did it for us.
Except that it didn’t - particular kinds of distortion, in fact, bring reproduced sound closer to the original sound. The manufacturers discovered that tiny relevant imperfections in the audio signal help create a closer approximation of realism. High Fidelity is this incredibly nuanced kitchen of finding that balance between eliminating damaging distortion from, and introducing relevant imperfection to the signal to bring reproduced sound closer in realism to its original sound source.
Heresy, if opined from the viewpoint of signal fidelity, but hey, signal fidelity has never been what high fidelity is about.
This is what makes the arguments that amir or any one else whip up from their measurements seem so silly, they’re arguing for pure signal fidelity in a hobby where its accomplishment defeats the entire purpose of high fidelity.
So yes, it is false belief and indoctrination I post against, because I want every audiophile to hear the amazing realism that is possible with the wonderful equipment that is out there, which they can only access when they develop the difficult and time consuming skill of listening and hearing ability.
In friendship - kevin
|
@rankaudio / @mahgister
“This is why i criticized Amir about hearing theory and he had no idea of what i spoke about ...
Ignorance rule...”
rankaudio/magister, in a thread with similar posted outcomes last year, I asked amir about the value of a particular test for listening ability, a very accessible test on the internet to gauge listening ability over different resolutions of tests files. In reply, Amir said it was not a good test for its purpose, and referred me instead to a site purposed for those wanting to learn how to listen, oblivious to the fact that the test I had referred him to was one on testing inherent listening ability, and nothing to do with learning. He brushed away his misstep upon my pointing it out, but nonetheless acknowledged my listening abilities to have identified all resolutions accurately, only to lead on to a more conclusive but inaccessible test he had performed, in dismissing my result as being ‘undocumented’. He then proceeded to deride me when I called him out for not having even performed the said test I referred him to, accusing me of having ‘tricked’ him into believing I wanted to ‘learn’ from him, when all I wanted was to prove him wrong.
mahgister, there are moments like this littered through all of Amir’s exchanges with others, especially the ones he has with you. He often fails to read the substance of the posts of others, conflates issues under discussion with either his credentials, or measurements of singularities as the end all, prevaricates when he has no answer, and never acknowledges his mistakes when made, which we all make as the imperfect beings we are. Everything about his behaviour in his posts point to cognitive dissonance, a vital cornerstone of narcissism.
The WebMD summarises well…
‘People who show signs of narcissism can often be very charming and charismatic. They often don’t show negative behavior right away, especially in relationships. People who show narcissism often like to surround themselves with people who feed into their ego. They build relationships to reinforce their ideas about themselves, even if these relationships are superficial.’
It goes on to add that narcissists have ‘a preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, or brilliance’ and are insisting of the fact ‘they have the best of everything’, which in amir’s case, are the instruments he measures with.
What the WebMD fails to state is that narcissists are of belief they are right about everything they stand for, which, for amir, is the half science of measurements.
Even you, mahgister, label him as ignorant, while deflecting all attention from your statement by accusing others of insulting and calling him names. The fact is, a reasonable diagnosis based on evidence of engagement, in your case ‘ignorance’, and in rankaudio’s case ‘narcissism’, does in no way constitute insult or childish name calling.
The simple fact is that Amir engages his important, and yet half science of measurements as a singularity, in ignorance of all other vital relationships, and does so with narcissistic tendencies of arrogance; and neither you nor rankaudio, are incorrect in your statements.
in friendship, kevin
|
Also, Mahgister, thank you for the link you posted earlier to that study regarding human hearing and the Fourier uncertainty principle - https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
It helps explain a lot about what many of us have suspected/felt for as long as we have been in the hobby, in noticing both subtle and more obvious differences with each change of our systems. The way the article has been written is both simple to understand in form, and profound in critical content. ; )
|
@knock1
‘This from latest Amir’s post
- How about wires? Have you listened to wires?
“Many times.”
- Can you hear a difference?
“Very often."
Mr. Amir in the introduction to one of his videos stated
"we absolutely can measure the differences between cables. The question is do those measurements matter as far as the perception, and the short answer is they don’t"
I am confused now.’
These kinds of contradicting statements are commonly made by individuals suffering from cognitive dissonance, knock1. Cognitive dissonance occurs in those who hold contradictory beliefs at the same time, and/or make statements that contradict, as those statements are made according to suit whatever argument is preferred at the time. Amir has made similar contradictory statements on a number of other issues - he has also conceded that measurements are not enough to tell the entire story, and yet bases all his arguments on them. It is my hope less experienced audiophiles see through the techniques of paltering and prevarication he engages in order to avoid confrontation over issues he has no proper answer for. While perfectly acceptable that one need not have answer for everything, Amir has worked his way into a corner where he must have a reply for anything, due to his deep belief measurements are all that matter. I have come to realise measurements are all he has, to overcome his inability to listen critically, possibly compounded by that one bad experience all audiophiles have at some point over a misinformed purchase made before better listening skills were cultivated. And, instead of putting the effort into learning how to listen more critically, he fell back on measurements for the security of quantitatively feeling right, as many audiophiles with lesser hearing ability also do.
For those less experienced audiophiles who rely more on measurements than their ears, please please know that a whole other world exists that developed listening ability will reveal. Please do not be discouraged by the mistakes you may have made. And please do not be misled by Amir into confirmation bias by hearing what your measurements tell you.
In friendship, kevin
|
Thanks @nonoise
@erik_squires - I’m sorry for not acknowledging your original post earlier - it was a terrific read for me and pointed out clear and understandable facts regarding the measurement of speakers that go beyond a single viewpoint or method, and engage relationships, acoustic and electromagnetic. Thanks for your insights.
in friendship - kevin
|
@knock1 - I did know that! I’m so sorry if my post came across pedantically - it was merely my intention to explain and put a known psychological term to the condition of cognitive dissonance. There are many audiophiles in two minds about these issues who would find it easier to give in to the security that measurements provide - my post was to caution that those following asr do so with balance and moderation, in finding trust for the half of amir who cunningly says listening is more vital than measurements, and then get misled when the other half of amir only falls back on measurements in all other situations. A person who is inconsistent in his or her stand should never be trusted completely.
|
@erik_squires - yes, the humour didn’t go unnoticed 😂 - my thanks was badly timed, I had meant to post it sooner, but didn’t get round to it. It was also perhaps, for the many other posts you have made over the years that I learned from but never acknowledged - audiogon may have its little battles and disagreements, but my journey of listening would never have been made if not for voices like yours and many others. I am a very new audiophile, made wise by the experiences of the many. Thanks again for it all 😉🙏🏻
|
@mahgister
‘I am not surprised that i am the only one here Amir do not dare to answer...’
don’t flatter yourself, mahgister 😂 - there are many he doesn’t respond to, having to deal with his insecurities just as everyone else! Just summarise your thoughts better, you are an indispensable part of audiogon and would be beloved and not picked on if you only posted the necessary with less repetition - have pity on your readers! ! I trust you not to take offence🙏🏻
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd thanks for that - ok then, what first needs to be established is a datum we can both agree on. The gist of this datum is the tradeoff made over measurements - this is most clearly established in the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, and it’s somewhat equivalent in acoustics, the Fourier uncertainty principle.
What the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty says is, at the scale of quantum mechanics, it is not possible to accurately measure two related physical properties of a particle simultaneously. This is to say that if the velocity of a particle can measured accurately, there will be doubt regarding its precise location, and vice versa. If that doesn’t already sound bells in your head, take a look at the Fourier uncertainty principle which limits the precision with which the simultaneous measurement of both duration and frequency of a sound can be made.
The full article is here https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html - originally posted by one of our learned, if a touch longwinded members, mahgister.
The article establishes that among a group of mixed participants and careful listening tests, that the human cochlea, non-linear as it is, equalled or outperformed the limit set by the Fourier uncertainty principle, in one case of both frequency and timing scores, by a factor of 13. The top score for acuity in timing was for three milliseconds.
That’s three thousandth of a second.
If you will allow this datum as a qualified test of human hearing acuity, we can proceed with the conclusions for the test - that our hearing is not only capable of performance equalling that of technical instrumentation in relation to independent measurements of frequency or time, but it exceeds that of the simultaneous measurement of both frequency and time, limited as testing equipment is, by the Fourier uncertainty principle - this is vital, as the foundations of music itself are built on the simultaneity between frequency and the time domain.
I hope you better understand now why Amir’s are not everything - he cannot accurately measure both frequency and timing, the very tenets of music, at the same time. He argues against the proven science of the Fourier uncertainty principle if he claims he can.
In relation for electromagnetism, which you relevantly queried me over explanations being left incomplete - you know markwd, never mind the Fourier uncertainty principle limiting the simultaneous measurement of frequency and time; never mind why I hear realism that measurements cannot explain; the profound world of electromagnetism is still beyond the full understanding of rational science itself.
My intention was not to answer any questions regarding the relationships between magnetic flux and the audio signal. I wouldn’t have a clue! I only have the hypothesis of its absolutely importance, being so much a part of how electricity itself is transmitted. It was only vital that I got you interested in the question, because that is truly what science is all about: what part does magnetic flux play in audio signal transmission that we might be missing?
Science is as much the asking of empirical questions, as it is the delivery of rational answers. I hope you get more involved in all of science, and not just its rational side : )
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd ”It’s very incongruous and does not correspond with ordinary science and engineering principles, or with even everyday logic per se.”
There is nothing ordinary about science or about the electro-magnetic world. When one only depends on electrical measurements for their full conclusions, what is missed is the other half of electromagnetism - the magnetic world. Electricity does not travel through the cable - it travels through the magnetic field surrounding that cable. ‘Ordinary’ science has not yet understood how to accurately measure the nuance and time flux of magnetic fields in the way they affect sound from signal transfer. This is why conclusions made purely from electrical measurements are a half-science. There is so much we do not know yet. True science is about questions, not mere answers.
@markwd ’Do note that manufacturers’ specs can be false and also that a specific unit may be broken. Testing by a third party like ASR can help to ascertain the reasons for the differences, not always perfectly, but they would add additional support to these apparently tendentious ideas about these products.’
There Isn’t anyone here that doesn’t agree with that. The concern is that Amir, with his unbending stance that listening cannot complement measurements for the now, until we know more about the measurement of magnetic flux, hugely influences audiophiles to believe the same. That isn’t science, as proudly stated in the name of his site, it’s indoctrination, or brainwashing.
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd “@laoman You dropped the context! Unfair! 🤣 “
and you dare accuse others of dropping the context - not good form 😪
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd - I believe you missed the meaning of my comments -
1.i wasn’t referring to Amir’s measurements of speakers, which isn’t even done thoroughly and in context, if you will refer to the original post of this thread.
2.second, your appeal to low level audio frequency’s ‘fairly consistent’ behaviour in relation to ‘simple’ electrical law-like patterns is a far cry from any sort of bedrock on which to determine all of what isn’t known about the effect of magnetic flux on the audio signal - you’re using the tenets of the half science to justify the half science itself. You really haven’t understood my post. It is terribly funny you start with words like quantum mechanics and intuition to end with ‘fairly consistent’ and ‘simple electrical law-like patterns’ in justifying your knowledge of electromagnetism.
3.Finally, your third point throws out nomenclature precisely like a textbook that pretends to resolve all issues of your credibility, quite similar to how Amir attempts to resolve all doubt over his credibility with measurements, when you don’t realise science is not and has never been either about empiricism or rationalism - it has been about both - precisely what most intelligent audiophiles here argue for a balance of. You argue for an Amir-styled rationalism that thwarts the best of science itself. It’s not only half baked, it’s reductionist. Reductionist rationalism is what Amir stands for and indoctrinates with. It is truly even less than a half-science.
In any case, I will not continue debate with you - I see you’ve been too indoctrinated to reach, and my earlier post was in hope you might be able to open your mind to the other half of science, being empiricism. This not being the case, I post for others who may read with comprehension but not participate. I wish you well in your journey.
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd - thank you for your gracious reply and question. There is actually nothing I criticise regarding the measurements done at asr. It is how those electrical measurements are expressed and used to conflate belief with truth that I object to.
Science has always been about the balance between empiricism and rationalism. In medicine, bloodletting was an accepted practice of belief in good health against all empirical evidence, and carried on unabated for two thousand years, until it was rationally uncovered and proven to be otherwise in the 18th century when the last indoctrinated societies finally found rational evidence to collate the empirical.
This is the issue with asr, and really, amir himself, who often hides behind the emblem of what he has made of asr - asr is still all his and about him, however much he wishes to distance himself from the rational doctrines of belief he has boxed himself into. He will claim he still relies on empiricism, which cannot be trusted, because of the inconsistency with which he claims listening is more vital than measurements, and when he then laughs off all claims to listening. He cannot even trust his own hearing, in multiple posts where he says he heard a difference, and then ceased to hear a difference after a while. And his hearing difference always happens after a measurement, never independently of. He openly admits he cannot trust his own hearing, despite all the tests he has taken, but then goes on to say no one else can, when it is a known fact there is a huge of listening ability in human beings. He makes you believe you cannot trust your hearing, only because he cannot trust his, appealing to your having had similar experiences, when most of us haven’t developed our listening skills to hear the difference. This is the basis of indoctrination.
True scientists work by way of the dialogue empiricism has with rationalism, never just one or the other. Technicians work only one way, using predetermined rationalism for process and arrive at conclusions. And they are not wrong! They are merely there to help us with what is known, not what needs to be discovered.
The problem is that amir positions himself as a scientist, when he’s really a technician.
Ok, that then leaves the empiricism of listening to question. How does one know that what one is hearing is actual, or mere confirmation bias, independently of measurements?
For this, we need to understand what high fidelity actually means. Defined, high fidelity does not refer to the fidelity of the signal, it never has! You can study this or look it up - high fidelity refers to the reproduction by electrical equipment of very high quality sound that is as similar as possible to the original sound.
Based on this, you can see how ludicrous it is to suggest that equipment measured with the best signal integrity equates to that of high fidelity - this is the very reason why so many audiophiles complain about many good measuring equipment sounding bad; measurements have never been the arbiter of fidelity, our ears are.
This is not to say that it is then reduced to a shallow matter of preference, as we all have a very very powerful point of reference - while we each hear differently, the source from which the original sound was emitted is shared by us all, be it a live bird, angry dog, Guarneri violins in general, or the way an old Steinway sounds in a particularly reverberant room. A correct understanding of high fidelity takes a whole lot more effort from each audiophile than merely referencing readouts and graphs from a technician’s monitor - the foundations of high fidelity itself are built on the development and honing of one’s listening abilities, to hear all the nuance and subtlety of the time domain that characterises the realism found in original sound - it is the watchful eye we each have to place on ourselves to detect bias, in placing realism and the truth of one’s perceptions over how much or how little we want to spend on our hobby. No one said it would be cheap, expensive, or easy….and, definitely no where as simple as taking a reading off a monitor.
Markwd, this is why audiophiles do not only rely on measurements, and in fact cannot merely rely on measurements - signal measurements do not and have never been the most vital part of high fidelity.
There are preferences, mind you, but one thing is clear - there is very little argument when a system of true high fidelity is heard. And I do mean in a room or space where the set up has been well judged and tuned to bring out the very best from that system, measurements be damned.
Don’t be misled into thinking, like many audiophiles do, when hearing the simply awful sound of a multi million dollar system in an audio show or at a showroom, that hi-end hifi is all a scam. I have found very few to have been set up well. Most importantly, I always reserve judgement until I can have whatever piece of equipment put into my own system, in the familiarity of my own listening and tuned space, and specifically located and adjusted speakers. If high fidelity is the true objective, there is ultimately only one metric of its final gauge - developed listening ability in the context of an entire system set into the specific context of its listening space.
I hope this has made sense to you.
In friendship - kevin
|
@deep_333 - I get you, thanks for your post : ) - but I will always engage those who either don’t prevaricate, or at least acknowledge when it is being done. More vitally, the hope is my posts are being read by those on the fence, you see, who might be persuaded that the relationship between empiricism and rationalism is required for better knowledge and informed choices, and not just one over the other…..and certainly not measurements as final arbiter.
But it is an uphill task facing the indoctrinated. One of them from oakcreek doesn’t even know the definition of high fidelity, and has been so brainwashed by asr into believing it is about signal integrity, that he hasn’t even bothered to look up or study what high fidelity is, or where the term came from.
My hope is that others will.
i haven’t yet lost hope for markwd, but it will take a while to revert.
@markwd, thank you for your reply - I hope you have the patience for my response - a touch busy today : )
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd “Well, fair enough, but you have not demonstrated that human hearing exceeds those measurements for music listening purposes!”
- I’ve not needed to demonstrate anything, markwd, it was already demonstrated in the test I’ve been trying to bring your attention to the past three days ; )
@markwd “If we had just one great ABX test that showed me wrong, I would be thrilled because that would pave the way to something new.”
@markwd “All those dynamics would dance again and the mad scientists who brought the systems to life would be celebrated for rightly finding a path towards a new audio Xanadu”
- those ‘mad’ scientists have been doing it for years already; giving us such an amazing variety of analogue and digital playback equipment, the mind boggles. We do already have an audio Xanadu! If only you’d set your rational side of measurement and signal fidelity aside for a moment to take all the wonders of high fidelity into your amazing empirical and non-linear ears!
@markwd “I'm certainly indoctrinated in the epistemic humility to be as careful as possible in assessing ideas, my own and those of others who hope but have not fully honed those hopes with the calm clarity of rationality.”
- oh, that’s more than clear to me and everyone else here; and I’m glad you referred to it as epistemic, and not scientific, humility. Perhaps you could extend that humility to the other half of science you’ve so neglected - empirical humility is just as, if not more important than epistemic, or rational humility.
@markwd “I’ll note also that I think you may be misinterpreting the Fourier uncertainty principle in this particular context as I and Amir have mentioned to @mahgisterin several contexts. The authors are showing that if you used Fourier analysis as a model for human hearing there are limits to its applicability because there is likely nonlinear bucketing that allows for discrimination of time/frequency in excess of what a linear system is capable of.”
- in fact, markwd, i would wager you have not understood the Fourier uncertainty principle in totality. The Fourier uncertainty principle cannotapply as a model for human hearing for the simple reason it is merely there to explain the limitation of signal measurements, not the limitations of human hearing - ie - measuring equipment, being linear, cannot exceed the limits of the uncertainty principle; human hearing, being non-linear, constantly does.
@markwd “The speculation is that the fine acuity is derived from evolutionary pressures and the mechanics of it are due to the shape of the cochlea”
- yes, the very shape which is believed to be the reason why human hearing surpasses the Fourier uncertainty principle; you’re preaching to the choir but to promote falsehood, not the truth - that is, measurements cannot match the human ability to hear the nuance of both frequency and timing simultaneously, at the levels of resolution music is about.
@markwd “…but I can change "edge" to "newly found" to remove any stigma the term invokes!”
- while you’re at it, you will want to remove the ‘little’ as well, there is nothing little about something that puts the measurement vs hearing issue to rest than this. Markwd, clarity of communication is everything 😔
Markwd, for more, please refer to my coming reply to amir’s question to me.
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd “The problem isn't that there are interesting experimental results, it's that they don't demonstrate that there is anything that can be done to audio equipment to implement better solutions to whatever gaps may be present.”
- Thank you for your reply markwd - but, like amir, you obsess over the equipment a little too much : ) - my discussion of the test was to underline the entire point of mahgister raising of it, which you again missed - it was to inform about how powerful our sense of hearing is, that we can and should reclaim that birthright instead of leaving it to handicapped measurements to do it for us. Why handicapped? Because measurements will always be limited by the Fourier uncertainty principle, while human ears aren’t. Why is that principle important? Because it limits the measurement accuracy of frequency simultaneously with time, the very foundations from which music flows. Are you following now?
@markwd “Now, you can suggest that somehow listening on the part of the designer is allowing them to choose between design pathways but this is just speculation. It may be true, as I noted to @mahgister, but we don't know and neither does the designer.”
- I do not suggest anything of this, markwd - it IS happening, this is how the best audio equipment designers in the world are designing their servers and DACs, while of course putting equal effort to improving power supplies, and reducing realism damaging distortion. They are simply not applying signal fidelity as much as high fidelity, to their process. Do please reread my earlier post on this : )
@markwd “So there is a certain faith built into all this speculation, just like god-of-the-gaps arguments in other online communities ("listening-in-the-gaps" arguments has a nice ring to it!). It's interesting but needs proof and a proper measurement methodology that shows a path forward for determining exactly how these phenomena impact equipment design and use.”
@markwd “Since you are a bit of a student of ideas in philosophy of science, one key one in contemporary thinking on the topic is lifted from Wittgenstein that we must remain silent on things we have no knowledge of and we have no knowledge of this.”
- I believe you took Wittgenstein quite out of context - he wasn’t discussing the lack of knowledge in his quote, but the clarity with which we should be using language. The correct quote in context here - “What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
@markwd “Until we develop it sufficiently we do have an AP and spectral sweeps.”
Yes, we might use analysers to help with room set up, but no, in fact, if the measurement of equipment is all that will be done for decisions - it is more correctly stated that until we are able to determine how to accurately measure frequency simultaneously with time, we have our more accurate ears to help us on this difficult but amazing and rewarding journey. We just need to apply ourselves to each develop our listening abilities.
@markwd “I'll just add one footnote to my previous post: we might actually be able to address the specific issues of heterodyning and nonlinear cochlea interactions in audio by using DSP to simply mute tones that interact in those areas of the hearing range. This would be like addressing a room mode but within the ear itself. Of course, we would be robbing the signal of its fidelity in so doing.”
- you once again fall back on signal fidelity without fully understanding it matters less than high fidelity. And ‘equipment’ (in this case the tech of DSP) is again your default to address that human laziness inherent to putting effort to developing listening ability. Markwd, you have to grasp the fact there are no shortcuts in our hobby. Measurements will bring you signal fidelity, and that’s all you’ll ever have. Be happy then.
@markwd “Still, in order to do this we could use experiments that first demonstrate it will improve human hearing. There is a great deal of literature on methods for overcoming hearing loss; there may be something in there concerning speech that points towards something useful for audio equipment design.”
- With all due respect, I’m concerned there may be a disconnect with how you read, and comprehend with what you write - there is nothing wrong with the human hearing apparatus. Well into our seventies, while there may be a big drop in our hearing the upper registers, all our abilities to detect frequency/time nuance is still robust and functioning - the enjoyment of music continues with every fibre in our being. What needs to improve is the development of listening ability, not the apparatus we are born with. I hope you understand that distinction.
In friendship ; ) - kevin
|
@fleschler
Thanks for your kind words, flescher, I can get long winded too, and I’m so happy you got something from my long post. And you’re so absolutely right about magnetic tape - it is actually one of the prime reasons I believe the magnetic side of electromagnetism holds secrets we haven’t plumbed just yet - something to do with the analogue continuity of magnetic flux that we all receive some benefit of in its transmission of audio signals, while it defeats the discrete nature of digital music….and all attempts to understand the discrete measurement of it, haha. I didnt put it in only because I wanted to draw more attention to how high fidelity began rather than evolved.
On a side note, your posts over the past four years were some of the many that helped me along this amazing wonderful journey I’m on - it’s medicine unlike any other. Thank you so much!
In friendship ; ) - kevin
|
@dwcda
Im sorry you had a bad experience with audiogon, dwcda, and I’m glad you stayed on - that’s the nice thing about this site - it really takes a huge lot to get booted : ) - I appreciate that kind of tolerance. And there is a huge variety of members here, who come from all kinds of audiophile persuasions and beliefs - it makes for a terrific pot to hear it all; for all views to be heard; relationships between those viewpoints to be made; and clearer decisions to come to. Thrive in it. Please do not allow dissenting or even rude views to upset you - it’s a varied and wonderful place to find your own learning from. We all learn and grow from diversity and adversity, never through the agreement and laziness that homogeneity breeds.
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd ”WRT the Wittgenstein quote, I was mentioning that it has been internalized as a way of expressing the epistemic humility of contemporary science crossed with the requirement for positive evidence of novel claims, but thanks for the clarifying context!”
You’re welcome, markwd! More later ; )
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd
“Sure, we have this great hearing capability and some experimental results that suggest some curious little edge phenomena but we have no way of actually telling whether it is useful to us in the context of music reproduction and listening.”
- We are definitely not on the same page - first, hearing ability that outdoes measuring equipment is not a little ‘edge phenomena.’ It puts measurements in its rightful place, as a mere start. Second, we have been discussing the fact that human hearing exceeds your measurements, and that better listening skills can be developed to maximise this natural ability, not whether better measuring equipment can be invented. Third, being able to listen deeply into the music is the most useful skill to have, in order to be less reliant on measurements.
“Or, the other way to approach the problem is to figure out how to measure the ability down to the level of granularity of the human ear, perhaps using approaches that are not applying FFTs for analysis. Then, voila!, we have a new measurement regime to use for designing equipment, etc. Measurements prevail again!”
The way you avoid all discussion over relevant points, and fail to respond to my responses to your arguments is quite the problem Wittgenstein cautioned about whom you misquoted. I was mistaken earlier, and I am now quite convinced your indoctrination runs too deep to break through. In any case, I don’t think it matters, you seem quite happy with your quality of rationalised sound : ) - I wish you well on your journey.
In friendship - kevin.
|
|
@pynkfloydd - thanks for putting that little complaint into context ; )
|
@nonoise - thanks for that : ) - clean up hasn’t ended just yet.
|
@amir_asr “Please point out in the link where it says audio measurements are not able to keep up with the human ear:”
- nice to hear from you once again, amir. Here we go, highlighted in bold below -
“For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance.
The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.
The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound. Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound.”
- ive put as much of it into context as possible. The first highlight determines that human hearing can outperform up to ten times, the limit set by the uncertainty principle. The second highlight in bold simply describes that the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of both frequency and timing is limited by the Fourier uncertainty principle. If you study the context of the first statement in relation to the second, it is clear that measurements currently cannot explain what is heard by the human ear. As with the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty at the subatomic scale, the smaller, or more nuanced particles or sound information gets, there is a limit to what we can currently measure, because all our current measuring instruments are linear, meaning they operate sequentially, or in discrete packets.
- At the subatomic scale, and its equivalent in relation to music in its every nuance, it’s impossible to tie down the location of any particle (or specific frequency) in relation to its speed (or timing) because of the absolutely continuous nature of movement. We can do so in relation to a car, or even a golf ball, because there are so many points in the huge space of a car or that golfball to tie a location to at any one moment in time. But, the moment we get into scales of that single unrelenting point, there is no possible way to rationally address its location with its movement, because even before the instant of the instant we have identified its location, it will have moved. There would be range of points, a range of uncertainty, as to where that point could be, hence the limit. It is only when we get to broader strokes, bigger items, grander scales, that the limit doesn’t apply, obviously, since the measurement of precise location can be sloppy, it will still be somewhere in the space of the object. Now, it could be said that Fourier uncovered the principle of uncertainty before Heisenberg, who then formulated it in relation to quantum mechanics and popularised it. But the vital matter is that any kind of measurement currently known to us is still limited by the uncertainty principle.
- The uncertainty principle applies in acoustics and music, and not merely audio signals, in the deepest complexity and greatest nuance that music is. As such, when someone says they hear something that measurements do not indicate, they may not be blindly led by confirmation bias - because human hearing is non-linear, meaning we hear in continuum and not by way of sequential little jumps, we are able to detect nuance that no instrument can, being limited by linearity. At the scales of what we are discussing, of the tiniest moments of transition in relation to singular frequencies, the human ear still understands frequency simultaneously with timing in ways no instrument can measure or record.
In friendship - kevin.
|
@amir_asr
Now amir, I trust there still is enough of the rationalist in you to back down in the face of a freshly discovered truth. From previous exchanges, I know well how cleverly you hunker down to prevaricate, conflate and, as nonoise puts it so well, use sophistry of language, graphs, readings, and…well, measurements, to deflect, twist and palter your way out of critical discourse, so I now put it to you plainly: belief forms such a vital part of our inner system of existence, its collapse can sometimes create such drastic change which a mind may not be able to accept. In the face of an unacceptable new truth, one of three things can happen - the first results in such a blow to the original belief, the individual in question in unable to reconcile the fresh truth with a way forward, and decides to end it all in suicide. In the second outcome, the individual succumbs to denial, hunkers down in aggressive statement after restatement of his/her belief and the false processes that validate that belief. But there is a third.
Now, it is beyond argument that linear testing equipment cannot accurately measure frequency simultaneously with time past a certain limit.
It is also beyond argument that human hearing can exceed the Fourier limit of uncertainty, at times by a factor of ten.
This puts everything you have arrogantly stood for since you started asr into the bin of falsehood.
Your measurements will always have their place, to inform and educate, but every imperious and contemptuous statement you ever made of those who have depended on their basic hearing, never mind developed listening skills; everything you did with your measurements to support your beliefs; every single listening test you have ever done; everything statement you ever made in conclusion of your tests; everything….has been false.
I hope I know you well enough that you will not succumb to the first outcome of collapsed belief, given the immensity of this new truth.
And you may well, all history considered, hunker down and irrelevantly once again refer to linear measurements to argue against logical concepts of uncertainty that involve non linearity.
Or you could chose the third outcome, which is one of acceptance - to graciously admit there are some things you may not have considered, in your religious fervour to be always proven right; that you are human, just like the rest of us, and might have made a rare but egregious mistake; and that you ask to take some time out to consider the weight of true science and the logic you are fighting against. This third outcome will be welcomed, even if there will be many aggrieved audiophiles who bore the weight of your contempt or indoctrination all these years. The third outcome will be welcomed for the simple fact you are intelligent, and you do fight for your beliefs (even if too arrogantly), but mostly for the fact that you do make good contribution to all audiophiles with your measurements as a good, if not brilliant technician. And my deeper hope is that you could actually grow to serve science, in all its amazing duality of rationalism and empiricism.
I, for one, would love to read one day about your having invented a measuring machine that exceeds the Fourier uncertainty principle.
In friendship - kevin
|
@amir_asr
bummer, you chose the second. Trust me, it will come back to haunt you.
In disappointment - kevin
|
Hey laoman, I actually wasn’t expecting anything - my post may have seem to have been made in polite response to amir’s request (he had stopped responding to any of my posts since my mention of his cognitive dissonance last year), but it was actually for the benefit of all his less experienced followers who may not have been fully indoctrinated. I hope my post doesn’t get lost in the mix - I think it offers an answer to the question audiophiles have asked for decades now, why they hear what cannot be measured.
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd ”Since I dove in, I have to deep dive! Not definitive, but an interesting data point:”
- well done, markwd: after all the prevarication and paltering, you finally found something that allows you to question the 2013 article. I cannot say I fully understand the full substance of it, but I agree it appears to have basis for disagreement the study, and measurement has bought itself some breathing room.
- in any case, have you tried diving deep enough on the other debate of what high fidelity actually means? We shouldn’t be selective over diving now…you know, once we have realised we did actually have a dog in the fight, no? : )
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd ”That's the gist: we don't know what is true until we discover it.”
- if you study it, you will find that discovery begins with empiricism, our experiences of life that begin with a hunch, not measurements, since one hasn’t a clue what to measure before it’s discovered. ; )
In friendship - kevin
|
@markwd
It’s not the differences in viewpoint at stake here, but the way the argument is engaged - I see all these words games with amir, and you in fact, when faced with quite honest communication. I will not debate what your intentions are, but the comment on the study was the first relevant post you made the entire time, and I suspect you know that. You are clearly not thick, so it appears trollish to keep inserting obtuse points in your every reply just to confound and confuse the discussion.
Let’s see where this takes us. In the meantime, do look up the definitions of high fidelity so that it’s not confused with signal fidelity.
In friendship - kevin
|
@fleschler
trust me fleschler, you know more about these matters than I do - everything sounding profound I posted earlier came from my reading of the article mahgister linked, with what I know of uncertainty principles, and my curiosity over why I often hear things with small changes in my system that cannot be measured. Confirmation bias is just a lazy inconclusive answer, and appears the only aspect of empiricism that pure rationalists acknowledge.
I still stand by where high fidelity began and what it means. So your post makes all the sense in the world.
When put into context, we are not hearing the single piece of equipment measured. We only hear it in the context of the entire signal chain - what comes out of the speaker and into your ears is the only true gauge of how well that bit of equipment performs….in context. By all means, measure that amp for linear distortion. But don’t pretend to measure it for the non linearities human ears might be hearing, where all the nuance music actually happens. It’s about system context, not about the amp or the this or that that are isolated things within an entire system. There is no easy way to get a full understanding of what something does in a system, until we hear it from the speakers with our non-linear ears.
In friendship - kevin
|
@deep_333
Love that anecdote of the Japanese engineer : )
Everyone has differently developed listening ability. Some just hear more critically than others : )
In friendship - kevin
|
Amir says “That's right. All those cells have an amazing ability to invent things that don't exist. Listen to a violin and your brain imagines the thing being in your room. But there is nothing in your room. It is just imagination. ”
- if there was any doubt in any one’s mind whether amir actually listens to music or only looks at his measurements for anything entering his ear, this about puts everything to rest. I’ve never heard anything more sad about music appreciation than this 😔 - I had always thought the suspension of disbelief was what guided the audiophile.
In friendship - kevin
|
Amir says “That frees them to site back and enjoy music. I know I am.
- frees one to be lazy and not develop listening skills is what it does. And you already showed you don’t enjoy music, you’re in constant disbelief unless a measurement tells you it’s ok to sit back and enjoy it. The measurement, not the music, that is.
In deep sadness - kevin
|
Amir says “Subjectivists are worst at it, worrying about every bit of their system affecting the sound from screws to cables. One wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of their system without constant worrying that "everything matters" and what else they could upgrade.”
- very true for many subjectivists, not true for audiophiles who believe in balance. And, in truth, no different from rationalists who spend so much time worrying about the measurements, one wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of the system until every measurement is done because every ‘measurement’ matters….except the most vital one of the specific sound waves coming from that specific signal chain of an entire system in the specific space of listening. High fidelity is not about signal fidelity in isolation - it is about the accuracy of the entire sound reproduction in comparison to the original sound. The signal has nothing to do with high fidelity. Do look up the definition of high fidelity.
In deeper sadness - kevin
|
Amir says “We have to have protocols to keep the brain from imagining things and only reflect what you are hearing. Don't confuse what you perceive vs what goes into your ear. They can be the same or completely different.”
- And he determines who gets to perceive and hear correctly.
In disbelief - kevin
|
Like learning how to use one’s ears and listening skills, putting thought, ideas and argument to truth takes huge effort…and a lot of attention to context, as much of context one can possibly find. It appears the rationalist side of asr cares very little for as many sources of integrity as possible to corroborate statements made, and instead conveniently picks what it chooses to falsify, prevaricate and basically spread untruth. Sort of like using measurements to justify measurements; philosophically inbred. And. far from just being scientific, represents behaviour that is not even technical, or rational.
In profound disappointment - kevin
|
Amir says “Search for High Fidelity and Google gives you this:
"high fi·del·i·ty /ˌhī fəˈdelədē/ noun
- the reproduction of sound with little distortion; giving a result very similar to the original."
And how do you know about distortion? By measuring it.”
- How sad for Google to be used for definitions instead of proper sources of integrity. Even ChatGPT would have given better result.
- First, google does not define distortion as measurable or heard, what is defined is its definition referring to sound and not signal.
- The Cambridge dictionary: “the production by electrical equipment of very good quality sound that is as similar as possible to the original sound.”
- Merriam-Webster: “the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original.”
- Collins: “the use of electronic equipment to reproduce a sound or image with very little distortion or loss of quality.”
- The Oxford dictionary: “very high quality recording and playing of sound by electronic equipment”
- The Oxford advanced learners dictionary : uncountable.
- Wikipedia: “a term for the high-quality reproduction of sound or images.”
- Britannia: “the very good quality that some recorded sounds or copied images have.”
- Longmans: high fidelity recording equipment produces sound that is very clear.”
No where is the word or term ‘signal’ used in multiple definitions over credible sources, from the origins of the term. How conveniently it has been twisted to suit an argument for measurement.
The Oxford advanced dictionary has an interesting take on high fidelity as “uncountable” - quite the opposite of measurable, in fact.
In amusement - kevin
|
Amir says “As I have said, nearly half of my reviews include listening tests. That amounts to hundreds of reviews this way. So don’t keep saying I only go by measurements. I go by what science requires which is either objective tests or controlled experiments.”
- hundreds of reviews, half of which are accompanied with time consuming and pressured controlled listening tests, and time spent defending one’s need for the last word, and one dares say one actually has time for music, let alone listens to it? Regardless of whether one is telling the truth or lying, measurements must certainly have the last word, not listening, as has been denied before. This is so tragically sad, there are no words for it.
In friendship - kevin
|
@audition__audio
I think you meant rationalists, as in “Had the hobbyists (empiricists) listened to the rationalists…”
Absolutely correct. I am so happy for those who spend more time listening to music than rationalising it.
In friendship - kevin
|
Amir says “We don't spend any time rationalizing music.”
and then “As I have said, nearly half of my reviews include listening tests. That amounts to hundreds of reviews this way. So don't keep saying I only go by measurements. I go by what science requires which is either objective tests or controlled experiments.”
’We’ may not, but he certainly does, by clear conclusion.
In disbelief of hypocrisy - kevin
|
@fleschler yup, I never engage during my music evenings : ) had to take a week break from amirs graphs and word games. Really, he can’t be enjoying his music much, how could he possibly have the time?
In friendship - kevin
|
And, in line with that….
Amir says “You all do though by worrying about spec of dust on the wall screwing up the sound. That level of anxiety must impact the listening pleasure. If that doesn’t, certainly the amount of time spent buying and messing with the system does. “
- While there may be doubt regarding who actually cares about specks of dust, we know a lot about the hundreds of hours he spends measuring and rationalising, messing around with the line of each graph, or each little distortion screwing up the measurements. That level of anxiety must impact the listening pleasure. If that doesn’t, certainly the amount of time spent having the last word on confirmation bias after the measurements are known, does.
In all truth - kevin
|
