But maybe best of all, reads a few papers, and is now "the expert" on acoustics, human hearing, and human perception. My illustration, this time, is the repeated reference to a paper on "law of the first wave front", which is of course not at all a law in the scientific sense, and is really just a perceptual hypothesis rather elementary in its position, but also, as being used by Mahgister, totally ignores the realities of sound reproduction by stereo speakers. You are right in saying that in the very specific sense this law of the first wavefront is an experimental perception hypothesis for sure but all acoustician call it a "law" ....Then reproaching me to use this naming is like usual resorting to your bad faith tactic in discussion... Then accusing me of using the concept of law by ignorance dont work in this case and is only an occasion to use ANY argument against my argument ... Sorry... For sure you resort to "lying" and authority argument, like saying SOMETHING about me i never said, i aknowledge all you said for being true about "imaging" for example but HALF TRUTH....You definition of imaging is uncomplete... This is what i wrote in my post: «" imaging" is FIRST : timing + the law of the first wavefront.. (acoustic) After that you can speak of timing+volume ...(engineering) missing this point is complete reversal and misunderstanding of the phenomena... Acoustic neurophysiology is FIRST, recording engineering come in second for the complete explanation....» You know more than me in many aspects of audio, nobody can contradict that, especially not me, but you dont understand some basic facts, in acoustic and science methodology, and this is reflected in your agenda against all audiophiles here... Anybody can read your posts.... And verify....But like anyone who take pleasure to bash people you dont feel any shame.. For the "timbre experience" my concept come from two recent books of science and in my discussion with you about this, i was with a experienced pro. musician frogman, that confirmed my point of view and you called him a liar... Then any reader of these posts can verify all that... I am ignorant, you are right about that, but me, i try to understand ... You dont need to understand yourself, you know already and dont accept any contradiction even if you were blatently wrong... and you go on insulting all audiophiles for being idiots from the beginning... |
You gotta love Mahgister. Literally makes up his own definition for timbre, then gets all upset when someone else does not use the definition he made up. Then to support his argument, he pulls up a quote that does not recognize the current, generally agreed upon definition of timbre. Then again gets upset that his made up definition does not match that one. However, that is my fault. You accuse me of what you are at fault... I extract the standard definition of bias from wikipedia... This deefinition explicitly characterise "bias" to be innate and/or learned... You said the opposite...Bias are never learned in your post... This is important because the definition of what is a "bias" is the key to define scientifically the range of the blind test methodology... You are in total bad faith.... And any reader here of your posts can verify what i just said... |
It’s idiocy is literally grade school level. Speaking idiocy for others....Will you admit your complete erroneous understanding of the concept of "bias" important concept for the understanding the scientific interpretation range of the blind test method itself ? I posted your own definition and the standard one contradicting it and confirming my own use of the word bias... You are mute? He does not know what a "bias" is.... Like demonstrated by his own posts and the standard definition... He use the result of blind test for his agenda, out of their scientific range, for his own goal which is ridiculize audiophiles group.... I just read his post about "imaging" and he reduced it to electronic design and digital processing, they are the fields he knows about, and some true facts indeed about speakers location, BUT ignoring the MAIN acoustical law for room "imaging" : the law of the first wavefront, which is the main factor in the recreation of " depth imaging" in a room which is, first and last, a phenomena coupling acoustic physics with the neurophysiology of perception...Not a phenomena explained first by the coupling of source and speakers or headphones...The law of the first wave front is a law in the acoustical neurophysiology... Even if your source is perfect with all the recorded perfect "cues" you will not gain a great imaging in a bad room.... Any educated audiophile know that... I prove it to myself by creating a device, a "mechanical equalizer" after Helmholtz, that plays with the different timing tresholds in a room for the perception of the first wave front, from late and early reflections and their timing and the creation of the "image"... I am tired to argue with him because he is unable to undertand his own errors....Myself ignorant about all this i proved i could learn creating my own mechanical equalizer... I already proved that he dont understand acoustical timbre phenomenon either for the same reason, ignorance of acoustical phenomena and their reduction to digital engineering only the field he know well... I will go out on my room now... |
Joking is not an argument nor an answer to the precise points i just made...
Are you able to be truthfull to a line of thinking when thinking and speaking?
It is not useful to answer now.... My question dont need an answer now....But only a reflexion...
If you dont answer to the argument of my preceding post FIRST and recognizing your defectuous use of the concept "bias", no new answer of you are valuable for the continuity of the discussion...
When someone point me wrong, being myself intelligent, i recognize immediately or try hard to understand if it is the case, that i am wrong if i am wrong....
Truth is more valuable than winning a pointless discussion ....And the truth ask for you to say that you wrongly used the concept of "bias" with the wrong definition all along the discussion...
Biases are innate OR learned, and for some of them they are also innate AND learned...Not recognizing this fact by a joke will not save your face and ass in this discussion...
Gymnastic and logical fallacies are not part of epistemology nor of audio engineering, being it digital or purely acoustical....
Blind test are useful test in a statistic methodological context, or fun and "useful" one with very limited range and scope, BUT not proof of existence or inexistance of phenomena by only themselves in the absolute sense of the word "proof"... "Bias" is an operational concept.... Not an argument you can throw at the head of someone....
Discussion closed.....
|
To my point, biases are not transferable, not in audio, not even in society, even if many share the same biases. There is no way of knowing. However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes. Head coinciding with the location of ass is called gymnastic not epistemology... The important words in your sentences here is the beginning unconscious wording : " To my point.. " which can be translated by : never mind the accepted meaning of " bias", for my agenda the meaning of "bias" is...... The problem is there exist a general definition of the word "bias" I will use wikipedia definition: « Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.[2]»
Reading the citation i extracted from your post and the wiki general definition demonstrate clearly that you dont know what is a bias objectively... IT CAN BE "INNATE OR LEARNED"....Contrary to what you explicitly said.... And the 2 at the same time yes...
I will add to the uncomplete wiki definition that a bias could also be the 2 at the same times, innate AND learned in specific collective and cultural context....
You said that "biases" are not transferable nor learned but the general accepted definition says like i said myself all the times in all my posts here, to no avail, that they are... Not surprizing that with 2 defiintion of the word "bias", a true one and a false one, the discussion is impossible with you...
The only absolute reality transferable for you is the objective reading of a number on a measuring dial... Which is the fallacy of the measuring gear measuring itself without needing a brain to interpret it with his learned biases... Your notion of Science is like the the well known baron lifting itself by his own hairs...This is your "gymnastic"...You called this gymnastic science...I called it technocratic deception or superstition... You reduced "bias" to the partial view of being something impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering in ALL your posts...Timbre perception is an audiophile taste only, not a real complex concept in acoustic.... Imaging concept is reducible to physical design of speakers location, specific drivers types etc All that is erroneous and limited narrow views of these deep acoustical concepts...
Why is the word " bias" related to a " SYSTEMATIC error" in the general definition? Because a bias is a concept primarily belonging to statistic methodology ....
Then using blind test and bias out of a statistical context to prove an agenda about what is real or not, what is subjective and objective or not, in an absolute sense, is an abuse of the scientific methodology...Especially when we called "bias" anything which impede with our own agenda...The confirming bias fallacy here :Blindtest ONLY confirm reality and all that exist really could be confirm to exist by blind test...
But you reduced from the beginning "bias" to the partial view of being anything impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering...Then audiophiles unable to read and trust only these dials are deceived idiots...
The problem is your view of reality is simplistic if not childish, a technological fad and habit....
Guess who is deceived here, and worst, deceiving others?
|
Audio is not about scientific testing of one’s hearing or memory, it’s about enjoying the music. His pleasure and goal here seems to be proving that all audiophiles are idiots hypnotized by their biases and unable to read reality: which is first and last a measured dial numbers on an apparatus...They prefer their "illusion" to "reality"....They are deluded... I dont even know why i discuss with him save for the fact that i am in my own way "idiot"....I prefer to think that i am passionate.... But it is my bias no? |
Effectively you are trying to use bias as a positive variable in the reproduction of sound. That is what you are writing, whether you realize it or not. You are right in this sentence and remark for sure ... I NEVER contested that... I contest your AFFIRMATION that ALL what i perceived is ONLY deception... What do you think, that i am NOT conscious of the deceptive powers of any bias? I am and it is for this reason that listening experiments are necessary and blind test also... I repeat that from the beginning...Audiophiles must use their EARS...Biases included....Then how can you affirm that i am not conscious of that? For sure you think i am an idiot...But audiophiles must conduct listening experiments also even blind test if possible for some very small debatable audible change... Why not? You are obsess by your own agenda and unable to read ANY of my post... I never contested the fact that i have biases like all people, and i used them for sure creating my own audio system myself...It is EVIDENT fact.....Biases are not something negative to be elimated always and at all times, sometimes it is a learned useful sum of habits that created a real phenomenon of their own with different meaning for different people but anyway a real phenomenon... My last device a mechanical equalizer is fine tuned by my BIASES and specifically structured EARS only.... Who negate this fact? not me nor anyone with a minimal I.Q. i will never pretend that this tuning will be pure objective optimal perfection for all ears others than mine.... This is precisely the gist and goal and usefulness of this no cost project... Then if i did not contested this point what is the reason for me to argue with you? FIRST- It is precisely the fact , an epistemologically precise one in acoustic science, that some phenomena COULD not be studied with the elimination of ALL biases, save at the cost of erasing the phenomena under study itself, like the timbre musical perception of a playing instrument and his perception by the artist or the listener which are 2 different phenomena which may be and can be connected tough... SECOND- The central epistemological truth is also that you CANNOT conclude after a blind test to a POSITIVE demonstration of inexistance of some phenomena by only the absolute virtue of the blind test itself only.... Blind test are useful for eliminating biases from a tested drug in statistical studies.... NOT IN EMPIRICAL science like acoustic to prove the existence or inexistance of phenomena...The reason is simple some phenomena are discernible and experienced in some context and environment not in others...The biases here are habits in a very definite environment and the habits Are LEARNED way to navigate in this environment... Change the environment and the perceptive habits decline...Change the perceptive habits and the environment is erased... Do you understand this SUBTLE point? Your favorite tactic in discussing is the fallacy which consist in attributing to someone an argument which is NOT his argument but your own accusation disguised... Read that 2 times, spelling it.... I am in favor of blind test, why not? Whose the fool who is not in favor of their use or against them by principle ? I am in favor of their use NOT FOR DECIDING what is real or unreal in objective realm and in subjective realm in the absolute sense tough and this is the CRUX of the matter... Only for investigating the border between these double 2, the real and unreal in objective reality and in subjective reality also, which in acoustic like in many science is not a definite "line" but some country in itself separating the objective and the subjective and created by their interpenetration....I am opposite to their errenous conclusion, not the use of blind test, especially when these conclusions consist to negate the fundamental existence of some reality by reducing it ONLY to material measurable one... Perhaps my thinking is a bit too complex for your "analytical superior power"... Then you may persist and going on with the false accusation that i dont want blind test or negate them.... I negate the false use and propaganda linked to blind test by scientism ... Not the blind test in their own legit range of application.... James Randi is not Einstein... And even a debunker can bunker himself easily.... Epistemological studies are not comic books illustrated by conjuring tricks and optical illusions... |
Bias is a personal reality. It is not transferable Your ignorance is deafening sorry.... Culture is precisely the ingraining and transfer and "culture" of biases and elimination of differently "chosen" biases in different societies and also even in science....There exist a hierarchy of different biases and of the corresponding experiences... Ernst Cassirer called that symbolic forms...Bias are not "individual" characteristics because individuality can be distinguish from the collective but could not be separated....Bias are not a simple thing we must always eliminate, but something we must be conscious of , even if it is almost impossible or difficult like for the blind spot in vision... Educate yourself....Learn what is culture, which science is itself only a ramification....Unseparable from the tree of culture, the science is only a living branch; but not a separable branch like think some "scientism" who want to sit on a dead branch standing unattached to any biases tree trunk in the sky.... I was advising student about reading in my daily job than i recommend to you Ernst Cassirer... You either eliminate bias or you do not Philosophy of science is not childish game ... Are you serious? 😁 For sure you are.... Everybody favor blindtest even me.... But the reality of some effect is not always decidable automatically after a blind test.... Life is not so easy.... It is morning now.... I wish you the best day possible.... I will mute my speaking "ignorance"....Or my speaking consciousness.... Or my speaking biases .... |
Stop making excuses. Everyone has biases and yes concerning audio. It not occured to you that EVERYBODY is ok with that part...Bias are unevitable and universal... The wrong attitude is using blind test to prove an agenda about "reality".... In some aspect under study of the acoustical experience, eliminating bias is mandatory for the isolation of all parameters at play for example... In other aspect the bias are the reality itself which must be studied not eliminated... You always use blind test in a one way direction which is reflecting itself a bias: reality is purely physical and material and reducible to dials controls... Is it not simple even for most to understand? Your tactic is accusing others to do what you did on a daily basis, stick to your blind spot bias....Your vision of reality is so tunneling you are in a dead end without even knowing it... Arguing with you is impossible... If i was wiser that i think i am i would be mute save for asking to you precise information about digital processing in audio.... Your knowledge is not refutable by me there nor in electronic engineering because i know nothing almost in these fields.... But i can think a bit by myself.... In philosophy and acoustic you are flawed....Not because of your vast knowledge but because knowledge dont equal understanding and could impede it in some way at some point.... Audiophiles are like any group not all constituted by idiots sorry... If i can recreate a high level of S.Q. with a 500 bucks system in my room with pipes and straws i am perhaps not a complete idiot... |
The original comment wrt Strads was wrt bias something lost on you likely due to bias. Biases are not born all equals....They cannot be tested the same way to prove their illusory nature or not, like you pretend....Some are grounded in history and constituted not an illusion but contribute to create the experience itself....Proving them illusory erase the experience itself in his reality... It is throwing the baby with the waters bath... Something you do daily with your own "scientist" biases unbeknownst to you... Your vast knowledge in audio, superior in most aspects to mine, is not the same as understanding and often not strictly equal to it , the 2 are ,each one a bias tough, not the same bias at all....Revise your study in acoustic...The grounding of neurophysiology of perception in the room chapters especially.... 😊😁 I propose to the jazz listener the more "jazzy" integral of Bach klavier with classical only means of playing tough by Zuzana Růžičková... It will also be a test about timbre perception on your audio system... If you dont like the sound, beware, it is not the files or the instrument but your system which is at fault...His sound is out of this world but unberable on bad audio system... She plays with an astonishing clarity using register so various in colors that all other interpretations could appear boring soundwise.... Not musically, like for example the great Gustav Leohnardt.... Or one of the more astonishing piece of "classical " jazz: "Visions" by Walt Dickerson on vibraphone and Sun Ra on piano.... The decay clarity of the vibraphone will be a soundwise test on your system... The 2 players are geniuses here in their musical and soundwise means.... And telepathically related in a rare form of musical parapsychology experience which is well known by musicians .... |
I wonder why anyone thinks because humans have biases they’re somehow deluded? I imagine if I heard a Stradivarius I would consider it superior then if heard it compared with other violins in a blind test but didn’t pick the Stradivarius I wouldn’t assume I’m deluded or suffering from hallucinations. I’d shrug it off and laugh about how easily we’re influenced by our biases. The simple common sense expressed in your post is inaccessible to anyone who has an agenda or a mission: using blind test to prove that all audiophiles are deceived totally... I know very well that i could detect change in my room and with my gear, with specific files that i would not be able to detect in a blindtest OUT of my usual settings... My power are not super power they are LEARNED habit....Derail, disturb, or upset the habit and his complex specific conditioned environment and associated state of mind, the usual perceiving power is lost... This point is unaccessible to the fanatic.... |
I wonder why those who denigrate testing for biases seem to think the outcome of such tests will support the position of "measurementists"? You are right blind test can reveal something that contradict the "measure it" only bandwagon... But it is not the main point... Blind test erase biases for statistical useful reason... It is a tool... Not a way to PROVE that all biases are only unfounded bias or only fads or super power pretense... The "measure it only " bandwagon are blinded by their own bias they think is the only true reality and perspective.... They use the test out of his scientifical usefulness to PROVE something no blind test could prove ONLY by itself... They are child or fool , philosophical clown... Epistemology is not for children but for mature mind... James Randi is not Einstein... It is a clown in music hall that debunk easy tricks....Randi do not do SCIENCE... He did the contrary of science which has nothing to do with a circus... |
I wonder about the mental health of those that vomit paragraphs to avoid eliminating bias in testing when the result can only be beneficial.
I wonder about the mental health of those that vomit paragraphs to nullify any bias, founded and unfounded, on the same footing with the only goal to prove audiophiles are deluded people... Claiming that a blind test could PROVE that... ERASING BIASES NEVER COULD PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY THEY WERE MEANINGLESS AND UNFOUNDED IN REAL SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.... |
That’s one of the ironies about the measurementalists here. They’ll even often refuse to listen to test whether their theories are valid - they have that much faith in their belief system.
The other irony: The measurementalists frequently apply ill logic to their claims, so it makes meaningful conversation with them virtually impossible. Many of these measurementalists are here solely to argue, so these apparent inconsistencies suit them just fine. For sure you are right on the sensible spot..... For example if we read one of this childish fanatic: I do enjoy the mental gymnastics to attempt to wave away bias. Bias exists. Period. Only way to eliminate is to blind test. Take weeks, just do it blind. You don’t have magical powers. He accuse people to refuse to eliminate their own experience, learning, knowledge, because of the blind test.... He does not realize that using blind test can never make all bias equal, founded and unfounded one, the test can erase them in "artificial conditions" useful statistically but meaningless to decide if some bias are meaningful and others not... And THIS is the important point.... He want to prove that all audiophiles perceptions are pure deceptive "taste" unfounded in reality....Then he devise a blind test supposed to reveal that... But no blindtest coud scientifically do that.... Erasing biases they can do it....Proving that ALL biases are meaningless they cannot do it by virtue of being blind choices in "artificial" conditions.... Frogman only insist on that point... But it sems that this distinction ask for too much brain power to be grasped by some.... Audio2design accuse audiophiles to boast their magical power.... It is a straw man argument so big that explaining it, is like explainig philisophy to babies... Anyway... I will explain it shortly: any audiophile like any violin player has a set of subtles acquired perceptives habits that are powerful tool but ONLY in a specfic environment and with some very usual and known parameters...Changing them provoke most of the times the lost of the acquired perceiving knowledge...Stres, unusual conditions, any modifications.... Then erasing bias is science statiscally sound method, using it to PROVE anything is no more science... The strategy of audio2design is childish.... To say the least.... |
Not every opinion is the result of bias. I appreciate your post cleeds but i will make a precision... Every opinion become a bias, but all opinion are not unfounded orientation of the mind or useless and meaningless habit, some opinion and unconscious bias are motivated by learning and listening, or any slow acquisition of knowledge... All biases are prejudices but some prejudices are more meaningful than others.... Call them informed orientation of the subsconcscious and conscious mind... Then pretending using blind test to reveal bias in the sense of unfounded and meaningless habits that oriented our choices is very delicate because there exist also bias that are meaningful and founded on real meaning and knowledge process acquisition... Then the range of application of blind test is only ERASING the presence of ANY bias in a test for small change or for statistical methodology.... Not for proving that the taste for stradivarius is meaningless and non sense habit reflecting only arbitrary bias like the taste of a supposed deluded audiophile.... Erasing biases from an experiment CANNOT prove that the biases eliminated were all non sense choices or deceptives one EVER to begins with....This is science fact.... The other interpretation is cheap scientist ideology .... Blind test are useful not for PROVING anything, it is ONLY a tool to eliminate human choices for statistical reason.... Any other use is childish epistemology.....Or epistemology for fanatic.... Pick you choice.... |
Blind test are valid in their SHORT range of applications,
small changes difficult to detect or statistical needs to erase human choices in medical research for example,
BUT they are no more valid to decide if the feeling for a stradivarius is ONLY AND MAINLY a BIAS not founded on a real quality herited and learned through history, but instead an arbitrary fad which the test is supposed to reveal....
The reason for that are touch upon in the pots of frogman, i will not repeat that...
Biases are universal and in all human choices, nobody could question that in his sane mind...
The use of blind test to PROVE that all biases, or preferences are purely arbirary, or deceptive is a use of blind test OUT of their normal range of useful application for the need of an "ideological" perspective, itself an unconscious bias....
|
Alas! there is truth in this change of world....
|
The logical fallacy of blindtest, in audio or music, when they are used out of their narrow usefulness window function, to reveal the reality or deceptiveness of small change that are not evident at first, is that they suppose that a DEFINITIVE judgement is possible out of the normal context and habit where the judgement is produced usually...Like a violin stradivarius compared to a modern one...Or an audiophile assessing without stress a small change in his system in his room with his files...
The use of blindtest in statistical medical procedure is another story completely... It is there they reveal the most important facet of their power , eliminating the human biases from the medical experiment...But assessing the value of a violin ask to the player the exact opposite, a mastering of the instrument, using his experienced biases or learning personal experience, impossible in most improvised blindtest...The listeners also must be experienced and in his normal circonstances or near them....
|
Thanks frogman these precisions about blind test improvisation and timbre perception had to come from a professional musician to correct hasty conclusions about the real value and limitations of blind test especially in this case...
There is not doubts that there is luthier genius today and the test has the merit to reveal one, but like you said it is IMPOSSIBLE to assess an instrument value in this kind of test and justifying irrational opinion like stradivarius reputation are ONLY biases....
My deepest regards.... |
Very good post and page mapman thanks....
|
Expectation biases are universal... The problem is not the universal presence of biases, it is when we reject outright any claim based on a personal experience to be ONLY the result of biases, because it suit our own biases... Placebos and biases are normal daily life events... Hearing a change in an audio system modulo ANY change or addition of a device is something to be experiment first.... If many experiment it positively the probability that this is only a placebo decrease with each new testimony.... After that it is fun to do blind test, but it is in no way a scientific proof for many reasons, one is the fact that assessing audio effects need to be done by someone in his own environment, and parameters, audiophile listening is not a superhuman innate bat ability, it is ONLY an habit , a learned ability to discern in a well known environment... Blindtest are very difficult to realize.... By the way stradivarius were very well known to all violonists... It is not a bias only, it is a FACT,the strad are good and they were very well known by the educated ears of violonist...Then this fact induced a justified bias in favor of the strads over the vast majoriry of modern violin... But a genius luthier come and.... What was NOT AT ALL well known was the rare modern violin able to surpass them.... It is NOT the great majority of modern violins that surpass Strads... Only a few, not very well known nor often recorded like the strads and these modern master piece were designed by a master luthier NOT by all modern luthier... These rare modern birds were not listen to very often contrary to strads... Then a justified bias existed in favor of strads compared to the majority of modern violins which were inferior and this bias was then effectively justified by experience.... Indeed VERY FEW modern violins were really superior to the strads... The blind test only make this surprizing new fact known....Some modern luthier are also geniuses like the one of the past... Then if you think about what i just said you must not be surprized.... All violinists are not deluded or guided only by their biases at all, like you suggest erroneously here... their bias in favor of strads was justified and replaced by a new discovery of some new masterpiece... They simply discovered a new modern absolute master piece which was not known much before the spectacular test made it well known... Even if biases are justified they can be proven wrong for sure...That does not means that there never exist a superiority of the strads and that this was ONLY a delusion... Reality is more complex than your own biases about biases, sorry.... The modern violins were preferred.
Here’s the kicker though. When asked if this would affect the values of the Strads the study lead said: "If you know it’s a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can’t turn off that effect."
Here we go again! Then reality is not composed by deluded audiophiles and violonists in a corner against blind test science truth in the other corner, like you suggest... Reality is not SIMPLE..... Reality exist not in black and white but in colors on earth for the eyes able to see them.... |
But NO you fault me about something i clearly not state and it is in my post itself... I precisely state that listening and playing are acoustically very different READ IT again...Anybody here can read it anyway then are you a fool to lie in daylight?
You are right on one point, i explain not myself always very clearly because i am not a scientist, for one, nor an english speaker...I am only one of the audiophiles you despise...
Having no argument against me you attack me and any others here , suffice to read your posts...You cannot prove that all my experiments and devices are bullshit...You cannot know... And in some case it is pure acoustic science like my Helmholtz grid...
I never pretend to know ALL like you... I only pretend to know my "amateurish" fruitful experience to reach hi-fi at peanut cost and i succeeded to my satisfaction... Thats all...I communicated it to my fellow audiophile in an audio thread.... Your mission in life is debunking us?
What are your own pretention? You insult anyone daring to use "tweaks" or speaking of his experiments, or using turntables, or for being a musician, you present yourself like the bringer of "scientific truth" simplifying and reducing all audio experience to your engineered specialized window...
Myself i had proposed here, many no cost experiments and some has confirmed my results... Are we all deluded? They seems to have understood some of my posts in spite of my defects by the way....
Keep your boat i will navigate in mine.... Dont attack anyone and i will stay mute...
|
How an acoustic instrument sounds to the person playing it is not at all like it sounds in the audience. Like usual you prove to me you are just an opinionated guy who never read arguments accurately save for the gist of winning an argument... These are my exact words in my preceding post, you dont even read to understand what i speak about: Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician...
I precisely state here that playing and listening are 2 completely different things... How these 2 completely different acoustical experiences which are playing and listening are related? They are related by HABIT, of playing and listening and gauging the differences by the musician himself... It is simple musician journey... Then, Swing and a miss audio2design. Again. You don’t ever learn. By the way you are inadvertantly childishly arrogant saying: hence why we teach them the difference and make them wear headphones at times. I want to see you how you dare to advise Celibidache, or Miles Davis, or any jazz musicians or a classical one on this "education" of them by you .... 😁😁 The only one musician who is not conscious of this fact is a teen.... Pathethic arrogance... |
You forgot a 4th mahgister, people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way. You never learn it seems... Have you not learned that a musician for example know how a violin they play must sound when listening to the recorded event? Certainly not, you called the musician who make this observation about timbre a liar.... But i will remind you why? It is because of an acoustical phenomenon, no , not a digital recording one, but a pure acoustical (physics of room acoustic +neurophysiology of percetion) phenomenon that is called : remembering the timbre perception event of an instrument we already know... This remembering event is associated with a perceptive habit of playing it and listening it in a correct room... Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician... Then you are right of talking about the "taste" or preference of a musician about the way his violin or any violin should sound.... But most musicians, even if they have their own preferences, are in general in a consensus about what a right and natural TIMBRE sound like about any instrument and maestros too.... They dont need to consult the recording engineer to know how a trumpet must sound.... You know why they dont need to always consult a recording engineer, like you especially? It is because they want to refine the recording mix for their ears timbre perception habit in natural acoustic settings, not first and last refining it abstractingly, putting it in the procustean bed of digital processing at any cost....They enjoy a sound for their musician taste....Not a so called " perfect" synthetically recreated engineered sound for the sake of engineering ideals... Timbre is an acoustical physic room phenomena first and a neurophysiological phenomena first not a digital engineering phenomena first... It is not simple to understand? Then what you accused other of, is precisely your sin.... Remember the musician you accuse of lying when he was speaking of timbre saying that i was right about timbre? people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way. You fit exactly the description you impose on me.... The difference is i am with all the musicians in the world....You are alone with your engineering individual preferences, you take them for the only "objective" one not knowing that objectivity in acoustic is consensus of human EARS.... |
I also discovered from reading the comments here on "Agon" we are divided into two types of audiophiles; there are equipment lovers and there are music lovers. Equipment lovers speak of 0 distortion while music lovers listen for the equipment’s ability to communicate the music. You missed the essential third group...The group of people that dont oppose sound and music but know how they related to one another... The music lovers who care for sound but already know that acoustic is the key in audio, not upgrading an already good gear, nor advocating tubes/S.S. or digital/analog... They dont advocate for their taste of gear like people who war against each other in stupid arguing....This third group work had to improve at the lesser cost what they have at hand for listening music... This third group to which i belong is the much enlightened one because they dont spend money in costly gear but create instead acoustic cheap solutions among also others electrical or mechanical cheap solutions in other audio working dimensions... 😊 |
I am absolutist and proud of it.
As I mentioned, microphones are unadvanced devices. First, improve them. There is no music recorded well. I think your post is a blank statement of "absolutism" yes....But nothing else i am afraid... Your conclusion " there is no music recorded well" is already contained in the premise "microphones are unadvanced devices".... Then your affirmation is only a vicious circle masking the essential hole in your premise: in reality microphones are already advanced tool but only RELATIVELY advanced for sure and then microphones can be improved in their design but also in their use...Conflating all types of microphones with all their specific relatives uses and putting all of them on the same "primitive" level, or faulting the design when in many cases it is the use itself the problem is not rigorous but only a sophism... Dont forget also that the art of recording is an art of trade-off and nothing could be absolutely perfect erasing completely this necessary trade-off by the nature of acoustic physic itself... In truth microphones are only tools and like rhetorical tools can be rightly or wrongfully used... Both can be improved.... The chance is that you will improve your logic more speedily than the art of recording....But you can improve the acoustic of your room even faster than these two.... My last word will be simple: there is some relatively well recorded music, and some for sure are better, other less... Absolutism is more successful in spiritual life....Even in mathematics absolutism is behind after Goedel.... I will also give a practical recommendation: no audio system at any price could do justice to a relatively well recorded files or vinyl or cd, without working in a well controlled environment, especially acoustically...But also in a mechanically and electrically rightfully controlled working dimensions.... Then your experience and problems with recording source is perhaps unbeknonwst to you, an experience with the bad controlled acoustic settings of your audio room....Or some problems also with the mechanical or electrical embeddings... I dont know for sure..... My best to you.... |
If true today, give it a few more years.
It is amazing how good some of the programs have become. Just this month some scientist use the eyes of an insect connected to an A.I. device and use it with success... THEN my point is not doubting technological progress... My point is about MEANING.... In human perception also lie meaning, and using dials to REPLACE human perception is not the essence of human experience, even if dials are useful.... And you are right about that, tomorrow A.I. will work without ANY human help whatsoever....This does not solve the meaning problem.... 😁😊 |
I apologize to all for my long post... in reality my answer is one line...
Reading electronical measuring dials cannot replace the human ears perception of timbre....
My post is useless for anyone who did not want to understand this simple fact....
«The circle of measuring apparatus begins and ends with human perception»-Anonymus Smith
«If no one is there to read a dial what is its meaning?»-Groucho Marx meditating Zen |
Acoustic is but one form of music. It’s not a given pinnacle and there is much variation from instrument to instrument such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.
Maybe you don’t think as deeply as you feel you do? Astonishing! I know now that you dont have a clue...Or do you only want to never admit ignorance? The word acoustic may be used to describe the sound of non amplified instrument , like in acoustic guitar....In some post of frogman where he give the example of non amplified instrumental timbre in a living event illustrating his own musician experience of timbre.... This is one thing.... But in all my posts i was spoken about the concept of acoustic, like in acoustic physic, room acoustic, or acoustic science in general which encompass physics and for example adress very deep problem not only about TIMBRE concept in music but about also speech recognition etc.... Then your observation about the adjective "acoustic" associated to a non amplified instrument is one thing that hide to you or you hide it to yourself i dont know, the deep concept behind timbre perception and experience...Frogman was using it without your confusion tough.... All my posts spoke about that....They spoke about the impossibility to REPRODUCE the original timbre experience but only to RECREATE it partially, nevermind the source digital or analog, in specific rooms always, always differently but in a possible acceptable way; we will call this possible truthfull recreation, naturalness of the timbre instrument experience or perception, nerver mind if it is an acoustic guitar or an electrical one ...the 2 type haver also a timbre"envelope" relative to the structure of the instrument and dynamically linked to the room for his creation and also for his recreation...Amplified or not.... In acoustic concept ANY insruments amplified or not, own a timbre "envelope" that is recreated differently in different acoustical settings.... All my post to you for the last 4 weeks now were about that experience and concept of acoustic, not the adjective associated with a nbon amplified instrument like in the exemple of frogman... Then saying that in your words "acoustic is one form of music" clearly refer to non amplified instrument for sure, but it is not the non amplified instrument that are at the pinnacle of the musical and acoustical experience, IT IS THE TIMBRE CONCEPT and PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE in ACOUSTIC SCIENCE in a specific room, never mind if it is a violin or a theramin amplified instrument... The variation between instruments amplified or not, did not change the necessary acoustical settings and necessary controls in a room for the recreation of the timbre experience by the human ears...READ THAT 2 TIMES... It is the main point.... Ouffff "acoustic is one form of music" is a very bad sentence conceptually.... Amplified sounds instruments or not amplified sounds instruments play the same music not each one his own form of music...The musical perception of timbre exist in the 2 cases... In the 2 cases a lived musical event, with unamplified or amplified instruments could never be reproduced without trade off and some lost or transformation by the electronical process of mixing and recording and also all the electrical noise in the reproduction system.... I used my room controls to recreate the best i could some natural timbre perception for amplified or non amplified instrument, the 2 own their own natural "envelope" pertaining also to the room where the microphone recorded them in the first place...I want my room to help me to recreate this the best i could....nevermind if i own a dac or a turntable .... 😁 such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable. What is the general reference is the timbre " envelope" dynamical texture of ANY instrument.... For sure all the musician experience is usually with acoustic instrument but this dont change the mathematical definition of timbre in physics and in musical or audio room acoustic....This is the timbre perception which me and frogman called the benchmark of audio and music experience... I will mute myself if you dont add other incoherent observations.... With some people i dont feel to be a deep thinker at all but frankly with you i feel i am very deep....Sorry.... |
That negates electric guitars and synthesizers. Sometimes the amplification is critical to the production. do you mimic misunderstanding? Or you really dont have a clue? I cannot truthfully tell myself..... I am a bit naive perhaps.... Frogman speak about acoustic non amplified instrument and voice for being textbook case of Timbre experience, perception and jugdment, the ultimate test, in speech control acoustic and in music, and in audio.... |
You are just making excuses for your vastly wrong statement Logic only knows wrong statements, "vastly wrong" pertain to rhetoric inflation...Sorry.... 😊 No discussion could go anywhere if someone does not distinguish natural timbre perception from a street musician for example and the noise or distorsion necessarily added from microphone choices and location trade-off to speakers, with in between these two, all other electronical additions and choices trade-off or distortion of the lived event from the recording and mixing itself .... And we must also distinguish this original timbre event ultimately from the way and settings of our own room acoustic and electrical noise floor and mechanical gear constraints that will inhibit and/or make easier by a trade-off of their own also, a "recreation" with only a relative truth value in relation with the original timbre perception of this same recorded event.... It is the reason why acoustic settings and controls of the room of the listener plays a so great role in the recreation of the timbre "envelope" in his own way, without never duplicating the original timbre "envelope" ....It is not only the analog or digital source which play a major role, but the room acoustic is the last judge and jury at the same time and at the end of this recreation process... It is why naturalness of musical timbre perception in the listener room is the benchmark test for any audio system and any acoustical recording of a single instrument....The piano for example....And this test perception will vary with each person, house, and gear....It is never a reproduction in the absolute sense it is a recreation.... Not only any musician know this, like non musician can or could, but they feel it in a more stronger way, unlike you and me.....Especially in the listening experience born with their own instrument.... Then arguing with a musician about "timbre" complex experience and concept is not wise.... «Even God cannot argue with Bach about contrapuntal logic, but my wife did it many times»-Groucho Marx |
|
It seems many people, reading many posts for me, have no idea at all about what is TIMBRE perception...it is normal it is a very very complex concept taking 5 steps to be only grossly described....Then....
First it is impossible to perfectly record the original lived timbre event.... The mic choices type and location make it impossible... Add to it all mixing and all the three kind of noise linked to all reproduction system you have ...No perfect reproduction is possible...
Second it is possible to RECREATE in your room, if your room is well prepared and controlled acoustically, an experience of TIMBRE perception which will do justice to the lived original TIMBRE event ....But it is impossible to RECORD it totally and exactly like it was in the firsat place....It is impossible to perceive it like the original event was also..... It is only possible to recreate it relatively "near" his original truth using acoustical laws for your room settings....Not electronic design of speakers or dac or turntable or any gear only... But mainly the recreation by your ROOM of the original event...Not his pure REPRODUCTION, his recreation only....It is possible by acoustic principle in working use...
The perception of sound and the experience of music has been polluted by too much electronic engineering vocabulary and market hype and not enough acoustic science vocabulary...
Most people are so ignorant they called the most important tools to fine tune room acoustic "tweaks" namely only secondary addition to the audio system.... The Controls of the mechanical electrical and acoustical working dimensions are fundamental not secondary addition to the basic electronic design... And between the three source of noise acoustic is the main source and also the main tool....
Audio is almost ALL acoustic.... Not electricity first.....Pecording is electricity and electronics....Perceiving is not.... Timbre cannot be recorded like it was originally it ask for some acoustic conditions set in place to be born again for the ears, it does not ask for the branded name of some hype known gear first....
An easy example of ignorance is the way people put costly gear in a non treated and non well controlled room and call the result Hi-FI because of the total cost of electronical engineering.... Any musician know that.... Me too.... |
«Are you saying that the mother’s womb is at the same time the first recording studio and listening theater?»-Zeppo Marx
«Timbre’s speech is the template of music»-Anonymus Linguist
«Are you saying that God speak before making music or noise?»-Chico Marx
«Is there not too much intelligent design here?»-Harpo Marx
«Not at all,mother was our original goddess»-Groucho Marx |
Reading your post I understand why some musician could enligntened very simple fact that has been forgotten when we compare amplifiers or dac, or anything audio.... Thanks... You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification. I will add that all rooms and theaters or recording studio has something in common when they modify by their geometry, topology and their acoustic content the possible lived sound event , the common universal acoustical laws, which are akin to the vocabulary and syntax in any language, each room speaking his own acoustical language.These acoustical universal laws are what make possible the translation of one acoustic condition, the room or theater of the lived orginal event, into an another acoustical circonstances and conditions, the room of the listener....This possible translation is made WITH ADDED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL NOISE tough when we go from the original event to our room listening the same concert for example.... This translation is modified with some ADDED electronic noise, mechanical and electrical, that we must CONTROL or decrease in our room to make possible the RECREATION of the "timbre" dynamical event with the less distortion possible.... When we recognize the musical timbre that come from our audio system, it must be the more resembling possible to the musical timbre coming from the original event in spite of the addition of the inevitable mechanical and electrical noise added by the audio electronic and the choices from the recording of the lived event... When we have this relatively natural timbre perception tough in our room, it means that our audio system is relatively rightfully embedded in his working dimensions.... It is the reason why the acoustic of our room being the acoustic translator of the original event is more important than the gear itself most of the times.... «Ears recognize sounds in any room and in any language»-Anonymus Acoustician «The heart feel the music of any country like his own»- Anonymus Musician «Mother’s song is the ancester of all language»-Anonymus Son |
Oh wait. I know which one. The one that thinks the absence of this in music books means audiophiles made it up. Soundstage or imaging concepts exist for sure....They exist for me...But they were created with the progress of electronic audio and speakers design...When i listen to my system i note their existence or lack of...But the more important concept is a musical one: recreation of the timbre experience...This musical concept precede by far the many audiophiles modern concepts about sound linked to the audio market and engineering.. Nobody then can contest that the audiophile concepts exist and make sense... The central point is if we want to judge the accuracy of our system the main central concept is the musical concept of natural playing tonal timbre....That is what i read about in the posts of frogman... And this is my experience in my listenings experiments to embed rightfully my system... The "timbre" experience is the crux perceiving experience.... This dont negate the fact that i want good depth imaging and large soundstage at all... But creating a better timbre experience give us the rest.... Enlarging or improving imaging is good but dont give us a better natural timbre completely by itself if we dont focus our attention toward timbre... The acoustic settings conditions to give a better timbre experience will gives us all the other experience... The opposite is not always true... The acoustical explanation for that is in the definition of timbre itself by 5 characteristics which for their existence ask for a complex acoustical balance in the room which balance will give us anyway imaging and soundstage as a secondary effect... But modifying the soundstage by itself dont give us necessarily a better timbre experience... It is for this reason that listening to timbre is fundamental to refine and fine tune our acoustical settings in the right direction.... |
Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music. Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.
In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.
Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved. Frogman is a musician and i bet a very good one... I am not a musician... Only an average audiophile wanting to create a good system.... All that frogman says is in the same way my own test criteria to tune and install the rightful controls of the working mechanical,electrical and acoustical dimensions of ANY audio system beginning with mine... Forget all any other concept, when testing an audio system the basis is the natural playing subtle dynamic of tonal timbre of instruments...Nothing else.... Acoustic settings of a room are the most important of the 3 embeddings dimensions controls....The acoustic settings of the room must make possible the recreation of the tonal envelope of a playing instrument...If not the room acoustic is bad... Be it a concert hall or your audio room.... Experiencing the natural perception of timbre is the fundamental question in audio, in concert acoustic or small room acoustic... If an audio system can did this right it will do the rest right, if not, nothing will be right even if it seems a relative improvement with a so called "upgrade" with a new hyped electronic design... It takes me years to erase all the audiophile illusions pertaining to gear, upgrade, electronic design, warm,cold,imaging,soundstage etc....They are secondary concepts pertaining not to music but to some "artificial" and conditioned impressions of sound by the commercial market... It is the perception of music that is the core of acoustic in audio not sound.... If we speak of sound we are no more in audio but in physics... Is my system able to recreate natural timbre of piano playing in my room ? That is the question the first one and the last one.... Anything else is marketing vocabulary to distinguish different kind of electronic designs approach...BUT audiophile experience is mainly about musical acoustic not about electronic design progress only and mainly.... Give me now an average relatively good system i know how to make it sound at his optimal level.... No upgrade needed.... The chance that a relatively good average system working at his optimal level satisfy you or even surprize you is indeed very great... It is my experience... «The walls of Jericho were destroyed by sound not by music, in the same way sound may destroy the ears»-Anonymus Smith «Beware of the market»-Groucho Marx |
Wise move....
I never suffered from this illusion, i am lucky....
I did never enjoy lived event much, being "allergic" to crowd, a crowd being for me more that 4 persons...
I know it is a "disease" but an uncurable one... I love people very much but only on very small scale....
Then i never entertain the illusory superiority of lived event with the nostalgia of past lived collective concert for example.... Lived event and recorded one, it is not the same thing at all.... The only link between the 2 ,eyes closed, are the music, not the sound.... |
