Refreshing to read wise post...
Thanks very much....
My best to you....
What are we objectivists missing?
I have been following (with much amusement) various threads about cables and tweaks where some claim "game changing improvements" and other claim "no difference". My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference. If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same. So what are your opinions on what those differences might be and what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?
Showing 18 responses by mahgister
Because thinking dont cost money but our free time highest energy... Correlative dynamic between subjective perception and objective dispositions escape them.... All that debate seems like a question with no answer to superficial mind ignoring that sometimes the answer is in the question itself in science, unlike politic....Here they divide the question in two parts and take a side... 😁😊 But who want to give times to a deep subject like the relation between acoustic and psycho-acoustic? Arguing is more fun for some....
|
My wife has a better hearing than me and she cannot tune my room because she has never train herself in acoustic experiments...... You seems to separate brain and ears... Acoustic is a physical science, psycho-acoustic is not...
Do you read what is posted here? Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty PrincipleJacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo O. MagnascoPhys. Rev. Lett. 110, 044301 – Published 23 January 2013This was discovered few years ago in experiments in psycho-acoustic... If you were right about what you just claim, we know all there is to know about human hearing by ELECTRICAL measures apparatus , this article would have been characterized useless. and never published.. Your claim is dogma.... scientism... Not science... In psycho-acoustic the concept of timbre is impossible to define rigorously without correlating in a dynamic set of measuring process, electrical measures, physical acoustic conditions, and human perceptive experience... Many concept and experience are inseparably subjective and objective correlative process... Hearing +interpretation by learning history and training, is not reducible to few electrical information gained from measuring tools, nor completely predictable... A musician is not a trained dog...a good acoustician too... To make my point simple for your understanding: hearing =ears...listening= brain history... The two are correlated but listening cannot be reduced to only hearing acuity...It is more complex... And the article above prove by experiments that listening skill can beat what physical science said was the ears limit before 2013... It is why i can tune any room, my wife with a better hearing status cannot... It is called positive learned biases....
|
«As Iain McGilchrist says, the left hemisphere is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Which is why we cannot let that vocal part of ourselves, that sees only in part, betray the silent part that sees the whole.»- Winston Smith Sound is a part, speech and music are whole not reducible to only measures of parts externally related to one another ... |
It is one parameter, this measure dont limit the complexities of perceived sound qualities in multidimensional neurophysiological analysis as such and by itself alone, but this measure limit only the physical range of our perceiving abilities on an external physical scale in decibel.......Sound is not only defined by decibels range...
here too you forgot the difference between the positive biases of a musician and confuse it with the negative buyer of an audio product.. Then if we can hear differences they can be expression of LEARNED biases then positive one, or delusion then negative biases... Acoustician and musician exhibit learned biases... Thing are not always simplistic in two cases: true or wrong...... Blind test on musicians had demontrated their ability to beat the uncertainty principle in Fourier analysis .. «This problem has been highlighted in a recent Physical Review Letter, in which researchers demonstrated the vast majority of humans can perceive certain aspects of sound far more accurately than allowed by a simple reading of the laws of physics. Given that many encoding algorithms start their compression with operations based on that simple physical understanding, the researchers believe it may be time to revisit audio compression.» |
We hear bass but we listen Beethoven... But with the help of physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic principles we can learn how to "listen" to acoustic concept in a "musical" way and not only in an acoustical way: timbre, imaging, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic.. And we can learn how to "hear" Beethoven too in the right acoustic conditions and not only listen to him...
We can distinguish music and sound but we cannot separate them in speech and in music.. The meaning level is not over the physical here but permeate it...
My audio room is my brain and my brain is all along my audio room.. . A chord is internal and an external event like a Klein bottle through my 2 ears...
|
Thanks for these remarks... Not less worst than Hitler are those who control money who financed his views nevermind his ideas about expelling jews and alleged "inferior" poeple and stole them of their right at first before deciding it is better to kill them...The bankers and corporations without with there will never be no Hitler, no chemical to kills, etc.... No one is pure evil...You are right.. But a systenm can be pure evil .... Some political and economical system are born from pure evil... For exemple the mechanic of enslavement by debts... It is pure evil and pure economical catastrophy....We are free to participate to these systems or not....
|
It seems to escape people that in acoustic and psycho-acoustic, separating perceptive subjectivity and material objective conditions and measure make no sense at all... It seems to escape some people that we dont listen to the gear, but to the gear/house/room/ speakers relation... Acoustic material dispositions and concepts being the first and last with psycho-acoustic factors to consider...Not the electronic design... Incredibly some seems to not understand that and prefer to be charcterized by their obsession with their beloved gear branded name or against it, with a measuring tool and a blind test... Many dont seems to understand that the only way to learn to listen is studying music and/or acoustic... Picking 10 amplifiers or 100, and comparing them is ridiculous if someone pretend to know audio because of that... it is more important to know how to embed the gear mechanically, acoustically and electrically than buying many amplifiers or upgrading...... The relation between subjectivity and objectivity is anyway ALWAYS an ongoing dynamical LEARNING correlative process...
|
I am happy that we are almost on the same page about that... My best to you ...
|
A cable measured or bought for his magical true or untrue quality will not sound the same in two different rooms, especially if the evaluating ears read the publicity of the cables before buying it or worst because some measured it instead of listening it... Astounding that people dont seems to understand that basic acoustic listening training is needed to be able to evaluate ANY component and optimize his working... Subjectivist and objectivist focus on the GEAR market publicity, one group favorably the other group with defiance....Same error, one group trusting the branded name of the product the other group an electrical tool to measure it... Astounding ignorance....But at least subjectivist guess that they can educate the way they listen....Objectivist are measuring tool fetichist.... 😁😊 None of them learn how to tune a room by themselves, nor to eliminate vibrations and to control the electrical noise floor of the house to some extent, AS the three main experiments in audiophile life... Not blind test nor upgrade... |
It is simple: Subjectivist sometimes dont learn how to listen by themselves, and this is acoustic science training by the way... they trust more the branded name of the gear they bought than their ears training ...They train their ears distinguishing amplifiers marketed sounds qualities 😁😊 Objectivist are worst, they trust their measuring tools ONLY...Or they trust misapplied very limited blind test which are an industrial methodological statistical tool not a tool for learning concrete acoustic ... None of them most of the time learn with their EARS acoustic concrete science in listening experiments... Solving equations of acoustic is not enough in applied acoustic of complex small room by the way...Acoustic like medecine is an art based on science...
|
A room is like a piano, it is easy to spot a lack with few months of listening experiments though... I never said it was easy for sure.. it must be learned... People like to qualify 99% of people being deluded like idiots...And they like to put themselves in the 1 % of enlightened spirit. for sure.. This is not a sign of intelligence this labelling fury... The truth is different, it is more 50 %... It is more like a Bell or Gauss curve... Like the I.Q. distribution... Cretins are not a crowd of 99 %... More like 50%... And guess who claim to be in the 1% ? Myself i claim to be in the good 50%... I cannot prove it, save by rational post arguments...
|
No one need a blind test.... it is a tool useless for casual listener like you and me... Interesting when organized... But i never needed blind test to set and tune my room ... Those who claim the opposite dont know acoustic, where blind test is only a necessary protocol in some psycho-acoustic experiment... Nobody ask his acoustician to pass a blind test before giving him money....
|
Exactly... Objectivist and subjectivist alike wear blinfolds that make them unable to understand a dynamic acoustic/psycho-acoustic process of correlation it seems.. 😁😊
|
In audiophile threads objectivist are not scientist, they are at best some engineers focused on their design tools measures and at worst people obsessed by blind test... They miss the fact that acoustic experience is a science correlating objective and subjective factor...A disctinct science than electronical engineering.... In audiophile threads subjectivist are most of them buyer and consumer obsessed by some brand name product ... They ignore that the sound experience is linked for a great part to acoustic and mechanical and electrical factors which are not dependant on the electronical design itself only but on the way it is embedded... Objectivist and subjectivist partake one thing in common: they are obsessed by a piece of gear and/or the tools to measure it...They are in the cult/business of consumerism gear technology marketing... They miss the acoustic scientific principle correlating objective device disposition and measure with an evaluating and an evaluated subjectivity... All serious engineer designer trust their ears and their design tools TOGETHER...They use acoustic knowledge too .... |