Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia (https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/shared/Golden%20Ears%20&%20Meter%20Readers%20-%20The%20Contest%20for%20Epistemic%20783.pdf) by Marc Perlman

The ongoing thread regarding the Wired Science episode containing an Analog vs. Digital comparison component and the comments contained within reminded me of this excellent read. This is a very good article by the sociologist, Marc Perlman, regarding the ongoing battle waging in our hobby between the measurements crowd and the golden ears. Being an outsider and expert in the social implications of science and technology, Perlman brings a fresh, objective perspective to this conflict. Hopefully, some who read it will take something away from the reading and hold a more open mind for any opposing camps.

I do ask that if you're going to read it to read it all the way through before posting. Up to halfway through the article, the "I know what I hear" crowd may become angry and post some vitriol against the author, but if you last until the end you'll see that he grants credibility to all involved.

- JP

hmm...looks like an interesting read. I got about 1/2 pages in and lost interest. Sorry.

I hear AND I see.

I can't understand why it has to be one or the other.

Cheers.

This'll take a bit o' time, JP, but I will read it all. Thanks. :)
Tom

Interesting, I guess I belong to the meter-readism camp. Which is probably for the best as I'd look pretty funny with golden ears.

Too much like work reading that right now.
Will have to take another look when I am closer to being awake. :)

Whew! That was a long read...........but a good one. I think I have a little bit of the golden ears camp and the meter reader group in me. My rational side tells me that, based on all the measurements, CDs should sound better than vinyl, but my emotional side takes over when an LP is playing..........and the vinyl just sounds better. And I've discovered, at least as far as I am concerned, the more I listen to vinyl, the less tolerance I have for the sound of digital.
As far as tweaks like the pennies and ebony disks that resonate go, I'm pretty much a skeptic, but hey.........whatever floats your boat. I would never criticize someone for hearing a difference. There's a lot of things in this world we don't understand, and probably never will.
Thanks for the link.......it got my brain going real early this morning. Plus it gave me an opportunity to spin some vinyl while I read it. :D

hmm...looks like an interesting read. I got about 1/2 pages in and lost interest. Sorry.

I hear AND I see.

I can't understand why it has to be one or the other.

Cheers.

I agree...

"He grants credibility to all involved"

Hmm, just curious who he is that he can "grant credibility".

Golden ears hmm, how about well trained ears that don't differ from most other folks except for the experience.

Thanks for the read...it was interesting.

I agree...

"He grants credibility to all involved"

Hmm, just curious who he is that he can "grant credibility".

Golden ears hmm, how about well trained ears that don't differ from most other folks except for the experience.

Thanks for the read...it was interesting.
That comment was preemptive for the same reasons I've sat on this article for a few weeks before posting. There is a strong trend at the various audio forums to call PhDs, engineers with decades of experience, and so on "stupid" if they don't say something that perfectly agrees with some audiophile's beliefs and their faith in their hearing abilities. Honestly, it sickens me to see this trend and doesn't speak well of our hobby that so many can so flippantly dismiss those who have spent years or decades in study of the underlying principles that determine what some individual thinks they hear after listening to a few minutes worth of album. I feared that those less open minded or driven to an intellectual understanding of their beliefs in audio would make it about half way (rather than read all the way through and see the balanced perspective of the paper) and come in here and post some knee-jerk scathing comment about how the whole piece was "drivel" and fall into the pattern I outlined above. People will almost always react violently when their faith is put into question and audio involves a great deal of faith in one's hearing abilities, perceptions, and preferences. Thus far, it would appear my concern had some legitimacy.

Now, to step away from this for a moment and bring some levity into here, anyone care to say why the Copernicus quote is a bit amusing?

- JP

Now, to step away from this for a moment and bring some levity into here, anyone care to say why the Copernicus quote is a bit amusing?

- JP

Because Copericus based his findings on scientific observation, not opinion.

What do I win.

If anyone finds this article interesting and wishes to engage in some introspection with the aid of sociology articles on the relationship between the individual and technology or even the Psychology of Music (actual journal), then do take advantage of SAGE Publication's free month of access (http://online.sagepub.com/). There are innumerable great articles, including this, there for reading that greatly help bring enlightenment on why we like what we like and why we think what we do.

- JP

Just managed to wade through the article. He seems to write a lot when a little would suffice, IMO. It was well written and I enjoyed it but it seems like the same points could have been made with a simple list of "golden earists say this", "meter readists say this", "some people have tried to bridge the gap by saying this".

After watching this debate rage for the last 20 or so years (I got into audio about the time CD was gaining speed), I don't think I got anything new out of the article. It was just nicely packaged all at once.

Ray

Charivari

I hope you weren't talking about me with the "knee jerk comment" piece because it was no such thing from me. I have very little reaction to the piece at all. I've read this ongoing debate for years...I have my beliefs and others have theirs. No sweat to me.

BTW I probably know more engineers and scientists then you might imagine. Met many of them when I worked at Hewlett Packard met others in our hobby. Like I said this not a new debate for me...and I don't get worked up over it.

Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia (https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/shared/Golden%20Ears%20&%20Meter%20Readers%20-%20The%20Contest%20for%20Epistemic%20783.pdf) by Marc Perlman

The ongoing thread regarding the Wired Science episode containing an Analog vs. Digital comparison component and the comments contained within reminded me of this excellent read. This is a very good article by the sociologist, Marc Perlman, regarding the ongoing battle waging in our hobby between the measurements crowd and the golden ears. Being an outsider and expert in the social implications of science and technology, Perlman brings a fresh, objective perspective to this conflict. Hopefully, some who read it will take something away from the reading and hold a more open mind for any opposing camps.

I do ask that if you're going to read it to read it all the way through before posting. Up to halfway through the article, the "I know what I hear" crowd may become angry and post some vitriol against the author, but if you last until the end you'll see that he grants credibility to all involved.

- JP

No, I didn't read the article. Why? Well, I have found that there is absolutely no way a "Golden Ear" or a "Meter Reader" is going to change his beliefs.

This is a very snobbish hobby. Like many other hobbies, there will always be 2 sides as to who believes what best, right, better, different, up, down, black, white, et al, really mean.

You become an adherent to one camp for various reasons, mostly "personal" ones, and go from there.

It may help to drive the debate, but I don't see many converts emerging...

charivari, I clicked on the link, to read later, perhaps, but got a message that the file is broken and unrepairable (?) Never saw that one before...

Whew! That was a long read...........but a good one. I think I have a little bit of the golden ears camp and the meter reader group in me. My rational side tells me that, based on all the measurements, CDs should sound better than vinyl, but my emotional side takes over when an LP is playing..........and the vinyl just sounds better. And I've discovered, at least as far as I am concerned, the more I listen to vinyl, the less tolerance I have for the sound of digital.
As far as tweaks like the pennies and ebony disks that resonate go, I'm pretty much a skeptic, but hey.........whatever floats your boat. I would never criticize someone for hearing a difference. There's a lot of things in this world we don't understand, and probably never will.
Thanks for the link.......it got my brain going real early this morning. Plus it gave me an opportunity to spin some vinyl while I read it. :D

I think I'd consider myself a little of each as well. The meter reader in me is flabberghasted that somebody might spend $7,000 on speaker cable, but the golden ear in me can tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp, and most of the time between an lp and a cd.

I do believe that this writer left out some pretty important things.

First of all, he mentions signal to noise ratio and frequency response, but ignores dynamic range.

He also fails to mention sampling rate for digital media.

Lower sampling rates on digital media can result in missing bits, less dynamic range, etc. So who cares if it has perfect frequency response?

For most electronics, both analog and digital, to me, the question is where do you draw the line? How low does the distortion have to be? How high does the sampling rate have to be? (There were limits to all of the above with analog too..).

For a lot of stuff, it's purely subjective. Some people just *like* a certain kind of sound, two speakers might both have perfect and flat frequency response, but they're still going to sound different to different people. So?

It is an interesting debate.

bs

Fascinating article. I don't think he ever gives any credence to the Golden-Ears crowd. Instead, he explains why they believe as they do, and compares their arguments to similar points from other areas (biomed), while noting that audiophiles resort to the term "musicality" to deflect scientific criticism.

Very interesting...I see myself in both camps, but, as with all art forms, the empirical world has a hard time coexisting with the spiritual world and vice versa. I found the article to be very well balanced and wonder what Mr. Perlman believes on a personal level? :music:

Great Link, Thanks!

Measurements measure the known parameters of a definable, thus they are only one tool in the designers tool chest. Many audio designers who are engineers will admit to using both measurements and their ears to make design decisions, with the ear being the final arbiter.

Golden ear audiophiles are something completely different and they are more about competition - I can hear better than you so my system must sound better.

Many an audio nerd, including myself, were anticipating good things from CD. Bottom line when they first came out was that a very good TT set-up did sound better than a CD player. However for the average consumer system CD sounded better than LPs. So who does that make right?

Golden ear audiophiles are something completely different and they are more about competition - I can hear better than you so my system must sound better.


But people DO hear differently. Just like some people have better eyes (A good part of Chuck Yeagers success in WW2 was due to the fact that he just saw the enemy WAY before anyone else), some people just plain hear better. On top of that, others hear and understand music and sound differently.
I am a classically trained operatic bass, but I always had to work hard singing in a choir. My wife and her family, are natural harmonists, and can jump in and sing their parts or change parts totally effortlessly. I remember Bob Carver commenting on how incredible J. Gordon Holts hearing was.
Just like in any other aspect of humanity, some people just plain hear better than others.

But people DO hear differently. Just like some people have better eyes (A good part of Chuck Yeagers success in WW2 was due to the fact that he just saw the enemy WAY before anyone else), some people just plain hear better. On top of that, others hear and understand music and sound differently.
I am a classically trained operatic bass, but I always had to work hard singing in a choir. My wife and her family, are natural harmonists, and can jump in and sing their parts or change parts totally effortlessly. I remember Bob Carver commenting on how incredible J. Gordon Holts hearing was.
Just like in any other aspect of humanity, some people just plain hear better than others.

Agreed... and to add to that some folks spend more time listening.

Bigerik,

True, people have different sensory capabilities. Not sure what that has to do with golden ear audiophile (which I once was) claims of auditory superiority.

Bigerik,

True, people have different sensory capabilities. Not sure what that has to do with golden ear audiophile (which I once was) claims of auditory superiority.


Probably nothing...just a good point. BTW what is a golden eared audiophile I'm having trouble identifying one as no one is admitting to being one...at least at present.

Bigerik,

True, people have different sensory capabilities. Not sure what that has to do with golden ear audiophile (which I once was) claims of auditory superiority.

Maybe SOME golden ears actually are able to hear what they say they can?

Maybe SOME golden ears actually are able to hear what they say they can?

Maybe. But, unless they can prove it, no matter how sincere and credible they seem to be, then they are just blowing smoke, IMO.

Probably nothing...just a good point. BTW what is a golden eared audiophile I'm having trouble identifying one as no one is admitting to being one...at least at present.

It is more a running joke these days. "Golden Eared Audiophiles" is a euphamism, really. They are considered by the vast unwashed to be the last word when it comes to recommending a component, or trashing one, without any credibility or accountability in what they say, simply because, for example, they write for a magazine, or are perceived to be an authority on the subject.

Maybe. But, unless they can prove it, no matter how sincere and credible they seem to be, then they are just blowing smoke, IMO.

Why on earth would they have to prove it to anyone?

It is more a running joke these days. "Golden Eared Audiophiles" is a euphamism, really. They are considered by the vast unwashed to be the last word when it comes to recommending a component, or trashing one, without any credibility or accountability in what they say, simply because, for example, they write for a magazine, or are perceived to be an authority on the subject.

More of a slam against them, than a euphemism.

Why is it only in the world of audio that you have to have "credibility or accountability" when you comment on what you like?

In food, if you tell people what you taste, can describe it well and have a good history of doing so, you are a good food critic. Never seen a restaurant review where they take their dinner back to the lab and analyze what is in it and whether they can actually enjoy it or taste the difference between this menu item and a similar one from another restaurant based on what they measure....

I don't think that having accountability and credibility could possibly be a slam against anyone who has a major influence in the buying habits of people, whether they're buying audio stuff or refrigerators...

Do you feel that accountability is not something you'd want in such a person?

I don't think that having accountability and credibility could possibly be a slam against anyone who has a major influence in the buying habits of people, whether they're buying audio stuff or refrigerators...

Do you feel that accountability is not something you'd want in such a person?

What is accountability? How do you judge that? Some car reviewers are engineers, but most aren't. They know how to drive and how to evaluate a car based on its merits. Then they comment on what they have experienced. More than likely, what they like is NOT based on measurements. If measurements were all it was, the 1984 Corvette was by far the best sports car of its time. It felt like crap, however.
Like anything else, I will read a review, and then go and try it for myself. If it measures up to what I want, then I buy it. If not, I don't.

It is more a running joke these days. "Golden Eared Audiophiles" is a euphamism, really. They are considered by the vast unwashed to be the last word when it comes to recommending a component, or trashing one, without any credibility or accountability in what they say, simply because, for example, they write for a magazine, or are perceived to be an authority on the subject.

Thanks for your comments. I did know what was meant by "Golden Eared" audiophile. I was just trying to demonstate that there is so much negative said about folks who hear differently than others that I knew that few if anyone would admit to it.

My hearing was once tested at Idaho State University and found to be in the upper 10 percent for hearing and identfying frequencies above and below what most folks hear. That was 30 yrs ago and I probably have average hearing now, however my ears are so well trained that I can easily hear differences in cables and identify which one I'm listening to. Done it many times and tought my wife to do it ( a bit self serving don't ya think). There is no magic to good hearing just like there is no magic to good vision.

Since I learned to be a bit less critical and get back to basics...I've been loving the music even more than ever.

Back in the late 70s, I took a young lady to Santa Cruz for a day at the beach/boardwalk. We got there about 8 in the morning and decided to go for a walk on the basically deserted beach. During our walk we came up behind a gentleman with what appeared to be a rather expensive metal detector. The beach is a very popular spot, and I'm sure many a treasure is lost there. We watched him for a minute or two, as he was very intent on listening to the headset, closing his eyes to listen, and occasionally looking down at the meter to check the "signal" strength. We decided to walk past when I told my date to stop for a minute. We watched as he methodically swept the sand, taking half-steps as he went. After a few more steps, I quietly walked up behind him, bent over, and picked up a $20 bill that was sticking up out of the sand, directly in between his footsteps. He turned around as I stood up, so I shook the sand off the bill, smiled at him, and stuck it in my pocket.

I'm sure that his piece of technology helped him find many treasures in it's time. But, in this case, the "human ability" won out, and helped treat us to a lobster dinner at the Miramar restaurant on the pier that evening.

So who's the winner here? I eventually married the lady (26 years this past March), and he's probably filthy stinkin' rich from all the diamond rings he's found. You tell me!!:scratch2:

The problem with Golden Ears isn't that they voice their opinions. The problem with Golden Ears is when they voice their opinions as fact, and can't back it up.

Techie types will voice opinions, and will support their contentions with facts and specifications. It may be that their facts and specifications aren't relevant, or aren't the most important influences to the attribute(s) they are discussing. But at least you know where they are coming from.

So the flat response speakers may not be to your liking because they aren't efficient enough, or because your hearing range has been compromised over the years, or because you have trained your ears with equipment that provides a certain level of coloration. But the techies can support their contention that the speakers have flat response over a certain range. Whether you agree or disagree with a techie assertion, you can compare and contrast much of the techie discussion in techie terms.

Traditionally, Golden Ears have cared less about facts and specifications. The force of their assertions has been related to their EGO. The force of their discussion often includes "impossible to define" qualitative terms. This is not to say that their opinions aren't what they actually hear, nor is it to contend that qualitative descriptions have no place in assessing the merits of audio gear. But as unique individuals, Golden Ears should realize that what they hear might not be what others hear. At times, it seems like some of their attitude is intolerance with other listeners who don't hear music the way they do.

And Stereotypical Golden Ears have been quite forceful at times. Just think about all the great late 70's - Early 80's electronic gear that was trashed by the Golden Ears in the audio press at the time. I knew so many people who purchased high end systems based upon what the "gurus" wrote. Their purchases weren't necessarily horrible, but many weren't optimal for the person's listening needs and situations (some people are not tweakers), and most were much more expensive than necessary (Golden Ears rarely tout an inexpensive or common component). Just like so many other things, status got in the way.

The problem with Golden Ears isn't that they voice their opinions. The problem with Golden Ears is when they voice their opinions as fact, and can't back it up.

Techie types will voice opinions, and will support their contentions with facts and specifications. It may be that their facts and specifications aren't relevant, or aren't the most important influences to the attribute(s) they are discussing. But at least you know where they are coming from.

So the flat response speakers may not be to your liking because they aren't efficient enough, or because your hearing range has been compromised over the years, or because you have trained your ears with equipment that provides a certain level of coloration. But the techies can support their contention that the speakers have flat response over a certain range. Whether you agree or disagree with a techie assertion, you can compare and contrast much of the techie discussion in techie terms.

Traditionally, Golden Ears have cared less about facts and specifications. The force of their assertions has been related to their EGO. The force of their discussion often includes "impossible to define" qualitative terms. This is not to say that their opinions aren't what they actually hear, nor is it to contend that qualitative descriptions have no place in assessing the merits of audio gear. But as unique individuals, Golden Ears should realize that what they hear might not be what others hear. At times, it seems like some of their attitude is intolerance with other listeners who don't hear music the way they do.

And Stereotypical Golden Ears have been quite forceful at times. Just think about all the great late 70's - Early 80's electronic gear that was trashed by the Golden Ears in the audio press at the time. I knew so many people who purchased high end systems based upon what the "gurus" wrote. Their purchases weren't necessarily horrible, but many weren't optimal for the person's listening needs and situations (some people are not tweakers), and most were much more expensive than necessary (Golden Ears rarely tout an inexpensive or common component). Just like so many other things, status got in the way.

Just a couple of thoughts.....

1) How do you back up what you are HEARING with facts? Thats like backing up what you are seeing or smelling or tasting with facts. Good journalists will write clearly enough and state their likes and dislikes and preferences clearly enough that, if you know what you like, or you have experience with some of the equipment they like or dislike, you can judge whether or not you might like the component based on what they say.

2)What were the other options in reviewing? JG Holt started Stereophile because the audio press at large (Stereo Review, Audio, High Fidelity) was saying nothing about how a component sounded. I have a huge stack of tests from the mid 70's to the mid 80's, and they tell you everything EXCEPT how the component sounds. Now, Bob Carver PROVED ages ago that all amps do not sound the same, yet to read the mainstream audio press of the time, you would think they all did. That the only numbers that mattered were THD and watts per channel. If that were the case, we would have hit perfection in audio gear about 40 years ago.

3) Huge egos? Certainly. Probably the biggest were Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound, and Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic. From what I have learned, Pearson did have amazing hearing back when he started, and was the finest journalist the industry has ever seen. I mean, he actually could write well. Sure, he pushed higher end gear, but his standards were very high period. He supported Japanese manufactures when they produced gear that he liked the sound of. Two of his favorite turntables in the 70's were made by Denon and Yamaha (specifically the PX2). I have a good review of a hk 670 from TAS in around 1980. BUt, they felt there was a better way, and they shared it.

Peter Aczel, on the other hand, started off trying to bridge the gulf between the measurement types and the golden ears. In the earlier issues of TAC, he talked about the sound differences between amps and other components. He hit the absolute low point in audio reviewing history however, when he used his magazine to review a product from his own speaker company, without revealing the conflict of interest. Not surprisingly, he gave it a glowing review. After a near decade long hiatus, and the failure of his speaker company, he returned to reviewing pissed off at the audio world and writing the angriest audio related publication I have ever seen.

What it all comes down to in the end is that anyone, who buys any audio product, without trying it themselves, deserves whatever disappointment they may end up with. Especially, with more expensive components. One of the usual merits of buying at high end stores is the fact you can take it home and try it for yourself. Actually, do what the component is designed to do and LISTEN to it in your own room. With your own music.
In the end, ALL that matters with audio equipment is what you hear!

Just a couple of thoughts.....

1) How do you back up what you are HEARING with facts? Thats like backing up what you are seeing or smelling or tasting with facts. Good journalists will write clearly enough and state their likes and dislikes and preferences clearly enough that, if you know what you like, or you have experience with some of the equipment they like or dislike, you can judge whether or not you might like the component based on what they say.

2)What were the other options in reviewing? JG Holt started Stereophile because the audio press at large (Stereo Review, Audio, High Fidelity) was saying nothing about how a component sounded. I have a huge stack of tests from the mid 70's to the mid 80's, and they tell you everything EXCEPT how the component sounds. Now, Bob Carver PROVED ages ago that all amps do not sound the same, yet to read the mainstream audio press of the time, you would think they all did. That the only numbers that mattered were THD and watts per channel. If that were the case, we would have hit perfection in audio gear about 40 years ago.

3) Huge egos? Certainly. Probably the biggest were Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound, and Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic. From what I have learned, Pearson did have amazing hearing back when he started, and was the finest journalist the industry has ever seen. I mean, he actually could write well. Sure, he pushed higher end gear, but his standards were very high period. He supported Japanese manufactures when they produced gear that he liked the sound of. Two of his favorite turntables in the 70's were made by Denon and Yamaha (specifically the PX2). I have a good review of a hk 670 from TAS in around 1980. BUt, they felt there was a better way, and they shared it.

Peter Aczel, on the other hand, started off trying to bridge the gulf between the measurement types and the golden ears. In the earlier issues of TAC, he talked about the sound differences between amps and other components. He hit the absolute low point in audio reviewing history however, when he used his magazine to review a product from his own speaker company, without revealing the conflict of interest. Not surprisingly, he gave it a glowing review. After a near decade long hiatus, and the failure of his speaker company, he returned to reviewing pissed off at the audio world and writing the angriest audio related publication I have ever seen.

What it all comes down to in the end is that anyone, who buys any audio product, without trying it themselves, deserves whatever disappointment they may end up with. Especially, with more expensive components. One of the usual merits of buying at high end stores is the fact you can take it home and try it for yourself. Actually, do what the component is designed to do and LISTEN to it in your own room. With your own music.
In the end, ALL that matters with audio equipment is what you hear!


Excellent post, thoughtful and informative.

Golden Ears and Meter reader are terms audio can do without, both are derogatory.

And we wonder why other people aren’t interested in our hobby. You don’t see people who are into fishing or model trains or the like arguing like audio people do.

In the last couple of years AK has allowed members to test various bits of audio gear and tweaks. We’ve even on occasion gotten to pm with the people behind these products. Bigerik has been one of the forces behind this.

We then post our finding in Thinking Out Loud or Reviews.

I happily signed up for as many as I could. Lot’s of reviews, lot’s of fun, a fine learning experience and many different results and opinions. All posted without fear or being dissed as a Golden Ear or a Meter Reader.

This I think is the strength of AK, a place where people with a common passion can meet under one proverbial tent and discuss things.

One can use measurements to verify what they are hearing. Or not hearing...

If a speaker sounds hollow in the midrange, one can measure the output with test signals and clearly see the midrange suckout.

If you think an amp sounds a bit laid back on the top end, you can measure the FR and you might see a roll off in the upper audio band. (Except for tube amps, SS amps of any decent design will have a ruler flat response, well out to and beyond the audio band.)

Measurements can back up, or DISPROVE, what you think you hear. Hell, most people over 40 or so are lucky to hear to 12-15K, at best. I think 15KHz is pushing it...

I lost interest as soon as i saw the catch phrase "golden ears".

Every thread on any site with that phrase in it ends up in the toilet or locked down,its just a matter of time:scratch2:.

Golden Ears and Meter reader are terms audio can do without, both are derogatory.

And we wonder why other people aren’t interested in our hobby. You don’t see people who are into fishing or model trains or the like arguing like audio people do.

In the last couple of years AK has allowed members to test various bits of audio gear and tweaks. We’ve even on occasion gotten to pm with the people behind these products. Bigerik has been one of the forces behind this.

We then post our finding in Thinking Out Loud or Reviews.

I happily signed up for as many as I could. Lot’s of reviews, lot’s of fun, a fine learning experience and many different results and opinions. All posted without fear or being dissed as a Golden Ear or a Meter Reader.

This I think is the strength of AK, a place where people with a common passion can meet under one proverbial tent and discuss things.

Great post that deserved to be copied:yes:.

I'll never understand what drives people to beat this dead horse over & over again.

Thanks for your comments. I did know what was meant by "Golden Eared" audiophile. I was just trying to demonstate that there is so much negative said about folks who hear differently than others that I knew that few if anyone would admit to it.

My hearing was once tested at Idaho State University and found to be in the upper 10 percent for hearing and identfying frequencies above and below what most folks hear. That was 30 yrs ago and I probably have average hearing now, however my ears are so well trained that I can easily hear differences in cables and identify which one I'm listening to. Done it many times and tought my wife to do it ( a bit self serving don't ya think). There is no magic to good hearing just like there is no magic to good vision.

Since I learned to be a bit less critical and get back to basics...I've been loving the music even more than ever.

Hypothetically speaking, how would you back up these claims - if you were so inclined, that is?

Hypothetically speaking, how would you back up these claims - if you were so inclined, that is?

Golden Ears don't need to back up their claims, remember?

Golden Ears don't need to back up their claims, remember?

My ears are only golden because I am ethnically that color...period.

No claim of "Golden Ears" here, it appears that you are invested in finding someone who is claiming that...much luck to ya.

My ears are only golden because I am ethnically that color...period.

No claim of "Golden Ears" here, it appears that you are invested in finding someone who is claiming that...much luck to ya.

Easy to find 'em... They're all over this place. Just look around.

I changed my sig.

Gentlemen, please knock it off. Some good, interesting discussion has occurred here. Let's not get this thread locked, aight?

- JP

An interesting read, thank you for sharing.

Being into baseball, I've found that 'superstitions' and 'routines/habits' are often helpful in being more successful - believe it makes you better, and it probably will.

Mechanics are also helpful - mastering the technique also can make you better.

Both can be useful tools.

I figure sound is like art, or pornography. Hard to define, but you know what you do and do not like!

I think both measuremments and a good ear are helpful, but neither define what is quality...

But I know I like pickles. Every kind of pickle is just fine with me....

Well if it's meters vs. ears to prove what's "best" in this hobby, there's no way to pick a winner? We like what we hear - not measure?

We may get there by using test equipment to find the glitches, humps, bumps, flat spots, etc. - but only ears will tell if you've the right combination of parts and pieces to satisfy your lust.

What's *best* makes little difference if you don't enjoy it. Let your ears be the judge of what's best for you.

Not sure this is worth the effort, but here it goes anyway:

Achieving reliability in subjective observations is difficult and non-trivial, as is communicating those observations. So is correlating measurements with observational experience. If anything, this is harder with audio ("how does it sound?" or "what do you hear?") than in other domains - and in my professional life, it has sometimes taken years in the lab to establish some regularities relating certain objective conditions to subjective experience, but it can be done to scientific standards.

Anyone who thinks the business of relating measurements to auditory perception is done, and we can now just apply the results - especially with the limited sets of measurements usually discussed in audio contexts - is, IN MY OPINION, mistaken. On the other hand, I've also read plenty of implausible, technically ignorant attributions for what is heard.

I think this "debate" results from oversimplifications by some of the people on both "sides." Both the technical and subjective experience aspects of this present complex, difficult problems - we're likely farther along on the technical side, I agree - but relating the two is the really hard problem. We're not likely to solve it in this thread.

Holst has it just right when he says we can do without derogatory terms.

Hmmm, before this one gets locked up, I think we should all read this (http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/104listening/) too.

Ray

This wouldn't be a conversation, much less a recurring one that has been going on for decades, if so many people weren't so invested in being right, and unable to quite believe it until they can declare someone else wrong.

You like warm and lush and tubey? I understand. Wouldn't have it any other way in a guitar amp, for example. You like crisp, bright...what your ears or your meters perceive to be "neutral?" Cool. I've always leaned a bit that way in listening systems myself. Is that Bose Acoustimass system the best thing you ever heard? Cool. That makes the WAF thing work out, huh? But if you have to believe in the superiority of your personal taste, that's where the trouble begins. I don't care how much you spent. I don't care how you measured it. You like what you like. The guy with the vintage Sansui and old JBLs likes them. It's really that simple.

Tim

Easy to find 'em... They're all over this place. Just look around.


I am going to suggest you take your arguments to a site that has these people so you may grind your Axe with them.

By the way if I was one ( which I am not ) your constant badgering of them would still not lead me to quantify what I hear to you. Why ? Well since you neither paid for my equipment nor listen to its none of your damn business !

Hmmm, before this one gets locked up, I think we should all read this (http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/104listening/) too.

Ray

Hear, Hear!! Great read. Sometimes we all need to be reminded of important things. :yes:

Hmmm, before this one gets locked up, I think we should all read this (http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/104listening/) too.

Ray

Thanks Ray.
This is what it is all about afterall. Enjoying the music.

Before being considered for deletion, this thread could be moved to TOL, where all the bashing would have to stop. I'd prefer that because there have been some great posts here (thanks, BigErik and RichPA) that ought to remain available.

Before being considered for deletion, this thread could be moved to TOL, where all the bashing would have to stop. I'd prefer that because there have been some great posts here (thanks, BigErik and RichPA) that ought to remain available.

Agreed. Some interesting discussion here, shouldn't disappear. TOL would be the best place for it.

Well if it's meters vs. ears to prove what's "best" in this hobby, there's no way to pick a winner? We like what we hear - not measure?

We may get there by using test equipment to find the glitches, humps, bumps, flat spots, etc. - but only ears will tell if you've the right combination of parts and pieces to satisfy your lust.


The article that started all this made for interesting reading, but I found it almost unreadable; any statement that uses words like "delegitimize" just trips me up. To some extent, people can end up liking what they initially tell themselves (or are told) they `should' like, then over time they grow to really like. When I first set up my Pioneer based system I used the loudness button a lot; it helped tailor the sound to what I was expecting. Now I hardly use it at all; the initial `wow, that sounds good' got replaced by a general feeling of fatigue and a desire to turn the sound down, not up. With loudness and tone controls off, the system is much more revealing of good or bad recordings; the bad sounds like shite but the good can really shine...........

I've got a test CD that puts out a series of tones from 20hz up to 20,000hz but if I use it to set things up for maximum range and definition, the music sounds awful. Music is my `thing'; has been for over 30 years, it's how I make a living. To me, good sound is not about frequency range, or `impact', it's about whether you want to listen again to what you've just heard.

Before being considered for deletion, this thread could be moved to TOL, where all the bashing would have to stop. I'd prefer that because there have been some great posts here (thanks, BigErik and RichPA) that ought to remain available.

Always happy to have a good discussion like this in TOL. Maybe we should keep all such discussions in TOL in the future? Would make a nice home for them!

Hmmm, before this one gets locked up, I think we should all read this (http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/104listening/) too.

Ray

Yet another nice read. This thread is definitely a good one and worth keeping, and encouraging more like. Thanks, guys!

Hmmm, before this one gets locked up, I think we should all read this (http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/104listening/) too.

Ray

Thanks, Ray! That was outstanding! I love Art Dudley.

At the risk of causing a tiny little thread-hijack in the middle of a thread that's had a few bumps already, that link is a great example of why I continue to read the hi-fi rags. Among all the ads for gear that I can't afford (but love to read about anyway), and among all the editorials that I completely disagree with (but love to read anyway), are little nuggets of truth and wisdom like this one.

The way I do it is I set up my system the way I like it to sound and if anyone has a problem with the way it's set up or the equipment I use they don't have to listen to it. For instance what sounds good to you may sound terrible to me, but that's ok because it is not my system so I would either not listen to it or deal with the sound and not worry about it.

Here's an odd thought that struck me a while back. It's a variation on the "If a tree falls and there's no one to hear it..." thing:

My collection of vintage gear is comprised largely of stuff that I owned or had ongoing access to when I was a kid. I know for a fact that some stuff I liked back then sounds bad to me now, while some still sounds good. In some cases, it seems I'm just better able to discern deficiencies, and in others, I'm just not able to tolerate the volume levels that I used to use.

As we age, the physical aspects of our ears change, become less flexible, etc. At the same time, the nerve systems that process the signal also change, to try to compensate for the losses. While that's going on, the parts of our brains that analyze sound also change to try to reconcile what we hear now with what we "know" something should sound like, based upon past experience.

So... should an audio system compensate for our hearing changes, or is this just one more place where the curse of age just has to win out? As a consumer, my money goes to what sounds "right" to me now, not to any altruistic standard of "correct", but I really appreciate those meter readings, because I'm not quite sure I can remember what it's really supposed to sound like.

BTW, this is a great thread... thanks JP.

As we age, the physical aspects of our ears change, become less flexible, etc. At the same time, the nerve systems that process the signal also change, to try to compensate for the losses. While that's going on, the parts of our brains that analyze sound also change to try to reconcile what we hear now with what we "know" something should sound like, based upon past experience.

So... should an audio system compensate for our hearing changes, or is this just one more place where the curse of age just has to win out? As a consumer, my money goes to what sounds "right" to me now, not to any altruistic standard of "correct", but I really appreciate those meter readings, because I'm not quite sure I can remember what it's really supposed to sound like.

BTW, this is a great thread... thanks JP.

Up until the weekend before last I'd have completely agreed with you. But then, I went to the Scottish Hi-Fi exhibition in a country hotel just outside Edinburgh. Big place, big rooms............ I don't know how the different exhibitors set their equipment up, ears or meters but the end result was incredible. TOTL turntables feeding new tube amplifiers driving TOTL speakers......... This was music played the way I'd heard it in my mind; absolutely beautiful.

So... should an audio system compensate for our hearing changes, or is this just one more place where the curse of age just has to win out? As a consumer, my money goes to what sounds "right" to me now, not to any altruistic standard of "correct", but I really appreciate those meter readings, because I'm not quite sure I can remember what it's really supposed to sound like.


Great question. One answer is that it should still sound as close to live sound as possible - but of course if you mostly listen to amplified music, when you hear it live you're essentially listening through a system likely not as good as yours at home.

I find that I am less and less tolerant of distortion, especially high-frequency distortion, and of boosted treble - both all too common in recorded music and in live amplified music. And I like having really clean digital parametric eq as a way to tweak the sound. Of course, the standard I'm tweaking it to may just be the way I want it to sound ...

On Saturday, my family took me out to dinner for my birthday to a place that has live piano music (and Grand Marnier Souffles...my favorite). When I got home, after the kids went to bed, I spent a while comparing how close different recordings were to what I heard live. Close, and in some cases darn close, but each recording sounds different. I suppose there are differences between pianos, and venues, and recording techniques. To get them all to sound "right" (assuming I could), I'd have to reconfigure my system for each recording, having no data or control over the recordings themselves. Somewhere in all that is the reason objectivism seems to fail at a practical level.

Personally, I'm a believer in meters. The problem is measuring the right things. There are so many variables in the recording and reproduction chain, and most of them change without notice. If the "Absolute Sound" is the live original, the only way you get that back is to have every element of the chain under control. The great irony of the ears vs meters debate as applied to electronics is that the playback preamps and amps are the least variable elements in the chain. Compared to the variations in speakers, mics, studios, and rooms, they might as well all sound alike. When your speakers aren't constant-impedance loads, you will get different sound from different amps, but when you have no control over anything but them, those small differences become major issues.

That, to me, is the heart of the conflict. Audiophiles are focusing on the whole chain, and tweaking the elements they have control over, to try to make the outcome as close to what they think it should be (rightly or wrongly), while the meter folks are focused on the goings on in one part of the chain only. No one ever tries to measure the differences between the live original and the speaker output, simply because we can't, since every recording is different, and we have only very limited ability to measure all the characteristics of a music signal.

Is there a way to "measure" the whole signal? Here's another peculiar observation: one would think that the PCM digital code for a particular recording would be a unique constant. Not true. If you have two unconnected analog-to-digital converters recording the same performance, fed off of the same mics, you get two different digital streams. Why? Because the clock on one isn't synchronized to the clock on the other, so the samples occur at differing points in time, yielding a different stream. In theory, running the two streams through the DAC should result in near-identical sound... but not quite.

Sorry for the ramble, but here's my point. Even the best ears suffer from very poor memory of one musical event to the next, and it's very easy to see they're not a great measurement tool. Even the best measurements are only looking at one part of the reproduction chain, and are measuring simplified elements of the music signal, not the signal as a whole. The brain constantly tries to compare the audio to the real world, which the measurements never do. The measurements are highly accurate and repeatable, but only at what they're measuring. To me, both sides are deficient, and since we can't get "standardized" recordings, you may as well buy the gear that sounds good to you.

Rich, I also find that I'm less tolerant of distortion than before. Sadly, my kids are almost entirely distortion-immune, and enjoy anything with a catchy melody like, oh, say... Disney music on a boombox.

Excellent post...well communicated and clear, thank you.

Rich, I also find that I'm less tolerant of distortion than before. Sadly, my kids are almost entirely distortion-immune, and enjoy anything with a catchy melody like, oh, say... Disney music on a boombox.

Well, that may be better than having to listen to Disney music on your main system - at least the boombox can be moved to another room :)

Great points in your post. On a somewhat related note, the same recording on my system will sound different to me from time to time - I used to worry about that, then realized that my mental and physical states, not to mention stuff like the humidity, are likely a lot more variable than anything about the electronics.

I wasn't going to post in this thread as the original article was more an example of how a neutral observer quantitatively reports the differences in opposing viewpoints, based in this case on music reproduction and listening. I thought the article showed that the author knew his stuff but chose the wrong subject.
An analogy would be fishing. I enjoy sport fishing. I have a boat, and rods, and reels, and fishing habits. I don't do it the same as every other fisherman. I do have a Lowrance LCD locater. It measures depth of the water I'm in and can discern the bottom structure, presence of fish, weeds, rocks, etc.. In some ways it assists me in the enjoyment of fishing. I can and do fish without it. I have just as much enjoyment either way. I catch the same amount of fish without this device, if that was one of the criteria for my enjoyment of the sport. It's not.
I look at my audio hobby in pretty much the same way. Yes, I work on my gear to make it better and buy new items to see if it sounds better. I enjoy fixing it just like I like working on the boat. I don't have an RTA but might get one in the future. Will it help me enjoy audio more? Possibly. But I think I'll be able to listen and enjoy the music with it shut off just as much as if I had measured.
There's too many variables to music and fishing to say that measurement or non-measurement has that much to do with the enjoyment of either.

Here's another peculiar observation: one would think that the PCM digital code for a particular recording would be a unique constant. Not true. If you have two unconnected analog-to-digital converters recording the same performance, fed off of the same mics, you get two different digital streams. Why? Because the clock on one isn't synchronized to the clock on the other, so the samples occur at differing points in time, yielding a different stream. In theory, running the two streams through the DAC should result in near-identical sound... but not quite.

.
You are correct that the DAC streams could be different. But assuming that both converters are high quality, the differences would be inaudible. CD quality music requires at least 44,100 samples per second. This is a hard requirement if you want to capture high frequency information. As a result, the "most" out of phase any 2 real-time DACs can be is 0.0000114 seconds. I will argue that no one can notice that difference. Put another way, this would be at the bottom of my potential problems list. I would be much more concerned with the quality of the converter (is it real time, or is it sampling less and extrapolating), the quality of the algorithm used in the A-to-D conversion (where MP3s fall short), and even more concerned with the mental state of the sound engineer doing the recording (since he rules where the equipment is placed and how the analog signal is handled before conversion).


Sorry for the ramble, but here's my point. Even the best ears suffer from very poor memory of one musical event to the next, and it's very easy to see they're not a great measurement tool. Even the best measurements are only looking at one part of the reproduction chain, and are measuring simplified elements of the music signal, not the signal as a whole. The brain constantly tries to compare the audio to the real world, which the measurements never do. The measurements are highly accurate and repeatable, but only at what they're measuring. To me, both sides are deficient, and since we can't get "standardized" recordings, you may as well buy the gear that sounds good to you.

.

I agree that an individual's taste is individual. And I have long argued that each person needs to find audio systems that meet their personal needs. Unfortunately too many individuals feel the need to have someone else make that decision for them (the status thing, or the fear of making a major mistake). If this weren't the case, the White Van Scams would have long ago gone out of business, since the business model seeks to take advantage of these insecurities. And it is because of individuality and this lemming attitude (not among AKers, but among the population at large) that I have concerns with the pronouncements of some "Golden Ears".

I'm not as sure about your contention that the best ears have poor memory. I was blessed with perfect pitch, although it was never developed to the extent of friends of mine who have it, and are classically trained musicians. Based upon my recall ability, I would have to think that individuals who were both gifted and better trained would have tremendous musical memory. I have heard these friends discuss the nuances of numerous live performances that support this feeling.

Negotiableterms:

You're trying to be rational again. Stop it or you'll get baned from your own forum...

Personally, I've always found the subjectivism of the hobby to be one of the most endearing parts. Getting together with other people and discussing our individual experiences.

I don't really care if you love or hate my equiptment. I just find the discussion worth while. Sometimes I learn something new, sometimes I teach something new, sometimes both sides are idiots. However, you don't stay an idiot if you are paying attention.

OTOH, I also thing there is some merit in (I think it was) the 'EnjoyTheMusic' motto: 'Shut up and listen'

I would submit that I think this forum is the perfect place for this discussion. In my experience, the biases present in TOL would make this a one sided discussion where everyone would just happily have to agree.

As usual, Rich's points are spot on and fall completely in line with my POV and I especially enjoyed negotiable terms observations. I have found the same types of occurences while listening to my own system. I used to be what would be considered the derogatory golden ear (I bought all the best, believed what i read and heard it, etc) but when called out and I and people like me couldn't back up my claims, I didn't get angry (why bother?) but I did become more introspective about my audio purchasing decisions. Questions like the following were things I gave a great deal of thought to:

Was I buying the best because I read and was told that I was buying the best?
-Yes, I read reviews in magazines and bought the best I could afford based on what they told me was best.

Did I hear differences in wires and ICs and amps?
-Yes, I believed I heard differences.

Did I have any idea which variation sounded best/most accurate?
- No, I had no reliable reference. I hear people reference live music, but I honestly haven't been to many live performances with acceptable acoustics or even decent sounding speakers. To make my system sound like the live version would have required a significant amount of noise, poorer acoustics, and to swap in poorer sounding speakers.

Could I reliably identify those differences I claimed to hear?
-Not when put to task. This didn't make me believe that the differences didn't exist. It did do a damn good job of proving that I was full of dung when I was claiming significant differences in some cases. In a conversation with Rich, he referenced some changes in gear providing subtle, yet important changes. I like that comment a lot. It doesn't go overboard and make extravagant claims that immediately make one lose credibility.

Did I want to understand more about the cause/effect relationship of different components?
-YES! I felt that the only way I wouldn't be merely guessing what would be best was to learn as much as I could to make informed purchasing decision or design decisions, as it were.

Of course, when I seek to answer my questions, I'm doing it because I love music and have a fascination with electronic components. Sometimes, I think what gets lost is that the objectivists generally have the same passion (or greater) passion for music than the subjectivists. So much so that they make it their livelihood to understand everything they can.

What annoys me more than anything is when I hear the comment "While you are busy trying to figure it out, I'll be busy enjoying myself listening to music". It's insulting, condescending and is insinuating things that are pure rubbish. I like music enough that I can be perfectly content listening on a transistor radio in garage to listening on a multi-thousand dollar system in a perfect room, to listening to a live performance.

I always enjoy finding out when someone has found their sonic nirvana. For some people, it's recreating what they dreamed about when they were younger and the sound is exactly what they want to hear and they have no aspirations of changing it. I won't say I envy those people, but I can't help but be happy for them. Everyone's got their own methodology for system building, I just like to have a little perspective and a direction going in. The cable swap things in TOL are nice in that they get people exposure and allow people not interested in exploring things deeper to just swap things out and see without dumping a lot of money. It is still completely random in nature, but without the typical financial impact.

Another issue I see is that you have objectivists offering what they believe to be reliable and accurate tests/measurements. They get discounted by the other side, but the other side doesn't often come to the table with an alternative. That gets both sides nowhere in a big hurry.

Scientist: "You can't hear that, I can prove it"
Subjectivist: "I'm not interested, i'm just going to listen to music!"


And thanks to Ray for reiterating that music is what matters, and IMO different methods in reproducing music are more than welcome.

-Dave
Music fan/DIYer/Amateur Objectivist/Goodwill Shopper/Lead Ear

I'm not as sure about your contention that the best ears have poor memory. I was blessed with perfect pitch, although it was never developed to the extent of friends of mine who have it, and are classically trained musicians. Based upon my recall ability, I would have to think that individuals who were both gifted and better trained would have tremendous musical memory. I have heard these friends discuss the nuances of numerous live performances that support this feeling.I agree. There are very few people who don't underestimate a trained musician's aural memory.

I would submit that I think this forum is the perfect place for this discussion. In my experience, the biases present in TOL would make this a one sided discussion where everyone would just happily have to agree.



In defense of TOL.....
I think your issue with TOL is the biases you bring to the forum, not any biases that are there. It is no where written, nor have I or any other moderator enforced any view point that says all must agree. There is no single point of view in TOL. I have certainly NEVER introduced my own point of view as being the right one. In fact, I have hardly ever introduced my point of view at all.

What TOL is about is allowing for discussion. What we ask is that the discussion be based on first hand knowledge. That is ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with an item being discussed, if one is to pass judgment on it. When we have done tests of wires or tweaks, EVERY test result has been posted, both positive and negative. I have never removed or edited any single result. How much less biased can you get then that?

The problem that TOL was made to address was one of people trying to silence or censor others whose point of view they did not agree with. Whenever a discussion would turn towards cables, tweaks, etc. before on AK, it would always follow the same path: A person would either post a result of their own experience or ask a question of another, and instead of allowing the discussion to continue, that person would then be attacked and told they could not be possibly hearing what they think they hear. There was NEVER any discussion. Only attack. Read back through earlier posts and see what is there.

So, to address this issue, TOL was made as a place where discussion could happen. Any view point based on first hand knowledge will be allowed. If you want to make a ton of measurements of wires, and post the results, no one will stop you. If you want to post negative results of listening tests, again no issue. If you want to mock or look down on others who think differently then you do, or have different experiences, then take it elsewhere.

AK was created as a place where anyone could enjoy their audio experience without fear of derisive comments or put downs.

Back to the discussion at hand
Erik

As discussion of moderation, not to mention me not wanting to turn this discussion in a totally different direction, is not allowed on AK, if anyone wants to discuss this, please shoot me a PM.

Even the best measurements are only looking at one part of the reproduction chain, and are measuring simplified elements of the music signal, not the signal as a whole.

I have to respectfully disagree with part of that. I think that any measurements made, say at the amplifier, are not measuring only the amplifier but everything that happened up to that point. What comes out of it is a product of what went in and the chain continues back to the original performance. To only measure one part of the reproduction chain you have to measure a transfer function of output/input. If you were saying that and I just missed it then I apologize.

Sadly, my kids are almost entirely distortion-immune, and enjoy anything with a catchy melody like, oh, say... Disney music on a boombox.

Try finding the Harajuku versions of Disney tunes. It's familiar "favorites" remixed to a techno type beat. Some are pretty cool.

Ray

A friend of mine had tickets to the Minnesota Orchestra in one of their greater Minnesota concerts. It was taking place about a mile from my house. I was upset about the possibility of missing the concert, my friend couldn’t go, so he gave me his tickets.
My wife couldn’t go, my daughter got to hear them earlier in the afternoon, so I had an extra ticket. Another friend wanted the ticket, I gave the extra to him.

I love classical music, have thousands of CD’s and LP’s and listen to classical everyday.

My friend is into country, but he does join his family with a trip to see the orchestra three times a year.

We went to the same show, Beethoven’s 3rd and 8th, sat in different spots and discussed the show the next day.

I must have 15 recordings of both works, he’d never heard them before.

Our observations were very different. I noted the tempos taken by Osmo Vanska were rather brisk.

He noted that the audience clapped between movements.

Same concert, but we came away with two different experiences..... other than we both enjoyed it.

Moral, none.

Moral, none.


Hilarious. And another great observation showing that we all interpret things differently.

In defense of TOL.....
TOL was made as a place where discussion could happen. Any view point based on first hand knowledge will be allowed. If you want to make a ton of measurements of wires, and post the results, no one will stop you. If you want to post negative results of listening tests, again no issue.

Those are points that we haven't emphasized enough. TOL is open to all sincere efforts at discussion. TOL is closed to the usual silly anecdotes (I listend to one of them high-end systems, and my $6 receiver and $4 speakers kicked its ass...). Objectivist scientific discussions, and threads like this one, are very welcome in TOL. The usual elementary-school psuedo-science (a wire is a wire...) is not.

As Erik said, if anyone has questions, PM Erik. He does a great job on the difficult task of discerning sincere efforts at discussion from self-serving rants.

Great points in your post. On a somewhat related note, the same recording on my system will sound different to me from time to time - I used to worry about that, then realized that my mental and physical states, not to mention stuff like the humidity, are likely a lot more variable than anything about the electronics.

Yep, I notice that I hear my system differently depending on the mental / physical variables you mention. I always look forward to those times when a favorite recording played on my system stands out in greater depth. I suppose that's why we weren't above attempting to change the playing field/alter those variables in the past :smoke: :beer: I found the article a good read, and this is an interesting discussion. :thmbsp:

I have to respectfully disagree with part of that. I think that any measurements made, say at the amplifier, are not measuring only the amplifier but everything that happened up to that point. What comes out of it is a product of what went in and the chain continues back to the original performance. To only measure one part of the reproduction chain you have to measure a transfer function of output/input. If you were saying that and I just missed it then I apologize.



Ken Kantor made some very insightful observations about recording in a March 03 blog entry that's cached here: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OB3Ihel2dsgJ:kkantor.spaces.live.co m/+ken+kantor+wisdom+without+teeth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
(The original page seems to be broken right now.)

It's the one entitled "Re: Re: Cording."



I also once saw a comment of his something like "the transfer functions of the various steps of the recording/reproduction chain are completely reversible, except for the acoustic spaces at beginning and end." (I'm sure I didn't capture his exact words, but I hope I got the meaning right.)

Thanks!

Here's a proper link:

http://kkantor.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!75EE1533AD137C11!1609.entry

-k

Fascinating article. I don't think he ever gives any credence to the Golden-Ears crowd. Instead, he explains why they believe as they do, and compares their arguments to similar points from other areas (biomed), while noting that audiophiles resort to the term "musicality" to deflect scientific criticism.

I think he treats the "ears" crowd as kindly as one can in a scientific article. Let's face it, we didn't have to read this article to know that no amount of data, or new data, will change the minds of the converted. They will simply say that what they hear is not yet measurable, and that they are sorry for those who can't hear it. And they may even be right.

Tim

Well said, Ken.

Now here's our mission...set up a "net" across a performance space with an infinite number of transducers that will record magnitude and direction of the acoustic signal. Then recreate the net in my living room using the principle of duality. We sample a "plane" of the sound bounded by the walls, floor, and ceiling and then recreate it. It's still not all the information but a step up from "stereo".

I'm off to the shop. If you figure it out before me I want a cut! ;)

Ray

Well said, Ken.

Now here's our mission...set up a "net" across a performance space with an infinite number of transducers that will record magnitude and direction of the acoustic signal. Then recreate the net in my living room using the principle of duality. We sample a "plane" of the sound bounded by the walls, floor, and ceiling and then recreate it. It's still not all the information but a step up from "stereo".

I'm off to the shop. If you figure it out before me I want a cut! ;)

Ray

To sort of place you in the original acoustic environment of the performance?

Binaural recording attempts to capture what your ears would capture and then play it back directly into your ears without adding another acoustic space.

For your approach, you would want a spherical microphone somewhat larger than your head and then a hollow sphere with your head inside for playback. It would seem that the larger the original microphone and subsequent playback sphere, the more information you need to record.

There are a couple of problems with binaural. One is that the generic head used during recording may not be suitable for many people. I think this problem is surmountable.

The other problem is that most people don't want to wear headphones when listening.

The hollow playback sphere is probably not going to work out for most people either.

The question then becomes how much of the original acoustic environment do we need to reproduce to provide a satisfying illusion; keeping in mind that the resulting system has to be practical and appealing to a large number of people.

However, most people don't live in anechoic chambers, so it isn't even this easy. The listening room is going to have at least some effect on the reproduced soundfield.

So now we need to go to the outside of our playback pseudo-sphere and capture what's coming from the walls of the listening room, and then null it out before it gets to your ears. Sort of like those noise-canceling headphones, but on a larger scale.

If we're engaging in wishful thinking, how about using all the extra storage on a video disk (like Blu-ray) to allow for a binaural recording, a stereo recording, and some extra channels for ambience cues?

You could then choose which of the playback methods you find most satisfying at a given time.

Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that most people are becoming satisfied with less and less data. Icky lossy compression and also no dynamic range, all stuffed into a little box you have surgically implanted so you're never without your tunes. It even seems like some people would be happy with a solenoid rhythmically beating the side of their head so they can make spastic motions with the beat.

For your approach, you would want a spherical microphone somewhat larger than your head and then a hollow sphere with your head inside for playback. It would seem that the larger the original microphone and subsequent playback sphere, the more information you need to record.

I should have clarified that it's not so much a spherical microphone as a sphere of microphones.

We still also have the problem of spatial aliasing.

So now we need to go to the outside of our playback pseudo-sphere and capture what's coming from the walls of the listening room, and then null it out before it gets to your ears. Sort of like those noise-canceling headphones, but on a larger scale.

Nah, put the sphere around the performer(s) instead of the "listener". Then you get the sound devoid of the performance space. It depends on your goal. Do you want it to sound like you are in the symphony hall? Then put the sphere around the listener's head. Want it to sound like the orchestra is in your living room? Put the sphere around the performers.

My "net" approach would merge the 2. You'd have the spatial cues of the original venue up to the net and then your room after that. Might work well for a LEDE room. The sphere version would work better but the net might be easier to implement...my infinite number of transducers is less than yours. ;)

Ray

Guys, you know what I find intriguing, after having been to live performances in smaller venues as well as two recent visits to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (in great seats, btw!)?

When I listen to a terrific system, with great imaging and separation, it's like the performers are right in front of me, and there's definite space around them.

When I go to a live performance, it's almost like it's not as good. Totally weird. The sound quality of the live performance is the best it can be, of course, because that's what live is all about, but the imaging/soundstaging, is completely different. Instead of being "right there", the orchestra is "way out there", and there is little sense of left or right, little sense of stereo imaging or separation.

When I sit in the best seats in the house, lower balcony, dead center in the middle of the room, with the orchestra right there, the sound is...mono.

Now, if I was sitting at the conductor's feet, then certainly the violins would be to my left and the cellos to my right, and the brass "in the back", but that's not what I hear when I'm sitting where I'm supposed to be sitting.

Does any of this make sense? Is it the result of listening to recordings where the microphones are not where the audience's ears are, but are placed "artificially" close to the performers so that left/right separation is accentuated?

Or are my ears too close together.

Is it the result of listening to recordings where the microphones are not where the audience's ears are, but are placed "artificially" close to the performers so that left/right separation is accentuated?

Or are my ears too close together.

Yes to the first. The performers are close mic'd and then the engineer plays with the pan to adjust "where they are" on the recording. It's artificial.

Can't comment on your ears but to get the stereo sound you get from a CD while sitting in the first balcony you'd need to slow down the speed of sound so that the path length differences would be accentuated. That or maybe a 50' wide head (give or take).

Ray

I build engines for a living . I can measure two "identical" cylinders and tell you which one will make more power by looking at it. That's experience , not 'Golden' anything. A fingertip can feel a discrepancy of 1/100,000" , but that couldn't be measured accurately (consistently) until fairly recently in human history. All measuring equipment is nothing more than a glorified piece of string-not useless , but far from the final analysis.
I find it entertaining to see people argue about "my numbers sound better than your numbers ".
P.S. When the Army tested my hearing I was told I could be a German Shepherd if I filled out the forms correctly-and that little fact doesn't change your favorite speakers at all , does it? :)

...That or maybe a 50' wide head (give or take).

Ray

Har!

Funny story...I heard Patricia Barber at a small venue, sitting pretty close to the stage. It wasn't an acoustic event, they had a pair of speakers sitting on either end of the stage. So as I listened, I could look directly at the drummer who was sitting stage right, but the sound of the drum was coming out of the speaker stage left.

VERY disconcerting. Almost had to close my eyes!

She was incredible, btw. Don't pass up a chance to hear her and her group play.

I'm of the opinion (not fact) that our receptors are more acute than an instrument system. We can "hear" sounds in the noise. That is, we can discern things due to training or heredity that can be measured but not "sensed" by the machine. An O-Scope may show us complex wave patterns to a high order of overtone and harmonics, but it does not know what that pattern is? Only the human mind can do the final filtering, as in 20 people in a room all talking at once and we can still make out a single comment from one person - it's focus, not measurements IMO.

I've now read the article twice. This debate is like discussing the difference of something between a scientist and an artist. Each person's POV is valid. Our brain's judge something based upon how they are "wired". The famous researcher Howard Gardner has found through a lifetime of research 8 different, specific learning styles. Add that in with our own experiences and conditioning that shape our thought process. Finally, the shape and age of our ears affects how exactly sounds are transmitted and out comes a unique opinion/viewpoint.

Scientific measurements can only tell a part of the story, just like a person can only tell a part. When one uses both in a balanced fashion a very valid opinion can be formed. But it still won't be perfect.

Not everything can be described or measured, just experienced.

I like to think demonstrably "good" numbers give me a range of options to listen to , then let my ears make the final choice. In the end , the person shelling out the bucks has to be happy. I believe markmarc nailed it.

I'm of the opinion (not fact) that our receptors are more acute than an instrument system. We can "hear" sounds in the noise. That is, we can discern things due to training or heredity that can be measured but not "sensed" by the machine. An O-Scope may show us complex wave patterns to a high order of overtone and harmonics, but it does not know what that pattern is? Only the human mind can do the final filtering, as in 20 people in a room all talking at once and we can still make out a single comment from one person - it's focus, not measurements IMO.

It is how our brain is trained - it does not mean it is more accurate. Example, our eyes are more sensitive to blue light and can discenr it easier than most scientific instrumentation - does that mean it is more accurate - no.

Dave

Blue is the last color to disappear in the visible light spectrum-don't really care what infrared or ultraviolet look like-can't see 'em. I refuse to have a spreadsheet tell me what I think sounds good. May be my natural aversion to CPAs , but I'll go with Mr. Clemens regarding numbers-"There are three kinds of lies; Lies , Damned Lies , and statistics." 'Specs' are a little too close to 'statistics' for my liking.
Besides , just because we can't measure it , doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The hole in the ozone layer was there long before we could identify it , as well as gravity , air , and germs. If you can tell the difference between a live performance and a "perfect" reproduction , you know numbers aren't all there is. IMO. Or it's all in my head and a $29.99 boombox is all I need. :scratch2:

P.S. Would you take an O-scope to an opera to tell you if the singing was good?

It is how our brain is trained - it does not mean it is more accurate. Example, our eyes are more sensitive to blue light and can discenr it easier than most scientific instrumentation - does that mean it is more accurate - no.

Dave

Instrumentation that's designed to detect light at the blue end of the spectrum does so perfectly well, and can be more sensitive than our eyes.

I have several uncles who are engineers , all smarter than I. The smartest one suggested I save up for "some Bose stuff" and get rid of my 70s technology speakers. (Paradigm Studio 60 v.3) He kindly acknowledged I'll have to save up for the Bose , maybe sell off my current rig as a "start". Apparently , the numbers prove it's better. :)

Time to educate him!

I have several uncles who are engineers , all smarter than I. The smartest one suggested I save up for "some Bose stuff" and get rid of my 70s technology speakers. (Paradigm Studio 60 v.3) He kindly acknowledged I'll have to save up for the Bose , maybe sell off my current rig as a "start". Apparently , the numbers prove it's better. :)

Nah, your uncle just listens to Paul Harvey too much. The numbers prove that Bose is...how to put this...not very good. I'll leave it at that.

Ray

Golden Ears and Meter reader are terms audio can do without, both are derogatory.
And we wonder why other people aren’t interested in our hobby. You don’t see people who are into fishing or model trains or the like arguing like audio people do.

In the last couple of years AK has allowed members to test various bits of audio gear and tweaks. We’ve even on occasion gotten to pm with the people behind these products. Bigerik has been one of the forces behind this.

We then post our finding in Thinking Out Loud or Reviews.

I happily signed up for as many as I could. Lot’s of reviews, lot’s of fun, a fine learning experience and many different results and opinions. All posted without fear or being dissed as a Golden Ear or a Meter Reader.

This I think is the strength of AK, a place where people with a common passion can meet under one proverbial tent and discuss things.

Good point. Perhaps "Educated Ears" would be a better term? I dont consider myself "Golden Eared" but more "educated" from years of experience.
The best way to back up assertations of what you are hearing is with a group. Do other people hear what you are hearing, and do they agree with your assertations about it?
I've done this many times and have found that most people will hear the same things.

Good point. Perhaps "Edjucated Ears" would be a better term? I dont consider myself "Golden Eared" but more "edjucated" from years of experience.
The best way to back up assertations of what you are hearing is with a group. Do other people hear what you are hearing, and do they agree with your assertations about it?
I've done this many times and have found that most people will hear the same things.

You haven't found much of anything that way unless those people were isolated from each other, never talked about the experience, were asked the same questions several different ways, and returned statistically similar results. The "best way" to back up your assertions regarding what you're hearing, if by best you mean accurate, is blind ABX testing. The big question is why does anyone feel the need to back it up? If you think you like tubes better than solid state, vinyl better than cds, Bose better than Martin-Logans :D, then you do. That's all that really matters. Meters measure the performance of equipment, not your enjoyment of music. If I like my art better through vinyl, tubes and Klipschorns and you like yours better through a hard drive, a Krell headphone amp and a pair of Senns, we're good. The only question is why everyone needs so badly to be right that they'll confuse the art with the museum lights to prove the other guy is wrong.

Tim

Well said, Tim. It's up to the listener whether it sounds good or not. I can look at a FR plot and make a decent guess as to what it's going to sound like but I'll never be able to tell if that will sound good to someone else. That's entirely up to them. Like my T-shirt says, "do what you like, like what you do".

Ray

Time to educate him!


I'm thinking of arranging an audition of some "70s technology" stuff at a dealer near him before my next visit. Magnepan and McIntosh may be old enough to use as an example. :D