Pushing the Computer Audio Boundaries :)

[jkeny]

Yep, if that darn pesky world would only behave in the manner that our theories predict then the world would b efar mor predictable. The belief in theories has brought us to the brink of financial disaster - easy in hindsight to say these people were deluded, more attention should have been paid to the signals coming from the real world! I would always favour listening over numbers - it's just so much more visceral.

[Diapason]

You see, that's where I diverge a little from the pure subjectivist viewpoint. The 'trust your ears' mantra seems sensible, but for me it's not sufficient. The ears are connected to the brain, and that will play all kinds of tricks if left unchecked. Now, I'm not interested in how something measures per se, but I want to know if perceived differences are due to real differences in sonics or if they're due to a psychoacoustical effect.

Of course, that's what this test set out to try to do, so I've zero criticism here. Hats off to everyone involved for trying to introduce rigour to the process. It's rare in the crazy world of hifi.

I could say more but I'm on the phone and typing's a pain. Probably best!

[jkeny]

Si, as I said Martin Collums is also doing DBT tests with subjects & so far reporting 100% success rate, AFAIK http://www.hificritic.com/forum/default ... &t=733&p=2

[DaveF]

The 'trust your ears' mantra seems sensible, but for me it's not sufficient. The ears are connected to the brain, and that will play all kinds of tricks if left unchecked.

Spot on! It's a statement that winds me up just as much as the 'digital is just data' statement.

Now of course the above holds true if simply asked: are you enjoying your system? Yes, you trust your ears and thats the end of it. But when asked if you think something really makes a difference especially in an area as controversial as cables then the trust your ears mantra falls short in my opinion. You cannot ignore the science or specs or data either. Everything is built to specs with a known data set. How else can you ensure that amplifier brand x with serial number 001 will sound and perform the same as the amp type with serial number 002.

This will end up going in circles. :-)

[jkeny]

Agreed that we need verification for what we hear (or think we hear) & I'm all for doing Double blind tests (DBTs) where differences are subtle & not obvious.

And I would love a set of measurements that defined what we hear - The only problem is that there is no such set of measurements i.e if a set of measurements on two systems agree then we could say the the two systems sound the same! This is the great problem & until this is sorted you will always be faced with the ear Vs measurements debate

[Diapason]

And I would love a set of measurements that defined what we hear - The only problem is that there is no such set of measurements i.e if a set of measurements on two systems agree then we could say the the two systems sound the same! This is the great problem & until this is sorted you will always be faced with the ear Vs measurements debate

Totally agree with this. You see a lot of people arguing for something purely on the basis of measurements, but it's not clear to me that the right thing is being measured. That's where the debate always gets a bit silly, and the extreme views on both sides seem nonsensical. Ears may have their limits, but they're still pretty damn important!

I'll have a look at that link later today, John, the forum it's pointing at seems to be down at the moment. Amazing stuff all the same.

[DaveF]

And I would love a set of measurements that defined what we hear - The only problem is that there is no such set of measurements

that's the thing isnt it! No such measurments can exist. The human ear and brain is different from one person to the next. It would be like measuring something in the lab with several scopes/meters that are all out of calibration to varying degrees. Nothing but inconsistencies and inconclusive results. Add in the placebo affect which in my opinion is bigger contributor than many audiophiles like to admit and the situation quickly becomes impossible to resolve.

[jkeny]

And I would love a set of measurements that defined what we hear - The only problem is that there is no such set of measurements

that's the thing isnt it! No such measurments can exist. The human ear and brain is different from one person to the next. It would be like measuring something in the lab with several scopes/meters that are all out of calibration to varying degrees. Nothing but inconsistencies and inconclusive results. Add in the placebo affect which in my opinion is bigger contributor than many audiophiles like to admit and the situation quickly becomes impossible to resolve.

Hold on Dave, you're mixing up a number of things here (hear :)).
Let's take THD as an illustration - it is now known as a very bad identifier of what sounds good although was once touted as the measurement by which the quality of audio should be measured. Now the fact that some low THD amplifiers sounded like crap has nothing to do with the ear/brain variability that you mention - everybody thought they sounded like crap. As Si & I both are saying - the measurement is the wrong one to measure the sound of an amplifier AND there is no measurement set (that I know of) which pins down this "quality" attribute. None of this has to do with ear/brain variability or placebo effects, I believe - it has to do with measuring the wrong attribute. What measurements should be used? Only a better understanding of "exactly" how the ear works will give a direction to this. The ear is not a linear & passive instrument, like a microphone but is an unlinear active & changing instrument that has both local control (from within the ear) & remote control (from the brain) & also distorts what is received. A clearer understanding of this will help focus measurements on what is of importance to how we perceive our audio systems.

So far from it being impossible to resolve because of the variabilities you mentioned, I think it is a very tractable problem - it just needs the correct approach.

[Diapason]

Like the hugely expensive Wavac amp reviewed in Stereophile: subjectively sounded gorgeous, objectively measured broken! Sometimes that distortion sounds pretty damn tasty.

[DaveF]

Like the hugely expensive Wavac amp reviewed in Stereophile: subjectively sounded gorgeous, objectively measured broken! Sometimes that distortion sounds pretty damn tasty.

well that tells us that the human ear/brain is very tolerent of certain levels of distortion or that we cannot differentiate between something that has v.good or bad measureable distortion. If the opposite were true then we would not like the sound of valves or vinyl which objectively measures poorly.

Where am I going with this? I've no idea. :-) Told you it would go around in circles.