I think one of the more interesting aspects of the whole perception versus measurement debate is not what the subjectionists think they can hear but rather what the objectionists think that they can hear. What I am talking about are people measuring a piece of equipment and stating that what they see in the results defines a difference in what that piece of equipment sounds like compared to another. Some things that come to mind that have popped up on this forum are certain behaviors that take place well below what the human ear is capable of hearing or perceiving such as Earl Geddes' comparison of certain Japanese Chinese-made receivers, and other people comparing distortion spectra pointing out different levels of odd-harmonic components that are 70dB or more below the fundamental. It has gotten to the point that I no longer know what "measures well" and have come to know more what "sounds good".
John
John
Moveing to what we can see... most of us will claim we see all we need to.. even if we need to use glasses etc... Yet how many of you can paint a good painting from memory, not many I guess, but there are people like that out there... I don't think anyone would deny.
Do they "see" better than us, just process it better, just have better recall?
Why is it impossible to imagine some people relate and process sound far diffirent/better than the average...
Think we should start stoneing the sprinting winners at the olympics, bloody freaks!
Do they "see" better than us, just process it better, just have better recall?
Why is it impossible to imagine some people relate and process sound far diffirent/better than the average...
Think we should start stoneing the sprinting winners at the olympics, bloody freaks!
So I'm standing in the kitchen, etching a circuit board, and I'm listening to Joe Satriani in the background. And it occurs to me to use him in an analogy which might...possibly...make sense to some.
(For those who don't know who Satriani is, think Jascha Heifetz on violin or John Coltrane on sax, imperfect as those comparisons may be. Satriani plays electric guitar.)
The analogy goes like this:
Satriani can put out a lot of notes when he wants to, but he's not to be confused with some of the other "guitar gods" who just "shred." Satriani has a refined melodic sense somewhat closer to that of Carlos Santana, in that when he plays the notes make sense. Things you can actually whistle or hum, instead of having to resort to spastic-looking contortions whilst playing air guitar.
Okay, now imagine Satriani going into the studio to lay down the tracks for Surfing With the Alien. He has the skills. He plays. Ooops, he makes a mistake. Go back and rerecord that track. I doubt that it takes him more than two or three takes to nail it. Other guitarists might take five or ten takes to get it right. Some would never get it...they're just not up to the task.
So what's the comparison with listening?
Repetition.
(Remember the old joke? "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice, practice, practice...")
Satriani put in his time before he ever went into the studio. He knew his stuff cold. Even if he made a mistake, he could go back and correct it efficiently.
In listening to a stereo, someone who has educated his/her ears can go in and hear things faster and more efficiently than someone who hasn't spent sufficient time "learning their chops."
(And yes, musicians are forever insisting that their abilities are just fine, thank you...just like some of the posters in this thread who insist that they can hear a gnat fart at ninety paces...but obviously couldn't hear an elephant do so if it was standing right next to them.)
Okay, I got this far and then thought of a potentially better analogy. It goes like this:
There are firms that will--for a fee--recover data you've accidentally deleted and written over. Simply put, they read the data, looking not for zeros and ones, but for halves and three-quarters. They look for the 'ghosts' of bits gone by. It can't be done in one read. They read the media multiple times and use statistical methods to pull the data from the noise. And the really cool thing is...it works.
The analogy is this: When someone sits down to critically listen to a new stereo, they might get an impression that it has a better image than before. The next time they listen, they might be a little more sure. Then comes a day when they're not so sure...everything sounds flat and uninteresting. They shake their heads and walk away. They next day they wake up with a head cold and realize in hindsight that they were probably already getting sick the night before and that influenced their hearing. Hence, that ''flat" listening session data becomes suspect and gets a lesser weighting. A week passes and they're back to health. They listen and things are fine, in fact, they notice that the high end might be a little better than before. And so on. Over time, the listener reaches what you might think of as a consensus view--built up over many listening sessions--of how the system sounds. Think of it as successive approximations, if you will, which is a perfectly valid method of arriving at an answer in mathematics.
To someone who wants a one-time, read-it-and-be-done answer, this obviously isn't going to satisfy, but it does give reliable results assuming that the listener has the sensitivity (read: listening skills) and the time and the patience to pull the data out of the background noise. Assuming more sensitivity (better listening skills), you can reach the same conclusion in fewer listening sessions, in much the same way that Joe Satriani can lay down a track in one or two takes once he gets to the studio. If the listener is not as skilled, it may take longer to reach a conclusion. In the extreme, they may not be able to hear anything no matter how many times they listen.
It's the repetition that makes listening work. It's a statistical process that averages out over time, distilling subtleties that are close to the resolution of human hearing. That's both its weakness--in that it's slow--and its strength--in that it's exceedingly powerful.
Grey
(For those who don't know who Satriani is, think Jascha Heifetz on violin or John Coltrane on sax, imperfect as those comparisons may be. Satriani plays electric guitar.)
The analogy goes like this:
Satriani can put out a lot of notes when he wants to, but he's not to be confused with some of the other "guitar gods" who just "shred." Satriani has a refined melodic sense somewhat closer to that of Carlos Santana, in that when he plays the notes make sense. Things you can actually whistle or hum, instead of having to resort to spastic-looking contortions whilst playing air guitar.
Okay, now imagine Satriani going into the studio to lay down the tracks for Surfing With the Alien. He has the skills. He plays. Ooops, he makes a mistake. Go back and rerecord that track. I doubt that it takes him more than two or three takes to nail it. Other guitarists might take five or ten takes to get it right. Some would never get it...they're just not up to the task.
So what's the comparison with listening?
Repetition.
(Remember the old joke? "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice, practice, practice...")
Satriani put in his time before he ever went into the studio. He knew his stuff cold. Even if he made a mistake, he could go back and correct it efficiently.
In listening to a stereo, someone who has educated his/her ears can go in and hear things faster and more efficiently than someone who hasn't spent sufficient time "learning their chops."
(And yes, musicians are forever insisting that their abilities are just fine, thank you...just like some of the posters in this thread who insist that they can hear a gnat fart at ninety paces...but obviously couldn't hear an elephant do so if it was standing right next to them.)
Okay, I got this far and then thought of a potentially better analogy. It goes like this:
There are firms that will--for a fee--recover data you've accidentally deleted and written over. Simply put, they read the data, looking not for zeros and ones, but for halves and three-quarters. They look for the 'ghosts' of bits gone by. It can't be done in one read. They read the media multiple times and use statistical methods to pull the data from the noise. And the really cool thing is...it works.
The analogy is this: When someone sits down to critically listen to a new stereo, they might get an impression that it has a better image than before. The next time they listen, they might be a little more sure. Then comes a day when they're not so sure...everything sounds flat and uninteresting. They shake their heads and walk away. They next day they wake up with a head cold and realize in hindsight that they were probably already getting sick the night before and that influenced their hearing. Hence, that ''flat" listening session data becomes suspect and gets a lesser weighting. A week passes and they're back to health. They listen and things are fine, in fact, they notice that the high end might be a little better than before. And so on. Over time, the listener reaches what you might think of as a consensus view--built up over many listening sessions--of how the system sounds. Think of it as successive approximations, if you will, which is a perfectly valid method of arriving at an answer in mathematics.
To someone who wants a one-time, read-it-and-be-done answer, this obviously isn't going to satisfy, but it does give reliable results assuming that the listener has the sensitivity (read: listening skills) and the time and the patience to pull the data out of the background noise. Assuming more sensitivity (better listening skills), you can reach the same conclusion in fewer listening sessions, in much the same way that Joe Satriani can lay down a track in one or two takes once he gets to the studio. If the listener is not as skilled, it may take longer to reach a conclusion. In the extreme, they may not be able to hear anything no matter how many times they listen.
It's the repetition that makes listening work. It's a statistical process that averages out over time, distilling subtleties that are close to the resolution of human hearing. That's both its weakness--in that it's slow--and its strength--in that it's exceedingly powerful.
Grey
Finally we agree, Grey!
I do agree on your latest comments. What I was a broadcast consultant, I never evaluated any station's audio for a day after flying (or even riding up a skyscraper in an elevator). It screws your hearing up.
Yet, so many consultants do. It's no wonder why FM sounds as bad as it does...
I do agree on your latest comments. What I was a broadcast consultant, I never evaluated any station's audio for a day after flying (or even riding up a skyscraper in an elevator). It screws your hearing up.
Yet, so many consultants do. It's no wonder why FM sounds as bad as it does...
It's a PGA (pretty good analogy). Since I want my system to sound good every time, maybe tone controls are the wrong answer- what I really need is a mood control. It would have settings like "head cold", "hangover", "just heard new speakers at the high end store", "compensate for too much caffeine" and my favorite, "convert CD to sound like vinyl". Seriously, I think some recent dissatisfaction with my system was not realizing I was coming down with a cold. Also, there's the necessity of averaging due to source material. I like a lot of different music from a wide time period, and the way they recorded/equalized things in the '60s was far different than the '80s, or now. A question- anybody know when the analog chain would have been mostly tubes? When did studio consoles go to discrete, then op-amps?
As an analogy, it may fly, or it may not. I came up with both halves while standing at the stove using a frying pan full of water to warm etchant. As for the board, it's awaiting drilling and populating. Not sure it works yet. We shall see--it's the first time I've done this board layout.
Recording went solid state in the '60s. The boards came first into the big studios. The big performers (e.g. Frank Sinatra) came in, said, "That sounds horrible," and suddenly the tubes were back in use for those with clout enough to make it happen. Not surprisingly, the junky stuff got dumped...into the studios where those worthless, upstart hippies were coming in and recording that nasty rock music. Sad to say, the kids didn't have enough clout (or audio experience) to get the tube gear, and so we have sonic disasters like Jimi Hendrix Are You Experienced, which I would dearly love to hear in an equivalent to some of the jazz and classical recordings still being made around that time.
Grey
Recording went solid state in the '60s. The boards came first into the big studios. The big performers (e.g. Frank Sinatra) came in, said, "That sounds horrible," and suddenly the tubes were back in use for those with clout enough to make it happen. Not surprisingly, the junky stuff got dumped...into the studios where those worthless, upstart hippies were coming in and recording that nasty rock music. Sad to say, the kids didn't have enough clout (or audio experience) to get the tube gear, and so we have sonic disasters like Jimi Hendrix Are You Experienced, which I would dearly love to hear in an equivalent to some of the jazz and classical recordings still being made around that time.
Grey
Funny, that, I've been in the coatings business for the past 25 years and we always did tests blind. One knows the reference, usually referred to as a "goldbrick," but when choosing "which sample comes closest?" the contestant samples are coded.
Glossmeters and abrasion testers are useful for very limited situations, but they do have the advantage of being objective and repeatable.
Glossmeters and abrasion testers are useful for very limited situations, but they do have the advantage of being objective and repeatable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.