[miklorsmith]

True also, but a different question.  You are one persistent bugger, Steve.

[jules]

"What instrument is playing" is of course subjective but the point is, we can do it and we can do it with 100% accuracy. This just happens to correspond with the physical difference between two instrument which is totally objective.

Now it may be that analytical software could be written to determine these basic differences but a) has it been done? and more importantly, if this isn't a tool available to the designers of amps, speakers etc etc, then the theoretical possibility of doing it is  moot point.

jules 

[Danny Richie]

The human ear is much more sensitive than you think. There is a lot that is NOT so well known or accepted and plenty of things that are easily discernable by the ear that are not so easy to measure.

Such as?

Lots of things are not commonly accepted by some but known facts to many others. It just depends on who you're talking to. Burn in factors are a good example. Some of those elements are easy to measure and some are not. Cryogenic treatment is another good example. The effects can clearly be seen under high powered microscopes. Is this a measured difference? Many claim clear and easy to discern audible differences from this treatment while others claim it to be snake oil and make no difference at all.

How about spacial cues? Why does one pre-amp allow for a deep sound stage and then another one jumbles the sound stage up in a 2 dimensional way. The ear detects it quickly and easily.

And the proof of this is...?

So are you questioning my question here?

My Clio measuring system can very accurately measure the amplitude of a note, but it won't tell me what played it.

So? What has "what played it" to do with anything?

I am sorry you did not get the point I was trying to make. I'll try to be more clear.

One measurement or group of measurements does not a complete picture make. You can't get the whole picture from one aspect.

Also, it could be that there was no actual audible difference and that the subjective perception of a difference had no basis in the physical reality.

That is hilarious. I suppose one could be fooled into thinking one instrument was another.

And finally, getting back to the crux if the matter, I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that any differences between two components which are sufficient to produce an actual audible difference are beyond measurement.

I would like to think that any difference (audible difference) can be verified in some way by measuring it in some way. However, the quantifiable answer often involves a subjective analysis of measured data.

For instance cable A has a measured difference in RFI rejection over cable B. Subjective part: Cable A sounds different because of the difference in RFI rejection. Or could it be the difference in the dielectric material due to thickness or composition? See what I mean?

Another case in point. A manufacturer hands me two capacitors to evaluate and compare wanting my feedback. This really happened. They are the exact same value and measure the same in every way, but the dielectric material is different. Guess what, they sound different too.

And the proof of this is...?

Are you asking for proof of a subjective conclusion? You mean like, did they sound different because they really did sound different or did they sound different because we thought they should sound different?

[Dan Banquer]

"What instrument is playing" is of course subjective but the point is, we can do it and we can do it with 100% accuracy. This just happens to correspond with the physical difference between two instrument which is totally objective.

Now it may be that analytical software could be written to determine these basic differences but a) has it been done? and more importantly, if this isn't a tool available to the designers of amps, speakers etc etc, then the theoretical possibility of doing it is  moot point.

jules 

Excuse me, but I believe this can done with written music; that's what it's for. Ever look at a score for an Orchestra?
                         d.b.

[jules]

Sure Dan,

I've played in an orchestra and I can read a score but the latter isn't a very fun way to enjoy music and we don't have to resort to scores to be able to pick the difference.

Steve E has said  of measurement

I don't recall anyone making such a claim that measurements can distill all aspects of our audio experience.

As far as I read the claim, it was simply that if an audio component alters the signal sufficiently to produce an audible difference that it can be measured. That's not saying that it can tell us what will sound good to us or saying anything about telling what instrument's being played or who is singing.

This implies to me that ears can tell which instrument is playing but measuring gear can't. So, I'm asking if this is the case or not

jules

[Dan Banquer]

Sure Dan,

I've played in an orchestra and I can read a score but the latter isn't a very fun way to enjoy music and we don't have to resort to scores to be able to pick the difference.

Steve E has said  of measurement

I don't recall anyone making such a claim that measurements can distill all aspects of our audio experience.

As far as I read the claim, it was simply that if an audio component alters the signal sufficiently to produce an audible difference that it can be measured. That's not saying that it can tell us what will sound good to us or saying anything about telling what instrument's being played or who is singing.

This implies to me that ears can tell which instrument is playing but measuring gear can't. So, I'm asking if this is the case or not

jules

If the equipment can record and digitize the signal and retain the signal in memory than it can be compared to other examples. This is done all the time in voice recognition, and in submarines with sonar signatures of different ships, subs or fish. It's also done in recording studios. It's called pattern recognition.
This is nothing new, it's been going on for years.

Really guys; I'm surprised I have to post stuff like this.
Maybe I shouldn't be.
    d.b.




                     

[jules]

oh ... sorry to trouble you Dan. It's so obvious when you put it like that.

jules

[Danny Richie]

Do you mean that the two capacitors produce actual audible differences or that they simply subjectively sound different to a given listener? If you mean the former, then when was it proved that the two capacitors produced actual audible differences?

Okay, what if I told you that the difference in the two caps (known differences) was a difference in dielectric absorption. This could be considered a measurable difference, but is not a commonly compared element and not easy to measure, meaning that few people can measure it (few companies), but it is measurable.

Now will it or will it not produce an audible difference?

How do you determine this without listening to it?

Is the audible difference then justified by the known variable that is different?

Or are we fooled into thinking that they sound different?

You see there is always a subjective element even when reading the measured data. You still have to decide if there is a difference and what accounts for it.

[Dan Banquer]

Do you mean that the two capacitors produce actual audible differences or that they simply subjectively sound different to a given listener? If you mean the former, then when was it proved that the two capacitors produced actual audible differences?

Okay, what if I told you that the difference in the two caps (known differences) was a difference in dielectric absorption. This could be considered a measurable difference, but is not a commonly compared element and not easy to measure, meaning that few people can measure it (few companies), but it is measurable.

Now will it or will it not produce an audible difference?

How do you determine this without listening to it?

Is the audible difference then justified by the known variable that is different?

Or are we fooled into thinking that they sound different?

You see there is always a subjective element even when reading the measured data. You still have to decide if there is a difference and what accounts for it.

Since when is Dielectric absorption not important! especially in anything to do with discreet filters! This is important not only in audio but in many other types of signal processing that use discreet filters.
              d.b.

[Danny Richie]

Dang Dan, you and I agree on something? This has been a weird thread.

[Steve Eddy]

True also, but a different question.  You are one persistent bugger, Steve.

I'll take that as a compliment. 

se

[Steve Eddy]

"What instrument is playing" is of course subjective but the point is, we can do it and we can do it with 100% accuracy.

Ok, but so what? I don't see that as the issue.

This just happens to correspond with the physical difference between two instrument which is totally objective.

Sure, when you're talking about rather gross differences such as those between different types of instruments. But the differences spoken of when we're talking about say one preamp and another are quite a bit different matter.

Now it may be that analytical software could be written to determine these basic differences but a) has it been done? and more importantly, if this isn't a tool available to the designers of amps, speakers etc etc, then the theoretical possibility of doing it is  moot point.

Well whether it's been done or not, I still don't see what the whole point of the "what instrument is playing" is in the first place.

se

[Dan Banquer]

Dang Dan, you and I agree on something? This has been a weird thread.

Let's not get out of hand here shall we? If you dig deep enough you can find out what's going on without resorting to "magic", but hey, that doesn't sell in "High End" now does it?
Now, If you'll excuse me, I need to get back to pulling rabbits out of my arse.
                 d.b.

[Steve Eddy]

Lots of things are not commonly accepted by some but known facts to many others.

Sure. But you said the human ear is more sensitive than Ethan thinks it is and that there's a lot that's not so well known or accepted. So my "Such as..." had to do with the human ear, which is what your claim was about, not about other examples having nothing to do with the human ear.

So are you questioning my question here?

No, I'm questioning the statement you made following your question.

Why does one pre-amp allow for a deep sound stage and then another one jumbles the sound stage up in a 2 dimensional way. The ear detects it quickly and easily.

You're talking aobut soundstage as it relates to different preamps and claiming that the ear detects it quickly and easily. So I was simply wondering what the proof is that the one preamp is jumbling up the soundstage in the first place.

I am sorry you did not get the point I was trying to make. I'll try to be more clear.

Ok.

One measurement or group of measurements does not a complete picture make. You can't get the whole picture from one aspect.

Well I guess that depends on what you mean by "a complete picture."

So far it appears to me that some have been trying to expand the picture well beyond the context of the original remarks which started this line of discussion when they've gone on about the "what instrument is playing" thing.

That is hilarious. I suppose one could be fooled into thinking one instrument was another.

Depending on the instruments involved, it's not entirely impossible that that could be the case.

But we're not talking about gross differences such as say that between a flute and an oboe.

I would like to think that any difference (audible difference) can be verified in some way by measuring it in some way. However, the quantifiable answer often involves a subjective analysis of measured data.

Mmmm. Ok...

For instance cable A has a measured difference in RFI rejection over cable B. Subjective part: Cable A sounds different because of the difference in RFI rejection. Or could it be the difference in the dielectric material due to thickness or composition? See what I mean?

Ok. But in either case you haven't shown that the difference wouldn't be measureable. And that's really the whole gist of all this.

Are you asking for proof of a subjective conclusion? You mean like, did they sound different because they really did sound different or did they sound different because we thought they should sound different?

Well in this case your "they sound different too" in your original statement seemed to imply they sounded different due to an actual audible difference.

se


[/quote]

[Danny Richie]

Sure. But you said the human ear is more sensitive than Ethan thinks it is and that there's a lot that's not so well known or accepted. So my "Such as..." had to do with the human ear, which is what your claim was about, not about other examples having nothing to do with the human ear.

My examples were simply things what can easily or readily hear and discerned but are not easy to measure. Those did have to do with our hearing ability.

Your questions really seam to be asking, how do we really know what we hear?

Is the theology behind your questions along the lines of, if I fart and no one hears it was it really loud?

There seams to be a hidden catch 22 in there some where Steve.

[Steve Eddy]

Okay, what if I told you that the difference in the two caps (known differences) was a difference in dielectric absorption. This could be considered a measurable difference, but is not a commonly compared element and not easy to measure, meaning that few people can measure it (few companies), but it is measurable.

I know there's more, but I just want to pause here for a moment and ask how exactly does DA manifest itself such that it's not easy to measure?

Now will it or will it not produce an audible difference?

That's ambiguous at this point. It may or it may not.

How do you determine this without listening to it?

Certainly it requires listening to determine actual audible difference. But listening in and of itself doesn't determine it. You also have to control for known limitations of subjective evaluation.

Is the audible difference then justified by the known variable that is different?

You're putting the cart before the horse here aren't you? When did we get to establishing the actual audible difference?

Or are we fooled into thinking that they sound different?

Given what we do know about subjective perception, that's certainly a possibility. Which is why it needs to be adequately controlled for before you can move on to the next step.

You see there is always a subjective element even when reading the measured data. You still have to decide if there is a difference and what accounts for it.

Sure. But simply because you subjectively perceive some difference, and can point to some measureable difference, doesn't in itself establish that the perceived difference was due to an actual audible difference.

First thing you do is establish an actual audible difference if there is one. Until you can do that you're left with ambiguity and can't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other.

Once you have established an actual audible difference, then you can begin to control individually for those elements you suspect may be the cause or causes of it and hopefully at the end of it all, have a conclusive answer.

se

[jules]

Steve E,

my "what instrument is playing" point arose from:

My point is simply that saying measurements can distill all aspects of our audio experience is preposterous.

I don't recall anyone making such a claim that measurements can distill all aspects of our audio experience.

As far as I read the claim, it was simply that if an audio component alters the signal sufficiently to produce an audible difference that it can be measured. That's not saying that it can tell us what will sound good to us or saying anything about telling what instrument's being played or who is singing.

I'll restate what I attempted to say earlier for clarification:

It is possible to pick the difference between different musical instruments by ear with great reliability. It's easy to verify that we get it right here [unlike with say a capacitor] cos you can simply look at the physical object and there's no question as to what it is.

You appear to be suggesting above [correct me if I'm wrong  ] that measuring equipment might be unable to pick such simple matters as the difference between instruments.

I don't know if this is true or not and I don't know the limitations of measuring equipment. Dan is quite certain that it can be done and maybe he's right. Still, I don't know the limitations of the equipment here and "voice recognition" to name one tool he backs still seems to have a long way to go. How would it go picking a single instrument out of the midst of an orchestra for example?

The significance of the "what instrument is playing" issue seems to me to be that it's a good test in that there's no question that instruments are different and it offers a good base to compare the ability of the ear to pick a difference as against the ability of a piece of measuring gear to do the same [yeah, yeah .. it can't be "the same"  ] but you get my point?


jules 

[Danny Richie]

Okay, I'll bit one more time.  

know there's more, but I just want to pause here for a moment and ask how exactly does DA manifest itself such that it's not easy to measure?

I guess I really have to be carful with those subjective words. "Easy" is very subjective. What is easy for one is not too easy for another. I am a loudspeaker designer and I can't measure DA. Can you? I would venture to guess that most of the people on this board do not have this capability. For all of "us" it is not easy to measure. For an industry professional with the right gear it may seam pretty easy.

The rest of the questions that you responded to were simply questions. I wasn't alluding to an answer.

Sure. But simply because you subjectively perceive some difference, and can point to some measureable difference, doesn't in itself establish that the perceived difference was due to an actual audible difference.

First thing you do is establish an actual audible difference if there is one. Until you can do that you're left with ambiguity and can't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other.

Once you have established an actual audible difference, then you can begin to control individually for those elements you suspect may be the cause or causes of it and hopefully at the end of it all, have a conclusive answer.

Agreed.

[Steve Eddy]

My examples were simply things what can easily or readily hear and discerned but are not easy to measure. Those did have to do with our hearing ability.

Sorry, I didn't follow all the way through on your cryogenics remark and didn't note that you'd tied it to hearing. My apologies.

So let me respond to the part that I scanned over:

Many claim clear and easy to discern audible differences from this treatment while others claim it to be snake oil and make no difference at all.

And to this I would say that neither of those claims have been proved (or disproved) to my knowledge.

Your questions really seam to be asking, how do we really know what we hear?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Is the theology behind your questions along the lines of, if I fart and no one hears it was it really loud?

There seams to be a hidden catch 22 in there some where Steve.

No, no hidden catch 22.

You said previously that we don't know everything. While that's true, neither do we know nothing. And one thing that we do know is that our subjective perceptions aren't always an accurate reflection of the physical reality.

So to that end I'm simply saying that until that reality can be properly accounted for, we can't rightly make claims of actual audibility.

And please keep in mind I'm saying this in the context of where differences are below the currently known thresholds of perception.

se

[eico1]

Measuring the dielectric absorption of a capacitor in a circuit designed to do so is not the same as measuring it's effect in an audio circuit with real audio type signals. Play music through one circuit and then through the other and subtract the results. What do you hear?

One could also claim the different colors of the caps are the reason you hear a difference.

steve