In case you've forgotten, audio perception is biological.
Almost a good catch! The brain is biology; the mind (inc. perception) is psychology. Actually, it's all physics.
In case you've forgotten, audio perception is biological.
Almost a good catch! The brain is biology; the mind (inc. perception) is psychology. Actually, it's all physics.
I just used DACs as an example. Listen for all the mystical characteristics of music you like, and for as long as you like, but do so blind and compare with others blind and you will discover whether there are differences and be able to assess them.
Tim
Psychology doesn't exist without biology.
Referencing Bart Locanthi's insightful observation of a codec glitch gleaned almost immediately from 'normal' listening that had been 'overlooked' by years of blind trials by Swedish radio, Robert Harley asks:
How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational listening techniques, was able to discoverin less than ten minutesa distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000 trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference methodology, and sophisticated statistical analysis?
This is the problem I'm trying to illustrate: it's not that these terms are not 'scientific' per se: we all know what they mean, and relate them to specific listening impressions. The issue is that, currently, we don't have a scale to measure them by, or a convenient method by which to examine them mechanically. It used to be the same with temperature . . .
If we're going to invoke the scientific method, we have to use it all the way - at least we should be conscious of what we can't do with it at present, and seek to enlarge the scope of its power in order to bring everything pertinent under objective scrutiny.
I've already conceded that there are no measures for these attributes, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. What's your measure for excellent vs average wine?[/QUOTE]
There isn't one, as wine quality has no objective measure. However, with HiFi we're not assessing the quality of wine, we're assessing how close a replica of the wine gets, if one wants to maintain the wine metaphone. Wine is the original, as is the CD. Hi-Fi reproduces the CD, we don't have a wine reproducer. If we had a star-trek replicator, then we could be talking wine against HiFi.
S.
A common way of measuring wine excellence is to ask the drinker "how much would you be willing to pay for this wine". A group of friends of mine used to have regular wine tasting parties. One of my "party tricks" was to be given a number of glasses and be asked to place them in price order. I usually made only a few mistakes. Rather depressing in that you seldom get a cheap wine tasting like an expensive wine. More common (but still quite rare) is that some expensive wines are duds.
Nic P
It also depends on what is considered "cheap" or "expensive". My all-time favourite wine at any price is 10/ bottle. I would rather drink that than any other wine at any price. When does that fit in the global scheme of things?
S.
There are a few reasonably priced stars, please mention the wine's name and I will see if I can get a bottle. For me the Californian wine Bonterra (organic made by Robert Mondavi) both Merlot and Chardonnay punch above their weight. On offer they are also about the 10 euro level. Unfortunately such stars are few and far between.
Nic P
The glass may affect the perception of wine, but not nearly to the same extent nor the same complication as hifi does to music.If wine = music then hi-fi = glass.
What's your measure for an excellent vs average glass and does wine taste better from an excellent glass?
It kind-of does, but the wine is the same.
The glass may affect the perception of wine, but not nearly to the same extent nor the same complication as hifi does to music.
what is your point?
I understand the difference between original and reproduction. My point is, the usual objective measures don't tell how well the original signal is preserved through the replay chain, particularly at the loudspeaker (due to reasons I outlined earlier) and room interface.... with HiFi we're not assessing the quality of wine, we're assessing how close a replica of the wine gets, if one wants to maintain the wine metaphone. Wine is the original, as is the CD.
Absolutely. But I do accept that there is a wide ground on subjectivity, ranging from pixie-dust imaginings to generally accepted observations. The difficulty for many people is how their experience compares to another at the same event. I think that's where general consensus of the majority gives some credence to subjective performance, sheep/lemmings excluded.I agree, of course. Hi-fi has some way to go. The purpose of these discussions, I imagine, is to help us invest in the things that matter as opposed to those that matter little, in the pursuit of the best possible sound at home.
To refute your attempt to declare that audio perception is psychological and so blind testing is not applicable since it deals with a biological system.
But that's my point. We don't all know what they mean. I have no idea what "timing" is, or "coherence" or "musicality" or any of the other words used to describe sound. I know what a dip of 2.3dB at 10kHz sounds like, but couldn't tell anyone else, they just have to hear it for themselves.
S
The same way musicians discuss Strads and Strats?But can you imagine how this conversation would work if we hadn't yet invented those scales?