Based on what I'm reading, I'm not sure that you do (agree with IncarnateX). Which is really of no matter, because he IS overstating the position, whether people agree or not. I could explain this in excruciating detail, but it would be a waste of time and way off topic on KVR. As I've said, this isn't a (science) paper, it's a conversation.zerocrossing wrote: While I believe in bias, I'm in agreement with IncarnateX.
Essentially, when we consider two digital filters (to keep this simple), and ask if one is better than the other with respect to how close we are to emulating an analog filter. Then we have a truth state and a perception of the truth state.
The truth state is how accurately these digital filters actually model the analog counterpart. The perception of the truth state is what any individual hears. What IncarnateX is saying is that any one person's perception cannot be asserted "scientifically" to represent the truth state. This is independent of the bias arguments.
This is too strong. It neglects the actual truth state and the common understanding of sound. Additionally, not all perceptions are equal, and bias that might influence perception does not always go in the desired direction, as you point out below, and as I mentioned above. We absolutely can use perception to answer these kinds of questions and the more experienced a listener is, the more value we should place on their perception. Yes, there will always be variance about their response, and bias is a powerful influence, but, it is far too strong of a statement to throw perception out as being "un-scientific" and not representative of the truth state. This is the kind of pedantic argument that pseudo-science often makes.
At the end of the day, perception corrected for strong visual and suggestion bias, is ALL that matters. It is sound, after all, and it's only function in this context is to be perceived.
He is NOT saying that there is or isn't a difference, and neither am I.
Yes, you're preaching to the choir. You know that right?While there are some sounds that can be nailed beyond anyone's ability to spot the difference, there are enough that can't.
As did I, well, I didn't completely move to digital synths, but the K2K, Nord G1, and JD-800 became centerpieces of my studio and live rig.I'm a big fan of digital synths, in fact I made a move to digital synths in the 90s (didn't we all?!
Right, this is what I mean by bias working against you, or going in the wrong direction. You were convinced that analog wasn't better, but you could hear the difference.When I was convinced that there was some "analog magic" I might be missing, I went to see what people were talking about. I was very skeptical. I was biased against old analogs. I hated all that crappy synth pop from the 70s and 80s. But I heard the difference. It wasn't totally obvious at first but once I knew what to look for, I could not "unhear" it.
I say thank you for supporting my point of view on this. Perception can be thought of as a mixture of influences. You hear something and some part of what you hear is the truth state of the sound. Some part of what you hear is bias and that will color your perception in some direction. That bias may be due to visual stimulus, or it may be due to suggestion, both have been shown to have a powerful effect on our perception. The bias may not add to the perception in the desired direction, but it does color perception nonetheless. As long as we take steps to control the bias in what we're hearing, we can make qualitative statements of substance about our perceptions. This is especially true when this is done in aggregate, i.e., we yield the power of many perceptions instead of just our own.Smash cut, we now have some amazing software VA that really does get a lot closer. I'd love to ditch my analogs, I really would. I can't though. They provide character I can't get as easily in software. So, what do you have to say to someone who was biased against analog?
What I am saying is that as long as one knows what to listen for, that the truth state of the sound dominates in such a model in cases where there are gross differences. Hence, perception is a reasonable estimator of the truth state.
Or, in more layspeak, yes bias matters, but the differences are so dramatic in some cases, this case in particular, that as long as you know what to listen for, you will be able to hear the difference.
Further, I'm saying that we have other data that informs us that the 2600v cannot be accurate. It is an old design that we know does not take advantage of newer methods that yield greater accuracy. We don't even have to listen to the filter to know that this is true.