🚀 go-pugleaf

"Roj" <rojramsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nco4gt40viuseetq92rmpns1nafak289en@4ax.com...

> One point on sound being subjective:

> A sound card or a set of speakers can either reproduce virtual
> placement or it cannot.  It can either produce detail in the high
end
> that is audible or it cannot.  It can either produce warmth and
timbre
> in the sound or it cannot.  It can either reproduce decay in the
sound
> properly or it cannot.  These things are audible to anyone and if
> someone A-Bs a system they can easily tell the difference, perhaps
if
> asked to listen to a certain instrument or for a certain sound in
the
> music they are listening to.

In the context of subjectivity, I think that it needs to be pointed
out that Roj and I own SBLive! and Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
soundcards. We've both  had plenty of chances to listen to them
day-in, day-out and in a variety of contexts.

In contrast Mr. Dormer has not indicated that he has ANY experience
with the Santa Cruz at all, He just keeps talking about what a
wonderful card his SBLive! is in a mostly one-sided discussion of
technical specs and features.

Given that Mr. Dormer has frequently vilified me as being some kind
of objectivist, this all seems very strange.

I've argued with the idea I'm an objectivist when so accused because
I think I'm a subjectivist. I'm just a subjectivist who is interested
in reliable, verifiable results.

I'm also a subjectivist that has some experience and resources for
doing technical measurements. I've always tried to approach
measurements only as they apply to the subjective experience. IOW
measuring nits can be fun, but if they don't mean anything to
anybody's subjective experience with listening to music and voice and
other entertaining or useful sounds, then I really am not all that
interested. And if there is something that relates to the subjective
experience that should be measured, I'm all ears and meters. I want
to dwell on to what relates to sound quality as reliably perceived by
humans.

> Now I realize most folks don't have the opportunity to listen to
the
> soundcards using the same speakers in the same environment (a
common
> thing with stereo equipment  - the showroom) but I did.  That
> inconsistency can easily lead to the statement that sound is
> subjective.

> In my opinion it most certainly is not.

Roj, I agree that many of the issues you raise are related to both
subjective experiences and technical measurements.

Roj, you mentioned "timbre" and timbre is one of those musical
properties that has strong representation in the PCABX suite  of
musical sounds. I put it there because it timbre changes are IMO very
undesirable. If asked to say what bugs me most about the SBLive!, I'd
say its the timbre changes that are obvious to me in PCABX  DBTs of
the "trumpets1" musical sounds that are posted at www.pcabx.com.

Roj, you mentioned "decay" and decay is one of those musical events
that also has strong representation in the PCABX suite  of musical
sounds. I put it there because it is one of those ways that an audio
product can fall on its face or not. The second edition "triangle"
sample (AKA triangle2) decays to -108 dB. Even though that's well
below the so-called 96 dB dynamic range of 44/16,  good 44/16
equipment can reproduce it accurately, both in subjective and
technical tests.

This whole discussion of the SBLive! versus the Santa Cruz could be
pretty moot in a month or so when Creative Labs comes out with their
new line of cards.

Mr. Dormer has been gagging indistinctly about my web site tests of
the Live! for well over a year. He's really had nothing of substance
to say right up until  the very end of the Live!'s life as a flagship
product for Creative Labs.  Seems like he's a day late and a dollar
short.

Here's hoping that CL comes out with a wonderful new card that makes
us all wonder why we were so impressed with the Santa Cruz! ;-)