Objectivity vs Subjectivity
- Thread starter Passive_audio_enthusiast
- Start date
If not the best of the best, a well measuring tube amplifier can be made by competent engineer which can surpass most budget SS amplifier. As for vinyl the media has limitations. But high performance turntables (to extract information) were already made By Nakamichi Dragon, Technics SL10, Sony Biotracer, some Denon had on the fly resonance controlling tonearm.
Tubes
Regards
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
We seem to be caught in a never ending vortex and in an endless loop where the same old, same old statements and questions are repeated over and over. The answers too remain the same except for different verbiage. FFS, let the horse RIP; haven't we flogged it and stirred the pot enough already?
Last edited:
Sigh… and yet again, people seem to think that there is a single correct FORMULA to define listening preferences, and that just because subjectivity is hard to quantify means that is worthless. Just… no.
No matter how many paragraphs we write, the simple fact is that two listeners will have different preferences about the sound palette they like.
Everyone, repeat after me: There is no single ideal frequency response that works for everyone. Trust your ears. Or if you are happy trusting numbers, more power to you, but dont think that your preferences apply to others.
No matter how many paragraphs we write, the simple fact is that two listeners will have different preferences about the sound palette they like.
Everyone, repeat after me: There is no single ideal frequency response that works for everyone. Trust your ears. Or if you are happy trusting numbers, more power to you, but dont think that your preferences apply to others.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
There are so many experiments like this around. Our brains are easily fooled. Not getting into any discussion on this as most of it goes over my head.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
From where has been this notion……ever declared/claimed/or insisted? Was in any of my comments it was implied that everyone should prefer measurements? Or is is that I prefer measurements? (Cmon let’s be very clear on this…..
)Any members can believe or prefer anything. That’s upto the individual.
But as a forum, I (wanted)to feel I am participating in an intellectual discourse. And as such my participation is towards the audio science. No one is forced to agree with me, nor feel that measurements are being forced down their throats.
One can buy the worst measuring product and feel happy about it. It’s one’s choice. It’s only that from the science of audio technology, perhaps there are better products. And one need not agree with this also.
This is an example of psychoacoustics. Hence there is a need of double blind control test to check for any audio difference. Our brain which I said is a poor messy pure audio processor, needs to be free from such effects, the bias removed so as to claim any audible difference. We are easily fooled by visual tips of aesthetics.
TLDR; My turn at flogging a head horse.
I don't see any problem with accepting measurements that are unbiased and based on a proven scientific methodology.
I don't like the sound of my EL34/KT88 tube amp. Every now and then I put the tube amp in its box and with the help of my son lift the heavy monster to store it away. It gets replaced by a class D amp, which reproduces the sound much more accurately (IMO) and can be lifted even with my little finger and also doesn't heat up the room. After few months when I get tired of listening to the same amp the tube amp is pulled back for duty for few weeks. For few days I love the tube sound, but it again goes back into storage after few days. I also prefer the sound of my 2010 AVR which is a totaly contrarian view held by most members here in hifivision who say avrs cannot sound better than a dedicated two channel amp the favourite thing being that the power suppy isn't enough, the avr is dong too many things, etc, etc. Though I can easily detect the sound signature of my two stage LME49720NA op-amp based preamp, tube amp, avr, speakers and even interconnect cables, I can find only subtle difference in sound with all of my DACS. The difference are too subtle to fret over which one is better. Though I have never been fully satisfied (human nature), but I'm reasonably happy with my AVR and a allo class D amp. Primary sources are my lossless flac/dsd collection with bitperfect playback using mpd. I just got a graphic equalizer to notch up the high frequencies to a level which I prefer. Using the preamp of that i also find that the performance of my AVR has gone many a notch ahead of my tube amp. Then I found that I can get the same performance by increasing the gain of the LME49720NA op-amps. I also have a cupboard full of LP records and a DD turntable. I love the sound. People say LP doesn't have bass, etc. I don't find anything lacking. But I think I have a psychological bias in favour of the LP record. It sounds good and I don't think LP records can every measure well. Also at this stage I just don't care. The system is too difficult to maintain and I find myself using it lesser and lesser.
I have never bothered to look at measurements or even demo the equipments. Almost all of them have been blind buys after reading specs and opinions on the internet. But I believe in measurements. It's just that I don't have enough knowledge about audio to be convinced that things like SINAD, SNR, jitter etc are the only things required to be measured. But then why would I go for a well measured device? Just like my lack of knowledge about audio, I don't know much about medicine. It is like when I fall ill, i will go only to a registered allopathic doctor who has been measured by a college which practices a medical science recognized all over the world, issues a MBBS degree and teaches medicine that undergo clinical trials with approvals from a competent regulatory non-political body. I would never in my life go to homeopathic, herbal or any traditional practiioner or use medicine which have never seen the light of the day in any clinical trials. Yet people take recourse to alternate medicines based on hearsay, sometimes ancient hearsay and say they are happy, fit and fine. No issue there, but yet I will not venture there. There will be many rotten allopathic doctors, but that doesn't mean I just jump and take recourse to alternate medicine. Something like the ASR is so welcome. Let more sites like ASR come. Having just one ore two sites like this is not good and will hardly make the dent in the snake oil industry fed by unscrupulous manufacturers, the audiophile magazines/media and the rich gullible consumers. More such sites will help people like me, who are not in the audio field to make rational decisions for audio equipments.
I also know that my brain is not perfect. Like everyone else I'm susceptible to subjectivism and hence would rather prefer a device that measures well and rather not make a mistake like I did with my tube amp purchase. The other mistake that I made was to buy the USB Regen. It did nothing and does nothing. You can as well put a usb extender cable and it will work as good as the USB regen. ASR also says that it does nothing. The tube amp purchase, a pair of electrostats and Polk RtiA9 floor standers were the only device that I purchased after an audition. I loved the tube amp during the demo. Maybe I was psychologically influenced by tons of people talking about the warm tube sound, class A and what not. It has taken me more than 10 years to realize that the ear+brain equipment is a very flawed equipment. If you rely on it, it will bite you later and you will continue to spend money on upgrades. As a rational person thinking why I listen to my AVR in 7.1 mode (not pure direct) playing on polk speakers rather than my 2 channel stereo using the tube amp, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that every person's journey is unique and it doesn't have to match yours. I'm also very happy with my Raspberry PI streamers, which has been a total DIY including the OS. I don't use volumio, dietpi, moode or the picore distributions and have measurably better performance of the parameters like power consumption, load of the RPI, minimal CPU utilization of uneccessary stuff. And it can play anything thrown to it (spotify, airplay, mpd, logitech media server). And playback with Artwork and a desktop.
Some have argued that it is the art that is most important. I have a totally opposite view. Anyone can do art. Art need not be functional and most of the time it isn't. Art is always something that allures to your senses and hence by definition it is deceptive. It can be like a Van Gogh, Picasso totally devoid of realism and yet many people will love it, see something in it and favour it above an accurate and perfect colour reproduction of something real captured by using the science of optics by using a SLR camera. Not everyone can do science, because science requires reproducible results each and every time. Vodoo and art doesn't. If science was an easy thing which every one could do, as of today, each and every country would have sent people to the moon. I'm sure their will be people like me who care more about the functionality and don't care a hoot about the art part unless it enhances the listening experience. And there are people who have the opposite view and there are people who believe in both science and art. And then there are fanboys who believe their brand can do no worng (apple, sony, panasonic, etc). I enjoy music when it has few DIY components. Some people enjoy more when the equipment's cost is high enough or having the McIntosh label on it. That's not to say I don't love art. I love it when it goes hand in hand with science and mathematics. A case is my entire linux desktop is actually an audio visualizer using glava.
Every speaker driver is different, every amp is different. Even with all the science and technology available, no two manufacturers can reproduce the same sound using their speaker or amp. And the only way to go forward is to measure, measure and measure and do real double blind tests. And yet, equipment which measure well don't sound good to few and vice versa. It is very much possible that we aren't measuring things correctly or are not measuring few things. As a scientific person one should be open to the thought that we still have milles to go to reproduce sound perfectly. But that doesn't mean we start favouring ears over something that can be measured. But something is not perfect in this chain of recording sound and playing it back through the speakers/headphones. Sound reproduction is a complex science and it is still evolving and a day will come when it will be possible to mimic the human voice, instruments regardless of your room. We often blame the room, but does a human being speaking in the same room sound artificial? Does playing an actual instrument in your room sound artificial? And yet we spend tons of money in room treatment to make the speakers sound right? My belief is that speakers still have to evolve. Muddyng it with art to hide technological flaws will only make this evolution take longer.
The thing is is there any data on the following?
1) Equipment that measured well sounded awful or bad and how many people were involved in saying it was awful. Was this a valid double blind test or just hearsay by peope angry because their equipment was openly dissed using measurements? Who are these people. Are these from the media paid by the equipment manufacturers? Is there a genuine case of bias in favouring certain manufacturers (see point 5).
2) Equipments that measured bad and sounded so fantastic. How many people were inolved in saying it sounds fantastic. Are these people owners of the equipment. Was this done by neutral testers and was this a double blind test.
3) Equipments that measured good and sound good.
4) Equipments that measure bad and sound back.
5) Who does the measurement? What was the test equipment used and what were the tests. Is the measurement paid by equipment manufacturers that have equipments that measure good. Is the test reproducible by another person using the same test equipment.
All it takes is to take a look at the 5 points above and take one's own decision.
If one is happy with imperfect measuring equipments, so be it. Be happy. That's all that matters. If you are rational and believe in unbiased measurements, that's good as long as you are happy with the results. But if you aren't happy with a well measured equipment it could be either 1) we still cannot measure what is needed to produce sound perfectly or 2) Your brain is playing spoilsport.
The biggest spoiler of imaging of the sound I have are probably my eyes. I have enjoyed songs immensely with this eye mask. It costed me less than 100 bucks.
I don't see any problem with accepting measurements that are unbiased and based on a proven scientific methodology.
I don't like the sound of my EL34/KT88 tube amp. Every now and then I put the tube amp in its box and with the help of my son lift the heavy monster to store it away. It gets replaced by a class D amp, which reproduces the sound much more accurately (IMO) and can be lifted even with my little finger and also doesn't heat up the room. After few months when I get tired of listening to the same amp the tube amp is pulled back for duty for few weeks. For few days I love the tube sound, but it again goes back into storage after few days. I also prefer the sound of my 2010 AVR which is a totaly contrarian view held by most members here in hifivision who say avrs cannot sound better than a dedicated two channel amp the favourite thing being that the power suppy isn't enough, the avr is dong too many things, etc, etc. Though I can easily detect the sound signature of my two stage LME49720NA op-amp based preamp, tube amp, avr, speakers and even interconnect cables, I can find only subtle difference in sound with all of my DACS. The difference are too subtle to fret over which one is better. Though I have never been fully satisfied (human nature), but I'm reasonably happy with my AVR and a allo class D amp. Primary sources are my lossless flac/dsd collection with bitperfect playback using mpd. I just got a graphic equalizer to notch up the high frequencies to a level which I prefer. Using the preamp of that i also find that the performance of my AVR has gone many a notch ahead of my tube amp. Then I found that I can get the same performance by increasing the gain of the LME49720NA op-amps. I also have a cupboard full of LP records and a DD turntable. I love the sound. People say LP doesn't have bass, etc. I don't find anything lacking. But I think I have a psychological bias in favour of the LP record. It sounds good and I don't think LP records can every measure well. Also at this stage I just don't care. The system is too difficult to maintain and I find myself using it lesser and lesser.
I have never bothered to look at measurements or even demo the equipments. Almost all of them have been blind buys after reading specs and opinions on the internet. But I believe in measurements. It's just that I don't have enough knowledge about audio to be convinced that things like SINAD, SNR, jitter etc are the only things required to be measured. But then why would I go for a well measured device? Just like my lack of knowledge about audio, I don't know much about medicine. It is like when I fall ill, i will go only to a registered allopathic doctor who has been measured by a college which practices a medical science recognized all over the world, issues a MBBS degree and teaches medicine that undergo clinical trials with approvals from a competent regulatory non-political body. I would never in my life go to homeopathic, herbal or any traditional practiioner or use medicine which have never seen the light of the day in any clinical trials. Yet people take recourse to alternate medicines based on hearsay, sometimes ancient hearsay and say they are happy, fit and fine. No issue there, but yet I will not venture there. There will be many rotten allopathic doctors, but that doesn't mean I just jump and take recourse to alternate medicine. Something like the ASR is so welcome. Let more sites like ASR come. Having just one ore two sites like this is not good and will hardly make the dent in the snake oil industry fed by unscrupulous manufacturers, the audiophile magazines/media and the rich gullible consumers. More such sites will help people like me, who are not in the audio field to make rational decisions for audio equipments.
I also know that my brain is not perfect. Like everyone else I'm susceptible to subjectivism and hence would rather prefer a device that measures well and rather not make a mistake like I did with my tube amp purchase. The other mistake that I made was to buy the USB Regen. It did nothing and does nothing. You can as well put a usb extender cable and it will work as good as the USB regen. ASR also says that it does nothing. The tube amp purchase, a pair of electrostats and Polk RtiA9 floor standers were the only device that I purchased after an audition. I loved the tube amp during the demo. Maybe I was psychologically influenced by tons of people talking about the warm tube sound, class A and what not. It has taken me more than 10 years to realize that the ear+brain equipment is a very flawed equipment. If you rely on it, it will bite you later and you will continue to spend money on upgrades. As a rational person thinking why I listen to my AVR in 7.1 mode (not pure direct) playing on polk speakers rather than my 2 channel stereo using the tube amp, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that every person's journey is unique and it doesn't have to match yours. I'm also very happy with my Raspberry PI streamers, which has been a total DIY including the OS. I don't use volumio, dietpi, moode or the picore distributions and have measurably better performance of the parameters like power consumption, load of the RPI, minimal CPU utilization of uneccessary stuff. And it can play anything thrown to it (spotify, airplay, mpd, logitech media server). And playback with Artwork and a desktop.
Some have argued that it is the art that is most important. I have a totally opposite view. Anyone can do art. Art need not be functional and most of the time it isn't. Art is always something that allures to your senses and hence by definition it is deceptive. It can be like a Van Gogh, Picasso totally devoid of realism and yet many people will love it, see something in it and favour it above an accurate and perfect colour reproduction of something real captured by using the science of optics by using a SLR camera. Not everyone can do science, because science requires reproducible results each and every time. Vodoo and art doesn't. If science was an easy thing which every one could do, as of today, each and every country would have sent people to the moon. I'm sure their will be people like me who care more about the functionality and don't care a hoot about the art part unless it enhances the listening experience. And there are people who have the opposite view and there are people who believe in both science and art. And then there are fanboys who believe their brand can do no worng (apple, sony, panasonic, etc). I enjoy music when it has few DIY components. Some people enjoy more when the equipment's cost is high enough or having the McIntosh label on it. That's not to say I don't love art. I love it when it goes hand in hand with science and mathematics. A case is my entire linux desktop is actually an audio visualizer using glava.
Every speaker driver is different, every amp is different. Even with all the science and technology available, no two manufacturers can reproduce the same sound using their speaker or amp. And the only way to go forward is to measure, measure and measure and do real double blind tests. And yet, equipment which measure well don't sound good to few and vice versa. It is very much possible that we aren't measuring things correctly or are not measuring few things. As a scientific person one should be open to the thought that we still have milles to go to reproduce sound perfectly. But that doesn't mean we start favouring ears over something that can be measured. But something is not perfect in this chain of recording sound and playing it back through the speakers/headphones. Sound reproduction is a complex science and it is still evolving and a day will come when it will be possible to mimic the human voice, instruments regardless of your room. We often blame the room, but does a human being speaking in the same room sound artificial? Does playing an actual instrument in your room sound artificial? And yet we spend tons of money in room treatment to make the speakers sound right? My belief is that speakers still have to evolve. Muddyng it with art to hide technological flaws will only make this evolution take longer.
The thing is is there any data on the following?
1) Equipment that measured well sounded awful or bad and how many people were involved in saying it was awful. Was this a valid double blind test or just hearsay by peope angry because their equipment was openly dissed using measurements? Who are these people. Are these from the media paid by the equipment manufacturers? Is there a genuine case of bias in favouring certain manufacturers (see point 5).
2) Equipments that measured bad and sounded so fantastic. How many people were inolved in saying it sounds fantastic. Are these people owners of the equipment. Was this done by neutral testers and was this a double blind test.
3) Equipments that measured good and sound good.
4) Equipments that measure bad and sound back.
5) Who does the measurement? What was the test equipment used and what were the tests. Is the measurement paid by equipment manufacturers that have equipments that measure good. Is the test reproducible by another person using the same test equipment.
All it takes is to take a look at the 5 points above and take one's own decision.
If one is happy with imperfect measuring equipments, so be it. Be happy. That's all that matters. If you are rational and believe in unbiased measurements, that's good as long as you are happy with the results. But if you aren't happy with a well measured equipment it could be either 1) we still cannot measure what is needed to produce sound perfectly or 2) Your brain is playing spoilsport.
The biggest spoiler of imaging of the sound I have are probably my eyes. I have enjoyed songs immensely with this eye mask. It costed me less than 100 bucks.
The only issue I have with this post is with @mbhangui wishing me a good night. I still have quite a few plans for tonight.
For me personally, to each his own. People who can hear differences between cables, good for you. Those who can't, count your blessings.
Me, I would look at measurements, surely but would not under ideal circumstances, do a purchase without a listen.
Irony is that, all my purchases were a blind buy. I did say, ideal circumstances now, did I not.
Poor Horse.
You are wrong sir. I have taken care not to do this.
With most cables I can't hear the difference. I heard the difference only when I used ethernet twisted pairs to make DIY cables. On measuring capacitance, I find most commercial cabels have capacitance in the 100 pF per meter range. While the DIY cables using twisterd pairs give less 60 pF per meter easily. Capactiance of cables acts like a short for higher frequencies and will rob you of the high end range.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
This was not as such directed to you…..rather as a …let’s say general context to subjectivists., or even Steven Gutenberg.
From where has been this notion……ever declared/claimed/or insisted? Was in any of my comments it was implied that everyone should prefer measurements? Or is is that I prefer measurements? (Cmon let’s be very clear on this…..
All your posts are basically beating the drum of a "correct" response curve.
The moment you start beating the drum that a flat (or any other) frequency response is desirable, there is a clear implication of the primacy of THIS frequency response over all others.
Your reference to "well measured" specs, by definition, implies the existence of other specifications which are not. Leaving aside extreme cases, such as a 10dB sawtooth FR or something ridiculous, what is a "well measured" spec?
When you make a statement that "Even though some like coloration and distortions in their music, it cannot be a generalisation.....nor a healthy standard for audio reproduction.", then you are VERY CLEARLY stating that there is One Correct Way on how audio should be designed.
Sorry, I am going to push back hard on this statement. The idea that some coloration or distortion is not a healthy standard for music.... sez who? Single ended tube amps measure like dog poo that has been squished under a shoe - but sound absolutely divine. Is that an "unhealthy standard for audio reproduction"?
And if we accept that there is no single set of measurements that will appeal to everyone, then what is the point of this needless measurbating from a customer's viewpoint?
You are now talking about whether differences exist and the immense ability of the human brain to be fooled by placebo (where, incidentally, I agree with you entirely: too much nonsense about differences that would completely disappear in an A/B/X test) - how is this related to the idea that there is a holy grail of measurements that is the Correct Way to do high-end audio?
Audiophile navel gazing (to borrow a phrase i read here not too long ago) takes all sorts of forms. Imagining differences which are too small to be measured is one of them. Slavish adherence to spec sheets at the expense of trusting their ears is another.
Measures well / sounds good - Yes
Measure well / sounds bad - No
Measures poorly / sounds good - Yes
Measures poorly / sounds bad - No
Remove the measurements side of things, and you still end up with the same decision tree. Go figure.
These arguments were prevalent on Usenet back in the mid/late 90s - it reminds me of people sitting in a closed room and having an endless debate on what the weather is like outside, when they can just open the freaking window and check.
TL;DR - given that people prefer a wide variety of sound signatures, it is audioweenie nonsense to be arguing that one set of measured specifications is objectively better. There is no "objective" better in a field that is entirely subjective (sound preference).
Last edited:
For someone who likes science, you are conflating 2 separate things:
- the ability of the human brain to be fooled into hearing differences where they do not exist (which is presumably your point above)
- the preference for one sound signature for another (which is what we were talking about)
The first does not invalidate the second. Yes, it is possible in some cases that people may have a preference based on placebo - but by the same token, I can assure you that there are a lot of things on the measurements/spec sheet stuff that you cannot actually distinguish when listening.
I'll tell you what I CAN do - i can listen to 2 different systems and be very clear about which does a better job of reproducing the timbre of thindgs like violins & piano, or voices, in a realistic manner. I dont need to rely on measurements to decide which system sounds better to my ears.
And while it is possible that my ears may get fooled once the differences become very small - the good news is that at the point, the differences are very small and so in the end, i am not really making a wrong decision when it comes to picking one. It is certainly no more fallible a method than looking at spec sheets and buying an amp because its noise floor is 2dB lower or its THD number is 0,001% lower or whatever.
So again, a TL;DR:
- If you want to move the goalposts and say that the human ear can easily be fooled into hearing differences that do not exist, i absolutely agree with you. The amount of snake oil in this industry is off the freaking charts.
- if we stick to the original topic - that there is one "correct" FR - then no, i do not agree with it for all the reasons i have gone into.
And now, i will go back to listening to Yamashita playing Mussorgsky on his guitar on my violates-the-Harman-curve-by-being-too-warm Audeze LCD2 (the OGs) running off my Schiit Lyr2 tube amplifier. That is the most accurate reproduction of the acoustic guitar I have ever heard, and I trust my ears 100% here.
Last edited:
One last note - I had a significant chunk of change invested in my audio system at one point in the 1990s - Parasound monoblocks that were Stereophile Class A or B, some equally fancy preamp whose name i now forget (not Mark Levinson but in that same range), high-end floor standers, Velodyne sub, etc etc. The system was very impressive, superbly engineered and hit all the audiophile wet-dream notes: imaging, detail, dynamics, blah blah.
And i was never satisfied with it.
A friend of mine in this audiophile group i was a member of invited us to listen to his 300B amp. I had always eschewed tube amps because I am a rationalist at heart and they measure like dog-poo-under-a-shoe - how could they sound good? And their sound keeps changing as the tube gets older - how can i ever enjoy a system that objectively worsens over time? But a couple of us went over and listened anyway.
Fast forward a bit and I had sold off all that fancy audiophile-approved gear and found listening bliss with a 2A3 amp and Klipschorns.
It was a MASSIVE leap of faith for me to sell off all that fancy gear for obsolete technology that measured like dogpoo. I actually kept both systems initially and asked many non-audiofool friends which one they preferred. It was entirely unanimous: every single person who came and listened to music in my house preferred the tube system. I figured on a single day, it could be due to things like volume not being matched (a slightly higher volume often sounds preferable) or other individual variances. But multiple people, multiple days, multiple listening sessions?
That was my "aha" moment - to have more faith in what i am hearing over a spec sheet.
Ironically, not too long after, i met Jonathan Scull at a friend's house for dinner and we had the same argument about tubes vs solid states. The reason i say it is ironic is because Stereophile waxes eloquent about all sorts of sound differences that even a bat would not be able to hear - and yet J10 was not a fan of tubes because of their high distortion measurements. Go figure
Anyway, it's only been 25+ years that this debate has been happening. I think we should be settling things fairly soon. Maybe by next week?
Good night, all.
And i was never satisfied with it.
A friend of mine in this audiophile group i was a member of invited us to listen to his 300B amp. I had always eschewed tube amps because I am a rationalist at heart and they measure like dog-poo-under-a-shoe - how could they sound good? And their sound keeps changing as the tube gets older - how can i ever enjoy a system that objectively worsens over time? But a couple of us went over and listened anyway.
Fast forward a bit and I had sold off all that fancy audiophile-approved gear and found listening bliss with a 2A3 amp and Klipschorns.
It was a MASSIVE leap of faith for me to sell off all that fancy gear for obsolete technology that measured like dogpoo. I actually kept both systems initially and asked many non-audiofool friends which one they preferred. It was entirely unanimous: every single person who came and listened to music in my house preferred the tube system. I figured on a single day, it could be due to things like volume not being matched (a slightly higher volume often sounds preferable) or other individual variances. But multiple people, multiple days, multiple listening sessions?
That was my "aha" moment - to have more faith in what i am hearing over a spec sheet.
Ironically, not too long after, i met Jonathan Scull at a friend's house for dinner and we had the same argument about tubes vs solid states. The reason i say it is ironic is because Stereophile waxes eloquent about all sorts of sound differences that even a bat would not be able to hear - and yet J10 was not a fan of tubes because of their high distortion measurements. Go figure
Anyway, it's only been 25+ years that this debate has been happening. I think we should be settling things fairly soon. Maybe by next week?
Good night, all.
Beautiful!
@Enkay78
1 - You still hear BA-Ba - if you shut your eyes
2 - In case of speakers that should apply as there is no visual clue right?
Not trying to attack you - but sincerely - doing an apples to apples.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
That’s has been my perspective ….for my own personal decision to look for at the audio products. Nowhere I have said that it should be others perspective. Hence always my statement ‘for me measurement is critical and important’. And this perspective, again I am stressing, is from my current understanding of the vasts audio research, and from the current industry standards as followed by https://www.aes.org/standards/
And yes I have given more precedence towards the engineering and manufacturing side, wherein the manufacturers should sell us well engineered products based on sound science. (And the choice and preference to leave to us customers. The snake oil in the audiophile industry is condescending to customers intellect.)
And when I said measurement, nowhere I am implied that a single measurement of FR should be what I should rely. Most of the time when I said measurements, it implies a set of relevant measurements as according to the standards relevant to the products. For eg I always insists SPINRORAMA for speakers. For the electronics, we have different sets of measurements.
A debate that has continued for decades means that there are fundamental issues not addressed by ‘opposing camps’. This can be healthy. However the question that can be ask is whether this debate has been reflected on audio research. And what does the current research/technology contributes towards addressing the ‘decades old arguments’. Haven’t the audio researches established that there are indeed objective parameters which are considered bettter sonic qualities?
As humans, we will always have differences in taste/perceptions. However to build up an axiom that machines and gadgets have character which cannot be measured…….
Time for another poll?
When it comes to choosing audio gear, I am:
1. An objectivist - I Rely on measurements alone to choose.
2. A subjectivist - I Rely on my ears/decide based on whether I like what I hear.
3. I short list based on Measurements first and then Listen only If measurements are good
4. I listen first then look at measurements, but if I like what I hear, poor measurements don’t matter.
5. Don’t give a $#!t/don’t care
6. Still deciding
7. Other category not listed here
When it comes to choosing audio gear, I am:
1. An objectivist - I Rely on measurements alone to choose.
2. A subjectivist - I Rely on my ears/decide based on whether I like what I hear.
3. I short list based on Measurements first and then Listen only If measurements are good
4. I listen first then look at measurements, but if I like what I hear, poor measurements don’t matter.
5. Don’t give a $#!t/don’t care
6. Still deciding
7. Other category not listed here
Looks like there is something wrong with the KT88 tube design. Anyways, If you wish to sell only the KT88 tubes let me know - if it's EH - Imay consider.
Thanks,
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
