Finally someone speaking sense …..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.
Objectivity vs Subjectivity
- Thread starter Passive_audio_enthusiast
- Start date
This essay with two perspectives is worth a read in the context of these discussions.
The View from the Edge
www.theabsolutesound.com
Point:
“fundamentally, I think that almost everything in audio can be explained by measurements, provided one does the correct measurements sufficiently carefully. In particular, I think a very great deal can be explained simply by frequency response and the closely related matter of phase response. (These are indeed closely related: In minimum phase devices, one determines the other.) People sometimes fail to realize how much can be explained on this basis because they do not always recall—how tiny the threshold is for audibility of response differences: 0.1dB changes can be audibly detected.”
Counterpoint:
“ All these observations point to the fallacy that technical measurement can replace the discrimination ability and auditory-processing power of our ear/brain system. Even if we could see the tiniest distortions in a musical waveform, this analysis would still remove from the process not just our hearing system, but more importantly our interpretation of how that distortion affects the communication of musical expression. Because music speaks to our humanity, a piece of test equipment, no matter how sophisticated, can never replace the experience of sitting down between a pair of loudspeakers.”
So, the story of the zombie horse continues …
The View from the Edge
Measurements, Listening, and What Matters in Audio - The Absolute Sound
An important part of every magazine editor’s job is to choose the writers who appear in the magazine, and to decide which articles to publish and which to reject.
www.theabsolutesound.com
Point:
“fundamentally, I think that almost everything in audio can be explained by measurements, provided one does the correct measurements sufficiently carefully. In particular, I think a very great deal can be explained simply by frequency response and the closely related matter of phase response. (These are indeed closely related: In minimum phase devices, one determines the other.) People sometimes fail to realize how much can be explained on this basis because they do not always recall—how tiny the threshold is for audibility of response differences: 0.1dB changes can be audibly detected.”
Counterpoint:
“ All these observations point to the fallacy that technical measurement can replace the discrimination ability and auditory-processing power of our ear/brain system. Even if we could see the tiniest distortions in a musical waveform, this analysis would still remove from the process not just our hearing system, but more importantly our interpretation of how that distortion affects the communication of musical expression. Because music speaks to our humanity, a piece of test equipment, no matter how sophisticated, can never replace the experience of sitting down between a pair of loudspeakers.”
So, the story of the zombie horse continues …
In my diagonal speaker placement, i went by how the speaker sounds to my ears to get the correct center image focus, wide sound stage and stereo channel separation and overall ambience. If i had placed by how the placement looks then i would have never achieved my current state of Nirvana. So for me - i trusted my ears rather than my vision to place the speakers appropriately in my room. There is no symmetry of placement for my left vs right speaker - vision wise - but there is 100% symmetry sound wise.
Last edited:
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
We can write all the word salad posts we want (and I'm guilty of doing that too) but, IMO, it doesn't change some facts viz:
1. There will always be multiple camps when it comes to choosing equipment.
2. People in either camp, no matter how unbiased they appear to be or want to be, will always be (more than a little!) biased towards the camp they belong to. Nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the beast we call a "human".
3. No camp is the completely right one no matter how much handwaving is involved from both sides.
4. We all hear differently. And we choose differently. And at the back of our mind we think the other camp is wrong.
Let's try not to see sprites in posts where none exist; let's try to take differing PoV's and respond respectfully even though something doesn't fit within our belief system because even though to your mind you may seem to be right, in reality - you may be not.
Edit: I just realized that I am guilty here of doing the same thing that I accused others of doing - awakening the sleeping canine.
1. There will always be multiple camps when it comes to choosing equipment.
2. People in either camp, no matter how unbiased they appear to be or want to be, will always be (more than a little!) biased towards the camp they belong to. Nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the beast we call a "human".
3. No camp is the completely right one no matter how much handwaving is involved from both sides.
4. We all hear differently. And we choose differently. And at the back of our mind we think the other camp is wrong.
Let's try not to see sprites in posts where none exist; let's try to take differing PoV's and respond respectfully even though something doesn't fit within our belief system because even though to your mind you may seem to be right, in reality - you may be not.
Edit: I just realized that I am guilty here of doing the same thing that I accused others of doing - awakening the sleeping canine.
Honestly, i have no idea why you have embedded those links and what i am supposed to glean from it - you have mentioned that these are the standards followed by the AES. Great- the AES is a clearing house for setting common standards for the industry to follow and to ensure interoperatbility. When did that become the arbiter of what should be the correct specifications that sound the best for most people?
However, even assuming that this is the holy grail of specifications that you presumably think is ideal - so what?
Even in in your own case, if there was a set of audio gear that met all these requirements, would you just blindly buy it and be happy no matter how it sounded? Or would you actually - horror of horrors - listen to it and let your ears be the final judge?
As i said before, i agree with you here. But the existence of snake oil and some implausible differences heard by golden ears does not invalidate the importance of subjectivity.
You are getting caught in semantics. Let me reiterate: if you are saying there is one ideal set of specifications that gear must be designed to (whatever that is), then that implies any other set of specifications is inaccurate.
That is what i take issue with.
Sigh... and back to square one we go: your continued insistence that there are OBJECTIVE parameters as to what sounds better. I guess we can also quantify objective parameters for what sort of music sounds better, what sort of food tastes better, etc.
If you are referring to the Harman curve and such, your understanding of what it means is inaccurate. It is basically a glorified poll that tries to determine the sound characteristics that appeal to most people - it is not a universal truth by any means. Plenty of people - myself included - would rather stab ourselves in the ear with punji sticks than listen to that overly bright excrescence that is the sound palette of a transducer that follows the Harman curve.
I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for this! It made for extremely entertaining reading. I can't say that I did not enjoy the relentless "mauling"; what fun!.
We can write all the word salad posts we want (and I'm guilty of doing that too) but, IMO, it doesn't change some facts viz:
1. There will always be multiple camps when it comes to choosing equipment.
2. People in either camp, no matter how unbiased they appear to be or want to be, will always be (more than a little!) biased towards the camp they belong to. Nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the beast we call a "human".
3. No camp is the completely right one no matter how much handwaving is involved from both sides.
4. We all hear differently. And we choose differently. And at the back of our mind we think the other camp is wrong.
Let's try not to see sprites in posts where none exist; let's try to take differing PoV's and respond respectfully even though something doesn't fit within our belief system because even though to your mind you may seem to be right, in reality - you may be not.
Edit: I just realized that I am guilty here of doing the same thing that I accused others of doing - awakening the sleeping canine.
I am not really sure what is there to argue about: atleast from the subjectivist side, it is always a case of "if you like how it sounds, more power to you". Who possibly has a problem with that?
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Right! But, who's arguing? Not me.
That's the case in both camps. Only, the objectivist "side" shortlists the best sounding (to their ears) differently. I don't think anyone ought to have a problem with that.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
Does a PVR sounds better or worse than your home theatre/AVR?
What does the so many research of double blind test about ‘sonic qualities’ of what is liked by ‘audiophiles/mucisians/audio engineers’ tells about?
Heck I mean why do we even have audioengineers?
Anyway my contribution to this thread not to assuage anyone (subjectivist/objectivist) to a ‘my perspective is right, yours is wrong’ stand. You can have scathing opinions against what you believe is not correct. It’s your prerogative.
But I am ending my part of this discourse: I believe in measurements. And hence I buy good measuring gadgets, and I am very choosy on this. And they sound good as I expected from them. I also have my UMIK1 and REW to confirm what I experienced as true to the measurements. Fortunately I have not been disappointed.
One can trashed it or not, I find this book amongst many others very helpful in audio production( I cannot upload the pdf due to size limit. But sharing the cover). One can also considers all the audio research trash or experts/audio scientist as trash….and stand strong with the belief of ‘my ears is the best’.
Unfortunately that’s not my stand. And yes you are most welcome to disagree.
liverpool_for_life
Well-Known Member
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Sorry, i should hav clarified - by the argument, I mean the general one (not that you were arguing).
I dont think anyone has an issue if someone says "this sounds the best to me". Objectivism, by definition, tries to define something is The One Correct Best Way, and i think that is what grates on a lot of people (well, that and setting up strawmen such as saying that anyone who believes in their ears doesnt value audio science).
Case in point - repeatedly pointing to the Harman Curve, as if that is a truism and a standard for what audio should strive to, as opposed to being just design goals set by the marketing team. It is also ironic that the Harman curve is nothing but a quantification of subjective preference.
Here is my closing thought on the subject: the plural of anecdote is data.
Happy listening, everyone.... may your system sound wonderful or measure wonderful, whatever floats your boat.
Last edited:
Is it "Objective Horse of Subjective Horse"?
I might be wrong, but Wasn’t the Hartman curve based on a survey/poll?
If so would this not be made up of subjective opinions ?
Last edited:
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
The Harman curve was first brought up in this thread by a person who disliked the Harman Curve. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing right with that too.
About the Harman curve, this was also said by @Enkay78 : "The harman curve is a measurable curve which showcase the statistical preference of the sample of population tested". I happen to think he was correct. I think you may agree too. I didn't see any post where ANYONE said or even alluded that this was a truism.
As for design goals being set by "the" marketing team, I enjoy conspiracy theories just as much as the next guy but this is far out there with Roswell.
Amen!
Listening tests and subsequent research on the outcome of those tests
Yes, to determine a preference which then got translated into an objective curve.
Join WhatsApp group to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
