Don't we sometimes go too far in subjectivism?

[amirm]

Someone from the "other camp" post this article/review: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol6_no1/audio_networking.htm

In there I see specific percentages of improvement like 3%, 13%, etc:

in the end we considered that the hard disk version beat the SSD by about 13% – a significant margin in a HIFICRITIC review context, though in another system the SSD might be preferred.

Let's say the improvements are believable but putting a percentage on it that is correct to two digits?

"Such a switch is likely to have a plug-top switchmode supply (as in our Netgear example), and such a supply is undesirable if sited so close to audio system electronics. Replacing this supply with a generic linear (transformer) supply did lift system sound quality 3% to 5%. However, deleting the switch from the chain altogether brought a 10% improvement in sound quality, which for me was an important discovery."

3 to 5%?

Beyond percentages this is the bit regarding two Belkin cables compared: one cat5e and the other cat6:

"Variations in the sound of digital audio replay don't necessarily correlate with those in the analogue domain; sometimes different terms are needed. By comparison, Cat5e sounded 'greyer', with less contrast and somewhat dulled detail. Specifically, low level detail and image depth were impaired, unwanted grain and sibilance were increased, and there was a shortfall in coherence and involvement. Dynamics were softened and the sense of rhythm was significantly reduced. "

Aren't we going too far with our subjectivism liberty? Does this just make the objectivists cringe and no one else?

 

[thedudeabides]

Aren't we going too far with our subjectivism liberty? Does this just make the objectivists cringe and no one else?

Each side has their limits. It's all a question of balance and the ability to agree to respectfully disagree.

Pretty simple concept. The devil / challenge is in the details.

 

[Robh3606]

Aren't we going too far with our subjectivism liberty? Does this just make the objectivists cringe and no one else?

Hello Amir


I would just love to know how they got the 3% or 13% improvement. To me them just saying in their opinion we heard a definite change for the better would be just fine by me. Putting arbitrary numbers on things isn't helping things. If you really believe you heard an improvement subjectively that's fine. I may not hear it and quite possibly I could hear an improvement that someone else does not hear. As far as going to far it's only too far if it's jammed down your throat and taken as an absolute statement of fact.

It's a fact you heard an improvement not a fact there actually was an improvement and here in lies the issue.

Rob

 

[jn229]

Last night the system was working well. After a bit I fell asleep, to be woken by recorded spoken word. Once awake I noticed my little cat nap improved the system by 7.346 %.

 

[dallasjustice]

Hifi Critic has a rating system. I think it is helpful in only one way. It's much easier to figure out which component they think sounds best even though the number is arbitrary.

 

[esldude]

I think such percentages are ridiculous. Most perception conforms more or less to Weber's law. The subjective differences are somewhat logarithmic. So expressing differences were they capable of such perceptual accuracy would be best done in db, just like sound levels. For instance the just noticeable difference in loudness is in the vicinity of 1 db or expressed as a percentage a 12% difference. But are we talking percentages absolute, or perceived percentages that need conversion to the logarithmic cause of it?

How accurately can someone do such a thing? And what does it mean? All of this is presented with far too little reference to gauge it by. Obviously we can perceive differences. But what 13% improvement mean. Was it everything is 13% better, was some of it 40% better, but not all leading to an overall 13% result?? It takes very little pondering to show this is ludicrous. Other than it sells magazines pretty well as it has for some time.

Still there is no reference or scale for someone to tell me it was 13% better. I would find 10% to mean about as much. If someone told me 10% for item A and 13% improvement for item B I really don't think I would have an idea in mind for what that was like other than just a tiny, bit more than 10% (and what is that anyway).

Then you have issues like the fact a JND is 1 db or so, but in blind testing .2db in loudness is reliably distinguished. It sounds like a quality difference though it is a loudness differences. Subjectively based reviewers are fond of saying hearing is incredibly complex, too complex to be reduced to a few simple specs of sound quality for music reproduction. I think these little percentages in review context are their attempt to appear objectively referenced and in fact give lie to the fact hearing is complex enough a subjective description of improvements to two digits is way off the deep end. Further off the deep end is the end of the linked article. Ripping power supplies effecting ultimate playback quality of bit identical files. There simply is no part of a bit identical file than can have been effected by the quality of the original ripping power supply. It simply can't happen. Yet this writer can discern those levels of quality too.

 

[microstrip]

We should note that this is not the Hifi Critic rating system - it is the personnel rating system of Martin Colloms. He explained it, its characteristics and limitations is one full article and even in some reviews. The system was re-scaled several times and, unless you know the reviewer preferences and style, is of very limited value. As far as I know no other reviewer uses it.

However, people knowing him and his past work will find it valuable as a scaling tool. BTW this is an individual subjective rating, with large error bars and should be interpreted accordingly. IMHO objectivists will cringe because they interpret it as objective ratings. Perhaps all his reviews should have a disclaimer saying : please ignore the ratings if you have not read the articles explaining them

 

[Vincent Kars]

Subjectivism quantified

 

[DonH50]

Good grief.

What about Seagate vs. WD vs. Hitachi etc. HDD's? SanDisk vs. Samsung SSD's? I think my Samsung SSD is at least 3.141592654% more resolving than my Intel SSD, but the Intel has decidedly (2.718%) better bass than the Samsung. I also find a Molex passive cable to be lower noise than the FC active optical cable.

 

[Atmasphere]

Although I rely on measurements quite a lot I also use subjective tools as well, since so little can be sorted out from test instruments. They all have their place.

Occasionally someone will try to get me to quantify the percentage of improvement that a particular change makes. Its a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have absolutely no idea how someone could do such a thing since we don't have meters or indicators in our ears that can tell us stuff. So that is what I tell someone asking me something like that; in addition I also tell them that there is no integrity in a statement that uses percentages derived from a subjective listening experience. I regard the whole thing as specious.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Or: "I know my setup sounds as good as those costing 3 times more".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Someone from the "other camp" post this article/review: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol6_no1/audio_networking.htm

In there I see specific percentages of improvement like 3%, 13%, etc:

in the end we considered that the hard disk version beat the SSD by about 13% – a significant margin in a HIFICRITIC review context, though in another system the SSD might be preferred.

Let's say the improvements are believable but putting a percentage on it that is correct to two digits?

"Such a switch is likely to have a plug-top switchmode supply (as in our Netgear example), and such a supply is undesirable if sited so close to audio system electronics. Replacing this supply with a generic linear (transformer) supply did lift system sound quality 3% to 5%. However, deleting the switch from the chain altogether brought a 10% improvement in sound quality, which for me was an important discovery."

3 to 5%?

Beyond percentages this is the bit regarding two Belkin cables compared: one cat5e and the other cat6:

"Variations in the sound of digital audio replay don't necessarily correlate with those in the analogue domain; sometimes different terms are needed. By comparison, Cat5e sounded 'greyer', with less contrast and somewhat dulled detail. Specifically, low level detail and image depth were impaired, unwanted grain and sibilance were increased, and there was a shortfall in coherence and involvement. Dynamics were softened and the sense of rhythm was significantly reduced. "

Aren't we going too far with our subjectivism liberty? Does this just make the objectivists cringe and no one else?

Well, I'm definitely cringing. And struggling very hard with the concept of respectfully disagreeing with this sort of thing.

So this is a rating system? It does not acknowledge that a percentage has a meaning? That in this context it implies a measurement, a statistic? In an attempt to be kind, I'll assume that author does understand something that simple and that he is using numbers and a % sign to give the rating system a point of reference in the real world. Unfortunately, it implies a reality it does not deserve. This....

Cat5e sounded 'greyer', with less contrast and somewhat dulled detail. Specifically, low level detail and image depth were impaired, unwanted grain and sibilance were increased, and there was a shortfall in coherence and involvement. Dynamics were softened and the sense of rhythm was significantly reduced.

... is, at least, more honest. I say put it out there. Let the world know that you believe the sense of rhythm in recorded music has been compromised by its storage on a specific a solid state hard drive. That way we will know exactly what we're dealing with. Start throwing numbers around and the more naive among us might think you've done some analysis.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

From "The Tyranny of Numbers" by David Boyle

The Paradoxes of Counting

#1 - You can count people, but you can't count individuals
#2 - If you count the wrong thing, you go backwards
#3 - Numbers replace trust, but make measuring even more untrustworthy
#4 - When numbers fail, we get more numbers
#5 - The more we count, the less we understand
#6 - The more accurately we count, the more unreliable the figures
#7 - The more we count, the less we can compare the figures
#8 - Measurements have a monstrous life of their own
#9 - When you count things, they get worse

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the best i can do is use words.....

'could not hear any consistent difference'

'barely perceptable'

'very slight'

'slight'

'very subtle'

'subtle'

'solid'

'not quite profound'

'profound'

'jumps out at you'

'night and day'

'a week later i removed it and had to immediately put it back'

'made me smile', 'listened until 3am', and the always popular 'better than sex' (which i've never used).

 

[Vincent Kars]

Hi Tim

First and probably last time we cross swords (last because I’m not a match to your mastery of the language).
What’s the difference between a tad brighter, a bit brighter, brighter or any other qualitative statement?
One might express it a percentage as well.
But what is the difference?
It is the same subjective stuff presented in a different phrasing.
The problem IMHO is not the phrasing

Why cringe?
Wetting one’s pants is a better option.

Cat6 sounds better than Cat 5. Of course 6 is bigger than 5.
Wait until they listen to Cat 8!

 

[Vincent Kars]

Hi Mike

Nice

From 0 to 100%

 

[MylesBAstor]

the best i can do is use words.....

'could not hear any consistent difference'

'barely perceptable'

'very slight'

'slight'

'very subtle'

'subtle'

'solid'

'not quite profound'

'profound'

'jumps out at you'

'night and day'

'a week later i removed it and had to immediately put it back'

'made me smile', 'listened until 3am', and the always popular 'better than sex' (which i've never used).

Isn't the Linn table 734X better?

 

[jazdoc]

'better than sex' (which i've never used).

Recalls the great quote by Bum Phillips; to paraphrase..."Either I don't know how to listen to a stereo or you don't know how to have sex"

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Recalls the great quote by Bum Phillips; to paraphrase..."Either I don't know how to listen to a stereo or you don't know how to have sex"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi Tim

First and probably last time we cross swords (last because I’m not a match to your mastery of the language).
What’s the difference between a tad brighter, a bit brighter, brighter or any other qualitative statement?
One might express it a percentage as well.
But what is the difference?
It is the same subjective stuff presented in a different phrasing.
The problem IMHO is not the phrasing

Why cringe?
Wetting one’s pants is a better option.

Cat6 sounds better than Cat 5. Of course 6 is bigger than 5.
Wait until they listen to Cat 8!

I don't have your mastery of digital audio, we're at least even . Why does it make a difference? Because words matter to grumpy old men with a hard-earned "mastery of the language." Because when you say a "3% difference," it implies a precision, a measurement, a data point that does not exist. This kind of nonsense is, IMO, about people who have almost nothing to support their argument, playing fast and loose with numbers and language in an attempt to make it appear as if they do. Or maybe I'm just cranky....

Wetting one's pants is uncomfortable. And if someone had only said CAT 6 is bigger than CAT 5 before, this would have been so much clearer....

Tim