What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[NorthStar]

I didn't want to refer to my commercial products but they are far less than 40pS of jitter - as I said a single figure for jitter is meaningless but I'm keeping it simple so you can understand. Now go tell the hundreds of customers & numerous reviewers, who have compared my devices to others, that they can't hear anything, it's all expectation bias & be prepared to be laughed at as a fool. If you weren't so bullish & downright wrong, & didn't elevate yourself as "the Audio Expert" I would have some understanding & sympathy for you but in almost every post you display an inaccuracy trotted out as if it's a scientific fact - it's pitiful & not worth any more of my time!

Hi John,

1. Ethan doesn't wear his "Audio Expert" badge anymore.
2. Criticism is great, but doin' the art paintings yourself is even greater.
3. This is just an Audio forum. :b

Best regards,
Bob

 

[jkeny]

Only the recordists who witnessed the events know best.

Yes & audio memory is so short & fickle that maybe the best handle we can get on this is to know an instrument intimately & check if it is reproduced satisfactorily in playback. But then we are still at the mercy of what manipulation was made during the recording process. This could be a never-ending & unresolved quest. [/quote]

Us, we are simply the musical result's listeners.

Yes & I guess what best creates the musical experience illusion is the criteria that we use but we have to be careful because some types of distortion can appear pleasing. So it behoves us to inform ourselves of both the measurements & subjective evaluation.

 

[jkeny]

Hi John,

1. Ethan doesn't wear his "Audio Expert" badge anymore.
2. Criticism is great, but doin' the art paintings yourself is even greater.
3. This is just an Audio forum. :b

Best regards,
Bob

1. He has written a book called "The Audio Expert" I believe? God help us
2 You mean the measurements? Yes, agreed if you can afford some of the very expensive test equipment required
3 Yes & for the sake of the forum, I'm refraining from replying to his posts - it's futile!

 

[jkeny]

You know, in one respect Ethan may be correct (but he doesn't even know it) - all that we categorise as jitter may not be jitter at all & we have to be careful about chasing the jitter dragon Other factors like common mode noise & RFI can equally effect digital audio (& may even have a greater effect) & cause audible distortions.

 

[NorthStar]

I just wanna see everyone enjoying life and having fun while talkin' & listenin'. :b

Hey, some strong Irish blood runs through my veins by the way. :b

 

[fas42]

I honestly would love to hear a meaningful definition of "clinical" and "sterile."

Some people smirk when this is offered up, but it does serve as a good, starting reference point: from Stereophile's Audio Glossary, created by J.G.Holt:

sterile Pristinely clean but uninvolving.
pristine Very clean-sounding, very transparent.
clean Free from audible distortion.
uninvolving Ho-hum sound. Reproduction which evokes boredom and indifference.

clinical Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly uninvolving.

So clinical seems to be a more "extreme" version of sterile ...

Now, from my point of view I have no trouble understanding what this type of sound is like; I've experienced it many times with my own setups. But I know that this quality is a type of distortion, in spite of the fact that it sounds "clean". As an example of how it sounds subjectively, when some music is on you're wondering why on earth are they bothering to play this "dribble", someone must be paying good! But when you get past this distortion in the playback then everything makes musical sense; it all fits, you "get" why the musicians created those sounds ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Micro asked for some "objectivist" reviews. Here are a few examples:

A deep dive into the Benchmark DAC:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1

One of the things that piqued my interest in my own monitors. These guys kind of straddle the line - not much poetry, but not a lot of independent measurement either:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/aviadm9.htm

Aczel's review of the original Orions:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm

There's not a lot of objectivist reviewing going on out there that I'm aware of, Micro. Seems to have fallen out of fashion. And objectivists tend to keep equipment for a long time, so our interest in reviews is not high. We're much more likely to enjoy reading stuff like this:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

Enjoy!

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Micro asked for some "objectivist" reviews. Here are a few examples:

Tim

You don't like John Atkinson's measurements sections?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Don't read them. Don't read much Aczel these days. I read Sound on Sound when I'm looking for a piece of gear, recently a small digital recording interface. I read Sean Olive's blog when he updates it, and I read you guys....

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Don't read them. Don't read much Aczel these days. I read Sound on Sound when I'm looking for a piece of gear, recently a small digital recording interface. I read Sean Olive's blog when he updates it, and I read you guys....

Tim

:b

 

[Ron Party]

Tom, exactly. I've been away from the forum for the past few days with my son touring the college he will start this fall. I come back and read a crusade by jkeny without one shred of evidence to support his claims. Wait a second, he has no claims other than words to the effect of "you are wrong, Ethan". Politeness appears to be a foreign concept to jkeny. Does the fact that he is a manufacturer of a product have anything to do with this? I don't know. Has his product ever been subjected to reliable, scientific scrutiny or are we left only with, as he says, positive comments from reviewers. I say put up or, well . . . Good grief! So to come full circle, Tom, to call his response whacky is being incredibly polite.

Originally Posted by jkeny
As to the -120dB, it's your trademark inaccuracy bullishly masqueraded as fact & science.


jkeny, your response above is whacky IMO, a response with no back up or technical rigor.

Ethan has this test out there for everyone to try themselves, and I challenge anyone, anytime, to hear soft distortions as he shows, down at -120db or at levels going less negative too. He has facts on his side, anyone here can listen for themselves.

The only thing I can figure out about you is since you are in the trade, and the chips you buy to put in your boxes are nearing ever and ever perfection as time goes on, you must somehow revert to magic to try and differentiate your product, which is understandable when marketing to a certain sector of the audiophile community.

And for everyone who thinks your product is better than someone elsses, there are just as many if not more that think the opposite, or think tubes trump solid state, analog trumps digital, feedback trumps no feedback, visa versa, etc.

Anyway, my point is, you have no point, no facts, no rebuttal. And you do not have super human hearing as you can prove to yourself by listening to Ethans link as can anyone else.

And your evidence, to disprove Ethans is where, exactly?

Its OK not to be perfect on our forum but wish you would work harder at answers that have some sort of support for your side of things and thus the members can learn something here.

Tom

 

[JackD201]

Tom,

If you are going to make an accusation of an agenda just because someone is in the trade do it to all of us in the trade and not just someone you don't agree with.

Ethan is in the trade too. His company builds and sells acoustic products.

Ethan himself posted this link

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

Now read it and look closely at the last paragraph.

Why don't you accuse him of the same thing you are accusing keny?

 

[jkeny]

Listen, it would do some of you well to read this 1993 article from Stereophile when they were introducing their jitter measurements http://www.stereophile.com/content/jitter-game-page-4
What is rubbish is that Ethan characterises all jitter as -120dB down - as usual a inkling of truth is made into a lie.

I'm sorry if my style with him has been rude - I didn't start like that, I asked a polite question about his claim that 50+ years ago all this had already been resolved with null tests. I asked, politely, I thought, what resolution was used & the test set-up. He said a perfect null & continually points to his video which I find to be a Randi style approach only interested in debunking. I was hoping for a set of meaurements - I looked at the video in the section he identified & quoted what he said which I again found to be a psychological trick used by tricksters & a logical flaw.

As to the accusation that I have no evidence for my statements - at all points I have given a link or examples backing up what I have said
- I gave a link to a null test showing graphs & measurements - the sort of thing I was hoping to see from Ethan
- I gave reasons why a Sine Wave test does not cut it - I even quoted your words Tom, which stated this
- I gave the reasons why an FFT is lacking in certain respects as a measurement
- none of these were acknowledged or commented on.
- If any of you wish to debate the above or EThan's statements I'm happy to do so

I have never mentioned my products until forced to resort to using them. It's the old argument anyway, just because I have a product or two I become suspected of being less than truthful or to have an agenda. It's an understandable assumption but I would hope that you can evaluate the message itself rather than the messenger & where he is coming from.

Anyway, rest assured, I have stated that I will not be posting any more replies to Ethan as it is futile, so you will not have to put up with the unseemly spectacle!

 

[Keith_W]

Anyway, rest assured, I have stated that I will not be posting any more replies to Ethan as it is futile, so you will not have to put up with the unseemly spectacle!

I am enjoying your posts. Please continue.

 

[microstrip]

Micro asked for some "objectivist" reviews. Here are a few examples:

A deep dive into the Benchmark DAC:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1

One of the things that piqued my interest in my own monitors. These guys kind of straddle the line - not much poetry, but not a lot of independent measurement either:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/aviadm9.htm

Aczel's review of the original Orions:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm

There's not a lot of objectivist reviewing going on out there that I'm aware of, Micro. Seems to have fallen out of fashion. And objectivists tend to keep equipment for a long time, so our interest in reviews is not high. We're much more likely to enjoy reading stuff like this:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

Enjoy!

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for your answer. I already knew these reviews and never expect you to post such links.

The Benchmark review is clear about the useless of the review (or any review of a DAC decently designed):

As I pointed out in the original review (carried in 2005) , more expensive DACs than the Benchmark give you absolutely nothing more in performance—you can’t outperform perfection. Benchmark audio equipment is made by professionals for professionals. Their aim is to achieve the ultimate in measurements. (...)

What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own.

The review of the Orions is an hyperbolic subjective review: if finds stereo has all the magic that many people have denied in other threads:

"What’s going on here? The depth of the soundstage has tripled in comparison with high-end box speakers! Everything is more spacious, more solidly defined, more clearly directional, more 3-D. It’s not a small difference. It’s close to a revelation. (...)

The subjective impression is that the speakers are no longer there; the listener is looking into the soundstage—big or small, as the case may be—without any intermediary. (...)

The fact is that I now prefer to listen to the CD layer of SACDs through the Orions rather than the 5.1 DSD layer through my surround system. I get more auditory information about the performance that way, albeit with an inevitably more limited acoustic perspective.


And the key explanation for the miracle is IMHO does not seem not very objective:

Its superiority lies in the structure, rather than the texture, of the reproduced sound. The texture is merely superb but not different; the structure is entirely different from the usual.

You have listened to the Orions, can you explain objectively me this sentence? It dangerously resembles my very subjective and over-enthusiastic comment about listening to a Kalista - TheSonusFaver system one year ago!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Its superiority lies in the structure, rather than the texture, of the reproduced sound. The texture is merely superb but not different; the structure is entirely different from the usual

.

You have listened to the Orions, can you explain objectively me this sentence? It dangerously resembles my very subjective and over-enthusiastic comment about listening to a Kalista - TheSonusFaver system one year ago!

No. Aczel loves the Orions and is a bit over-the-top about them, to be sure. We'll have to agree to disagree about the Benchmark review. Given the Benchmark's measurements, while the statement:

As I pointed out in the original review (carried in 2005) , more expensive DACs than the Benchmark give you absolutely nothing more in performance—you can’t outperform perfection. Benchmark audio equipment is made by professionals for professionals. Their aim is to achieve the ultimate in measurements. (...)

What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own.

...sounds hyperbolic and is certainly an affront to the subjectivist POV, it is a great example of an objectivist review -- "Good measurements indicate that this component is audibly neutral and has no sound of it's own; it is, essentially, a wire with gain. We're done here."

From the pure objectivist's POV, there really isn't anything more than that. What does it sound like? It doesn't.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I am enjoying your posts. Please continue.

Thank you, Keith. In some ways I thought I represented the voice of those who Ethan tries to bamboozle with "technical" talk (which mostly is a half truth, at the best of times) & his arrogant, know-all smug attitude which is typical of this type of fanatical objectivist. They usually use as their agenda that they are saving the innocent consumer from being duped. - my reference to Randi style debunkers. They use measurements as their weapon & demand others to also choose this same weapon in their very own duel - again it's circular logic.

My posts pointed to where I saw flaws in Ethan's measurements or logic. These flaws were never addressed i.e sine waves are not the same as music for measurements, FFTs have blind spots, jitter is a more complex issue than he makes it out. Each time the goalposts were moved - again typical of this type of fanatical objectivist - I've come across them on other forums. I've given my objections to his points raised but like with all such fanatics it's futile to expect answers or even a reasoned & logical debate.

Anyway, thank you for your support.

In the best tradition of South Park - I've learned something today, even fanatic objectivists are real people & have feelings too - just not Ethan. Don't shoot Kenny

 

[Ron Party]

Ethan is not the lone bearer of the title of arrogant, know-all smug attitude in this thread. Regrettably you cannot look honestly in the mirror. As such, your message, whatever it is, is lost due to the shouting, condescending, holier-than-thou dB volume of your posts. If you want to read a cordial, informative thread in which Ethan participated, you will find such in the debate section of our forum wherein Ethan and Amir, one of our site founders, discussed some of the same issues as are raised in this thread.

Curious why you've also not attacked one of our experts, Bruce, who if I'm not mistaken also has stated there is no difference between a wav and flac file.

 

[jkeny]

Ethan is not the lone bearer of the title of arrogant, know-all smug attitude in this thread. Regrettably you cannot look honestly in the mirror. As such, your message, whatever it is, is lost due to the shouting, condescending, holier-than-thou dB volume of your posts. If you want to read a cordial, informative thread in which Ethan participated, you will find such in the debate section of our forum wherein Ethan and Amir, one of our site founders, discussed some of the same issues as are raised in this thread.

What part of don't shoot Kenny, did you not get? Yes I would love to read that thread - got a link?

Curious why you've also not attacked one of our experts, Bruce, who if I'm not mistaken also has stated there is no difference between a wav and flac file.

Did I ever say that there was a difference? You must be mixing me up with somebody else or I don't know why you are mis-representing my words?

 

[Ethan Winer]

in one respect Ethan may be correct (but he doesn't even know it) - all that we categorise as jitter may not be jitter at all & we have to be careful about chasing the jitter dragon

You think I don't know that I'm correct?

What is rubbish is that Ethan characterises all jitter as -120dB down - as usual a inkling of truth is made into a lie.

I don't know about gear from the early 1990s, but all current converters have jitter that soft. I understand that the audio portion of a receiver's HDMI output can be higher, for other reasons, but even budget sound cards have jitter much too soft to be audible. Again, all you have to do is show this is incorrect with some evidence. Not just your say so, but a graph or some such proving the point.

As to the accusation that I have no evidence for my statements - at all points I have given a link or examples backing up what I have said

It's much easier than that. All you have to do is create a file containing music, then another copy of the same music with soft jitter (or other) artifacts mixed in showing they're audible at -120 or whatever. Use whatever music and artifacts you want, and post the files here for all to judge. You know, like what I did for my Audio Myths video except using an example that makes your point.

--Ethan