Problems with believability in audio

[sbo6]

For the record, I never specifically intended to criticize your system. I was merely to point out that I didn't find to be in the company of the equipment that sets the true reference standard that I had earlier clarified, And neither does mine obviously.

Let's get back to the subject at hand, shall we?

All good, back to the regularly schedule program. ;-)

 

[thedudeabides]

Apologies if I misconstrued the post that included my post. We're all still grumpy old men. ;-)

I started my post YOU are referring with HE. Apologies for any confusion. Best regards.

 

[morricab]

Acoustat Spectra 11 loudspeaker

www.stereophile.com

So now Stereophil’s own comedic relief is a reference…

 

[tima]

The clue is in your term "my criteria", which implies the subjectivity that was pointed out.

You can of course claim that "my criteria" are "objective criteria", but for a good part that would be an illusion -- the alignment with these criteria according to your ears would still be one guided by subjective perception.

I think far too much is made of the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' -- they are constantly being thrown around in argument. And you will see efforts to cast the subjective as somehow less than or derogatory relative to the objective -- "It's only your personal subjective experience" (which prominent forum member does that sound like?)

The typical notion of objectivity says the objective exists independently of our perception of it. (The notion of "objective criteria" sounds kinda like a category mistake -- ultimately it does not make sense.) Just what it is that exists independently of our perception of it and our concepts about it is pretty much up for debate. And fwiw, the notion of "fact" is not involved here. Granted there are theories and systems of belief - epistemology.

I think we should drop this objective-subjective dichotomy talk. It provides little value.

 

[tima]

To be fair to Soundmann, he has Acoustat Spectras and Ear 834p. So he has extremely high value components

This is bonzo humor, right ?

 

[bonzo75]

This is bonzo humor, right ?

No I don’t like the way he posts, but his list of components is high value/smart on Acostat spectra and Ear phono

 

[SoundMann]

No I don’t like the way he posts, but his list of components is high value/smart on Acostat spectra and Ear phono

My BGW and David Yee OTL tube headphone amp are notable components themselves, not to mention my Micro Seiki turntable and tonearm (consistently best in class), as well as my JVC HA-D990 headphones, which are not only the consumer version of a highly regarded Victor Studio model, but also highly rated by Stereophile magazine.

 

[Al M.]

I think we should drop this objective-subjective dichotomy talk. It provides little value.

You can and, arguably, should, have an objective reference in audio (as many, including us both, would say, it should be unamplified live music).

Yet it also holds that even with that, any judgment of alignment of a system sound to that objective reference is still subjective, since each our personal perceptions (interpretation of what we hear) and listening priorities (what do we value most when assessing realism?) are individual and subjective.

In my view, it is important to make that distinction.

 

[bonzo75]

I think we should drop this objective-subjective dichotomy talk. It provides little value.

Subjective is euphemism for lack of exposure. On this forum, especially to good analog, recordings, performances sets, horns, and live classical.

Subjective is also proportional to money spent.

 

[andromedaaudio]

For me its very simple .
Do i want to stay in the room listening to music , yes or no .


Life is to short to constantly battle whether it sounds like " unamplified music "

I spend money on gear ,the only thing i want back is enjoyment.


A full FMA system does that for me .
Next in line is FMA on passive speakers .

Convergent audio is pretty good too as are several others

Case closed

 

[morricab]

This is bonzo humor, right ?

One of the audio designers I respected the most, Allen Wright from VacuumState, used Soectra 1100 (successor to Soectra 11 but nearly identical) panels (with separate subs) as his design reference speakers becaof how put and balanced they sounded. His partner had Apogee Scintilla’s…no slouch either.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Adjustabilty on tweeters is a good thing .
The best BE tweeter is in the rockport lyra afaic.
Its a Scanspeak tw afaik with a rockport machined wave guide .

Nothing wrong with soft dome tw .
I can listen all day to them thats why i use them.
The ringradiators sound even
more " non intrusive

 

[Rexp]

I think another attribute that should be addressed is that everyone has a different idea of what believable even is.

A few weeks back I spent some time with Ron of the New Record Day YouTube channel as his sound shed, and I took my Chord Dave and Soulnote A-3 with me. We were listening to lots of different gear, but as we swapped in the Dave and A-3, I felt there was a noticeable increase in the believability of the sound. I also felt this at home. Vocals with the A-3 to me are uncanny, and the closest I have ever heard to a transition from sounding reproduced to sounding real. There is something dumb I've said repeatedly at home but also with Ron, "her air is our air". This was in reference to a specific track where her vocals sound more real than I've ever heard once the A-3 is added to the system, and this phenomenon also accuring at Ron's place, in his setup with his speakers, was further evidence. Ron agreed with my nonsense about her air being our air, it's like with the A-3 she sounds so real you can hear the air around her mic while singing and her air is literally in your room.

He was so excited with the sound that the following day, he invited another one of his friends over to hear the sound we were getting with the Dave and A-3. That friend thought it sounded good but digital, and then we slowly rolled back the changes, going back to a Dodd audio DAC and the Spatial Audio tube amp, he felt that the sound was much more realistic, even though I found it colored, sounding much like a reproduction than the reality offered by Dave and A-3.

This was eye opening for me. To have to completely opposite reactions to the same gear in the same room at the same time. I don't want to say one of us was right or wrong, just that the reference for everyone can be different and its useful to keep that in mind.


Another thing I often talk about with audio friends is using real life performances, instruments, etc as a reference. As while I get the intent, I actually dont find this particularly instructive, at least not for me personally. Thats not to say I don't use reality as a reference, but not in such a direct manner. The vast majority of what I listen to is recorded in a studio, close mic'd and mixed and mastered at a console, by a human, on whatever gear, in whatever room, they are using. So when I get into discussions with audiophiles about things, such as imagine precision, they might say something like, "images aren't super precise and hard in real life, so why should they be in my stereo?", I usually counter with, well, I don't listen in real life, from an inch away with a microphone that is then EQ'd and mixed in to create a stereo image. So I find is useful to consider the whole chain when thinking about things like this.

Even in cases when you are listening to live recordings, are they recorded in a manner that can directly translate to a stereo at home? or are they also multi-mic'd and mixed in a studio later to get the end result.

Your phrase that her air is in your room is not nonsense at all, a good recording will capture the air around the microphone and a good system will recreate that air in your room. The fact that Ron couldn't hear it suggests he doesn't hear so well. You're lucky to have experienced this phenomenon and now have a reference.
Very few amp/speaker combos can achieve this, what combo does it best for you?

 

[andromedaaudio]

For tweeter balance these days i adjust them to 2,5 db down at 10 khz with normal toe in.
1 db down on tw axxis

This 2.5 db downslope at 10 khz ( in room response) is widely accepted as sounding the most natural in a home environment and is used by many Ls manufacturers

 

[marty]

Subjective is also proportional to money spent.

No need to insult us, Ked. My guess is that those of us who have spent considerable money on home rigs have a high pride of ownership and likely think their music sounds good at home. But I don't think any of us are stupid enough to believe that what we are hearing at home is an actual sonic facsimile of the real thing. Subjective hearing is, however, the final arbiter of our system satisfaction far more than price.

 

[bonzo75]

No need to insult us, Ked. My guess is that those of us who have spent considerable money on home rigs have a high pride of ownership and likely think their music sounds good at home. But I don't think any of us are stupid enough to believe that what we are hearing at home is an actual sonic facsimile of the real thing. Subjective hearing is, however, the final arbiter of our system satisfaction far more than price.

Not sure where I referred to systems beling close to real thing. I am talking of how people address each other's different preferences by dismissing differences as subjective, when in some cases they are justifying their own direction instead of investigating areas they do not know.

 

[tima]

I am talking of how people address each other's different preferences by dismissing differences as subjective, when in some cases they are justifying their own direction.

Yes. I don't know if it is always about justifying a choice, but yes, it is used to be dismissive or claim something is less because it is "merely subjective." The idea that there is some objective truth in audio -- something true for any and all and exists apart from their belief -- is bs silly.

You can and, arguably, should, have an objective reference in audio (as many, including us both, would say, it should be unamplified live music).

You can say what your reference is, and that's fine. Maybe it's a clock radio. But I don't think adding "objective" to reference rather than simply saying "reference" provides any value.

In my view, it is important to make that distinction.

But to what end?

 

[tima]

There are a few types on this forum who think their subjective preferences and perceptions are the general objective truth.

Here is an example.

"subjective" adds nothing to preferences. It's like saying "subjective opinion" or "personal subjective opinion."

Why not say: "There are a few people on this forum who think their preferences and perceptions are true for everyone".

Saying "types" is likewise dismissive. It's not unlike talking about "tribes."

It's kind of self-righteous. But the self-righteous may give it some likes for dismissing the self-righteous.

There may be some snots and blowhards but I don't believe there is any forum member who believes his opinion is true for everyone.

 

[Al M.]

Here is an example.

"subjective" adds nothing to preferences. It's like saying "subjective opinion" or "personal subjective opinion."

Why not say: "There are a few people on this forum who think their preferences and perceptions are true for everyone".

Saying "types" is likewise dismissive. It's not unlike talking about "tribes."

It's kind of self-righteous. But the self-righteous may give it some likes for dismissing the self-righteous.

There may be some snots and blowhards but I don't believe there is any forum member who believes his opinion is true for everyone.

Oh boy.

And as for your last sentence, it is pretty clear to me that you are wrong. Others don't seem to share your belief either.

 

[tima]

There may be some snots and blowhards but I don't believe there is any forum member who believes his opinion is true for everyone.

And as for your last sentence, it is pretty clear to me that you are wrong.

Okay, quote examples.