Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

Sometimes I beat around the bush a bit, John. It's just a part of being so shy and reserved.

Tim

Yeah, Tim, sitting on the fence too long will give you hemorrhoids!

 

[Gregadd]

I think so called subjectivists want a system that sounds good to them. S o u n d s good to them meaning a preference.

Oh come on that's too easy! If objectivists are the opposite of subjectivists that does that mean they want a system that sounds bad to them?

I think so called objectivists want a system that is an accurate replicator of the signal fed to it. R e p l i c a t o r means hi-fidelity and any and all measurements that prove just how "hi" the fidelity is.

It is manufacturers (and magazine technicians) who refuse to provide you with all the possible measurements. And they are tedious but any electronic device used for audio can be fully characterized well, well, well, below the audible threshold of human beings.

Don't they have limited resources and print space forcing them to make a choice from their alternatives?

Audio replication is not rocket science. But it is science.
Is listenig a scine? Whether or not something is a scinece depends on branvh you are involed in.
Preference and hearing "fuse orientation", while an individual trait, can not be believed by others unless some science, some scientific test, is administered and then there would be proof.

Why not? Word of mouth is one of the most valuable sales tools.

True, as Ethan said, you can't prove there is not an Easter bunny,

The Easter bunny is a childhood fantasy that we bribe children to believe in with candy and nicely colored furry animals. It's' non-existence becomes obvious with age. No need to prove it.

and you cant prove ithat joe audio did not hear "fuse orientation" as long as joe audio refuses to come under any kind of a test...

Why can't we belive him? If Joe car tells you he bought a car at a good price, it gets good gas mileage and never requires anything but routine maintenance. He adds it's a joy to drive everytime he starts the car. Would you not accept that?

and no matter what the excuses about how long one needs to hear a system and all

In order to make a judgement about the car would he not have to drive it for a long time.? If he just bought it home some of his claims would not have much meaning.,

one could use an AB/X box at home for months or years and log the choices about preferences.

No need to repeat my feelings about the AB/X box. Why does he need to use an AB/X. He's a consumer. Why does it matter to him whether you or anybody else trusts his opinion? Moreover everyone including you says don't listen for longer than 30 seconds. Rapid switching is essential.

There is no need for so called "time pressure" and all that rot.

My experience has been that if I can not hear a component change in a system ( a system implies several components, source, amp, cables, interconnects,etc.) of many components, after listening to quick changes with the cd player on repeat, then I cant hear it

That directly contradicts your earlier statement about listeneing as long as you like.

and therefore i would choose based on price or how the thing looks or is built or yes even specifications

. Or how big the breats are of the girl in the add. Or how many bells iand whistles it has. What you describe is repugnant to me. OTOH it happens all the time.

And of course, one can claim the system is not accurate enough...but how does one prove accuracy without measurments?

You can't becuase the only way to judge the source is to play it?

The point I have for subjectivists is how do they explain a SET amplifier, with obvious distortion, and only 30 db down, can sound better to them than a cleaner amp (tube or solid state),

Why do we need to explain it? Let's take a stab at anyway. They distort in different ways One distortion is less offensive. Additionally what the the SET does right is so much better than waht the other amps do right. Of course you can spend $140k curing the SET's faults.

in other words, for some subjectivists, they desire a deliberate distortion of the musical recorded signal for their preference.

I just don't accept the notion that people buy amps for the distortion. I think the buy it in spite of them

Now I dont care about that,

You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who does not care.

as I have no problem with tone controls, but one needs to understand that they are preferring a DISTORTION over a replication. There is no way of getting around that. Just look at the IMD plots of two tones, they give birth to at [sic]least twenty tones below and above the twin tones, and that means a lot of stuff being added to the actual recorded signal, and that does things like add clarity to some instruments, it adds richness, meat on the bones, and when a mass orchestral piece is played full tilt it becomes a muddy mess and takes away from clarity.

A good choice it seems if you don't listen to mass orchestra predominantly.

The real point is to me, at what point does something become inaudible. That will vary with power, frequency, and clarity of the electronics. A SET amp, can, due to added distortions, etch the sound of say a guitar in a mix, and thus someone may say aaah haaw, increased clarity...well, yes, it sounds clearer, but it aint.

That's a twisted peice of logic. It's sorta like saying "beauty is only skin." You know she looks pretty but she's not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If something sounds right I stop right there. Esoteric arguments about it's not relally right don't interest me.

A long time ago, a bunch of us techhies got together and made some circuits to add even and odd order harmonics to a signal, it was incredible how by adding in one or the other the same song sounded different. Some liked it one way, others the other.

Sounds like fun. I am not sure what point you are making.

Anyway, audio electronics replication , that is replicating an audio signal, especially in the analog domain, is not rocket science, its really electronics 101.

I thimk you said that already.

Tom[/QUOTE]

 

[jkeny]

It seems that a lot of people have lost the first principles of science - that is it is a tool to help us understand the world as-is & not a way to prescribe & limit what we perceive in the world.

To some science is a belief system rather than a tool!

 

[microstrip]

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but given that the purpose of an amplifier is to amplify the input, not alter it (it is not a processor or an eq), I would hope that they sound very much alike.
If the answer to your first question is yes, they all sound different, then the answers to these two questions are either no to "sound engineering principles" and/or yes to "voiced."
Here's the old equation again: two amps of the same power driving the same signal through the same load....they should sound the the same if they are fullfilling their basic purpose. Are they exactly alike? No, perfection is evasive. Very, very close? If they aren't, one or both of them is fundamentally doing something wrong. AV receivers at Best Buy seem to sound more alike than Audiophiles think "top flight" amps sound. The word on the Audiophile street is that the differences are obvious. Engineering or perception? Something is amiss.
Tim

Tim,

You are working on a false premise - that you have a perfect way of checking if an amplifier alters or not the input. The ways that have been suggested until now (null tests, fast blind tests) are not accepted by most audiophiles.

IMHO what designers would say is that all amplifiers change the signal, some in a more destructive way than others, and they found one that is less harmful than the others. (OK, their market departments will claim that they are neutral to the musical message, an idea that is easier to sell) .

BTW, you can also make two amplifiers sound similar just because they are wrong in a similar way, either by suppression or by addition.

BTW2 the basic purpose of a power amplifier is increasing the power of a signal keeping all its musical message. What keeps us debating is that the classical measurements do not seem to be able to fully test this property and what could be the proper measurements to evaluate and rank amplifiers.

 

[jkeny]

Well said, Microstrip. There's a reluctance to admit that components when combined in a circuit are far from perfect & the idea of "a wire with gain" is still a relatively unobtainable target.

Yes trying to sell an amplifier with the tagline of "our amplifier damages the signal less than others" will not work with the marketing dept or the public. The public want/need the illusion of getting something better, much the same as people seem to buy into the illusion of better measurements.

But essentially you are very accurate in your description of good designers find a way to damage the signal less than others. If only people could start from this realisation!

 

[FrantzM]

Tim,

You are working on a false premise - that you have a perfect way of checking if an amplifier alters or not the input. The ways that have been suggested until now (null tests, fast blind tests) are not accepted by most audiophiles.

IMHO what designers would say is that all amplifiers change the signal, some in a more destructive way than others, and they found one that is less harmful than the others. (OK, their market departments will claim that they are neutral to the musical message, an idea that is easier to sell) .

BTW, you can also make two amplifiers sound similar just because they are wrong in a similar way, either by suppression or by addition.

BTW2 the basic purpose of a power amplifier is increasing the power of a signal keeping all its musical message. What keeps us debating is that the classical measurements do not seem to be able to fully test this property and what could be the proper measurements to evaluate and rank amplifiers.

Microstrip your first sentence is inherently wrong. It is an impossibility for an amplifier to not alter the signal.. So the perfect way to verify this is its very existence!!!! You make it ... it is imperfect ergo it alters the signal. On the subject of tests not accepted by audiophiles that means nothing ...that a test it not accepted by a group of people doesn't infirm its validity. Goodness gracious!! .. Those last posts by yourself and jkeny are so full of argumentation fallacies that it has to be purposeful: Trying by any means to win a debate. One in which the very basic, simple and pragmatic premise is entirely understood: Which has come to the following. it is possible to devise a test to find out why amps sound different and perhaps to these with some measurements ... Is that an impossibility? If you do think so than to me the subject is not worth debating .... I am out until something interesting comes up ...

 

[JackD201]

Hey guys would you indulge me by trying something very easy to do? It's just a small experiment that shows how good people are at filling in the blanks sonically. I think it will help give us common ground when discussing perceived versus measured sound. If you are game, I'll give the really short proceedure, follow it then share your impressions.

 

[jkeny]

Microstrip your first sentence is inherently wrong. It is an impossibility for an amplifier to not alter the signal.. So the perfect way to verify this is its very existence!!!! You make it ... it is imperfect ergo it alters the signal. On the subject of tests not accepted by audiophiles that means nothing ...that a test it not accepted by a group of people doesn't infirm its validity. Goodness gracious!! ..

Did you look at the video by the CTO of ESS, who uses selected audiophiles to listen to their DAC designs & find things that their measurements don't show? Do you know something that the Chief designer of the ESS DACs doesn't? You should write him & tell them how to do it?
Why would amplifiers be any different with regard to measurements?

Those last posts by yourself and jkeny are so full of argumentation fallacies that it has to be purposeful: Trying by any means to win a debate. One in which the very basic, simple and pragmatic premise is entirely understood: Which has come to the following. it is possible to devise a test to find out why amps sound different and perhaps to these with some measurements ... Is that an impossibility? If you do think so than to me the subject is not worth debating .... I am out until something interesting comes up ...

Microstrip tells it exactly correctly & I simply posted in agreement with him. I'm not sure your rant about our posts is very helpful in furthering the debate?.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip your first sentence is inherently wrong. It is an impossibility for an amplifier to not alter the signal.. So the perfect way to verify this is its very existence!!!! You make it ... it is imperfect ergo it alters the signal. On the subject of tests not accepted by audiophiles that means nothing ...that a test it not accepted by a group of people doesn't infirm its validity. Goodness gracious!! .. Those last posts by yourself and jkeny are so full of argumentation fallacies that it has to be purposeful: Trying by any means to win a debate. One in which the very basic, simple and pragmatic premise is entirely understood: Which has come to the following. it is possible to devise a test to find out why amps sound different and perhaps to these with some measurements ... Is that an impossibility? If you do think so than to me the subject is not worth debating .... I am out until something interesting comes up ...

Frantz,

Although I can not understand 95% of what you have posted this time, I am getting used to your ungracious I am out ... . Can I suggest you start using IAOUSICU ?

 

[jkeny]

Hey guys would you indulge me by trying something very easy to do? It's just a small experiment that shows how good people are at filling in the blanks sonically. I think it will help give us common ground when discussing perceived versus measured sound. If you are game, I'll give the really short proceedure, follow it then share your impressions.

Sure, I'm game!

Edit: Looks like it might only be me then

 

[JackD201]

Cool! Waiting on Micro, Tim and Frantz. No special tracks or equipment needed for this just your laptop or PC with the crappiest computer speakers.

 

[jkeny]

Cool! Waiting on Micro, Tim and Frantz. No special tracks or equipment needed for this just your laptop or PC with the crappiest computer speakers.

If they don't reply soon, I'm off to bed so if you get no reply you'll know it's because I'm snoring & will look in the morning. You could send it to me privately now if you like & I will reply privately rather than post my impressions

 

[jkeny]

Yawn, I'm gone!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You are working on a false premise - that you have a perfect way of checking if an amplifier alters or not the input.

I'm not working on any premise at all, micro, I'm talking about the theoretical goal of amplification -- to amplify without altering -- and I'm supposing that if the very best amplifiers sound as different as audiophiles imagine they do, they are failing at something that common AV receivers get reasonably close to.

The ways that have been suggested until now (null tests, fast blind tests) are not accepted by most audiophiles.

BTW2 the basic purpose of a power amplifier is increasing the power of a signal keeping all its musical message.

An amplifiers musical message, its entire message, the whole of its reality is the input signal. It has nothing else. It is not sentient. It cannot look beyond the input and see anything else....

What keeps us debating is that the classical measurements do not seem to be able to fully test this property and what could be the proper measurements to evaluate and rank amplifiers.

I have no good reason to believe that we cannot test the fidelity an amp's output to its input, and neither do you. There are, however, good reasons to believe that which can be heard can be measured.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hey guys would you indulge me by trying something very easy to do? It's just a small experiment that shows how good people are at filling in the blanks sonically. I think it will help give us common ground when discussing perceived versus measured sound. If you are game, I'll give the really short proceedure, follow it then share your impressions.

What you got, Jack?

Tim

 

[Bill Hart]

Tom said: "For the subjectivists, the use of tone controls and processing systems might make them drunk with audio happiness."
Tom, as an subjectivist (I guess), I abhor tone controls and processing. I want the distortions from my vinyl/tube/SET set-up to be as pure as possible.
Jack: i'm also willing to participate in the experiment, but like others, I have to go to sleep.
It's been a long, hard day on WBF.

 

[JackD201]

Yay! Okay this is just for fun now okay?

I'm using a macbook, iTunes and the iTunes EQ. EQ's might be different with those using other players but that's cool.

1. choose any track
2. open your eq window
3. drop all virtual faders to the minimum except 1kHz which will remain at 0dB
4. max out your computer's volume
5. play the track and drop your computer's volume until you can't hear anything
6. raise the 1kHz fader until you can sing along
7. play 3 random tracks and take note of your impressions of each and please share them

 

[Bill Hart]

Yay! Okay this is just for fun now okay?

I'm using a macbook, iTunes and the iTunes EQ. EQ's might be different with those using other players but that's cool.

1. choose any track
2. open your eq window
3. drop all virtual faders to the minimum except 1kHz which will remain at 0dB
4. max out your computer's volume
5. play the track and drop your computer's volume until you can't hear anything
6. raise the 1kHz fader until you can sing along
7. play 3 random tracks and take note of your impressions of each and please share them

Sorry to be a problem child but #6 is just so... subjective Does 'until you can sing along' mean that you can hear it sufficiently in accompaniment to your own voice? Or just barely hear it- threshold of audiblity stuff?

 

[JackD201]

Enough to follow along the main melody and rhythm I should have said. Sorry about that. The track used can be an instrumental.

 

[microstrip]

Yay! Okay this is just for fun now okay?

I'm using a macbook, iTunes and the iTunes EQ. EQ's might be different with those using other players but that's cool.

(...)

Sorry Jack, but I do not have the Macbook, iTunes and the iTunes EQ or similar. Currently only playing tapes, LPs, CDs and some HiREz flac's with JRivers.