Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[rbbert]

Sound is perceptible vibration. So that covers elephants and bats and not just us. The deer ran to get out of the elephant's way. LOL.

Actual presence not required, only that if a similar event happened and someone or something would or rather could have heard it, it is a sound.

Of course that's the way I think (read my previous posts), that's why I said the explanation in the original quote actually showed "yes" was the answer to the question rather than "no" which was stated to be the answer. However, there are apparently some here who feel that is not the case.

 

[JackD201]

A curious thing that is rbbert

 

[Soundminded]

Objectivists might be able to make a case for themselves if they had complete and accurate theories and mathematical models that explained sound and hearing completely. Theories that correlate closely to what people hear. Then they could devise tests and standards that were actually meaningful to what people hear. That's a long way off. Rather strange in a world that can send probes to Mars, split atoms, decode DNA, and put the entire Encyclopedia in the palm of your hand. OTOH, subjectivitsts are merely groping around in the dark hoping they'll bump into something they'll like that works for them. The approach is so laughable because it has resulted in endless "schools of thought" all headed off in their own directions, each convinced they've found the holy grail. It's also interesting just how vague and undefined the basic concept of "accuracy" is, where it applies, what it means in specific terms. All this would just be a joke, priests of a cult arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....if the prices for their toys hadn't reached the astronomical. One thing both have in common. When you point out the shortcomings of what equipment of their favorite brand/philosophy you bought just a few years ago are, they say yeah but that was all fixed in the new improved version which sounds nothing like the old one. Of course they also will tell you how much of what they laughably call "research" went into that improvement justifying a substantially higher price. What that research really is is just more endless trial and error tinkering until they stumbled into something they like better. It really has become a fool's game.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, I dont care how many trees fall in how many forests, a stereo system would attempt some sort of a duplication of the sound but it will not be the "sound".

The point is clear. Stereo is a limited system. Our ears are limited but they can perceive the limitations of stereo attempting to replicate any complex (or even a drum kit) musical event. Audiophiles tend to sometimes confuse ability to hear differences with ability to hear exact duplication of a musical event.

To me, most objectivists pretty much think that stereo is understood, and electronics as replication is understood, and that stereo indeed has limitations, and so do peoples hearing abilities.

To me, most subjectivists are facinated with their ability to hear differences and so everything is going to sound different to them that they try but by golly, each time they try something it is so night and day different, each change better than the last, it goes on and on, just read some other forums where people systems make huge changes with each thing they add, I mean, how much did their systems suck to start with when after 8 component change outs and it is still sounding better each time? IF they would just substitute the word different for better then that would make more sense.


They are the last to believe that stereo is incapable of reproducing the live event. But they enjoy the chase and it gives them (and us) something to talk about. Its a personal journey for each audiophile, its just that the more technical among us understand WHY some things are happening...read atmaspheres post above about odd harmonics, etc.

It's impossible for stereo two channel mic/speakers to realistically replicate unamplified musical events. The resulting unrealistic reproduction must be accepted or leaves some desiring more. Some endlessly change components pursuing the impossible

And some, use tone controls, use processors, use ambiosonics, use this and that, knowing that they are making changes and deciding if they like the changes but are aware and playing within the perview of what sounds best to them and not giving stereo some kind of magic ability. Most of us just got those two speakers and they are a severe limitation, at the end of a chain of severe limitations.

I enjoy my stereo, my speakers, my headphones, my tone controls and processors because I long ago accepted the limitations of stereo and understood some of the distortions of LP that better fool the ear via phase changes and interchannel mixing and groove noise etc. I am satisfied with my system and it has changed little over time. I have heard a lot of good and great sounding stuff but none of it has the clarity and detail and focus and tone that headphones provide. Stereo effect, naw, headphones alone, can't do it, but also, as I have said, if you listen (talking speakers now) to mono for a few days, then go back to stereo, at the exact point, you will immediately "hear" just how contrived stereo effect is. As the song goes, ..."I'm a believer"

Tom,

You created your own biased definition of objectivist and subjectivist to fit your oversimplifying and reductionist dogma. All centers in your too strict concept of realistic and refusal to accept that subjective aspects can be evaluated objectively, and are, in these conditions, better suited for the analysis of sound reproduction performance than the simple standard electrical measurements. All IMHO.

 

[microstrip]

Didn't we just do this old tree/forest zen cliche a couple of weeks ago?

Tim

Yes, and I had asked your direct opinion about the Linkwitz quote, as it is an important argument that sticks behind is designs and sound strategy. Still no answer ...

 

[microstrip]

Sound is perceptible vibration. So that covers elephants and bats and not just us. The deer ran to get out of the elephant's way. LOL.

Actual presence not required, only that if a similar event happened and someone or something would or rather could have heard it, it is a sound.

No Jack, actual presence is needed. If you were not present last time, you would perceive it in a different way this time. Even the first time it is a sound, you just have to be there.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, and I had asked your direct opinion about the Linkwitz quote, as it is an important argument that sticks behind is designs and sound strategy. Still no answer ...

Uh oh...negligence alert...better go read that quote...

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Uh oh...negligence alert...better go read that quote...

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, and I had asked your direct opinion about the Linkwitz quote, as it is an important argument that sticks behind is designs and sound strategy. Still no answer ...

Ok, here goes. Dr. L said:

QUESTION:
If a tree falls in a dark forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

ANSWER:
No!

The falling tree sets huge numbers of air particles into oscillatory motion. They push on other air particles and cause a chain reaction that propagates away from the tree at the speed of sound. In this process mechanical energy is transformed into heat as the wave hits other objects, is reflected, diffused and absorbed.
If a person is in range of the air particle disturbance, then a few particles hit the left and right ear drum. This is registered in the brain and perceived as sound.
For evolutionary reasons it is important to recognize the nature of a sound source. The detailed shape of the external ear, i.e. the pinna and the ear canal, changes the strength of the sound wave at the ear drum depending upon the frequency of oscillation and the direction from which the air particles arrive. This is further enhanced by the sound shadowing of the head between the ears. The separation of the two ears causes a delay between the particles arriving at each ear drum when the source is not located in the median plane, the vertical plane that bisects the body. Thus, turning the head sideways or up and down changes the air particle strength at the ear drums.
The brain has evolved to process spectral, temporal and directional cues to form a mental picture of the origin of a sound, its direction, distance, size and nature. This is further enhanced by visual and tactile cues, and certainly by learning and memory.

Personally, I disagree.

It goes to the definition of "sound." Is sound the physical disturbance of the air particles, the mechanical energy (moving at the speed of sound), or is sound the way that mechanical energy is shaped by the physical structure of our heads, ears, the tree to our left, the length of the grass, the woman standing in front of us, the lifts in our shoes changing our height perspective, and the cues our brains take from all of that to process into what we percieve? I think there is sound that precedes manipulation by the physical environment. Your system makes sound. It sounds different in your room than it would in mine, than it would in Jack's, and even if it is playing in an anechoic chamber, where the environment has been neutralized and has no effect, it still makes sound. Even if it plays into a pair of in-ear headphones, which is very close to a direct connection to your eardrum, and the environment and the physical manipulations of your hair, head, outer ear and even most of your ear canal are neutralized, it still makes sound.

Or at least that's the way I see it. YMMV.

Perception? Real perception as opposed auditory memory filling in the blanks, imagination fullfilling expectations, etc? Grossly overblown in the audiophile community, IMO. The kind of processing Linkwitz is talking about above, in which the brain hears the soundwave filtered through hair, outer ear etc. and knows to process the changes those physical properties make to the loudness and FR and hear that as "behind me, over my left shoulder, slightly above my head." My God that perceptual processing is remarkable! But it's also remarkably consistent, in spite of the fact that you may have ears that lay flat against your head below a mass of thick curly hair and I may have ears that stick out from a head with nearly no hair at all. None of that explains the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. That's something else altogether.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Ok, here goes. Dr. L said:

Personally, I disagree.
(...)
Or at least that's the way I see it. YMMV.

Surely MMMV . I have to say that three years ago I would stick your perspective, after I spending some time reading the other side, I now agree with Linkwitz, Toole and many others perspective on this subject.

Perception? Real perception as opposed auditory memory filling in the blanks, imagination fullfilling expectations, etc? Grossly overblown in the audiophile community, IMO. The kind of processing Linkwitz is talking about above, in which the brain hears the soundwave filtered through hair, outer ear etc. and knows to process the changes those physical properties make to the loudness and FR and hear that as "behind me, over my left shoulder, slightly above my head." My God that perceptual processing is remarkable! But it's also remarkably consistent, in spite of the fact that you may have ears that lay flat against your head below a mass of thick curly hair and I may have ears that stick out from a head with nearly no hair at all. None of that explains the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. That's something else altogether.

Tim

Toole explains the line I enhanced in bold in a nice article available at the Harman site. As he masterly concludes "stereo is an individual experience" . And surely WBF is just a repository of individual experiences - unhappily in a too small number and made in a way it does not allow the statistical analysis that would eventually convert them in objective data. But rewarding to read for those who are prepared to learn from them.

BTW, I hope Bob will notice that this thread in entering its 100th page!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Surely MMMV Toole explains the line I enhanced in bold in a nice article available at the Harman site. As he masterly concludes "stereo is an individual experience"

Got a link or at least a title? I'd like to read this article.

BTW, I hope Bob will notice that this thread in entering its 100th page!

This thread outgrew it's divisive title and the conftontational article that inspired it many pages ago. This thread has become epic. And I like it.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Got a link or at least a title? I'd like to read this article.
Tim

I have posted it before. See:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6309-What-s-wrong-with-stereo&p=102028&viewfull=1#post102028

The sentence I refer to is:

Attempting to bring a little more spatial “flavor” to the reproduction process, loudspeakers are available in directivities ranging from conventional front-firing, through bipole (bidirectional in phase), dipole (bidirectional out-of-phase), predominantly-reflecting, to omnidirectional. These present listeners with very different combinations of direct and reflected sounds, and in most of them the room is a major determinant. Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual experimentation.

 

[Gregadd]

so the dear runs away from the falling tree, no humans in sight.

Why does it run?

Visual clues?
greg

 

[Gregadd]

I dont care how many trees fall in how many forests, a stereo system would attempt some sort of a duplication of the sound but it will not be the "sound".

I suppose from time to that i should point I think you are wrong. If I don't someone might concluide I concede the point. Llet me register my continuing objection.

The point is clear

. But not complete.

Stereo is a limited system. Our ears are limited but they can perceive the limitations of stereo attempting to replicate any complex (or even a drum kit) musical event. Audiophiles tend to sometimes confuse ability to hear differences with ability to hear exact duplication of a musical event.

Stereotyping is an amazing aid to myhtical arguments.

To me, most objectivists pretty much think that stereo is understood, and electronics as replication is understood, and that stereo indeed has limitations, and so do peoples hearing abilities.

Stereotyping. I'll givre you the benift of the doubt. Where is the results of the opinion poll?

To me, most subjectivists are facinated with their ability to hear differences and so everything is going to sound different to them that they try but by golly, each time they try something it is so night and day different, each change better than the last, it goes on and on, just read some other forums where people systems make huge changes with each thing they add, I mean, how much did their systems suck to start with when after 8 component change outs and it is still sounding better each time? IF they would just substitute the word different for better then that would make more sense.

Which is it ? They don't hear changes or are the changes they do hear just a latteral move? If thier systems are so short of the goal as you point oiut, logicalluy why on earth would they maintin the status quo?

They are the last to believe that stereo is incapable of reproducing the live event. But they enjoy the chase and it gives them (and us) something to talk about. Its a personal journey for each audiophile, its just that the more technical among us understand WHY some things are happening...read atmaspheres post above about odd harmonics, etc.

Curiously you seemed at odds with Atma-spheres choices.

Cheers to Ralph to pursue his idea of fidelity it just aint mine in the area of source fidelity thats all I meant.

It's impossible for stereo two channel mic/speakers to realistically replicate unamplified musical events. The resulting unrealistic reproduction must be accepted or leaves some desiring more. Some endlessly change components pursuing the impossible

And some, use tone controls, use processors, use ambiosonics, use this and that, knowing that they are making changes and deciding if they like the changes but are aware and playing within the perview of what sounds best to them and not giving stereo some kind of magic ability. Most of us just got those two speakers and they are a severe limitation, at the end of a chain of severe limitations

Is not that exactly what you do with all your devices? Is the fact that my car starts when I turn the key any less real because I don't understand why? Do I need to understand the cause of the cahnge in order for it to be valid?

I enjoy my stereo, my speakers, my headphones, my tone controls and processors because I long ago accepted the limitations of stereo and understood some of the distortions of LP that better fool the ear via phase changes and interchannel mixing and groove noise etc. I am satisfied with my system and it has changed little over time. I have heard a lot of good and great sounding stuff but none of it has the clarity and detail and focus and tone that headphones provide. Stereo effect, naw, headphones alone, can't do it, but also, as I have said, if you listen (talking speakers now) to mono for a few days, then go back to stereo, at the exact point, you will immediately "hear" just how contrived stereo effect is. As the song goes, ..."I'm a believer"

I suggest it is the nature of man to be dissatified More's the better for it.
Greg

 

[microstrip]

Micro, so what or where is the "official" definition of an audiophile objectivist or subjectivist? Perhaps then this thread would have a center to debate about!

Tom,

AFAIK there is not such think as the official definition, just stereotypes based on extreme behavior, easy to particularize and denigrate.

IMHO, all audio evaluations are intrinsically subjective, as we aim at perceptions, that are person dependent. What we can to do is analyze all the data coming from subjective evaluations, using proper statistical methods, and if it matches some criteria, such as quality, consistency and reliability, the results can become what we seem to call objective data, that has great value and intrinsic limitations.

In order to become really useful objective data should have a model correlating it with the subjective. If this model is not accepted or complete, we will go on fighting between groups who have different positions on basic aspects.

Some people love the simplest model I know about - the less the better. Said otherwise, the less we molest in RMS value the voltage describing the audio signal, the best will be the system. This is sometimes called the objective view. I hope that the objective view can be more than that. Let us hear from other members.


-

 

[Gregadd]

I hope no one is using this type of reasoning to support his position, because as any historian (scientific or other) knows both of her assertions are totally false

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You make a great argument. Now that you recognized the trees please take a few steps back and try to observe the forest. "(You can't see the forest for the trees.") It was not the merits of the indivdual arguments. but the futillity of Ross's attempt to convince Phoebe of his inescapable logic I found amusing. So goes this thread.
greg

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Originally posted by microstrip:
I have to say that three years ago I would stick your perspective, after I spending some time reading the other side, I now agree with Linkwitz, Toole and many others perspective on this subject.

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk

Perception? Real perception as opposed auditory memory filling in the blanks, imagination fullfilling expectations, etc? Grossly overblown in the audiophile community, IMO. The kind of processing Linkwitz is talking about above, in which the brain hears the soundwave filtered through hair, outer ear etc. and knows to process the changes those physical properties make to the loudness and FR and hear that as "behind me, over my left shoulder, slightly above my head." My God that perceptual processing is remarkable! But it's also remarkably consistent, in spite of the fact that you may have ears that lay flat against your head below a mass of thick curly hair and I may have ears that stick out from a head with nearly no hair at all. None of that explains the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. That's something else altogether.

Tim

Originally posted by microstrip

Toole explains the line I enhanced in bold in a nice article available at the Harman site. As he masterly concludes "stereo is an individual experience" . And surely WBF is just a repository of individual experiences - unhappily in a too small number and made in a way it does not allow the statistical analysis that would eventually convert them in objective data. But rewarding to read for those who are prepared to learn from them.

Micro, I don't think that's what Toole explains in this article at all. In context:

Some of the difficulty stems from the restrictions of traditional two channel stereo systems. Only those listeners on the axis of
symmetry of the loudspeakers can hear the full benefits of stereo, and the effects diminish with distance. Conventional stereo recording
techniques are the result of trial and error, attempting to make the best of a system which cannot recreate all of the directional
impressions that may have been a part of an original live performance. The directional diversity of sounds arriving at listeners' ears is
much reduced compared to any live experience.
As a result, strict realism is an impossible objective, so we try to approach it as closely as possible, within the limitations of
our hardware. For the bulk of recorded music, however, realism is an inappropriate objective. In popular music, for example, the
original "performance" occurs in a recording control room at the time of the final mixdown. Since recording studios are not
standardized, unless you happened to be there, you don’t know what the original was.
Attempting to bring a little more spatial “flavor” to the reproduction process, loudspeakers are available in directivities ranging
from conventional front-firing, through bipole (bidirectional in phase), dipole (bidirectional out-of-phase), predominantly-reflecting, to
omnidirectional. These present listeners with very different combinations of direct and reflected sounds, and in most of them the room
is a major determinant. Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual experimentation.

He's talking about the inability of stereo to recreate the directional diversity of a live performance. He saying that, unable to attain this realistic directivity, we have substituted "spatial flavor" through the use of loudspeaker designs (front-firing, dipole, bipole, omni-directional) with a variety of directional characteristics, delivering very different combinations of direct and reflected sound in-room. This is what he is referring to as a basis for individual experimentation. But the directional capabilities of various speaker designs and how they interact with rooms has nothing to do the definition of "sound," in this "if a tree falls in the forest..." discussion, and is not even tangentially related to what I was talking about when I spoke of the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. When audiophiles report hearing big differences between omni directional speakers and forward firing speakers, it's not surprising, much less incredible. It is expected.

Again, I only got a couple of pages beyond your page 1 quote, but I found nothing to disagree with in this article from Toole.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

This thread outgrew it's divisive title and the conftontational article that inspired it many pages ago. This thread has become epic. And I like it.

Tim

-----I see a very minor typo there Tim. ...But just thought to let you know nonetheless.
{By the way, try to pronounce that word the way it is written right now!}

* Me too I really like this thread and the intelligent comments by all the WBF members in it.
I read it all, and I am careful to not interfer without less than the very best comments (meaning 'beneficial flow'). :b

 

[microstrip]

Micro, I don't think that's what Toole explains in this article at all. In context:



He's talking about the inability of stereo to recreate the directional diversity of a live performance. He saying that, unable to attain this realistic directivity, we have substituted "spatial flavor" through the use of loudspeaker designs (front-firing, dipole, bipole, omni-directional) with a variety of directional characteristics, delivering very different combinations of direct and reflected sound in-room. This is what he is referring to as a basis for individual experimentation. But the directional capabilities of various speaker designs and how they interact with rooms has nothing to do the definition of "sound," in this "if a tree falls in the forest..." discussion, and is not even tangentially related to what I was talking about when I spoke of the incredible variations audiophiles report hearing. When audiophiles report hearing big differences between omni directional speakers and forward firing speakers, it's not surprising, much less incredible. It is expected.

Again, I only got a couple of pages beyond your page 1 quote, but I found nothing to disagree with in this article from Toole.

Tim

Tim,

You are mixing arguments. This quote referred only to why there is some TRUE diversity in audiophiles findings, something you always consider imaginary.
BTW, spatial "flavour" is not the same as "spatial flavour" - there is a large difference between the two expressions.

Toole addresses the "forest" in his book "Sound Reproduction", as I have quoted elsewhere.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You are mixing arguments. This quote referred only to why there is some TRUE diversity in audiophiles findings, something you always consider imaginary.
BTW, spatial "flavour" is not the same as "spatial flavour" - there is a large difference between the two expressions.

Toole addresses the "forest" in his book "Sound Reproduction", as I have quoted elsewhere.

I think, actually, I was responding to a mixed argument. We were in the middle of the tree/forest discussion when you introduced a completely unrelated quote from Toole about the audiophile experience (from a context you don't appear to have understood). You introduced that quote as some kind of answer to a statement you quoted from me, and bolded. Upon investigation it proved not only to be irrelevant, but introduced based on a core misunderstanding of my position.

I've never doubted that there was some true diversity in audiophile findings, micro, particularly in the area of speakers. I've never considered the difference between two box speakers to be imaginary or even subtle, much less the difference between a box and a dipole, and that is the context of the Toole quote you used. When someone tells me they've changed cables and experienced a palpable expansion of their sound stage, I might raise an eyebrow. When someone tells me they've switched from Revel Salons to Linkwitz Orions and experienced a dramatic change in the sound in their listening room, my response would be a simple, "of course."

Tim