Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

-snip- If you're a lawyer, surely you can grasp this logic. Then again, you are likely an expert at twisting facts and logic to suit your purposes. And I say this with the utmost respect for lawyers.

People often tell me I could have been a successful lawyer because I love so much to argue.

--Ethan

Maybe people say this to you, not because you love to argue but for the first characteristic you attributed to lawyers? I say this with the greatest respect also!

 

[Gregadd]

Pay attention "she's giving you pearls."

In short ABX testing is not relevant as it is unable to reveal very audible differences that music listeners hear that are important to them for the enjoyment of music. Thus it is used as an excuse and a crutch by those easily fooled by "pseudo" science not to seek out better equipment and superior recordings. Make no mistake ABX testing is "pseudo" science of the worst kind as it doesn't just make everything sound the same, but the stress endured by the human subjects makes everything sound the same level of awful. Music can be beautiful, relaxing and a pure joy to listen to with the right recording techniques, high enough resolution and a comfortable non-stressful listening environment.

 

[Gregadd]

It's like she' reading my mind.

Some objectivists are on an ideological crusade to save audiophiles from themselves, this is especially true of objectivists who preach against aftermarket power cables, interconnect cables, speaker cables, CD treatments, and many other products and tweaks without ever trying them themselves, just based solely on their blind belief in scientific rhetoric. Whereas subjectivists have a live and let live attitude and anything that makes music sound better for someone else is wonderful. In addition many subjectivists might even be willing to try it for themselves as long as they get a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. And if it's a free or inexpensive tweak all the better.

 

[terryj]

I imagine that many of these claimants may also feel that they would not pass a DBT. Wouldn't that skew the results in favor of "no difference"?

Not completely sure what you mean here trev, is it like "I think I can hear the difference between these two ICs but TBH I doubt I could tell them apart if I did not know which one I was listening to"? If I got it close then I don't think it falls into the type of territory laid out in the linked article, do you?

In any case, let's do the test on them and see what happens. They either hear (or think they hear) the difference between a or b, and as always we find out at the end of the round. TBH I think the person who goes in with the attitude you mentioned would actually have a better chance of doing well! Given a modicum of genuine intellectual curiosity (as opposed to trenchant dogmatism of either side) they'd have the right attitude and it would be 'fun' or at least interesting.

Take the extreme end of the spectrum such as out 'illustrious' article writer...was not she the bird who has never heard a good cd??....rips her ears off or something...to her and people like her these differences are dramatic and often life changing. When done blind and she suddenly realises that it is NOT the lay down mazaire she had always thought, THAT is when the cold shivers set in and would most likely influence adversely her ability to do the test without stress.

I think a DBT is best done by the intellectually distant and curious, and most poorly done by those wanting to prove a point either way.

Remind me who has the tertiary degree with the postgraduate qualifications and published articles in scientific journals, and who is the unemployed house-husband in the middle of country NSW again please?

Nope. no biases in this one either. Zilch, nada.

Pretty funny tho, it is great to have a real belly chuckle in the mornings dontcha reckon? How you manage to get out of bed with the weight of all those tickets on yourself is a concept to behold and admire.

At least a house husband can wear the frilly petticoats (pink if you please) whenever he wants in the course of his duties right?! Others have to wear boring work attire. Ponder on the wonder of that when you are next battling peak hour traffic for yet another day at work. I'll think about it too with my foot up having a cuppa in between washing the floors. (just kidding, bugger the floors, I'll have the cuppa tho)

Just curious, did you want to discuss the topic or stay with the attacks and appeals to (self) authority?

 

[rbbert]

It's like she' reading my mind.

(I don't mean this as a personal attack although it may read like one) This article truly reflects the "lunatic fringe" of audiophilia, just as Arnie Krueger (for example) represents the lunatic fringe (although at the other end of the spectrum). The only example where "subjectivists" may have heard something that led to an actual measurable breakthrough is the discovery of TIM, and having been involved in the audiophile world at the time I don't remember it quite the way Ms. Goodwin describes it.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

How do you know until after you have read it?

I know the source.

 

[Whatmore]

Not completely sure what you mean here trev, is it like "I think I can hear the difference between these two ICs but TBH I doubt I could tell them apart if I did not know which one I was listening to"? If I got it close then I don't think it falls into the type of territory laid out in the linked article, do you?

In any case, let's do the test on them and see what happens. They either hear (or think they hear) the difference between a or b, and as always we find out at the end of the round. TBH I think the person who goes in with the attitude you mentioned would actually have a better chance of doing well! Given a modicum of genuine intellectual curiosity (as opposed to trenchant dogmatism of either side) they'd have the right attitude and it would be 'fun' or at least interesting.

<snip>

Terrry, that is quite close to what I mean. I think it is quite possible that someone who hears differences in a sighted test may doubt their own ability to hear them in a DBT (and to be clear I'm not talking about someone who is an "extreme" subjectivist here - I'm not particularly interested in the discussion about extremists on either side because its not a discussion and I don't learn anything)

There may be any number of reasons why someone might doubt their ability in a DBT: the pressure of being tested, the fear of getting it "wrong" or looking foolish. All legitimate reasons and all reasons which may skew the results in favour of "no difference".
On the other hand, those who are confident that they can tell a difference will not skew the results at all.

I am not doubting the value of these tests - personally I would always prefer to know what biases are informing my own decision making - I am just saying that perhaps the tests could be better designed (maybe they are and I just don't know about it).

And no, I admit I have not read the article. My own biases tell me that it probably contains nothing new that hasn't been said a thousand times before

 

[Kal Rubinson]

People often tell me I could have been a successful lawyer because I love so much to argue.

Dunno if you would but it does make you a great dinner companion.

 

[microstrip]

I don't think anyone's askiing your to accept that all amplifiers sound the same, but if you're looking for measurement very closely correlating to listening, look no farther than the Harman speaker study discussed here for many days last month. If listeners can hear FR variations recorded in measurements and if their preferences correlate to those measurements, why would it be any different with audible differences in amplifiers, dacs, etc?

Tim

Tim,

I was very specific in my reference to amplifiers. As far as I know you can not apply anything taken from the very complete multi parameter analysis carried by Harman on loudspeakers to amplifier analysis. And even considering loudspeakers, the world did not end with the Harman studies.

 

[FrantzM]

Tim,

I was very specific in my reference to amplifiers. As far as I know you can not apply anything taken from the very complete multi parameter analysis carried by Harman on loudspeakers to amplifier analysis. And even considering loudspeakers, the world did not end with the Harman studies.

And why not? Parameters do not have to be the same, nor that Tim sugested so , let's drop that lame debate artifice now... If the amplifiers do some different then something has to make them so. If it is repeatable it can eventualy be measured... FR, phase, level, TIM, IM, something ... I frankly don't get what is not obvious with this pointhysical existence equates with measurability.

 

[terryj]

Terrry, that is quite close to what I mean. I think it is quite possible that someone who hears differences in a sighted test may doubt their own ability to hear them in a DBT (and to be clear I'm not talking about someone who is an "extreme" subjectivist here - I'm not particularly interested in the discussion about extremists on either side because its not a discussion and I don't learn anything)

that's good then (that I got it close I mean).

There may be any number of reasons why someone might doubt their ability in a DBT: the pressure of being tested, the fear of getting it "wrong" or looking foolish. All legitimate reasons and all reasons which may skew the results in favour of "no difference".
On the other hand, those who are confident that they can tell a difference will not skew the results at all.

I guess there could be a thousand reasons, but we can (all?) agree that the bet way is to make the test non confrontational. That would probably immediately rule out one with an us vs them component, but surely shirley it would work out OK when done with a group of friends? That also requires a modicum of integrity to ensure it is carried out with as much rigour as possible (I mean I'd not pout much weight on a 'properly conducted dbt on cables done with two 'hardcore' subjectivists..trust us, we did it correctly" type stuff...there needs to be some 'referee' if you will). The feeling foolish part works both ways too, I tried to make that point regarding the non amp believer in a test, if you DO alter the sound (-3 db over two octaves centred at 1k say) then they would look foolish in steadfastly denying an audible difference simply to maintain a stance.

Look at your thoughts on skewing it to a no difference result...what if I were with a bunch of hardcore subjectivists, they all maintain significant difference, in which direction does the group think now push? So it can work both ways, not always in the direction of no difference as you seem to feel.

Of course, all we need to is make sure no discussion occurs between testees (normal practice) and/or have forms filled out anonymously. Not too difficult to get around these types of problems I would have thought.

So there has to be some level of basic honesty, integrity and desire for it to work for sure. Otherwise it would simply be a physical manifestation of normal audio forum programming!

And no, I admit I have not read the article. My own biases tell me that it probably contains nothing new that hasn't been said a thousand times before

Don't bother (unless you want a laugh), normal reading material from that mob (note there never is nor will be any sort of right of reply, nor will there ever be presented any sort of counter balance or opposite viewpoint). It is written for a particular audience that already agree so is simply the type of material and view expected.

 

[Bill Hart]

Here's a leading question (or series of them): if the measurements are a reliable indicator, what would an ideal system consist of? Would vinyl even make the cut? And what amp/speaker combos would fit within the paradigm? Or are there so many components these days that are accurate within measured parameters that it's a pointless question? And finally, if that's the case, do they sound different? (I am not summoning Julian Hirsch, may be quietly enjoy his rest).

 

[Bill Hart]

I .

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.



Tom

Didn't Bob Carver have an amplifer that had an adjustable feature like that?
I had a pair of AudioPax 88s for a while, and the circuit permitted adjustment of two circuits in each that, if memory serves, were identical, but wired together in such a way that they could purposely create a different sound, depending on the settings. The manufacturer even advocated using different small tubes between the two complementary circuits, to enable a greater range of differences. As I remember (it's been a few years since I had them), you could zero in on a sound that just 'locked in' sonically. Perhaps it is the same thing.

 

[Bill Hart]

I will take a short stab at that. Given current electronics and speaker and room treatment technology, the system would have to produce distortions below audibility, and except for speakers and rooms, I think there is electronics gear abounding that can do that.

Likewise, I can find plenty of gear that does distort, by design, but those distortions, given certain simpler music, can "seem" to be more lifelike. (example of guitair next post up).

Tom

Yep, i know how a few of those amps sound, particularly when the rectifier tube starts to compress the signal. I have a Marshall amp that does it beautifully when overdriven by a Les Paul. I think that was part of the magic of the elusive Dumble amp, which as you may know, is considered unobtanium in the guitar world. (one of my favorite string players, David Lindley, used to use those).
PS: thanks for the response.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's like she' reading my mind.

And her lips are moving.

Tim

 

[Whatmore]

that's good then (that I got it close I mean).



I guess there could be a thousand reasons, but we can (all?) agree that the bet way is to make the test non confrontational.

<snip>

I tried to make that point regarding the non amp believer in a test, if you DO alter the sound (-3 db over two octaves centred at 1k say) then they would look foolish in steadfastly denying an audible difference simply to maintain a stance.
.

Indeed, one way would be to "prep" the particpants by showing them a clearly audible difference between two amps. Then tell them they are going to try to hear those difference "blind" but instead of switching amps you actually switch cables

Look at your thoughts on skewing it to a no difference result...what if I were with a bunch of hardcore subjectivists, they all maintain significant difference, in which direction does the group think now push? So it can work both ways, not always in the direction of no difference as you seem to feel.

A bunch of hardcore subjectivists will not skew the results. The may believe fervently that they can hear differences but if there are actually no differences then even if they believe there are, they will still do no better than random.
On the other hand, a bunch of people who believe that they can never hear differences in a DBT can skew the results - their bias may lead them to not hear a difference that is actually there.

 

[terryj]

A bunch of hardcore subjectivists will not skew the results. The may believe fervently that they can hear differences but if there are actually no differences then even if they believe there are, they will still do no better than random.
On the other hand, a bunch of people who believe that they can never hear differences in a DBT can skew the results - their bias may lead them to not hear a difference that is actually there.

Re the subjectivists not skewing the results, I was responding to your thought that 'peer group pressure' (don't remember your exact words) can influence others (not wanting to appear foolish I think it was). I was only trying to make the point that the peer group pressure can work both ways.

I can see you are really pushing the second point haha! (t'other thread) I can see your concern but in reality I feel it is quite easily guarded against. Just pondering, can you not hear something that is obvious? As but one example, we all hear differently or more importantly listen for different things in audio. You might be an 'imaging freak' whereas I could care less for that and instead opt for better ambiance (say). So I will not be listening FOR imaging as I will be concentrating elsewhere. But in the sighted, educational or orientation portion you might comment on the better imaging, and then I might think or look for that aspect. It simply did not concern me earlier as it is not my thang.

Anyways, I wonder how true it is that you cannot hear a change if it is really there. Obviously it depends an the magnitude of that change, but if under normal circumstances (ie not swayed by your beliefs) you'd hear it would you then not hear it because of your preconceived ideas? Spose you'd have to say yes, I wonder then how much the change has to be to counter your bias.

Still, there is not much point in testing those that cannot (for whatever reason, poor intrinsic hearing, bias etc etc) hear these things. Harmon I imagine would not just take anyone for their tests, they have to prove they are useful if you follow. So at the end of the day it is similar to 'no point in moving on to a dbt if no-one can hear it sighted'. Weed them out, they are of no use to the investigation.

After all, it is the people who say they can hear these differences we need to test if we are trying to see if an effect is there. No point in testing me for ESP powers if I can't even tell you what day it is, I don't claim those powers so we test Yuri Geller instead.

 

[microstrip]

And why not? Parameters do not have to be the same, nor that Tim sugested so , let's drop that lame debate artifice now... If the amplifiers do some different then something has to make them so. If it is repeatable it can eventualy be measured... FR, phase, level, TIM, IM, something ... I frankly don't get what is not obvious with this pointhysical existence equates with measurability.

Frantz,

It was Niels Bohr who said “Nothing exists until it is measured”. Later Peter Walker said if we have two amplifiers that sound different it is our duty to find a measurement that separates them. It seems we all agree on that.

But the duty of establishing the laws that correlate measurements with subjective sound quality is not firmly and definitively done. Promoters of objective side, as you seem to be now, always refer to something and a long list of possible measurements in a vague way, as if measurements were a shopping list, but do not give any concrete answers or point to reference papers on the subject.

We have an exception, that I respect but disagree - the trend represented by Ethan Winer in this forum, and also expressed by F. Toole in his book "Sound Reproduction" that any decent amplifier that satisfies a minimal requirement of four objective parameters sounds good enough and the differences between all of them are so small, that we can consider them almost non existent and focus our attention on speakers and the room interface. But most of can not agree with it and want more than a good Pioneer receiver.

To conclude, you can draw on nice philosophical theory about physical existence, and call debate artifice or straw-man every time some one is cough on fundamental flaws in his main reasoning - when you refer to F. Toole and speaker measurements, it is an whole methodology, not a kitchen recipe you are addressing - but it will not help to understand what is the real gap between objective and subjective sides.

BTW, in my view this debate can not be done without a proper historical introduction to its origin and why the subjective trend started, one of the main flaws of the Goodwin paper is that we can not write papers just using a dictionary and imagination - some more deep knowledge of the subject is needed.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If we had a research professional in the room, I'm sure she would offer a simple solution to all of our concerns about such a simple study...after she finished laughing. I'm not a research pro, but I've commissioned a lot of it, interpreted a lot of it, paid dearly for a lot of it and paid attention to where my money was going, and I'd guess that the best way would be to go with D) All of the above. You worried about the expectations of the participants? A) Screen the participants. B) Don't tell them what they're listening to/for, only ask them to tell you if X is A or B. C) Insert a control -- samples that even a 50-year-old audiophile could differentiate, to determine if anyone is just so pig-headed they refuse to hear anything.

It's really not that complicated unless you're trying really hard not to believe it's effective. And it is effective. And there is nothing about audio that disqualifies it from the methodology. And the article that started this conversation? Please. If you can't smell the stench of anger, bias and...it borders on bigotry, rising off of her prose, you got another sense that needs to be checked.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

If we have to debate just for the sake of it then we can on for a long while, . My philosophy on amps is clear to anyone who has read my posts and you have. They don't sound the same IMO, IME, to my ears or any modifier/qualifier you would like to add. If they do sound different, then that can be measured... No need to delve into philosophy, common sense. A test similar to that conducted by Harman would have been helpful. What parameters would they have to measure? I don't have the foggiest idea. And would shed a light on our preferences and of course burst many myths.
I am not advocating Ethan Philosophy on amplifiers but I do espouse his views on Room Acoustics as being the single largest determinant on sound quality. We have erred for many years not taking the room into account. The reasons why there is so much debate are not totally clear to me. We seem to look for divisions where there is not much and some of us have come to a point to use all artifices and sometimes blatant intellectual dishonesty to defend their entrenched position. The lack of logic is too often apparent, that doesn't stop the perpetrators to persist.
In the end discussion allow better understanding of the subject in debate. The requisites for such to happen are an open mind which suggests intellectual honesty. if the goal is to win arguments at all cosno one doesn't learn much and IMHO the enjoyment of (and through) the hobby is diminished. On the notion of open mind and intellectual honesty Theresa's thing (it would be too generous to call it article or essay) fails and its purpose is to stir the pot and endear herself more to her fans.