Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[microstrip]

Maybe this is where the trouble starts?

This is being put forward as some sort of proof, yet is obviously nothing more than marketing blurb. It is written in a specific way for a specific audience, so that it will be swallowed without inspection or question. Very much like the original article.

Note the subjective slant, IDENTICAL measurements give COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sound. Well, should not be hard to pick blind then.

But no, that will never happen. No backing evidence, no data at all put forward to explain, pure unadulturated marketing.

Hook, line and sinker.



Technological perfection? Is it not the subjective argument that no bit of kit is perfect?

Listening pleasure guaranteed? I thought that was the 'objective' realm, subjective is that all flavours are different and so individual. More proof that this is nothing more than marketing ("Congratulations, you have just purchased the finest bit of equipment money can buy" blah blah blah)

Wow, and this is the standard of argument??

Terryj,

This text was not presented as proof of any argument, just to show what was the current situation of the best industry versus measurements. Yes, as any similar text from any manufacturer it is written in a marketing style. For any one knowing Burmester equipment it is interesting, because their equipment is known to show state of the art results using classical measurements.

Disclaimer - I have never owned and have not listened to Burmester equipment for the last few years.

The full post (5 pages back) can be read here in its context:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7457-Objectivist-or-Subjectivist-Give-Me-a-Break&p=126594&viewfull=1#post126594

 

[terryj]

Terryj,

This text was not presented as proof of any argument, just to show what was the current situation of the best industry versus measurements. Yes, as any similar text from any manufacturer it is written in a marketing style. For any one knowing Burmester equipment it is interesting, because their equipment is known to show state of the art results using classical measurements.

Disclaimer - I have never owned and have not listened to Burmester equipment for the last few years.

The full post (5 pages back) can be read here in its context:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7457-Objectivist-or-Subjectivist-Give-Me-a-Break&p=126594&viewfull=1#post126594

Thanks, that must have been from where I quoted you (earlier link)

My point remains, and this is the crux of the argument, it is circular reasoning. "We can hear things that cannot be measured"...just to make sure we are on the same page that is the stance?

Then a link to a manufacturer site (obviously marketing) tells us 'we measure and listen because we hear things we cannot measure".

We are back at the start point.

(oh btw, please, just Terry?? I'd call you by name if I knew what it was, but no need for terryj)

HOW do they know we can hear things we cannot measure?? Cause some (well, a lot haha) audiophiles say so? Dunno. Even then, seein as how it IS marketing, we do not even know if they actually do listen and refine! For marketing porpoises, as every dolphin knows, truth and perception do not have to match! It is sufficient to say the things wanted and expected for the target audience (congratulations, you have just purchased the finest component money can buy)

Would you agree that if despite the measurements if they sounded 'completely different' it should be a cinch to tell even if you did not know which was which? If so, why any reluctance to prove their assertion but themselves and others? If you don't agree that is what the statement meant, perhaps you could give us your slant.

Look, you can't claim 'I saw bigfoot and no I don't need to show a photo, and proof of my seeing bigfoot is this other dude who saw it too and also does not have a photo'. Circular reasoning.

Now, and possibly this is important, no I did not mean to claim subjectivists 'see bigfoot', it was merely an extreme example designed to show the standard required for the claim made. I get it that subjectivists feel *we* think they see fairies in the garden, not really. Just that we CAN fool ourselves.

Can I get a general answer here, do *you* accept that we can fool ourselves, have a senses mislead? That is (I think) the basic premise for the obj position. Not that people are fools (tho I have been called that haha)

Let's take burmeisters position to it's logical conclusion...how do YOU know that when you buy their product it is up to scratch? After all, there are minute (but measureable) differences between chips, caps etc etc. Supposedly that makes a sonic difference..how do you know what you get is the same as the review sample? It cannot be can it.

I met an extreme example of this recently, an 'uber dac' with a cult following...the designer had up on his mantlepiece his favorite dac chip that had died...static or something. Anyway, he could tell that was the best one he had ever come across, and it was displayed like a funeral urn! He spoke wistfully and sadly about how good it was and how he wished he could come across the like again.

The most bizarre thing I have ever witnessed.

So (it seems) there are extreme differences in sonic results between dac chips (same model, same batch), what then of tolerances between caps and resistors (forget brands even). How can ANY product sound even close to the next (same model, same batch) as even tho they measure identically they all sound completely different!

And all we ask is for someone to tell them apart blind. We'll even let them use different manufacturers!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Two sentences that I find to be profound in their logic.

And nothing is more profound than John Wooden's quote, "it's what you learn after you know it all that matters the most." Applicable to sports and life in general.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks, that must have been from where I quoted you (earlier link)

My point remains, and this is the crux of the argument, it is circular reasoning. "We can hear things that cannot be measured"...just to make sure we are on the same page that is the stance?

Then a link to a manufacturer site (obviously marketing) tells us 'we measure and listen because we hear things we cannot measure".

We are back at the start point.

(oh btw, please, just Terry?? I'd call you by name if I knew what it was, but no need for terryj)

HOW do they know we can hear things we cannot measure?? Cause some (well, a lot haha) audiophiles say so? Dunno. Even then, seein as how it IS marketing, we do not even know if they actually do listen and refine! For marketing porpoises, as every dolphin knows, truth and perception do not have to match! It is sufficient to say the things wanted and expected for the target audience (congratulations, you have just purchased the finest component money can buy)

Would you agree that if despite the measurements if they sounded 'completely different' it should be a cinch to tell even if you did not know which was which? If so, why any reluctance to prove their assertion but themselves and others? If you don't agree that is what the statement meant, perhaps you could give us your slant.

Look, you can't claim 'I saw bigfoot and no I don't need to show a photo, and proof of my seeing bigfoot is this other dude who saw it too and also does not have a photo'. Circular reasoning.

Now, and possibly this is important, no I did not mean to claim subjectivists 'see bigfoot', it was merely an extreme example designed to show the standard required for the claim made. I get it that subjectivists feel *we* think they see fairies in the garden, not really. Just that we CAN fool ourselves.

Can I get a general answer here, do *you* accept that we can fool ourselves, have a senses mislead? That is (I think) the basic premise for the obj position. Not that people are fools (tho I have been called that haha)

Let's take burmeisters position to it's logical conclusion...how do YOU know that when you buy their product it is up to scratch? After all, there are minute (but measureable) differences between chips, caps etc etc. Supposedly that makes a sonic difference..how do you know what you get is the same as the review sample? It cannot be can it.

I met an extreme example of this recently, an 'uber dac' with a cult following...the designer had up on his mantlepiece his favorite dac chip that had died...static or something. Anyway, he could tell that was the best one he had ever come across, and it was displayed like a funeral urn! He spoke wistfully and sadly about how good it was and how he wished he could come across the like again.

The most bizarre thing I have ever witnessed.

So (it seems) there are extreme differences in sonic results between dac chips (same model, same batch), what then of tolerances between caps and resistors (forget brands even). How can ANY product sound even close to the next (same model, same batch) as even tho they measure identically they all sound completely different!

And all we ask is for someone to tell them apart blind. We'll even let them use different manufacturers!

Terry,

You can find it bizarre, but it happens. Brands have a characteristic sound that we can not explain (and by explained I mean correlated systematically ) using the classical measurements adopted by the industry and reviewers. But the manufacturers develop control systems using their own measurements, in order to keep this line of sound. As they have a deep knowledge of their products they focus on a few aspects that characterize their intentions and listen to randomly selected items.

I have been playing lately with half a dozen amplifiers with good measurements and I maintain that they sound very different in my system. It is only my opinion, and you can doubt on it. I have the same opinion on cables.

Everyone can be fooled. But statistics tells us that if many non connected people are fooled independently in the same sense and come to similar conclusions there is something true on what they are saying. Just for fun (I have to write it, otherwise the audio scientists in this board will not forgive) sometimes I ask opinions of two of my friends that can not separate a battery charging cable from a Valhalla. The only precaution I take in this tests is accurately keeping the levels. Most of the time their general findings agree.

If you believe in that all amplifiers sound similar and the differences between them are too small to be of any real importance you will find thousands of arguments to support you dissecting manufacturers literature - they are most of the time written for non technical people and directed towards marketing. If you want the real truth you have to read a few books of John Le Carre, learn something with the famous 007 and became an audio spy.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How can ANY product sound even close to the next (same model, same batch) as even tho they measure identically they all sound completely different!

This is where the subjectivist argument loses me. If they said, as Amir has regading digital artifacts, that they've trained themselves over the years to hear very small differences between similar devices, that they have learned to identify the distortions that define those differences, and when listening specifically for them, they hear them, I'd have a much greater tendency to believe they are actually hearing something. And if they went on to say that they believe that these variations, no matter how tiny and unrecognizable to the untrained on their own, have a audibly negative impact on the fidelity of the signal, well, I might jokingly suggest that un-training, or an intervention might be more productive than spending another several grand, but at least we'd be having a reality-based conversation.

But they're not saying that. They're saying that

components that measure exactly the same sound completely different

. Here they're going so far as to say that two components of the same model and manufacture, from the same batch, all sound completely different.

So they leave us with a choice between believing that A) Audio measurement, here in 2012 is so poor, and our manufacturing, even in the high-end, is so inconsistent that we can't get it right twice. Or B) Expectation bias is real and Audiphiles are perfect victims.

One of the possible answers is just a whole lot more believeable than the other.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Rob, thanks for the link to the Carver challenge! What amazed me was how quickly, and under less than ideal circumstances, he replicated the sound of the mega buck amp.

There is proof, as you said above, that measurements undeniably are known and can be implemented to modify the signal through an electronic component, and that any differences below about 70db, are not audible to guys that spend their lives listening and commenting on "sound".

Now, proof is not proof except if the observer is open to it. And openess is not exactly a commodity in human beings.

We know that later Stereophile had to try to backtrack etc on their original conclusions because well, it challenged their belief systems and the whole high end industry. Carver had to file lawsuits to bring a close to their statements which distorted facts, etc.

The null test, is a measurment that can show the differences between amplifiers or even between an amplifer and its original input signal, and it seems 70db of null is enough to make differences inaudible on music. That is proof that we have control over the replication of an audio signal, it is never proof that the recorded signal as it exits the speaker, even if identical, will "sound" right to an individuals ears.

A subjectivist can only claim that the sound he hears does not sound like what he thinks the "real" sound is, and guess what, two channel stereo can never, ever, replicate a live unamplified event, simply impossible.

Carver proved that using a null technique, he can make the recorded signal come out of two different pieces of electronics be audibally identical, one being $700 and the other a darling of the high end. Does price matter to the electronic signal...the answer is NO!

Tom

You meann he just thought it up at Stereophile? He never thought of it before? The Carver challenge did not include bass. If the sound was so distiorted why did Carver build the Siiver Seven and copy his amps after it?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The musicality Dieter Burmester is demanding (!!!) from his components is that they process the unaltered signal from the source to the speakers. This results in the unequalled reproduction, which is characteristic for all Burmester appliances.

This, by definition, means any two Burmester appliances sound the same -- neutral.
It cotradicts this:

Measurements are able to make a statement about the technical and mechanic quality of the piece of equipment. They cannot, however, predict the actual sound. Proof is given by the fact that it is possible to build two devices, which have exactly the same technical data but a completely different sound.

Of course it is possible to build two devices with exactly the same "technical data" that sound completely different. You just leave out the data that differentiates them. What is not possible without the ability to predict sound through measurement, is a reasonably, professionally consistent product. Somebody needs to ask Dieter Burmester if two examples of the same model of his product sound "completely different." When he says "of course not," ask him how he does that without technical data that predicts consistent sound? Does he build every amplifier by hand, tuning each one by ear to match a "control" amp?

Burmesters are not that expensive....

This is a high-end, very objectivist manufacturer, based on the first quote, telling the subjectivist audience what it wants to hear in the second.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Burmesters are not that expensive....

This is a high-end, very objectivist manufacturer, based on the first quote, telling the subjectivist audience what it wants to hear in the second.

My sentiments exactly .... and this from Likely THE Orginal Burmester Fan here at WBF and a fan since 1991 ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

and this from Likely THE Orginal Burmester Fan here at WBF and a fan since 1991 ...

Well, what's not to like about neutral, powerful and built like a tank. Facing passive speakers of undefined, and likely inconsistent load, it is really the only logical path.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I disagree with your statement big time.

Fundamentally, audio measurements job is to measure the change in the signal presented by the microphone wiggle, at each stage until the air wiggle from the speaker.

!!!!!The method used to capture that signal and play it back , ie microphones and speakers, are not a measurement, thats just the system we currently use to replicate sound.

When say, an easy example, one measures the THD of all the frequenceis captured by a microphone of a flute note, whether it sounds to you like a flute note is not what the measurements are looking for, they are looking for any change to the signals along the audio path including output of the speaker, the measurments dont know its a flute.....you do.

This has to be clear to understand measurements and divorce them from our associations of a sound made by something.

It is truly fundamental IMO. I dont know if you are quoting Toole exactly or not but that is not how I see things vs measurements.

And I am an audiophile of one on that one

The term flute is an arbitrary name we attach to it. The machines "knows" the flute not by the name we assign to it but its "fundamentals."

The same applys to our ear brain. " What's in a name? Would not a t a rose by any other name not smell as sweet ? If you lI can print the same chart I have on numerous occaisions?

 

[Gregadd]

Yes, so called soundstage depth can be measured,

take a brass sound and make it "thicker" sounding and thus more prominent (add some even harmonics), do some filtering, add some ambience, (add hall type acoustics in the 200 to 500hz area) and reverb, use the pan pots to shift the brass to the left of the singers voice and now due to all the above the brass is shifted behind the singers voice.


Its done electrically, and I suppose if one was anal about it all, you could measure the amount of extra harmonics, extra reverb, extra HF extension, amount of pan, etc.

Its done to the recorded signal, playing with the fundamentals of sound ( you know, frequency response, amplitude, phase, timing blah blah). Bruce does it all the time.

Tom

I am saving this.

 

[FrantzM]

The term flute is an arbitrary name we attach to it. The machines "knows" the flute not by the name we assign to it but its "fundamentals."

The same applys to our ear brain. " What's in a name? Would not a t a rose by any other name not smell as sweet ? If you lI can print the same chart I have on numerous occaisions?

Gregadd

You lost me here ...


On the same applies to our brains ... Our brains and sense organ can be taught to perceive things that are not there .. Pavlovian reflexes are a good example ... As are the sad cases of phantom limbs ..

 

[Gregadd]

Gregadd

You lost me here ...


On the same applies to our brains ... Our brains and sense organ can be taught to perceive things that are not there .. Pavlovian reflexes are a good example ... As are the sad cases of phantom limbs ..

I frequently do. The machine recognizes the frequenices and fundamentals that constitute the sounds of a flute. We can tell a computer those characteristcis represent a flute and it will recognize it as a flute or antyhing else you want to call it.

Yes I know the brain can imagine things that are not there . I lived in the sixties. Except for the insane thier non-existence can be easily verified. Just try to use the "phantom limb."

 

[Gregadd]

Tom Are you saying then that soundstage depth is soley a function of the recoridng? Would it be the same with headphones?

 

[microstrip]

(...) This is a high-end, very objectivist manufacturer, based on the first quote, telling the subjectivist audience what it wants to hear in the second.

Tim

Tim,

It is true, but you fail to understand the important why's behind these quotes - the iceberg has more than a tip. Manufacturers and designers have to keep strict control on some variables in order to get a final result, such as selecting some components using objective data that is non standard for audio manufacturing. But the test for the final product during development and some consistency control lies on subjective evaluation.

It is not new - for example many high-end manufacturers reported problems when they have to switch to industry equivalent components, that theoretically would result in the same measurements. Any one wanting to know more about the subject can read Jean Hiraga articles from the 70's, showing the strong influence of the japanese school of amplifier design. Or Nelson Pass writings in his excellent site. Cable manufacturers also have specialized measuring jigs to check for the consistency of manufacture of their cables. Or do you believe they listen to all of them?

One can read this thread in two ways . The first is looking for information and trying to understand where the objectivist and subjectivist merge, and its consequences. The second is just finding reasons to confirm his belief that high-end is a band of fooled people, looking for small differences to please their preferences. I have no doubts on which side you are, and nothing I will say will change your perspective, but I hope some members will enjoy. I think we agree in one point - the shadow of the Teresa's writings do not make it easy.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

If there is one thing I take from this thread is how good a market we audiophiles are. Once we convinced ourselves we are so willing to accept close to anything a manufacturer tells us.. Actually we fill their blanks for them and the works go through the Grapevine gathering strength .. From there what were mere opinions become the orthodoxy ...I am for exemple most taken by Microstrip last post ...

Cable manufacturers also have specialized measuring jigs to check for the consistency of manufacture of their cables.

...
Not much else to say

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

It is true, but you fail to understand the important why's behind these quotes - the iceberg has more than a tip. Manufacturers and designers have to keep strict control on some variables in order to get a final result, such as selecting some components using objective data that is non standard for audio manufacturing. But the test for the final product during development and some consistency control lies on subjective evaluation.

It is not new - for example many high-end manufacturers reported problems when they have to switch to industry equivalent components, that theoretically would result in the same measurements. Any one wanting to know more about the subject can read Jean Hiraga articles from the 70's, showing the strong influence of the japanese school of amplifier design. Or Nelson Pass writings in his excellent site. Cable manufacturers also have specialized measuring jigs to check for the consistency of manufacture of their cables. Or do you believe they listen to all of them?

One can read this thread in two ways . The first is looking for information and trying to understand where the objectivist and subjectivist merge, and its consequences. The second is just finding reasons to confirm his belief that high-end is a band of fooled people, looking for small differences to please their preferences. I have no doubts on which side you are, and nothing I will say will change your perspective, but I hope some members will enjoy. I think we agree in one point - the shadow of the Teresa's writings do not make it easy.

I don't believe they listen to all of them, and that is precisely my point. If components with the same measurements can sound completely different, as this thread and so many say, then audio manufacturers can't possibly produce a consistent product without listening to each example and comparing it to a control. If, as has been stated in this thread, even two different components from the same run can sound completely different, that inconsistency is totally out of control.

I don't personally beleive that, as it is completely impractical, but that kind of thing is stated as fact on Audiophile forums daily.

One can read this thread in two ways . The first is looking for information and trying to understand where the objectivist and subjectivist merge, and its consequences. The second is just finding reasons to confirm his belief that high-end is a band of fooled people, looking for small differences to please their preferences.

I don't believe all high-end hobbyists are victims of their own expectations, micro, but a signigicant number of them make it almost impossible to deny. Two components with the same measuremtns sound completely different? Two of the same component from the same manufacturing run sound completely different?

What are they measuring, man, the weight?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Not much else to say

Frantz
Please say. Are you saying it is not true? Insinuation with three dots is not enough.

 

[Gregadd]

Lables are an ufortunate too used in mordern discourse. Thier prupose is to define one group in a negative way and to defenie your own group in a positive way. In so doing we come up with all sorts of sub-labesl that cannot be sustained by argument. We don't have to. The label carries it's negative or positive conotations. No where is this more obvious than an our own American Political systemt. Calling someone Liberal or Conservative carries inherent chrracteristics negative or positive depnding upon your point of view. They become moreand more complex. Term like ultra,neo and yes haardcoere are added. Splintergroups like NAder and teaprty and Libretarians emerge.Not only may the person being charactized not be a liberal or conservative but even if they are they may or may not subscribe to the general set of belefs or proscribed to each group.
Calling someone a subjerctivist os objectivist is no different and equllay indefensible. Our good friend Tom in has expanded the genral term amd referred to"hardcore subjectivist" and "hardcore objectivist." i
This leads to equlally indefensible labels suchas:
Subjectivist are anti-scinece
They love distrotion
Thy hear things that don't exist
They make purchases based on cost.
if you have been around you can add you own
Objectivist are claimed to be ownly intereted in measurements
They ignore things they hear because they can't measure them.
They are satisified with horrible sounding systems as long as they measure well.

Any reasonable attempt at disicussion is met with instant polarization and inevitably descends in to vile personal attcks. ( I know becauseI was just sent a vile PM where the author tried to convince me it was some sort of backhaned complement)

Teresa Goodwin engaged in the naive assumption that she could lay this issue to rest. At least from her point of interest. Instead ait was like striking a hornets' nest. If this thread is any indicator she has probably been the recipient of less than "friendly" or complementary emails.
On this thread alone she has bee refereed toa s [please delete "professional what" ], "lunatic fringe" etc.
Here is her system taken from the :
TERESA GOODWIN'S SYSTEM
LOUDSPEAKERS
Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa, 12 inch woofer, 3 inch midrange, EMIT tweeter. Sennheiser HD 580 and HD 265 Linear headphones.

ELECTRONICS
AMC CVT 1030 Stereo Vacuum Tube preamplifier and an Adcom GFA-555II High Current amplifier.

SOURCES
Yamaha Natural Sound DVD-S1800 DVD Audio/Video SA-CD player, Yamaha Natural Sound DVD-S1700 DVD Audio/Video SA-CD player, and a Sanyo Flat Screen Color TV.

CABLES
Monster Cable Interlink 400MK II and M350i interconnects and Monster Cable Powerline 2 Plus speaker cables.

ACCESSORIES
AudioPrism CD Stoplight by Clear Image Audio™ Compact Disc Edge Treatment.

My listening room is 14' wide x 12' long with a ceiling height of 8'. My speakers are 8½' apart measured by their innermost point toed in slightly to get a more realistic image of an orchestral shell. Even with my speakers placed this far apart the phantom center image is solid and there is no hole in the middle. With the best source material the image is huge expanding beyond the outer boundaries of the speakers with excellent depth and height and ambiance in front of the performers filling up the rest of the room. Visitors have commented that my 2-channel stereo has the spaciousness that surround sound aims for but seldom achieves.

It looks pretty mainstream to me. it contains digital source solid state elctronics and is reasonably priced. The Accessories category might raise a few eybrows.
I plan to go back and read some more of her articles. I would wager the regrets her statments about measurements. I would guess that she has a working knowledge of them.

If Jeff Wants to talk about something how about his TWBAS selection process. There is a hot button issue.

 

[microstrip]

I don't believe they listen to all of them, and that is precisely my point. If components with the same measurements can sound completely different, as this thread and so many say, then audio manufacturers can't possibly produce a consistent product. If, as has been stated in this thread, even two different components from the same run can sound completely different, that inconsistency is totally out of control.

I don't personally beleive that, but that kind of thing is stated as fact on Audiophile forums daily.



I don't believe all high-end hobbyists are victims of their own expectations, micro, but a signigicant number of them make it almost impossible to deny. Two components with the same measuremtns sound completely different? Two of the same component from the same manufacturing run sound completely different?

What are they measuring, man, the weight?

Tim

Tim,

You never answered my questions about what you consider the true measurements suite, or even what are measurements. How should I know?

Justifying your main options with those who are victims of expectation is an easy option. Can you focus on the reminding ones? Or remembering the Genesis episode of Sodom and Gomorrah, you think you can not find even ten high-end people that are not sinners of their expectation?