Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Nice post, Terry. I've asked what I think is the core, basic question of this issue several times, different ways, and in different threads. Here it is, as straight and simple as possible: if two components can measure the same and sound completely different, how can any manufacturer produce a consistent product?
I've never gotten an answer; there is no good answer. The premise is false.
Tim
I've never gotten an answer; there is no good answer. The premise is false.
Tim
I'm sure it depends on what you're measuring for, but why ask me? Ask a high-end manufacturer whose work you respect, how they maintain consistency in their products, when any given batch of parts (or their own products for that matter) can sound completely different, and measurements indicate nothing.
Or if you don't think there is such a thing as consistency in products, ask yourself how you respect any of them.
Oh and just to be clear, before we run down that familiar but irrelevant path, none of this is to say that manufacturers don't listen - even to individual parts - before they specify them for their products. It is to say that all of that would be pointless if they couldn't produce those products consistently without listening to every one of those parts and/or every combination of those parts that they assembled. Clearly they don't. Clearly they rely on measurements, specifications; clearly they do not really believe that two components can measure the same and sound completely different.
Tim
Last edited:
Thanks micro
I gave it a while to give people the chance to clarify this point of argument, has not happened. I was kinda expecting anything along the lines of 'Oh yeah, well, it IS marketing and sometimes due to our joy and delight in the hobby we can at times exhibit some exageration and hyperbole'. Instead, we get 'well it is marketing but it does expose an underlying and fundamental fact that things which measure exactly can sound completely different'.
I asked you what completely different meant to you, did not get an answer from you or anyone else. There is no getting around it, I expected the clarification which did not come rather the confirmation, but completely different means just that, completely different. Nothing alike, no similarity.
From the same batch even! Now if a chip from the same batch sounds completely different, what about all the other components in the unit? Man, add in the wiring, the cap tolerances, all the solder joints, the mind boggles.
I suggested before that the implications of this stance be considered. There are many but a few stand out for me as more interesting. Tim has latched on to the more obvious...what unit are you buying? After all, it cannot be the unit you auditioned in the shop or at the show before ordering can it. Unit in the sense of the same sound, it is completely different sound, nothing alike.
One of the logical flaws we need to be on guard against is 'being literal', and hence I did not feel that statement (measures exactly sounds completely different) was worthy of being taken literally. But right here and now you have told me just that, two different chips from the same batch can sound completely different even tho they measure exactly the same. I have no other choice THAN to now take that statement literally, it is exactly what you guys believe.
Well, some of the biggest nastiest catfights I have seen on forums is not between subjectivists and objectivists (and we know how catty THEY can be!) but rather between subjectivists arguing about dacs say (insert anything else). Well forget it.
You are no longer able to comment on ANY component, at least without the needed caveat. You cannot ever say "I heard the excalibur dac it it sounded bad therefore that unit is no good'. Because the guy who is claiming that the excalibur dac is magnificent has a different unit, maybe even from a different batch (and how different does different different become?) so you two will never be talking about the same sound. Ever.
You can no longer give a comment about the gear you like, it cuts both ways. Well, you can comment but it has NO validity whatsoever. Because each and every unit sounds completely different.
Look, I gotta be honest, I still cannot believe this is actually what you guys think. I mean, where does it end?
You are in effect claiming that you can 'pass' this little test. Let's set up an specially made immovable board directly in front of your listening position. It cannot move, and has special indentations in it that exactly match your speaker spikes. That allows us to place at random your left and right speaker, each EXACTLY and repeatedly placed in the identical position. You are claiming that you will be able to heard which is the left (or A) and which is the right (or B), and do it blind. After all, they WILL measure differently, I can assure you of that. If we can hear differences when things measure exactly, we can as sure as hell hear differences when they measure differently right?
I am sure YOU would be able to establish a direct line with SF (given your speakers), so I'd love to hear the response to your concerns from the SF engineers and quality control guys.
Now, let's leave one speaker in position...and alternately play the (mono) signal thru the left channel of the amp, and then the right. They will of course sound completely different now matter how close the matching or how close the measurements. You will pick that too? Repeat the same procedure for the channels of the dac, pre, IC's, speaker cables....need I go on?
How can you ever live with your system with that sort of fretting and worry going on? You'd be driven mad with that sort of distraction. The blessing of having golden ears? Sounds like a curse to me, but that is just me.
So, which one of you guys have sorted out your system in that manner? We are told that there is a concept of 'countering or matching colouring', some distortions are more or less pleasant than others. So which one of you has sorted your components (by whatever means) into individual left and rights? And then complemented these different sounding attributes into the most pleasing way? "Left speaker difference needs to be countered by plugging it into the right channel of the amp, then we need to swap left and right out of the dac, making sure that in this case the left of the dac needs to go into the right or the pre....'' yada yada
Put in five components, and by my half forgotten math skills we have 5*4*3*2*2 combinations to try...whatever the real number is it is an awful lot.
God help you when you change a component next year tho.
I could get the shock of my life when someone comes along and says ''yeah I do this to set up my system"!, but for now I am assuming none of you do it.
In that case, I wonder why it is then that *you* argue that this concept is of so much importance that it needs to be done, that we need to acknowledge that even if they measure exactly the same they sound completely different yet none of you even apply the principles you espouse. I mean have the courage of your convictions man!
Heck, I freely admit that (to me) amp differences as but one example are not worth chasing, so that is fully and completely applied in my own system. Amps are only distributed according to power output, most powerful on the bass and so on up. I practice what I 'preach' yet I am sure that no-one hear has applied the above methodology (the logical and inevitable end point of the 'even tho they measure exactly they sound completely different' mindset) to their own system.
If you don't do that, why come on here and tell us all how important this concept is? I don't get it.
Terry,
It is long post, I will not address all its aspects, just the main lines.
Some people in this thread want to dissect the sentence "they measure exactly the same but they sound completely different" using a grammar and a dictionary in order to attack the subjective appreciation. It is very easy and warrants a long, almost infinite debate. Measure exactly the same must be interpreted - anxious people will not sleep thinking what is the resolution and the parameters that were measured. For me it is simple - just the standard measurements that the reviewers use in their magazines - OK not all of them, say 90% of them. And the "sound completely different" should be considered in the same range of sound difference between two typical highend amplifiers, such as Dartzeel or a Krell. Surely any one considering that differences between all decent amplifiers are very small and insignificant will not agree, and nothing we can say can will change their mind.
I will add a few comments, knowing these are for WBF readers just feelings IMHO, as they were not certified by a scientific committee and judge, in the presence of my attorney.
But probably they will motivate some answers. Most of us have experienced the difference caused just by changing the type of film capacitors in a loudspeaker. Do you believe it shows in measurements?
Most of us will state the importance of having a good ground in our systems. I have a very good grounding connection and I have found that my system, within the resolution of a 24/192 sound analyzer measures exactly the same grounded or not grounded. But sounds different.
Some time ago, I owned a PS Audio sound generator with the multiwave option that could synthesize strange, even asymmetrical waveforms. Some of them could make a CD player sound less good. But the standard measurements would not show it. Sorry I never measured the amplifier performance with it, it had only 300W.
I can not understand your flamboyant comment about the 5*4*3*2*2 combinations. Surely it displays a deep ignorance of what is the high-end and synergy of components, and even you say no one does it. What is the purpose of this section?
And yes, I have some privileged information that I will not expose in public, as it was obtained in informal talk with manufacturers and representatives. But there is one thing I have learned with them - success in high-end is not just due to marketing and bias expectation of consumers. If you discard the few existing exceptions, most of it is due to talent, hard working and seriousness of the involved people.
Terry,
It is long post, I will not address all its aspects, just the main lines.
Some people in this thread want to dissect the sentence "they measure exactly the same but they sound completely different" using a grammar and a dictionary in order to attack the subjective appreciation. It is very easy and warrants a long, almost infinite debate. Measure exactly the same must be interpreted - anxious people will not sleep thinking what is the resolution and the parameters that were measured. For me it is simple - just the standard measurements that the reviewers use in their magazines - OK not all of them, say 90% of them. And the "sound completely different" should be considered in the same range of sound difference between two typical highend amplifiers, such as Dartzeel or a Krell. Surely any one considering that differences between all decent amplifiers are very small and insignificant will not agree, and nothing we can say can will change their mind.
I will add a few comments, knowing these are for WBF readers just feelings IMHO, as they were not certified by a scientific committee and judge, in the presence of my attorney.
Most of us have experienced the difference caused just by changing the type of film capacitors in a loudspeaker. Do you believe it shows in measurements?
Most of us will state the importance of having a good ground in our systems. I have a very good grounding connection and I have found that my system, within the resolution of a 24/192 sound analyzer measures exactly the same grounded or not grounded. But sounds different.
Some time ago, I owned a PS Audio sound generator with the multiwave option that could synthesize strange, even asymmetrical waveforms. Some of them could make a CD player sound less good. But the standard measurements would not show it. Sorry I never measured the amplifier performance with it, it had only 300W.
I can not understand your flamboyant comment about the 5*4*3*2*2 combinations. Surely it displays a deep ignorance of what is the high-end and synergy of components, and even you say no one does it. What is the purpose of this section?
And yes, I have some privileged information that I will not expose in public, as it was obtained in informal talk with manufacturers and representatives. But there is one thing I have learned with them - success in high-end is not just due to marketing and bias expectation of consumers. If you discard the few existing exceptions, most of it is due to talent, hard working and seriousness of the involved people.
Hi micro, thanks
dunno about the dictionary, but I understand your concern with our concern concerning the statement if that makes sense!
In any case, yeah there has been attention on it with many attempts to get it clarified, so I don't quite agree that you can wriggle out of it if you will. If there has indeed been undue emphasis on it surely you can see how you and others have contributed to that? I made it clear a few times, indeed in the post you just responded to that at the end of the day I still cannot believe that is truly what *you* believe, it is possible that my pushing of it has (finally) led to your slight modifications to the principle and now it more closely tracks with how I suspected the true belief to be.
TBH however I don't see that you have yet managed to extricate yourself from this unfortunate mess. Even with your clarification that these 'sounds completely different' are now down to the level of similar differences between typical highend amps (sorry, have not the foggiest of the brands you mentioned..well I have heard of a Krell..presume a Dartzeel is at least a similar topography and output stages type stuff???), anyway moving on, I have the distinct impression that those type of differences you reference are still 'immediate, distinct and clear'...would that be correct?
And just to make sure, that magnitude of difference (I don't need no stinking DBT to show that as it is as obvious as the nose on my face) claimed by all of *you* between these different amps is the order of magnitude exhibited by different dac chips, of the same batch. That was the start point, that was the illustration I gave of a personal experience where you corrected me and told me it was entirely possible and not uncommon.
So we are still stuck with the conundrum that the left channel of the Krell amp and the right will sounds as different from each other as it would to the left and right channel of a dartzeel (which are different from each other of course).
Run them thru any audio analyzer you want, and they would certainly measure (if not identically) at least within spec. You have just told us again that you will and do hear things that measurements do not pick up, that MUST also include the left and right channels of your amp no? If not why not??
To answer your question that is the reasoning behind my (probably poor) maths, each step of the chain adds another audible difference that cannot be picked up by measurements and it is a factorial function..if we have five in the series it is 5*4*3*2*1 times two channels, the number of possible permutations. Each permutation has a sound difference as you have just told us again, a difference at least of the order of difference between hi end amplifiers.
We are constantly told how significant and obvious those differences are. Just re-read the original article
So, how do you think you would go with the speaker test I suggested? Did you counter the obvious sound difference between the left and right? After all, they sound as different as a Krell or Dartzeel, and that is obvious is it not?
I am not after confidential information from SF, what ever made you think that? I am curious however to what their response might be that their quality control and speaker design was sufficiently poor that there are distinct and obvious sound differences between any two speakers off the production line, no matter what batch.
I don't think there's much ambiguity to dance around here, micro. "Two components can measure exactly the same and sound completely different." It's not subtle. It is not unclear. It is not even qualified. You asked me for a suite of measurements. I'll ask the Audiophiles making the claim above: What measurements? This statement is repeatedly made in Audiophile circles without qualification. So qualify it. What is the extent of the measurements that can be exactly the same while the components being measured sound completely different? Where do we cross the line? What measurement can record and track the differences? Because if your answer is (and it is the standard answer) that the complete differences we hear are not measurable, then component quality is not controllable unless the manufacturers are performing comparative listening tests on every component they build, and every significant part that goes into them (after all, Audiophiles hear something completely different when you reverse the direction of a fuse, change a cap or wire, etc.).
How can high-end manufacturers possibly build anything consistent if they can't count on consistency from their specifications?
Of course, instead of qualifying the claim, you could re-define "exactly" and "completely."
Tim
How can high-end manufacturers possibly build anything consistent if they can't count on consistency from their specifications?
Of course, instead of qualifying the claim, you could re-define "exactly" and "completely."
Tim
I think the issue for me Tim is that once you get past a certain point--all amps measure pretty spectacularly. But they also sound quite differently. Measurements only get you half way there. To name 3 SS amps- Krell, Levinson, and Spectral all sound distinctly different in my experience.
So which one is "neutral" or "right?"
So which one is "neutral" or "right?"
This again is not the argument . We will never reach perfection, thus there will be variations. So they are indeed each neutral but with variations.. A Ferrari, A Maserati, a BMW are fast cars with different personalities. Would anyone say they are the same? No! Same with these amps .. So they are all neutral in my view with variations and there I prefer the kind of neutrality of Spectral ... That's where tastes, preferences kick in ...
And as Albert Porter pointed out here a while back, a car amplifier can have the same specs too.
Do two of the same model Krell sound quite different? Do some sound like Levinsons, or Spectrals? If not, without sound predictable by measurable, controllable specifications, how does Krell achieve consistency? Do they listen to every one and compare it to a control? If a run of caps sounds different than the last bunch, or a fuse is reversed, do they flip fuses, change caps? Without reliable measurements and standards for the amps and their component parts, how do they even know what changes to make? Trial an error? By ear?
Tim
A kind of neutrality, Frantz? That implies, at the most, that the differences between these amps are extremely subtle.
Tim
Last edited:
The differences between the capacitors are quite clearly measureable. Once you get to the loudspeaker level they may not be due to the additional capacitance, inductance and resistance in the networks. So the answer is yes they are at the componenet level which is where you would measure them in the first place. Walter Jung and companies 80's article:
http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm
Rob
When you change the type of film capacitor, are you changing the manufacturer's specs for the speaker? I'm not talking about the specs consumers read and usually fail to understand on web sites, but the engineering specs for manufacturing the speaker. Surely he specified a particular type of capacitor?
Tim
PS: This time yesterday this thread was getting a post every 5 - 10 minutes. Now it has gotten awfully quiet. Have we run out of answers?
T
Tim
PS: This time yesterday this thread was getting a post every 5 - 10 minutes. Now it has gotten awfully quiet. Have we run out of answers?
T
Quote it now. I'm not saying you can't. Just do it for my amusement.
There should be no differenced if the entire system is identical playing the same source in the same room, with the same listenner, in the same room with the same ambient temperature and humidity. Did I leave anything out?. But of course parts differ and things like cold soldered joints can make a difference. I agree they should sound basically the same all things being equal.
If you are just speaking for your self then fine, because I was not speaking to you in particular.
Finally- Ouch, said the dead horse.
Last edited:
Quote what? Someone saying that things can measure exactly the same and sound completely different? Look around, it's as common as "yo" in Queens. Amuse yourself.
It's not dead as long as you boys keep riding it. Do you have an answer? That will put the horse to rest. As a reminder, the question is, if parts and components can measure exactly the same and sound completely different, how do manufacturers produce a consistent product?
Tim
You said:
"What amazed me was how quickly, and under less than ideal circumstances, he replicated the sound of the mega buck amp."
I wondered whether you were suggesting that he thought of it right on the spot or that he had been working on the concept for some time?
I recall John Atkinson said that the Carver challenge did not include bass. So you still think it was a valid comparisom? Was it a kilo or mega-buck amp?
Carver went on to build the Siver Seven tube amp and and his t-nod anps after it? Presumably with the same tube distortions? Do you see any inconsistency there?
per·cept (pûrspt)
n.
1. The object of perception.
2. A mental impression of something perceived by the senses, viewed as the basic component in the formation of concepts; a sense datum.
Pain
a : a state of physical, emotional, or mental lack of well-being or physical, emotional, or mental uneasiness that ranges from mild discomfort or dull distress to acute often unbearable agony, may be generalized or localized, and is the consequence of being injured or hurt physically or mentally or of some derangement of or lack of equilibrium in the physical or mental functions (as through disease), and that usually produces a reaction of wanting to avoid, escape, or destroy the causative factor and its effects <was in constant pain> b : a basic bodily sensation that is induced by a noxious stimulus, is received by naked nerve endings, is characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leads to evasive action
Big thanks! I am happy enough if someone understands me.
It is clear that we can not communicate properly - we diverge in the very basics and the signal to noise ratio of this thread is very poor.Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |