Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[microstrip]

Micro, did we come to an understanding?

Tom,

Surely, we friendly disagree ... There is much more in sound reproduction than smooth, velvet and etched.

Just two questions : I noticed you restrain your opinions to amps "using the same topology and feedback methods" - any special reason for it?
Do you apply your -70 dB null criteria to other devices, such as DACs and cables?

One curiosu observation - I was playing with the Devialet recently. It goes through the -90dB null test and sounded very different from any other amplifier I have used.

 

[terryj]

Yes, there was a reason I wanted to know what gear you are listening through. When people have strong opinions about audio gear, it helps to know their frame of reference.

I suspected it was like that, and it is true in the main.

As to your second sentence above, I didn't see your reply so I missed the "tongue in cheek" remark.

Was just gagging around with you, speculating wildly about what the reason might have been.

I completely don't understand your third sentence above.

Now that I re-read it too, I have not the foggiest either!

Anyways, no I don't mind in the slightest in you having details of the system, and yes like most systems it does I suppose reflect the thoughts and personality of the builder. That proves your first point! I'm basically in the extreme end of 'the speaker and speaker room interaction is IT, everything else is secondary by a long way'. The system does indeed reflect that.

I do NOT think any other approach is wrong or flawed particularly, as long as the owner derives great enjoyment from the system. On most audio forums my viewpoint is rejected (all things matter greatly, there seems to be an idea that all components are of equal significance or importance), so any constant 'insistence' or whatever is merely an attempt to point out that my approach has equal validity to any other (usual audiophile) approach. Most who hear it (at least they seem to say so, they could of course just be trying to save my feelings) are very surprised that it sounds as good as it does, esp when it has NONE of the supposedly needed audiophile considerations. (the speaker cable is low voltage lighting from the hardware store, the ics are the typical blister pack stuff-indeed the cable hooking up the dvd player to the system is only one of those blister pack ICs split in two, it does have seventies amp in it, it does have one of those godawful class d amps in it, it does use pro drivers rather than superior audiophile drivers, truly I could go on!)

Here is a chatty link...I don't particularly want to link you to one of my build threads...there is a bloke in there who just won't shut up and waffles on and on and bloody on. He seems to appear in any thread I start haha. It at least has lot's of good pics and is entertaining as a read...I think anyway. Paul is a member here so he may not be a stranger to some of you.

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/bathurst-2011-audio-event-of-year.html

 

[jkeny]

People seem to be aware of the often complex interaction between amplifier & speaker, so is a "null" test, without speakers sufficient? The problem with introducing the speakers is that now a microphone & A/D stage is involved in capturing the signal (as well as proper isolation of background noise, etc). We are left with the proviso that the microphone & A/D stage is accurate & sensitive enough for such -80, -90dB nulling. To approach a more accurate characteristic difference between two amplifiers should the null test not also be run at 3 different volume levels, low, medium, high?

 

[treitz3]

Good morning, John. I would tend to think so. The reason being is that IME the characteristics of many amplifiers change with different volume levels.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

Good morning, John. I would tend to think so. The reason being is that IME the characteristics of many amplifiers change with different volume levels.

Tom

Indeed, that was my thinking too! I have never seen this 3 volume level quoted for a null test, have you? Or a control produced showing that the mic & A/D stage are accurate enough to identify a known difference (at a suitable level) between two calibrated signals?

 

[treitz3]

I have never seen this 3 volume level quoted for a null test, have you?

John, I'm not really a stat's or numbers guy as I trust my ears. That said, without much experience looking at null test results of various gear? Perhaps I'm not the one to ask this question too. I do not personally recall ever seeing a null test done in that fashion though.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

Tom,
I'm of the opinion that measurements are beneficial for a better understanding of this little hobby of ours but I consider measurements anecdotal unless they have some rigour behind them. I honestly get more value from from my own ears & from listening to the opinions of people I trust, than I do from the majority of measurements presented for audio.

To have some chance of characterising an amplifier I have seen the following list of measurements being cited as necessary:
"S/n ratio, frequency response, IMD/multi-tone distortion (for all levels, all loads, full bandwidth), channel separation, distortion of crosstalk signal, load tolerance, output impedance, stability margin, supply rejection, EMI susceptibility, ..."

What view do the objectivists (I'm a semi as stated with heavy leanings towards subj until such time as measurements have significance & rigour) have with this set of measurements or do you have to settle for less than complete measurements?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What view do the objectivists (I'm a semi as stated with heavy leanings towards subj until such time as measurements have significance & rigour) have with this set of measurements or do you have to settle for less than complete measurements?

Resident raging, mouth-breathing objectivist here. God, I can't answer that question, John. It's just too damn complicated and finding a list of measurements that deep on any given component is nearly impossible unless you hire a lab to do it for you. Besides, in the end, I'm just like everybody else here; I listen to what sounds good to me. If it didn't I'd listen to something else; I wouldn't be interested in reproduction at all, I'd just listen to music. But when I see people lining up to shout down any measurement and find fault with any methodology that doesn't support their personal preferences, opposing the available science with...well nothing, actually...when I see them declaring the superiority of choices that the easiest, most common measurements can easily find great fault with, when I see them....well, you know what sets me off by now.

Maybe I'm not an objectivist at all. What I like usually seems to come from the digital/SS/active camp where the measurements we have look really good for the most part, but I chose it because I like the way it sounds. Just like the rest of us. Maybe I'm a subjectivist after all. A subjectivist and a skeptic.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) Devialet interaction with the speaker can be part of it.

Cheers

How? Devialet has an output impedance of less than 10 miliohm. Just for fun, I tried it with a .1 ohm large power resistor in series and it did not change the basic characteristic of its sound.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Indeed, that was my thinking too! I have never seen this 3 volume level quoted for a null test, have you? Or a control produced showing that the mic & A/D stage are accurate enough to identify a known difference (at a suitable level) between two calibrated signals?

That's called an "internal control" and seems to be an enigma to audio obs. SOP to biochemists and other scientific disciplines.

 

[JackD201]

Resident raging, mouth-breathing objectivist here. God, I can't answer that question, John. It's just too damn complicated and finding a list of measurements that deep on any given component is nearly impossible unless you hire a lab to do it for you. Besides, in the end, I'm just like everybody else here; I listen to what sounds good to me. If it didn't I'd listen to something else; I wouldn't be interested in reproduction at all, I'd just listen to music. But when I see people lining up to shout down any measurement and find fault with any methodology that doesn't support their personal preferences, opposing the available science with...well nothing, actually...when I see them declaring the superiority of choices that the easiest, most common measurements can easily find great fault with, when I see them....well, you know what sets me off by now.

Maybe I'm not an objectivist at all. What I like usually seems to come from the digital/SS/active camp where the measurements we have look really good for the most part, but I chose it because I like the way it sounds. Just like the rest of us. Maybe I'm a subjectivist after all. A subjectivist and a skeptic.

Tim

That looks about right to me from where I see you from. I'm the same I think but I get set off by other things. Mainly that would be people who want other people to believe that all there needs to be known is known. Why? They've stopped asking questions and instead demand proof from others as if proof were needed for an observation. Worse still are those that use the lack thereof as proof in itself for the infallibility of their self constructed paradigms. To many women died at the stake with that kind of thinking. No thanks. If these people want to get stuck in their own personal dark ages, I don't really care. Just stop bugging the people that still want to learn more deeply.

 

[rbbert]

... Maybe I'm a subjectivist after all. A subjectivist and a skeptic.

Tim

I think this is true , and it's not a bad thing to be (since that's what I usually consider myself)

You don't have the scientific or technical background to be a true "objectivist" IMHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That looks about right to me from where I see you from. I'm the same I think but I get set off by other things. Mainly that would be people who want other people to believe that all there needs to be known is known. Why? They've stopped asking questions and instead demand proof from others as if proof were needed for an observation. Worse still are those that use the lack thereof as proof in itself for the infallibility of their self constructed paradigms. To many women died at the stake with that kind of thinking. No thanks. If these people want to get stuck in their own personal dark ages, I don't really care. Just stop bugging the people that still want to learn more deeply.

I think we see the people very differently, Jack. I can think of maybe one objectivist on this board who thinks we know everything that matters about current audio technology (which, by the way, is different from knowing everything that will ever be known), and I seriously doubt there is anyone here who doesn't ultimately listen to what sounds good to them. But it's pretty easy to understand believing you made the right choice when it not only sounds great to you, but measures really well, too. On the other hand, I can easily think of a half dozen who are proactively presenting their personal preferences as the superior choice, in spite of the fact that they don't measure competitively, and won't even accept what others hear. If you hear something different it is your inexperience, your lack of knowledge, your ears, the lack of resolution in your system, the stress you were under when listening...

I'm not sure what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's not subjectivism.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I think this is true , and it's not a bad thing to be (since that's what I usually consider myself)

You don't have the scientific or technical background to be a true "objectivist" IMHO.

If you accept dogmas, you do not need it. Otherwise, considering the current state of the art about electronics in high-end audio, you have to have a deep knowledge of electronics and sound reproduction, or you will be mislead most of the time by oversimplification, as you will not understand the limitations of what you are reading.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Tim. Stress while listening? That's a new one on me. Why would anybody be stressed while listening? BTW, I dig measurements. I just don't rely on them for good sound and for the be all to end all. For that, I trust my ears. For me, it's real easy. Just compare the reproduction to that of what real sound would.....well.....sound like. Whatever that entails. I'm still curious as to why anybody would be stressed while listening though. Would you be so kind as to clarify or expound on this, Tim?

Tom

 

[Bill Hart]

Hello, Tim. Stress while listening? That's a new one on me. Why would anybody be stressed while listening? BTW, I dig measurements. I just don't rely on them for good sound and for the be all to end all. For that, I trust my ears. For me, it's real easy. Just compare the reproduction to that of what real sound would.....well.....sound like. Whatever that entails. I'm still curious as to why anybody would be stressed while listening though. Would you be so kind as to clarify or expound on this, Tim?

Tom

I get this, but I'll let Tim answer for himself before I comment.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello, Tim. Stress while listening? That's a new one on me. Why would anybody be stressed while listening? BTW, I dig measurements. I just don't rely on them for good sound and for the be all to end all. For that, I trust my ears. For me, it's real easy. Just compare the reproduction to that of what real sound would.....well.....sound like. Whatever that entails. I'm still curious as to why anybody would be stressed while listening though. Would you be so kind as to clarify or expound on this, Tim?

Tom

Stress while listening is a common objection to blind listening. Formal AB/X. Informal A/B. It is probably the most common reason given for why differences that are night and day when we're staring lovingly at the glowing tubes and/or leds of our latests wallet-flattening acquisition become exceedingly small, if audible at all, when knowledge of what's playing when is taken away. Evidently Audiophiles suffer from crippling performance anxiety.

Trust your ears? When it comes to deciding what we like, I think we all do. When it comes to discerning subtle differences in sound between quality components of similar specs, your audiologist wouldn't trust you after a few minutes and neither would I. It's not personal, I wouldn't trust myself either.

Tim

 

[opus111]

Trust your ears? When it comes to deciding what we like, I think we all do. When it comes to discerning subtle differences in sound between quality components of similar specs, your audiologist wouldn't trust you after a few minutes and neither would I. It's not personal, I wouldn't trust myself either.

I believe you've thereby put your finger on one of the unconscious biases introduced into the design of such tests. The testers are almost
always objectivists and confirmation bias means they're predisposed towards a null result. Hence tests are designed to listen for differences,
rather than describing the two components in isolation. Change blindness is well known to researchers in visual perception, it seems a little
odd to me that its not taken into account in audio perceptual testing.

So yes, I believe performance anxiety is significant and its not uncommon to hear ridicule when those tested raise it as an issue.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I believe you've thereby put your finger on one of the unconscious biases introduced into the design of such tests. The testers are almost
always objectivists and confirmation bias means they're predisposed towards a null result. Hence tests are designed to listen for differences,
rather than describing the two components in isolation.

These would be two completely different tests. One would test the audibility of differences in two components, the other, well I suppose you could fashion some sort of test for this, but what you've described is just critical listening. It "tests" nothing that I can see. What am I missing?

Change blindness is well known to researchers in visual perception, it seems a little
odd to me that its not taken into account in audio perceptual testing.

It often is. One control would be the double-blind method itself, the person conducting the test doesn't even know what is playing and can't influence the participants. Another control is the nature of AB/X testing -- you listen to a, then to b, then to x and are asked if x is a or b. You're not asked if there is a difference between these two amps, dacs, recordings, mp3s, you're merely asked to identify X. Is it possible that someone among the participants could be so prejudiced against hearing any difference in anything that their expectation biases would overcome that? Sure. That's why you screen your participants carefully rather than recruiting them all from hydrogenaudio. And if you are still worried about change blindness, insert a control -- two samples so clearly differentiated that anyone unable to identify them is either half deaf (hopefully you've already screened for this as well) or completely biased. You ignore that participants results or simply remove them from the study and replace them.

It's really not that hard.

So yes, I believe performance anxiety is significant and its not uncommon to hear ridicule when those tested raise it as an issue.

I make fun because so often those who claim they can't hear differences because of performance anxiety were, just moments before when their eyes were open, claiming that the differences were obvious to anyone with ears. I find that pretty funny. YMMV.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

I see now where you are possibly coming from now, Tim.

When it comes to discerning subtle differences in sound between quality components of similar specs, your audiologist wouldn't trust you after a few minutes and neither would I. It's not personal, I wouldn't trust myself either.

Hehe, you haven't seen me in action yet then. Perhaps after watching me, one would gain some trust At many of the audio events I have hosted and attended, I have been able to discern quite a few barely discernible differences within many a rig. Rigs I am familiar with and ones I am not familiar with at all. Often times when I describe what differences I hear, the 40 folks or so in the room shake their head in utter disbelief or discount what I have to say as "I'm hearing things". After further explanations and playback, followed by more detail of what I hear, does it dawn on the listeners that what I have observed is in fact true. They just needed to be acutely aware of what it was that I actually noticed. Now with that said, there are some folks that just can't hear. Not that they don't want to, it's just that they are incapable of doing so. Age, profession, how loud they listen, ambient noise, seating position as well as a plethora of other things can affect this.

I was at an audio event about 4 or 5 years ago to where about 20 or so folks were critically listening to some jazz on an incredible set of tube amplifiers. I just so happened to walk through the room and I stopped to tell the folks that were listening that their was an issue with the right speaker, in the ribbon area. Many there laughed and told me I was crazy....until 5 minutes later, the speaker smoked a capacitor. Where did it smoke? In the ribbon section of the right speaker. They ended up repairing the speaker with a capacitor that had a value that was slightly changed from the original and asked me to give it a listen. I did, this time in the sweet spot. I had mentioned that "something" was missing in the upper frequencies of the same speaker. Their was a null or omission of a frequency that was very apparent to me but not to anyone else there. The mathematics proved that I was correct, though others there could not tell any difference.

At another completely separate audio event, I was A/B'ing my [new to me at the time] Rega Apollo against a friend of mine's extremely hot-rodded JolidaCDP. I preferred the hot-rodded Jolida but out of the 27 folks in the room, most could not tell the myriad of differences until I started getting into some serious detail about the differences I observed. Even then, some of the "ears" that were there still could not tell any change and their were some well respected ears there that day. I have helped out some audio companies that did not release the product(s) they had for me to offer my evaluations on just based upon what feedback I gave them so when I say I trust my ears? Well, I trust my ears.

I have been labeled a "GE" before by some. They could be incorrect, they could be correct. Personally, I do not agree. Personally, I just think I pay attention more so than others and they are just blowing smoke somewhere where the sun doesn't shine. Who am I to say? To be honest, if I am? It's not a blessing, trust me it's a curse. I wish I didn't have some listening abilities, life would be much simpler and my wallet would be much happier. The point of this whole diatribe is that I trust my ears and when it comes to stress while listening? I have none and personally I can't understand why others would have stress while listening. Whether it be blind, double blind, relaxed, informal, in front of a panel or in front of 40 people. Things are what they are and observations, if one knows how to listen, do not lie. YMMV but for me, in my experience and throughout my audio journey, thankfully they have not. Perhaps that's why I feel no stress while listening. Besides.....it takes the fun out of it and if you aren't having any fun? What's the point?

Tom