Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

-snip- 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.

-snip-

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.

-snip-
Tim

But, Tim, this is the logic I can't fathom!
You talk about "opposing the available science with...well nothing," but you mistake incomplete measurements as science! It's certainly not the scientific methodology that I have learned. Incomplete measurements that claim anything would be laughed at in any "real science". So maybe it gives you an idea for why some people are very dubious & incredulous of the measurements that are often presented in audio - their relevance is questionable. Do you then wonder why people rely on what they hear instead?

Measurements are valuable when complete & of a quality that can be relied upon to tell us something of value, something that we don't realise already! If they do not meet this criteria then they are simply of entertainment value. Unfortunately, many seem to give a credence to sets of measurements (or single measurements) that is little deserved & it boils down to a "blind-belief" in measurements - a subjectivism based on just belief!

 

[jkeny]

IME an amp that does worst in a simple THD test, given the same topology, power output, etc, is not going to then become more accurate to the signal on a speaker load. So, IME accuracy in simple THD tells a lot. And again, I am talking accuracy as in what a scope or spectrum shows, not in ones opinion of the "sound"

But, Tom, using the terms "IME" to me means that you are working on a belief systems. Surely this is not objective?

You are also mixing up a number of things in your reply - I am not saying that a suggested set of measurements is needed to say how a amplifier sounds - that's a long way off yet - I'm saying to even begin to characterise an amplifier (the fingerprint if you like) that there is a set (I suggested some) of measurements needed which I have never seen published for an amplifier.

To make judgements using a partial set of measurements & suggest that science is on your side in the debate does not really seem logical! To accuse those who hear of the impossibility of what they hear because "science" is on your side (based on a partial set of measurements) is illogical.

I'm not saying that you are doing this, btw, I'm talking about the approach that is often encountered in these debates.

I don't understand

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But, Tim, this is the logic I can't fathom!
You talk about "opposing the available science with...well nothing," but you mistake incomplete measurements as science! It's certainly not the scientific methodology that I have learned. Incomplete measurements that claim anything would be laughed at in any "real science". So maybe it gives you an idea for why some people are very dubious & incredulous of the measurements that are often presented in audio - their relevance is questionable. Do you then wonder why people rely on what they hear instead?

Measurements are valuable when complete & of a quality that can be relied upon to tell us something of value, something that we don't realise already! If they do not meet this criteria then they are simply of entertainment value. Unfortunately, many seem to give a credence to sets of measurements (or single measurements) that is little deserved & it boils down to a "blind-belief" in measurements - a subjectivism based on just belief!

Substitue available "measurements" for available science, then, John. It doesn't change much. People shouting down the measurements we have, incomplete or not, while insisting on the superiority of gear with higher distortion, more colored and limited response, lower dynamic range, greater noise...based on what? Some magic audio goo as of yet undiscovered by modern science? I don't care if all we have is one measurement, if it's the only one we've got and your favorite dac/pre/amp/media doesn't measure up, and you have nothing else but what you hear, then all you have is what you like. Period. And by the way, based on this logic, there will never be a complete set of measurements, we'll always be waiting for the one that will quantify what someone else hears, so we're stuck in a loop, bro. So how 'bout I just say I like digital/solid state/active, not because it measures better, but just because I do, because the way it sounds pleases me, and you say you like whatever it is you like.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Substitue available "measurements" for available science, then, John. It doesn't change much.

Oh ,it changes a lot! Science is about complete measurements, not about short-cuts to a decision based on incomplete data. That's the whole point.

People shouting down the measurements we have, incomplete or not, while insisting on the superiority of gear with higher distortion, more colored and limited response, lower dynamic range, greater noise...based on what? Some magic audio goo as of yet undiscovered by modern science? I don't care if all we have is one measurement, if it's the only one we've got and your favorite dac/pre/amp/media doesn't measure up, and you have nothing else but what you hear, then all you have is what you like. Period.

No need to use emotive terms like "shouting down". You miss the point - you are arguing that - one measurement on one device proves that it is better than a lesser measuring device & any dissent from this view is wrong?? Then you say that people who claim they can hear the lesser measuring device sounds better are just mistaken? I hope you see the fallacy of this viewpoint?

And by the way, based on this logic, there will never be a complete set of measurements, we'll always be waiting for the one that will quantify what someone else hears, so we're stuck in a loop, bro.[/quoteAgain, I specifically said it's not about matching measurements to what's heard - that's a long way off - it's about using measurements to evaluate which device performs better than another. Without a full set of measurements that characterise a device, this evaluation is just a blind & unfounded belief in measurements as somehow more valid than hearing

So how 'bout I just say I like digital/solid state/active, not because it measures better, but just because I do, because the way it sounds pleases me, and you say you like whatever it is you like (other than to argue, it occurs to me that I'm not at all sure what that is...).

Yes, & I might ask you questions about what you hear & why it appeals to you & based on your answers I could evaluate if your thinking & what you listen for & the quality of your system are something that I can glean useful information from.

If we get there can I be spared any more of your pointless gotchas?

Tim

Can you please avoid the ad hominem stuff, Tim? I see you are using a word that I used on the Ethan thread which Ron Party then passed comment on. I wonder if a similar admonishment of you will take place? You wouldn't be suggesting that I'm now cross-examining you, would you? I see this as debate!

 

[treitz3]

But, Tom, using the terms "IME" to me means that you are working on a belief systems. Surely this is not objective?

You are also mixing up a number of things in your reply - I am not saying that a suggested set of measurements is needed to say how a amplifier sounds - that's a long way off yet - I'm saying to even begin to characterise an amplifier (the fingerprint if you like) that there is a set (I suggested some) of measurements needed which I have never seen published for an amplifier.

To make judgements using a partial set of measurements & suggest that science is on your side in the debate does not really seem logical! To accuse those who hear of the impossibility of what they hear because "science" is on your side (based on a partial set of measurements) is illogical.

I'm not saying that you are doing this, btw, I'm talking about the approach that is often encountered in these debates.

I don't understand

I see you clarified John but I have to be honest. If I am comprehending this correctly, you are twisting my words and adding your own agenda unless some of the statements above were not directed at me. I agree with, as your assessment states, "measurements needed which I have never seen published for an amplifier". No issue there and once again, I wouldn't really be the person to ask. If I mixed things up in my reply, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was just stating my experience. I will be the first to admit science wasn't on my side as I had no scientists there but I did, however, have Mr. Bob Carver there to explain to all there why I heard what I heard just based upon mathematics, the crossover and frequency. I would imagine that this would be good enough, no? He did, after all, design the speaker.

BTW, I do not think I'm an objectivist or subjectivist. I'm just simply the guy who listens to music, enjoys it and offers my observations. Whether it be good or bad. The approach and all of the other associated jazz I could honestly care less about. The end result is all that matters to me. Nothing else. There are no "belief" systems. Just the end result as to what hits my ears. Things are what they are.

Tom

[EDIT-] You were referring to Tomelex, not me. My apologies, John.

 

[jkeny]

I see you clarified John but I have to be honest. If I am comprehending this correctly, you are twisting my words and adding your own agenda unless some of the statements above were not directed at me. I agree with, as your assessment states, "measurements needed which I have never seen published for an amplifier". No issue there and once again, I wouldn't really be the person to ask. If I mixed things up in my reply, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was just stating my experience. I will be the first to admit science wasn't on my side as I had no scientists there but I did, however, have Mr. Bob Carver there to explain to all there why I heard what I heard just based upon mathematics, the crossover and frequency. I would imagine that this would be good enough, no? He did, after all, design the speaker.

BTW, I do not think I'm an objectivist or subjectivist. I'm just simply the guy who listens to music, enjoys it and offers my observations. Whether it be good or bad. The approach and all of the other associated jazz I could honestly care less about. The end result is all that matters to me. Nothing else. There are no "belief" systems. Just the end result as to what hits my ears. Things are what they are.
Tom

Tom,
I was not addressing this to you but to Tomelex & his comments (which I should have quoted)

IME an amp that does worst in a simple THD test, given the same topology, power output, etc, is not going to then become more accurate to the signal on a speaker load. So, IME accuracy in simple THD tells a lot. And again, I am talking accuracy as in what a scope or spectrum shows, not in ones opinion of the "sound"

BTW, I don't have an agenda, just a question about why people seem intent of valuing more highly semi-measurements over hearing?
Edit: I'll amend the original post to make it obvious I was addressing Tomelex

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Treitz, twisting words and adding his own agenda is John's thing here's another good example:

No need to use emotive terms like "shouting down". You miss the point - you are arguing that - one measurement on one device proves that it is better than a lesser measuring device & any dissent from this view is wrong?? Then you say that people who claim they can hear the lesser measuring device sounds better are just mistaken?

I said absolutely nothing about proof. What I'm arguing is that having no measurements in your favor, and a belief that you're hearing something that will someday be quantified by some metric yet to be discovered does not make your preference superior. It is still just your preference, verified by nothing but your preference. Enjoy it. But it's just your opinion.

What "lesser measuring device?"

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I dont know what all amps you have, was just a suggestion as a possibility for you. You probably need a half ohm resistor to begin to hear frequency response differences, and 1 ohm or 1.5 would be even better.

Surey, but I was comparing it with an amplifier having .3 and .1 ohm resistance. And I am sure that even with the 1.5 ohm resistor the Devialet will not sound like an Audio Research tube amplifier!

BTW, small frequency response changes - +/- .5 or 1 dB are not easy to detect. My speakers have trimming facilities and, IMHO, they modify the sound quality much less than some changes of cables or amplifiers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, again you are missing the point - I'm saying that you are not measuring all the metrics that matter so if you did you might find out why hearing shows that some "inferior measuring" device sounds better than another.

Is that the point you were trying to make? Well, I have no problem with that. Any of the Audiophiles claiming their preferences are superior are more than welcome to present any measurements they have to support their claims. That has never been an issue.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Is that the point you were trying to make? Well, I have no problem with that. Any of the Audiophiles claiming their preferences are superior are more than welcome to present any measurements they have to support their claims. That has never been an issue.

Tim

Again, it's a circular argument - Audiophiles hear something is better & you insist on them providing measurements to support this?

Again I fail to see the logic? They hear A is better than B, you insist that they are wrong because B "measures" worse than A but you are only using a simple set of measurements. You insist that they "support" (I used prove before, sorry) their observation using your simplistic measurements.

Do you not see the problem?

 

[FrantzM]

No, again you are missing the point - I'm saying that you are not measuring all the metrics that matter so if you did you might find out why hearing shows that some "inferior measuring" device sounds better than another.

"Sounds better" according to what metrics? A given individual preference? In what type of test ? Full knowledge of the Devices Under Tests?That is the crux of the argument.

 

[jkeny]

"Sounds better" according to what metrics? A given individual preference? In what type of test ? Full knowledge of the Devices Under Tests?That is the crux of the argument.

No, it's not the crux of the argument. Everybody would live happily in two separate worlds - one of measurements & one of hearing BUT the measurements people always insist the "hearing" people to test, support, prove their choice. That's the crux!

Calling it "personal preference" is wrong because what I'm saying is that you have no right to do so as you have not characterised the amplifier with a relevant set of measurements & therefore the reason why it sounds better could well be in any of the measurements that you haven't done!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Again, it's a circular argument - Audiophiles hear something is better & you insist on them providing measurements to support this?

Again I fail to see the logic? They hear A is better than B, you insist that they are wrong because B "measures" worse than A but you are only using a simple set of measurements. You insist that they "support" (I used prove before, sorry) their observation using your simplistic measurements.

Do you not see the problem?

No, John, again you fail to even read and absorb what I have said. I said any audiophile who hears something he thinks is great is welcome to enjoy his preference. I've said it a hundred times. Enjoy! Be happy! I don't insist on anyone providing measurements to prove to me that something is their preference. On the other hand, if my "incomplete measurements" have missed something showing that their preferences are somehow objectively superior, I'd love to see it. But I will consider their preference no more than that until I either hear what they hear or see something more substantive than a personal opinion. Either way, I'm good. I know what I like.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

John

That is not the point, please do stick to the argument . If you say something sounds better , my question has been: According to whom? let's put aside amplifiers for a while.. The notion of "better" implies a scale... It can be an absolute... for example. A person who has a 20/20 vision sees better than a near-sighted. The scale although subjective can be based on Statisitics, it is likely that for 99.999999% of the Human population the smell of a skunk defending itself is more repugnant than that of a rose.... So back to my point, when you say that an audiophile says an amp sounds "better", there is an implicit scale and I am asking you what scale that is? And According to what test ? The notion of "better" is the crux of the argument... If it is a moving target, an assessment that depends on the individual and his or her moods and predisposition .. it is unreliable .. So back to my question

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, here it is in a really basic nutshell, John...

the measurements people always insist the "hearing" people to test, support, prove their choice.

There is nothing to "prove" in a choice. Nothing. What? You think we expect you to prove that you "chose" it? How absurd. And if you prefer "choice" to preference, I'm fine with that too. If that's all it is, there is nothing left to discuss. Thank God.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Tim, you said

"Any of the Audiophiles claiming their preferences are superior are more than welcome to present any measurements they have to support their claims. That has never been an issue."

I think this just your revisionism at work again & readers can make up their own minds about my ability to understand your words. It seems to be a common issue you level at me!

But please, I'm asking for a final time - please stop the demeaning attitude that you are showing towards me expressed in "This is not hard, man. Bear down. You can get it."
I will say again - stop the ad hominem attacks - deal with the points of the post not the poster!!

 

[jkeny]

John

That is not the point, please do stick to the argument . If you say something sounds better , my question has been: According to whom? let's put aside amplifiers for a while.. The notion of "better" implies a scale... It can be an absolute... for example. A person who has a 20/20 vision sees better than a near-sighted. The scale although subjective can be based on Statisitics, it is likely that for 99.999999% of the Human population the smell of a skunk defending itself is more repugnant than that of a rose.... So back to my point, when you say that an audiophile says an amp sounds "better", there is an implicit scale and I am asking you what scale that is? And According to what test ? The notion of "better" is the crux of the argument... If it is a moving target, an assessment that depends on the individual and his or her moods and predisposition .. it is unreliable .. So back to my question

It sounds better to the listener - usually because it gives a more realistic illusion of the actual event. On that criteria one device can sound better than another. I don't see the difficulty.

The argument arises when that person is told "no, it couldn't sound better, measurements show that" Well your measurements are incomplete & therefore that's a fallacious argument to use. Similarly, the arguments that "it's just your preference" or "you like the sound of distortion" are fallacious because you have only partial measurements!

 

[FrantzM]

John


Let's leave aside the notions of distortions and

partial measurements... More realistic according to what scale? Your scale? Mine? Another audiophile? You admit that what I claim to be more realistic could be the total opposite for another person ... So we need a better scale don't you think? A more reliable scale? The crux of the argument ... Why is it "better"?

 

[jkeny]

John


Let's leave aside the notions of distortions and

partial measurements... More realistic according to what scale? Your scale? Mine? Another audiophile? You admit that what I claim to be more realistic could be the total opposite for another person ... So we need a better scale don't you think? A more reliable scale? The crux of the argument ... Why is it "better"?

Reality has a tendency not to need a scale - who ever asks about an un-amplified guitarist playing in a room "does he sound real - according to what scale"?
We all have a reference for how reality sounds & our references are as close to one another as makes no difference. Otherwise there would be chaos in the world.

People are able to judge how close what they hear in playback is to the real instrument, voice, etc. - whatever they use as their reference point & are most familiar with.

 

[FrantzM]

John

Wrong rational .. He is real.. He is playing in a room,. We are discussing reproduction here ... You record her and you reproduce her playing on system A .. Let's conduct a thought experiment ... On this forum some like Wilson and some like Magico. You play the recording though a Wilson based system and a Magico-based system.. It is likely that Wilson people would find the Wilson more .... (use whatever epithet you like here) while the Magico contingent will find the Magico-based system more (exact same epithet you used earlier) ... That's very unreliable if you need to say that something is "more real" don't you think? .. So wouldn't you say we need a better way to judge when it is "better"? A metric less subject to the vagaries of human psychology and unreliable perception?