Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[FrantzM]

I thought this was established back at the beginning of this thread (for everyone except micro )?

Indeed Soundminded post however, describes a simple test that put things in better perspective ..

 

[JackD201]

Micro takes more measurements than most of us here.

 

[FrantzM]

Micro takes more measurements than most of us here.

Irony or paradox or simply pulling our legs .. That he does and experiment more than most of us here ... Not much in the way of tweaks but carefully conducted almost scientific experiments ...

 

[Soundminded]

Irony or paradox or simply pulling our legs .. That he does and experiment more than most of us here ... Not much in the way of tweaks but carefully conducted almost scientific experiments ...

It's not how many measurements someone takes but what is being measured. If those measurements are within the same confines of the usual inherited from 70 or 80 years ago that meant so much then and so little now then what good are they? We need measurements that show us why different things sound different. The theory behind measurements must show insight into the full nature of what the phenomenon we're trying to understand is about. The kind of measurements we make now don't. That's why thngs that measure the same sound different and why people called subjectivists are sometimes, many times right to criticize objectivists. Unfortunately as I've pointed out before they don't have any answers of their own either. Their efforts consist mainly of endless trial and error and what they find best is often the result of capricious whim at the moment and under the circumstances that are unique to their experience. Engineers, go back to the drawing board and start thinking the problem through from scratch. Audiophiles, better start depositing a lot more money in your bank accounts. The people who dream up this stuff have an endless supply of ideas that will be reviewed as the best of their kind in the world month after month. They'll be more products that you just gotta have and they will just carry higher and higher price tags.

 

[microstrip]

Irony or paradox or simply pulling our legs .. That he does and experiment more than most of us here ... Not much in the way of tweaks but carefully conducted almost scientific experiments ...

Frantz,

Nice to know some one cares about the very basic, almost childish, measurements I take. Happily we have people in this forum with much better tools , knowledge and communication skills, such as Amir and Don.

Some people love to distort what I say (perhaps my fault, as most of the time I write in a careless style, and try to pass only the main ideas in short posts).

I have a pragmatic view about measurements. We need them for development as a tool and as communication tool. But they currently fail to give us a full perspective about sound quality. I share the philosophical view that if two things sound different a measurement that can separate them must exist. But this can be completely useless for audio science if this measurement technique does not establish a unique correlation with the sound attribute we found different in other situations.

IMHO the role of audio electronics in sound reproduction it too complex to be addressed without correlating it with the objectives and limitations of sound reproduction. You can dream about dynamic sweeping techniques, and the bizarre ideas some people who never saw the specifications and existing test protocols of the latest Audio Precision testers suggest in audio forums, but unless you know very well why and what you are looking for, and how to analyze and correlate the results, I doubt that it will lead to real progress.

I have tried to contribute to these debates, most of the time pointing to accessible references, such as interviews with reputable designers, texts from equipment manuals, that I have read and support the high-end design cause. Curiously, although some people seem to disagree, none of them openly says he disagrees with the main author and comments the original texts - they prefer to kill the messenger, a much easier task, specially as it saves them from what they consider the tedious task of reading the writings of the famous designers and audio researchers.

 

[NorthStar]

---Now we're talkin' "goin' somewhere" stuff!

It would be nice if price (MSRP) was directly related with true quality and performance, wouldn't it?
Life would be simpler and worth even more living and working harder to reach our goals. :b

* Great post just above Micro. ...And Soundminded as well; your last couple posts.

 

[jkeny]

I agree with that. This has been my contention for many years. It isn't that what we hear can't be measured, if it exists at all then we are able to find ways to measure it. The current set of measurements is insufficient, we need to devise a different set of measurements. The current set does not tell much or to be kind enough to make valid choices.

Indeed this is correct! If this was a consensus opinion, then we could all make some progress in trying to work together to get some measurements that better correlate to what we hear. Unfortunately this may be the ramblings of an idealist as audio is really not of that much importance in the scheme of things to warrant the necessary research time & money required to begin to address these difficult issues. So, I guess, the audio world will continue to be polarised along the same ol' lines.

Just a reality check in case we all got too optimistic about this brief respite from the polorisation that existed in this thread up to now

 

[Raffles]

I went to a large audio show in the UK yesterday, and I cannot tell you how appalling most of the 'High End' stuff was to listen to. I'm no audiophile, but I can spot systems that are just 'not right', and most of them weren't, despite huge horns, massive turntables (with microscopically thin belts..?), tube amplifiers, cables as thick as your arm and 'audiophile music' that seemed designed to reveal as little about the system's true capabilities as possible. The only decent sounds were from large manufacturers like Tannoy, or purveyors of active systems. There's an irony in that while audiophiles may have been persuaded that tubes and vinyl are the ultimate audio source, the speaker manufacturers have been taken in by it too! So people are trying to sell their product with one arm tied behind their back. A few sensible speaker people hid their sound sources from view...

The impression I gained was that the 'High End' audio industry has become so 'high' on the idea that measurements don't matter, that it has lost sight completely of the basics. Subjectivists are messing about with cable supports and mains conditioners while their systems truly, truly suck. In a way I found it quite exhilarating: my own frugal system is so far ahead of $50,000 systems in every respect that it is almost a joke. You may say that an audio show is far from ideal for assessing the subtleties of 'sound stage', 'imaging' and 'presence', but first you have to get past the literally nausea-inducing defects that were all-too obvious. The more measurements-based products shone through clearly, and were cheaper (although some actives went up to over $100,00 and sounded just fine).

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree with that. This has been my contention for many years. It isn't that what we hear can't be measured, if it exists at all then we are able to find ways to measure it. The current set of measurements is insufficient, we need to devise a different set of measurements. The current set does not tell much or to be kind enough to make valid choices.

Yes we agree on this.

But that still doesn't take into account the biological variables.

 

[Soundminded]

I went to a large audio show in the UK yesterday, and I cannot tell you how appalling most of the 'High End' stuff was to listen to. I'm no audiophile, but I can spot systems that are just 'not right', and most of them weren't, despite huge horns, massive turntables (with microscopically thin belts..?), tube amplifiers, cables as thick as your arm and 'audiophile music' that seemed designed to reveal as little about the system's true capabilities as possible. The only decent sounds were from large manufacturers like Tannoy, or purveyors of active systems. There's an irony in that while audiophiles may have been persuaded that tubes and vinyl are the ultimate audio source, the speaker manufacturers have been taken in by it too! So people are trying to sell their product with one arm tied behind their back. A few sensible speaker people hid their sound sources from view...

The impression I gained was that the 'High End' audio industry has become so 'high' on the idea that measurements don't matter, that it has lost sight completely of the basics. Subjectivists are messing about with cable supports and mains conditioners while their systems truly, truly suck. In a way I found it quite exhilarating: my own frugal system is so far ahead of $50,000 systems in every respect that it is almost a joke. You may say that an audio show is far from ideal for assessing the subtleties of 'sound stage', 'imaging' and 'presence', but first you have to get past the literally nausea-inducing defects that were all-too obvious. The more measurements-based products shone through clearly, and were cheaper (although some actives went up to over $100,00 and sounded just fine).

You are of course right. The problem at least in terms of this discussion is that the "objectivists" don't have good technical explanations of why they sound awful because their theories about sound and how to measure it are incomplete, inadequate, don't give you an accurate picture of what happens live, what happens at listening to a recording, and where the differences are (they are huge differences.) The subjectivists by contrast sometimes have an inkling that something is wrong but they are even more clueless to understand it. They're at their funniest when they start playing amateur scientist coming up with their own preposterous explanations and how to fix the problem. And all of them have these magic bullets that will fix the whole thing. My favorite of them all is May Belt. Her wild theories can be seen elsewhere from time to time such as at Audio Asylum. And then there are people like Floyd Toole who having spent a lifetime at it, have gotten just a small peek of what you're up against if you want to solve this problem. Except for a few intrepid souls who go off in an entirely novel directon, they invariably turn tail and run like scared rabbits throwing up their hands by declaring the problem unsolvable. Whenever I hear one of them say that, I'm reminded of the problem of the nine dots. I'll bet there are people who could spend a lifetime wracking their brains on that one and not see the answer. Confining your mind to thinking inside the same box, the same paradigm precludes ever getting any closer to the truth.

 

[Soundminded]

Yes we agree on this.

But that still doesn't take into account the biological variables.

The biological variables are the nature and limits of what can be perceived. That can't be fully measured until the physics of sound is better understood. How can you test the perception of a variable when you don't know what that variable is? The fact that people hear differently (assuming our brains don't really process sound the same way, something we just don't know for sure) doesn't change the ability to recognize and remember what something else sounded like and whether or not what we hear now sounds the same. We may not see the same but unless you're color blind we all pretty much agree what the color red is as distinct from blue and we recognize the difference between the shape of a house and a horse. Whether you prefer a red house to a blue one doesn't change your ability to perceive that there is a difference.

 

[microstrip]

I went to a large audio show in the UK yesterday, and I cannot tell you how appalling most of the 'High End' stuff was to listen to. I'm no audiophile, but I can spot systems that are just 'not right', and most of them weren't, despite huge horns, massive turntables (with microscopically thin belts..?), tube amplifiers, cables as thick as your arm and 'audiophile music' that seemed designed to reveal as little about the system's true capabilities as possible. The only decent sounds were from large manufacturers like Tannoy, or purveyors of active systems. There's an irony in that while audiophiles may have been persuaded that tubes and vinyl are the ultimate audio source, the speaker manufacturers have been taken in by it too! So people are trying to sell their product with one arm tied behind their back. A few sensible speaker people hid their sound sources from view...

The impression I gained was that the 'High End' audio industry has become so 'high' on the idea that measurements don't matter, that it has lost sight completely of the basics. Subjectivists are messing about with cable supports and mains conditioners while their systems truly, truly suck. In a way I found it quite exhilarating: my own frugal system is so far ahead of $50,000 systems in every respect that it is almost a joke. You may say that an audio show is far from ideal for assessing the subtleties of 'sound stage', 'imaging' and 'presence', but first you have to get past the literally nausea-inducing defects that were all-too obvious. The more measurements-based products shone through clearly, and were cheaper (although some actives went up to over $100,00 and sounded just fine).

Audio shows are just that - shows. They have a social and trade purpose, but I do not expect to listen an enjoyable sound in typical show conditions. However, if you can forget about the negative aspects and just focus on the positive aspects of some sounds and the different sensitivities of different designers you will learn something and have a good time.

People who do not appreciate the high-end will find there lot of ammunition - shows are mainly driven by marketing and have many intrinsic shortcomings. One of them is that they can present a wrong view about the high-end to those who just see the tip of the iceberg. All IMHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The biological variables are the nature and limits of what can be perceived. That can't be fully measured until the physics of sound is better understood. How can you test the perception of a variable when you don't know what that variable is? The fact that people hear differently (assuming our brains don't really process sound the same way, something we just don't know for sure) doesn't change the ability to recognize and remember what something else sounded like and whether or not what we hear now sounds the same. We may not see the same but unless you're color blind we all pretty much agree what the color red is as distinct from blue and we recognize the difference between the shape of a house and a horse. Whether you prefer a red house to a blue one doesn't change your ability to perceive that there is a difference.

The biological variables are grossly overplayed by those looking for substitutes for otherwise unsupported arguments. If the biological variables were as radical as some imagine, it's likely we'd all have been eaten before the species evolved.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I guess this depends if we're talking about the open floor of a convention center, or a hotel room. A hotel room is not an ideal environment; it is more like a domestic living space than a treated listening room. You should expect some room gain. You should expect some reflections. You shouldn't expect the system to fall apart, because its designer should have expected most of his systems to play in the domestic living spaces.

This is a decent excuse for imperfect sound, a thin excuse for dramatically bad sound IMO. Put me in camp with Toole/Olive -- design speakers that have pretty even response, even off-axis and they should sound good in a decent, untreated room. Can you squeeze more out of a system through treatment? Sure. But if it sounds awful in a reasonably soft, furnished room, if it requires treatment to sound good, the design is faulty. MHO, YMMV.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I guess this depends if we're talking about the open floor of a convention center, or a hotel room. A hotel room is not an ideal environment; it is more like a domestic living space than a treated listening room. You should expect some room gain. You should expect some reflections. You shouldn't expect the system to fall apart, because its designer should have expected most of his systems to play in the domestic living spaces.

This is a decent excuse for imperfect sound, a thin excuse for dramatically bad sound IMO. Put me in camp with Toole/Olive -- design speakers that have pretty even response, even off-axis and they should sound good in a decent, untreated room. Can you squeeze more out of a system through treatment? Sure. But if it sounds awful in a reasonably soft, furnished room, if it requires treatment to sound good, the design is faulty. MHO, YMMV.

Tim

How did I guess? Acoustics of rooms is just part of the tip ... There is a lot more, may be we can go in separate thread about hifi shows.

People who do not appreciate the high-end will find there lot of ammunition - shows are mainly driven by marketing and have many intrinsic shortcomings. One of them is that they can present a wrong view about the high-end to those who just see the tip of the iceberg. All IMHO.

 

[FrantzM]

Yes we agree on this.

But that still doesn't take into account the biological variables.

The biological variables are the nature and limits of what can be perceived. That can't be fully measured until the physics of sound is better understood. How can you test the perception of a variable when you don't know what that variable is? The fact that people hear differently (assuming our brains don't really process sound the same way, something we just don't know for sure) doesn't change the ability to recognize and remember what something else sounded like and whether or not what we hear now sounds the same. We may not see the same but unless you're color blind we all pretty much agree what the color red is as distinct from blue and we recognize the difference between the shape of a house and a horse. Whether you prefer a red house to a blue one doesn't change your ability to perceive that there is a difference.

Thanks Soundminded

I would add to that that there is a constant, the physical stimuli, however I perceive blue (It could create the same sensation as red does to me in another person brain), the physical stimuli that creates the impressions remains the same. Whenever it is reproduced then ... Let's not make too much of these "biological variables". they are overplayed. Sound reproduction is a technology and it is based on science. We don't know it all but we know a lot and we can , should, try to derive ways to correlate our perceptions to the physics of it.

I am with Don and others on the need to derive better set of measurements. My experience is that many amps that measure similar in the usual category don't sound at all similar; I have laways found it odd that most of the usual measurements, even power ratings to suppose something a transducer is not: a simple resistance... A transducer is more complex, and amps behaviors under such a load seem to vary widely.

Will we see better measurements? i am not sure about that... There is a lot of money to be made in the High End Audio sector, our hobby, people in this hobby have shown an interesting propensity to spend more and more in their search for "best", the present fog about measurements and the clear shift away from High Fidelity toward "preference", about what "our ears tells us" is concussive to make even more money thus the constant increase in price of the so-called SOTA components .. Cynicism? no.... Realism

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

While I certainly appreciate the time and effort that goes into manufacturing a unit with terrific specs (and I'm not debating what those might be), I fail to see what is wrong in buying a component based on what my ears tell me. In my case I have no choice, as I'm not "wired" to comprehend things technical. Should I therefore not even be in this game?

 

[A.wayne]

I guess this depends if we're talking about the open floor of a convention center, or a hotel room. A hotel room is not an ideal environment; it is more like a domestic living space than a treated listening room. You should expect some room gain. You should expect some reflections. You shouldn't expect the system to fall apart, because its designer should have expected most of his systems to play in the domestic living spaces.

This is a decent excuse for imperfect sound, a thin excuse for dramatically bad sound IMO. Put me in camp with Toole/Olive -- design speakers that have pretty even response, even off-axis and they should sound good in a decent, untreated room. Can you squeeze more out of a system through treatment? Sure. But if it sounds awful in a reasonably soft, furnished room, if it requires treatment to sound good, the design is faulty. MHO, YMMV.

Tim

I would agree with most of this ,properly designed speakers, will sound good on anything and in most spaces, not their very best mind you , but pretty close , of course this excludes exotica , like horns and dipoles where the too
Is very critical , one due to reflections , the other due to distance ..

I'm with Raffles also , there is so much bad sound out there it boggles the mind and it's a big turnoff for newbies , bad sound and high prices have turned off many. My vote is for the objectionist , with a balance ..


Regards ,

 

[A.wayne]

Thanks Soundminded

I would add to that that there is a constant, the physical stimuli, however I perceive blue (It could create the same sensation as red does to me in another person brain), the physical stimuli that creates the impressions remains the same. Whenever it is reproduced then ... Let's not make too much of these "biological variables". they are overplayed. Sound reproduction is a technology and it is based on science. We don't know it all but we know a lot and we can , should, try to derive ways to correlate our perceptions to the physics of it.

I am with Don and others on the need to derive better set of measurements. My experience is that many amps that measure similar in the usual category don't sound at all similar; I have laways found it odd that most of the usual measurements, even power ratings to suppose something a transducer is not: a simple resistance... A transducer is more complex, and amps behaviors under such a load seem to vary widely.

Will we see better measurements? i am not sure about that... There is a lot of money to be made in the High End Audio sector, our hobby, people in this hobby have shown an interesting propensity to spend more and more in their search for "best", the present fog about measurements and the clear shift away from High Fidelity toward "preference", about what "our ears tells us" is concussive to make even more money thus the constant increase in price of the so-called SOTA components .. Cynicism? no.... Realism

The power cube test used in the past showed a lot , but fell out of favor because it did. The problem with audio , like cooking is the many flavors user have . Do you want the truth (accuracy) or are you looking for a particular sound. I'm an accuracy type of guy , I want to hear what's in the recording , on top of that the system has to sound real in size , power and attack , time and space is very important to recreate venue , but it's nothing and means less to those who listen live , without the others..

So IMO Measurements do matter and tells the tale , there are footprints , no one measurement tells the full story , but there is a story ..

As to the financial rewards , I'm sure if you did the math it's senseless , there is no pot of gold in the highend , there is no way you could formulate a successful Business model on a startup going into the highend ...

It's all emotionally driven ...

Regards

 

[microstrip]

Sound reproduction is a technology and it is based on science. (...)

Frantz,

True, but it exposes the weakness of the current status. Sound reproduction is based mainly based in principles taken from the perceptual sciences that you consider we are often overplaying. However, it is most of time driven by the existing technology, ignoring its roots and the ultimate aim of sound reproduction - creating great listening experiences with the existing media.

We all dream about better measurements. My idea is that if these measurements just reflect the increasing resolution of measuring gear and are just analysis driven, ignoring the holistic approach, we will never be able to correlate sound and measurements in the sense summarized by F. Toole:

Scientists often seek mathematical descriptions for relationships, including relationships between what is measured and what is heard. An equation does
not add information; it attempts to describe information in a different form. In fact, almost always the equation is a simplification of the raw data that emerge
from psychoacoustic examinations of a phenomenon. But such attempts are important in modeling more complex aspects of perception. Several simplified
relationships may be combined into an explanation of something complex. The hope is that it can be done well enough that the input of technical data can
yield an output that is a good prediction of a human perception. The long-term objective in the context of sound reproduction is to fi nd technical metrics that
usefully evaluate the physical world of electronic and transduction devices, operating in rooms. (From Sound Reproduction).