Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
Thankfully we don't in general but let's keep going....
Not true and I am speaking for you, not myself. When you listen to a loudspeaker you have no idea of what something is supposed to sound like. None of us do. What we magically seem to do, is search for flaws. It is absence of flaws that then yields the adjective of "excellence."
This is easily demonstrated. Take your clock radio and turn up the volume to 100%. The sound gets distorted. And all of us can hear that distortion and as such, rate that experience as negative. We are all good at hearing such flaws and removal of them all is what gains our praise.
The loudspeaker blind tests I participated in has been taken by hundreds of others with majority coming out of with similar results. So we are not different, no matter how hard you try to factionalize us.
When you listen to a new loudspeaker you immediately focus on what it is doing. Are the voices natural? Is the bass good or boomy? Are the highs clean or tizzy?
Your doctor does the same thing when you see him. He looks for what is wrong with you because that is what he is supposed to do. Likewise, if you are comparing a set of loudspeakers, you naturally and intuitively search for what is wrong with a loudspeaker you prefer less. That is the job at hand, not talking about going fishing with your doctor.
Now, that said, just like your doctor, I am different than you in that it has been part of my training and audio journey to find artifacts by ear, and be able to correlate it with technical deficiencies. So while my preferences are no different than majority of people here, my analytical abilities have been improved so I can arrive at the "answer" faster and more reliably.
Does the above stop me from also detecting excellence as you imply? Of course not. What a silly statement to make. You play a great sounding system with great content and I start dancing to its tunes as fast as the next guy
The experience of the radio clock proves we do not like enormous amount of distortion of a radio clock, nothing else.
I have since sometime understood that the idea that we do not have intrinsic references and just look for flaws is just the source of most of our divergences. Many people use specific references for sound quality - the sounds of natural instruments. We have many people who support this view in WBF and elsewhere.
As far as I saw in the published data, the results did not show similar results - they showed a majority with similar results, something quite different. And somewhat expectable, considering that Harman created the conditions and methodology of the tests, that aim to identify and produce the speaker preferred by majority - a meritorious task I must say. Surely audiophiles are not a group large enough for Harman science - they never tried to reproduce their typical conditions or cared about their specific desires in their publicized tests , although they produce excellent very expensive speakers targeted for them!
Sorry to say, you doctor analogy is so far from the reality of stereo that does not apply for any answer. .
I do not focus on bass or treble or medium when listening. I focus on specific musical aspects of recordings I use as references. BTW it was a pleasure for the subjective people that you asked if the voices sounded natural - we had a very subjective thread on sounding natural and the use of the word!
As you see, we listen differently - particularly in STEREO, the only format I am addressing ...
So, you're asking us to believe you managed to acquire pairs of Ces Liszts, AG Trios, Tune Audio Animas, the big Blumenhofers? You then got piano movers to get them in your house? You then did unsighted trials where you had no idea which spkrs were playing, switched them out, and demoed again. 4 horns means 24 permutations, maybe you had 5 pairs? Or 6? Tell me when to stop.
How long did this all take? Especially since horns more than most need careful setup. You didn't set them up 'cause this was all unsighted, so someone else did.
Gosh, you must take us for fools if your mantra of unsighted demos extended to SOTA horns.
Maybe your rinky dinky K111's, but serious audiophile spkrs?
He was joking, and to be fair he has made that statement in jest not expecting people will believe him
It doesn't matter how many people think X vs Y. By that notion you lose to objectivists because there a ton of them believing the opposite of you. You are putting a hypothesis forward and it is your job to demonstrate it being true with data. Not saying, incorrectly as I explain below, that more people think like you.
That aside, your explanation above is completely consistent with what I said. If you think a violin sounds wrong on one loudspeaker versus another, then you put blame on one. Your claim was that you don't think that way and that you only think of excellence. Prove that no one evaluating loudspeakers as you say, doesn't think one representation is worse than the other and then we can talk.
Guy goes to buy steak and asks the butcher how much it is. He says $20/pound. He complains by saying that the butcher across the street has them for $10 pound. The butcher asks him why he doesn't go and buy the steak from the other guy and he answers, "he doesn't have any!"
By the same token, you don't have any experimental data that "we all listen differently" but are full complaints about others who have done the testing and published them. If you are sure of your point of view, you should test your hypothesis the same way and present the data. Don't appeal to talking down other work with nothing of your own to present other than, "there are others who think like me."
Amir summarizes about 53 threads in this sentence...
So called "objectivists" don't rationalize their preferences with 'data'; so called "subjectivists" do. However, the converse is rarely true: objectivists are unable to consistently use 'data' a priori to predict subjective preferences.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how many people think X vs Y. By that notion you lose to objectivists because there a ton of them believing the opposite of you. You are putting a hypothesis forward and it is your job to demonstrate it being true with data. Not saying, incorrectly as I explain below, that more people think like you.
That aside, your explanation above is completely consistent with what I said. If you think a violin sounds wrong on one loudspeaker versus another, then you put blame on one. Your claim was that you don't think that way and that you only think of excellence. Prove that no one evaluating loudspeakers as you say, doesn't think one representation is worse than the other and then we can talk.
Guy goes to buy steak and asks the butcher how much it is. He says $20/pound. He complains by saying that the butcher across the street has them for $10 pound. The butcher asks him why he doesn't go and buy the steak from the other guy and he answers, "he doesn't have any!"
By the same token, you don't have any experimental data that "we all listen differently" but are full complaints about others who have done the testing and published them. If you are sure of your point of view, you should test your hypothesis the same way and present the data. Don't appeal to talking down other work with nothing of your own to present other than, "there are others who think like me."
You fail to understand I do not want to persuade practicing objectivists - they have their strong beliefs and they are in such a small number in this forum that I do not want to reduce it
- I only present ideas I appreciate and I suppose our members will enjoy reading. They are not mine - we can read them in article and interviews in TAS, Stereophile and many internet sites. My point is that we have other references, that develop in time and are being perfected by the increasing quality of sound of current SOTA equipment.
Should I remember you anyone can have an opinion on anything without needing to have or defend an alternative?
High-end exists. It creates excellent sounding SOTA stereo systems. As far as I know we have a forum that wants to debate everything connected with such systems. If the existing science can not explain it fully and clearly and has no interest in researching it, we do our best to find our own way. And enjoy ourselves, BTW.
I had a post on this exact subject some time ago with specific examples of recordings - I will try to find it. As far as I remember it is filled with what you consider "poetry", I doubt you will find it of any use.
Greg, just to clarify, the whole of my sentence is:
"Amir, Reading that the Martin Logans are flawed and seeing graphs of the Harman test results in these forums showing the poor preference results has introduced expectation bias against these speakers."
By quoting only the highlighted phrase as you do in your post, it implies that I think this about Martin Logan speakers. Actually, I don't have a formed opinion about these speakers. I am attributing that sentiment to Amir. My point is that I am getting that impression about the Martin Logan speakers by reading what Amir has posted and that he has introduced an expectation bias to me by his comments. I wonder if it will now influence what I think about them when I next hear them in my friend's system.
Peter,
Do you know the exact conditions in which these ML tests were carried? Just imagine you loved Mini II being evaluated in these conditions. My Magico distributor still has a pair of Mini II's and unless properly set , amplified and tweaked they sound thin and disagreeable. But once they positioned them properly and fed them with an Audio Research Reference 750 with Transparent Audio top cables we were in musical heaven!
Well, the q then is, why not?
Keith is relentless on the subject of blinded trials, he really should have done some unsighted a-b's of Ces Liszts and AG Trios/Basshorns at the very least, ahead of choosing to sell the Liszts.
Or could it be that he's selling the Liszts because they, well you know, sound great, like to his ears. and he's not too bothered w/comparisons? And that they look cool etc?
In other words, all the things we subjectivists look for in gear too.
Keith, tell me I'm wrong, please.
Otherwise I will lose all faith in you, if I had any left at this stage.
Yeah
I hate being quoted out of context, also. In my defense it was in response to a contemporaneous post by you. Those who were following the thread could see that.
You very astutely fingered my reason for responding to the criticism of ML. In fact Stereophile did a "scathing review of the CLS that I beleive led to the hybrid ML Sequel. Most reviewers acknowledged the faults of the CLS but loved it anyway including one Peter Aczzel of The Audio Critic Most thought the Quad was more "accurate" however it still can't play loud and had poor dispersion..I have been hammered with that study in general and with the performance of ML in particular. Dr. Olive has defended that study on this forum in person.
In short I hope no one passes on that speaker because it is '"flawed",or hat someone else preferred another speaker, or did not like it. You could say that about any speaker. That would be a shame because they make excellent speakers in my opinion.
Yes, I imagine those Mini IIs sounded great.
No, I do not know the exact conditions for those Harman tests, but Amir did describe the tests in one of the threads. He posted his impressions of the sound and the Harman test results. Together, this information is not favorable as presented. I have heard Ack's Martin Logans sound very good. My question now to Amir is: does he think that my future listening to Ack's system will be influenced by Amir's comments in this forum about what he thinks of the speakers? Will such comments effect my trust in my ears because of the expectation bias that he introduced?
I suppose it could also work the other way around. Did the glowing reports of the Mini II influence my early auditions of the my speakers? I had read some measurements before hearing them, and my expectations were fairly high. Perhaps it is unavoidable. We read reviews and sometimes other information in forums before we hear the components. In the end, I trust we are influenced by all of this to some degree and it takes us further away from purely listening with only our ears. That just seems to be the way it is, and we make decisions accordingly.
Ears can't measure. Let's see 8 x 5% would be 40% distortion. Assuming the distortion is cumulative
Last edited:
You didn't present any ideas. You declared how I evaluate products and how you evaluate products. I explained how that is wrong and data shows that to be the case. Your answer is what now? That you are not trying to convince other people? What does that have to do with price of tea in China?You fail to understand I do not want to persuade practicing objectivists - they have their strong beliefs and they are in such a small number in this forum that I do not want to reduce it
No, you need to remember that we are discussing this because you said this about *me*:
I would think that if you are saying something about me, you would be willing to defend it.
Again, none of this had to do with the topic that started this. I am asking you to demonstrate how you are different than all the rest of us in not looking for flaws in loudspeakers, especially in AB comparisons.
You have to find a post??? You can't give us an example of this: "When I listen to speakers in an appropriate system I listen mainly to the excellent and exceptional aspects of their performance and if they suit me I am prepared to forgive some aspects where the competition sounds better."
Reference to sound of natural instruments is not fully suitable for checking current audio systems.
As etalon here accepted 2 dimensional model: space transfering + purity of sound transfer.
1. Purity sound transfer fine detected via complex of measurements.
Or via headphone listening of recorded acoustic instrument with one microphone in anechoic room.
2. Space transfer is tough for modern apparatus and technology of recording, in my opinion.
Therefore, if we want use acoustic instrument as etalon of purity recording/playback, need separate these 2 things.
I was being facetious. J think you know that.
Let us think of the audio system as a series of lenses (or filters if you prefer). Each lens being distorted. What we see will be the cumulative effect of those distortions. We can replace a particular lens with a less distorted one and achieve a higher degree of clarity. .
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky