Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.

[ssfas]

This is a great paper. Thank you for posting this link.

Potential readers - don’t limit your reading to the penultimate paragraph on p27. Read the whole thing.

It’s quite an opinionated article, which is perfectly fine by me. I’ve also read parts of his 500+ page book. I think he’s probably a bit of a genius and I have a lot of respect for him. That said, he appears to believe that 2-channel is fundamentally flawed. He may have a point. Everything Harmon does involves subwoofers and in his personal audio system he has 15 speakers, including two main speakers hung upside down on the wall. Harmons main products are automotive and home cinema, so a lot of his work seems to be aimed at solutions to those problems, getting big deep sound with multiple listeners in the room or well equalised sound in a very small space. These are very different from 2-channel problems.

The Harmon reference listening room is about 45 m² with stud wall covered in plasterboard. The average UK living room is 16.1 m² with brick walls.

I disagree with Toole and Olive on the idea of the “circle of confusion”, which starts with recordings being made with inaccurate speakers in inaccurate studios about which engineers are completely ignorant, reproduced by inaccurate speakers in inaccurate rooms. There is a lot of evidence against this, not least at the BBC, where research into studio acoustics and more accurate monitoring was instigated by studio engineers complaining about uneven sound quality. This arose because there were quite a lot of bad studios built during and soon after WW2.

There is a lot of research done in Europe and Scandinavia, mainly aimed at studio acoustics. The only report I could find by Shaun Olive that was not behind the paywall was so fundamentally flawed, it was laughable. He admitted it, for example he had trained listeners evaluating one at a time at the sweet spot, but untrained listeners were herded in to the same room six at a time, so four of them were significantly off axis. they were asked to listen to a full range speaker, a speaker with almost no bass below 80 Hz and an extremely directional and pretty rubbish hybrid planar speaker. So the result was totally predictable. The sampling was also statistically invalid. It read like a Harmon Infomercial.

I do find it a little bit concerning that a lot of the research that the US objectivists rely on seem to be heavily driven by commercial interests.

 

[Geoffkait]

disagree with Toole and Olive on the idea of the “circle of confusion”, which starts with recordings being made with inaccurate speakers in inaccurate studios about which engineers are completely ignorant, reproduced by inaccurate speakers in inaccurate rooms. There is a lot of evidence against this, not least at the BBC, where research into studio acoustics and more accurate monitoring was instigated by studio engineers complaining about uneven sound quality. This arose because there were quite a lot of bad studios built during and soon after WW2.

It’s obvious, if everyone used their speakers, the ones designed using controlled blind testing, the “circle of confusion” would be broken.

 

[thedudeabides]

So in your view there is no low v high fidelity, no point in pursuing the latter?

Correct. Some people are happy with what they have and do not want to spend the time, effort and money to "pursue" the latter re: improve the sound of their audio system. They have other interests and choose to do something else.

For example, I recently simplified my system and am selling all my hi end gear (a definite downgrade in sound quality) to fit my current and future lifestyle needs. Other people have other individual priorities for not pursuing better sound. Please explain what the issue is with that personal decision process.

 

[thedudeabides]

your interpretation was not only different it was incorrect. What I said was we all strive to get better sound AND we all experience times when our systems sound bad. My statement isn’t really open to interpretation.

Well excuse me for having a different opinion / interpretation. I will make sure that I don't do that again. I don't argue. I just add to my ignore list. Bye bye.

 

[ssfas]

So in your view there is no low v high fidelity, no point in pursuing the latter?

“High Fidelity“ is a useful marketing construct that emerged around 1950. From a practical point of view, it’s pretty meaningless. No one ever goes around saying your system is low Fidelity and mine is high Fidelity or vice versa. There is no objective measure of what is or is not high Fidelity.

I only know two other audiophiles (assuming I’m one myself) and only one of them has heard my Audio system. He doesn’t like it at all. That said, I don’t like his system either. They would probably both be considered high Fidelity. I was listening to a $1 million system and hated it so much I left the room after 10 minutes. All I know is that I get hours of listening pleasure from my audio system and whether it’s low/mid/high/no fidelity is of absolutely no interest to me at all.

I would certainly agree that it seems perfectly sensible to pursue the most pleasing and satisfying sound quality, but there’s no need to put labels on it.

I’m a strong believer in SINAD, as in “sure is nice and dandy”. It’s a subjective measurement that in my case is usually close to 100% as most of the time I’m entirely happy with my audio system, until I find some way of making an improvement, which doesn’t happen that often.

 

[Gregm]

I’m a strong believer in SINAD, as in “sure is nice and dandy”. It’s a subjective measurement that in my case is usually close to 100% as most of the time I’m entirely happy with my audio system, until I find some way of making an improvement, which doesn’t happen that often.

Hi -
SINAD is not subjective by any stretch of the imagination (SINAD: signal to noise and distortion). Maybe you mean that you subjectively perceive situations where the sinned ratio is below par?

 

[Geoffkait]

Well excuse me for having a different opinion / interpretation. I will make sure that I don't do that again. I don't argue. I just add to my ignore list. Bye bye.

I definitely do not (rpt do not) need an interpreter. Stop putting words in mouth.

 

[thedudeabides]

This discussion is fascinating with some questioning the generally accepted subjective nature of audio quality, people's personal ability to enjoy their music despite (in the opinion of "others") their shitty, sub par systems and the fact that these "others" apparently believe that they are 100% correct and those who have a different opinion are wrong. And 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Geoffkait]

This discussion is fascinating with some questioning the generally accepted subjective nature of audio quality, people's personal ability to enjoy their music despite (in the opinion of "others") their shitty, sub par systems and the fact that these "others" apparently believe that they are 100% correct and those who have a different opinion are wrong. And 2 + 2 = 5.

Again with the reading comprehension issues. I never said other opinions are wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? Try reading what I wrote again.

 

[thedudeabides]

There is no objective measure of what is or is not high Fidelity.

All I know is that I get hours of listening pleasure from my audio system and whether it’s low/mid/high/no fidelity is of absolutely no interest to me at all.

I’m a strong believer in SINAD, as in “sure is nice and dandy”. It’s a subjective measurement that in my case is usually close to 100% as most of the time I’m entirely happy with my audio system, until I find some way of making an improvement, which doesn’t happen that ofoften.

Can you (or anyone else) please explain to me why this is such a difficult concept for some to understand and accept. Best.

 

[ssfas]

This discussion is fascinating with some questioning the generally accepted subjective nature of audio quality, people's personal ability to enjoy their music despite (in the opinion of "others") their shitty, sub par systems and the fact that these "others" apparently believe that they are 100% correct and those who have a different opinion are wrong. And 2 + 2 = 5.

That does seem to be quite a lot of pseudo-intellectual arrogance floating around in the objectivist camp, which is why I only joined in really to point out what Dr Toole said about the possibility of new unknown variables, which is a scientific way of saying you can’t know everything. Unfortunately, some objectivists think you can know everything.

As it happens, I chose my last DAC by a blind A/B test. The machine I had was a streamer/DAC, so I could compare the output with the new DAC taking a digital output from the same streamer. I was also able to match the output voltages. Someone else had the remote control and could flick between the two DACs instantly. There was a quite obvious audible difference between the two machines, even though they both have a reported noise floor well below theoretical audibility.

SINAD is not subjective by any stretch of the imagination (SINAD: signal to noise and distortion). Maybe you mean that you subjectively perceive situations where the sinned ratio is below par?

Is the ”sinned ratio” defined at “time spent listening divided by time spent reading measurements”?

Besides SINAD (sure is nice and dandy), I measure FTQ (foot tapping quotient).

Time to check out, I’m off to listen to some sine waves.

 

[Robert Young]

Before relative loudness, my (limited) understanding of jazz bands finds the primary instrumentalist, if there is one, in the center of the group. And he is there not only because he may be featured but because he is typically the conductor or at least is the leader who sets the timing. What I know of Ellington typically has his band around him in the center.

edit:

I'm thinking the arrangement is not for creating an image.

Again with the reading comprehension issues. I never said other opinions are wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? Try reading what I wrote again.

May be the comment generally covered a lot of the silliness in this thread, and that all comments aren’t about one person?

 

[ssfas]

Can you (or anyone else) please explain to me why this is such a difficult concept for some to understand and accept. Best.

Because, so I’m told, my subjective preferences are corrupted by marketing, fake science claims, branding preferences and my egotistical desire to be ahead of my audiophile friends.

All of which, in my case, is total nonsense. I don’t read audio magazines. I don’t understand science. I hate branding and have no brand loyalty. Most of my hifi is black boxes with no flashing lights. I don’t have any audiophile friends to impress.

 

[ssfas]

It’s obvious, if everyone used their speakers, the ones designed using controlled blind testing, the “circle of confusion” would be broken.

That's not obvious, that's totally confusing. According to Sean Olive, we'd all be listening at home with the perfect studio monitors and subwoofers used in the recording studio, probably designed by JBL, tuned with JBL Synthesis. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to monitor music, I want to enjoy it.

 

[Geoffkait]

That's not obvious, that's totally confusing. According to Sean Olive, we'd all be listening at home with the perfect studio monitors and subwoofers used in the recording studio, probably designed by JBL, tuned with JBL Synthesis. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to monitor music, I want to enjoy it.

JBL? Was he referring to the ones with the woofer wired backwards one wonders.

 

[Rexp]

The evidence that there is no best for everyone is the simple observation that everyone has a different system and that there are very many different approaches to the hobby. Even when there is some consensus among some members who follow a similar approach, it often results in very different outcomes and gear relative to everyone else.

There can’t be what’s best for everyone when there is so little consensus. This lack of consensus combined with ego and puffery is why I think there are so many arguments here.

Agree there is no best for everyone, Johnson introduced this non point into the thread I believe, is that right? @Another Johnson . I am quite sure you believe that some systems can do things better than others?

 

[PeterA]

Agree there is no best for everyone, Johnson introduced this non point into the thread I believe, is that right? @Another Johnson . I am quite sure you believe that some systems can do things better than others?

Of course I do. But that doesn’t mean that anyone will agree with me.

 

[sparkie]

That's not obvious, that's totally confusing. According to Sean Olive, we'd all be listening at home with the perfect studio monitors and subwoofers used in the recording studio, probably designed by JBL, tuned with JBL Synthesis. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to monitor music, I want to enjoy it.

JBL monitors were never great, but reviewing monitors are way different in a lot of ways than some mixing booth monitors. A prime example for "studio monitors" for high end hifi applications would be PMC MB3 XBD-A . Which is a standard in movie mastering studios:

 

[Rexp]

Of course I do. But that doesn’t mean that anyone will agree with me.

So if a small bluetooth speaker is playing symphonic music vs your system playing the same music, you don't think everyone who has heard symphonic music live, would agree your system is better?

 

[ssfas]

JBL monitors were never great, but reviewing monitors are way different in a lot of ways than some mixing booth monitors. A prime example for "studio monitors" for high end hifi applications would be PMC MB3 XBD-A . Which is a standard in movie mastering studios: View attachment 129404

I’ve heard the BB5 SE (the top half of those speakers) at a demonstration by Peter Thomas, the boss at PMC, who is one of the most likable and engaging of characters. They have two anechoic chambers, Klippel and heaven knows what else, and also make use of the National Physical Research centre, but for him, the ultimate test is always listening to his speakers, monitors and consumer units, in particular with the spoken voice.

I remember him playing a drum solo he recorded on vinyl direct to disc without any compression. He explained that it would destroy a lot of speakers. The sound was visceral, But I couldn’t live with it.

The SE derive from the monitor systems he was commissioned to design for BBC Maida Vale 35 years ago. The consumer units are basically the monitor units with a bit of veneer slapped on the side. The Fenestria, which use the compression drivers first used on the system they designed for Capitol Records, are more my cup of tea.