Introspection and hyperbole control

[Ron Resnick]

True!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi Tim,

I don’t have much time, but I’m curious as to who “they” might be exactly?

You're not being curious, you're being pedantic. I defined "they" -- competent engineers. While I suspect there are a few audio designers who develop and test products without ever measuring them in the process, I imagine most of them are glorified DIY people. We have a few developers here...anyone get a product from concept to market without running any tests other than listening?

If “they” do, as you say you know, measure, and do, as you say you know, listen, could you tell me what “they” are measuring and what they’re listening to, because a quick glance at the huge disparity of how components measure in any given category of components (speakers, for instance) seems to indicate either, they’re not all measuring the same things, or they’re not all listening for the same things, wouldn’t it?

Well, you cherry-picked the right example, speakers, and I think you understand that I'm talking about electronic components. In the case of speakers, I think it's much more likely that they have goals other than linear reproduction. And I think you probably understand that as well. In the case of electronic components, once you get out of the world of NOS DACs, tubes, turntables and tape, the disparity is not huge at all.

So when someone uses the term “linear” to describe a mechanism that is not and cannot be linear, that’s fine, and yet, when someone uses the term “musical” apropos a mechanism designed to play back music, they’re berated for using meaningless and indefinable terminology? Which one is more hyperbolic to you?

They are not even close to the same. When someone says an electronic component is "linear," they're talking about practical engineering, not theoretical physics. They are talking about minor variations in FR within the audible spectrum. Granted, +/-XdB is more precise than linear, because linear is relative. But in modern electronic components these variations are very small, often not audible. Musical, by contrast, is a term borrowed from music and misapplied to audio reproduction, that isn't clearly defined, much less quantifiable, and can be applied to anything the listener likes the sound of. I imagine you understand this as well, but you're not really talking to me. Enjoy talking to yourself. I'm sure it will be a very lengthy conversation.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

I think it's much more likely that they have goals other than linear reproduction.

I think there are 'cults' around certain technologies. I think the hi fi dog is, in many cases, wagged by the technology tail. People become obsessed with valves, or vinyl, or transformers, or horns etc. etc. They are not designing for linearity, or musicality, but just for the sake of using a certain technology.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think there are 'cults' around certain technologies. I think the hi fi dog is, in many cases, wagged by the technology tail. People become obsessed with valves, or vinyl, or transformers, or horns etc. etc. They are not designing for linearity, or musicality, but just for the sake of using a certain technology.

Yes and in that case, I think the "hi" part of "hi fi" only refers to price. In terms of performance, that is the true "midfi," and the stuff that "high-end" audiophiles refer to as "midfi," and certainly pro audio, often kicks its soft, pampered, ridiculously priced booty.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Yes and in that case, I think the "hi" part of "hi fi" only refers to price. In terms of performance, that is the true "midfi," and the stuff that "high-end" audiophiles refer to as "midfi," and certainly pro audio, often kicks its soft, pampered, ridiculously priced booty.

Tim

The amount of truly awful pro-audio gear on the market should temper such strong statements.

 

[microstrip]

(...) When someone says an electronic component is "linear," they're talking about practical engineering, not theoretical physics. (...)

Tim

Tim,

Most of the time audiophiles are talking about "being perceived as linear" compared to their references, not being linear in mathematics. The engineers must work a lot to achieve this "linearity" and are still not able to define it clearly. IMHO it is why this thread calls for more "introspection" in the reviews.

 

[Steve williams]

Yes and in that case, I think the "hi" part of "hi fi" only refers to price. In terms of performance, that is the true "midfi," and the stuff that "high-end" audiophiles refer to as "midfi," and certainly pro audio, often kicks its soft, pampered, ridiculously priced booty.

Tim

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

 

[Diapason]

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

Well that comment caused quite a snort in my open-plan office. That'll teach me to surf at work!

 

[Ron Resnick]

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

I agree!

 

[KeithR]

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

+1

Sorry Doc- I'm starting to tire of this forum. In addition to Tim's comment, we have people now posting that any system that isn't SS, Digital, DSP, and a corrected room is someone who loves distortion. We have forum members that presuppose they know more than the designers of the gear in the hobby we love. We have guys who only post measurements in any thread about a speaker or amplifier and the same guys rarely tell us if they have actually heard the piece in question. This forum is heading back to the ways of Audioreview.com back in 2000.

And I'm a guy who reads JAs measurements and they have some influence in my purchasing decisions. But apparently a spec sheet and a FR graph is all I need to buy hifi gear now. Who knew?

 

[DaveC]

We have forum members that presuppose they know more than the designers of the gear in the hobby we love.

This is a huge problem in every subject area, and one I have a hard time with.

For example, look at any thread in any forum about USB cables and you'll find people with no knowledge of the subject claiming there are just ones and zeros, what could possibly go wrong? When actual articles and posts by designers of DACs are brought up it seems to make no difference. When the claim is made that USB data is error checked and then it is shown not to be the case in USB audio, the same people will now tell you that errors are one in a billion without actually knowing any facts whatsoever. And it goes on, the blind leading the blind in an neverending loop of stupidity and ignorance... (unfortunately, this seems to be the defining element of human existence).

As far as introspection, I wish more people would not assume they know it all and keep more of an open mind, which includes not being so judgmental about others' opinions and experiences.

 

[Steve williams]

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

I agree!

+1

Sorry Doc- I'm starting to tire of this forum. In addition to Tim's comment, we have people now posting that any system that isn't SS, Digital, DSP, and a corrected room is someone who loves distortion. We have forum members that presuppose they know more than the designers of the gear in the hobby we love. We have guys who only post measurements in any thread about a speaker or amplifier and the same guys rarely tell us if they have actually heard the piece in question. This forum is heading back to the ways of Audioreview.com back in 2000.

And I'm a guy who reads JAs measurements and they have some influence in my purchasing decisions. But apparently a spec sheet and a FR graph is all I need to buy hifi gear now. Who knew?

welcome to the ever growing club Keith

Sad thing is there are those who just love to pi$$ in everyone's morning cereal as a means of inciting and such member I quoted IMHO is the epitome

He was a precipitating reason for jkeny's departure. As I advised jkeny (albeit unsuccessfully), members such as him are best served by people putting him on their ignore list because IMO life is too short to engage such a person. For some members there is also a "universal" ignore that I must admit I have thought of invoking

 

[amirm]

Mod: everyone, please let's be nice to each other. If a thread is bothersome to read, please go to some other thread, listen to some music, etc. I know what makes me throw up in coffee (err, I am a tea drinker ), is our senior members going after each other.

I take the purpose of Ron's thread to be one of everyone being more moderate and as as a result getting along better. Shame would be having to close it because we can't ignore certain discussions from others.

If you need a suggestion of what to do than reading this thread, do what I have been doing: scan the ton of wonderful threads we have on people's favorite music, sample them and buy a few.

OK?

 

[Al M.]

Mod: everyone, please let's be nice to each other. If a thread is bothersome to read, please go to some other thread, listen to some music, etc.

Amir, I agree. I have learned to ignore some topics, no big deal. The problem only arises when you try to 'convert' someone out of their stubbornly held, in your view wrong, opinions. If you have that kind of zeal, you will always be dragged back into fruitless and pointless discussions. Then audio becomes like a political discussion -- there you also simply cannot convince someone stubborn of your viewpoint, even when they are very intelligent. You cannot even convince them, while allowing them to disagree with your view, that there might be some merit in your reasoning. That's just the way it is, they will always think that your views are 'dumb' when they are not. Intelligence and open-mindedness are not the same, that's human nature. In fact, I know some highly intelligent people who are extremely closed-minded.

So why don't you concentrate on discussions where you can actually learn, and perhaps even let others learn, if that's in any way possible? I have done that lately, and I do enjoy such discussions on WBF. And I skip the other ones for listening to some music. So yes, I'm with you on this one, Amir.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If you need a suggestion of what to do than reading this thread, do what I have been doing: scan the ton of wonderful threads we have on people's favorite music, sample them and buy a few.

OK?

Unfortunately my main reason to participate in WBF is not people's favorite music. Although I occasionally participate in music threads, my main interest is audio in its many aspects. IMHO this thread is relevant to our hobby, we should keep it going on.

 

[Al M.]

BTW, I like Ron's original post and intention for the thread, but perhaps the direction it has recently taken is less constructive.

 

[Ron Resnick]

As far as introspection, I wish more people would not assume they know it all and keep more of an open mind, which includes not being so judgmental about others' opinions and experiences.

Well-stated, Dave. Thank you.

 

[FrantzM]

Unfortunately my main reason to participate in WBF is not people's favorite music. Although I occasionally participate in music threads, my main interest is audio in its many aspects. IMHO this thread is relevant to our hobby, we should keep it going on.

I agree with you .

I do however find that we are getting too thin-skinned. Many who threaten to leave at the slightest hint of disagreement are too often guilty of displaying the same lack of introspection and hyperbole control ... so let's discuss and agree to disagree. it is the purpose of forum to have debate... We are losing sight of that aspect .. with wanting to please everybody's whims and wants and sometimes over-sensitive egos..

Just to re-center myself and suggest open mind: USB cables .. I have not cared to audition any but ... one of my employees, hardly an audiophile showed a USB cable which when connected to any decent charger results in a shorter re-charge time. No blind test required... you plug the original (Samsung S5 cable) charge is normal as per the manual .... You plug that particular USB cable I would dare to say, half the time to re-charge ..Same with my HTC One .. I may need to listen to more USB cables ! They are definitely not created equal

 

[Al M.]

I agree with you .

I do however find that we are getting too thin-skinned. Many who threaten to leave at the slightest hint of disagreement are too often guilty of displaying the same lack of introspection and hyperbole control ... so let's discuss and agree to disagree. it is the purpose of forum to have debate... We are losing sight of that aspect .. with wanting to please everybody's whims and wants and sometimes over-sensitive egos..

+1

It's useful to learn to swallow your pride and to recognize there are discussions you cannot 'win', no matter how well-informed or experienced you consider yourself in the matter discussed. Some people cannot be convinced that they are wrong or even just to look beyond their narrow viewpoint. Get over that basic human fact and move on. You have better things to do with your life.

Just because you discuss the same thing for the 201st time instead of merely the 200th time doesn't justify you to expect a different outcome.

 

[amirm]

BTW, I like Ron's original post and intention for the thread, but perhaps the direction it has recently taken is less constructive.

Right on. Here is Ron's original post. If yours does not relate to this, please refrain from posting it here:

Words are useful only to the extent they help us distinguish certain things from other things. In this hobby, which generally is subjective listening oriented and thus usually not quantitative or scientific oriented, we typically use words, and not numbers, to express our subjective views about, our impressions about and our evaluations of, the sonic characteristics of audio components and of high-end systems. We describe, among many other characteristics, the magnitude of improvement or degradation in one or more aspects of sound quality; our estimates of frequency ranges and sonic characteristics within each frequency range; spectrums of macrodynamics, microdynamics, brightness, timbre and speed; perceptions of relative amounts of detail; linearity or lumpiness of perceived frequency response; etc.

If someone has an elaborate, very expensive, state-of-the-art type of system which he has been optimizing, tweaking and perfecting for years, and he changes the input tubes in his pre-amp, I am sure there will be differences in sound qualities between the old tubes and the new tubes which at least some of us will be able to hear. But does that change in input tubes cause a major improvement in sound quality, a small improvement in sound quality or a tiny improvement in sound quality? Is that improvement in sound quality actually a net improvement on an aggregated basis, or has the listener improved one sonic attribute to the detriment of one or more other sonic attributes? Is an improvement in one aspect of sound quality (e.g., “less analytical”) offset, or more than offset, by losses in other aspects of sound quality (e.g., less dynamic and lower “jump factor” and, therefore, less “live” sounding)?

If a member with a revealing, dynamic, full-range and linear frequency response system tapes a two foot square piece of sound absorbing material above each of his speakers in a large, dedicated listening room, is it truly accurate to report a “significant” increase in soundstaging or a “dramatic” reduction in instrumental smearing? What is the starting point intending to be referenced? Did you explain to us that starting point in your post? Are you articulating accurately and authentically the magnitude of the difference you believe you hear, and not merely gleefully reporting your understandable and justifiable excitement about having made a very small, marginal improvement to an already stunningly believable system?

Does replacing the Stillpoint Ultra SSs with Stillpoint Ultra 5s underneath your speakers really make your speakers sound like “new” or “different” speakers? Are you trying to describe a significant increase in some sonic attribute or an incremental increase in that sonic attribute? Are they truly a “major upgrade”? How are you defining “major”? Is your description carefully thought-through, evaluated and as accurate as you can articulate? Are you sure that “like new” truly is what you mean? Is the difference really that significant? Did going back to the Ultra SSs really cause your soundstage to “collapse”?

I hereby respectfully request greater introspection about how each of us describes the differences each of us hears, and about the magnitude of the differences each of us hears. This is a plea to each of my fellow WBF members to think carefully about how you think about and evaluate and describe the changes you believe you hear and the magnitude of the changes you believe you hear.

By being careful about hyperbole and unintended exaggeration, and by thinking long and hard about the sonic difference you are evaluating and the magnitude of the sonic difference you are evaluating, and the relative importance of the change in question versus the “before” sound of your system overall, you are helping each of us to better understand what you are attempting to describe, and you are explaining more convincingly the changes you made to the sound quality of your system.

Disclaimer: The examples used herein do not refer to any particular member or any particular posting. Any similarities to any member or posting are purely coincidental and unintended.