Is the Measurement Forum the place for objectivists to be attacked by subjectivists?

[DonH50]

One must beware the "driver's ed syndrome" when comparing systems. Driver's education was used as an example in a psychology class I took in college. (Yes, I took several -- I was pre-med, since electrical engineering and working my way through was not masochistic enough. ) Supposedly driver's ed made for much better drivers and better grades. Turns out the students who took driver's ed tended to be the more conscientious ones who had better grades and would be better drivers regardless.

The link to this tale is that speakers using higher-end components may be designed by people who pay more attention to all aspects of the design and so would sound better if the tweeters were paper, Al, Be, diamond, or whatever. Just like some of the more expensive CDs sound better due to better (re)mastering and attention to detail throughout the recording processing, not necessarily because the final CD is thicker, gold plated, has green edges, or whatever.

(And y'all though I was going to bring up expectation bias -- ha! Too easy... )

 

[c1ferrari]

As far as the topic of the thread...
Rob

No, the measurements forum is/should not be a place for objectivists to be attacked by subjectivists.
As was asserted earlier, there is an equilibrium and...it's probably different for each of us.

 

[Gregadd]

My grand uncle used to rent bloodhoumds. They not only had a superior sense of smell they would stay on the trail from sunup to sundown. Sometimes you just can't compete without the right tools.
Oh yeah I have a degree in Math and turned down a teaching fellowship in computer science to go to law school. Law school was mind numbing. Ain't life grand.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

@ Greg: Law school is a palace of thought compared to practice....



Now - May I venture that nowhere should anyone be attacked by anyone else.

 

[Whatmore]

Now - May I venture that nowhere should anyone be attacked by anyone else.

Amen brother !

 

[NorthStar]

We all oppose to imposed superstition, right? :b

 

[Gregadd]

@ Greg: Law school is a palace of thought compared to practice....



Now - May I venture that nowhere should anyone be attacked by anyone else.

Like so many fields the problem with the law is its unwillingness to accept the logical outcome of its philosophy. To put it more succinctly to concerned with who wins or loses.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

We can talk a lot about what should happen What of the Audiophile who is sitting in his living right now with a product in front of him?
I don't like to say it however it is entirely possible (probable) that any given sysyem is incapable of resolving the differences.

Sure. There are a ton of possibilities. Another is that power conditioning/cords/tweaking make no actual audible difference to the ears except in the suggestible minds of some audiophiles = expectation bias. Yet another is that some equipment/systems are deficient in internal power supply design, regulation and filtering, hence more revealing of external filtering. Yet another is that some homes might have cleaner power than others.

Individual system situations and listeners may differ. There is no "one size fits all" universal truth just because you heard a difference, which appears to be where you are coming from. So, as I said, if you think you hear a worthwhile difference yourself, you should go for it.

I can recall the early days when power conditioning was fairly new - early 90's timeframe, maybe. All the major magazine reviewers immediately jumped on the band wagon, applying some form of power conditioning to their entire systems under review, including their amps. They all heard differences, actually "big improvements", from that "upgrade". Then, later, J. Peter Moncrieff in his "underground", no advertising bulletin called International Audio Review (IAR) ran some measurements. He clearly showed that a lot of the then rave power conditioners were limiting input current and power supply cap recharging with audible consequences, especially to the amps. Of course, many reviewers had found this effect euphonically "more musical", and briefly for awhile, a few even found the Tice Clock rip off, which was a parallel, non-limiting "filter" to be beneficial.

I am not certain it was the cause. But, quietly, after those IAR reviews and measurements, many of the major reviewers started deemphasizing power conditioners, at least as far as amp hookups were concerned. I have not stumbled onto any meaningful, reasonably objective measurements of power conditioners since then, particularly not of the audible effects through the system via controlled, unsighted testing.

No doubt, power conditioners, power cords and power tweaks have come a long way since then, or have they? Of course, we are much smarter today, or are we?

There is also always the dilemma of why would equipment manufacturers themselves not include better filtration, isolation, better power cords, fuses, etc. into their gear in the first place if it could make their stuff sound better competitively in comparative audition? Sure, they are only idiot engineers, and we audiophiles know better, or do we? But, if equipment designers are such idiots about clean power, what else have they screwed up? Why are we buying their gear at all?

 

[thedudeabides]

I love it. A forum that is established for the "O" crowd and being used to criticize the "S" crowd.

Anyone see something fundamentally wrong with this picture?

And Andrew, I agree that no one should "attack" anyone.

Respectfully submitted.

 

[Dynamix]

I love it. A forum that is established for the "O" crowd and being used to criticize the "S" crowd.

Anyone see something fundamentally wrong with this picture?

And Andrew, I agree that no one should "attack" anyone.

Respectfully submitted.

I see it more as a forum established for the "O" crowd being used by the "S" crowd to attack the "O" crowd even though the sign on the door clearly reads "...but this is one forum where the subjectivists will not be allowed to derail or flame an objectivist thread with the comment 'I trust my ears'...". Guess it's a matter of perspective.

The fact that you see any objective data that challenges your subjective worldview as some sort of "attack" is your problem. As far as I can tell no one is forcing you to read anything that is written in this particular subforum. And yet, here you are.

 

[Whatmore]

I love it. A forum that is established for the "O" crowd and being used to criticize the "S" crowd.

Anyone see something fundamentally wrong with this picture?

And Andrew, I agree that no one should "attack" anyone.

Respectfully submitted.

Respectfully, I see something fundamentally wrong with your premise.

What is happening is the opposite of what you suggest. Hence this thread

 

[the sound of Tao]

Cmon guys, if we are talking real facts and some actual measurements then there is actually no 'O' crowd nor is there even an 'S' crowd. There is just a small and focussed minority of fundamentalists who argue from a specific position. If all done respectfully then that is all fine. But the only crowd here according to the poll on members who use only objective or subjective assessment with gear is a majority crowd - the 'OS+' majority... some 95% of the board who see validity in both.

The idea that anyone should be 'attacked' and getting caught up in something as realistically unimportant as the illusion of some absolute divide and a mythical battle between two great opposing masses of which we can only be one or the other is just pure craziness. The fact that it never seems to end in truth is just a bit sad.

Proper objectivity and subjectivity don't attack each other, the truth is actually to be found in proper correlation between the two. As they say objective and subjective argument don't attack people, only people attack people.

Didn't we learn from just how much WBF suffered recently from relentless entrenched battles and all the damage that it does to our culture. A lot of frustration that comes from a continuous entrenched lack of perspective sometimes from a few that can just ultimately inflame us all. This stuff is more often than not more exhausting than invigorating. Perhaps acceptance by us all that any truth ultimately has some limits might actually be helpful here as it is everywhere else.

I thought the dudeabides certainly had it very right with his sign off... 'Respectfully' submitted. We need to show more respect and not get so caught up in this at times. We all do. We all have our bad days but attacking each other doesn't help. If there is to be an objective only forum then all need to respect that argument within it needs to remain objective.

 

[thedudeabides]

Oh my. My sincere apologies for dipping my toes into this forum.

So much for civil conversation despite my closing two words in my above post. At least Tao "got it".

Bye bye Dynamix et al. Have fun with your measurements.

PS: FWIW, objective data doesn't challenge my subjective views. I consider both perspectives when appropriate and balance accordingly.

 

[Whatmore]

Oh my. My sincere apologies for dipping my toes into this forum.

So much for civil conversation despite my closing two words in my above post. At least Tao "got it".

Bye bye Dynamix et al. Have fun with your measurements.

PS: FWIW, objective data doesn't challenge my subjective views. I consider both perspectives when appropriate and balance accordingly.

I've made my post more respectful. Apologies

 

[RBFC]

Please, may we all raise our standards together and attempt to end this bickering? We have indeed had our share of strife here recently and we all desire to move on to something greater than before. The measurement forum will henceforth be monitored and moderated more carefully. I urge all participants to remain friendly and professional so that the conversations can be held with maximum signal/noise ratio.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[NorthStar]

I've been reading many reviews in 'Stereofile' mag for the last 40 years or so ? http://www.stereophile.com/features/708/#3cizSZZ7Uj1u3tc4.97

Sometimes there is a review about an audio component, including loudspeakers, that the reviewer has high praise for; very delighted with the sound, the music listening experience coming out of it. And then the measurements doesn't show that correlation; to the contrary, the product in question measured poorly in several parameters from the lab tests.
I can give few links to show that, but no need because most of you already know that.

And it is extremely rare that a product which measured very very well all across the board is not liked by the reviewer in real-life listening/analyzing testing (with his ears).

What's funny too is this: Many professional audio reviewers don't have the best of listening rooms. But it don't fully matter, because that is still their less than ideal reference room, and they also have their own reference audio gear. And that is the basis of their reviews, from years of listening experience, and without looking @ the measurements before they write their reviews.

Here's what I think though: In a perfectly balanced world (the impossible dream; not only in audio but in everything else), the room would be ideally acoustically treated for best music reproduction. ...And never, ever, look @ the measurements before writing the review; because then it's no more a professional audio review fully unbiased.
Furthermore, the logo of the manufacturer on the front face of the product should me masked with masking tape, so that there is no bias here either.
But they don't do that in 99.99% of the pro audio mags.

Some special audio mags, a very small minority, and private subscriptions (higher prices too) do a better job @ evaluating audio products under a more accurate compass. • http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html

RIP ? http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/richard-dick-hardesty-19442014/
? http://vandersteen.com/media/files/Reprints/2wqReviewAudioPerfectionist.pdf

________

There is not a single drop of doubt in my mind that both objectivity and subjectivity are to coexist together on a same equilateral triangle...balance with the three angles measuring exactly the same 60° inside, for that total sum of 180°. It's a way of speech of course...a geometrically sounding one. ...As speaker's designers design their speakers in & out with all non-parallel surfaces, and top quality crossover parts that measure the best, and that sound the best too. ...Separate active x-overs of course.

And for DACs, I want the very best measurements; in jitter, in distortion, in waveform, ...in all.

Another funny thing: The top subjectivity people from the ultra high end normally own the top objectivity audio products..."normally".

Last: Can you equal the same quality level listening experience between two different audio products from different prices?
That question is not well formulated, so the answer is very relative.

Key word: Respect.

 

[thedudeabides]

I've made my post more respectful. Apologies

Thank you Whatmore. Hopefully its obvious to most that I wasn't trying to start a "food fight". I have no agenda.

Best

 

[thedudeabides]

Key word: Respect.

Thank you Bob.

That was my intent in my previous posts.

Best.

 

[NorthStar]

Thank you Bob.

That was my intent in my previous posts.

Best.

I used that word as the last one to conclude because I've read this entire thread and listened to all the members who posted messages, plus I also used the brain

 

[Dynamix]

Please, may we all raise our standards together and attempt to end this bickering? We have indeed had our share of strife here recently and we all desire to move on to something greater than before. The measurement forum will henceforth be monitored and moderated more carefully. I urge all participants to remain friendly and professional so that the conversations can be held with maximum signal/noise ratio.

Thanks,

Lee

That's exactly what this subforum needs, Lee. Proper moderation.