Perception, science, engineering and high-end audio
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
But some make choices solely based on measurements (i.e there are only 4 factors that determine audio transparency) & defend their equipment & system choice to the bitter end
I've witnessed it on forums but never in the flesh
No matter how they made their choice, people are either listening to what they like or what they don't like and that was my point.
But some make choices solely based on measurements (i.e there are only 4 factors that determine audio transparency) & defend their equipment & system choice to the bitter end
I've witnessed it on forums but never in the flesh
People make audio equipment choices based on many things other than sound, and relatively speaking, measurements barely make the list. I've witnessed it on forums and in the flesh, though it is much more entertaining in the flesh.
Tim
Tim,
This is abusive oversimplification, trying to reduce the high high-end just to "sounds good to them" or "what they like".
As you could read if you wanted to, most of "these guys" believe that sound reproduction has a precise objective, that is well documented and studied. They consider that in order to reach this objective their subjective methods, although not perfect, are superior to the ABX or short time DBT methods.
BTW, I am not going to quote for the tenth time the subjective objectives of sound reproduction for the end consumers that I am referring to. Any one interested can read them in the introduction of the "Sound Reproduction" book by F. Toole.
microstrip
If I were to gather what I have been reading on this site and condense it. I would say that "it-sounds-good-to-me, then it is good" has become the new mantra. The term Hi-Fi doesn't carry much meaning these days. We have seen vociferous arguments here that since we don't know what is in the groove then whatever sounds good to the listener is good .. whatever floats your boat...
At least that what I thought or is there a reality on an objective, I would like to think measurable goal? I have lamented the departure from Hi-Fi to "whatever one likes", in these very pages are you aligning to my point of view?
Do we buy gear with our ears or do we buy gear with a stack of measurements/specifications? If the answer is our ears, what are we talking about anyway? Those that have the luxury of having a good high-end store near them and get a chance to demo gear at home before a purchase or at least spend some time in the store with your favorite digital files or LPs, do you whip out your test instruments and measure the gear at the store or your home or do you make your decision on how it sounds?
It's abusive oversimplification to hope people have bought what sounds good to them? Who would have known? I thought I was wishing them well. Really, I could apply the same logic to the most extreme objectivists and my conclusion wouldn't change: I don't care if your initial attraction to your kit was based solely on measurements or fully on the reviews of audio journalists, I hope, in the end, you got what sounds good to you.
Tim
FrantzM,
Forget about the vociferous ... It is not whatever floats you boat ...
I quote from the Toole book. In order to fully understand how this can be carried you have to read the book. And understand what is statistics ...
Since the true nature of the original sound cannot be known to listeners, one cannot say “it sounds as it should.” But listeners routinely volunteer opinions on scales that are variations of like-dislike, which frequently have a component of emotion. Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence.
Yes, we know when voices don't sound accurate. We know when clapping sounds like rain on a tin roof, we know when cymbal brushing doesn't sound accurate that something is wrong. The question is that on the recording or is it our playback system is easily answered by using a number of different recordings with the same sounds, voices, hand-clapping, etc - whatever our reference is. Simply distilling this to the statement that "whatever sounds good" is a gross insult along the same lines as "our ears are not to be trusted" or "everybody hears differently" - all are red herrings to try justifying measurement as an absolute & the only absolute!
Yes, there is an objective reality but you can only sense it through the prism of your senses !
I wonder when this was written, relative to the extensive blind listening testing that led Toole's colleague, Sean Olive, to conclude that, when given the opportunity to judge without bias, most listeners preferred more accurate reproduction? Was Toole predicting or reporting?
In any case, I agree. Most listeners intuitively prefer more accurate reproduction. The hobbyist who actually prefers the distortions of antiquated technologies is the exception, not the norm. Nevertheless, I hope he is listening to what he likes, not what he thinks he is supposed to like; I wish him listening pleasure wherever he finds it.
Tim
I seriously doubt Sean Olive has amassed a sufficient data base to say what "most listeners" prefer. Or for that matter what hobbyist prefer. For all practical purposes we are all forced to choose from an imperfect pool of software and hardware. While eliminating non -sonic influences is encouraged ,all bias need not be eliminated. Indeed such things as loudness, frequency extension,dynamic range,etc are expensive to due right. So one may find that brittle highs are unacceptable. That the midrange is paramaount. Many may find that they have to have deep basss. Soundstage may be essential for some.
Putting together a full range low distortion system in a room that can support it an expensive proposition. What we end up is more often the result of necessary choices not "a love of distortion or preference.."
Putting together a full range low distortion system in a room that can support it an expensive proposition. What we end up is more often the result of necessary choices not "a love of distortion or preference.."
To put it plainly, Greg, you've underestimated Dr. Olive. Audio research is what Olive does, and he seems to be very good at it. I don't know if you know what it means to "amass sufficient data," but I'm certain he does. With that said, I couldn't swear, without hunting it down, that his statement that most listeners prefer accurate reproduction was not a qualified one. I didn't bother to hunt it down; it seems pretty obvious to me.
OK....
Not really. Not unless you have a really big room. You can put together a full range, low distortion system for the average American den or living room for less than $7 grand. We can argue over soundstage, scale, brittle vs smooth and all the rest of the unqualifiable stuff that subjectivist audiophiles discuss and civilians are unaware of. And we can argue about tonality till the cows come home because even if we could get transducers and a room perfectly flat, neither one of us would like it and we'd enter the personal taste zone. But low distortion, full range, realistic volume in a moderately-sized room? 6 grand. 7 if the room is getting fussy and you need 2 subs.
Tim
Last edited:
The quote I inserted was a general statement about sound reproduction - each of us if free to bold whichever part of it he prefers, but it does not erase the other parts.
But please do not mix it with the very interesting Olive experiments. These experiments have a methodology, and just quoting random parts of them does not help understanding the previous point.
FIY, remember that most of the book of F. Toole is related to loudspeakers and listening rooms. Concerning electronics, cables and tweaks his clear position is that electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to nonexistent differences (quoted from his book).
But please do not mix it with the very interesting Olive experiments. These experiments have a methodology, and just quoting random parts of them does not help understanding the previous point.
FIY, remember that most of the book of F. Toole is related to loudspeakers and listening rooms. Concerning electronics, cables and tweaks his clear position is that electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to nonexistent differences (quoted from his book).
Last edited:
The fact remains any instrument played at relistic levels can tax even the most elaborate stereo systems.
I'll concede that Sean Olive holds back some of the scientific data from his Audio Muisngs Articles. Assuming he is speking for a large group of people you have to take a scientic sample in order to extrapolate the choices of a few to the general population. That's a huge undertaking.
I'll concede that Sean Olive holds back some of the scientific data from his Audio Muisngs Articles. Assuming he is speking for a large group of people you have to take a scientic sample in order to extrapolate the choices of a few to the general population. That's a huge undertaking.
Similar threads
- Locked