Robert Harley's Wonderful Defense of our Subjective Hobby

[henrich3]

I can state with pride, however, that I never fell for the quantum dot thing (preens self).

Quantum Dot technology is a very real thing in video. I haven't a clue what they would be used for on the audio side. Presumably just snake oil marketing buzz words...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot_display
https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/samsung-qd-oled-tv-tech-explained-welcome-quantum-dot-era/

 

[Rt66indierock]

In the January 2024 issue of the absolute sound Robert Harley writes a wonderful editorial about the importance to our subjective hobby of listening for oneself:

View attachment 120902

Ron, I just finished packing up my warm clothes and am headed to the Annual Gala. Robert Harley likes MQA so you have to question his hearing and expertise.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ron, I just finished packing up my warm clothes and am headed to the Annual Gala. Robert Harley likes MQA so you have to question his hearing and expertise.

i don't think it works like that. it's not legit IMHO to dismiss someone's credibility based on a liking a process that did not survive. i never believed in MQA as a worthwhile thing, but i did hear what it did sometimes and that it could be a positive thing. but not worth it. i did hear more MQA ROI on the Wadax than the MSB. but mostly native higher rez was better. sometimes 16/44 was better. but sometimes MQA was great.

was it as powerful as some in the audio press claimed? no. and i'm glad it's not likely a thing going forward.

Harley over does the drama too much sometimes (he is not alone doing that but maybe the worst offender), but mostly i agree with the details of his reviews. it's what i hear too.

 

[Kingsrule]

Another boiler plate writing that has WBF all in a tizzy...

Objective vs. Subjective regarding our audio interests? It pretty much boils down to two groups:

There are those who use their ears to make decisions regarding what and how they put their system together
And there are those who need to be told and/or have a mentor to make their decisions regarding their system

The interesting thing is the later group seem to be more active in commenting across many of the individual forums here on WBF....I'll leave that to you to think out why......

 

[henrich3]

Another boiler plate writing that has WBF all in a tizzy...
Objective vs. Subjective regarding our audio interests? It pretty much boils down to two groups:

There are those who use their ears to make decisions regarding what and how they put their system together
And there are those who need to be told and/or have a mentor to make their decisions regarding their system

The interesting thing is the later group seem to be more active in commenting across many of the individual forums here on WBF....I'll leave that to you to think out why......

You mischaracterize my comments.

- If you use your ears in a sighted evaluation, then expectation bias can color your conclusions.
- If you use your ears in a blinded evaluation, then you've controlled for expectation bias and your conclusions will be more trustworthy.

That's it.

 

[Al M.]

Ron, I just finished packing up my warm clothes and am headed to the Annual Gala. Robert Harley likes MQA so you have to question his hearing and expertise.

Robert Harley does write some very insightful reviews with keen ears. The .MQA episode is a very sore spot in his resume, he let himself be bamboozled. However, in the big picture it can be forgiven. Forgiven, but never forgotten.

 

[Joe Whip]

I have participated in sighted as well as blind listening tests. I find the blind tests to be invaluable. No stress as well. I have found expensive stuff to not sound as good as less expensive stuff and visa versa. Listening tests are just another tool in the tool belt. I have also found very minute differences. As a general rule, if I have to really think about hearing differences my default position is I didn’t. When I get stuff in for evaluation, I listen for weeks and then swap the piece out and listen again, long term. Sometimes I am still impressed but other times I realize I was just fooling myself. There is some truth in both sides but ultimately we have to decide based on listening. As an aside, I rarely find that self described truth seekers are really seeking the truth.

 

[Al M.]

As an aside, I rarely find that self described truth seekers are really seeking the truth.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Kingsrule]

You mischaracterize my comments.

- If you use your ears in a sighted evaluation, then expectation bias can color your conclusions.
- If you use your ears in a blinded evaluation, then you've controlled for expectation bias and your conclusions will be more trustworthy.

That's it.

I have no thought on your comments and certainly wasn't referring to them...

 

[henrich3]

I have no thought on your comments and certainly wasn't referring to them...

Apologies for my misunderstanding...

 

[PYP]

I don't find quick A/B listening to be helpful for evaluation purposes. My brain just doesn't work that way. Let me have thoroughly broken-in demo gear for two weeks. That has been how I chose my current gear, some of which I have had now for many years.

Magazine reviews are not helpful for choosing gear. but can be interesting anyway. Trends in design emerge from the reviews of similar categories of gear. I look at the photos before reading the article and try to guess the price. Even after so many years in this hobby, the actual price can be a surprise (and not in a good way). Having established the price, I can then anticipate the reviewer's general level of hyperbole. On the occasion that the reviewer is genuinely insightful, I will follow along with their music selections via Roon/Qobuz. I have found some interesting music that way.

 

[Rt66indierock]

i don't think it works like that. it's not legit IMHO to dismiss someone's credibility based on a liking a process that did not survive. i never believed in MQA as a worthwhile thing, but i did hear what it did sometimes and that it could be a positive thing. but not worth it. i did hear more MQA ROI on the Wadax than the MSB. but mostly native higher rez was better. sometimes 16/44 was better. but sometimes MQA was great.

was it as powerful as some in the audio press claimed? no. and i'm glad it's not likely a thing going forward.

Harley over does the drama too much sometimes (he is not alone doing that but maybe the worst offender), but mostly i agree with the details of his reviews. it's what i hear too.

I just got back from the LAOCAS Annual Gala. I had dinner with John Atkinson Sunday night, we talked about life and technical audio stuff.

I dismissed Robert’s credibility but didn’t say it here. Sorry but we knew about jitter before the paper Robert is citing (1992) and what we needed to do make it inaudible. The hobby got sent down the wrong path by only using subjective methods. His 12,000-word paper (1991) misses the point. Listening is only part of the process evaluating audio. As for grounding, easy enough to solve by measurements.

I think what you are trying to say is MQA sound quality is normally distributed. Some are great, good, no different, a different sort of different, worse, and bad. Just like any other format, 68% are no different or a different sort of different.

Robert Harley promoted MQA using a technique called an Availability Cascade. It took a lot of coordinated effort to stop promotion of MQA.

Finally, do you agree with Robert or have you read him for so long that your views mimic his?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Finally, do you agree with Robert or have you read him for so long that your views mimic his?

honestly i never followed all the MQA stuff in detail, just listened to it as i was curious, so i don't know about the details of what Harley supported. i just did not care that much. it was not high enough on my radar. the bad guy was Bob Stewart in my book. he was the dark side. anyway; apart from MQA, sometimes/mostly i do agree with Harley about what he specifically writes about gear performance. but also mostly i don't agree about the gravity/implications of what he is hearing. too much bluster for me....mostly. making more of it than he should. but his job is partly promotion. so i just factor that into things and not worry about it. he is a very smart guy who gets much right.

i don't really parallel him in system building.

 

[Sampajanna]

I liked this article, though I am not of fan of the mags. What bugs me about the objectivists isn’t that they like measurements or blind tests, which are all fine, but the rudeness, pride and closed-minded incivility, which Robert briefly touches upon. The objectivists on WBF, like the gentleman here henrich3, seem open to having a conversation and feel like dudes I’d like to hang out with and listen to some music, go for dinner and chat more about gear. All the scientists I know are curious and exploratory, like Al M. says above. Most all the dudes on ASR just repeat the same talking points in angry ways and seem way too obsequious to their “founder.” I don’t feel like I want to hang out with the people over there. They are very rude.

 

[Joe Whip]

There are rude folks on all sides although the guys at ASR seem to take it to another level.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I liked this article, though I am not of fan of the mags. What bugs me about the objectivists isn’t that they like measurements or blind tests, which are all fine, but the rudeness, pride and closed-minded incivility, which Robert briefly touches upon. The objectivists on WBF, like the gentleman here henrich3, seem open to having a conversation and feel like dudes I’d like to hang out with and listen to some music, go for dinner and chat more about gear. All the scientists I know are curious and exploratory, like Al M. says above. Most all the dudes on ASR just repeat the same talking points in angry ways and seem way too obsequious to their “founder.” I don’t feel like I want to hang out with the people over there. They are very rude.

the question is whether someone likes/loves/is obsessed with music and actually listening to music. passion. if i have that in common with someone then the rest always seems to work out. and if we listen together, we will end up closer. OTOH when they would rather talk about their beliefs, than talk about music and music listening related things, those are the one's who are square pegs. it's then agenda first, music somewhere not second.

objectivist/subjectivist is besides the point.

 

[Sampajanna]

the question is whether someone likes/loves/is obsessed with music and actually listening to music. passion. if i have that in common with someone then the rest always seems to work out. and if we listen together, we will end up closer. OTOH when they would rather talk about their beliefs, than talk about music and music listening related things, those are the one's who are square pegs. it's then agenda first, music somewhere not second.

objectivist/subjectivist is besides the point.

I couldn’t’ agree more. i am open to both/all perspectives. It sure doesnt feel as if some dudes even care about music…. I listened to some Indian classical this morning with the biggest grin on my face. To me, that is priceless….

 

[treitz3]

I just listened to a couple of selections and I have no idea what language they were even singing in. It sounded great. Will definitely listen to it again.

Talking about musical reproduction efforts is fine but I'd much rather listen and enjoy what it is we all talk about.

Tom

 

[Joe Whip]

Yes, some people seem to like to talk about sex. I would rather do it. More fun that way. same with music and equipment.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Simply everything makes a difference.

Does everything truly make a difference? Or do we just think that everything makes a difference because we believe we always hear a difference?