What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[fas42]

If people deny that sterile sound even exists, and instead focus on the measured performance of a system ... the resulting sound will be sterile. I have heard a dozen examples of this phenomenon.

Keith, would you accept that what you call "sterile" sound is distorted sound, in the sense that if you were measuring for distortion using an appropriately sensitive technique that in fact the replay was "wrong", there was audible distortion being contributed by the playback mechanism, being added to the end sound?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Which is why the words "clinical" and "sterile" are not part of the objectivist lexicon. Can't be measured, but every subjectivist knows what it is.

Of course neither is warm, euphonic, musical, etc. The objectivist's vocabulary avoids terms that are re-defined by every user and, therefore, pretty useless in a broader dialogue. But I don't think we have any pure objectivists here on WBF. I think we have a lot of relative objectivists who do a lot of listening and who would conclude that one man's "sterile" is another's precise; that one man's "musical" is another's colored.

While we are here, we may as well ask - fidelity to what, anyway? Fidelity to a recording, or fidelity to a live performance?

Given that your audio reproduction system has no information other than the recording, the answer is obvious. I listen to all kinds of music. I have simple recordings and highly processed ones. I want my system electronics to amplify and pass through the signal from the recording as transparently as possible. I'll take the warts of the bad recordings to get the uncolored beauty of the good ones. YMMV.

If we are talking about fidelity to a live performance - well, anybody who has been to a live performance knows there is no such thing. Your experience will vary greatly depending on where you are sitting. This is unless we are talking about very simple music - say, a violin solo. Recordings of live performances are subject to as much twiddling of knobs to get the balance correct as well.

I agree with you completely, but many of the subjectivists here do not. They think that recordings are capturing the truth of the performance and that their systems are somehow producing a more natural reflection of that event than a more accurate reproduction of the recording actually does. Your new here. Perhaps someday soon when it comes back up again, you and I can stand together, "subjectivist" and "objectivist" to counter that massive presumption.

Unless you are the type who only collects audiophile recordings, anybody who has a real collection of music knows that the sound from CD to CD varies greatly. Recording engineers are not Gods. If I don't like the sound that is coming from my CD - well it is my CD and my system. I can do what I want to make it sound better to my ears.

We agree again! Where we part is how to make it better to our ears. I like to pick components that reproduce the recording as transparently as possible, and choose my color at the transducers, where it can't be avoided anyway. And I'm not at all afraid of a bit of eq when a recording is bad enough.

Tim

 

[Keith_W]

Keith, would you accept that what you call "sterile" sound is distorted sound, in the sense that if you were measuring for distortion using an appropriately sensitive technique that in fact the replay was "wrong", there was audible distortion being contributed by the playback mechanism, being added to the end sound?

Hi Frank, if someone can demonstrate a certain type of distortion in what I call "sterile" sound - be it the predominance of upper harmonics, or whatever - I would be happy to accept that definition. However, given that the sound that I like would be called "distorted" by many people - i.e. turntables and valve amps - I have a suspicion that it is the absence of this "distortion" that is contributing to my perception of "sterile" sound. Asian audiophiles have a term for it - they call it MSG (as in, the food additive found in Chinese restaurants). If something sounds too "sterile", it needs more MSG.

We agree again!

I am pleasantly surprised! Maybe our positions aren't too different after all.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I am pleasantly surprised! Maybe our positions aren't too different after all.

Judging by this last round of posts, I'd say our tastes in sound are very different, but our positions on recording, and fidelity to recordings, are pretty close.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

........Yes, and that's the same point I'm made many times: The beauty of a null test is it reveals all differences, even those you might not be looking for.....

--Ethan

And you dismiss as inaudible, the ones that show up in a null test which are inconvenient & you were not looking for - it's beautiful world you occupy as you say

 

[microstrip]

(...) The objectivist's vocabulary avoids terms that are re-defined by every user and, therefore, pretty useless in a broader dialogue. But I don't think we have any pure objectivists here on WBF. I think we have a lot of relative objectivists who do a lot of listening and who would conclude that one man's "sterile" is another's precise; that one man's "musical" is another's colored.

Tim,
Could you please report of some audio reviews of high-end systems or components written using objectivist's vocabulary? If possible of electronic units.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Could you please report of some audio reviews of high-end systems or components written using objectivist's vocabulary? If possible of electronic units.

There is no specific objectivist vocabulary, Micro, we typically just use plain English. We haven't found the need to substitute terms like musicality for the perfectly good ones that were already there -- bass, treble, midrange, frequency response, dynamic range, noise, distortion, transient response, linear, etc. When we get really poetic, we say things like tight, fast, precise, transparent...a little vague, but I think "tight and precise" is still, more universally meaningful than terms like "musical." Transparent is almost audiophile. Audio can't really be transparent, of course. What we're talking about is a component's relative ability to pass a signal through unaltered. We probably should just say that. Audio reviewers using such plain language? I can't think of any, but I seldom read audio reviews. When I'm in the mood for that sort of thing I reach for 19th century novels.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

I'm pleased that you did that, Ethan, I've been meaning to do something similar for ages, but have been too "lazy"! The numbers you quote agree exactly with what I would have estimated, demonstrating that CD's 96dB range is plenty good enough to do the job of "perfectly" capturing dynamics. My own experience is that when the musical signal, what you're listening to drops to -60dB and below then you have to work pretty hard to hear things: volume turned up to max, and ear next to the speaker type of effort

Exactly. At least I've done the work, and others can download my files, or make their own if they know how. It's clear that those who claim their "experience is different" than mine with respect to the audibility of soft artifacts have never actually tested this in a controlled manner. In fact, based on their claimed "experience" I have to assume they've never even tested it at all. How anyone could believe that jitter artifacts 120 dB below the music (and 20+ dB below the noise floor of a CD) could possibly be audible escapes me. And when they ask if truncation distortion is the same as clipping, I know they're clueless.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

There is no specific objectivist vocabulary, Micro, we typically just use plain English. We haven't found the need to substitute terms like musicality for the perfectly good ones that were already there -- bass, treble, midrange, frequency response, dynamic range, noise, distortion, transient response, linear, etc. When we get really poetic, we say things like tight, fast, precise, transparent...a little vague, but I think "tight and precise" is still, more universally meaningful than terms like "musical." Transparent is almost audiophile. Audio can't really be transparent, of course. What we're talking about is a component's relative ability to pass a signal through unaltered. We probably should just say that. Audio reviewers using such plain language? I can't think of any, but I seldom read audio reviews. When I'm in the mood for that sort of thing I reach for 19th century novels.

Tim

Tim,
I was just asking for some REAL reviews with your blessing. Unhappily, it seems it is much easier to criticize others than to supply our own references ...

 

[Ethan Winer]

Which is why the words "clinical" and "sterile" are not part of the objectivist lexicon. Can't be measured, but every subjectivist knows what it is ... a torrent of indignant posts result.

Okay, great, so what is it? Please be as clear and complete as possible, leaving no room for misinterpretation. BTW, I'm not indignant at all. I honestly would love to hear a meaningful definition of "clinical" and "sterile."

fidelity to what, anyway? Fidelity to a recording, or fidelity to a live performance?

Fidelity to the music contained on the recording medium. That's all one can ask of audio devices. The other stuff is a different issue entirely, as was already explained many times in this thread.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

The problem remains that listening must be the final arbiter. We are indeed trying to make man hear something. Perfect meausrements are not the goal. Vocabulary is a helpful tool in describing the results. It provides a medium for those who don't understand how to interpret measurements; a means by which those who do understand to explain what sound the measurements produce and more controversally to describe that for which there is no measurement.

I recall when Manic-Depressivi was a valid psychological term. It then became so genric that the term Bipolar replaced it. As the quality of stero production improved vocabulary was needed to describe the improvements and the faults they exposed. No doubt some experts are able to describe what they did in technical terms(white papers). Maybe not true for the layperson. I have stated before many who question the terminology do so not becaue they beleive the term is vague or ambiguous. They do so because the yquestion the existence of that which is being described.


To suggest that vocabulary is useless because the meaning is imprecise or means different things to different people simply does nothold water. Legitimate arguments ensue about the sound resulting from the same measurements. Does that render those measurements ninvalid? Man is imperfect and so is his work.

 

[Gregadd]

Fidelity to the recording? How can we possibly know what is on the recoring? The only way is to play it back.To be sure then we have to have an uncolored playback chain. In seeking recreation of the live event at least we can be there.

 

[jkeny]

.... And when they ask if truncation distortion is the same as clipping, I know they're clueless.

--Ethan

Thank you, I learned something new - I din't know what truncation distortion was. As to the -120dB, it's your trademark inaccuracy bullishly masqueraded as fact & science.

 

[jkeny]

Fidelity to the recording? How can we possibly know what is on the recoring? The only way is to play it back.To be sure then we have to have an uncolored playback chain. In seeking recreation of the live event at least we can be there.

Yes, Gregadd, it's circular logic that makes no sense!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
I was just asking for some REAL reviews with your blessing. Unhappily, it seems it is much easier to criticize others than to supply our own references ...

Not trying to evade your question, Micro, but the objectivist reporters I read on the net tend to work in a more open, on-going format than the formal, fixed "review" though they eventually get to some of the same issues. When I get home tonight and get to all my links I'll get back to you.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

As to the -120dB, it's your trademark inaccuracy bullishly masqueraded as fact & science.

LOL, and your evidence proving otherwise is where exactly?

Dude, have you ever tested this for yourself? Do you even know how to test this for yourself?

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

LOL, and your evidence proving otherwise is where exactly?

Dude, have you ever tested this for yourself? Do you even know how to test this for yourself?

--Ethan

I didn't want to refer to my commercial products but they are far less than 40pS of jitter - as I said a single figure for jitter is meaningless but I'm keeping it simple so you can understand. Now go tell the hundreds of customers & numerous reviewers, who have compared my devices to others, that they can't hear anything, it's all expectation bias & be prepared to be laughed at as a fool. If you weren't so bullish & downright wrong, & didn't elevate yourself as "the Audio Expert" I would have some understanding & sympathy for you but in almost every post you display an inaccuracy trotted out as if it's a scientific fact - it's pitiful & not worth any more of my time!

 

[Ethan Winer]

it's pitiful & not worth any more of my time!

As expected, no evidence of any kind. I always laugh when someone has hours and hours to spend posting their opinions, but when asked for evidence to back up their beliefs all of a sudden they're too busy or can't be bothered.

--Ethan

 

[NorthStar]

Earlier, someone made the point that audio equipment was designed by objectivists. Maybe, but it's the subjectivists who are making your CD's.

The artists (musicians & singers) first; then the recordists add their own personal touches. :b

And they are certainly not perfectionists (the vast majority of them: 96.666%).

 

[NorthStar]

Fidelity to the recording? How can we possibly know what is on the recording? The only way is to play it back.To be sure then we have to have an uncolored playback chain. In seeking recreation of the live event at least we can be there.

Only the recordists who witnessed the events know best.
Us, we are simply the musical result's listeners.