What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[fas42]

Just one question, Keith. Have you experienced, or are you attempting to reach a level of system tune, where the speakers completely acoustically disappear? That is, if you effectively blindfold yourself, then allow yourself to become disorientated, by spinning around on the spot, say, that you would be unable to point at the location of the speaker drivers. And I'm not just talking at a precise central, sweet spot, but other places in the room ...

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

Uhm, well, uh yeah man. The more you know about audio, and two channel stereo, the harder I think it is to put yourself entierely in one camp or the other. I mean, two channel stereo is a lot of make believe, all the stuff you hear between the channels is due to your brain and no one I know, who is serious about audio, or not, considers two channel stereo to be anything but an attempt at a very week illusion of a complex band or group.

I also think we can be as humans, a bit moody. Sometimes we like some salt sometimes some sugar sometimes some fat be dammned what is "correct or true". Thus many folks changing out components to flavor their sound and frankly to make life more interesting, especially our hobby. Most audiphiles like toys and music, thus we have variety in our hobby.

Now, for me, it all comes down to details in the music, if I hear them clear and clean, then my system is ready for me to put in some tone controls of choice to make things interesting. I submit that if you are hearing the details and they are clean and clear then you ought to not worry much.

To get that, IMO, you need to understand the difference between " hearing all these new details in the music" from your SET amp....which means you are hearing a lot of added harmonics that are pleasing, but in no way clean vs gear that truly is not adding audible colorations to the signal. The better your system differentiates the details without help of added , for example SET colorations or highlights, the more clearly you hear every sound out of your transducers....then objectively or subjectively you are getting closer to Hi-Fidelity which means accuracy to the recorded signal...not accuracy to the original performance which is absolutely impossible and thus not IMO worth getting all airerated over.

I have a couple different headphones for example. Using the same solid state amp or SET amp, one headphone delivers a bit more clear (some may say solid state sound) and the other a gentler (some may say more tube sound) and I switch between them sometimes from song to song or more usually just from mood to mood.

In the local audio club, the greatest fun is to hear everybody elses systems. None sound bad. All have character, but none sound real, and thats OK.

This is our time and space, and future generations will look back at our bablings about two channel stereo in utter amazement, just like when we hear that tests were conducted with narrow range speakers in the thirties and folks could not tell they were real or not....come on....and the future philes will read our quint posts and laugh at our primitive sound systems. But, it is our time and place, and so we all have fun babbling on WBF and sharing in our hobby, even though we take it too seriously once in a while!

Amazing! A long, well thought out post, with which, I disagree almost entirely.

 

[RogerD]

I have enhanced 2 channel stereo and the sound stage can become very compelling. Frank always asks do your speakers dissapear? I wonder why? It might have something to do with the realism of the stereo image,eh. If your system dissapears and all that is left is the music,what more can you ask for?

 

[Keith_W]

I have to apologize to the moderators - I created this thread in "What's Best in Manufacturers - General Discussion" subforum instead of the General Audio Discussion subforum. Would someone be kind enough to move this thread?

I have been deliberately trying to avoid discussing blind tests in this thread, but you guys keep bringing it up. Well how's this - part of my job involves conducting medical research. If any of you think you know how to a randomized placebo controlled double blind study, you can come and be my research assistant

I have done a few audio blind tests before. Here is an example, comparing the DEQX to straight wire. My preamp can simultaneously output into RCA and XLR. We hooked the DEQX to the XLR output and compared it to a RCA interconnect. To do the switch, we simply flipped the input switch on the receiving power amp whilst pressing "mute" on the DEQX. Not quite an ABX comparator but close.


Here is a picture of the system set up. Note the presence of several other active crossovers. I normally absolutely hate clutter in my house but I gave in a bit in the interest of science


Here is a picture of how closely we level matched the two. You can't see it, but at a few points on the curve the difference was exactly 0dB. Far better level matching than your typical "play a test tone and use a Radio Shack sound meter" approach. Straight wire is in blue - it has more bass. Note that the DEQX (in red) drops off at 20kHz. It would have been possible to tune the DEQX so that the two curves were an exact match but we were pressed for time and didn't do it.

The difference was easily audible. The DEQX had a more processed sound, had less dynamics, and had less resolution. Instruments sounded smeared, lost texture, and lost instrumental seperation. As far as i'm concerned, it was no surprise - it was redigitizing an analog signal and reconverting it back to digital.

This is exactly my point - many objectivists have been persuaded by things they have read on the net about CD players sounding the same, also believe that the difference isn't audible. Well actually, it is. And if you build a system around a digital active crossover, you will forever be stuck with lo-res sound.

 

[Keith_W]

Just one question, Keith. Have you experienced, or are you attempting to reach a level of system tune, where the speakers completely acoustically disappear? That is, if you effectively blindfold yourself, then allow yourself to become disorientated, by spinning around on the spot, say, that you would be unable to point at the location of the speaker drivers. And I'm not just talking at a precise central, sweet spot, but other places in the room ...

Not quite sure what you are getting at, Frank. No system I am aware of produces a sound where you can not localize the speakers when blindfolded? In fact if you drop me in any room blindfolded, I am pretty sure I can find where the speakers are ... provided I don't trip over furniture first

 

[FrantzM]

I have to apologize to the moderators - I created this thread in "What's Best in Manufacturers - General Discussion" subforum instead of the General Audio Discussion subforum. Would someone be kind enough to move this thread?

I have been deliberately trying to avoid discussing blind tests in this thread, but you guys keep bringing it up. Well how's this - part of my job involves conducting medical research. If any of you think you know how to a randomized placebo controlled double blind study, you can come and be my research assistant

I have done a few audio blind tests before. Here is an example, comparing the DEQX to straight wire. My preamp can simultaneously output into RCA and XLR. We hooked the DEQX to the XLR output and compared it to a RCA interconnect. To do the switch, we simply flipped the input switch on the receiving power amp whilst pressing "mute" on the DEQX. Not quite an ABX comparator but close.

View attachment 3285
Here is a picture of the system set up. Note the presence of several other active crossovers. I normally absolutely hate clutter in my house but I gave in a bit in the interest of science

View attachment 3286
Here is a picture of how closely we level matched the two. You can't see it, but at a few points on the curve the difference was exactly 0dB. Far better level matching than your typical "play a test tone and use a Radio Shack sound meter" approach. Straight wire is in blue - it has more bass. Note that the DEQX (in red) drops off at 20kHz. It would have been possible to tune the DEQX so that the two curves were an exact match but we were pressed for time and didn't do it.

The difference was easily audible. The DEQX had a more processed sound, had less dynamics, and had less resolution. Instruments sounded smeared, lost texture, and lost instrumental seperation. As far as i'm concerned, it was no surprise - it was redigitizing an analog signal and reconverting it back to digital.

This is exactly my point - many objectivists have been persuaded by things they have read on the net about CD players sounding the same, also believe that the difference isn't audible. Well actually, it is. And if you build a system around a digital active crossover, you will forever be stuck with lo-res sound.

KeithW

The way you portray those you call "objectivists" is an exaggeration. I think you knew it as for your conclusions about Digital Active Crossovers or rather I would point you toward a memebr here who uses a TaCT in his system otherwise analog and Tube-based. I haven't heard his system yet, but from the account of members here whose ears i believe in, it is likely one of the best sounding system they have ever heard. One of those persons is Steve Williiams one of the founder of the WBF, whose system is a revelatory experience. His opinion is even stronger: he thinks that is the best system he's heard. it would be interesting to PM Jeff Fritz about his experience with Behold gears driving his then Rockport Arrakis
The so-called objectivist occupy a continuum. The staight line you are making of the objectivists position is a caricature: You believe in your ears but do measure as well. To take myself as an example, I believe in measurements but am fully aware the current ones do not tell the whole story. I have been in this hobby too long to think a Krell sounds like a Mark Levinson or that an ARC sound like a Jadis.... I do no longer believe in cables having been rudely awoken by some knowledge removed tests and see (pun intended) how poorly I fared. I have several DAC right now and it takes no great leap to know they sound different.

If ever I swing Down under, I will make sure to audition your system.. I am sure it sounds incredible ... but equating Digital Active Crossovers with low-resolution is a mistake. Too wide and all-encompassing statement.

 

[fas42]

Not quite sure what you are getting at, Frank. No system I am aware of produces a sound where you can not localize the speakers when blindfolded? In fact if you drop me in any room blindfolded, I am pretty sure I can find where the speakers are ... provided I don't trip over furniture first

To clarify, I'm not asking you to feel your way around; I'm asking you to be in a particular spot in the room, and point to where the left speaker is, and the right hand speaker, fairly precisely. Now if you're in the sweet spot of a decent setup this may be somewhat difficult, but once you're out of that area this normally becomes trivial. But the fascinating thing is that if you are able to get any system to a very high state of tune the effective sweet spot dramatically expands, and essentially becomes the whole room: there is a consistency to the soundstage which makes it impossible to pinpoint the speaker drivers when just using your ears.

This is still very difficult to do, seemingly very few people experience it; so no skin off your nose if this doesn't make sense! I have only realised lately what the behavioural characteristics of the ear/brain working together are that allow this to happen, and that is the automatic gain control that's part of the hearing mechanism. This is what happens when you're in presence of loud sounds: the volume control in your head is turned right down. If that sound suddenly ceases and someone immediately speaks to you the sound of their voice is very soft, hard to pick up momentarily; that gain control takes a moment or two to "recover".

When a system is working well, the normal cues that your hearing mechanism uses to pick where the sound is coming from are far less obvious, are swamped by the effect of this gain mechanism. The benefit is, that audio then jumps to a whole next level of believability ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

Uhm, well, uh yeah man. The more you know about audio, and two channel stereo, the harder I think it is to put yourself entierely in one camp or the other. I mean, two channel stereo is a lot of make believe, all the stuff you hear between the channels is due to your brain and no one I know, who is serious about audio, or not, considers two channel stereo to be anything but an attempt at a very week illusion of a complex band or group.

I also think we can be as humans, a bit moody. Sometimes we like some salt sometimes some sugar sometimes some fat be dammned what is "correct or true". Thus many folks changing out components to flavor their sound and frankly to make life more interesting, especially our hobby. Most audiphiles like toys and music, thus we have variety in our hobby.

Now, for me, it all comes down to details in the music, if I hear them clear and clean, then my system is ready for me to put in some tone controls of choice to make things interesting. I submit that if you are hearing the details and they are clean and clear then you ought to not worry much.

To get that, IMO, you need to understand the difference between " hearing all these new details in the music" from your SET amp....which means you are hearing a lot of added harmonics that are pleasing, but in no way clean vs gear that truly is not adding audible colorations to the signal. The better your system differentiates the details without help of added , for example SET colorations or highlights, the more clearly you hear every sound out of your transducers....then objectively or subjectively you are getting closer to Hi-Fidelity which means accuracy to the recorded signal...not accuracy to the original performance which is absolutely impossible and thus not IMO worth getting all airerated over.

I have a couple different headphones for example. Using the same solid state amp or SET amp, one headphone delivers a bit more clear (some may say solid state sound) and the other a gentler (some may say more tube sound) and I switch between them sometimes from song to song or more usually just from mood to mood.

In the local audio club, the greatest fun is to hear everybody elses systems. None sound bad. All have character, but none sound real, and thats OK.

This is our time and space, and future generations will look back at our bablings about two channel stereo in utter amazement, just like when we hear that tests were conducted with narrow range speakers in the thirties and folks could not tell they were real or not....come on....and the future philes will read our quint posts and laugh at our primitive sound systems. But, it is our time and place, and so we all have fun babbling on WBF and sharing in our hobby, even though we take it too seriously once in a while!

Tom,

When you choose an example using headphone listening to illustrate your points you are ignoring the true essence of high end. Also, IMHO, reducing the SET / transistor debate to gentle/clear is and oversimplification and can be very misleading. Not a good example for the future generations. Properly used tubes or SETs are not gentle or soft.

F. Toole knew that is not a simple subject with a unique solution when he wrote "Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual experimentation". We all can learn from other experiments, except those who already know it all or are not prepared to accept changing. And sometimes individual experiences have many common points and create a pattern or a trend.

 

[Steve williams]

KeithW

The way you portray those you call "objectivists" is an exaggeration. I think you knew it as for your conclusions about Digital Active Crossovers or rather I would point you toward a memebr here who uses a TaCT in his system otherwise analog and Tube-based. I haven't heard his system yet, but from the account of members here whose ears i believe in, it is likely one of the best sounding system they have ever heard. One of those persons is Steve Williiams one of the founder of the WBF, whose system is a revelatory experience. His opinion is even stronger: he thinks that is the best system he's heard. it would be interesting to PM Jeff Fritz about his experience with Behold gears driving his then Rockport Arrakis
The so-called objectivist occupy a continuum. The staight line you are making of the objectivists position is a caricature: You believe in your ears but do measure as well. To take myself as an example, I believe in measurements but am fully aware the current ones do not tell the whole story. I have been in this hobby too long to think a Krell sounds like a Mark Levinson or that an ARC sound like a Jadis.... I do no longer believe in cables having been rudely awoken by some knowledge removed tests and see (pun intended) how poorly I fared. I have several DAC right now and it takes no great leap to know they sound different.

If ever I swing Down under, I will make sure to audition your system.. I am sure it sounds incredible ... but equating Digital Active Crossovers with low-resolution is a mistake. Too wide and all-encompassing statement.

Marty's system is indeed the best sound system I have ever heard and now he is thinking of dismantling and selling it for something different

We are both going to Scottsdale Az on April 24 for the day to hear both the XLF and the Aida at a local dealer

 

[Steve williams]

Thread moved as requested

 

[Keith_W]

The way you portray those you call "objectivists" is an exaggeration. I think you knew it

I think the responses I have seen so far are entirely predictable, Frantz. As I said in my last paragraph, the subjectivists will take it on board. Only objectivists think that they have all the answers, so won't go looking. It is almost an article of faith that there are no differences between CD players and amps among some objectivists, including some here I will bet.

I can tell you that if I went through my system and replaced my amp with a Yamaha receiver, and replaced my SACD player with an iPod, the sound quality will suffer massively as a result. Yet this is precisely the kind of system that many will try to assemble based on double blind tests showing no difference

The so-called objectivist occupy a continuum. The staight line you are making of the objectivists position is a caricature: You believe in your ears but do measure as well.

I am aware of that. You don't sound too different to me.

If ever I swing Down under, I will make sure to audition your system.. I am sure it sounds incredible ... but equating Digital Active Crossovers with low-resolution is a mistake. Too wide and all-encompassing statement.

You would be more than welcome to visit. As for digital active crossovers - if you can recommend one in which I won't be able to pick the difference from straight wire in a blind shootout, I would be interested. TaCT crossover ... I may be able to borrow one.

 

[kevinh]

A Music System has a lot of degrees of freedom. Some parts of the system have higher level effect on the sound that others. I try to get the big stuff right, then worry about toher factors. Generally the speakers and room along with program material in determining how a system will sound followed by the quality of the power, then the electronics, then things like cables and 'tweaks'. Vinyl has it own set of priorities.

Then since all systems are limited you get into the priorities of the listener. Some value imaging, some dynamics, detail and so on.

There are some sorts of distortion that the ear/brain seems to be more sensitive to that others. Zero crossover distortion is one higher order harmonics rather than low order harmonics is another.

Then there are placebo effects that all are subject to.

How we mix those to create an satisfying illusion is the reason for discussion boards.

From a systems POV you should start out with whether you want 2 channels or more for music to create the illusion you prefer. Then get the 'best' speakers you can afford. Best being the set of comprimises that you can live with. Then put them in a room that allows them to perform their best. When people use tone controls they can detect 1 db changes in the midrange area yet most speakers in untreated rooms have frequency response that varies wildly. I have read of people moving speakers a couple of inches and claiming to find a sweet spot, without an acoustic design for the room there are essentaly using the room (and 'colored' electronics) as a tone control to flavor their speakers. Of course the tone control isn't very flexible. From a buget POV putting $$$ into the room acoustics is almost as important as the speakers themselves.

Then of course you music collection, the reason for the system, the stuff I listen to has recording quality that is all over the place. I would rather listen to an old C Parker recording than an 'audiophile' recording of musicians who are mediocre. I have a lot of concerts from the Grateful Dead that are audience recordings that a mp3, since I value the performances I am looking for tone controls to help me get the most out of what is there. I think a good tone control is essential to a good system, I am thinking of something like the Cello Palette here.

What goes into 'good' electronics is understood far better now than 20-30 years ago. Minimize zero crossover distortion, distortion should be (almost) exclusivly 2nd + 3rd harmonic. The out put impedance of the amp should be very low and the amo stable into the load to be driven and hoave enough output to drive the speakers without clipping on dynamic material. Low jitter for D/A in addition for digital material.

Things like Tact and DeqX are very interesting and can help immensly, however you want to minimize what you are asking them to do by optimizing the room acoustics in the first place.

JMO.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Straight wire is in blue - it has more bass. Note that the DEQX (in red) drops off at 20kHz.

It's clear that something else changed between one measurement and the other. I'll guess you moved the measuring microphone. That's the only explanation for the null just below 70 Hz appearing in one graph but not the other. This difference is clearly due to room acoustics, not a difference between two electronic devices. Sorry to say, this means the entire comparison is invalid.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

No system I am aware of produces a sound where you can not localize the speakers when blindfolded?

Too bad you live so far from me. You'd change your opinion if you heard my living room system.

--Ethan

 

[Robh3606]

Only objectivists think that they have all the answers, so won't go looking.

I am an Objectivist I don't think I have all the answers. I don't think any sane person does. The reason not to look would be the thread devoloving into the same old tired arguement. This is really a bad medium to discuss this the best place would be person to person listening to each others systems.

If I am in "objectivist" mode, I will scan for any obvious frequency response aberrations, any ringing, dynamics, any phase issues, and so on. If I am in "subjectivist" mode, I listen for tone, rhythm, soundstage, musicality, and so on.

Build up a pair of DIY speakers, it can be difficult to say the least to "flip the switch".


Rob

 

[RogerD]

Not quite sure what you are getting at, Frank. No system I am aware of produces a sound where you can not localize the speakers when blindfolded? In fact if you drop me in any room blindfolded, I am pretty sure I can find where the speakers are ... provided I don't trip over furniture first

Too bad you live so far from me. You'd change your opinion if you heard my living room system.


--Ethan

Glad to see that such a soundstage can be developed and enjoyed. I don't think such a pinnacle of 2 channel stereo is unattainable by most that invest in time and the necessary funds to enjoy musical reproduction with out "hearing the system". I don't know how someone would summarize all the required measurements to achieve such a level of sound. I think it is more of a art than anything else,but I know some would disagree. I wonder if any speaker manufacturer has ever guaranteed this level of performance? Also I might add that if a system produces such a soundstage with the best source, it would probably be a minor step to listen to XM radio at a high level. YMMV

 

[Ethan Winer]

I wonder if any speaker manufacturer has ever guaranteed this level of performance?

It's impossible for them to guarantee this because fully half of what you hear from a speaker is dictated by the room. The only way I know to make speakers "disappear" is by placing absorption at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points. Now, if I were a loudspeaker maker I might offer a guarantee contingent on the consumer treating their room according to a plan I also described.

--Ethan

 

[RogerD]

It's impossible for them to guarantee this because fully half of what you hear from a speaker is dictated by the room. The only way I know to make speakers "disappear" is by placing absorption at the side-wall and ceiling reflection points. Now, if I were a loudspeaker maker I might offer a guarantee contingent on the consumer treating their room according to a plan I also described.

--Ethan

Ethan,

Is there a reliable set of parameters that allow measurement?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK...someone give me a definition of "disappearing speakers." I have taken it to mean that, sitting in the sweet spot, I'm getting phantom images - center and across the entire horizontal plane of the image - that are so solid that they sound as real as anything panned to one speaker. With that, I essentially have multiple clones of my speakers, all across the horizontal image, each carrying a different instrument or voice. I get this with good recordings all the time. I'd call that "disappearing speakers" because the phantoms are indistinguishable from the speakers themselves. This, I know, is attainable, because I have it, in a pretty modest system. Could I find my speakers blindfolded? Probably, because once I stand up and step forward out of the sweet spot, the image will collapse and the speaker positions will reveal themselves. Only Frank can put his ear against a tweeter and still hear stereo in perfect balance.

Am I missing something?

Tim

 

[RogerD]

OK...someone give me a definition of "disappearing speakers." I have taken it to mean that, sitting in the sweet spot, I'm getting phantom images - center and across the entire horizontal plane of the image - that are so solid that they sound as real as anything panned to one speaker. With that, I essentially have multiple clones of my speakers, all across the horizontal image, each carrying a different instrument or voice. I get this with good recordings all the time. I'd call that "disappearing speakers" because the phantoms are indistinguishable from the speakers themselves. This, I know, is attainable, because I have it, in a pretty modest system. Could I find my speakers blindfolded? Probably, because once I stand up and step forward out of the sweet spot, the image will collapse and the speaker positions will reveal themselves. Only Frank can put his ear against a tweeter and still hear stereo in perfect balance.

Am I missing something?

Tim

Off axis? It is my experience in my system that the sweet spot is expanded, that sitting on either end of a 9ft couch the image does not collapse.