What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other
- Thread starter Keith_W
- Start date
- Status
Yes, there are four parameter categories: Frequency response, distortion, noise, and time-based errors. Full explanation in my article from Skeptic magazine here:
Audiophoolery
There's even more detail about all of these issues in my upcoming book.
--Ethan
Cool title Ethan. 
...I'll read your article. :b
...Did I miss Loudspeaker's Spikes?
______________________________
If I may;
Is it appropriate to post this here in this thread?
=> Does the type (genre) of Music we usually listened to,
have a direct influence on the way we think, talk, write, and make our decisions in life?
...Generally. ...With objection, or subjection, or without.
...I'll read your article. :b...Did I miss Loudspeaker's Spikes?
______________________________
If I may;
Is it appropriate to post this here in this thread?
=> Does the type (genre) of Music we usually listened to,
have a direct influence on the way we think, talk, write, and make our decisions in life?
...Generally. ...With objection, or subjection, or without.
Last edited:
Loudspeaker spikes and isolation pads are not necessarily useless.
I doubt it. I know classical music fans on both sides, and the same for all other genres. I do think that early (childhood) experiences set the tone for how accepting we are of belief-based evidence later in life.
--Ethan
Let me get this straight. We are comparing a straight wire, with a device that redigitizes a signal and digitizes it again. I claim that there is an audible difference. This is too much for you to believe? Perhaps the measurement microphone was bumped in between the two readings, but at least we bothered to do a full frequency sweep. If we had level matched against a sine wave you would never know.
Yes it is too bad you live so far away. The difference is so easily audible to me that I am surprised that anybody who has done the experiment can even deny it.
That's a big sweet spot, Roger, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about getting up and walking toward one of the speakers. The size of the sweet spot varies, but when you get to the point where you're directly in front of one of them, you're going to know you're in front of it. In any case, I think we agree; given good imaging, speakers "disappear."
Tim
Very well answered Ethan. :b ...Wisdom...
I'm with ya, 99%. :b ...I started listening to Classical albums (33 1/3 rpm LPs) first and foremost.
...And from all the major Classical music composers (maestros & all).
...After AM transistor r.a.d.i.o. of course.
* Right now I am listening to Classical Music (Solo Cello) on the r.a.d.i.o. (analog FM).
That's precisely the level of "disappearing" we're talking about: the standing in front of the speaker "trick". And to emphasise, as I have numerous times, this is not easy! The slightest problem with the setup means that the illusion fails, and the reason is, that the gear then starts to produce sufficient distortion to give the ear/brain cues as to what's going on: that the sound is not hanging in space, so to speak, but is actually emerging from the drivers.
Ethan's technique of getting disappearing to happen is quite valid, the room positioning and absorption panels, etc, are minimising the impact of the auditory clues that the speakers are giving of where they are. It's another way of skinning the cat; personally, I prefer the fixing of the electronics approach, because it is more generally applicable.
Frank
Ok I have my system running for two hours. I can walk up to either speaker about 4ft away and I can hear the music behind the speaker. If I move closer the illusion does diminish. I sit about 13 1/2 ft from the speakers and the sound is what I call holographic as I can move off axis and the image does not collapse. I was playing RRCD-71 reference recording. If I stand in my kitchen about 35 feet back the image is still intact although a whole different perspective.
I know that's what you're talking about, Frank. You've told us that you've put your ear right up to a tweeter and still been unable to locate the speaker. You've talked of speaker location and listening location having no effect on stereo imaging. You wondered earlier, why I gave you no credit as an engineer? These and other statements you've made make it difficult to believe you are an engineer. Sorry, but that's the bottom line.
Tim
-----
-----Good one! :b ...RR-71CD with [HDCD] encoded.
That's the one Bob,great music and recording.
Hi Keith
Very intereing observation actually. Now it has been mentioned, at least will keep an 'eye' out for it.
It is very hard to generalise, and also bet I have not heard as many dfferent systems as you, but my more limited impression is exactly the opposite
Well, I am (evidently) an example of the extreme objectivist (I thought you no longer liked me, then this compliment..thanks!) as are a lot of friends in this game.
I have yet to meet an 'objectivist' who has forgotten or does not listen. After all, what IS the point of creating a system if not to listen? (I note the value judgement in play here, *we* have 'forgotten' how to listen, is that not code for 'I generally don't like their systems'? Well that is fine, for all I know it might be reciprocated, (tho all reports I have seen even from objectivists is it is very good indeed)...but can you not simply leave it at 'different tastes'? Why the put down)
So now preferring cd to vinyl has become an indicator of 'camp'? Only if they have forgotten how to listen naturally, can't be due to different preferences, ease of use, availabiulty of source material nor any other of the possible factors.
(to whom?) Anyway, the answer is you can't. But firstly, let's not forget that ALL of this is a continuum. What I mean is there is no line in the sand, anything on the left (no matter how close to the line) is 'poor' or not beautiful sounding, anything to the right (no matter how close to nthe line) is suddenly good or beautiful sounding. Any tweak or change to our system is hopefully one that moves the line to the right somewhat from where it was.
So having pointed that out ('again' I'd hope, we all actually know that?) then once again we have another bit of code, you meant 'failing to acknowledge (and use presumably) the important attributes-that I keith think are important-that make a hi fi system sound engaging'.
None of us have exactly the same ideas of what those important attributes are. If we did, forums would in essence dissappear
So in complete contradiction to your implication, I DO acknowledge and maximise to the greatest extent that I can all the important attributes I think make a system sound engaging.
We do however have different opinions on what those attributes are and their relative importances.
I know you have used this line later in the thread to whack objectivists, but none-the-less. Don't forget a lot of these differences between camps manifst in different WAYS of thinking. What I mean is, I simply do not get much/most of the subjectivist arguments or approach. It is not so much that I (understand yet) reject them, I don't get them in the first place to be able to reject them. Ends up at pretty much the same place probably, but a very different route.
At least the objectivist (to directly parrot your characterisation) can say 'measure and adjust'. Ok, you can do that or not.
But what can a subjectivist say? 'make a change and listen'. Well as stated, we listen, but there is not a lot to teach there if you follow me. That is just a bit different than what you have said here and later (we do it because we 'know everything in our arrogance').
Very intereing observation actually. Now it has been mentioned, at least will keep an 'eye' out for it.
It is very hard to generalise, and also bet I have not heard as many dfferent systems as you, but my more limited impression is exactly the opposite
Well, I am (evidently) an example of the extreme objectivist
(I thought you no longer liked me, then this compliment..thanks!) as are a lot of friends in this game.I have yet to meet an 'objectivist' who has forgotten or does not listen. After all, what IS the point of creating a system if not to listen? (I note the value judgement in play here, *we* have 'forgotten' how to listen, is that not code for 'I generally don't like their systems'? Well that is fine, for all I know it might be reciprocated, (tho all reports I have seen even from objectivists is it is very good indeed)...but can you not simply leave it at 'different tastes'? Why the put down)
So now preferring cd to vinyl has become an indicator of 'camp'? Only if they have forgotten how to listen naturally, can't be due to different preferences, ease of use, availabiulty of source material nor any other of the possible factors.
(to whom?) Anyway, the answer is you can't. But firstly, let's not forget that ALL of this is a continuum. What I mean is there is no line in the sand, anything on the left (no matter how close to the line) is 'poor' or not beautiful sounding, anything to the right (no matter how close to nthe line) is suddenly good or beautiful sounding. Any tweak or change to our system is hopefully one that moves the line to the right somewhat from where it was.
So having pointed that out ('again' I'd hope, we all actually know that?) then once again we have another bit of code, you meant 'failing to acknowledge (and use presumably) the important attributes-that I keith think are important-that make a hi fi system sound engaging'.
None of us have exactly the same ideas of what those important attributes are. If we did, forums would in essence dissappear
So in complete contradiction to your implication, I DO acknowledge and maximise to the greatest extent that I can all the important attributes I think make a system sound engaging.
We do however have different opinions on what those attributes are and their relative importances.
I know you have used this line later in the thread to whack objectivists, but none-the-less. Don't forget a lot of these differences between camps manifst in different WAYS of thinking. What I mean is, I simply do not get much/most of the subjectivist arguments or approach. It is not so much that I (understand yet) reject them, I don't get them in the first place to be able to reject them. Ends up at pretty much the same place probably, but a very different route.
At least the objectivist (to directly parrot your characterisation) can say 'measure and adjust'. Ok, you can do that or not.
But what can a subjectivist say? 'make a change and listen'. Well as stated, we listen, but there is not a lot to teach there if you follow me. That is just a bit different than what you have said here and later (we do it because we 'know everything in our arrogance').
Did you mean to make something else? Because that sentence seems fairly obvious to me. If you compare two identical devices of course you shouldn't be able to hear a difference, unless one of them had a manufacturing defect. The whole point of the experiment was to test the assertion that a DEQX is as transparent as straight wire.
terry, nice to see you here. You are now on my ignore list.
What 'bout the fundamentalists? ...Of Audio of course.
__________________________
__________________________
* And for people who have an hour or so of free time:
=> http://www.hometheater.com/content/podcast-105-mark-levinson
Highly Recommended viewing (the video). :b
__________________________
__________________________
* And for people who have an hour or so of free time:
=> http://www.hometheater.com/content/podcast-105-mark-levinson
Highly Recommended viewing (the video). :b
Tim, the engineer doesn't decide how the world works, or how the human physiology and brain interprets and compensates for the external stimuli, and the sensory apparatus workings. The good engineer recognises a phenomenon when it occurs, and attempts to exploit it. That is what I've done: I haven't run off to a textbook or read through a series of papers proclaiming that this "behaviour" is impossible, instead, I want to understand what's going on, and make use of it. The fact that 99% of others out there disregard it is irrelevant, my "schtick" is to get to the bottom of it ...
Frank
Last edited:
So you are very close to what I describe, Roger. When my system is still warming up my experience would match that; the relatively low quality of my drivers means that they have to be hammered hard for a few hours to completely loosen up, and stabilise. Then, assuming no other interference effect, I get the full measure of disappearing: previous speakers in earlier setups with better drivers would disappear to the ear next to the tweeter level quite easily, but then I still had too many problems keeping the electronics from going off-colour -- so far it's always been a precarious balancing act ...
Frank
Tom, I agree that the "magic" happens in our head; so the trick is, to make it as easy as possible for our head to achieve that goal, of creating a convincing illusion. If we create too many obstacles, by introducing too much irritating distortion, our brains give up on jumping through the hoop to make the music seem real, so then, depending on "good" the reproduction is, either we start feeling fatigued, or the sound just seems to be coming from a hifi system. A very impressive hifi, perhaps, but still a hifi ...
A number of people who have listened to what I have don't get it: it doesn't sound impressive, it doesn't hit you in the face and say, look at me, I'm a hifi system! It just sounds like music, which just happens to be capable of going up to realistic levels ...
Frank
- Status
Similar threads
