What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[theguesswho]

Fas42 said "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 ..."


IT SOUNDS LIKE MUSIC AT REALISTIC LEVELS
And they still dont get it? amazing!
Wendell

 

[fas42]

Fas42 said "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 ..."


IT SOUNDS LIKE MUSIC AT REALISTIC LEVELS
And they still dont get it? amazing!
Wendell

Well, I think in part they want it to sound like a hifi system, they're looking for certain cues that tell them it's a "good hifi". They'll put on certain, key recordings that have been audiophile approved, and certain boxes have to be ticked for them to then accept that it is of a sufficient standard. A lot of hifi sounds very spectacular when it gets louder: mine doesn't do that, it just gets louder, which you discover when you talk to someone next to you.

So a demure recording will sound demure, and be consistently so: but a high energy performance will grab you by the short and curlies, and drag you along. As it should ...

One audiophile friend came for the first time, some years ago, and for a couple of hours didn't "get" it: he complained about silibance and other minor infractions -- the speakers weren't up to speed. But finally it sunk in: the music just happens -- it doesn't distract, unless it's meant to distract ...

Another came, I put on an orchestral which she loved; but she felt it was running too "hot": a crescendo was coming and she "knew" it was going to be too much, you could see her squirming, expecting to hear a terrible mess. But it didn't happen: the sound just poured over the top of our heads, effortlessly, as it does in real life. This is a measure of a system working properly ...

Frank

 

[terryj]

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.

already?

Oh well, cest la vie

 

[JackD201]

So has any side learned from the other yet? Seems the Berlin Wall was easier to take down. LOL.

 

[microstrip]

So has any side learned from the other yet? Seems the Berlin Wall was easier to take down. LOL.

Jack,

IMHO the keyword for for any conversation between both camps (assuming I know what is each of them ) is correlation. Unhappily we can only correlate gross objective faults with sound quality - fine aspects of sound quality are very difficult to analyze from objective data.

Again IMHO, in their search for objective conclusions some people create listening conditions that are easily reproducible, but doing so limit the capabilities of stereo. This will not reduce the height of the wall between both sides.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So has any side learned from the other yet? Seems the Berlin Wall was easier to take down. LOL.

I don't think anyone was meant to learn anything, outside of the lesson plan. I think this thread, like most, was created to instruct, in the ways of the OP. It opened after all, by declaring that one "side" doesn't listen, in a hobby in which the entire objective is listening. Never had a chance of being a learning experience. It had about as much chance as me opening such a thread with the declaration that subjectivists consistently overlook the facts to hear what is not there...let's see what we can learn from that.

Tim

 

[fas42]

It had about as much chance as me opening such a thread with the declaration that subjectivists consistently overlook the facts to hear what is not there...let's see what we can learn from that.

Tim

Of course, the fact that the definition of the concept of a "fact" is in dispute -- see Wikipedia -- is thus to some degree subjective, and another slippery slope, shouldn't cloud any of this ... :b:b

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course, the fact that the definition of the concept of a "fact" is in dispute -- see Wikipedia -- is thus to some degree subjective, and another slippery slope, shouldn't cloud any of this ... :b:b

Frank

Well, the fact is, I didn't open a thread that way. That was the point. I have done that before, but not beginning with such a clear predjudice and agenda is what I'm trying to learn from threads like these.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

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.

Yes, and there's another benefit I didn't mention: This also hides the height aspect of the sound source. I have both a 65-inch RPTV and a 159-inch screen that pulls down to an inch in front of the TV. So my three front main speakers are all just below the TV and screen. By absorbing all early reflections, you can't easily tell that the speakers are below the actors on-screen. So even if I didn't have the TV, I still wouldn't need an acoustically transparent screen.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

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?

No, I can believe that. All I'm saying is the graph you posted is not valid because it's obvious the microphone was moved. That accounts for the null near 70 Hz on one reading and not the other, and I'm sure it's also why the dip between 500 and 600 Hz is different.

--Ethan

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, and there's another benefit I didn't mention: This also hides the height aspect of the sound source. I have both a 65-inch RPTV and a 159-inch screen that pulls down to an inch in front of the TV. So my three front main speakers are all just below the TV and screen. By absorbing all early reflections, you can't easily tell that the speakers are below the actors on-screen. So even if I didn't have the TV, I still wouldn't need an acoustically transparent screen.

--Ethan

Ethan, did you watch the movie 'Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World' on Blu?

How do you think the sound mixing/recording engineer got the people's footsteps walking on the boat's upper deck coming from ... well, the upper deck?
Because you and I and everybody else we sure know that these sounds are coming from way up there, above our heads. ...Even without having 'reproducers' (speakers) in our ceilings.

 

[rbbert]

Still missing from this discussion (IMHO) is the fact that virtually all the equipment in a subjectivist's audio system is designed and built by objectivists.

 

[NorthStar]

Still missing from this discussion (IMHO) is the fact that virtually all the equipment in a subjectivist's audio system is designed and built by objectivists.

Hey, that is an interesting point! :b

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan, did you watch the movie 'Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World' on Blu?
How do you think the sound mixing/recording engineer got the people's footsteps walking on the boat's upper deck coming from ... well, the upper deck?

I haven't seen that movie, but applying different amounts of phase shift to a source that comes from more than one speaker at once can create directional cues. That is, you shift the phase differently for each channel. This was also used on Dark Side of the Moon to create the effect of sound seeming to pass overhead.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

virtually all the equipment in a subjectivist's audio system is designed and built by objectivists.

Indeed. In most cases anyway. Surely at all of the major manufacturers.

--Ethan

 

[Keith_W]

Still missing from this discussion (IMHO) is the fact that virtually all the equipment in a subjectivist's audio system is designed and built by objectivists.

Disingenous argument you are making

Do objectivists believe SACD sounds superior to RBCD and MP3? Double blind tests show they are indistinguishable. What about my turntable - was that designed by some guy who thought that digital sounds better than vinyl? And my valve amp - must be some guy who thought that he would try his hand at that even though he goes to bed every night believing that solid state amps are better? Perhaps the Halcro designers actually use a Yamaha receiver at home because they know that double blind tests show that all amps sound the same? SET amplifiers are universally derided by objectivists. Who designs those?

If you believe the blind tests - you would be using a $100 DVD player into a Yamaha receiver that you found in a dump, powering the best speakers you could afford to put together. I know at least one person who is doing this.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Still missing from this discussion (IMHO) is the fact that virtually all the equipment in a subjectivist's audio system is designed and built by objectivists.

Shhhhhhhhhh.....

 

[NorthStar]

I haven't seen that movie, but applying different amounts of phase shift to a source that comes from more than one speaker at once can create directional cues. That is, you shift the phase differently for each channel. This was also used on Dark Side of the Moon to create the effect of sound seeming to pass overhead.

--Ethan

Thanks Ethan; you just hit the nail on its head!

But please, do yourself a favor and locate that Blu-ray movie; you're doomed for a real nice treat. :b

 

[NorthStar]

Shhhhhhhhhh.....

Informative & instructional comment, Tim.

 

[rbbert]

Disingenous argument you are making

Do objectivists believe SACD sounds superior to RBCD and MP3? Double blind tests show they are indistinguishable. What about my turntable - was that designed by some guy who thought that digital sounds better than vinyl? And my valve amp - must be some guy who thought that he would try his hand at that even though he goes to bed every night believing that solid state amps are better? Perhaps the Halcro designers actually use a Yamaha receiver at home because they know that double blind tests show that all amps sound the same? SET amplifiers are universally derided by objectivists. Who designs those?

If you believe the blind tests - you would be using a $100 DVD player into a Yamaha receiver that you found in a dump, powering the best speakers you could afford to put together. I know at least one person who is doing this.

YOU are making disingenuous arguments. For one thing, not all (and maybe not even many) objectivists believe the results of every attempt at a scientific listening test; most have obviously flawed methodology, essentially invalidating their results. Few of the rest have adequate statistical power to draw any meaningful conclusions. As for your comments about SET amp designers, do you think they aren't talented engineers? Being aware of a technology's faults is rather key to getting the most from it. I don't think there are many serious audio designers who don't think there is improvement to be found in almost any piece of equipment marketed today, but at what cost (money, reliability, etc).