What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[Gregadd]

Micro, I see you as the very staunch supporter of subjectivism on this forum, so let me present you with these thoughts and perhaps you can reply to them:

Some well test instrumented objectivists can measure any electrical audio disturbance, period.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure this matters but anything an objectivist can measure has been measured by a subjectivist. The problem is getting the subjectivist to agree that anything that can't be measured is a figment of his imagination

Some subjectivists (including on this forum) can "hear" an actual performance (they claim it is near pefect representation of the real live actual unamplified event) in their system.

Name one who has made that claim. I for one just don't think it is as imperfect(hopelss ?)as you claim.

The flaw, IMO is
the reality as far as this man is concerned,
is that fundamentally,
two channel stereo simply can not replicate an actual live event.

No one has made that claim.

The argument therefore to me, is in the degrees that the illusion is presented.....

Agreed. Obvioulsy, I and others claim we are much closer than you care to admit.

--the objectivists insist that we need zero distortion to get there...no...we need something other than stereo to get us there, two channel stereo can not replicate live sound

.Subjectivist would prefer zero distortion. Since that is impossible we are forced to "pick our poison."

--the subjectivits argue that they can be transported there with gear that has distortions...no...if stereo has to be distorted to get you there, it follows its not right to start with.

Again, we realize stereo reproduction is imperfect . We just think that it is far better than you do.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

IMHO, your passionate summary strongly distorts the many contributions of many members to WBF debates.

It wasn't meant to apply to the many contributions of many members here at WBF, Micro, but it fits many others like a tailored suit. And out there in the rest of the audiophile world, at places like Audio Asylum, it applies much more broadly. The basic phenomenon I'm talking about is the enthusiast who uses equipment that is objectively inferior, insisting it is more natural, life-like, etc., based on some unmeasured goodness is not at all uncommon here. They may be right. We may some day discover that a previously undiscovered layer of resolution in old analog recordings that was being reproduced by vinyl and valves, but somehow altogether filtered out by digital and SS. We could also discover we evolved from lemurs.

You posted similar views several times, and some of us refuted this false argument, presenting you with cases and brands of excellent sound quality by audiophile standards that show state of the art measurements. You always stick to the SET case, that represents the minority of existing audiophile equipment, tube equipment being over-driven and tests carried with headphones. These had not been the typical conditions of our debates.

Take SET out of it, then. And understand that I completely acknowledge that there are many people on this board whose systems are SOTA, way above the capabilities of my own. False argument? Are you really saying no one here is consistently insisting that objectively inferior technology is more revealing, higher resolution, more dynamic, more natural, more life-like? One word, Micro: Vinyl. All of the above has strenuously been insisted upon here; none of it is borne out by the data. And WBF is hardly a good example. This place is hydrogen audio compared to some audiophile communities.

I not only think what I made was not a false argument; I think it was an obvious one. Repeating it was probably as pointless as saying the sky is up today. But it seemed like the answer to Ethan's question.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Some subjectivists (including on this forum) can "hear" an actual performance (they claim it is near pefect representation of the real live actual unamplified event) in their system.

The flaw, IMO is
the reality as far as this man is concerned,
is that fundamentally,
two channel stereo simply can not replicate an actual live event.

The argument therefore to me, is in the degrees that the illusion is presented.....

--the objectivists insist that we need zero distortion to get there...no...we need something other than stereo to get us there, two channel stereo can not replicate live sound.

--the subjectivits argue that they can be transported there with gear that has distortions...no...if stereo has to be distorted to get you there, it follows its not right to start with.

The "dilemma" is that various types of distortion make the "job" for the ear/brain to create an illusion easier or harder. Some systems may technically reduce the level of overall or total distortion to a point which yield measurements of a nominally low figure, but which leave or introduce relatively low levels of of types of distortion which are subjectively very unpleasant, intrusive or fatiguing. These are "opposed" by SET type configurations which minimise, sometimes only subjectively, these type of "disturbing" distortions, at the expense of high levels of obvious, measurable distortion. This is the "problem", in a nutshell ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

I'm neither Tom, nor do I play him on TV, but I think the answer here is that everything in your reproduction system that makes these phenomenon possible is measurable. How these measurable attributes are filtered through human perceptions to create the illusion of stereo is where things get fuzzy. But there is no "magic" in the machine.

Perhaps.

If it measures poorly, it is reproducing poorly.

Wait just a minute, Tim. Just hold on a bit. Tubes measure bad, yet folks prefer them. Flat linearity is "the goal" yet when I hear it along with others, it isn't preferred. Experience from some folks tells me that bad measurements must sound bad, yet the same sound was incredible. Now I must admit, some measurements are true and what you say is true. If it measures bad, it is bad and there are some cases to where this is true but a blanket statement like this?

Whether or not you like it, or it helps you, personally, create the illusion, is another question. But if your media or equipment has relatively poor channel separation, noise floor, distortion, FR, etc. compared to the media or equipment you do not prefer, there is not some as of yet unmeasured ghost in the machine that makes your choice "better" in spite of its measurements, there is a sound it makes that you like, and that enables you to get to the illusion better. And it's very personal. One man's clinical is another's precise. One man's musical is another's sloppy.

You are correct. To each there own. At least where I come from.

And by the way, all of the above applies to image and sound stage. Tonality and roll off, decay, is clearly measurable. There is no ambiguity there.

Please allow me to clarify. Tonality. Can it measure the texture within a males and woman's voice as the tone is being detected? Can it measure the realism of the subtle smack of a woman's lips and breath before another long singing passage? Perhaps that of three or more singers in an ensemble? Can that measurement tell us whether or not the reproduction sounded real or that it was just "tonally" correct?

With regards to decay. Can the measurements show exactly how a drum kick off a double bass pedal decays off until the next drum kick? Can the measurements show how that drum kick's impact relates to that which was the real thing and how the reverb and natural decay of said drum is portrayed via a system, along with the tone. Along with the spatial cues? In stereo? Can it possibly measure how far the drum set was away from the walls during the recording and if possible, could it measure how far away the kick drum was away from the walls on the playback system? Could the measurements show with precision where the natural rolloff of said drum compares to the tone, impact, sound wave along with the realism of said drum kick?

Can it do this while the drum is in constant motion during a heavy passage and while the drum kick may be softly keeping the beat of said song? I'm not talking about just sound waves. That's measurable.

We have all been in this hobby for some time and we have all heard a chime, a cymbal, a drum kick, a top hat, a sax, and a multitude of other things including the worst instrument ever IMO being tried to be reproduced, the piano.

If tonality and roll off, decay, is clearly measurable then why isn't it as cut, clear and dry as some make it out to be?

 

[NorthStar]

Our emotional dispositions;
are they influencing the way we listen to music and our perspective of it?

Or is it the other way around; with all the greatness and flaws?

 

[fas42]

We have all been in this hobby for some time and we have all heard a chime, a cymbal, a drum kick, a top hat, a sax, and a multitude of other things including the worst instrument ever IMO being tried to be reproduced, the piano.

So have you ever heard a piano realistically reproduced,Tom?

Frank

 

[andromedaaudio]

But if we take the FR measurement for example:
Better is it to make a speaker that measures flat from at least 200 hz to 20 khz FR +- 2 dB or +- 1,5 db , and readjust youre hearing .
Because you are now listening to reality whether you like it or not

Pardon me, I should have been more precise. David WIlsosaid and I paraphrase, After optimizing speaker measurememts I sometimes find the speaker lifeless and dull. He often makes adjustments based on what he hears.

 

[fas42]

Frank, I have seen the dilemma for a long time. Its simply that two channel stereo can not replicate a live performance, therefore, its fine for folks to swap about components and use SET amps or tone controls or whatever to get a sound that sounds good to them, cause stereo is never going to sound real, unless as explained in the football field analogy in the immediate above post to Gregaard.

Tom

Tom, I've been fortunate enough to hear otherwise, so can't buy into your point of view. Technically, there may be theoretical "problems" and reasons why it can't happen, but I've had the illusion work for me, both from the far end of the house, and standing right next to the speakers. Yes, it's extremely rare, I've heard all manner of expensive systems fail to achieve it, but it's happened so many times for me that it's well beyond debate ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Tom, I've been fortunate enough to hear otherwise, so can't buy into your point of view. Technically, there may be theoretical "problems" and reasons why it can't happen, but I've had the illusion work for me, both from the far end of the house, and standing right next to the speakers. Yes, it's extremely rare, I've heard all manner of expensive systems fail to achieve it, but it's happened so many times for me that it's well beyond debate ...

In your opinion. The fact that this can not happen seems to escape you and quite frankly your credibility, Frank.

So have you ever heard a piano realistically reproduced,Tom?

Growing up with a 3rd generation piano teacher, I can say with complete certainty that I have not. Close and perhaps pleasing but not realistic.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In your opinion. The fact that this can not happen seems to escape you and quite frankly your credibility, Frank.


Growing up with a 3rd generation piano teacher, I can say with complete certainty that I have not. Close and perhaps pleasing but not realistic.

Yeah, Tom...had you been here long enough you'd know that Frank goes around the house, shuts off wireless devices, unplugs things like microwaves, then he blu-taks the speakers of his Phillips home theater in a box to concrete blocks, solders speaker wire to terminals and mains cables to jacks and such. As a result, his speakers not only disappear when he has his ear just inches from the tweeter, they image balanced stereo from that listening position and play not only a piano, but a full orchestra, absolutely realistically --- at concert volume!!!. His mojo is so strong that speaker placement is irrelevant, the sweet spot is expanded outside of the listening room, and the worst recordings become life-like. In fact, it all has to do with the electronics in the middle of the chain. The recordings and the transducers are the least important elements. They hardly seem to matter at all.

Why do you question his credibility?

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Yeah, Tom...had you been here long enough you'd know that Frank goes around the house, shuts off wireless devices, unplugs things like microwaves, then he blu-taks the speakers of his Phillips home theater in a box to concrete blocks, solders speaker wire to terminals and mains cables to jacks and such. As a result, his speakers not only disappear when he has his ear just inches from the tweeter, they image balanced stereo from that listening position and play not only a piano, but a full orchestra, absolutely realistically --- at concert volume!!!. His mojo is so strong that speaker placement is irrelevant, the sweet spot is expanded outside of the listening room, and the worst recordings become life-like. In fact, it all has to do with the electronics in the middle of the chain. The recordings and the transducers are the least important elements. They hardly seem to matter at all.

Why do you question his credibility?

Tim

OTOH, you also have made some comments recently that are just about as preposterous in the opposite direction, although I'll allow for the possibility that you might be exaggerating for effect.

 

[jkeny]

It's simpler than that. If there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of audio fidelity, it would have been revealed 50+ years ago in a null test. The original Hewlett-Packard distortion analyzers used nulling, and more modern methods can null complete music tracks and determine what remains. So the notion that some audiophiles can hear aspects of fidelity that can't be measured is easily disproved. I've explained this so many times in the past, I don't understand why we're still discussing it.
--Ethan

That's interesting - can you give some detail about this "complete nulling" of two music tracks & tell us something about the resolution that this operates at? A link or two would be useful too! I presume from your statement that the nulling available 50+ years ago was the equivalent of today's nulling efforts & hence your statement?

 

[NorthStar]

Yeah, Tom...had you been here long enough you'd know that Frank goes around the house, shuts off wireless devices, unplugs things like microwaves, then he blu-taks the speakers of his Phillips home theater in a box to concrete blocks, solders speaker wire to terminals and mains cables to jacks and such. As a result, his speakers not only disappear when he has his ear just inches from the tweeter, they image balanced stereo from that listening position and play not only a piano, but a full orchestra, absolutely realistically --- at concert volume!!!. His mojo is so strong that speaker placement is irrelevant, the sweet spot is expanded outside of the listening room, and the worst recordings become life-like. In fact, it all has to do with the electronics in the middle of the chain. The recordings and the transducers are the least important elements. They hardly seem to matter at all.

Why do you question his credibility?

Tim

This is truly the very best post I have read in quite a while! Thank you so much for sharing, Tim.

:b

P.S. Frank, this is all strictly in perfectly and respectably good humor; from my heart's bottom.
{But you knew that already.}

Harmoniously yours,
Bob

 

[Ethan Winer]

Instead, they have to imagine that what they hear is some as of yet unmeasurable content that exists in life, is unable to be captured by digital recording or reproduced by ordinary, competent electronics, but is there, lifting their preferences to the next level.

Understood fully, and agreed fully. Once everyone understands and agrees that the "fi" part of hi-fi stands for "fidelity," a lot of these disagreements would go away.

And of course they can hear the extra harmonic content. So can I. And I've even had a hell of a time convincing some of them that yes, I have heard it, and no, I did not prefer it.

Yes, I've heard the D-word too. But most high quality gear really is clean enough that the added harmonics and deviations from a flat response are inaudible. For example, the Meyer & Moran tests added both an A/D and D/A into the signal path, and nobody could tell the difference from a straight wire with statistical accuracy. The degradation from a simpler device, such as a typical equalizer or active crossover, is even smaller.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan, the equipment is there, but it's not being used in a way that actually unearths weaknesses in equipment. For example, I never see tests that assess whether there are changes in time: as a simple example, monitor the distortion spectrum when equipment is cold, when thoroughly warmed up, after having been thrashed. There are never tests to check how robust the power supply is, and how sensitive the equipment is to power line interference.

These can easily be measured. I imagine the lack of interest in testing an SS power amp cold versus warm is due to lack of interest by those who routinely perform such testing. They assume (rightly IMO) that any perceived changes are due entirely to perception and beliefs, rather than the gear actually performing differently after warming up. If I had an AP analyzer I'd be all over testing this and posting the results. Maybe someone can convince John Atkinson to do such a test on a modern competent SS power amp and publish the results in Stereophile.

Your last point is excellent, and I've mentioned that many times. Companies that produce "power" products rarely show data, and when they do it's always the difference between the raw input power versus the output of their product. They never ever show the difference at the audio output of the connected equipment, which of course is the only thing that matters.

This things are always assumed to be unimportant, or too annoying to measure, or other "weasel" reasons. But these are at the heart of why some pieces of kit sound better than other for many people

I doubt anyone is being a weasel, though again it'd be great if someone tested this and put it to bed. Me, I'm convinced that "some pieces of kit sound better than other" is usually (if not always) due to sighted perception.

--Ethan

 

[rbbert]

... For example, the Meyer & Moran tests added both an A/D and D/A into the signal path, and nobody could tell the difference from a straight wire with statistical accuracy. The degradation from a simpler device, such as a typical equalizer or active crossover, is even smaller.

--Ethan

This implies either that the ADC and DAC used were essentially perfect or that the test methods were unable to detect a difference (leading me to question all of the test's results). If the first thought is correct then no further work needs to be done on developing new ADCs or DACs; that seems to me an unlikely proposition.

 

[Ethan Winer]

What you say sounds so final, so absolute, so factual and not up for any discussion.

I admit I do tend to write that way.

Almost as if no other point of view can not ever be possible.

As I see it, audio fidelity is about science facts more than a point of view.

A null test can't assume the inclusion of things that can't be measured to begin with [IMO].

Nothing that affects audio quality is unable to be measured. If someone really can identify a difference between [whatever], then that difference absolutely can be assessed using the standard four audio parameter categories. As skeptics say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. "I don't know much about electronics, but I know what I hear" as I often read is not acceptable. This article from the current issue of Tape Op magazine addresses what I see as the real issue:

Perception - the Final Frontier

The entire point of a null test is to prove that two sources are identical. Or if not identical, to at least assess the relative level and spectrum of the difference. If the null is complete, then the two sources are the same. Any other conclusion is impossible.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

This implies either that the ADC and DAC used were essentially perfect or that the test methods were unable to detect a difference (leading me to question all of the test's results). If the first thought is correct then no further work needs to be done on developing new ADCs or DACs; that seems to me an unlikely proposition.

Why do you believe that no current converters are audibly transparent? On what do you base that? Your own proper blind tests? Are you aware that a major pro audio converter manufacturer did a test where they re-recorded a piece of music ten times in a row, and even after ten generations nobody was able to tell the original from the output? I forget the vendor, and this was a few years ago. But that alone proves to me that one A/D/A pass can be truly transparent. So then the question is as I asked: Why do you believe otherwise?

--Ethan

 

[treitz3]

Nothing that affects audio quality is unable to be measured. If someone really can identify a difference between [whatever], then that difference absolutely can be assessed using the standard four audio parameter categories. As skeptics say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. "I don't know much about electronics, but I know what I hear" as I often read is not acceptable. This article from the current issue of Tape Op magazine addresses what I see as the real issue:

Perception - the Final Frontier

The entire point of a null test is to prove that two sources are identical. Or if not identical, to at least assess the relative level and spectrum of the difference. If the null is complete, then the two sources are the same. Any other conclusion is impossible.

--Ethan

Just one question, Ethan. I was at an audio event 2 years ago and we did an A/B test between two different things. On one [A], I noticed a full sound stage. On , I noticed a complete drop into oblivion of only the extreme left of the sound stage. Are you saying that a null test would be able to pick up on this?

 

[Ethan Winer]

JBL/Harman Use a combination of sighted and blind measurements when they are bringing a speaker to market. They will do sighted first and then do blind evaluations against competitors models in the target price range.

Yes, understood. I was addressing the notion that "most" manufacturers rely "mostly" on sighted listening to do their final tweaks. One of the great results of Harmon's testing is they showed conclusively that people universally favor speakers that are more accurate. So now anyone who makes speakers can aim for that, using test equipment rather than less-reliable listening. Not that they shouldn't also listen just to be sure they did the measuring part right.

--Ethan