I'm 100% that sound should be monitored for recording purposes on systems that are as faithful as possible. Years ago I believed in high fidelity for playback, and elsewhere some audiophiles talk, very pompously, about "musical truth". I'm all for colourations that make music more pleasant to listen to at home. I don't want to recreate a live experience because it's not possible, not even close. For that I go to live performances. The core tonality of a speaker, for example how it reproduces the spoken voice, is absolutely critical. I agree that the vinyl playback system can give a more pleasing sound even than the best, cleanest digital. I have no idea why, I just indulge in it because it does.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Anecdotal blah blah. This is the problem. You make a statement like this and provide no evidence to support it that we can review.
I suppose that if Toole and Olive‘s work is right, there are broad commonalities in what individuals prefer though, right?
My guess is that if you brought a bunch of audiophiles from both camps into a blind system comparison, they’d gravitate mostly in the same direction.
Which is sort of why this is one of my favorite blind tests:
They swapped in all the low-end electronics/wire the hifi dealers would scoff at (cable, amp, stand, source) AT ONCE, and there was no evidence the listeners (all audio buffs) could tell the difference. Those who expressed a preference were split between the two systems.
Dear mods: Can we please ask people in these threads not to use people of religious faith as (invariably negative) examples of whatever point they are trying to make?
Okay, to the topic.
When people perceive something, there are several necessary questions. We are used to the first one: is the perception reliable in the absence of prior knowledge about the devices under test?
But there are other biases. If a group of people have experience listening to big bands, and in a recording of same note that the trumpets seem elevated, it could be an artifact of their shared experience. In most big bands, the trumpet players stand behind the seated trombone and saxophone players and so we remember them being higher. Or, an orchestral patron looking down on a orchestra from the mezzanine will see the back row “above” the front row when projected onto two dimensions, and trumpets are usually on the back row. These shared memories don’t have to have much influence to bias perceptions. I don’t recall that those sorts of biases were explored by Harman—as I recall they looked at age, sex, experience and role within the audio biz.
The tweeter being higher than the mids and woofers seems obvious, but nobody ever talks about it—it must be too obvious.
One reviewer described his first experience with the height effect on listening to a recording of a rocket launch. He was amazed to note the impression of rising sound. Amazed? Where else would a rocket go? Can that expectation be so easily ignored?
There are all sorts of subtle cues we hear to create spatial awareness, and to my thinking the better the system puts those subtleties into my ears, the more I’m going to perceive. Those subtleties are all covered in timbre and reverberation effects, it seems to me, and are imminently measurable. Recordings that add reverb electronically and separately for each track will not contain all those recording-space acoustic interactions, it seems to me. Effort put into microphone placement is not wasted.
This does not challenge measurements. My current system, playing the Chesky demo CD, does everything the announcer tells me I should hear, and that’s true no matter what CD player or DAC I’m using. I suspect that the speakers, room, EQ, and recorded content account for about 99.9% of that, at least the part that isn’t simply biased by the power of suggestion.
My listening position is slightly off-center. I use my EQ to delay the closer speaker by a fraction of a millisecond to account for the 8” shorter path. That moved the phantom image back to the middle and away from the closer speaker. A level change wasn’t required. I do not perceive sound coming from the speakers at all. This is not magic, though magic is just technology we don’t understand.
Now, to the topic of subjectivist’s objectives. Story time: I own a lovely Ebel Sport Classic Chronograph wristwatch just like the one Frank Dernie received as a gift from “one of his drivers”. That watch company has been a special research project of mine, and that watch was the must-have watch of the 80’s. It was cooler (and pricier) than the Rolex Daytona, and fit perfectly the product placement advertising that Ebel bought when they put the same watch on Sonny Crockett’s wrist in Miami Vice.
Needless to say, I do not resemble Don Johnson in any dimension and have nothing like the incredible experiences and back story for my watch that Frank has for his. But when I wear it, I can, for a fleeting moment, live the fantasy.
That’s what Fremer is pitching—fantasy. He may even believe it himself (and I have no reason to think he doesn’t). The Placebo Effect is still an effect, even if its cause is misattributed.
Rick “fantasies are fine, but not necessarily transportable” Denney
Okay, to the topic.
When people perceive something, there are several necessary questions. We are used to the first one: is the perception reliable in the absence of prior knowledge about the devices under test?
But there are other biases. If a group of people have experience listening to big bands, and in a recording of same note that the trumpets seem elevated, it could be an artifact of their shared experience. In most big bands, the trumpet players stand behind the seated trombone and saxophone players and so we remember them being higher. Or, an orchestral patron looking down on a orchestra from the mezzanine will see the back row “above” the front row when projected onto two dimensions, and trumpets are usually on the back row. These shared memories don’t have to have much influence to bias perceptions. I don’t recall that those sorts of biases were explored by Harman—as I recall they looked at age, sex, experience and role within the audio biz.
The tweeter being higher than the mids and woofers seems obvious, but nobody ever talks about it—it must be too obvious.
One reviewer described his first experience with the height effect on listening to a recording of a rocket launch. He was amazed to note the impression of rising sound. Amazed? Where else would a rocket go? Can that expectation be so easily ignored?
There are all sorts of subtle cues we hear to create spatial awareness, and to my thinking the better the system puts those subtleties into my ears, the more I’m going to perceive. Those subtleties are all covered in timbre and reverberation effects, it seems to me, and are imminently measurable. Recordings that add reverb electronically and separately for each track will not contain all those recording-space acoustic interactions, it seems to me. Effort put into microphone placement is not wasted.
This does not challenge measurements. My current system, playing the Chesky demo CD, does everything the announcer tells me I should hear, and that’s true no matter what CD player or DAC I’m using. I suspect that the speakers, room, EQ, and recorded content account for about 99.9% of that, at least the part that isn’t simply biased by the power of suggestion.
My listening position is slightly off-center. I use my EQ to delay the closer speaker by a fraction of a millisecond to account for the 8” shorter path. That moved the phantom image back to the middle and away from the closer speaker. A level change wasn’t required. I do not perceive sound coming from the speakers at all. This is not magic, though magic is just technology we don’t understand.
Now, to the topic of subjectivist’s objectives. Story time: I own a lovely Ebel Sport Classic Chronograph wristwatch just like the one Frank Dernie received as a gift from “one of his drivers”. That watch company has been a special research project of mine, and that watch was the must-have watch of the 80’s. It was cooler (and pricier) than the Rolex Daytona, and fit perfectly the product placement advertising that Ebel bought when they put the same watch on Sonny Crockett’s wrist in Miami Vice.
Needless to say, I do not resemble Don Johnson in any dimension and have nothing like the incredible experiences and back story for my watch that Frank has for his. But when I wear it, I can, for a fleeting moment, live the fantasy.
That’s what Fremer is pitching—fantasy. He may even believe it himself (and I have no reason to think he doesn’t). The Placebo Effect is still an effect, even if its cause is misattributed.
Rick “fantasies are fine, but not necessarily transportable” Denney
Can I introduce my dog?
My dog is subjectivist. What he (believe) hear or what he (believe) see, is the truth for him and determine his behavior.
Do you see the problem with a guy or a girl acting like my dog?
My dog hear the 96kHz, not the hombre.
My dog is he objectivist?
My dog is subjectivist. What he (believe) hear or what he (believe) see, is the truth for him and determine his behavior.
Do you see the problem with a guy or a girl acting like my dog?
My dog hear the 96kHz, not the hombre.
My dog is he objectivist?
Actually a dog barking, vs. speaking, is reality.
Now if you could find a dog that could recite the Gettysburg Address I might reconsider
tuga
Major Contributor
The problem with this hobby is the system’s role as vehicle for enjoying music.
a music recording can either be a documental register (usually of a classical performance) or the music itself (typically a studio mix of rock, etc.)
This recording can be reproduced at home with more or less fidelity.
More fidelity does not necessarily mean more enjoyment.
And enjoyment is the goal for most people.
tuga
Major Contributor
Why not have a system that allows you to enjoy the music instead of tolerating the poor sound quality, usually described as “forgiving”?
My enjoyment of a hifi system is entirely because I know it's as good technically as it needs to be. My enjoyment of music played on such a system is entirely down to the music, and not necessarily the quality of the recording, although good recordings do help enhance the enjoyment. Poor recordings of good music are far more acceptable than good recordings of poor music.
S
I'm a mixed economy sort of guy.
BinkieHuckerback
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
- Messages
- 728
- Likes
- 1,110
Depends on your hearing
Well I mean some things were just born and raised to be subjective with like "Ford vs Chevy". I grew up with Dodge, so I naturally feel more home with them, then with Chevy. I am certain that's how other people feel about there gear regardless if its junk or not. Eventually you try to be objective about that thing you grew up with but it's hard to because you have a soft spot for it, Similar to Amir's inner spot for (I think) Sony.
Even If Dodge becomes more European than American, it'll still be a part of me.
Since people like the "Ford vs Chevy" mentality around, I guess I can join somewhat. Topping is better than SMSL. SMSL can suck a egg.
Even If Dodge becomes more European than American, it'll still be a part of me.
Since people like the "Ford vs Chevy" mentality around, I guess I can join somewhat. Topping is better than SMSL. SMSL can suck a egg.
Larry B. Larabee
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
- Messages
- 347
- Likes
- 194
I want to know more about Sodom and Gomorrah!
I am skeptical about height information being recorded in the first place and then reproduced.
It seems definitional that height information requires vertically differentiated microphones and, during playback, vertically differentiated speakers. In a two channel chain, there isn't an opportunity for this.
Hence, advent of multi-channel systems and Dolby Atmos, which specifically allocates channels for height information and includes additional speakers to reproduce it.
It seems definitional that height information requires vertically differentiated microphones and, during playback, vertically differentiated speakers. In a two channel chain, there isn't an opportunity for this.
Hence, advent of multi-channel systems and Dolby Atmos, which specifically allocates channels for height information and includes additional speakers to reproduce it.
I'm with Serge, mostly. I strive for fidelity, but I'd prepared to lose a little bit of fidelity for a more widely pleasing presentation, but I don't know how much, a smidge, a soupson, I'm not sure.
I'd also be prepared to trade a little for convenience. Hell I'm totally prepared to trade a metric $hit tonne for a physical format that I have a psychological affinity towards, even though I know it's only good for 12 bits of resolution on a good day.
As regards soundstage, I think it's in the recording, it's in the relationship between signal decay and frequency response, the timing of reflections and how that builds a facsimile of acoustic spaces we've experienced in the flesh. Sure it's an apparition, 100% in studio recorded multitrack mixed albums, and probably tied to our own unique HRTF, but we decode it none the less at its most gross. I think accurate gear can portray this better than lower fidelity gear, but in some cases I'm 100% behind euphonic distortions increasing our sense of this.
All that said, it's something I dont care in the least about, I'm all about tempo, timbre and low noise.
I don't begrudge anyone their preference in taste in playback, but I do wish people were better able to understand the difference between a sound they like and one that offers higher fidelity to the signal stored in the medium.
I'd also be prepared to trade a little for convenience. Hell I'm totally prepared to trade a metric $hit tonne for a physical format that I have a psychological affinity towards, even though I know it's only good for 12 bits of resolution on a good day.
As regards soundstage, I think it's in the recording, it's in the relationship between signal decay and frequency response, the timing of reflections and how that builds a facsimile of acoustic spaces we've experienced in the flesh. Sure it's an apparition, 100% in studio recorded multitrack mixed albums, and probably tied to our own unique HRTF, but we decode it none the less at its most gross. I think accurate gear can portray this better than lower fidelity gear, but in some cases I'm 100% behind euphonic distortions increasing our sense of this.
All that said, it's something I dont care in the least about, I'm all about tempo, timbre and low noise.
I don't begrudge anyone their preference in taste in playback, but I do wish people were better able to understand the difference between a sound they like and one that offers higher fidelity to the signal stored in the medium.
Last edited:
Music videos do seem to help with "imaging" even though the sound is the same.
Because I have no control over the recording process.
It is a reproduction, a copy, a recording of a performance.
Just like a film, art, photography.
I do not know why people do the things they do.
