Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[Sal1950]

In other words, there is a role to subjective listening impressions, and measurements do not trump everything else.

On the other hand there is no such thing as an audible difference between components that can't be measured.
No one has ever shone they can identify one component from another that measure identically or nearly, so when listened to under a properly controlled DBT.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Great! Because that's ultimately where I'm coming from. It's the periodic tendency for someone here to say that Loudspeaker A can't possibly sound as good as Loudspeaker B, because they looked at the measurement graphs and the measurements don't lie. And if anyone happens to think Loudspeaker A does sound good, well then that person has defective hearing or is a moron, or both.

Can you please find an example of that happening here at ASR?
The closest I can recall (of course, my memory is not that good!) would be for someone to assert that Loudspeaker A sounds better, in such a manner as to insinuate that their opinion is (or should be) accepted as universally superior for other people regardless of measurements. Yes, that's poking the proverbial tests-and-measurements hornets nest. But I think that anyone in a public forum, be it about cars, shotguns, fishing reels or lawnmowers, will get pushback from that type of assertion.

As far as people having an opinion that they like speakers that are demonstrably less perfect than others .... well, it's my impression that it happens all the time around here. No one really cares, nor do they get upset, at what other people like. To each their own. People here have tube gear, large-format coax speakers and vinyl gear scattered all through these pages. No problem.

The only problem I can see is someone trying to characterize ASR as something that it is not.

Jim

 

[fpitas]

Well, I think speaker A sucks!

 

[antcollinet]

Well, I think speaker A sucks!

You're wrong. It is much better than speaker B. Just look at the shape: Sharper at the top at a precisely measured 50 degree angle - obviously clearer.

 

[fpitas]

Seriously, something to consider is that a non-flat speaker can actually sound great...on some tracks. It's basically re-mastering the track according to its response. The price paid is that other tracks may become unlistenable.

 

[preload]

Can you please find an example of that happening here at ASR?
The closest I can recall (of course, my memory is not that good!) would be for someone to assert that Loudspeaker A sounds better, in such a manner as to insinuate that their opinion is (or should be) accepted as universally superior for other people regardless of measurements. Yes, that's poking the proverbial tests-and-measurements hornets nest. But I think that anyone in a public forum, be it about cars, shotguns, fishing reels or lawnmowers, will get pushback from that type of assertion.

As far as people having an opinion that they like speakers that are demonstrably less perfect than others .... well, it's my impression that it happens all the time around here. No one really cares, nor do they get upset, at what other people like. To each their own. People here have tube gear, large-format coax speakers and vinyl gear scattered all through these pages. No problem.

The only problem I can see is someone trying to characterize ASR as something that it is not.

Jim

If you do a search for any B&W speaker on ASR, invariably someone will comment on the measurements, and how they must sound awful.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

If you do a search for any B&W speaker on ASR, invariably someone will comment on the measurements, and how they must sound awful.

Please provide a link to the post(s) in question. Thank you. Jim

 

[preload]

On the other hand there is no such thing as an audible difference between components that can't be measured.
No one has ever shone they can identify one component from another that measure identically or nearly, so when listened to under a properly controlled DBT.

I generally agree with this.
And at the same time, certainly you would agree that there are components that sound identical under a properly controlled DBT, yet have DIFFERENT measurements. At the end of the day, what matters more - the fact that a large, properly controlled DBT was not able to discern differences between components, or the fact that you can measure a difference? Would you agree that the components, in fact, sound indistinguishable to listeners based on the DBT, or would you further argue that the measurements show a difference, and therefore, they can't possibly sound the same (thereby disregarding the results of that that awful "subjective" DBT that involves human subjects?)

 

[preload]

Please provide a link to the post(s) in question. Thank you. Jim

Search and ye shall find.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Search and ye shall find.

I didn't make the assertion. You did. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. Jim

 

[antcollinet]

I generally agree with this.
And at the same time, certainly you would agree that there are components that sound identical under a properly controlled DBT, yet have DIFFERENT measurements........



would you further argue that the measurements show a difference, and therefore, they can't possibly sound the same

frankly that is a ridiculous straw man of the statements made here - no one has ever claimed the statement in bold:


in the "audibility" post I linked earlier (my bold)...

Orange marks strict limits while green marks lenient limits.
Strict thresholds guarantee that anything measuring better will be transparent.
Lenient thresholds are only lenient relatively to the strict thresholds. They are also "strict" from an audible point of view. Devices measuring worse than the lenient thresholds might still sound fully transparent to you or anyone else for that matter.

When I've taken a specific audibility of distortion abx test, I couldn't hear lower than about -45dB of disortion - some 20dB higher than the lenient limit. Others who took the test reported similar results. The limits are just that - beyond that, no one can hear them. To get even close, you need to be a teenager, dog or bat.

So two statements from that:
No one can hear artefacts lower than the limits.
That does not mean that particular artefacts above the limits are necessarily audible.


Looking at it another way - our measurement gear is much more sensitive than our ears. So the following statements apply:

Everything audible can be measured.
Not everything that can be measured is audible.

 

[preload]

I didn't make the assertion. You did. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. Jim

Ok, I just put in an ASR search, with "B&W" in the title, and in about 60 seconds, I found my first hit. It's not that hard to find if you're open minded to the possibility.

 

[tuga]

I didn't make the assertion. You did. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. Jim

That is the proof you were looking for. The 'wink' is the cherry on top...

 

[tuga]

On the other hand there is no such thing as an audible difference between components that can't be measured.
No one has ever shone they can identify one component from another that measure identically or nearly, so when listened to under a properly controlled DBT.

The faith is strong in you.

 

[preload]

frankly that is a ridiculous straw man of the statements made here - no one has ever claimed the statement in bold:


in the "audibility" post I linked earlier (my bold)...

Is it a ridiculous strawman? Because I believe you had been trying to argue that you can determine audibility/transparency solely with measurements (and without any need for anything subjective, like listening tests). Please correct me if I got that wrong.

I offered an example earlier, the Benchmark DAC 1, which did not have a dynamic range measurement that could satisfy even the "lenient" threshold in the reference you provided. So, based solely on measurements, would you then conclude that the Benchmark DAC 1 is NOT transparent? (Because, as you argue, we don't need those subjective listening tests, right?)

 

[antcollinet]

(thereby disregarding the results of that that awful "subjective" DBT that involves human subjects?)

And finally - to take issue with this second straw man in one post, that "awful DBT" you reference is what we ask for here AD INFINITUM whenever anyone claims to be able to hear a difference when it is implausible from the measurements.

Amir has called the DBT the "gold standard" of listening tests. It is not viewed as awful, when properly conducted with statistically relevant results it is welcomed.


I'm beginning to feel you are not discussing in good faith here.

 

[preload]

And finally - to take issue with this second straw man in one post, that "awful DBT" you reference is what we ask for here AD INFINITUM whenever anyone claims to be able to hear a difference when it is implausible from the measurements.

Amir has called the DBT the "gold standard" of listening tests. It is not viewed as awful, when properly conducted with statistically relevant results it is welcomed.

Great, sounds like we're in agreement then that listening tests, which rely on subjective listening impressions, CAN have merit in determining the sound quality of equipment. Perhaps I misunderstood your perspective then.

 

[fpitas]

Ok, I just put in an ASR search, with "B&W" in the title, and in about 60 seconds, I found my first hit. It's not that hard to find if you're open minded to the possibility.
View attachment 243208

Maybe. Or maybe an expensive speaker should be considerably flatter, unless you were looking for a special effects box.

 

[preload]

Maybe. Or maybe an expensive speaker should be considerably flatter, unless you were looking for a special effects box.

LOL, I rest my case.

 

[fpitas]

LOL, I rest my case.

Go ahead. I have my suspicions about you, too.