Yes, it's a pity. But reading what was going on up here is unacceptable. We need to maintain a level of decency here otherwise it's not going to be a viable discussion forum for long...
-
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!
Why is audio objectivism so frequently focused on all the wrong things?
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
- Status
I personally enjoy the details and effects, especially given that our whole discussion and understanding online is based on processing data (words), we need objective data that we can go on, otherwise we end up having to read fantastic descriptions of audio equipment comprising of strings of adjectives which end up being meaningless due to their exaggerated and subjective nature.
It's usually different if people are listening to audio equipment in person, and funny enough, there people don't break out into these fantastical descriptions, because each person can listen to the system and make their own determination.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,903
- Likes
- 37,959
You seem to be working hard to misunderstand or cast in a light something that isn't what this forum is about.
One version of a test that has been done is letting people listen to something twice and tell if they are the same or different. In the particular case I have in mind both versions played were identical with no differences. Yet some sizable percentage of people will describe them as sounding different complete with descriptive details if you ask them. It is how our mind works.
People are quite happy to fill in details and have preferences. No harm until they think those preferences are adequate for judging quality. Often there is nothing behind those preferences other than how the human mind works.
So in your hypothetical with if something measured the same, I'd expect different people to make different choices. Unless they do so better than chance there preference is based on something other than physical sound quality. I mean how can preference mean anything in regards to sound if it isn't based upon sound?
Or end that fling with Barney.Your skid marks are purple?
Time to see the doctor bro.
Correct, you may prefer to boost the bass or roll off the treble. That has nothing to do with how accurately a system can take the source signal and deliver it out of the speaker..
Again that is correct with the possible exception of speakers, there are too many variables for any 2 to measure exactly the same across the board.
Not necessarily, you may like the sound of a lot of second harmonic distortion from a SET amp over a SS one. That's why we're not interested in your preferences.
Now if you were to ask us which is the better piece of gear (more HiFi accurate), that would be easy, the better measuring piece.
BillG
Major Contributor
Someone else might have asked what that has to do with audio, but I think the connection is quite clear...
digicidal
Major Contributor
These arguments almost always revolve around the same misconceptions - for whatever reason there is a prevalence within audio to conflate the content with the production and delivery. Although it's present in other areas, it's much more rare.
I've only seen a handful of discussions over television or movies devolve into arguments over screen calibration, size, or even resolution... and certainly never something where someone saying "I couldn't really connect with the main character in Movie X" being met with "well, you just don't have a high enough luminosity in your panel... if you had my panel... you would be the main character!"
Or a literary analogy... consider emotional, subjective reviews of book bindings/paper or word processors with excerpts from classical works of literature to "prove" the quality of the delivery method.
There will likely never be "enough" science to completely describe how the ears and brain of a human being relate to a particular piece of music, nor even the interpretation and reaction to sound itself... but recording, storage, retrieval, and subsequent reproduction of that recording are nothing but science. Until the average "music lover" is ready to separate the deeply emotional connection to the content they love - from the equipment that delivered it to them in their room - there will likely be no resolution to the debates.
I've only seen a handful of discussions over television or movies devolve into arguments over screen calibration, size, or even resolution... and certainly never something where someone saying "I couldn't really connect with the main character in Movie X" being met with "well, you just don't have a high enough luminosity in your panel... if you had my panel... you would be the main character!"
Or a literary analogy... consider emotional, subjective reviews of book bindings/paper or word processors with excerpts from classical works of literature to "prove" the quality of the delivery method.
There will likely never be "enough" science to completely describe how the ears and brain of a human being relate to a particular piece of music, nor even the interpretation and reaction to sound itself... but recording, storage, retrieval, and subsequent reproduction of that recording are nothing but science. Until the average "music lover" is ready to separate the deeply emotional connection to the content they love - from the equipment that delivered it to them in their room - there will likely be no resolution to the debates.
digicidal
Major Contributor
Someone else might have asked what that has to do with audio, but I think the connection is quite clear...
digicidal
Major Contributor
Agreed. Although in that case it would be a bad topic simply because the number of possible answers is virtually unlimited.
The current subject is interesting simply because it's so convoluted. I would argue that even if an objectivist is actually focused on "all the wrong things" then it's very easy for them to tell - if the measurements are different, it's not a wrong thing (it's something that changes depending on the DUT). You might make an argument for "not enough is being measured" or perhaps even "no audible correlation has been proven" - but not that it isn't a "correct" thing to measure.
But I'm biased because I'd love to see everything measured every time...
Last edited:
No, this is not about being offended.
But I do feel like there's a false dichotomy on this thread (and in the hobby and industry in general) and your joke highlights it: "objectivist" vs. "subjectivist."
Certainly there are a lot of subjectivists out there. One just cropped up on this thread. However, it seems like any time somebody questions the value of measurements, they get tossed into the "subjectivist" bin.
I think there's at least another major line of thought here. Folks who have faith in measurements and science, but try to understand things from the angle of audibility. Folks who think SINAD is a valuable measurement but want to know how this translates to actual in-room listening performance. Call them "objective audiblists", maybe. Or maybe just "objectivists with a side of psychoacoustics."
I don't know that we need a whole new label. In fact I'm pretty sure we don't. But, I think that's how a lot of this approach this hobby and I don't think it's the same as subjectivism...
Well said. Totally agreed! I read someone in here, saying "if it does not pass my bench test, I don't even listen to it". I find it weird to say the least. Not that measurements does not matter, but ultimately, everything is evaluated based on the sound that it produces in OUR ROOM, and based on our subjective preferences. Placebo and confirmation bias works both ways. Like the proverbial audiophile who very much enjoyed his piece of gear until someone posted some bad measurements on them, at which point it really started to sound pretty bad, and he sold it.
I always like to look at the specs, measurements, and all technical details on implementation. But, they only tell part of the story. What I struggle with measurements is whether: (1) are we really measuring what is relevant, and (2) how those measurements impact the sound, if at all. If everyone bought stuff that "measures" well, then everyone would own a Benchmark, and everybody else would go out of business (except chi-fi stuff of course)
I am really confused about the logic here. Are you guys suggesting that something like two well designed DACs are going to sound different from each other because of the room they are being used in? That one might be preferable in one listening environment, and one another listening environment?
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 6,327
- Likes
- 9,475
A lot of members give me the impression the cup is half empty when it is really half full. We should be grateful Harmann and some outfit in Canada did research on speaker design. Modern digital recording avoids tape hiss and other artifacts. Those are just a few things I could think of. It's much better now than in the 70's. A lot of science has accumulated and is in use. The trick is to find it and avoid the goofballs.
You addressed to "guys" but I am happy to address my part. Although not sure why you picked DACs. The discussion can be about speakers, Amps, and even acoustic panels.
Two "well designed" DACs can sound different in the same room, depending on how they are "voiced". My opinion, from my personal experience, having owned more than a dozen DACs over the past 15-17 years. Take it for what's worth.
Same identical DAC, can sound "different" in two different rooms.
Finally, we all hear differently. And we all appreciate different parts of audio reproduction. I know very well versed audio professionals, that only focus on one or two attributes of an audio system, and I can tell exactly whether they will like something or not.
This brings to my mind a memory of walking into a Wellesley college dorm and hearing Stravinsky playing over a $50 department store turntable + two speakers stereo. The performance sounded to me like someone torturing cats. To Anisa, the young woman listening (who was a talented flute and picolo player) it was delightful and amazing.
I was in a set of people doing some amateur speaker designing and building and bargain hunting for used speaker deals. My roommate and I used a particular recording of Bach organ cantatas as it contained the purest 20 Hz tone we could find in actual music. (hahahaha). It was pretty clear that Anisha was processing this *totally* differently from me. She was part of the classically trained set who could be seen sitting around campus smiling and humming to herself while reading sheet music. I was spending my time listening to speakers, with music just a means to that end.
As a broadcast engineer,I see myself as an 'audibilist'. I have never been interested in what anything sounds like, on the basis that if it has a sound of its own, then it's not transparent and so of no value as a means of transmission. Consequently, how something measures is of prime importance. However, and this is where 'realism' (or call it audibilstism
) comes in. Once something measures well enough to be transparent, that's quite Good Enough. I don't need SOTA if that means it'll cost more or be finicky or less reliable. I like to see some headroom in the minimum for transparency given that equipment is chained together so errors add, and indeed, to allow for both manufacturing tolerances and ageing, but realistically, with modern electronics, it's mostly so far past minimum requirements that I don't need to know the %, dBs and kHz.I found it interesting that even before I retired, now some 15 years ago, major broadcast tenders no longer specified dBs and kHz as they were taken as read, but went into considerable detail as to a functional specification, what facilities had to be provided, what had to route to what, what ergonomics were required. Audio specifications just didn't figure. My views on HiFi are much the same, it's all perfectly Good Enough, it just needs to do what we want it to.
S.
Because DAC's aren't part of the acoustic chain...like the speakers and the room are. They deal with creating a pure electrical signal based on a sampled source. They should neither add nor subtract from that...they are not an instrument.
You hit it on the head though...every combination of room and speaker is different. What goes into the speaker shouldn't be a significant part of the final subjective sound differences, unless that's what you want and choose based on a preferred kind of distortion.
DAC with different speakers in a different room? Yes. Almost certainly very different.
Speaker with different DAC's? Not very likely.
- Status
