• 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!

Interview with Bruno Putzey

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I am increasingly convinced that the abyss separating objectivists and subjectivists stems from the fact that the former are unwilling to accept that many people enjoy particular types of euphonic distortion and that the latter are unwilling to accept that the equipment they prefer doesn't measure well even though it sounds better to their ears. The mute talking to the deaf...
I disagree.

What is "euphonic distortion"?

How do you reconcile that with the research (Toole) that shows people prefer neutrality and low distortion?

Does it sound better? So why is it every time I test audiophiles under controlled conditions the allegedly massive differences they previously heard in sighted uncontrolled conditions seem to evaporate?

The abyss is caused by the refusal to accept science, and that includes the science of psycho-acoustics and cognitive bias, as valid. The refusal to accept the limitations and frailties of ones own experience, thinking that personal opinion trumps science.
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
I disagree.

What is "euphonic distortion"?

How do you reconcile that with the research (Toole) that shows people prefer neutrality and low distortion?

I know you disagree.

I question Toole's interpretation of the research data in many of his standings, I also find the methodology used in some of the research not particularly effective, corners were cut, oversimplification, small samples, untrained listeners...

Taking Toole's word as the gospel is not science, it's dogma. Blessed be the fruit.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
euphony
Pronunciation /ˈjuːf(ə)ni/
noun

  • The quality of being pleasing to the ear.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I know you disagree.

I question Toole's interpretation of the research data in many of his standings, I also find the methodology used in some of the research not particularly effective, corners were cut, oversimplification, small samples, untrained listeners...

Taking Toole's word as the gospel is not science, it's dogma. Blessed be the fruit.

On what basis do you question the research that has been peer reviewed by the professional audio community? As I said personal opinion doesnt trump science.

Well you better write a paper detailing your issues and conduct your own research to disprove the current thinking. Thats science.

So a simple question, if a flat anechoic response with smooth off axis response is not the one to have, then what is and on what basis have you decided it is better?
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
What distortion is euphonic?

Any distortion which may sound pleasing to someone is euphonic. Is that so difficult to grasp?

Alternatively you can just keep banging on about people buying equipment that is not audibly transparent being deluded and that manufacturers producing equipment that is not audibly transparent being cheaters...
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Any distortion which may sound pleasing to someone is euphonic. Is that so difficult to grasp?

Alternatively you can just keep banging on about people buying equipment that is not audibly transparent being deluded and that manufacturers producing equipment that is not audibly transparent being cheaters...

Aaaahhhh, so anything that sounds pleasing to someone somewhere is valid. Anything goes, anything is good, and its therefore impossible to have any qualitative definition of what makes good sound/performance.

Sorry thats total nonsense :)

OK then, what frequency response should a dac have? If flat is no good, what is? Whats correct? Or should that also be whatever any random variation any random individual deems is OK?
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
On what basis do you question the research that has been peer reviewed by the professional audio community? As I said personal opinion doesnt trump science.

Well you better write a paper detailing your issues and conduct your own research to disprove the current thinking. Thats science.

Meanwhile a pier-reviewed paper about Covid 19 (hydroxichloroquine) published in none other than The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine magazines has just been found void and retracted...

Trust "science", yes, but not blindly.

So a simple question, if a flat anechoic response with smooth off axis response is not the one to have, then what is?

Are you asking as a manufacturer or as an end user?

I don't produce audio equipment so I can only reply as an end user. My reply is that personally, for me, to my taste, I prefer flat anechoic response with smooth off axis response. But that is me.
Someone else may prefer a BBC dip (on- or off-axis), exaggerated bass, exaggerated treble, high low-end 2nd order distortion at normal listening levels, narrow dispersion, wide dispersion, boomy bass, little bass but a lot of sub-bass, a dry room, a lively room, LEDE, RFZ, vinyl, digital, reel-to-reel, k7, 2-channel, multi-channel, ambio surround, etc.

And then there's what Putzey refers to as the unmeasured distortion, or the as comprehensive set as possible.
ASR started with a spin 'cause Toole says FR trumps everything so it must be true...but it is not so then came THD, CSD, IMD, measurements of individual drivers and ports.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Aaaahhhh, so anything that sounds pleasing to someone somewhere is valid. Anything goes, anything is good, and its therefore impossible to have any qualitative definition of what makes good sound/performance.

Sorry thats total nonsense :)

OK then, what frequency response should a dac have? If flat is no good, what is? Whats correct? Or should that also be whatever any random variation any random individual deems is OK?

Toole wanted to know what kind of speaker was preferred. He was working for a manufacturer. Do your own market research, find a target audience and a technical target you're comfortable with and stick to that. There's no such thing as a universally preferred performance.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Meanwhile a pier-reviewed paper about Covid 19 (hydroxichloroquine) published in none other than The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine magazines has just been found void and retracted...

Trust "science", yes, but not blindly.



Are you asking as a manufacturer or as an end user?

I don't produce audio equipment so I can only reply as an end user. My reply is that personally, for me, to my taste, I prefer flat anechoic response with smooth off axis response. But that is me.
Someone else may prefer a BBC dip (on- or off-axis), exaggerated bass, exaggerated treble, high low-end 2nd order distortion at normal listening levels, narrow dispersion, wide dispersion, boomy bass, little bass but a lot of sub-bass, a dry room, a lively room, LEDE, RFZ, vinyl, digital, reel-to-reel, k7, 2-channel, multi-channel, ambio surround, etc.

And then there's what Putzey reffers to as the unmeasured distortion, or the as comprehensive set as possible.
ASR started with a spin 'cause Toole says FR trumps everything so it must be true...but it is not so then came THD, CSD, IMD, measurements of individual drivers and ports.

No one is trusting science blindly, its down to *you* to come up with some alternative science that disproves the Toole research.

So your personal experience is you prefer precisely what Toole suggests is the right thing to do.

OK, you make some suggestions as to what others may think is better. Thats fine but they are just that, suggestions. Its a theory if you like. What you now need to do is go away and do proper research that demonstrates and quantifies your assertions. Including showing that these alleged preferences are real and not a product of other influences and biases or specific conditions (acoustics/environment etc)

Toole says that frequency response is the most important factor, it doesnt ignore the myriad of other factors as you imply.

Again its no good criticising the research by saying "I think this or that might be wrong". You need to come up with compelling reasons and research, be it your own or others, to demonstrate what you think is correct.
 
Last edited:

Zoomer

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
323
Likes
468
Meanwhile a pier-reviewed paper about Covid 19 (hydroxichloroquine) published in none other than The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine magazines has just been found void and retracted...

Trust "science", yes, but not blindly.


How can the fact that the article has been found void and retracted speak against the scientific process?
Your understanding of how science works seems to be lacking.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Toole wanted to know what kind of speaker was preferred. He was working for a manufacturer. Do your own market research, find a target audience and a technical target you're comfortable with and stick to that. There's no such thing as a universally preferred performance.
Completely universally? No, but no-one has claimed that and it is not what the research suggests or concludes. Some people like watching their TV with the colour saturation turned up way too high. Would that make it a good TV if it were set that way and fixed? No of course not. You mustn't conflate what might be a situational causation or an individual and personal vagary with what makes a good speaker.

Tooles research started as independent at the Canadian NRC. Again you need to come up with proper arguments against the science, not the implication that it was biased. Not that I see the objective of finding the technical parameters that make a preferred speaker for commercial reasons in contradiction of any of the research conclusions.
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
How can the fact that the article has been found void and retracted speak against the scientific process?
Your understanding of how science works seems to be lacking.

It doesn't. It speaks against the idea that Toole's articles cannot be found void and retracted, that they're the be-all and end-all.

Too much faith, too little scepticism...


Read all my messages and note the context of the post you quoted.
 

carlob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
736
Likes
1,027
Location
Roma, Italy
It should also be said that in this particular field there is essentially no research besides Toole, it's not really something that has been extensively studied imho. BBC did a lot of research back in the days but it is dated now, seems that it is not an interesting field anymore.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
It doesn't. It speaks against the idea that Toole's articles cannot be found void and retracted, that they're the be-all and end-all.

Too much faith, too little scepticism...


Read all my messages and note the context of the post you quoted.
No-one has suggested that Tooles research cannot be contradicted. The problem here is that you have suggested its not correct but offer no basis as to why, let alone any proper science.

You need to justify your scepticism.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,275
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
What distortion is euphonic?

Electric guitar distortion. They sound pretty horrible without effects/distortion pedals and distorting/overdriven amplifiers...

:)
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Electric guitar distortion. They sound pretty horrible without effects/distortion pedals and distorting/overdriven amplifiers...

:)
Absolutely, but that is the art. Is it the purpose of hifi to distort that further? Even the name hifi, high fidelity, suggests no. ;)

Should you go to the Louvre and look at the paintings through dark green tinted spectacles? Well of course you could, it may even be your preference to see the art that way, but only in audiophile circles could distorting things in this way be considered a good thing to do.
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,312
Likes
4,425
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
My crude take is that subjectivism in audio is all about a 'nice sound' that 'involves' that particular listener, the stereo and especially speakers, designed around a 'nice sound' in a particular room. Change any part of this precariously balanced 'effect' and the whole 'involving sound' is ruined. I can't explain it better, sorry. I've been mauled on other subjectivist-based sites for daring to suggest that measurements are important if not essential and was recently accused of not listening for 'the music' any more, but for better specs, the music becoming a tool rather than the other way round.

I'm just minded of the stopries here and elsewhere describing how Bob Carver was able to tweak one of his amp designs to a sonic (distortion led?) 'flavour' almost to taste and that to me is expertise, if different to Bruno and his contemporaries trying to push the boundaries of amp design forward.
 

Absolute

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
1,084
Likes
2,125
Personally I'm a fan of context. We have to consider who Bruno is talking to, what considerations he needs to take and the target audience responded to.

I'm under no illusion that Neil Degrasse Tyson will speak to a fellow astrophysicist in the same manner as he will speak to me or some highly religious person on tv/radio.

Unless someone can demonstrate in a blindtest that Purify Eigentakt is audibly superior to Nc400, all statements made by Bruno should be viewed upon as generalized knowledge about amps and/or advertisements for his business venture.
His only remark thus far about the audible difference between the two is a very strange one;

"Expecting no difference, the difference was bigger than expected."

Biased view? Was it confirmed by controlled testing? Less noise/hizz? More Prat? Blacker sails? Windier winds at low frequencies? Who knows, so let's assume the simplest answer to be true, marketing bollocks.
 
Top Bottom