Preference is involate. It's just also PERSONAL preference.
You asked:
I'm looking for the published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.
Is this really so hard to understand?
Question 1. I don't know where this is written by any expert explicitly. However, on this forum, if I want to change the sound, I just do it with whatever tools I want to. But I choose tools designed to do this: expanders, tone controls, image expanders, sonic holograms, and maybe sometimes with a SET amplifier. However, lets change just one word in #1 and a couple in #2
--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording
--That MEASUREMENTS for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT TUNED to detect specific distortions transfers (YOU CAN USE THE TEST EQUIPMENT TO MEASURE SOMEWHERE ELSE) to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude CALIBRATED TEST EQUIPMENT and a multitude of recordings.
NO offense at the capitals, only to make my point easy to see. This is the scientific response to your subjective and personal preference, and yes, I do not have a reference for this fact I am stating, except that I would love for anyone to bet me money otherwise. Measurements, done correctly, will repeat and reveal what they are tuned to reveal.
By the way, previously you mentioned your preference for the "same recording" of music on LP, as opposed to digital. Let me inform you that there is no way to compare the two. The mechanical process of recording at the cutter and your playback cartridge and also the RIAA in both directions for LP, are never the same as recording to digital. If some time you want to do this in a more realistic manner, you need to record the output of your LP from your preamp to your digital recorder, then go blind, and play back from each of those, then you can readily find out that you will not be reliably able to choose which is which, as digital is that good.
You've touched on a point that has always disturbed me when reading the "proper" research papers - to me, the science is poor: so many assumptions are made about what matters; a whole lot of relevant factors are barely mentioned - I always end up highly dissatisfied with what passes as "research" in this field - there are holes you can drive a steam locomotive through, without touching anything.Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?
Citation please. You are claiming science so cite the science
"--A distortion free audio playback chain is MEASUREABLY superior regardless of recording"
That is not a scientific response. That is an opinion. Superiority depends completely ont he subjective choice of reference by which all is compared and that is not an objective choice audio.
Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?
Yes, this can be explained in terms of the distortions of analogue systems being far easier to deal with, unconsciously, by the brain - a very, very crude analogy is poor analogue vs. digital TV reception; in the former, ghosting and severe noise still allow one to follow the plot; in the latter, once the picture starts to break up, all is lost. One thing that has been made very clear to me is that getting digital right is an extremely high Q exercise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor - if the quality is off by only the slightest amount then it may be almost unlistenable to. By contrast, LP SQ is relatively low Q in behaviour.
The compression occurs because the power supply voltages start to modulate, as the demands for current delivery outstrip the ability of the power supply circuitry to maintain stable reserves of energy. One can use circuit simulation software to see this happen in the time domain - and parts of the circuitry that depend on reliable voltages start to misbehave. Design people with regard to amplifiers most certainly have a blind spot here - they wave their hands, saying that PSRR will take care of it all - but I'm afraid that's a long way from the reality ...
Loudspeakers are fine ... really, they are. I have had the most "mediocre" speakers pumping out intense, ear-shattering SPLs, with ease - I go to demos of monster, expensive speakers, and hear the sound start to collapse as the volume rises - I roll my eyes, knowing that it's the amplifier at fault here. Having done the exercise so many times of getting good results from throwaway speakers - they're the last thing I worry about.
I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.
Covered? The actual research sure isn't there. I'm not finding any references to it either other than the assertion that it was done and this was the conclusion. And "my purposes?" How is it not to everyone's purpose to know to what extent consideration was given to the unique positioning requirements of competing speakers? For HK to give zero consideration to the specific needs of other brands unique needs for positioning in a room and other room requirments I would think they'd have to demonstrate that such consideration does not affect the results of their comparisons. How is #1 a red herring? How is that not at the absolute core of the belief that one should eliminate any and all audible distortions in the playback chain?
IOW you don't know where I can find the research. That's fine. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? And I am reading the book so please to everyone who continues to tell me to read the book, stop asking me to do what I am already doing. It's like the kid in the back seat of he car asking "are we there yet" every 30 seconds.
Okay, I'm going to flip this around and go through my subjectivist journey and where it lead me.
Axiomatically, I am willing to admit that:
1. If constrained by the variances in human perception*, I will admit that the definition of "the absolute sound" is nearly a philosophical or metaphysical one (the variances in human hearing tests alone mandate a spectrum of experience), comparable to that of Platonic forms.
2. Transducers are our main technology for both capturing sound and reproducing it. No flawless transducer technology currently exists.
3. Euphonic distortion can be pleasing, based both on personal experience in production, playback, and performance (one of my bass guitar amps is a tube amp), and a seemingly large number of others who have come to the same conclusion.
4. Vinyl can be pleasing due to euphonic distortion. (I myself, like my vinyl).
All of the above, once upon a time, lead me to decide to "get into" tubes. I had:
1 tube phono stage using 2 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AU7
1 tube phono stage using 2 x 6DJ8
1 hybrid preamp that could be passive, JFET buffered, or 4 x 6SN7
1 large box full of tubes full of 7 pairs of 12AX7, 4 pairs of 6DJ8, and 3 quads of 6SN7.
Then I started tube rolling. Sometimes I changed the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes. Sometimes I changed the phono tubes and the preamp tubes. Sometimes I changed to the other phono stage changed the phono tubes and changed the preamp tubes.
Almost every change seemed to have an effect. On top of all that, the time the tubes spent warming up also mattered. As did the gain, as the preamp tubes could be pushed to higher output and thus distortion.
But after a lot of fiddling, I felt I could get the system dialed in best for a particular song or album. And then as soon as I switched to a different album, the magic would be a bit diminished and I'd be compelled to start tweaking again. It was driving me nuts. A clear case of audiophilia nervosa.
One day I calculated the number of variables, and just based on tube(s) x solid state x passive combos, the number was 55 variations -- not even including tube warmup time, volume, tube life, etc.
How could I ever dial in a system with that many variables?
But then I noticed, if I was sufficiently un-sober, it didn't really matter that much. If under the influence, the importance of the small differences seem to be diminished, I stopped 'analyzing' the sound and just enjoyed the emotional experience of the music.
Leading to the following conclusions:
1. Relying purely on subjective tweakery was driving me nuts. I needed some other foundation.
2. Tube rolling is expensive.
3. No tweak improved my listening experience as much as the right weed or wine at the right time.
4. If my senses are so easily manipulated, and my pleasure so variable depending upon my mental state, with a wide gulf between 1 and 3 glasses of wine (or 2 and 6 tokes), the mood of a stormy night vs a nice sunset, upon which sensory experience am I supposed to base a system?
Or is basing a system upon the inconstancy of human perception a path to a necessarily ever-changing, inconsistent system?
My conclusion was, "Yes, it probably would", and observing the various FoTM products that crest and crash on audiophile hype cycles, each new big hit being touted as 'the' difference maker, it would seem others experienced, as well.
So I fell back on my science training and went a different route.
But I still enjoy my LPs.
The aspect that seems funny to people like me, is the way the (2) people seek to meet their objective by slightly modifying the equipment designed for (1) when they could be playing with tone controls, Ethan Winer's distortion box, DSP apps and so on. This would short circuit the thousands of wasted hours and dollars they will otherwise blow on not knowingly meeting (2).
This debate will be forced to go on forever because it is attempting to reconcile two conflicting objectives for an audio system:
There is nothing wrong with either objective. The aspect that irritates the 'objectivists' is that the (2) people are often suggesting quite forcibly that their schemes are creating a superior (1). The (1) people, on the other hand, are entitled to state that their systems are superior at (1) through measurements; they should not, however, assert that their systems are universally better at (2). Being a (1) person is a rational philosophical choice - a weighing up of the likelihood that (1) leads to (2) without embarking on an open-ended quest.
- to replay supplied recordings = to recreate some musical event or creation from the only available information = to contribute no 'art' of its own
- to maximise personal preference through sound
The aspect that seems funny to people like me, is the way the (2) people seek to meet their objective by slightly modifying the equipment designed for (1) when they could be playing with tone controls, Ethan Winer's distortion box, DSP apps and so on. This would short circuit the thousands of wasted hours and dollars they will otherwise blow on not knowingly meeting (2).
The phrasing could be misinterpreted but the intent is absolutely correct. You might prefer a distortion free playback chain is measurably higher fidelity regardless of recording.
Superiority has nothing to do with a subjective choice of reference. The reference is the recorded signal. Its absolutely objective.
You still seem to be struggling with the difference between fidelity and personal preference.
Its a red herring because it fundamentally misses the point of the research. So to be clear, you believe hifi systems should incorporate any distortion that an individual deems to fit their personal subjective likes. Thats a very interesting position to take. Not in itself, but in its applicability beyond you as an individual. So yours is not a hifi system its a personal fuzzbox. You have no interest in fidelity.