Subjectivists EVERYWHERE!!!!

[audio2design]

As a physicist I would caution objectivists who just focus on numbers that it is the psychoacoustic theory that is the important component of being objective.

While some elements of psychoacoustics are well supported others are not.

Take this often used diagram from F Toole's book. 11 subjects is hardly statistically sound.
View attachment 145724

Regards Andrew

Not only is 11 not statistical but the whole concept of how this curve was generated is flawed as the test signal was not a controlled source, but was music, music whose spectral content is heavily influenced by those who generate it (typically older with age/exposure induced losses), the situation in which they generated it (primarily near field, with some other test locations), and the volume they used, not to mention personal preferences, etc. This curve is as much a test of music as it is of speakers.

 

[Geert]

That sentiment has been expressed here before and I certainly understand the motivation behind it.o However, my issue is: what do we have to replace the terms with?

Rational and feeling.

What we call audophile subjectivists are usually people who's behaviour is mainly driven by feelings. You want them to buy your story? First connect emotionally and entertain or inspire them.

Don't mention 'facts' or 'logic'. For them these are just statements that do or don't make them feel good, and in the latter case they won't buy it. Don't expect them to dive into technical details, that might require an effort that won't make them feel good.

And if you're truly a master in interpersonal relationships or story telling, you can sell them almost everything.

(They can write a similar explanation on how disfunctional objectivist are).

 

[Spkrdctr]

And if the speakers measure like hot garbage then there is little point fiddling back down the chain.

That is why Amir's speaker testing is so interesting. It can weed out the junk. Or known technically as "poorly engineered". Or if you need a special directivity speaker, the tests will show if that speaker has it or not.

 

[DWI]

You are right in that ultimately what matters in a system is what comes out of the transducers and how they interact with the room/ears. But if that whole system sounds poor (and let's assume the room is decent) then it's back to measurements and specs to determine where that weak link is, isn't it? And if the speakers measure like hot garbage then there is little point fiddling back down the chain.

We are all subjectivists to the extent it comes down to how the system makes us feel, but we can have a pretty good stab at building a system that makes us feel good by assessing the components objectively based on measurements and specs, surely?

if I look at specs it is usually for an independent check on the manufacturer data, or that a product does not have poor measurements. I have rejected options on that basis several times.

Speakers are highly subjective because most people do not have heavily damped rooms, often quite small rooms, and deep bass is very difficult to manage. I hate deep bass and we chose speakers that have enough bass for our musical tastes. It also means they are a sensible size. Some people might consider them limited and poor value, and they would be useless as professional monitors.

I found that until I compared listening to a system in a bare room stripped of all furnishings, and then well furnished, I had no idea how unbelievably bad, and how good, the same system can sound. I’ve done this twice in the last year.

I think what some people consider subjective for others is quite objective.

I despair at audiophile tweaks and products. I just had a new hifi unit made. People spend a fortune on feet. I accept that electronics etc. Should be damped, but got the feet for the unit from an industrial supply company. The 4 feet cost me £13. I also bought damping matting which is a bit like a giant chocolate bar with about 300 segments, you cut off as many as you need, that cost £50, I have a lot of it left over!

 

[audio2design]

I think what some people consider subjective for others is quite objective.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” ... Arthur C. Clarke


If you have limited knowledge, then what may be simple and obvious to some, to you is magic.

 

[Spkrdctr]

My problem is the dismissive attitude for the actual observation.
Given that I am fooled by bias, then I need to know how I am fooled by bias. I need to know why I am fooled to think that A sounds better than B and why I describe the sensation with the term "presence". Because if I knew, I could use this to my advantage to improve the perceived quality of my experience.

So I would say, that the burden of the proof is on science to explain what I hear, rather than on me to explain how am I conforming to science.

That is what has been done for over 5 decades. Testing and research that shows hearing is easily fooled. The brain adds to whatever you hear to make it sound "right" even though it is pretty far off. Another example is A may sound better than B because B is a few db higher in volume. This is well known. So, I'm glad to report what you want has been done! The problem is that most average people don't know about it. Marketing lies are found in print and the internet, snake oil dominates the audio industry. Snake oil information disguised as science is easily obtainable by any google search. Audio research and testing is impossible to find on google. The average Joe has no hope of knowing the truth except for places like ASR.

 

[Geert]

If you have limited knowledge, then what may be simple and obvious to some, to you is magic.

And when it comes to audio; you also can't understand or accept there are people who have the knowledge, as everyone knows magicians don't exist.

 

[Geert]

The average Joe has no hope of knowing the truth except for places like ASR.

The average Joe doesn't want to know, he doesn't want anyone to take away the magic.

 

[audio2design]

I watch the sky at night
- look that star doesn't seem to blink like the others
I take binoculars
-oh it looks like a small disk with 4 dotted lights around
I use a telescope
- The small disk is an orb with bands and the dots move!
I add a spectrometer
- The planet is made mostly of hydrogen!
I use a radio telescope
- it is very active, it gives out a lot of radiation!

etc. etc. etc.

......

So I would say, that the burden of the proof is on science to explain what I hear, rather than on me to explain how am I conforming to science.

You were saying ....

optics4kids.org

 

[Spkrdctr]

[QUOTE="DWI, post: 870611, member: 27093"
I found that until I compared listening to a system in a bare room stripped of all furnishings, and then well furnished, I had no idea how unbelievably bad, and how good, the same system can sound. I’ve done this twice in the last year.
[/QUOTE]

Yes! I have saying this in many posts. It doesn't even have to be as stark of a difference as you mention. Just plopping speakers, many times costing $5000/pr and going much higher in a room vs taking the time to do a minimal set up and sub integration, will make a dramatic difference. This is why I say I can make $1000 a pair speakers sound better than $10,000 a pair speakers with no difficulty at all. I am NOT talking about DSP/REW, I'm talking about much less in equipment, but with a bit of labor. There is no tweak that can give you as much of an improvement as simply setting up what you have the best you can.

 

[DWI]

Would I know there is a room there? )

Our music room has two systems, a conventional 2-channel audio system and a 6-speaker spatial system that is completely hidden. I played it to someone last night and he had no idea where the sound was coming from. Even when I told him he didn't believe me, and the sound quality is fantastic. They even measure well.

 

[Spkrdctr]

You were saying ....

View attachment 145737


View attachment 145738


View attachment 145739


View attachment 145740


optics4kids.org

Oh crap! First the hearing is all over the place and now the eyes! Humans are so easily fooled in so many ways.

 

[DWI]

[QUOTE="DWI, post: 870611, member: 27093"
I found that until I compared listening to a system in a bare room stripped of all furnishings, and then well furnished, I had no idea how unbelievably bad, and how good, the same system can sound. I’ve done this twice in the last year.

Yes! I have saying this in many posts. It doesn't even have to be as stark of a difference as you mention. Just plopping speakers, many times costing $5000/pr and going much higher in a room vs taking the time to do a minimal set up and sub integration, will make a dramatic difference. This is why I say I can make $1000 a pair speakers sound better than $10,000 a pair speakers with no difficulty at all. I am NOT talking about DSP/REW, I'm talking about much less in equipment, but with a bit of labor. There is no tweak that can give you as much of an improvement as simply setting up what you have the best you can.[/QUOTE]

A local dealer near me preaches the same, that you can get very good sound from a $2,000 pair of speakers well set up, better than a pair of speakers at any price poorly set up or wrong for the room. He is also a massive advocate of DSP and has been selling for ages.

 

[garbulky]

It's a hobby and they enjoy chasing specifications as much as the next guy.

Being data-driven does not mean we are immune from GAS.

Understandable. I like gear. But why are they buying the gear?

 

[garbulky]

Again, I can't believe I am reading this.
You are complaining that objectivists pay unnecessary money for a DAC with a SINAD of 115 when a SINAD of, say, 90 already performs well beyond audibility.
And you are happy when a subjectivist pays $1000 for a power conditioner or a speaker cable for a performance upgrade which is unproven and dubious? And your argument is that they "are getting a better experience"?

No, I'm not defending subjectivists. But, yes they "think" they are getting a practical benefit.

My answer to you is simple. They both pay silly money.

Exactly.

At least the objectivist pays money for a proven and measured state-of-the-art performance (albeit beyond audibility) whereas the subjectivists pays silly money fullstop.

Well is that really different from what a subjectivist does? Neither gets a practical benefit (from an objectivist perspective).

If you belong to the latter category, you will keep paying more and more because there is no measured benchmark that tells you where to stop.

Dude right now there's a dac that's a few db more inaudible than another dac which is already ridiculously inaudible and people are drooling over it. Why? What benefit does it provide?

 

[Geert]

Yes. Because objectivists are buying the same audible sound performance and paying more. At least subjectivists think their money is getting a better experience (whether that’s true or not). Whats the objectivists excuse?

An objective superb DAC and amplifier costs about the same as what a lot of subjective audiophiles spend on cabling alone. There's often not that much of an additional cost to buy good measuring equipment. Boutique audio stuff on the other hand ...

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

You were saying ....

View attachment 145737


View attachment 145738


View attachment 145739


View attachment 145740


optics4kids.org

Yep. That's exactly what I am saying. Graphic designers are perfectly aware of these illusions and, if necessary, use them to their advantage. Why audio equipment designers shouldn't do the same?

 

[pkane]

Yep. That's exactly what I am saying. Graphic designers are perfectly aware of these illusions and, if necessary, use them to their advantage. Why audio equipment designers shouldn't do the same?

Graphics designers rarely claim that visual illusions they employ are a major discovery that is unexplained by known science. Audiophile products and their supporters make this claim many times a day.

 

[Plcamp]

One can trust measurements because you can verify they come from experienced folks using proven peer reviewed methods that are repeatable and comparable between units. Measurements add to your ability to discern better from not.

One cannot trust reviewer subjective descriptions because there are no standards by which you can judge the reviewer, because the methodologies are inconsistent and unable to provide repeatability, because the language used is imprecise to meaningless and because you have no way to judge if what the reviewer hears is the result of multiple other factors outside the scope of what he is reviewing. Subjective reviews subtract from your ability to discern better from not.

It is that simple to me.

 

[Geert]

It is that simple to me.

It's also simple for a subjectivist (not me to be clear):
- "I hear it so it's real, your measurements are failing"
- "One cannot trust objective reviewers because they don't know how to listen or are biased by the measurements".