• 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!

Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
You may have missed the other thread with his novel-length dissertations in defence of the Poetic Subjective Reviewers, of the Stereophile/Herb Reichert ilk, and their reviews of speakers yes, but also amps with immaculate measurements, and even power cables etc, all described with the same vocabulary, all clearly ascribed to the sound waves, with no grasp of the science of human perception. Defending their subjective reviews is no problem for MH.

^^^ Example of flat out lying.

Nowhere in either that thread or any others did I defend reviews claiming sonic differences between amps with "immaculate measurements, and even power cables etc,"

In fact I have routinely jumped on that stuff same as most here. And I have constantly argued the case for the relevance of objectivity and pointed out the problems of the purely subjective approach that leads to nonsense of "even power amps that measure the same sound different" and "expensive AC cables change the sound" etc.

Before falling for Newman's misrepresentations, here is one of many of my posts on the problems with purely subjectivist approach:

 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
After post #2000 or so would it be safe to suggest everything to be said on a subject has already been said?
 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
take your word for it
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
OTOH, if it's true you support what we jokingly call pink prose, I can't subscribe to that. I think it is a con, it's cheating and fooling people and it's not what I approve of.

"Con" is going too far imo, at least for a lot of them. "Con" to me implies knowledge of one's deceit. It requires intentional dishonesty. While some of them may be cons, I think a lot of them genuinely believe that "pink prose" they write. Many times, I think it's an honest attempt to describe what they "hear". The problem is, and what they don't understand, is that we hear with our brains, and not our ears. They wrongly attribute differences in what they hear to differences in sound waves entering their ear, when no such differences exist.

Don't get me wrong, they are duping people, and that's unfortunate. Based on the review, people go out and (for example) buy an expensive tube amp expecting to hear a night and day difference above their solid state amp, but the truth is that the difference is smaller than the difference between their left and right speaker. But, and it's an important "but", I think (most) of these reviewers are being honest. They themselves are being duped, so I can't fault them too much. Besides, most of the people buying said tubes very likely will hear "night and day" differences, as their brains are subject to the same biases as the reviewers. So, are they really being duped? :p

I'd love to see more research about what % of what we hear is due to psychology. The input to the ears is a small part of the overall picture, concentration, what one is thinking at the time, biases(cost, brand, etc.) all play a part. Even with something like comparing two good speakers, I wouldn't be surprised if the psychological component makes up more than 50% of what the brain "hears". For electronic comparisons, it's almost certainly close to 100%. Even tube vs SS comparisons are probably 90-95+% mental. Some of the studies cited in Toole's book speak to this, but I'd love to see if fleshed out more.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Reviews are just entertainment, nothing more or less. On the odd case where one has built up years of reading reviews by a journalist and you have some shared experience of the devices they review its possible to build up an understanding of how they use language, and thusly their meaning and intent. All based on them not being a schill for hire or a rabid fantasist of course.

Mostly it's just flowery writing meant to stimulate your 'want' glands.

Agreed. Pretty much exactly why I read them. It's usually either to stimulate my "want" glands, or stimulate my "satisfaction" glands. Latter being when I read reviews of speakers I already own.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
The biggest shortcoming of subjective review is how adjectives describing tonal quality lacks any usable "degree". Let's take food reviews as an example because these are always purely subjective without measurements. When I say a food is "spicy, sweet, salty or too hot", the reader has zero context. What if I love spicy food and when something is "too spicy" for me that may also mean that if I think it's "just right" it could be too spicy for you. Alternatively, I cannot stand eating food that is a touch too sweet so when I complain that a drink is "too sweet", I know for certain my daughter would respond "no, it's perfect!" and so forth. Now on to sound - my wife and son cannot stand the sound of metal knives and forks scratching the surface of a ceramic dish as it literally sends shivers up their spines whereas I can hear it but am not bothered by it at all. So you see where I'm going here - the problem of subjective reviews is twofold:

(1) A "review" by its nature suggests that their subjective impressions are somehow universally applicable when in fact it's merely stating the reviewer's personal eccentricities, tastes preferences or biases, and even if the subjective impressions are a useful guide, the very words used to describe the subjectivity lacks any standard of measure; when a reviewer says there's an annoying bit of sibilance, we have no context of whether he's hyper sensitive to sibilance or not, and maybe 20 years ago he was hypersensitive but today he can no longer notice it unless it's punched up by 6dB! Many reviewers have been in this game for 20 years - have their hearing changed at all over the years? Absolutely - age, experience, injury - life happens.

(2) What if the reviewer chooses the wrong music and does not catch issues in the speaker simply because his musical selection does not bring out those flaws? We have Stereophile reviews where subjective speaker reviews are followed by JA's measurements and the two are not consistent - in this most recent Stereophile review of the Alumine Three, Herb Reichert's glowing love for this speaker is at odds with John Atkinson's measurements (audible resonance near 1kHz):

HR: "the almost fullrange Alumine Threes made this type of music play bigger, more distinctly, more open, easier to follow, and more interesting than it did with my Falcons or DeVores…delivered a bigger "sound" fueled by more undistorted volume, more unrestrained dynamics, more absolute clarity, and of course, more and deeper and less distorted bass...I never imagined how much previously undelivered recorded information the Stenheim Alumine Threes would bring into my room. Or how powerful and compelling this newly discovered information would be."

JA: I was puzzled by the resonant peak in the port's output and by the small peak/dip just above 1kHz, but to be fair, any audible consequences of these resonances will depend on the music being played. [emphasis added]


And so ultimately, subjective reviews are limited to the reviewer not knowing what music to play in order to bring out the best or worst in a speaker and if you the prospective consumer happen to play the wrong music, well, , don't blame the reviewer because he didn't catch it with his selection of esoteric audiophile review music.
Before assuming any contradiction here, you might want to consider the capabilities of tbe Devore and LS3/5a speakers. That part of the subjective review at least is bang in line with what would be predicted from measurements of each speaker.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Before assuming any contradiction here, you might want to consider the capabilities of tbe Devore and LS3/5a speakers. That part of the subjective review at least is bang in line with what would be predicted from measurements of each speaker.
You are correct, not exactly a "contradiction", but my original point was that the subjective review lacked any shortcomings at all, completely glossing over measured resonances that are arguably audible with the right music selection - this was simply my point: a subjective review can never hope to uncover flaws when the reviewer does not know where to look.
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
"Con" is going too far imo, at least for a lot of them. "Con" to me implies knowledge of one's deceit. It requires intentional dishonesty. While some of them may be cons, I think a lot of them genuinely believe that "pink prose" they write. Many times, I think it's an honest attempt to describe what they "hear". The problem is, and what they don't understand, is that we hear with our brains, and not our ears. They wrongly attribute differences in what they hear to differences in sound waves entering their ear, when no such differences exist.

Don't get me wrong, they are duping people, and that's unfortunate. Based on the review, people go out and (for example) buy an expensive tube amp expecting to hear a night and day difference above their solid state amp, but the truth is that the difference is smaller than the difference between their left and right speaker. But, and it's an important "but", I think (most) of these reviewers are being honest. They themselves are being duped, so I can't fault them too much. Besides, most of the people buying said tubes very likely will hear "night and day" differences, as their brains are subject to the same biases as the reviewers. So, are they really being duped? :p

I'd love to see more research about what % of what we hear is due to psychology. The input to the ears is a small part of the overall picture, concentration, what one is thinking at the time, biases(cost, brand, etc.) all play a part. Even with something like comparing two good speakers, I wouldn't be surprised if the psychological component makes up more than 50% of what the brain "hears". For electronic comparisons, it's almost certainly close to 100%. Even tube vs SS comparisons are probably 90-95+% mental. Some of the studies cited in Toole's book speak to this, but I'd love to see if fleshed out more.
Why do you have so many speakers?
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Why do you have so many speakers?

I enjoy collecting and comparing many different speakers. I'm also staring to favor certain dispersion patterns(wide/medium/narrow) differently for different types of content. If anything, owning many great speakers has taught me that well designed speakers aren't all that different from each other. Music on the JBL 308p(for example $150 paid) is incredibly satisfying. I think that much of what we tend to debate on this forum is based around optimizing that last 10% :D.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
I enjoy collecting and comparing many different speakers.

Same here. I quite enjoy what different speakers bring to the table. I could have the most colored, or most neutral speaker in the world, but I'd still get the itch to hear something different...because different is out there, and there will be some aspects I might like more in one speaker vs another.
 

TLEDDY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
631
Likes
858
Location
Central Florida
As an ex-auto racer, a quotation: "The only substitute for cubic inches ia cubic money!"

Any one from motor racing knows that the last five percent of added horsepower cost 50 to 100 times more than the first additional five percent.

Happily, I do not think that ratio of goodness (flat response, no distortion, great ability to play softly or loud etc.) in speakers is that costly.

True, one can pay approaching seven figures for speakers but not get any measured improvements over some very cost effective ones.

Comments and enlightening arguments welcome!

Disclaimer: I currently own KEF R3s, Harbeth 40.2, Stacked modified Quad 57s and Quad 63s with various subwoofers
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,088
Likes
7,544
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
Any one from motor racing knows that the last five percent of added horsepower cost 50 to 100 times more than the first additional five percent.

Happily, I do not think that ratio of goodness (flat response, no distortion, great ability to play softly or loud etc.) in speakers is that costly.

More important question people should ask themselves: What race are you winning by gaining the last five percent? :D
 

Anthony T

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
77
Likes
172
Location
London, UK
I changed one old (but good?) power amp for another similar the other day and the 'difference on the day' was huge - all my lost 'sibilance and presence' came back and I was thrilled but totally stumped as to how two basically good amps of similar power levels could be that different! A few days later, I ran this system again and it sounded just like it did with the previous power amp (well, maybe very slightly livelier and I believe for measurable reasons). Knowing how my ears are these days (acute Rhinitis and ear infections in my pre-Diabetic days have taken their toll nd they vary hugely), I suspect it was on a good-ear day I changed the amps over (my next speakers will have to be slightly assertive in the lower kHz region and with smooth dispersion too at these frequencies rather than recessed I feel, as my current boxes are).

I visited my dealer friend to help with some turntable work a couple of weeks back and once again had the pleasure of being in the company of some current Luxman amps. Even the cheap one (a mere £3800 or so) has a fit, class and 'feel' that is so luxurious it gladdens this enthusiast heart that's still there inside somewhere. He has an ancient Accuphase 202 integrated nearby and that feels like a tractor in comparison (switches engage with a precise clickety clack). The experience reminded me of the Yamaha 400/600/800/1000 amps we sold in the mid 70's (I owned a CA1000Mk2 for a while) where the tab switches had a glorious silky delicate feel lost in the replacement 410, 610 and so on models with less elegant and chunkier looking switchgear. I kind of went the opposite after owning a perfectly reasonable if very expensive ARC preamp (one of the FET ones) and going to something half the price and just as good (in my system then). Looking back three decades on, I do miss the 'luxury look and feel' of high end gear, but as I'll never be in a position to own such stuff now unless it's old, maybe outclassed and potentially unreliable (old stuff still costs as much to service as new versions), it's a moot point.

I think today that the gear-loving part of this industry and hobby deals with ALL our senses working together. It's just that subjectivists may not realise this perhaps and put it all down to their hearing acuity alone and that I think is where the issues may lie.
So it was initially a big improvement then the same but a little better for a measurable difference you didn’t measure and don’t expand on but was likely a good ear day. Well I’m glad you cleared that up.
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,313
Likes
4,426
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
My clumsy words were trying to explain the futility of subjective only comparisons with no known good references, as so many external factors come in when decisions like this are made and also, I should repeat how utterly important level matching needs to be, as any confusion in levels can totally alter perceptions.
 

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,530
Likes
1,485
Location
Vancouver
Sometimes, with gear that hasn't been touched for a long time swapping gear (or cables) cleans the connections and makes an audible difference. (cable snakeoil manufactures hope for this to happen) Swap them back to check.
 

ajawamnet

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
460
Same here. I quite enjoy what different speakers bring to the table. I could have the most colored, or most neutral speaker in the world, but I'd still get the itch to hear something different...because different is out there, and there will be some aspects I might like more in one speaker vs another.
As an audio engineer I love hearing our mixes on different systems. Just amazing how different they can sound. I recall having a mix I was testing at the local Best Buy. I had some friends that worked there and on weekday afternoons I could stop by and have a go at different systems. I recall one day back when they still sold CD's I was playing an artist's rough mix and was approached by a couple that asked. "Who is that?"

I told them and they moved on. So a few minutes later another couple stops by with the same question. I tell them. About five minutes later both couples are back with some manager lady and her inventory gun, stating that shoe couldn't find that artist in their system. Funny as all hell. I gave them the roughs then left.

So it's really nice to get to hear your stuff on as many systems as possible. I have six systems that I can go to; four of them I can instantly switch to. And some days it just adds to the confusion of what the hell I'm hearing.

So yea as the OP's original post mentions, the ear is not the most reliable thing. As a professor at MIT mentions in his lectures, humans are a visual species (even tho we have a fairly low Flicker Fusion Threshold). We have 30,000 auditory nerve fibers as compared to over a million optic nerve fibers. About 3,500 inner hair cells and 12,000 outer hair cells per cochlea. And in every human they are wired and are physically slightly different.

So how can one human even begin to think that what he may think he hears is the "correct" interpretation of anything?


 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
Yes everyone hears differently. But they are all (or should be) hearing the same thing in their different ways.

Everyone sees red differently, but we can still standardize what we call “red” with considerable precision. If a person perceives red differently than another person, nobody thinks it’s their job to deviate from the standard to correct for that, even if they could quantify it. We might change the color to something we prefer, but nobody is confused that it is more representative of the standard red than the standard red.

That’s why I don’t “target” a downward spectral tilt based on the observation that “people like bass”. If I did, however, that’s what tone controls are for. I want the equipment to give me flat, making me responsible for my own preferences.

If we color sound to fit someone else’s set of auditory nerves, it will sound wrong to me (maybe) because I’m used to hearing music (including live music) with the ears I have, however unique they are. Standardize it and let me adjust from that. Separate capture, correction, and targeting.

Rick “noting that photographers, post-cataract-surgery, talk of the removal of a #2 Wratten (yellow) filter—so should I have filtered everything blue pre-surgery just for them?” Denney
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
If we color sound to fit someone else’s set of auditory nerves, it will sound wrong to me (maybe) because I’m used to hearing music (including live music) with the ears I have, however unique they are. Standardize it and let me adjust from that. Separate capture, correction, and targeting.

Yes this is what I struggle with in terms of the science of subjective preferences. It's clearly useful and valuable, especially for a company that wants to create a sound that they can bank on a majority of people liking.

But unless I'm part of the tested cohort - and I don't have my own speaker double blind testing facilities - I can never really know for sure what I personally would prefer in the blind testing. (And then there is how much to even personally weight that when it comes to choosing speakers I'd be listening to in sighted conditions, where bias may indeed alter my perception of the sound).

I'm damned finicky about the sound I enjoy - I've spent a long time building my own criteria and biases - so while knowing (somewhat) the science behind speaker design goals and studied preferences is educational, in the end I'm left to my own devices and enjoy what I enjoy.
 
Top Bottom