Audiofools turned objectivists or vice-versa?

[MrBrainwash]

sounded "better" at all volume levels because the tonality was obviously different, at which point I realized that the measurements didn't particularly matter.
(...) But, on a more abstract level, if one pursues absolute objectivity, you should realize over time that the pursuit is only useful if it is practical, and that there is no "truth."

I think tonality is something fairly objective and measureable. And many people agree (including me) that what is pleasent to hear is subjective and individual. You may prefer altred tonality.

But tonality come from "cause and effect".

 

[BluesDaddy]

I'll tell you what, I'll do the work for you and come up with citations if you can provide a rational explanation of how your subconscious bias regarding the look of equipment or it having "too many extra stuff" can influence your "liking" the sound of one piece of equipment vs. another in a double blind listening session where you don't know what either piece of equipment

It can influence my liking of one piece of audio equipment as a whole, not necessarily its sound, and given that I don't buy new audio hardware very often I may end up staring at it for years. That's why I don't like having speakers that look like two cheap pieces of plastic - it is a factor especially if you have a wife.

I don't have the equipment or dedicated space to do a competent double blind test - as probably a majority of the users. Even if I had, normally my sight is not impaired.

Edit: For someone educated you seem to lack basic understanding of the subconscious. Just because your are aware of your bias doesn't stop it from working on the subconscious level - this would render double blind tests redundant in case of trained people who taught themselves to be objective.

I'm not sure where the disconnect has come from, but we're talking about two very different things. You started off by asserting your personal preferences (you used "subconscious bias" which threw me off since, honestly, I don't believe aesthetic preferences constitute "subconscious bias" but won't quibble with you over your phraseology) would never allow you to like certain equipment at which point I asserted there is a way to control for that. The way being, obviously, Double Blind testing. My discussion was around the general principles involved in controlling for confirmation bias, aesthetic preferences, and placebo effect. Now, it may very well be that even should you engage in a controlled listening session that demonstrates the superiority, or at least lack of difference, in a piece of equipment that you find aesthetically displeasing you would never be "happy" with said equipment in your system due to the aesthetics, but no one, of whom I'm aware, has made a serious assertion that personal preferences play NO PART in the assembly of a hifi system. Certainly, when sound quality itself is not an issue nor is additional functionality, personal preferences of all sorts (looks, price, brand, etc.) will play the deciding factor (and may do so even when SQ IS different). The point of MY argument has been that in determining whether equipment ACTUALLY sounds DIFFERENT, let alone one being "better" than another, there is a methodology to control for subconscious bias, confirmation bias, etc. For what winds up on YOUR shelf, that's about YOU and your preferences - just don't argue that makes it SOUND better.

 

[ctrl]

A small addition to Post#459, if the first order Butterworth filter is set at 24kHz, then I can just hear a difference and at 26kHz I can no longer perceive a difference.

With a BU1@24kHz filter the frequency range of 2-9kHz shows much less difference in sound pressure than the compared amplifiers.

Here's my ABX test result for the BU1@24kHz filter, at the first run already two of sixteen are wrong:

This is no longer immediately audible for me.

The tilt in the graph is 0.1 db per octave, which was the tilt that Toole said might be audible.

The information that is unfortunately missing in Toole's statement is whether this statement really refers to the entire frequency range that can be perceived by humans (what you have drawn in the graphic in your post) or whether the tilt per octave may also include smaller frequency ranges or what happens if the tilt is >0.1dB/oct, but the frequency range is smaller.

According to the above example, I reach an audibility limit pretty quickly, but I also only hear up to 12kHz. For people with better hearing, even the BU1@26kHz filter could still be clearly audible.


For those who want to try it themselves, attached are the samples for the ABX test.

 

[Mystical Boar]

I don't believe aesthetic preferences constitute "subconscious bias" but won't quibble with you over your phraseology

Let me bring an example.

I use foobar2k for many years now due to its simplicity, functionality, reliability and the fact it's light on resources. I was never a fan of the notepad interface, though, and wished for a better, less geeky theme (in the vein of Izotope products or alike).

At some point I installed Neutron (which I used on my mobile player) on Wind10. The interface is cumbersome as hell, as it was designed with touch pads in mind, but I like the color scheme and the overall retro vibe of the application. I started playing music and I could swear there's a difference; the music seemed more real, gritty, less "digital".

I did a double-blind test and I could not tell which program was playing back music. However, still, to this day, I have irrational doubts as it sometimes seems to me that Neutron makes a subtle difference. I'm pretty sure it's because of the retro vibe which reminds me of the 90s and old, noisy decks.

So yes, I think visual preference may play tricks on your mind. Maybe indeed my terminology is incorrect and it's not "subconscious" bias as - like you said - I'm aware of it, but I tend to believe it at least works on a subconscious level [as well].

 

[rdenney]

What makes that Marantz have such a colored sound? Or am I just missing something? Does Marantz actually advertise that sound coloration? That would be refreshing.

I don't see amp manufacturers talking about their colored sound. In most cases, they claim ultimate linearity--frequency response of DC to daylight +/- 0.000001 dB. (Joking.) And distortion at vanishingly low levels.

Toole's statement about spectral tilt suggests that a slight overall tilt is more noticeable than variability up and down of greater magnitudes but lesser ranges. My understanding is that the larger the range affected by non-linear response, the more obvious it is, particularly when it's in the range of our most acute hearing (i.e., not so much the top octave). But I don't see amp manufacturers at any price point bragging about their spectral tilt.

Rick "wondering what we gain from chest-thumping about it" Denney

 

[ahofer]

What makes that Marantz have such a colored sound? Or am I just missing something? Does Marantz actually advertise that sound coloration? That would be refreshing.

I don't see amp manufacturers talking about their colored sound. In most cases, they claim ultimate linearity--frequency response of DC to daylight +/- 0.000001 dB. (Joking.) And distortion at vanishingly low levels.

Toole's statement about spectral tilt suggests that a slight overall tilt is more noticeable than variability up and down of greater magnitudes but lesser ranges. My understanding is that the larger the range affected by non-linear response, the more obvious it is, particularly when it's in the range of our most acute hearing (i.e., not so much the top octave). But I don't see amp manufacturers at any price point bragging about their spectral tilt.

Rick "wondering what we gain from chest-thumping about it" Denney

And yet, where audible differences exist, this seems likely to be the form. A pleasing inaccuracy is better sold as SLAM, PRaT, Air, or whatever other odd or euphemistic adjective comes to mind.

 

[gn77b]

I think it is a false dichotomy to suppose that there are two “sides” in any arena. I’m not even sure what people mean when they throw around terms like “objectivist,” because it hasn’t been adequately defined. The same word has also been used in a wide variety of other contexts throughout history, whose meaning does not correlate with the way it is used here in the audio context

I think SIY wrote something to this extent: the terms are used incorrectly and I agree. But by usage everyone knows that objectivist = numbers are all there is and subjectivist = if your car costs less than you're cables then GTFO. It's sad that this hobby is defined by what the extremists think. But what the heck...

Is there a thread over at SBAF reviewing my thread yet?

 

[ctrl]

What makes that Marantz have such a colored sound? Or am I just missing something? Does Marantz actually advertise that sound coloration? That would be refreshing.

Evidence for this statement is not really available to us (even though it may be true) - if we are totally objective in our judgment

In the example shown with the normalized diagram it looks so "spectacular" because it was normalized to the frequency response (FR) of the Denon amplifier.
If I had normalized to the Marantz amplifier frequency response, then the Denon FR would look bright.

In reality, both amplifiers show a slight but opposite tilt - that makes the selection of the two examples so interesting and the difference in the sound pressure curve probably just audible - in comparison.
Individually, the upward slope of the Denon is more pronounced than the downward slope of the Marantz.

So we should first pick on Denon

 

[ahofer]

I think it is a false dichotomy to suppose that there are two “sides” in any arena. I’m not even sure what people mean when they throw around terms like “objectivist,” because it hasn’t been adequately defined. The same word has also been used in a wide variety of other contexts throughout history, whose meaning does not correlate with the way it is used here in the audio context.

I would prefer it be reduced to "people who think blind testing is important" and/or "measurements can reveal everything audible if done correctly" and people who don't. Then we might get somewhere. But that's quixotic.

 

[Spkrdctr]

What makes that Marantz have such a colored sound? Or am I just missing something? Does Marantz actually advertise that sound coloration? That would be refreshing.

Rick "wondering what we gain from chest-thumping about it" Denney

Actually yes they do. They refer to it as the Marantz sound. They have internal circuitry to make it work the way it does. Some people like the Marantz sound and some like the Denon sound. Denon makes conventional regular flat amps and Marantz is modified. It is very nice of Marantz to advertise it and offer it to people who like it. From the charts supplied in this thread I would "think" it might be a slightly warmer sound.

 

[DimitryZ]

FWIW, I went through many tuners, some very expensive, until I settled on the Denon multi-module tuner system. I can now have 4 FM tuners, each with an antenna pointing to a favorite station. Plus I like the Denon sound.

 

[MaxBuck]

I would prefer it be reduced to "people who think blind testing is important" and/or "measurements can reveal everything audible if done correctly" and people who don't.

It's possible to embrace the former without fully accepting the latter.

 

[mhardy6647]

Tuners... I have too many.

great scott by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_5408 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Japanese ss tuners by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_9935 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_7286 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

https://hifihaven.org/index.php?thr...-i-apparently-have-a-thing-about-tuners.7303/

 

[DimitryZ]

Tuners... I have too many.

great scott by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_5408 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Japanese ss tuners by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_9935 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
DSC_7286 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

https://hifihaven.org/index.php?thr...-i-apparently-have-a-thing-about-tuners.7303/

WOW!

I think you have just the right number.

I owned the 350 and 310-D with multiplex adapter.

 

[Tokyo_John]

It still isn't clear to me what data we should be measuring in order to judge the quality of music reproduction equipment. Where does the "rubber meet the road" in making such an assessment?

For example, a case could be made for measuring our individual positive endorphin response, in order to decide what is most pleasing to oneself (of course, this is also predicated on the idea that endorphins are correlated with our happiness/satisfaction, which may not capture the entirety of the picture...but it anyways serves to demonstrate a point). Some people claim that they achieve the most pleasure from listening to music through the most transparent and least colored reproduction media, but it isn't clear that measures of such transparency (e.g., SINAD, jitter, etc.) would actually correlate with their positive endorphins. Maybe their belief that a system has good metrics of transparency is more important than whether the system actually has such transparency? We don't know until we test it...

 

[ahofer]

It's possible to embrace the former without fully accepting the latter.

Hence “and/or”.

 

[gsp1971]

It still isn't clear to me what data we should be measuring in order to judge the quality of music reproduction equipment. Where does the "rubber meet the road" in making such an assessment?

For example, a case could be made for measuring our individual positive endorphin response, in order to decide what is most pleasing to oneself (of course, this is also predicated on the idea that endorphins are correlated with our happiness/satisfaction, which may not capture the entirety of the picture...but it anyways serves to demonstrate a point). Some people claim that they achieve the most pleasure from listening to music through the most transparent and least colored reproduction media, but it isn't clear that measures of such transparency (e.g., SINAD, jitter, etc.) would actually correlate with their positive endorphins. Maybe their belief that a system has good metrics of transparency is more important than whether the system actually has such transparency? We don't know until we test it...

For speakers, there is research by Harman on how spinorama measurements correlate with actual listener preference - they manage to correlate the two with 86% accuracy.

For DACs, I don't see the point since almost all DACs these days produce pretty much excellent performance.

For amps, it would be an interesting experiment.

 

[danadam]

And my standard for success is 18/20 or 65/100, or p<0.002.

Can you at least get your math right? 65/100?

What's wrong with his math?
From https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx :

 

[Pdxwayne]

What's wrong with his math?
From https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx :
View attachment 138251

You didn't see he original P value. He updated his P value. It was something with a lot more zeros, something like 0.000001, as I recall.

So indeed he listened and updated his numbers. Good for him.

Now, that is not the only embarrassing thing in his response.

He responded to my ABX result with this:

Quote: "You have compared the Marantz to the Denon? I don't think so."

You be the judge if this is embarrassing or not.

 

[MaxBuck]

Hence “and/or”.

Sure. But as you're aware, there are people here who believe both are non-negotiable.