Bruno Putzeys reaches out to the subjectivists

[MC_RME]

Another one of those echoey* rooms.

Fully agree. And:

it is very important to me to hear the smallest details

then use headphones. No speaker whatsoever would do that in a typical livingroom/home situation.

 

[PierreV]

Another one of those echoey* rooms.

(* OK, I know it's reverberation...)

How lucky he is to have the wireless version of the speaker, otherwise he would have to crawl to the piano.

 

[HammerSandwich]

It turns out that Bruno's pretty good at positive feedback, too:

(+30dB!)

 

[Ron Party]

I'm not sure I know what to do with this line: "I am often astounded by their quality which renders even the simplest digital file streams into smooth, warm, almost analog-sounding bits of joy."

 

[BillG]

Any thoughts?

From a business perspective, he'd be foolish not to attempt to cross the aisle and appeal to subjectivists. After all, I'd venture a guess that they comprise the vast majority of the market. Meanwhile, he'll come here and answer very technical questions for us, with a smile on his face and a wink of his eye - don't hate the player, hate the game...

 

[HammerSandwich]

From a business perspective, that's absolutely reasonable. But there is a wider lesson, I feel.

If a moderated approach helps to sell rationally designed hardware to gestalt-based audiophiles, it also helps to sell the rational-design process itself. Anyone who wants to promote objective analysis should think about what Bruno is doing here & why that direction might work.

 

[JJB70]

I see no fundamental conflict between objectivism and subjectivism, it is a false dichotomy.

 

[SIY]

I see no fundamental conflict between objectivism and subjectivism, it is a false dichotomy.

This times 1000. My personal hobby horse.

 

[rodtor]

I see no fundamental conflict between objectivism and subjectivism, it is a false dichotomy.

I would have thought that the distinction, which potentially is indeed a conflict, is between an approach that is scientific and therefore open to empirical testing and another stance that does not adhere to these norms and, sometimes, seems to have no regard for them.

 

[Sal1950]

I see no fundamental conflict between objectivism and subjectivism, it is a false dichotomy.

I would have thought that the distinction, which potentially is indeed a conflict, is between an approach that is scientific and therefore open to empirical testing and another stance that does not adhere to these norms and, sometimes, seems to have no regard for them.

Agreed, I find the lines drawn pretty clearly.
JJB70 I really don't understand the logic in your post?

 

[SIY]

Subjective is not a synonym for “uncontrolled.” The conflation of those two terms in the fashion audio niche has led to very fuzzy thinking.

 

[Juhazi]

I hate that childish dichotomy. An dichotomizing in general. It only leads to headless and pointless, endless arguments.

Consumer audio, hifi is supposed to bring enjoyment and relaxation etc., but audioholics seem to get angry when just thinking and reading about hifi!

 

[Ron Texas]

There is a good case that a SINAD of 72db is all that is needed, 12 bits, for the average listener, and 13 bits, 78db for those with superior hearing. I think a lot of the fuss is a numbers race. Just because a $100 DAC can do 105db doesn't mean the entire electronic chain needs that performance, especially when considering typical ambient noise levels and distortion levels of loudspeakers which are rarely less than .1% (60db).

 

[JJB70]

Agreed, I find the lines drawn pretty clearly.
JJB70 I really don't understand the logic in your post?

As SIY says, subjective is not a synonym for uncontrolled. To go further, we may note objective measurements and also consider aspects such as industrial design, tactile feel, feature set etc when making decisions. If a product meets your performance requirements then the availability of an alternative with superior measured performance may be much less important than whether or not you just like it.

 

[HammerSandwich]

Subjective is not a synonym for “uncontrolled.” The conflation of those two terms in the fashion audio niche has led to very fuzzy thinking.

Well stated. But how do you convince self-identified, convinced Xjectivists that they might benefit from a more balanced approach?

 

[Julf]

Subjective is not a synonym for “uncontrolled.” The conflation of those two terms in the fashion audio niche has led to very fuzzy thinking.

What is your definition of "subjective"?

 

[Julf]

I see no fundamental conflict between objectivism and subjectivism, it is a false dichotomy.

Totally depends on your definitions of "objectivism" and "subjectivism". I guess there is more agreement about "objectivism" - people who rely on verified evidence. "Subjectivism" as used in audio is more like solipsism - "if it sounds good to me, it must be good in some general, universal way", or in a simplified form "if I believe A, then A must be true".

 

[JJB70]

I will use a non audio example. I am an enthusiastic recreational cyclist. I like classic steel frame sets. Objectively I recognise that they are heavier than aluminium and carbon composite alternatives and that in almost all respects the alternatives have superior materials properties. I don't buy steel frames as an act of denial or out of some voodoo mysticism but because I admire the craftsmanship and aesthetic and just derive pleasure from these preferences. What I object to is people hiding behind all sorts of hocus pocus claiming wonderful superior properties rather than just admitting to having a particular personal preference. Of course I also expect the things to meet my performance expectations, my heavy old steel frames allow me to enjoy cycling and not being an elite level pro-am rider for me it is just about enjoying the experience. If I was a competitive rider then yes, I would buy a carbon composite frame which would be fitter for that purpose and objectively better.

In an audio context, once you achieve your threshold of transparency then further improvement is measurable but irrelevant in terms of just enjoying music. I think chasing performance beyond your ability to discern because it measures better is a form of subjectivism. I am not criticising it and I completely get why people chase SOTA measured performance but it is a subjective preference. I have a pair of Sony MDR Z7 headphones, in some ways I would rate them as the worst headphones I own in terms of SQ but they are beautifully made (they urinate all over a lot of much more expensive boutique headphones) and when I am in the mood I enjoy them hugely. I would never make claims of greatness for them but I do say that I like them. Again I think it is about honesty. Buying something just because you like it is just as valid as any other criteria, what is wrong is denying what objective measurements say about performance and engaging in a lot of nonsense to claim something is better in the face of objective analysis.

Just as subjective is not a synonym for uncontrolled so better is not a synonym for nicer in the context of our own preferences.

 

[gene_stl]

How often I have been amazed at the sound quality of a good recording played through a modest system. You really don't have to spend zillions of dollars. (even though I did) The bottom and top octaves can be dispensed with and most residential rooms aren't that big and you also don't need to reproduce the scream of a jet engine at 130+db. We just like doing that.

 

[JJB70]

I find that I really don't need much of a system at all to become immersed in music and enjoy it. I have been enthralled by great performances replayed on sound bars.