This may have some validity, however every time I have put subjective audiophiles under even the most unobtrusive controls their abilities to hear these tiny differences they claim to hear normally totally evaporates.
-
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!
Computer Audiophiles Are Anti-Computer
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
This may have some validity, however every time I have put subjective audiophiles under even the most unobtrusive controls their abilities to hear these tiny differences they claim to hear normally totally evaporates.
Agreed. The bold bit is very important otherwise those "incoherent" individuals end up disrupting the forum. We see this very clearly in this thread.
Certainly happy to say that some people are disturbed by aspects of the sound which are in fact correct: a good example is those who find the sound too "shrill" or something to that effect; they find intense treble content disturbing, but of course real instruments many times in music making produce such.
The delusion aspect is pretty easy - I have a wide cross section of albums which tease out anomalies in the sound, they cover a huge spectrum of types and qualities of recordings. If I make some changes which make a particular track come up better, I immediately then turn to some music totally different to cross check; only if everything I throw at the system always comes up trumps, sounds as good as I have ever heard it, in any prior situation, would I be comfortable with where the setup is.
Just because I've done this sort of thing so much, I can zero in almost immediately on some aspect of the sound that's not quite right - and from then on start trying various measures to improve things.
Last edited:
Gung ho subjectivists are as far away from making smart moves for improving things, as people at the other end of the scale. The answer, as pretty well always is the case, is somewhere in the middle, in terms of the approach to be taken.
Whenever someone says they "don't like the sound", I would say, "What's wrong with it?". If what comes out is a variation of "Well, it doesn't sound like my system does; or it doesn't sound expensive; or it doesn't sound like someone's really gee whiz rig I once had the hots for" - then it's worthless ...
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
We know Frank, we know. That's why we love ya
Actually, I will tell a little secret ... I have taken a copy of that shot of our very own Mr Clooney, blown it up to poster size, and Blu Tacked a print to the head of the bed. That way, I will absorb some of his benign wisdom during my slumbers, as he gazes fondly down upon me ...
That is where I am if his contributions do not broaden beyond bickering and fighting. And very soon.Easier solution, just carry out your earlier threat to ban the idiot JK. He doesn't understand what the forum is about and never will.
Was just reminded why many people don't do a good job of being able to listen to audio tracks as a way of checking sound quality - and that is, because they listen to the output as music. What do I mean? That they are sidetracked into responding to the flow of sound as a musical piece, their energy is spent in making sense of the musical message. The far more useful approach is to focus on the sound as complex test signal, which just happens to also be music - excellent example are female vocals, with "bad sibilance". Many attribute this to the recording, but this is just obvious playback misbehaviour. The unpleasantness, unnaturalness of that sibilance is the distortion - it's as obvious as hell! You now have a excellent test signal, provoking the playback into producing audible artifacts - solution is to fix whatever is wrong until that problem disappears.
John Kenny
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Messages
- 568
- Likes
- 18
Yes, Frank, I noted this in the past - critical listening is like learning how to draw/sketch correctly. The way to master drawing is to treat what you see as a series of lines, light & shade & relationships i.e deconstructing what you see rather than trying to draw a "house" for instance. This is why when kids try to draw a house we often see the chimney sticking up a strange angle - they don't draw what they see they draw what their idea of a "house" is
Last edited:
Its covered in this book which attributes artistic qualities to the right hemisphere of the brain - http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right...ywords=drawing+on+the+right+side+of+the+brain
Notice the typical left-brainers here value IQ, right-brainers tend to value EQ more.
Notice the typical left-brainers here value IQ, right-brainers tend to value EQ more.
I was very careful how I worded it.
So what it comes down to is that if an audiophile says while listening to a system sighted "I like the sound of computer A", then you are OK with that.
If they say "I like the sound of computer A more than computer B" it is also OK, because "like" is just a subjective judgement.
But if they say "I prefer the sound of computer A over the sound of computer B" that is not OK without rigorous DB testing.
Where would they stand if they said "Computer A sounds bad"? Or "Computer A sounds better than computer B"?
The dictionary definition of "Prefer" is
I think this is where a small group of people have, in their own minds, given a certain word a de facto 'scientific' status i.e. "prefer", that it doesn't have in the rest of the world - and the result is absurd.
I predict...
and so it goes on.
Last edited:
People can subjectively prefer or like whatever they want. However the problem comes when they assert one is better or improvement over another, especially when they cite reasons when they cannot possibly have any knowledge of actual cause and effect, assuming there is any.
The problem comes when they make make a change that is supposed to, or they believe should improve things, and they compare with full sighted knowledge of what has been changed.
Last edited:
But I was careful to say "like the sound of" rather than just "like".
The idea that
"I like the sound of A more than I like the sound of B" is OK, but that
"I prefer the sound of A over the sound of B" is not OK,
is absurd (especially as "prefer" means "like one thing more than another").
I fully understand the methodology of the scientists (I use science and its methods all the time, myself), but I would like to know what it is that the self-styled 'audio scientists' think they are trying to achieve. If they were to state that the science is ultimately leading to subjective enjoyment, that would be one thing. But they don't. They make measurements and conduct listening tests whose results are ranked relative to each other (different rankings for different things - there is no overall "best") but go into a panic if someone like me asks whether their science is going to help me enjoy their products subjectively. They cannot bring themselves to link science with subjective enjoyment, yet that is the only reason to build or buy an audio system. It's weird.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Ok, then it's going to lead to recursive looping until you can.
Ok, then it's going to lead to recursive looping until you can. IQ shortfalls have consequences.
Did you just 'synthesise' a quote for me that I didn't say? Tut tut
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
If you insist but that is absurd, it's merely subjective preference.
There is indeed a small group, folks with the IQ to comprehend statistical relevance of preference, vs the large group, those that don't. There is also a small group that comprehend what a small impairment test is vs a preference test and what each would be used for. Again, IQ shortfalls would lead to a total inability to discern, as you have shown.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Did you fail to comprehend subjective vs objective? Tut tut
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Did you repeatedly post that ABX is used for preference? Tut tut
I noticed in the Beolab thread some interesting 'moderation' to your statements about "liking" what B&O are doing. Glad to have helped.
[Don't get me wrong. I still 'like' your approach to speaker design and I am pretty sure I would like the sound of them too].
[Don't get me wrong. I still 'like' your approach to speaker design and I am pretty sure I would like the sound of them too].
Yes, I am profoundly ignorant of 'soft sciences' like psychology and their methods - Dunning and Kruger being exponents of such.
Similar threads
- Locked
