Ex-subjectivists on ASR

[sonitus mirus]

In my early explorations of audio equipment, the challenge I faced was forging a definitive correlation between objective measurements and the perceived audibility. As someone who always turned to empirical data to evaluate potential purchases, understanding the precise interactions between these quantifiable measurements and the intricacies of human hearing became a central concern.

The key to this endeavor was realizing that objective measurements are not merely rough indicators, but they are definitive tools to gauge the performance of audio equipment. To establish this, I undertook a series of blind tests, which, stripped of visual biases, allowed for the exclusive evaluation of the sound produced.

The process was rigorous, and it took considerable time. However, these blind tests eventually bolstered my confidence in correlating specific aspects of audio output with their respective objective measurements. This led me to establish a personal threshold—a point of perfect sync between hard data and my own auditory perception—that became my guiding principle in making audio equipment decisions.

Thus, while subjective experience plays a role in my personal enjoyment of sound, measurements serve as the definitive backbone in assessing the performance of my audio equipment. They bridge the gap between the scientific aspects of sound reproduction and the uniquely human experience of hearing.

 

[Killingbeans]

I chose 'Yes' and 'Soft/moderate objectivist'.

I used to belive all kinds of nonsense. Mostly because I assumed that the gurus of the hobby had made the effort of putting their conclusions trough an objective sanity check. How wrong I was...

Although, I don't care how well a piece of gear measures, if it looks like a kindergarten art project or has a terrible user interface. So in that sense I'm very much a subjectivist.

Just really enjoy when a spade is being called a spade.

(Waiting for @SIY to tell me how I'm abusing the terms )

 

[SIY]

(Waiting for @SIY to tell me how I'm abusing the terms )

The entire thread is. And it shows.

 

[JP]

The entire thread is. And it shows.

The entire forum is constantly accused of never listening…

 

[restorer-john]

The entire forum is constantly accused of never listening…

Plenty of members with no doubt, excellent hearing. Whether many of them ever listen is a totally different story.

 

[pderousse]

O/S = Silly categories. We’re all hedonists fixated on music. Pleasure is the point of the fancy casework, pleasure is the point of seeking lower SINAD, pleasure is the point of buying tickets to a show from Extortionmaster. Most of the world’s population living on less than $2/day would agree, if they only knew what we spent on the most frugal of our systems.

 

[Moonbase]

None of the above. While in today world of forums and spec sheets. Audio kit needs to have good numbers. ASR give the numbers, but not they alone don’t tell us if that make something better. I like Erin’s reviews in this regard, well balanced. I love to see more in this regard for ASR who undoubtably have improved the world of Av.

 

[OldHvyMec]

Everyone forms opinions on the information they are willing to believe. The question is, is the information formed from actual facts or opinions.
If you're trying to adjust something in a sound system and you know what the problem is that is one thing. Not knowing is something else.
We can all agree on that I hope.

As listeners we can have the finest equipment that money can buy and equipment can measure, but that has never equaled great or even good sound.
The room and the person's ears both are first and foremost on the priority list unless you like looking at your equipment vs listening to it. In that case
have your eyes checked first. Just sayin'.

Regards

 

[Moonbase]

It does make me chuckle when I see threads like this. The objective is to listen to the best possible music within budget and that look pleasing. Here we are talking about measurements over what out ears tell us is pleasing. We confuse Measurements with facts as they can be wrong or simply not important as we first assumed as much as subjective listening can be also wrong for many reasons.

The human brain is complex and not well understood, the last 20 years many revelations around what/how we hear have changed, driving better measuring kit to be developed and what we consider 'as good'.

In conclusion if you can hear what sounds correct, then you can't fix that with measurements.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have never been disappointed with fine measuring equipment, once you have heard transparent then ( to me) everything else sounds very wrong.
Keith

 

[SIY]

We confuse Measurements with facts as they can be wrong or simply not important

Important measurements are important. Frequency response > noise > distortion. These are trivially easy measurements and ignoring them will send you down a rabbit hole.

 

[Moonbase]

I would say some speakers with moderate frequency response issues, would not worry me to much as long as it's a simple EQ fix. Compression and Distortion for example are more of an issue, if audible and thats for me is the key point "if audible", thats the subjective element of the measurement is the Audibility factor.

Regarding trusting measurements. REW, a UMIK-1 mic and a laser measure are the only testing devices I have, but I wonder for example though the UMIK is calibrated and thats great, but calibrated to what, I mean here what standard?

 

[Killingbeans]

20 Hz - 20kHz +/-1dB

Sounds pretty self explanatory.

EDIT: But yeah, I get it. I don't know what method was used either.
EDIT2: Possibly they are using something like this: https://www.grasacoustics.com/products/calibration-equipment/actuators/product/263-ra0014

 

[fpitas]

calibrated to what, I mean here what standard?

Cross-Spectrum tells that here:

Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated MiniDSP UMIK-1 Microphones for Sale

Purchase calibrated MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphones, low-cost option for performing precise and accurate sound measurements

cross-spectrum.com

Do your UMIK-1 calibrations meet professional standards?
The equipment we use to calibrate the Behringer mics meet ANSI Type 1 and IEC Class 1 standards for professional measurement equipment. Our equipment is evaluated by a third-party NIST/NVLAP accredited laboratory on a regular basis. Our measurement methodology is consistent with the IEC 60268 "substitution method" for characterizing microphone frequency response. Our measurement lab is not accredited by NVLAP, ANSI or ISO.

 

[Moonbase]

20 Hz - 20kHz +/-1dB

Sounds pretty self explanatory.

EDIT: But yeah, I get it. I don't know what method was used either.

With reference to what, I was thinking along the lines of a standard like ISO 11204:2010.

@fpitas - I think not, but it seams to be universally used by many Professionals and Amateurs alike, because it affordable and easy to use.

 

[fpitas]

With reference to what, I was thinking along the lines of a standard like ISO 11204:2010.

@fpitas - I think not, but it seams to be universally used by many Professionals and Amateurs alike, because it affordable and easy to use.

If it worries you, there are certainly other microphones available.

 

[Moonbase]

@fpitas Not a huge worry, but I have had the Mic quite a few years now and it maybe time to get a new calibration created for it

 

[OldHvyMec]

@fpitas Not a huge worry, but I have had the Mic quite a few years now and it maybe time to get a new calibration created for it

The purpose of the calibration standard is to TEST the Mic's response. The calibration for that Mic is exclusive to that
Mic. If the Mic will "calibrate" it will do the job. I don't question the Mic as much as the use and maintenance of it.
Placement, room conditions (if there is one) and more than anything else, constantly doing the same thing.
X marks the spots where you do it and the clock and temperatures are CLOSE to the same.

15 people standing in the space taking measurements doesn't work. ONE person setting in the same place with the
same hat on does. Apples for Apples, Ay?

Regards.

 

[lashto]

voted "yes", although I'd say the start was somewhere in-between.

Last century (i.e. before the internet exploded) you only had your ears and newsstand magazines like Stereophile & co. I did read quite a lot of them but always thought many of their claims were quite strange (e.g. cable sound).

First contact with "pure objectivity" was audiocritic. Liked most of his stuff a lot .. but my ears simply couldn't agree with his insistence on "all amps sounds the same".

Then it was nwawguy. Liked him even more. But then I bought his O2 headphone amp and was quite baffled. Sounded really clean and clear, the most clean&clear I ever heard with my Senn 650. But I was never able to relax and enjoy music on it .. always got lost into a circle of "wow so much new detail", "wow that's so clear" .. and it gave me ear fatigue (even slight pain after more that ~1h).

And nowadays .. I'd say a very 'soft objectivist'.

 

[tmtomh]

Not sure what to vote. I'm definitely more of an audio objectivist than I used to be, but I don't think I would necessarily describe my former perspective as subjectivist.

I never believed in green markers, interconnects "lifting veils," and so on. And I remember distinctly when I first got into audio around age 12-13, going with my father to hi-fi stores and listening to various setups, we were in one place and the guy was playing us two different tape decks or CD players, hooked up to entirely different systems, to demonstrate the players' alleged sonic differences. I asked him, "why don't you have them both connected to the same components and use a switch box to switch between them?" He replied, "because then you're just hearing the switch box." I looked at my father, and he looked at me with a look of recognition. So even back then I know I wasn't a subjectivist per se.

But at one point I did get some Monster Cable interconnects from my father, and he'd gotten them because of their reputation (valid or not) for good build quality, and I do remember that I did connect them with their directional arrow markings always in the "correct" direction.

I also got gear in part based on positive reviews, and I thought that components like amplifiers sounded more different than the measurements and evidence suggest they actually do.

So I guess I would say I always generally was into build quality and objective engineering qualities - but I was not nearly as rigorous about valid vs implausible engineering explanations, and I was not nearly as mindful or knowledgeable about audibility limits, i.e. whether certain differences could actually result in an audible difference.