Good versus accurate ...

[TTT15]

The reality is to win the objective argument about accurate equipment you need to win the subjective argument. I totally agree with ASR that people are biased by what they see.i totally agree that humans are subjective Therefore to win the objective argument you need to not just focus on measurements but design and culture. The design of the websites and the equipment for a lot of well measuring equipment looks dated and utilitarian.ASR rightly doesn’t accept poor and dated engineering Fine but then they need to accept most people don’t accept poor and dated design. Most people don’t have the luxury of a listening room. They want it to look good in their home and to be easy to set up and use. They want the websites to be modern and easy to use. They want the culture associated with this equipment to be friendly and welcoming rather than hostile. You don’t achieve much by being right or forming a ghetto sub-culture if you can’t persuade other people.

 

[respice finem]

But why "persuade" anyone? Each can stick to their own, if they want to. As long they don't spend my money for piffle.
Regarding gear, there is enough for everyone's needs, within the limits of physics.

 

[goryu]

Over and above the biases and differing methodology, I think both camps truly enjoy listening to music. The trouble starts when they talk about it.

I use to think so as well but lately it appears from what I read here that there is a lot of truth to what someone wrote here: Subjectivists listen to the music, objectivists listen to the gear. I certainly see myself as in the objectivist camp but am not ready to listen to my gear quite yet. I still enjoy knowing my components are state of the art or near so in their objective performance on an intellectual level but find I prefer to eq to what I like best rather than someone else's study results.

 

[respice finem]

Subjectivists listen to the music, objectivists listen to the gear.

I see it exactly the other way around. Some will always "split hairs", but it's not everybody.
The most "cumbersome" part of setting up my main system was to treat the room, then came EQ that took 2 days, and now I'm good for many years to come.
Zero new gear needed, unless something breaks down.

 

[goryu]

But why "persuade" anyone? Each can stick to their own, if they want to. As long they don't spend my money for piffle.
Regarding gear, there is enough for everyone's needs, within the limits of physics.

Would be nice right, if people kept a lid on the dogma when it comes to freedom of enjoyment and didn't try to make their point with insults and hyperbole.

 

[Madlop26]

The only way to test whether something is more accurate compared to an original is instrumental measurements. The human sensory system is both imprecise and greatly biased, and so cannot hope to replicate the accuracy of instrumentation.
BUT THIS PROCESS OF INSTRUMENTATION DOES NOT AND CANNOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A LISTENER "LIKES" THE END PROCESS.

It is simple, you are not sure what you like... unless tested in an unbiases control experiment; so any discussion of what you "like" without scientific corroboration is a waste of time.

 

[respice finem]

Would be nice right, if people kept a lid on the dogma when it comes to freedom of enjoyment and didn't try to make their point with insults and hyperbole.

Yes, but, if someone spreads proven BS, it's not wrong to call it what it is. And humans are not "firmware upgradable", alas.
Some get more moderate with age at least. I for one tend to ignore trolls from either extreme, life's too short for fighting them.

 

[PaulK]

Sorry Jim, not the correct presumption.

The human ear still beats any instrument to compare various components used to record or to replay music.
We probably do not use the correct measurements to be able to predict how a the equipment we use sounds.

 

[TTT15]

But why "persuade" anyone? Each can stick to their own, if they want to. As long they don't spend my money for piffle.
Regarding gear, there is enough for everyone's needs, within the limits of physics.

But do avoid people buying piffle don’t you need to persuade them. Or is the objective to be niche, self absorbent and hostile to outsiders? Doesn’t see like a great strategy to spread the word.

 

[respice finem]

I don't feel obliged to spread any "word". I'm learning what I can learn, the rest is entertainment.
If someone chooses to believe something over knowing, he will, so what? It's not a matter of life or death.

 

[TTT15]

I don't feel obliged to spread any "word". I'm learning what I can learn, the rest is entertainment.
If someone chooses to believe something over knowing, he will, so what?

I’m just pointing out the contradiction. Because maybe positive social interaction is importantly to some but clearly not all people. That is all.

 

[Madlop26]

Sorry Jim, not the correct presumption.

The human ear still beats any instrument to compare various components used to record or to replay music.
We probably do not use the correct measurements to be able to predict how a the equipment we use sounds.

Has somebody designed an instrument to measure that? I think, if good engineering gets into that task human ears will not have a chance, lacking of instrument is not a proof human sense superiority.

 

[TTT15]

It is simple, you are not sure what you like... unless tested in an unbiases control experiment; so any discussion of what you "like" without scientific corroboration is a waste of time.

I agree at least with the first part but then how is a subjective human consumer with different preferences meant to do that in practice? Certainly I’m not aware of anything that measures the totality of enjoyment or all the factors that go into a purchase decision where objective or subjective sound preferences are just one factor among many.

 

[PaulK]

Sorry Madlop26,

Decades of experience as recording engineer and developer of professional recording equipment taught me to trust my ears.
You don't have to trust my ears but these ears are used to register and record the music people enjoy.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Indeed. The majority of people are see where I live are listening to iPods and iPods Maxs and the like. The objective truth is the vast majority are not interested in measurements and accuracy. Objectively subjectively is far more important than good or accurate.

Hmmmmmm ....... I run into quite a few people at the gym (mostly young) who use iPods, AirPods or their clones, and we discuss music. Many of them are very curious about having a room system that matches, specifically, their IEMs. When I tell them that the room itself is a new factor and that they will benefit from REW or similar, the curiosity doesn't seem to diminish.

In fact, the only subject that seems to deter them is money. So objectively, cost is far more important to them than good or accurate.

 

[respice finem]

Money, or having to bother with learning new things? They are not so poor not to go to the gym...

 

[Madlop26]

Sorry Madlop26,

Decades of experience as recording engineer and developer of professional recording equipment taught me to trust my ears.
You don't have to trust my ears but these ears are used to register and record the music people enjoy.

I see.... still...you are human, you will not not be able see further than a telescope, or run faster that a car, measure temperature as a thermometer or measure velocity as a speedometer, I see no reason to be different when measuring sound. Even experience has limitations.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Sorry Jim, not the correct presumption.

The human ear still beats any instrument to compare various components used to record or to replay music.

Is there any signal in a recording that will register on instrumentation, but is not audible to a listener? If so, is not your statement proven false?

We probably do not use the correct measurements to be able to predict how a the equipment we use sounds.

As I have pointed out in the OP (and elsewhere), measurements tell us what is accurate. "How something sounds" is a statement of subjective preference. These two different things are, at least in my book, worlds apart.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Money, or having to bother with learning new things? They are not so poor not to go to the gym...

I go to a cheap gym.

 

[goryu]

I see.... still...you are human, you will not not be able see further than a telescope, or run faster that a car, measure temperature as a thermometer or measure velocity as a speedometer, I see no reason to be different when measuring sound. Even experience has limitations.

What instrument can measure human pleasure?