How we could finally pin down flowery audiophile subjective descriptions

[MattHooper]

And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.

I really have a hard time reconciling your arguments with your being an engineer who actually interacts with clients.

No, it really doesn't just work that way. Or you have miraculously never worked with picky clients and managed to bamboozle everyone you worked for.
I find that improbable.

Often we nail what the client asks for first time, but sometimes it's a back and forth "more supernatural sounding" "no not quite, something more windy-sounding" "yes that's it" "now at this point the scene-out needs a sharper contrast to the next scene" "sharper lighting crack" "more rumble in the bottom end" etc.

If we weren't actually nudging the sound in the direction the client actually wanted, but doing the opposite while claiming "it's just what you asked for," you think we'd have our jobs very long?

If it were just a case of us being able to Jedi Mind Trick the client to make them hear whatever we want them to hear, no matter what we put in after their request, I guess that would make things easy. But...that would be weird...and isn't the reality.

The client we are working for now is VERY picky. But, fortunately, also pretty good at putting sound in to words, which helps us get the job done.

 

[kemmler3D]

Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:

 

[Inner Space]

And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.

I would love to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong, and neither of us would be a recording engineer.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:

Almost the entire audio hobby and business would not exist in the large size it is today without everyone arguing about stuff. It keeps the dollars flowing to the manufacturers! It also keeps many people on the buy, try and replace merry go round for years.

 

[MattHooper]

Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:

It is truly bizarre and always sets my head a spinnin'.

I think Axo1989 has previously put his finger on a possible issue, essentially that perhaps a forum like this tends to attract more "STEM" subject folks/engineer-minded etc, some of whom may have a discomfort with imprecision, especially the use of descriptive language in place of quantitative evidence, or find it challenging, vs the more language-oriented (who may find STEM subjects challenging). Difficult for a meeting of minds in some cases.

I dunno, but if so it seems to explain the disconnect.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I think Axo1989 has previously put his finger on a possible issue, essentially that perhaps a forum like this tends to attract more "STEM" subject folks/engineer-minded etc, some of whom may have a discomfort with imprecision, especially the use of descriptive language in place of quantitative evidence, or find it challenging, vs the more language-oriented (who may find STEM subjects challenging). Difficult for a meeting of minds in some cases.

I dunno, but if so it seems to explain the disconnect.

Matt, that is my secret! You can't post up personal info like that. No one knew I was having trouble with STEM topics. Hopefully no one sees this post.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:

Or natural hot air balloonists - no need for the burner! (This thread is rising!)

 

[solderdude]

Because what you translate in your head may not be .... not at all ..... what a hobbyist translates in their head.

Exactly the point.
One man's 'fat' is another mans 'boomy' or 'bassy' or 'punchy' or 'full' or 'chocolaty' or 'nice'

And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.

On the other hand I would imagine the bass player would be in the control room listening to the recording and wanting say.... more 'swagger' then an accommodating sound engineer would have to find out what he means and use some compression/tone adjustment or other effects where the feedback would be something like ' yeah man... just a bit more of that' or 'nah, that's not it I want a bit more of this'.

Of course, in a live gig it is all up to the sound engineer (and maybe an involved manager a bit).

 

[gavagai]

You know analogies are by definition not equating A and B as identical, right?

An analogy has the form : a is related to b as c is related to c.
"as" represent an understanding model that can fill the hole if on of the a, b, c, d is missing.
It works all the way around : if you have a and b and c and d, you may build the model of "as".
If the analogy works like this, it is said to be "model generating".
If the set of relation is defective, the "analogy" is said "aspect seeing". It's not an analogy. In fact it just uses surface resemblances and similarities. There's no cognitive content involved. If you "understand" it, that means that you have sympathies for the individual that produce it.
(by the way, sorry for the pedantry)

Seriously...you seem to be saying you really don't understand what someone could mean by describing one speaker as "brighter" than the other. (And hence by corollary what they could mean by the other speaker being "darker")

Really?

Sorry, but I have to quote myself :

I say that "a speaker is to bright" is a sentence that is not based on an analogy : it's a shortcuts for "this speaker has a problem with his frequency response. Maybe too much highs, not enough bass, of the combination of the two. When I will find out after an investigation, I will use the exact sentence for describing this problem (too much highs for instance).
Using "bright" in another sense (and what sense ?) is for me shamanic agitation, not meaning.

 

[peng]

7 pages after, and I have not read all the posts yet, but has anyone asked some basic questions yet such as:

1) Are those subjectively derived terms such as crisp, warm etc., were intended and designed accordingly by the electronic (e.g. amplifiers) designers?
2) If 1) is true, then we should already know how to identify products that would satisfy listeners who prefer such "sound signature". If not, then does it mean products/manufacturers that boasted those attributes just happened to have them, by chance but not by designed?
3) Do listeners understand those descriptive especially the so call flowery ones, the same way or at least more or less the same way? If not, then does it mean there isn't much point for people to stick with certain brands that have been said to have say the "warm" sound?

There are many more, or better questions of this sort to ask and the answers may give us some indications as to whether the whole thing is a pointless exercise or not. 1) would have to be asked on the designers. For example, Marantz's designers and their sound masters should be able to tell us how the reviewers could verify the designed/implemented the Marantz sound signature by lab measurements. It is likely that they won't answer such questions, citing secrecy kind of reasons, but then I would hope some highly competent and respected experts can take some independent measurements to substantiate their claims, along with double blind listening tests too if necessary.

Very recently I watched two YT reviews on the AVR-X3700H and the AVR-X3800H by the same subjective reviewer. He described the 3800 with many flowery style words, including forward, bold etc., yet he used "warm", "polite" on the X3700H. So what happened to the Denon sound he had been telling his followers, did he forget what he said before? Examples like this seem to indicate there is no, or at least not much logic to analyze what subjective reviews are about. It could be that even when the collected data for such proposed studies shows consensus in the way such descriptive or terms are used, it might have been started from someone, or just a few started something, and then groupthink via the big mega internet phone finished the job of establishing such consensus. I may be pessimistic, but while I like the OP's suggestion, it think it is a waste of time to actually do anything, or if something has already been done, then I would just read what's available (already read one actually, thanks to the one (NTK iirc) who posted the link).

 

[pau]

7 pages after, and I have not read all the posts yet, but has anyone asked some basic questions yet such as:

1) Are those subjectively derived terms such as crisp, warm etc., were intended and designed accordingly by the electronic (e.g. amplifiers) designers?
2) If 1) is true, then we should already know how to identify products that would satisfy listeners who prefer such "sound signature". If not, then does it mean products/manufacturers that boasted those attributes just happened to have them, by chance but not by designed?
3) Do listeners understand those descriptive especially the so call flowery ones, the same way or at least more or less the same way? If not, then does it mean there isn't much point for people to stick with certain brands that have been said to have say the "warm" sound?

There are many more, or better questions of this sort to ask and the answers may give us some indications as to whether the whole thing is a pointless exercise or not. 1) would have to be asked on the designers. For example, Marantz's designers and their sound masters should be able to tell us how the reviewers could verify the designed/implemented the Marantz sound signature by lab measurements. It is likely that they won't answer such questions, citing secrecy kind of reasons, but then I would hope some highly competent and respected experts can take some independent measurements to substantiate their claims, along with double blind listening tests too if necessary.

Very recently I watched two YT reviews on the AVR-X3700H and the AVR-X3800H by the same subjective reviewer. He described the 3800 with many flowery style words, including forward, bold etc., yet he used "warm", "polite" on the X3700H. So what happened to the Denon sound he had been telling his followers, did he forget what he said before? Examples like this seem to indicate there is no, or at least not much logic to analyze what subjective reviews are about. It could be that even when the collected data for such proposed studies shows consensus in the way such descriptive or terms are used, it might have been started from someone, or just a few started something, and then groupthink via the big mega internet phone finished the job of establishing such consensus. I may be pessimistic, but while I like the OP's suggestion, it think it is a waste of time to actually do anything, or if something has already been done, then I would just read what's available (already read one actually, thanks to the one (NTK iirc) who posted the link).

Does it matter what the subjective & objective are if neither correlate with each other?

We measure no where what we end up listening nor we describe what correlates to the measurements?'

The most complex measurements of sound are simple as

So if you go into details where is the highway / track to see how sound is produced in each of the speaker element vibration? (oh forgot not important with the sinewave) -> no measurements of the site has any care about what builds the cake. just looking the incredients -> tos to pan -> all good all the same outcome.

I would like good measurements but we dont have devices yet to measure 'real' differences except flaws in design.

 

[pau]

Another point is , with measurements you go here for max differences. during listening you go average ->the sound details 'reveal' in average is what matters (flaws taken out) whhich none of these reviews consider as valid is a major flaw in the site that i hope will be covered to be taken seriously. it is what makes one enjoy the sound & music after all, not clinic boring sound.

Thank You

 

[peng]

Does it matter what the subjective & objective are if neither correlate with each other?

We measure no where what we end up listening nor we describe what correlates to the measurements?'

The most complex measurements of sound are simple as
View attachment 245936

So if you go into details where is the highway / track to see how sound is produced in each of the speaker element vibration? (oh forgot not important with the sinewave) -> no measurements of the site has any care about what builds the cake. just looking the incredients -> tos to pan -> all good all the same outcome.

I would like good measurements but we dont have devices yet to measure 'real' differences except flaws in design.

But we do have the AP that Amir, JA, Gene and others have. On top, there are standalone spectrum analyzer and oscilloscpes that are readily available. So why are they not measuring things that can confirm whether those claimed sound signatures are objectively identifiable instead of people regurgitating what others said??

 

[pau]

But we do have the AP that Amir, JA, Gene and others have. On top, there are standalone spectrum analyzer and oscilloscpes that are readily available. So why are they not measuring things that can confirm whether those claimed sound signatures are objectively identifiable instead of people regurgitating what others said??

Put a simphony playing, record what you measure, then go into the comples of sound produced and you compare that with the limited you can measure instead of looking blindly what you can measure as truth.

 

[NTK]

Quoting Doug Self:

The Dan Rather Approved Douglas Self Site

douglas-self.com

"Sinewaves are steady-state signals that represent too easy a test for amplifiers, compared with the complexities of music."​

This is presumably meant to imply that sinewaves are in some way particularly easy for an amplifier to deal with, the implication being that anyone using a THD analyser must be hopelessly naive. Since sines and cosines have an unending series of non-zero differentials, "steady" hardly comes into it. I know of no evidence that sinewaves of randomly varying amplitude (for example) would provide a more searching test of amplifier competence.​

I believe this outlook is the result of anthropomorphic thinking about amplifiers; treating them as though they think about what they amplify. Twenty sinewaves of different frequencies may be conceptually complex to us, and the output of a symphony orchestra much more so, but to an amplifier both composite signals resolve to a single instantaneous voltage that must be increased in amplitude and presented at low impedance. The rate of change of this voltage has a maximum set by the frequency response and amplitude capability of the channel and is not generally greater for more complex signals; you do not get hgher slew rate with bigger orchestras. You must remember that an amplifier has no perspective on the signal arriving at its input, but literally takes it as it comes.​

 

[pau]

Quoting Doug Self:

The Dan Rather Approved Douglas Self Site

douglas-self.com

"Sinewaves are steady-state signals that represent too easy a test for amplifiers, compared with the complexities of music."​

This is presumably meant to imply that sinewaves are in some way particularly easy for an amplifier to deal with, the implication being that anyone using a THD analyser must be hopelessly naive. Since sines and cosines have an unending series of non-zero differentials, "steady" hardly comes into it. I know of no evidence that sinewaves of randomly varying amplitude (for example) would provide a more searching test of amplifier competence.​

I believe this outlook is the result of anthropomorphic thinking about amplifiers; treating them as though they think about what they amplify. Twenty sinewaves of different frequencies may be conceptually complex to us, and the output of a symphony orchestra much more so, but to an amplifier both composite signals resolve to a single instantaneous voltage that must be increased in amplitude and presented at low impedance. The rate of change of this voltage has a maximum set by the frequency response and amplitude capability of the channel and is not generally greater for more complex signals; you do not get hgher slew rate with bigger orchestras. You must remember that an amplifier has no perspective on the signal arriving at its input, but literally takes it as it comes.​

Yes, 1st study or opinion that makes sense in real world. in the reviews this type of undestand of sound production would be welcome , compared to the 'sinewave flaw reveal' that in the end is only showing the flaws & way, not the truth.

PersonaIy think if the essence of sound would be taken more serious on this site, mayby you could get more artists not just purists to work on making better sounding products and towards the enjoyment of us all, not just the few ' objective & subjective' bandwagon.

The question on that message is same as my,

put a comples simphony 1000x sinewaves from simphony recording through your speakers and telll me thatt thee 'worst--better-best' universal truth' of the sitte holds any matter with real production outside of what we measure as 'truth'

in a common sense can this truth told here hold value as real science?

happy to agreee & disagree.

 

[peng]

Yes, 1st study or opinion that makes sense in real world. in the reviews this type of undestand of sound production would be welcome , compared to the 'sinewave flaw reveal' that in the end is only showing the flaws & way, not the truth.

PersonaIy think if the essence of sound would be taken more serious on this site, mayby you could get more artists not just purists to work on making better sounding products and towards the enjoyment of us all, not just the few ' objective & subjective' bandwagon.

The question on that message is same as my,

put a comples simphony 1000x sinewaves from simphony recording through your speakers and telll me thatt thee 'worst--better-best' universal truth' of the sitte holds any matter with real production outside of what we measure as 'truth'

in a common sense can this truth told here hold value as real science?

happy to agreee & disagree.

I don't understand your point enough to agree with disagree. I just know that NTK's point is logical, that is "..to an amplifier both composite signals resolve to a single instantaneous voltage that must be increased in amplitude and presented at low impedance.." Measuring using sine waves and measuring using music waves that is made up of multiple sine waves shouldn't make a difference as the amplifier will just amplify the signal continuously, on a moment by moment basis it is just an input voltage signal, whatever the waveform is, the amplify amplifies the voltage. If the output voltage can be shown to be exactly the same as the input voltage except in magnitude then if the listener hears a difference, or poorer sound quality then the issue is with the recording. You agree with that right?

Again, I don't understand you suggestion of "put a comples simphony 1000x sinewaves from simphony recording through your speakers and telll me thatt thee 'worst--better-best' universal truth' of the sitte holds any matter with real production outside of what we measure as 'truth'" Are you talking about measuring and comparing the sound from speakers to the recorded sound of a symphony? If so, how do yo propose to do it, and what truth are we seeking?