-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
There is no middle ground.
Flat earth vs spherical planet ? Middle ground slightly concave on turtles all the way down ?
Its okay to be wrong, it not the end of the world if are . don’t hang up the totality of you personall worth and self esteem on being on top in audiophile food fights
Flat earth vs spherical planet ? Middle ground slightly concave on turtles all the way down ?
Its okay to be wrong, it not the end of the world if are . don’t hang up the totality of you personall worth and self esteem on being on top in audiophile food fights
What a strange example to pick.
Planet Earth is certainly not flat or anything like flat.
To say it's 'round' doesn't mean an ideal sphere. It's approximately true.
so:
Basically correct: spherical planet
Just plain wrong: flat earth
I leave it to you to connect that to argument about audio.
Its was some kind of pun/joke that obviusly did not work
Meant int can be a middle ground when one party is simply wrong.
And also a pun at ”debates” where journalists are tempted to have a polarising figth with two sides where there are no two sides.
Which leads to whats called bullshit asymmetry
angry proponents of some random pseudoscience always tries to turn the burden of proof around so that sane people get involved in an endless whack a mole off debunking the next insane idea There a few ways to be rigth but endless variants off getting it wrong
Last edited:
Its was some kind of pun/joke that obviusly did not work
Meant int can be a middle ground when one party is simply wrong.
Still a bit inscrutable here. 'Meant it can't'...?
But I get you now. Seems we agree.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
This is pretty close to some debates on audio, actually.
Basically correct: Well designed amps all the sound the same
Just plain wrong: Amps don't sound anything alike and all have special synergy and tonality that doesn't show up in measurements
Actually correct: Transparent, non-load-dependent amps driven below clipping are indistinguishable in blind testing.
While I agree audio baloney is ******, this is not really what enshittification means. Enshittification is a term to describe products or (mostly) services being made worse over time specifically to drive higher profits, especially in a market with inadequate levels of competition.
The classic example is Google Search going from virtually no ads and relatively great search results in the early 2000s, to being virtually all ads with so-so at best search results in 2025.
Meanwhile e.g. Audioquest has not significantly changed their offering in a long time. They started out with overpriced cables that do nothing, and the cables are still overpriced, overbuilt farces that do nothing.
Cables are a good example.
You can explain them all by setting up some criteria like for example with these parameters of x resistance y capacitance and z inductance and a decent screen you get a suitable xlr cable that does not impact the audio signal in any significant way . And quickly move on to practical aspects and other details on exactly what to get .
Instead of assuming that every existing cable has a mysterious aspect that needs to be auditioned in situ for every conceivable combination of sources and amps like alchemy.
Solved contained limited solutions vs infinite possibilities that keeps changing and getting ”improved” all the time endlessly ?
Yes me trying to be smart in a non native language has limitsStill a bit inscrutable here. 'Meant it can't'...?
But I get you now. Seems we agree.
Holmz
Major Contributor
Yes me trying to be smart in a non native language has limits
Your use of alchemy is showing a good grasp of english
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 9,574
- Likes
- 10,275
More than 2 thousand years ago: random guy identifies planets as spheres and builds an analog computer who tracks them closely along with the irregularities of their orbits.
Today:
I enjoyed the music with this amp/ speaker combo, now the only thing changed is the cd player / DAC. Now it is pretty hard to listen too to be honest. I know a lot of folks find the C7 es3 not to their taste, but lots of folks like them too.The Croft hybrid power amp (Series 7?) was tested in HFN and like the integrated which was annihilated technically in Stereophile, has an output impedance in the mids of around 2 to 2.5 ohms. It's enough to equalise many of the speakers it's used with and especially the Harbeths with a roller-coaster impedance curve. Apologies, but I was never ever a fan of the ripe-toned C7-ES3 and was totally blown away by the transformation wrought in the C7-XD revision. Now this XD is revised slightly into XD2, the previous XD may come up at a favourable price and I'd urge you to look out for a pair. Amazing what tweaks of damping and crossover can achieve without spoiling the measured response
The sterophile review of the Croft integrated was heavily criticised by Croft for the way it was conducted.Sterophiles subjective review of it by two different reviewers loved it.
The problem there is that in all Stereophile subjective reviews, the reviewer likes it. They even like the products that do nothing.
Also it would seem odd that their measurement process has been fine for hundreds of other amplifiers but not for the Croft? But yes, I recall that controversy.
I had a Croft pre-amp and the Series 7 power amp for a while. The Series 7 didn't like my speakers and kept blowing fuses so I sent it back. I tried various other power amps I had lying about, with mostly very poor results. Eventually I matched the Croft pre with a Linn LK100, a combo which seemed to work fine and was robust.
My point being that you shouldn't assume these Croft components are universally compatible, either on input or output. Croft knew what he was doing, but he did things his own way. Sometimes it's easier to get consistently good sound by just buying Sony or JVC.
Without any standards or rootedness for what means "sounds good," I wonder if the feelings-driven reviewer corps (both professional and amateur) have allowed their tastes to drift over the years, and become an echo society where they admire what those who they admire liked, tailoring their tastes and expectations accordingly. This is a problem for everyone from studio engineers and producers to home listeners, and it's what Floyd Toole calls the circle of confusion. Without any grounding in technical understanding, it opens the door to all manner of credulous receptiveness to sales hype in its various forms and snake-oil products.
Of course, the main problem is that their tastes may not actually be driven by what they hear using only their ears, despite their claims to the contrary. They become incurably and subconsciously sensitive--in spite of their conscious confidence to the contrary--to the influence of brand, price, the status of the designer, looks, and acceptance by the cool kids. The dominant paradigm is immensely powerful even if and when it is wrong.
I have stated before that the debate is NOT between "objectivism" and "subjectivism." Even in the most data-driven scenario, subjective evaluations still rule the day, particularly when it comes to the final transducer. The issue is not subjectivism, but feelings-driven subjectivism unchecked by controlled testing. Blind testing is a means to apply controls to subjective perceptions to see if they are repeatable and consistent, not to convert subjective evaluation into objective evaluation. Objective evaluation is what happens when we measure the ability of the device to do the things it's supposed to do to the incoming signal (switch it, amplify it, or appropriately convert it to acoustic sound) without doing the things it's not supposed to do (distortion, resonance, etc.). Most "subjectivists" spend most of their time talking about whether a device does what it is supposed to do and avoids what it isn't, not about what they hear and how they hear it, in spite of their self-talk. And objectivists who refuse the evidence of their ears (particularly with transducers, which have to interact with the unknowable space around them) also risk delusion.
Enjoying music with an amp/speaker combo is fine, but without any controls, that one anecdote cannot be used as instruction for what is good and worthy in absolute terms. That's the problem with the lack of control. It becomes a contest of credentials, succumbing to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The thing is, when those controls are in place, the stuff that's preferred tends to the engineered product rather than the bespoke product, though there's no reason why the latter can't also be the former.
Rick "prefers to be moved by music, not by playback equipment" Denney
Of course, the main problem is that their tastes may not actually be driven by what they hear using only their ears, despite their claims to the contrary. They become incurably and subconsciously sensitive--in spite of their conscious confidence to the contrary--to the influence of brand, price, the status of the designer, looks, and acceptance by the cool kids. The dominant paradigm is immensely powerful even if and when it is wrong.
I have stated before that the debate is NOT between "objectivism" and "subjectivism." Even in the most data-driven scenario, subjective evaluations still rule the day, particularly when it comes to the final transducer. The issue is not subjectivism, but feelings-driven subjectivism unchecked by controlled testing. Blind testing is a means to apply controls to subjective perceptions to see if they are repeatable and consistent, not to convert subjective evaluation into objective evaluation. Objective evaluation is what happens when we measure the ability of the device to do the things it's supposed to do to the incoming signal (switch it, amplify it, or appropriately convert it to acoustic sound) without doing the things it's not supposed to do (distortion, resonance, etc.). Most "subjectivists" spend most of their time talking about whether a device does what it is supposed to do and avoids what it isn't, not about what they hear and how they hear it, in spite of their self-talk. And objectivists who refuse the evidence of their ears (particularly with transducers, which have to interact with the unknowable space around them) also risk delusion.
Enjoying music with an amp/speaker combo is fine, but without any controls, that one anecdote cannot be used as instruction for what is good and worthy in absolute terms. That's the problem with the lack of control. It becomes a contest of credentials, succumbing to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The thing is, when those controls are in place, the stuff that's preferred tends to the engineered product rather than the bespoke product, though there's no reason why the latter can't also be the former.
Rick "prefers to be moved by music, not by playback equipment" Denney
DSJR
Major Contributor
copy to @tobyjug
Not sure about that Mart, as the Croft line inputs go, as far as I can remember to the input selector switch and then straight to the volume control(s), the line buffer after that.
The Micro Basic preamp Glen did was a bit rough, but huge 'fun' back then, but as he didn't make anything on it, it faded away. The Micro 25 via line inputs, seemed neutral enough when compared to its peers, but when compared to the 25R and RS versions, was also a little bit 'crude.' Input impedance via line was high enough never to be an issue and I don't think distortion was a real issue either (HFN only ever tested the Series 7, which measures more like a valve amp with estimated sinad approximating mid to upper 40's I believe). HFN tested the output impedance at 1.5 ohms which seems rather less than the integrated as tested by Stereophile.
C7 ES3s are so ripe and warm/lush toned in free space siting with recommended height stands, I'm stunned that a dac change to something neutral has made things so much worse. Are the speakers in phase? if you and room are sensitive to it, check absolute phase as well, reversing the speaker connections on both speakers + to - , just to see if any difference is noticed. I dare not mention tube-rolling as Glen got it right with the stock tubes fitted. If you had a hundred quid spare and willing to return if not happy, the Fosi preamp seems really good and offers three line inputs plus simple tone controls... The Series 7 should be fine with this preamp set to low gain.
P.S. A pal of mine used a Micro 25/Series 7 for a year or so and lost nothing when he moved it on, so they're currently holding value well!
Miguelón
Major Contributor
Is difficult to guess what can happened, apart from the voltage difference signaled by @krabapple.
Other possible explanation is some distortions from a bad built D/A converter from previous CD players, which is more probable than in your new DAC.
Should be very tiny anyway, you’ll be quickly habituated.
If you prefer some warmer sound, that is very personal, you can add a DSP if your DAC hasn’t one onboard and just choose a filter or a frequency curve of your taste.
I don’t know the smsl c200 DAC but is recent and surely has a tone of power output with respect to ancient devices, that can change a little bit the tonality if you’re playing in the very quiet region of DAC volume.
No I'm not either, the DAC has output of 2V so on paper it should all be fine. 'On paper' doesn't always work out though.
Clearly there's a compatibility problem somewhere since the sound is described as bad, and that's not down to a 'more neutral DAC.' It's highly likely no-one could tell that DAC apart from the DACs in the disc players that preceded it.
Thank You ! I was trying to find that review and couldn't seem to get it.So thanks for that.
I agree about the C7 es3 leaning towards the lush and warm side, that's part of what I dont get with the new CD/DAC combo becoming fatiguing and has me teaching for the off button.
I've had Glens amps for around 25 years in one configuration or another.
Im running a epoch elite pre that Glen upgraded to the max for that model.
Im still in the window of returning the DVD/ DAC to Amazon which I am seriously considering as an option. Thanks.
DSJR
Major Contributor
I'm sure it's not the dac, but who knows. Can you try an SMSL SU1 or basic Topping and return if no different. if there's an issue with the 200 dac, any of these will show it up. If you have a phone or laptop and even a USB A-C adaptor as I use, a Jcally JM20 Max dongle has a desktop player level output into an amp Aux input and again, may help as regards 'tone' for twenty quid or so (add a few quid/dollars for an Amazon Basics 3.5mm to RCA cable).
Last edited:
Similar threads
