Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

[DimitryZ]

Case in point
Get your hip waders

I'm not even sure wth it is!?
A head shell weight? Weed?
That little colored dot?

Synergistic Research PHT - Phono Transduce... For Sale | Audiogon

Synergistic Research PHT - Phono Transducer Cartridges for sale. Two more PHT crops harvested... Black Widow (Type I) & Green Dream (Type S). W...

www.audiogon.com

Two more PHT crops harvested... Black Widow (Type I) & Green Dream (Type S).

We also have a few sets of the original PHT Blue Velvet and Purple Haze, as reviewed by Michael Fremer, in stock.

Handmade in California. Transform your turntable’s performance dramatically with the NEW Synergistic Research PHT! PHT is an acronym for "Phono Transducer" and is an evolution of SR’s award winning UEF technology. Available in two different strains, Type ’I’ PHT adds a holographic ethereal dream like quality to your records while Type ’S’ is all about focus and clarity with musicality. To get started simply apply 1 micro PHT transducer, Type ’I or Type ’S’ to the top of your phono cartridge or head-shell for an immediate and dramatic transformation. Improvements include a lower nose floor, increased resolution, improved bass extension with increased air, and sound staging.

Michael Fremer of Stereophile wrote:
"...adding that blue PHT produced an ear-popping, Cinerama-like, wraparound soundstage, and an overall sound even less tethered to the speaker positions. The image focus was increasing razor sharpness, and there was greater front-to-back separation of sources within the soundstage... Decays were longer, and the backgrounds they faded into were ’blacker’... with the blue PHT in place the sound was clearly better overall, with improved focus, three-dimensionality, and transparency... "

That is a very strange device. Maybe a micro damper?

 

[jsrtheta]

If there is a real difference in soundstage perception, it has by necessity changed the signal getting to one's ears. In principle even if we haven't the ability yet or haven't bothered such a change is measureable.

I proposed in another thread we might measure such a thing if we used spaced microphones at the LP. Or possibly three microphones spaced in a triangle near head-sized dimensions. In principle if not in practice that or something similar could be done.

Of course if the amps and preceding gear are of high enough fidelity such a difference in soundstaging will not really occur. Also we know that the brain influences what is heard by what is seen. Just seeing a tube amp can convince some to hear a different result when that amp is not connected and nothing has changed.

If we were doing ground zero experiments one approach would be blind testing to confirm two amps have different soundstaging, and then develop our measurements to see how the sound at the ears change. Probably would have to rinse and repeat a few times to determine what measurements were showing a difference that correlates with what is heard, and how it correlates.

The thing to remember is by necessity some difference that could most easily and accurately be measured at the speaker terminals has to occur for the person listening to hear a difference with his ears.

Now I do think for instance triode amps with some speakers can add a sense of space, and 3D soundstaging which isn't in the recording, and yet is perceived as that by the listener. Of course such amps are providing measurably different signals to the speaker terminals. My reason for thinking this is that I have in the past taken amps, gave them a loudspeaker-like load, and tapped the output with an attenuation circuit so it provided unity gain. Fed that into a power amp connected to speakers and listened with and without the power amp under test in the circuit between source and final power amp. A triode inserted sounds rather different than a straight wire connection. It sounds better on some material. Good SS amps you can't hear if they are in circuit or out. Which is why I conclude in this case the better 3D sound is an additive coloration.

Peter Aczel said soundstage and depth are the province of the speakers and the listening room. In my own experience, such as it is, I always thought he was right.

 

[jsrtheta]

That is a very strange device. Maybe a micro damper?

More likely ABC gum. Synergistic Research doesn't believe a device should make sense. Just that you buy it.

 

[raif71]

To come back to the original question of the thread, "Are subjectivists blind?", the answer to that might be 'yes'.

This video from The School of Life about Plato's allegory of the cave explains quite nicely why that is, and what we can do to try to change that:

Were you trying to say this ... in the cave the people envision sine waves, multitone grass silhouettes and other figurative graphs while the outside world is full of color, truer sensations, clearer sounds etc. that captivate the senses

 

[Blumlein 88]

Many excellent phono cartridges can "only" muster 30 to 40 dB of channel separation, and still that's plenty to highlight these differences. Think about when stereo was first introduced/promoted to a dubious public already happy with their mono systems - pushing those heavily panned records like "Persuasive Percussion". Very boring after the first listen, but proving to the most doubtful that even a lowly phono cartridge or tape head can sufficiently provide proof of the beneficial stereo effect, and that they needed to double their system when they could afford to. In any case, there's a good reason why we use a logarithmic decibel scale: 10 Log (P2/P1). 30 dB is 1000 times stronger/weaker in linear terms; 40 dB is 10,000 times stronger/weaker in linear terms; 50 dB is 100,000 times stronger/weaker in linear terms; 60 dB is 1,000,000 times stronger/weaker in linear terms. Too many zeros to keep track of with linear terms, so decibels are better when the differences are so vast. We're already in the realm of enough with a "mere" 30 to 40 dB. Tape is even better, and digital even better yet, depending always upon the master. In panning across the sound-stage what's the difference if the left side is 1000 times or 1,000,000 times more/less than the right, and vice versa?

For a particular recording we do know that the sound-stage Left to Right at its front edge (a line across the front of the speakers) is based on channel separation, and that depth within the overall sound-stage is based on the amplitude of the signal within that L/R position. Then the most linear amplifiers should be able to place depth most accurately because of their high amplitude linearity, but does this consistently correlate with what's heard?

What about image height above and/or below the speakers? Maybe this is just the psychoacoustics of expectations?

Your ear can't make use of more than 20 db separation. 20 db is more than enough for the same audible result as infinite panning to one side only.

Now phono cartridges..................sheesh! They have not the flattest of response. From messing around with room EQ tweaks, one can elevate or depress certain areas of the FR to give more or less depth, and it doesn't take that much. Such uneven response in cartridges is the biggest reason they seem to vary in the depth they portray.

 

[TimF]

It was written that the photograph is more accurate and had greater fidelity than the eye, or perhaps they meant than vision perception. In some respects yes. You can use scanning technology to take vary accurate images and even an array of slices of something like the brain so that you end up with a 3D detailed image. The same with detailed analysis of sound and the physics of sound. But there is this: show me a photograph of a person, even a fine photograph, and compare it to the actual person in the here and now. The photo is dead. It is two dimensional whereas the actual person is multi dimensional and thriving.

 

[KSTR]

I'm also one of those who sometimes hears soundstage differences between DACs/amps (even when they are considered "blameless" -- fully transparent -- wrt the usual standard measurements). Of course when precision level-matched electrically (which btw never is perfectly possible as soon as you have the tiniest frequency response and/or distortion differences for reasons I think I don't need to explain as it is immediately obvious. And it's interesting that these sound stage differences are sort of immune to tiny level mismatches below 0.3 dB or so). And properly blinded. This is really puzzling my engineering and scientific self, believe me.

It is obvious that there must be a signal difference which must show up, for example, in detailed subtractive analysis (which again is an art and a science in itself, I've spent more than a decade on that topic alone). I've done my own private research on that, with no conclusive results as of yet. I only have some pet theories, one of them is microscopic "time smear" that already is buried in the noise floor, technically, but maybe still relevant perception-wise (as we can hear quite a bit into the noise floor).

Stereo illusion from two-channel content played back with two speakers is very fragile, and soundstage depth/width, size of phantom sources etc is especially fragile and, as noted, mostly a thing of mental construction. And that might be just the point, very subtle things that make it harder for the brain to construct a soundstage illusion from non-realworld-like cues, differing between DACs/amps. The soundfields near the ears creating the phantom localization is never like what you'd have from real sound sources, it's artificial, and percieved soundstage is an aquired skill by training.

My 2ct. and strictly IMHO.

 

[escksu]

Again??? Such threads seems to pop up all the time here...lol

 

[tuga]

Someone may like a painting of a subject more than a photo of it, but the photo is still more accurate, higher 'fidelity'.

This analogy is a bit dumb...

Radical "Objectivists" are afraid of listening as much as alt-"Subjectivists" hate measurements.
Are the deaf leading the blind?

 

[litemotiv]

Were you trying to say this ... in the cave the people envision sine waves, multitone grass silhouettes and other figurative graphs while the outside world is full of color, truer sensations, clearer sounds etc. that captivate the senses

It's a broad analogy that holds true in all aspects of our lives. Our senses are limited and we only see a small part of reality, so we construct our concept of reality based on the interpretation of the small chunks of information that we have.

We use shortcuts for those interpretations based on our prior experiences, since it would take too much time to perceive each situation as completely new, that would be evolutionary disadvantageous. If each time we put on our shoes we would look at them and ask ourselves what they really are and what would be the optimal way to tie them, that would cost so much time it would interfere with more important aspects of survival. Since as social animals acceptance in our local/peer group is one of the most important things to stay alive, the subjective consensus of our local group of how reality is is one of the strongest motivators to keep or discard certain subjective beliefs.

So if we have learned the wrong shortcuts in certain areas we keep employing them nonetheless, and our view of reality adjusts itself to fit our social environments. Each time we use that same path it will get reinforced in our brains, and social acceptance functions as a reward system to keep using it. For this reason most people like to stick to familiar social environments and to familiar beliefs.

This is why groups of people keep cheering for the same football team, why they pray to the same god(s), and why they have the same beliefs about audio equipment. It provides a sense of social security. It's more evolutionary advantageous to them to keep believing those things than to discard them, at least as long as there is not a new social environment and belief system available to replace it with. And for most people it takes considerable time to develop trust in a new belief system, it cannot be forced.

 

[JJB70]

At a certain point the objective becomes subjective. As a general observation, taking anything too far seldom ends well in behavioural terms.

 

[voodooless]

Why do I feel that all this is just a deflection so the critical questions don’t need answering?

 

[Ingenieur]

This analogy is a bit dumb...

Radical "Objectivists" are afraid of listening as much as alt-"Subjectivists" hate measurements.
Are the deaf leading the blind?

Your response and analysis trumps mine for 'dumbness'.
Thanks for your input.
They are both senses
Both involve interpretation of art
Both have technical components

'Afraid of listening'?
Isn't that the entire point of the hobby?
Fear is not a component, lol.
'Hate'? About silly stuff like this hobby?
No need for hyperbole.
Carry on

 

[sergeauckland]

This analogy is a bit dumb...

Radical "Objectivists" are afraid of listening as much as alt-"Subjectivists" hate measurements.
Are the deaf leading the blind?

No, because of expectation bias.
I don't listen to choose equipment because I don't expect to hear a difference, and I don't.
Subjectivists expect to hear a difference, so they do.
The main difference is that subjectivists' certainty that they can hear differences largely disappear when listening blind, whilst my certainty I can't hear a difference means I don't, whether sighted or blind.

When I have heard differences, there has always been a measurable reason for the difference.

S.

 

[Ingenieur]

There are individuals, intelligent and successful to some extent, whom buy $10,000 power cords that have to be plugged in, but not used, and that require 1,000 hours of use to break-in.

This hobby has become so ridiculous as to border, or breach, the absurd.

People are free to do as they please, but it can still be laughable.

Harmless compared to recent political and public health debates, but it does provide humorous relief.

 

[Ingenieur]

Again, it comes down to people not knowing what they are looking at. At the inception of this hobby it was techies driving it. Nerds, engineers, techs, mil trained electronic guys, HAM radio guys, etc.. They knew what the numbers meant.

Look at old Mac Lab specs: amp phase response, rise time, etc. much more comprehensive considering the measuring facilities of the day.

It has morphed into a trendy fashion statement. It now has a mystical component because something was required to justify the expenditure. And the industry jumped on it, promoted it, there are far more technically uninformed that those who are technically competent so it only made good business sense to exploit it.

Little metal dots on the head shell?
Pyramids on speakers?
Cable towers?
Wood shapes near speakers?
Boxes of dirt with ground wires?

Reminds me of chia pets or pet rocks.
It does provide humor.

 

[Ingenieur]

There is some interesting stuff here.
Imagine if you knew nothing about the subject and you only had this to make a buying decision. No wonder the 'buy this' industry sprung up. They needed someone to tell them what to buy and their input was justification by their hearing evaluation.
They could have bought terrible gear but 'it sounds good to me'.

In the early days much of the good gear was in kit form. This limited the market.
A guy who thinks a rock on a speaker system makes a difference is not a kit builder. Lol

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/Atwood/ThordAmp.pdf

Vintage data

 

[Ingenieur]

How many would find this interesting today? Technical journals by a capacitor mfg, titled The Capacitor?! Riveting, shocking! Lol

http://www.tubebooks.org/file_downloads/CDE_Capacitor_1958_04eos.pdf

http://www.tubebooks.org/file_downloads/CDE_Capacitor_1961-01-02-03eos.pdf

 

[Ingenieur]

A 50 page paper on how to build a tube amp written by a EE PhD professor.
HUGE audience, yawn
The hobby has been dumbed down, which is ok, capitalism drives the economy.

It was a different audience. The old timers were more competent imo. My dad in law (passed) quit HS to work in a coal mine. He rose to maintenance boss at a large US Steel mine. An extremely critical job. He understood power engineering better than many 'engineers'. He also respected engineers (and lamented not going to school). I think me being one was a positive factor in him saying yes when I requested permission to marry his daughter. lol

http://www.tubebooks.org/file_downloads/bereskin_buildit.pdf

 

[antennaguru]

Sharing a carefully documented controlled scientific study concluding that even with the most simply miked stereo recording (a single figure eight pair of microphones), not manipulated by a mixing board engineer, that a very large group of listeners could easily discern stereo image vertical height from the recording - so there is more to vertical imaging than simple expectation bias:

http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/papers/Stereo-height--Kunchur.pdf