Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[MattHooper]

doesn't work. I fall into a different trap - if a master is bad, I want to know it's bad. Good music will survive most bad masters, and the really bad ones won't recover through tonal change.

I've owned amps with tone controls, and just found that I never got a real advantage from them. I don't have them in my current main system and don't miss them.

Same here!

That’s something of an irony I find insofar as it might be assumed I’m all about colouration.

As I often emphasize, the level of colouration I’m introducing to my system with tube amps is if anything, subtle. It’s nothing like aggressive use of tone controls. (much less upmixing to surround!). I had a parametric digital EQ in my system for decades and virtually never found the desire to use it.

In my system Whether recordings are brighter or duller, more or less dynamic, muffled or vivid, rich sounding or thin, whatever the differences they all show up. And I’m fine with that.

The advocacy for using tone controls to
“ adjust for bad mastering or poor recordings” strikes me as, in certain ways, a more aggressive type of intervention than I am interested in.

When playing music on my two channel system I’m not only enjoying the music, I enjoy all the variations in the character recordings themselves. The most dramatic example is my large collection of library production music which comprises an incredibly eclectic selection of recordings from the 60s through the mid 80s. On any single album the recording quality or character can be all over the map, from a huge rich, vivid “ audiophile worthy” sonic feast, to the next thin, harsh, reverberant recording sounding like it was recorded at a long distance in a commode.

And I enjoy all those quirky differences! I’m not trying to make everything have a similar
“ good sound quality” in the sense suggested by advocacy for tone controls, where you are constantly judging whether a recording “ has the right amount of bass, treble” or whatever.

I listen to so many thin or dull recordings just as they are, where I could imagine even a Floyd Toole reaching to crank up more bass or highs to fix them or enrich the sound.

“ not that there’s anything wrong with that,”

I have my own approach to listen to music, and I respect anyone else’s approach.

 

[MattHooper]

FWIW, I usually run my 988s (basically 63s) from a Purifi amp. To verify proper operation of a large VTL amp I was modifying, I substituted it for a listen. WOW! Incredible! Stunning! I.e., it sounded exactly the same.

OTOH, I tried using a 300B SET amp and that sounded different. Not in a good way. Fuzzy and, as the music got louder, increasingly harsh and confused. That experiment ended quickly.

I ended up using a Conrad Johnson MV 55 tube amp with my 63s, in the 90s. They sounded great, not that they couldn’t have been an amplifier that would be an even better fit technically.

Which brings up a question for you: I really liked the original 57s and have over the years had the opportunity to get a free pair from somebody I know. I haven’t been able to make it work due to their form factor in my room so I have not taken them up on the offer.

But I was a bit shocked (due to my own ignorance) to have it suggested to me on ASR that my current Conrad Johnson premiere 12 140w Mono blocks would actually be something of a bad fit for the 57s… dangerous to them in a certain way?

I’m forgetting the exact details which is why I’m asking about it. My hazy memory of people talking about 57s over the years is that they are particularly fussy….MORE fussy than the 63s? You have to be quite careful in amp pairing, with some even running to the safety of using the old quad amps themselves.

Does this have to do with some specific characteristics of the 57s that make them harder to drive than the 63s? Or is it all to do about the protection circuit in the 57s?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I ended up using a Conrad Johnson MV 55 tube amp with my 63s, in the 90s. They sounded great, not that they couldn’t have been an amplifier that would be an even better fit technically.

Which brings up a question for you: I really liked the original 57s and have over the years had the opportunity to get a free pair from somebody I know. I haven’t been able to make it work due to their form factor in my room so I have not taken them up on the offer.

But I was a bit shocked (due to my own ignorance) to have it suggested to me on ASR that my current Conrad Johnson premiere 12 140w Mono blocks would actually be something of a bad fit for the 57s… dangerous to them in a certain way?

I’m forgetting the exact details which is why I’m asking about it. My hazy memory of people talking about 57s over the years is that they are particularly fussy….MORE fussy than the 63s? You have to be quite careful in amp pairing, with some even running to the safety of using the old quad amps themselves.

Does this have to do with some specific characteristics of the 57s that make them harder to drive than the 63s? Or is it all to do about the protection circuit in the 57s?

It is about not arcing the 57's. Your 140 amps have voltage peaks high enough to cause 57's to arc over.

Quad 405 amps for instance had an option to limit output to 20 volts RMS if you were using them with Quad ESl 57s. Your MV 55s are likely safe, the 140s are not. Basically amps with an 8 ohm rating of 50 wpc or less are likely fine.

I used a C-J MV 45 with 57s and a VTL 75/75 converted to triode operation (basically made them 35 wpc).

ESL 63s are okay to 38 volts RMS though not continuously.

 

[SIY]

I ended up using a Conrad Johnson MV 55 tube amp with my 63s, in the 90s. They sounded great, not that they couldn’t have been an amplifier that would be an even better fit technically.

Which brings up a question for you: I really liked the original 57s and have over the years had the opportunity to get a free pair from somebody I know. I haven’t been able to make it work due to their form factor in my room so I have not taken them up on the offer.

But I was a bit shocked (due to my own ignorance) to have it suggested to me on ASR that my current Conrad Johnson premiere 12 140w Mono blocks would actually be something of a bad fit for the 57s… dangerous to them in a certain way?

I’m forgetting the exact details which is why I’m asking about it. My hazy memory of people talking about 57s over the years is that they are particularly fussy….MORE fussy than the 63s? You have to be quite careful in amp pairing, with some even running to the safety of using the old quad amps themselves.

Does this have to do with some specific characteristics of the 57s that make them harder to drive than the 63s? Or is it all to do about the protection circuit in the 57s?

What Blumlein said. They’re not a difficult load but they’re really fragile. I ran mine with a 50 watt tube amp back in the day and it worked fine. But I did restrict my use to purely acoustic music. The 988s are much better in that respect, especially with a sharp LF cutoff and subwoofers.

 

[MattHooper]

It is about not arcing the 57's. Your 140 amps have voltage peaks high enough to cause 57's to arc over.

Quad 405 amps for instance had an option to limit output to 20 volts RMS if you were using them with Quad ESl 57s. Your MV 55s are likely safe, the 140s are not. Basically amps with an 8 ohm rating of 50 wpc or less are likely fine.

I used a C-J MV 45 with 57s and a VTL 75/75 converted to triode operation (basically made them 35 wpc).

ESL 63s are okay to 38 volts RMS though not continuously.

Ah right! Now I remember, you told me this!
There’s my crappy memory again.

What Blumlein said. They’re not a difficult load but they’re really fragile. I ran mine with a 50 watt tube amp back in the day and it worked fine. But I did restrict my use to purely acoustic music. The 988s are much better in that respect, especially with a sharp LF cutoff and subwoofers.

Got it, thanks!

 

[goat76]

The advocacy for using tone controls to
“ adjust for bad mastering or poor recordings” strikes me as, in certain ways, a more aggressive type of intervention than I am interested in.

It's definitely a more aggressive way of altering the sound.

When playing music on my two channel system I’m not only enjoying the music, I enjoy all the variations in the character recordings themselves. The most dramatic example is my large collection of library production music which comprises an incredibly eclectic selection of recordings from the 60s through the mid 80s. On any single album the recording quality or character can be all over the map, from a huge rich, vivid “ audiophile worthy” sonic feast, to the next thin, harsh, reverberant recording sounding like it was recorded at a long distance in a commode.

It's the same for me. My system is on the neutral side of things but with the overall bass level to my liking and what I think sounds naturally balanced for most music. When an album sounds a little bit on the thin side, my hearing acclimates itself to the new balance pretty fast and it becomes the new "norm", at least until I yet again hear another album that has a more neutral balance. I have never felt the need to fiddle with any tone controls on an album-to-album basis.

And I enjoy all those quirky differences! I’m not trying to make everything have a similar
“ good sound quality” in the sense suggested by advocacy for tone controls, where you are constantly judging whether a recording “ has the right amount of bass, treble” or whatever.

That's something I would very much like to know how it’s done, how the tone controls are used on a song-to-song basis, and at the same time using it in a sort of controlled “un-colored way”. For me, that would be taking it too far into the land of subjectivity.

 

[Killingbeans]

So either I think the same way or I don't belong here? Seriously?

Critical thinking is definitely heavily encouraged.

You can enjoy whatever you want, but if you try to justify your preference through magical thinking, you'll have a hard time here on ASR.

 

[MattHooper]

I have noted previously that any person can satisfy their private preferences however they please .... privately. When they post on a public forum, they act as a PUBLIC advocate for their PRIVATE opinion.

Because of Amir's generosity, ASR exists as A PUBLIC advocacy for accurate reproduction of audio recordings.

Because of that, ASR is the target for Subjectivists who make a PUBLIC advocacy of Subjectivist principles. These Subjectivists put forth the opinion that the Subjectivist point of view has as much PUBLIC legitimacy as the ASR point of view .... which is accuracy in reproduction.

The following is my opinion.

The ASR view is that audio equipment has a purpose, and that purpose is the retrieval of information on the recording. To serve that purpose, the equipment must be dispassionate (or neutral), offering the least possible characteristic of perceivable deviation to the listener.
If the equipment has a detectable "passion", "emotion", "sheen" or "body", that is an overlay that corrupts the information in the recording.
It is not that ASR rejects the notion of passion or emotional involvement. Such is definitely not the case. The ASR viewpoint is that emotional involvement is with the MUSIC, and not the EQUIPMENT.
It is my view that this advocacy in no way deprives listeners from achieving their PRIVATE goals; any listener can do as they please with the recording after they have purchased it. This includes choice of equipment.

So there is no possible way that the advocacy of ASR (which is accuracy in reproduction) can "police" what the Subjectivists do. It is impossible for ASR to deny access to recordings, to deny access to equipment (tube or otherwise), deny access to pleasure or IN ANY OTHER WAY have any affect on the PRIVATE conduct of people.

Any assertions otherwise are a canard.

The discomfort that Subjectivists feel seems to come from the PUBLIC disconnect between their point of view and the view held by members of ASR ... including that of the founder, Amir Mejidimehr. There seems to be the feeling among Subjectivists that they have a legitimate right to use ASR to advocate their PERSONAL opinions which run counter to the ASR view.

I disagree. I think many other members here also disagree. We don't disagree with the pleasure Subjectivists enjoy when they use their equipment, we disagree with the idea that they have an intrinsic right to use ASR to legitimize their views.

If you have Subjectivist views, or you wish to promote the Subjectivist point of view, you will receive pushback here. That includes the point of view that your PUBLIC advocacy is not legitimate ... here. It may be considered legitimate on other sites.

Perhaps you are offended by the defense that ASR members display towards neutrality and accuracy, We do not mean to offend. ASR does not promote uncivilized behavior. We simply defend the stated goals of ASR, among which is the accuracy of audio reproduction, whether music or spoken word. If you are offended by that, I suggest you pony up the quite substantial sums of money to create your own website and support your own views.

Jim

Hey Jim,

I think it’s always going to be tough to try and speak for the crowd on ASR, as there is the risk of leaving acceptable or accepted viewpoints out.

The nature of the forum has been discussed numerous times. I’ve given my view which it seems many members have agreed with before (as I remember that included Amir).

I’m not totally clear from your post how much our depiction of ASR is going to differ, but I suspect there is some difference, especially when it comes to what seems to be your view that ASR is about advocating for a certain type of equipment.

So I’ll just reiterate, my characterization of the form as I’ve come to see it, and you or anyone else can show me where you disagree.

The first thing is that I wonder: what is your definition of a “ subjectivist?”

I’ve given mine before: I view the difference between a subjectivist and an objectivist as an epistemological difference;

The subjectivist is one who emphasizes the reliability of his own subjective (uncontrolled ) impressions over any other method of vetting audio gear. The subjectivist believes subjective impressions are the best way to know the truth about how audio gear performs. It is more reliable than measurements, and it’s often accompanied by Not acknowledging, or dismissing, the relevance of blind test controls.

In contrast, the Objectivist more scientific attitude. This incorporates a foundational acknowledgement of the limitations of subjective assessment. It acknowledges the limitations of our senses, as well as fallibility of our perception. Therefore, objectivists recognize the importance of measurements as well as the use of listening tests controlling for biases for arriving at accurate information about the performance of audio gear.
So the subjectivist has an unfailing faith in his uncontrolled subjective impressions.

The objectivist believes in the failings of our uncontrolled subjective impressions and understands how those can be remedied with measurements and scientific controls.

I am an objectivist, based on that criteria.

I believe this is accurately identifies the fundamental divide between subjectivist and objectivists, and it explains the nature of the often cantankerous disputes.

Further, I don’t think it makes the mistake of suggesting that to be an “ objectivist” you must at all times the measuring your equipment or setting up scientific controls, and only ever talking about gear accompanied by such data. And objectivist never can talk in subjective or anecdotal terms.

That view would turn this place into another hydrogen audio forum, and I think it’s pretty clear most most members don’t want that and that is not what Amir has set up here, which allows for more Freeform discussion.

What is most important then isn’t that every pronouncement here is accompanied by hard data and scientific controls - any look at the forum will show a few posts have that character even from the most ardent ASR members.

Rather, it’s that to be an objectivist, you are trying to scale your confidence or claims with the level of objective evidence available for your claim, and/or you are making claims that are not in conflict with known engineering principles and science.

So you can be an objectivist, And anecdotal subjective observations, say for about a system you heard at a show or dealers.
But you will be cognizant of the caveat involved that bias could’ve been playing a role in your perception, and so you are not presenting this as The Truth, but with implicit caveats this is not the best way to arrive at reliable conclusions.

To be anti-scientific is to form beliefs, or make claims that contradict known science engineering or the scientific method, as the subjectivist often do when they make confident claims about cables or tweaks that go against known engineering, and they reject the relevance of scientific controls for their conclusions.

I think this allows for, and captures the nature of this forum that Amir has set up.

Subjective uncontrolled comments or impressions are “ allowed” so long as we understand the caveats involved.

Ideally, measurements could accompany any claim . But since that’s not always practical: Do you want to say you heard some loudspeakers that sounded terrible and various ways? Fine. That’s OK - we understand the cots involved.

This is why there are plenty of such comments made here that people don’t have to jump all over.

And we have entire sections of the forum, devoted to show reports, in which people, including Amir, are giving their subjective uncontrolled impressions of what they hear it shows. Nobody wants to shut down that type of fun and enjoyment on this forum.

OK, so what is this forum about?

ASR Promotes accurate information about audio gear.

Full stop.

That’s it. That’s the big tent ethos Amir has set up and has allowed to thrive here.

ASR is not about telling you what gear you need to purchase. It’s about helping people make educated decisions in order to get what they want.

Do you want to spend an extra thousand dollars on that nice looking instead of speaker cables? You understand that you won’t be receiving the performance benefits claimed by the manufacture, but you really like the looks of the cable and for you that’s worth paying for? Fine! Nothing wrong with that. We aren’t dictating to you what to buy, just helping you make informed decisions.

That goes with any other gear. You want to spin records? Fine. We’ve got a part of the forum devoted to getting accurate information about that type of gear.

You want to spend more money on really cool looking loudspeakers that don’t perform quite as objectively well as cheaper alternatives? Fine. So long as you recognize the compromises you are making, and why… enjoy… you do you!

You’d like to own a tube app because you think they’re really cool? Fine. Here you will be educated as to the compromises you may be making, and knowledgable members can help give you guidance for the type of tube amps that will suit your needs.

You will certainly find strains of thought here among many members that “ the purpose of audio gear is accuracy” - and that may include Amir himself. But the Big Tent nature of the more basic remit “ getting accurate information in order to make knowledgable purchases” I think better describes the overall ethos. It may start with some members saying “ it would be my advice to start with X type of equipment…” ultimately though it’s “but if YOU understand the reasons for this advice and yet still feel another choice will suit your desires, that’s fine. It’s not the choice that I would make, but people have different goals.”

And as to subjectivists who visited the forum: by all means if you want to state your views go for it, be prepared for pushback, and try and keep an open mind so you may learn something new about your assumptions. People stating subjectivist viewpoints is an opportunity both for that person to learn, and for others watching to learn.

So, any objections? Do we disagree?

Cheers

 

[Killingbeans]

ASR might mostly be leaning towards the pursuit of "wire-with-gain", but I don't think that's the general consensus.

A lot of the users go for the classic attempt at trying to reach a 1:1 reproduction/illusion as closely as physics allow, and many others say that none of this really matters, as long as you enjoy the result. Sometimes those two approaches overlap in a Venn diagram, and sometimes they don't. It's all good, IMO.

But what I do believe is a general consensus on ASR, is that the reason why something sounds good to you, should never be treated lightly.

If something is massively at risk of being caused by cognitive bias, then this should be assumed to be the cause until very strong evidence suggesting otherwise is presented.

 

[Newman]

I would very much like to know how it’s done, how the tone controls are used on a song-to-song basis, and at the same time using it in a sort of controlled “un-colored way”. For me, that would be taking it too far into the land of subjectivity.

I think the general idea is for whole albums of music that is particularly precious to you, but you can't find a good mastering.

Obviously the tone control doesn't 'deconvolve' the bad mastering, but makes it tolerable enough to get by. The music is particularly precious to you.

Once that album is done, reset to neutral and return to 'normal programming'.

 

[MattHooper]

It's definitely a more aggressive way of altering the sound.

And even then, not nearly as aggressive as up-mixing stereo to surround!

That is truly “ pleasing yourself” territory.

Which is of course fine.

 

[MattHooper]

What if most of your music is precious to you, and you find yourself enjoying the listening experience more after slightly tweaking your system to your preference?

Out of bounds?

 

[Newman]

Exactly. And that's why some subjectivists get shown the door, depending on their willingness to listen and stop posting nonsense.

 

[pablolie]

I think the power of this site is that it gives us data to establish what matters to our personal use case.
Sheepishly following personal approvals based on personal preferences is EXACTLY what this should be NOT be about at least imo.

 

[Newman]

Sheepishly following personal approvals based on personal preferences is EXACTLY what this should be NOT be about at least imo.

That's why certain individuals who keep on doing exactly that are a kind of white noise to the site. They just think they are posting signal content.

 

[MattHooper]

ASR is not a haven to be used by people as a platform to advocate and support an agenda that is untenable ... especially if it is inimical to our stated aims. If you are a Subjectivist, feel free to come here .... but be prepared to learn, not to subvert, disrupt, mock or villify.

I think we are pretty close to agreeing except possibly in one respect.

It sounds to me like you are suggesting a stance where visiting subjectivists essentially stay silent about what they believe, sort of “ shut up and learn.”

Is that about right or have I misunderstood?

A scientific mindset is that any hypothesis or claim can be proposed. Science has to be open to this, because some prevailing accepted propositions may turn out to be wrong. Otherwise, one is doing dogma not science.

To that end, it seems to me we would allow any claims to be made about gear, but those claims will be subjected to scrutiny informed by engineering knowledge and a more scientific mindset.

And as I mentioned: any subjectivist making dubious claims is an opportunity for that person to learn as well as other members here or silent observers.

It’s certainly by seeing objectivists examining the claims of subjectivists - whether it is Amir examining the claims advocated by a cable company, or some knowledgable engineer, pushing back on claims from a subjectivist - that I learned quite a bit over the years.

So IF your proposition is that we shouldn’t have subjectivist visitors speaking up
“ advocating for their viewpoint” I think I’d disagree.

It’s not like this place is going to turn into a nest of pure subjectivism anytime soon

 

[SIY]

A scientific mindset is that any hypothesis or claim can be proposed. Science has to be open to this, because some prevailing accepted propositions may turn out to be wrong.

If they contradict well-known understanding, are made without a clear understanding of existing work, and offered without any evidence, they will rightfully be ridiculed as crankery.

 

[MattHooper]

Sheepishly following personal approvals based on personal preferences is EXACTLY what this should be NOT be about at least imo.

Agreed. (Which is in line with what I wrote about the site.)

Not to mention: “ sheepishly following” anything doesn’t seem to be a good idea.

That's why certain individuals who keep on doing exactly that are a kind of white noise to the site. They just think they are posting signal content.

Can you point to any examples of someone advocating “Sheepishly following personal approvals based on personal preferences” for this forum?

Do you think that would be consistent with what I just wrote about the nature of this forum?

You wouldn’t be implying another strawman would you?

 

[Galliardist]

And even then, not nearly as aggressive as up-mixing stereo to surround!

That is truly “ pleasing yourself” territory.

Which is of course fine.

Surely that depends on the nature of the upmixing? If it follows a defined process from science/research to generate, say, an improved stereo image, is it still "pleasing yourself"?

I could see there being a difference similar to different uses of EQ, which can lead to a more accurate result via measurements, or to colour a system for personal enjoyment.

 

[MattHooper]

If they contradict well-known understanding, are made without a clear understanding of existing work, and offered without any evidence, they will rightfully be ridiculed as crankery.

Agreed. I assumed that was covered in my saying:

“To that end, it seems to me we would allow any claims to be made about gear, but those claims will be subjected to scrutiny informed by engineering knowledge and a more scientific mindset.”