Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Sal1950]

I hope that is clear now. Would you disagree?

Honestly, it's not clear at all, you never talk in simple straightforward manner..
I have no idea of the point your trying to make or how it in any way relates to the taste of food or salt.
We're here talking about audio and high fidelity, what is or isn't.
The answers to that don't require a textbook to detail.

 

[MattHooper]

Honestly, it's not clear at all, you never talk in simple straightforward manner..
I have no idea of the point your trying to make or how it in any way relates to the taste of food or salt.
We're here talking about audio and high fidelity, what is or isn't.
The answers to that don't require a textbook to detail.

Ok, you've challenged me to write more simply. Thanks.

How about this: Let's say you are listening to a pair of speakers and perceive there to be an emphasis in the bass consistent with a major bass node in the room set up. We know bass nodes exist, and can this have such an effect. It's not woo-woo.

On tracks you know well, some bass notes keep jumping out far more prominently in a "bloated" manner, suggesting the influence of a room interaction in the bass. You note that the speakers are large, rear ported and are set up very close to the back wall. So you start adjusting their position, pulling them out, noting the bass becomes less bloated, more even sounding.

Could all this be done with more precision and confidence using room/speaker measurements? I'm sure we agree: yes.

But lacking that equipment, is it reasonable to think you have likely perceived an actual bass emphasis, and proceeding on that assumption, move the speaker further from the back wall insofar as you perceive a smoother bass response?

 

[MarkS]

Sure, that's all reasonable. But all modern electronics sound the same under real-world listening conditions, even the stuff that gets a headless panther from Amir.

 

[Sal1950]

But lacking that equipment, is it reasonable to think you have likely perceived an actual bass emphasis, and proceeding on that assumption, move the speaker further from the back wall insofar as you perceive a smoother bass response?

If you'd like,
I'd prefer to get out a SPL meter first and make sure my impressions are correct and changes repeatable.
This is the science of HiFi

 

[MattHooper]

If you'd like,
I'd prefer to get out a SPL meter first and make sure my impressions are correct and changes repeatable.
This is the science of HiFi

I think we agree then.

 

[Sal1950]

I think we agree then.

??? OK.
I still don't get what any of your postings here had to do with HiFi reproduction of music, or what you're trying to get across to new members of ASR. I need a break, trying to decipher your cryptic writing makes my head hurt.

 

[MattHooper]

??? OK.
I still don't get what any of your postings here had to do with HiFi reproduction of music, or what you're trying to get across to new members of ASR. I need a break, trying to decipher your cryptic writing makes my head hurt.

Maybe you just don't enjoy nuance ;-)

I'm looking at the general approach of the ASR forum within a broader context. The world of audio exists outside the ASR bubble as well.
Measurements and scientific controls are the most reliable methods for investigating audio. People who want that information tend to congregate here.
Good stuff. But it doesn't mean such rigor is always necessary, nor the only rational way to evaluate audio gear.

I appreciate the info available on ASR. I also recognize that, pragmatically, we don't have to submit all our audio experiences to that type of rigor, and that...as in cooking...unscientific impressions can also be useful.

That doesn't seem so hard to to understand IMO, unless one is truly stuck in an impractical, dogmatic mindset.

(And, personally, I'm interested in a far broader range of gear than will ever likely be measured on ASR, or even elsewhere, so I'll be using reports of other audiophiles and my own impressions to help as a guide. This has worked very well for me for decades, in terms of discovering audio gear I really like).

 

[Sal1950]

Maybe you just don't enjoy nuance ;-)

I think more than anything you enjoy talking in riddles and thinking,
"lets see if these guys can figure our WTF I'm saying".
Or If your really saying anything at all.
Have you ever considered running for political office. LOL

 

[MattHooper]

Have you ever considered running for political office. LOL

Nothing I loathe more than having to listen to a politician. You know how to hurt a guy, Sal!

As you've said: you used to own and enjoy Klipsch La Scalas. We know those don't tend to measure very flat in frequency response, yet you enjoyed
aspects of that horn speaker sound, even though you personally may not have identified the exact technical reasons, correct? In other words, you were operating outside of scientific controls, but felt your impressions weren't just pure bullshit - that it was reasonable to believe you liked the Klipsch based on your impressions.

You wouldn't present your experience to ASR as if it were scientific data. But on the other hand, you didn't think you were unreasonable in feeling you heard certain aspects of the sound that were distinct and that you liked. Is that not about right?

That's part of what I'm getting at. You've experienced it.

 

[MarkS]

Matt, everything you say is valid, but ONLY applied to speakers, rooms, and stuff that measures so poorly that it obviously changes the sound (mainly tube equipment).

The vast majority of solid-state electronics, run within operating parameters (eg no clipping), cannot be audibly distinguished under conditons that pertain to the vast majority of audiophiles. E.g., I put a new amp in your system (or not), and then you decide (by sound alone) if you are listening to the new amp or the old amp.

Yet if one reads the rapturous subjective reviews, any such change is easily perceivable.

 

[MattHooper]

Yup, that's why I keep pointing to the heuristic: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[killdozzer]

It's gear. It's audio equipment and in the end, it's technology. It's NOT scientology. Although some members are making me doubt this. Without exception, as I said earlier, it's those ultimately infatuated with themselves. I guess it's useless to try and explain this to anyone in the "bespoke era of Kardashians". Matt Hopper keeps volunteering to lead the pack, I hope he knows the value of what's he doing cause, from what I read around this forum, more than one member would consider his account on trolling to be overdrawn.

However, since I started my post #2404 (dear lord, 50-100 should do it if not for the Tea Party) with the words:
There's only one reason why a humble reminder to "golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time..." would go on for 120 pages.
I guess I can thank Matt for proving my point far beyond any reasonable doubt.

The gear has to perform to the best of its abilities and THEN you tweak it/tune it however the hell you want. Your liking doesn't have to come preinstalled. If it does, you're being overcharged.

 

[Here2Learn]

@Sal1950

I think we all agree that for recording and faithfulness to original recordings, objectively better measuring is better.

I think the point being missed in this thread is it's about "Golden Eared Audiophiles", when they select something to improve their system, it is their perception of their system, and so is about preference. That's where all the preference talk comes from.

Golden Eared Audiophiles clearly aren't EE engineers, audio/recording engineers, or anything where creating clean reference material is required.

So when a subjective audiophile starts asking questions about improving their system, they are asking how to make their system better from the point of view of their preference. And given we've discussed how such preference may not align with increased transparency, it is important to learn how to address this gap.

if objectivists simply talk about ABX/DBT testing and transparent equipment and a subjectivist does an ABX/DBT and prefers the poorer measuring kit, we all appear to be talking out our rear end. And the camps become more polarized and we, if we leave it here, have done them and the science of objectivity, a disservice.

It's perfectly possible to help individuals identify if they like certain types of distortion and in what quantities and how to use such information to identify equipment they will 'prefer' and consider 'better'. That is what they are asking about after all.

it is not achieved solely by measuring equipment as we do on ASR and saying a Topping DAC beats all the uber-expensive audiophile DACs... because their subjective preference may not agree.

So when we speak of just reproduction and transparency through better measuring kit, and the subjectivist is asking for 'better' to their ears (preference), we are talking chalk and cheese.

We are the fools if we don't address this and how the subjectivist can use science to determine how they can choose equipment inline with their subjective preferences via objective means.

 

[DonH56]

We are the fools if we don't address this and how the subjectivist can use science to determine how they can choose equipment inline with their subjective preferences via objective means.

I think actually implementing this would prove very difficult for the general case. If it is simply EQ, such as boosted bass and treble to "improve the bass" or "add sparkle" to the sound, that is easily measurable, but to quantify it you'd have to know exactly how much boost or cut and at what frequencies each listener prefers. A bigger issue is getting a real definition of terms and relating them to measured values, particularly when some are a function of bias with no relation to actual performance. To me this falls into two broad problem areas:

1. Figuring out exactly what a listener means when they use terms like "PRaT", "deeper blacks", "more drive", "greater sense of space", "greater musicality" so we can relate what they hear to actual physical parameters. Some are probably harder than others... Setting up an experiment to adjust various parameters and correlate them to the descriptions would be challenging but interesting, though chances are different listeners will not only use different terms but also vary in their relative liking of parameters. "Shimmer" to one may be "harsh and glaring" to another with exactly the same settings.
2. In some cases differences heard are purely perceptual bias and disappear under controlled study. This should be the easiest to prove, using standard blind testing procedures, but setting up tests and getting listeners to agree with the results despite their bias can also be challenging. And of course if studies show there is no difference, then it will be hard to assign a parameter to it...

My approach has been to go for the most accurate reproduction system possible, then tweak to taste (preference). There's nothing wrong with instead building a system tailored to your preferences, and I have done that in the past. What I discovered, having a fairly wide range of musical (and now movie) interests as well as friends and family members with different preferences, is that a system tailored to me was only good for me and only specific (limited) source content. I'd rather have an accurate system I can adjust from a known (good, hopefully) starting point.

One can argue that they can tweak their system to taste for any music from any baseline, but there are limits to that IME. For example, you cannot easily add an octave or two of bass, and if the speakers' directionality does not match the room and preference that is difficult to change without modifying the room and/or the speakers. Etc.

IMO - Don

 

[Here2Learn]

@DonH56

I like your response. I don't agree with all of it. Mainly I don't think it necessary to disambiguate all the audiophile terms - I don't think there's a definitive reference and audiophiles use some terms best they see fit, while some terms have a more commonly understood meaning. I know real pianos (Bluthner) that I would say produce a 'milky' sound, but it would mean jack to anybody else, except maybe a pianist. Likewise, I'd characterize a Bosendorfer as 'richly harmonic' and 'germanic', but again, it means something to me and not anybody else. And personally, I think Steinway pianos don't sound much different to Yamaha pianos.

On using transparency as a starting point, I can agree.

On classifying how something should change to meet personal preference, I believe the tech is available to make this not too difficult at all.

A bit like Archimago's posting on having people determine which track had most distortion and which do they prefer, it's possible to provide similar tools to users to help them identify trends in their personal perception. So if there are tracks with diminishing even order distortion, and others with diminishing odd order distortion, and some with just H2 or H3 and the controls to alter the amount, then one can begin to compare and choose a preference, letting some software produce the final stats of what it discovered about their preferences.

It's then a matter of having some sort of filter like a VST plugin or filter thatt could go in software like Roon, that can add those distortions to the overall system, although measuring the in-room response and whatever existing distortions are present should be included in the calculations.

But the result would then be an audio system in line with their preference.

Now, if we were doing such today, and helping subjectivists get the best sounding system they ever heard (to their ears/preference), through such use of objectivity, we'd convince them that the science works and can be applied to them as an individual to achieve what they want.

But as it stands, the camps are polarized and we are not proving to the subjectivists that any amount of our use of ABX/DBT etc will result in them experiencing audio nirvana - and thus they refuse to listen to objectivists or use measurements in selection of equipment.

 

[Here2Learn]

Look around you. There are YouTube sites by the dozen, there are still some surviving mags in print, and there are many forums that "serve the needs" of individuals who prefer certain kinds of distortion. Where has that gotten anyone?

They do it via subjectivity, not measured objectivity.

It's not so much that certain people prefer certain kinds of distortion, it's that hucksters, con artists and scammers lead them to think that they prefer certain kinds of distortion.

You'll find those rags are always saying something costlier is 'cleaner' and 'more real' sounding. They aren't pushing distortion per se, but I personally believe the high end industry are selling units filled with distortions, that audiophiles may happen to like.

So the takeaway is that the very group that could be expected to reliably prefer a certain type of reproduction was the very group that couldn't be relied on to know what they were talking about.

Sure, but don't use somebody else as your reference is the moral of that.

For every single listener who prefers a certain distortion profile and whose taste stays stable for 20 years (or even 5 years!) there are a hundreds more who purchase, become dissatisfied, purchase again, become dissatisfied again, and keep going through this revolving-door madhouse routine forever.

Is there something empirical to back up this claim?

The only stable reference they can have is one they seem to reject: neutral reproduction.

I did say....

On using transparency as a starting point, I can agree.

If some people think they like distortion, let them discover what they want for themselves. We shouldn't enter that slippery slope with them, and we certainly should not use scientific principles and logical thinking to support that shifting quicksand.

The question is whether that quicksand shifts because of a lack of objectivity. If you are implying we cast such people to the wind and they just need to accept a world view that doesn't jive with their personal experience, then that serves nobody, least of all the objective community that needs to have people come around to practices that rule out biases, level-match etc.

my opinion is that they'll discover they like to start at neutral. That's how it's perfectly possible to help individuals, not by identifying distortions.

Thanks for qualifying as an opinion.

how long that will take, no one knows.

It's not working currently or diminishing the gap of polarization between the two camps, is it? (EDIT: I qualify this as my opinion)

 

[MattHooper]

Geeze. In my last post to you, I'd pointed out something I found confusing in your reply and politely asked for clarification.

And this is the response?.....

It's gear. It's audio equipment and in the end, it's technology. It's NOT scientology.

Of course. But if you'd paid attention you wouldn't raise such strawmen. You couldn't if you tried show an actual parallel between what I've written
and scientology. Unless you chose to utterly misrepresent what I've written.

Matt Hopper keeps volunteering to lead the pack, I hope he knows the value of what's he doing cause, from what I read around this forum, more than one member would consider his account on trolling to be overdrawn.

It's unfortunate that, in on-line discourse, charging someone with being a "troll" has become the lazy last resort of some people frustrated by disagreement.

Before slinging around that charge, please look up the definition of an Internet Troll. Hint: It's not "Someone That Disagrees With Me."

It appears you are ignoring all the posts I have made in support of the approach at ASR, all the ways in which we clearly agree, to seize upon some area where you think I've stepped out of bounds. And then: "TROLL!" Now, while you suggest there are a few other members equally rigid and reactive in their assessment, fortunately that isn't the general trend.

If my posts in fact had the character of being a troll it suggests they would be greeted as antithetical to most forum members and seen as purposely antagonistic, stirring up mostly ill-will. People wouldn't "like" that, would they?

Fortunately we actually have some metrics that speak to that claim. For instance:

Forum Member: Killdozer
Messages: 885
Likes: 844

Forum Member: MattHooper
Messages: 3,264
Likes: 5,282

Which member above has more posts "liked" by other ASR members?
Which member above has a higher ratio of posts "liked" by ASR forum members?
Which metric suggests posts...over a long period of time!...to be most consonant with ASR forum members?

It seems most people here recognize when someone is mostly in agreement, and trying to engage honestly in some conversations around the edges of disagreement, vs those few who react by calling people "Trolls."

The gear has to perform to the best of its abilities and THEN you tweak it/tune it however the hell you want. Your liking doesn't have to come preinstalled. If it does, you're being overcharged.

That is a perfectly reasonable approach.

But it is also your opinion, not some iron law by which all others, even all other ASR members, have to conform.

If you can just come to peace with the fact that people can agree on the relevance of science and measurements, yet these individuals can still differ somewhat in what they want out of their audio gear, you won't reach for claims like "troll" and it will be better for discourse. And, maybe, for your blood pressure

 

[Killingbeans]

So when a subjective audiophile starts asking questions about improving their system, they are asking how to make their system better from the point of view of their preference. And given we've discussed how such preference may not align with increased transparency, it is important to learn how to address this gap.

Problem is that a lot of people won't acknowledge when their preference isn't aligned with increased transparency.

Often their preference isn't even aligned with any audible difference whatsoever, and yet they still wholeheartedly belive it's tied to increased transparency.

The gap itself isn't the problem, IMO. It's just natural. The hard part it to make people aware of what's causing their preference.

Honestly, most audiophiles probably couldn't care less. Traveling through a land of myth and wonder is what makes the hobby enjoyable to them, and I absolutely get that.

I don't think it will ever become commonplace to see phrases like: "I really enjoy the groove noise from vinyl playback. How do I get more of that?"

 

[MarkS]

It's perfectly possible to help individuals identify if they like certain types of distortion and in what quantities and how to use such information to identify equipment they will 'prefer' and consider 'better'. That is what they are asking about after all.

it is not achieved solely by measuring equipment as we do on ASR and saying a Topping DAC beats all the uber-expensive audiophile DACs... because their subjective preference may not agree.

This misses the larger point, which is that all modern solid-state electronics sounds the same under real-world listening conditions.

A crappy-measuring modern DAC is sonically indistinguishable from the best measuring.

Now, IMO, ASR does not help people understand this, because ASR emphasizes measurements, and grades according to measurements. But those measurements (of electronics) are irrelevant to the audiophile who cares only about sound.

Speakers are a different story entirely, and here measurements are quite valuable.

 

[MattHooper]

This misses the larger point, which is that all modern solid-state electronics sounds the same under real-world listening conditions.

While, from what I know, I generally agree, I think absolute statements are usually problematic.

Personally I operate under the general assumption that any decent solid state amp will sound like another, so long is it isn't operated outside it's capabilities.

But as for Absolute Statements like you made there, it seems to me even Amir would disagree:

Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different

In many online debates, position taken by some that when amplifiers are used that have flat frequency response and low distortion that no double blind tests have shown them to sound different. Well, I managed to dig up a 32 year old test that says otherwise. What is fascinating is that one of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Unless perhaps you disagree with Amir, or want to add some caveat that accomodates what Amir argues in that thread?

A crappy-measuring modern DAC is sonically indistinguishable from the best measuring.

Ideally, yes.

And, again, I generally treat digital as a solved problem and don't worry much about sonic differences between DACs. Mostly I went for the features I wanted.

On the other hand...those Absolute Statements again...

There were people saying exactly the same thing about DACs and CD Players on older audio forums, and while I felt they had a good case for that belief, I was nonetheless puzzled that I seemed to hear differences between two CD players and a DAC I had been using. Since I had some reason to be skeptical I performed blind tests (randomized, level matched with voltmeter etc) and very easily, reliably identified each CD player and DAC from the other.

I don't propose that as something you need to accept - you weren't there. And no I don't think this validates all the nonsense or things many audiophiles imagine, or validates that DACs routinely sound different. But all our views are to some degree influenced by our experiences...which can include experiences blind testing...and so I'm open to the idea that, at least in the case of the units I had, perhaps something in the design, purposely or not, was adding some character to the sound of one or more of the units. And that such (rare?) cases may be found among the many currently manufactured DACs.

Again...I don't know. Just relaying some personal experience behind that viewpoint.