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

[Here2Learn]

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

I not sure that's always true. Certainly some audiophiles always suddenly complain about some aspect of the test.

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

For the audiophiles I know, they'll profess to wanting anything but transparency (better measuring) equipment.

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.

Sure. But this is where objective help should come in. They need hand-holding to help understand the cause(s). Often objectivist help is just ranting at them.

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

I agree here. If one doesn't enjoy studying and applying what one has learnt and would rather sit on their bum listening to music and use trial and error and subjective listening for new equipment and to even know they hold biases and illusions about what is 'better', then it's kind of like the delayed gratification experiment with kids. They'd rather indulge in the experiential at any given moment, rather than tide themselves over and do some element of 'work' in applying logic and reason to create a 'better' system.

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?"

Agreed.

 

[Here2Learn]

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.

I think @MattHooper 's reply is similar to how I would have answered.

 

[Here2Learn]

How can you "help individuals" if you (or I or they) don't use somebody else as a reference? You seem to be saying contradictory things. Could you please clarify?

Teaching them how to logical evaluate both equipment and their own hearing and preferences IS NOT the same as using a reviewer writing BS in a magazine/online as a reference for how a piece of equipment sounds.

Maybe because I'm old, I look at it another way, or notice things that younger people might miss.

Is there an assumption there about my age?

As for polarization, I think it's a little like death. It will always be there, you can't avoid it, and it will worry some people a lot more than others.

I'm just interested in helping subjectivists become objectivists. Is it a worry? In part. There seems a lot more polarization in the world today, that seems it might threaten humanity itself. (Obviously not audio though). I do think if we want science and reason to prevail, then it's a something we need to work on, because, in my experience, we're actually increasing the polarization of what I called "two camps". Personally, I feel the less distant from each other these camps may feel, the more they'll have a dialogue, rather than people close gates, pull up the drawbridge and turn out the lights. <- Okay that's a bit melodramatic, but you get the gist (I hope).

 

[MarkS]

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?

The cited article explicitly states that the amps were clipping.

Yes, you may be able to hear differences in amps run well outside their operating range.

If that's what Amir said (I'm not going to read the whole thread), then I agree.

But if the components are run within their design range, then differences are not audible under real-world listening conditions.

And by that I mean: speakers not headphones, and slow switching, of the type every subjective reviewer does: "I put THIS amp into my system, listened, and it sounded better than THAT amp that I had in before".

 

[Vacceo]

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?"

For some, perhaps, but for me, like to know what I like.

I lift weights, and I prefer deadlift because I have big legs, not so big arms. I prefer savory to sweet (so I cook accordingly) and I prefer essay to novel (hence I read more easy).

Conscious enjoyment is, IMO, better than mystified one.

 

[Steve H]

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.

I don’t particularly care that the camps are polarized. If I get my way the hobby will write off most of the audio press and the couple hundred thousand audiophiles dumb enough believe Bob Stuart offers anything to the audio world.

 

[Killingbeans]

I not sure that's always true. Certainly some audiophiles always suddenly complain about some aspect of the test.

I'v never seen conflicts arise from people questioning the usefulness of test results i relation to real life situations or personal preference. I do that myself all the time.

The real clusterf¤¤k situations happen when people express full on denial of the picture that the test results paint of reality.

For the audiophiles I know, they'll profess to wanting anything but transparency (better measuring) equipment.

All the more power to those people. May the hunt for their favorite flavour/coloration be fun and fruitful.

But I doubt the industry as a whole is focusing on that clientele. Everyting and anything is about "lifting veils", and that crap needs to go the way of the dodo, if you ask me.

Sure. But this is where objective help should come in. They need hand-holding to help understand the cause(s). Often objectivist help is just ranting at them.

True. But there's a fine line between being helpful and being patronizing. Oftentimes any attempt at giving insight will be taken as an insult.

"You can lead a horse to water...."

 

[Here2Learn]

I don’t particularly care that the camps are polarized. If I get my way the hobby will write off most of the audio press and the couple hundred thousand audiophiles dumb enough believe Bob Stuart offers anything to the audio world.

Well, even if we have differing opinions on some things, you have my wholehearted support regarding Bob Stuart and MQA.

 

[Here2Learn]

What do you think of this idea: It's better to use logic and and instill understanding of science BEFORE a person becomes an adherent rather than later. Yes/no? Jim

There's a lot of things I think people should be taught as early as possible.

Learning about inate biases and how to account for them to make reasoned deductions would be one.

If one takes the McGurk effect or that infamous blue-black / white-gold dress that took the internet by storm and showed kids these illusions and how human perception is fallible, we could then teach them of the need to logically and carefully use deduction and controlled study to assert truth. It would become ingrained in its importance, such that they'd apply it routinely. But equally, kids can have a sharp tongue, and it might make them too smart for their parents

As it is, you can get a PhD and never even have encountered psychological biases as a topic, and be none the wiser. I know my university taught about using proper references for evidence when writing articles, but they didn't cover psychological biases or human perception fallibility.

 

[Here2Learn]

And by that I mean: speakers not headphones, and slow switching, of the type every subjective reviewer does:

I had to read that twice. I was wondering about the slow twitching every subjective reviewer does.

 

[MattHooper]

I don’t particularly care that the camps are polarized. If I get my way the hobby will write off most of the audio press and the couple hundred thousand audiophiles dumb enough believe Bob Stuart offers anything to the audio world.

Release the hounds! Must remove things others like but I don't like!

 

[Steve H]

Release the hounds! Must remove things others like but I don't like!

So, I want to rid the world of .03% of the streaming paid subscription market. It isn’t even a rounding error.

Now a little history lesson. Audio was mainstream when I was a kid. Even the cheerleaders at my college (Oregon State) could tell the difference between AR-3s, JBL L100s and Advents. HiFi was advertised on TV. Now it is a niche hobby. Why? The subjective audio press drove the hobby out of the mainstream. So, if I want to clear a path to a cliff and watch the audio press go over the edge, while I sit in a comfy chair and sip iced tea why do you care?

 

[MattHooper]

Hi Steve H,

I was attempting to slightly "needle" your reply in a good-natured way. Of course you can wish for whatever you want, and enjoy whatever you want.

Now a little history lesson. Audio was mainstream when I was a kid. Even the cheerleaders at my college (Oregon State) could tell the difference between AR-3s, JBL L100s and Advents. HiFi was advertised on TV. Now it is a niche hobby. Why? The subjective audio press drove the hobby out of the mainstream.

I think that is likely to be a rather shallow or incomplete explanation for the status of "Hi Fi." There are likely all sorts of cultural and technological changes over the years that likely explain the changes in what people choose to spend their time on. It's not like the masses were all reading stereo enthusiast magazines, or that decent, affordable stereo equipment suddenly disappeared and became unavailable to anyone who wanted it, when those vile teeny little subjective magazines arose. Even today there's plenty of good, not too expensive audio gear which many people are buying. Most people looking for stereo equipment aren't buying based on TAS or whatever.

So, if I want to clear a path to a cliff and watch the audio press go over the edge, while I sit in a comfy chair and sip iced tea why do you care?

Well for one thing I quite enjoy some of the subjective audio press, and have for decades.

So do plenty of other people.

This reminds me of when I see some people declare things like 'vinyl has no reason to exist as a playback medium now that we have more accurate sources' or 'tube amps have no reason to exist or be produced at this stage in audio technology.' This occurs when one isn't thinking beyond one's own current likes and dislikes and goals. I and many others are frankly very happy those options still exist, as we enjoy them.

The question is: why would you want to remove MY choice, or anyone else's, in order to insert yours? If you don't care for, or get anything out of the subjective audio stuff, why not be part of offering an alternative for those who want it, rather than conjoining that to wanting the choice taken away from others and being gleeful to see that choice removed?

 

[MattHooper]

@Steve H has a point, though. When I was young, it wasn't that subjectivism was looked down on, it was that it didn't exist.

So ...... is subjectivism a cause, or is it an effect? And if it's an effect, then what caused it? If it's NOT an effect, then doesn't it have to be a cause?

Jim

Again, I think the issue would remain the extent of any such causal relationship in explaining people's audio equipment purchases over the years.

As to "subjectivism" when I was growing up I remember it was ultimately subjective assessment of gear - speakers in particular - often being used for purchases. Hearing what someone else owned, hearing what was offered in stores etc. Even my father, who was an audiophile of sorts, and the only "dad" I knew with piles of stereo magazines (the ones that contained lots of measurements, he wasn't reading any nascent TAS or Stereophile mags)...it was still going to local audio stores to hear gear that made the ultimate decision. Some of my fondest memories was being introduced to amazing sound, accompanying my father when he was going to make a purchase. (First time I heard Quad ESL 63s, blew my mind!) When I moved out and wanted my own stereo system - I couldn't afford much - I went to one of the big stores packed with different speakers to audition and select, just like my buddies did.

I'm sure there were plenty of people buying on whatever an audio mag rated some gear as well, or by the specs for gear. But it's not like subjective assessment of gear wasn't a thing back then too. (At least in my time: I'm 58).

 

[DonR]

Again, I think the issue would remain the extent of any such causal relationship in explaining people's audio equipment purchases over the years.

As to "subjectivism" when I was growing up I remember it was ultimately subjective assessment of gear - speakers in particular - often being used for purchases. Hearing what someone else owned, hearing what was offered in stores etc. Even my father, who was an audiophile of sorts, and the only "dad" I knew with piles of stereo magazines (the ones that contained lots of measurements, he wasn't reading any nascent TAS or Stereophile mags)...it was still going to local audio stores to hear gear that made the ultimate decision. Some of my fondest memories was being introduced to amazing sound, accompanying my father when he was going to make a purchase. (First time I heard Quad ESL 63s, blew my mind!) When I moved out and wanted my own stereo system - I couldn't afford much - I went to one of the big stores packed with different speakers to audition and select, just like my buddies did.

I'm sure there were plenty of people buying on whatever an audio mag rated some gear as well, or by the specs for gear. But it's not like subjective assessment of gear wasn't a thing back then too. (At least in my time: I'm 58).

Me too. I remember in the late 70's shopping for hi-fi for my older brother (I got his old stuff), speakers would always be chosen on sound, electronics on features.

 

[dtaylo1066]

We feed various forms of components, often with vanishingly low distortion levels, into speakers with all sorts of crossover, phase, frequency and distortion imperfections, and the speakers are placed in rooms with all sorts of acoustic imperfections. And a large percentage of recordings are produced like crap. At the final point of the hifi exercise an analog signal must be heard, and the point at which one hears that signal is the final judgement.

Throw on top of this the limits and irregularities in people's hearing, and the quest or need for signal purity becomes irrelevant after some point -- one could argue a senseless holy grail.

I doubt most ears could differentiate between a SINAD of 102 or 122, or be able to hear an ESS Hump. While that should not be a reason for shabby audio design, I think certain objective quibbles we have make no difference at the point of one's actual hearing of the signal. And there are some tests and arguments to be made that a certain percent of audio listeners prefer certain forms of distortion.

We say glass is transparent, but in reality it is not. At what point is the glass in your home's windows transparent enough for you?

 

[MattHooper]

So now that you know which type of radical "subjectivism" I'm discussing,

That's exactly the subjectivism I presumed you meant. That's why I referenced the subjective mags I'd expect you would include in that "cult."

As I understand it, the issue was whether those magazines actually had the effect of "driving the hobby" out of the mainstream.

If we are talking about "high end" audio gear it was never "mainstream" to begin with. So what effect did these "subjectivist cult" mags actually have on most people buying audio gear? Not much that I can see. Even people who wanted good audio gear tended to go out and check stuff out for themselves, rather than fully rely on either the measurement-oriented mags, much less the little, tiny subjective rags of the time.

I don't think it's a very good explanation for some mass abandonment of anything, or adoption of anything. If we are talking about actual mainstream behaviour, all sorts of changes in society, culture, technology will influence what people are doing and buying over some little niche audio rags.

 

[MarkS]

When I was young, it wasn't that subjectivism was looked down on, it was that it didn't exist.

How old are you? Stereophile was started by J. Gordon Holt in 1962, The Abso!ute Sound by Harry Pearson in 1973.

 

[MattHooper]

I was born in 1951, and bought my first stereo in 1967. Stereophile (and later TAS) weren't on the radar. It took them some years to have an effect on the mainstream consciousness .... at least, any effect that I noticed locally.

Not only that, but from what I've heard (and this is admittedly anecdotal) the earlier volumes of those two mags were not so subjectivist as they are now. I have no proof of that, though. The first Stereophile I read was in 1997. I can't remember when I read my first TAS, but it was my last. Probably around the same time.

Jim

I started reading (some) TAS issues in the 90's. Though Harry Pearson did have a way with words, I found the self importance to be almost cartoonish.
Built in to his pieces or reviews were constant snipes at others in the industry or anyone with a different opinion than Pearson.

I think my favorite TAS writer has been Robert E Greene. Sure he didn't have a Klippel on hand, but he did bring some level of technical knowledge and mathematical precision to his reviews, and was an early adopter of EQ to help achieve more neutral playback, when most audiophiles put garlic on their doors to keep that stuff out. Just as important for me as a reader: Greene always made it clear in his review why he'd singled out that product - what, in his view, was particular or special about it. Usually for something he saw as a technical advance or something that separated the product from the pack.

e.g.:

Gradient Revolution Active Loudspeaker - The Absolute Sound

Gradient Revolution Active Loudspeaker -

www.theabsolutesound.com

Whether one agreed ultimately with his assessment, the clarity of his writing and the direction of his reviews made for a good read, IMO.

 

[Ken1951]

I was born in 1951, and bought my first stereo in 1967. Stereophile (and later TAS) weren't on the radar. It took them some years to have an effect on the mainstream consciousness .... at least, any effect that I noticed locally.

Not only that, but from what I've heard (and this is admittedly anecdotal) the earlier volumes of those two mags were not so subjectivist as they are now. I have no proof of that, though. The first Stereophile I read was in 1997. I can't remember when I read my first TAS, but it was my last. Probably around the same time.

Jim

I was working in hifi when TAS first started. It was subjective, but not the crazy-woo it became. They reviewed a fair bit of "normal" and affordable stuff. Double Advents, Hafler, Phase Linear, ADC XLM, Grado cartridges, etc. It was an enjoyable read and it was passed around among all of us. It didn't take long for it to go totally coo-coo for cocoa puffs though. Also born in 1951, but didn't buy my first system until Spring of 1971.