Killingbeans
Major Contributor
And if it's an effect, then what caused it?
Diminishing returns, IMO.
And if it's an effect, then what caused it?
Record deck and stylus was a very subjective part of the equation back then as well as the speakers. I agree the pre-amp/amp was, for me at least, spec based.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.
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.
I hope all you guys and gals who have been posting extensively here lately enjoy having such an accurate mental image of your own navels.
I think that this is part of the fault of the internet. I believe that these radicals always existed but they just did not have a place to speak the way they do with the internet. These people are controlled by other people who have craftily deceived them. It is hard for them to admit to anything else outside of this.You are absolutely correct, Matt. That's exactly how I chose my first two system, and possibly my third. For most people, it was the only way they had of choosing audio equipment, and dissatisfaction was (reasonably) rare.
However, that's not quite what I mean by the word "subjectivism". Nowadays, we have a certain type of "subjectivism" that is ..... well, a cult, for lack of a better word. It rejects any and all claims that measurements are necessary or applicable. When I was young, there was little access to measurements. If someone could find them, though, they were greatly appreciated, and would be pored over to no end. That doesn't happen in this cult-type subjectivism, though. The words "objective" and "measurements" are anathema to this section of the audio world. Their world is an "ears-only" world by enforced mandate, so to speak, and not by necessity. That didn't exist 50-60 years ago.
So now that you know which type of radical "subjectivism" I'm discussing, would you think that it is a cause or an effect? Did the radicals always exist, but just recently gain in power and numbers? Or did something else cause the radical anti-logic, anti-measurement and anti-science attitude that we see now?
Just wondering. Jim
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.
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.
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?
Remember the subjective audio press promoted MQA or was only willing to condemn it privately. Good old peer pressure. So, when I got involved to stop MQA in 2016 the first thing was to confirm the rumors about Meridian Audio’s finances, and spread actual financial information about MQA Ltd. Then point out the financial problems of Tidal. By late 2016 I had a pretty good model of the encoder and its problems. All that was left was to write MQA is Vaporware and start questioning the expertise and powers of observation of the subjective press because it doesn’t sound better. At the Los Angles Audio Show it was time to go after the subjective audio press and question their value to the hobby. Andy Quint of The Absolute Sound accused me of wanting to tear down the entire authority structure of high-end audio. He’s right.
“The We Who Oppose MQA Fraternity” as John Atkinson call us is probably the largest audio society in the world but is the Measure, Listen and Discuss Crowd. A 50/50 balance of measurements, consistent reference music and a let her rip subjective test. Archimago calls us Rational Audiophiles. With a clear implication that there are irrational audiophiles. So, I am part of the alternative. We can create a hobby with more objective audio enthusiasts but after the MQA fight there isn’t common ground with hardcore subjectivists.
Finally, Matt there are only properly designed amplifiers and amplifiers that aren’t.
I've been amazed at the almost religious level of passion some people have devoted to the MQA issue. It's not really my thing I have to admit.
But in any case, I'm left scratching my head as to the relevance. That hardly makes a case for the subjective rags having driven the hobby out of the mainstream. I'm still not even sure what that means. And...some little niche skirmish among some audiophiles, sometimes mentioned in niche magazines...somehow drove the hobby out of the mainstream? I'm an audiophile and even I barely paid attention to that stuff.
I've been amazed at the almost religious level of passion some people have devoted to the MQA issue. It's not really my thing I have to admit.
But in any case, I'm left scratching my head as to the relevance. That hardly makes a case for the subjective rags having driven the hobby out of the mainstream. I'm still not even sure what that means. And...some little niche skirmish among some audiophiles, sometimes mentioned in niche magazines...somehow drove the hobby out of the mainstream? I'm an audiophile and even I barely paid attention to that stuff.
All this talk about fighting! My goodness!
I don't see how the MQA stuff has anything to do with the long divide between "objective/subjective-based audiophiles." Looks the same to me now than it ever was. With the exception it seems to me more are coming on side with the relevance of measurements, and so..just my impression...I think more "newbies" are less likely to immediately accept audiophile snake oil. (I could be wrong though).
Well, I guess I'm not going to budge black and white views like that. But since I recognize people can have different goals, I disagree.
I'm very glad there is more choice in the world than it seems your views would allow for.
That includes the choice to enjoy an amp that isn't built to your defined standards, or sometimes to enjoy reading more subjective-oriented audio mags.
Or...gasp!..even enjoy trading purely subjective impressions of our systems with other audiophiles.
I prefer bridge-builders to bridge burners myself. I'm no no mission to take things away that you like; I have no idea why you make it a mission to take away things other people like.
...is apt. It's a mindset we need to have as objectivists. Education over alienation. Explanation over condescension. Helping individuals achieve desired results, rather than citing facts that seem un-relatable for the individual and that they don't know what to do with.I prefer bridge-builders to bridge burners myself.
IMO, both recently discussed viewpoints have valid points.
If you are in the recording side of things, MQA is counter to retaining quality. Since it is a closed system that actually does seem to be lossy, the control over what the customer gets becomes an unknown depending on where any MQA encoding is applied. So it's an assault on the ability to create a known quality/standard of recording. If it generally lowers quality, then why would anybody want it?
Where this enters the objectivist/subjectivist side of things is that the audio press seem to promote MQA as producing nicer/preferable sound quality to their 'golden' ears. This is demonstrably wrong when objectively reviewed and measured. While I advocate that an end user can and should be permitted to alter the sound to suit their preference, MQA is in essence being a preference of one man, hoisted on to everybody else. If it was objectively and indisputably proved it improved the recording chain, or the replay chain, it would have merit and potential wider buy-in. But it does neither.
Since the audiophile press are somewhat complicit in MQA's promotion, they are also complicit in assisting one man override the will of all the recording engineers and listeners who realize that it objectively has nothing to offer. Meanwhile, the subjectivists buying in to it are creating a demand for MQA encoded music. If they prefer it, it's likely to do with psychological priming.
In terms of fighting/battles/conflict between objectivists and subjectivist - it comes from the same place as all forms of conflict: the overriding of your own will with that another (be it an individual or organization) such that you're unwillingly compelled down a particular route.
In this instance, we have MQA (Bob Stuart) and the subjective audio press seeming to do exactly that.
The opposite view is that there simply exists the option to avoid MQA and therefore this is just another sound 'flavoring' that one can adopt or reject. However, that might be a simplistic view if you're just a consumer and not aware of what is happening within recording studios, or with their relationships with streaming services, to be aware of how much 'pushing' of MQA there may (or may not) be.
People's position/opinion on MQA will vary depending on personal situation or audio-related job, awareness of the MQA impact, preferences, examinations of objective evidences, and their own value judgments. If they leverage and use objective data, they are likely against it. If they tend to be subjective and primed by the audiophile press, they're likely for it.
When it comes to MQA, as with any subjectivist thinking borne of psychological biases and lack of objective testing, we need to NOT go to the extent of calling it a battle/conflict between objectivists and subjectivists, as it breeds a them-vs-us mentality with antipathy, apathy and ignorance or failing to understand alternate perspectives. In this respect, I think ...
...is apt. It's a mindset we need to have as objectivists. Education over alienation. Explanation over condescension. Helping individuals achieve desired results, rather than citing facts that seem un-relatable for the individual and that they don't know what to do with.
In the case of MQA, the online examinations from Archimago and Golden Sound on the matter are educational, but need wider reading/viewing among subjectivists who may then wish to test more objectively to see if they were hoodwinked. Our job is done once they are motivated to jump on that 'test what the reality is' train.
Gordon Holt created a new vocabulary to describe sound. And would eventually publish a glossary of audio terms.@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
I noticed something interesting lately watching YT reviews of Chinese DACs with those 7 filter modes (slow rolloff, fast rolloff, etc). In every review I've seen so far, not a single reviewer seemed to hear any differences between the filter modes. I find that very strange because the rest of the videos invariably go into great detail about how there's X, Y, and Z subtle or not-so-subtle differences between the DAC under review and some other DACs. Isn't that odd? Those filters are explicitly designed to produce audible differences, and the "golden ears" reviewers can't distinguish between any of them. Huh.
Rather expensive, the dac3 Rich?You can test this at home by having someone switch them.
I just go with the most extended, fast roll-off linear filter available.
The Benchmark DAC3 implemented their own filter. That may not matter, but it does sound good.
- Rich
Rather expensive, the dac3 Rich?
I'm pleased for you Rich. If my Qutest fails, I might consider an RME product. Certainly, at the moment the DAC3 is cheaper than most other Chord dac's. RME cheaper again.More expensive than some, and less than others.
I am happy with the purchase.
- Rich
I think you are missing my point. My point was that it's hard to believe reviewers can hear significant differences in the sound profile between different DACs, but can't seem to hear the measurable differences between different filters in the very same DAC. Isn't that weird? Someone explain to me how that works, because it would lead me to believe they are just full of placebo.You can test this at home by having someone switch them.
I just go with the most extended, fast roll-off linear filter available.
The Benchmark DAC3 implemented their own filter. That may not matter, but it does sound good.
- Rich
Cognitive biasI think you are missing my point. My point was that it's hard to believe reviewers can hear significant differences in the sound profile between different DACs, but can't seem to hear the measurable differences between different filters in the very same DAC. Isn't that weird? Someone explain to me how that works, because it would lead me to believe they are just full of placebo.