Objectively Good Subjective Descriptions (Of Objectively Good Systems)

[Rob_Gordon]

Among subjective descriptions, there is a spectrum from worst to best. I know that not everyone here agrees, but I believe like some of you that the best subjective descriptions are actually useful.

If I were trying to describe what if feels like to swim and I said that substance called water is raspy on the skin, it would be an objectively terrible subjective description (and not just a terrible subjective description, since objectivity can be built through consensus).

Only numbers are absolutely objective. From the moment you use a word, you risk the subjective perspective.

There are tons of audiophile subjective terms that are awful. Clichés that don’t mean anything, or that are just marketing tools. Of course.

But there must also be a proper ways to describe what it feels like to experiment a SOTA system.

I ask, because, as I was posting this thread looking for help, I realized that since I have no means, around me, to experiment high end systems, it’s incredibly hard to assess mine (or my friends’).

Speakers have all sorts of different qualities/capacities that are measurable. How do they translate in the experience?

Do we have a sort of frame/template of « what a SOTA hifi listening experience should feel like » ?

(I know it depends A LOT on recordings. If the source is of poor quality, no system is gonna make up for it. So « all things being equal… ». EDIT : and of course it depends on the room. So "all things, really ALL things being equal..." )

Like, something of a list with box to check, you could take it with you when you go to showrooms and it would guide you through all the demos.

I don't believe in "trust your ears". I think every sense can benefit from training, focused/guided experiences.

 

[Mort]

linear frequency response, controlled dispersion, desired bass extension, sufficient amplification

 

[fpitas]

(I know it depends A LOT on recordings. If the source is of poor quality, no system is gonna make up for it. So « all things being equal… »)

The room is very important. People pretend that a good speaker can sound great in a bad room, but I'm highly skeptical.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

linear frequency response, controlled dispersion, desired bass extension, sufficient amplification

hey, I don't think you've read/understood my message.

I was asking for a (rigorous) subjective account of the listening experience. Not for a bunch of objective terms.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

The room is very important. People pretend that a good speaker can sound great in a bad room, but I'm highly skeptical.

Obviously. That goes without saying. I thought it was implied by my "all things being equal". I'll add it.

 

[fpitas]

Obviously. That goes without saying. I thought it was implied by my "all things being equal". I'll add it.

All things aren't equal quite often, though. I listened to Revel Salon2s in a very reflective room. It was ok, but confusing and disturbing too. The store finally installed some room damping and they (of course) sounded excellent.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

All things aren't equal quite often, though. I listened to Revel Salon2s in a very reflective room. It was ok, but confusing and disturbing too. The store finally installed some room damping and they (of course) sounded excellent.

well, in a thought experiments, they should be absolutely equal

 

[Mort]

hey, I don't think you've read/understood my message.

I was asking for a (rigorous) subjective account of the listening experience. Not for a bunch of objective terms.

Yeah I kinda figured. You might try explaining again. It's far from clear.

 

[Keith_W]

I was asking for a (rigorous) subjective account of the listening experience. Not for a bunch of objective terms.

I'll try.

"These speakers do not so much play music as exhale it, like some benevolent creature roused from slumber. Its first notes unfurl with the languid grace of silk banners caught in a warm Mediterranean breeze. There is no sense of cones, coils, or crossovers - only a continuous ribbon of sound, as though the speaker has negotiated a private treaty with the air itself. The treble shimmers like a fine mist of silver filigree, simply present in the way starlight is present - a natural condition rather than an engineered feature".

 

[fpitas]

I'll try.

"These speakers do not so much play music as exhale it, like some benevolent creature roused from slumber. Its first notes unfurl with the languid grace of silk banners caught in a warm Mediterranean breeze. There is no sense of cones, coils, or crossovers - only a continuous ribbon of sound, as though the speaker has negotiated a private treaty with the air itself. The treble shimmers like a fine mist of silver filigree, simply present in the way starlight is present - a natural condition rather than an engineered feature".

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Yeah I kinda figured. You might try explaining again. It's far from clear.

Really?

I'm saying some subjective descriptions are more esoteric/mysterious than anything else. There are obscure or limpid ways to describe one's experience. Talking about "musicality" doesn't say much. Saying "the sound should seem to come from around the speakers and not the speakers", is a really simple way to establish an "objective subjective criteria" for instance.

 

[Chris A]

But there must also be a proper ways to describe what it feels like to experiment a SOTA system.

How quickly we seem to forget some of the most basic information that is a cornerstone of this web site. If you simply look at Toole's book (any edition), you will see the requirements derived from multidimensional scaling (including room acoustics and the need for blind testing) and the "calibrated" subjective ratings scales--using Likert scaling methods and vetting the ears of those that are doing the ratings--to turn subjective opinions into objective data. I'll not waste everyone's time rehashing this, since I believe a very high percentage of readers here also own some form of that book.

Having said that, I am aware that no engineers really produce new or loudspeaker designs without listening to them and forming subjective opinions. It takes both measurement data and subjective opinions to produce effective designs. And as Toole mentioned...

"...it will be shown that loudspeakers are the single most important element in sound reproduction. Electronic devices, analog and digital, are also in the signal paths, but it is not difficult to demonstrate that in competitively designed products, any effects they may have are small if they are not driven into gross distortion or clipping. In fact, their effects are usually vanishingly small compared to the electro-acoustical and acoustical factors" F. Toole, 2018, Sound Reproduction the Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, 3rd ed., chap. 1.6, pg 16.

And yes, I am a little disturbed by how quickly the replies seem to come in some threads here, which is an indicator (at least to me) of how little thought is actually going into answering questions or even clarifying the originating questions...

Chris

 

[Rob_Gordon]

I'll try.

"These speakers do not so much play music as exhale it, like some benevolent creature roused from slumber. Its first notes unfurl with the languid grace of silk banners caught in a warm Mediterranean breeze. There is no sense of cones, coils, or crossovers - only a continuous ribbon of sound, as though the speaker has negotiated a private treaty with the air itself. The treble shimmers like a fine mist of silver filigree, simply present in the way starlight is present - a natural condition rather than an engineered feature".

well, so much for "rigorous"! but at least, it was funny.

 

[fpitas]

Among subjective descriptions, there is a spectrum from worst to best. I know that not everyone here agrees, but I believe like some of you that the best subjective descriptions are actually useful.

If I were trying to describe what if feels like to swim and I said that substance called water is raspy on the skin, it would be an objectively terrible subjective description (and not just a terrible subjective description, since objectivity can be built through consensus).

Only numbers are absolutely objective. From the moment you use a word, you risk the subjective perspective.

There are tons of audiophile subjective terms that are awful. Clichés that don’t mean anything, or that are just marketing tools. Of course.

But there must also be a proper ways to describe what it feels like to experiment a SOTA system.

I ask, because, as I was posting this thread looking for help, I realized that since I have no means, around me, to experiment high end systems, it’s incredibly hard to assess mine (or my friends’).

Speakers have all sorts of different qualities/capacities that are measurable. How do they translate in the experience?

Do we have a sort of frame/template of « what a SOTA hifi listening experience should feel like » ?

(I know it depends A LOT on recordings. If the source is of poor quality, no system is gonna make up for it. So « all things being equal… ». EDIT : and of course it depends on the room. So "all things, really ALL things being equal..." )

Like, something of a list with box to check, you could take it with you when you go to showrooms and it would guide you through all the demos.

I don't believe in "trust your ears". I think every sense can benefit from training, focused/guided experiences.

I use headphones as a sanity check on my speakers. Sure, they don't have the soundstage etc, but everything should still be there in the right proportions. I guess I don't expect magic so much as accuracy.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

How quickly we seem to forget some of the most basic information that is a cornerstone of this web site. If you simply look at Toole's book (any edition), you will see the requirements derived from multidimensional scaling (including room acoustics and the need for blind testing) and the "calibrated" subjective ratings scales--using Likert scaling methods and vetting the ears of those that are doing the ratings--to turn subjective opinions into objective data. I'll not waste everyone's time rehashing this, since I believe a very high percentage of readers here also own some form of that book.

Having said that, I am aware that no engineers really produce new or loudspeaker designs without listening to them and forming subjective opinions. It takes both measurement data and subjective opinions to produce effective designs. And as Toole mentioned...



And yes, I am a little disturbed by how quickly the replies seem to come in some threads here, which is an indicator (at least to me) of how little thought is actually going into answering questions or even clarifying the originating questions...

Chris

Some of what you said is based on knowledge I do not master so I can't say I understood everything but I just wanted to make one thing clear:

I am NOT talking about subjective OPINIONS.

I'm talking about an objective account of the subjective quality of experience.
I can objectively distinguish from the subjective experiences of being wet or dry. These are subjective experiences, and yet, we can objectively qualify them. That's all I meant.

 

[Cote Dazur]

a proper ways to describe what it feels like to experiment a SOTA system.

Is there such a thing as a SOTA system. we hear people talking about the elusive concept, but does it really exist?
To me it is like the SOTA amplifier, it is SOTA because of the specs, but a human cannot hear the difference because even if the spec were 10 rimes worst, it would sound exactly the same if cognitive bias is not involved.

it’s incredibly hard to assess mine (or my friends’).

When I was, a long time ago, participating and hosting, what we called musical evening, with friends and acquaintance, in our respective homes, we did not have SOTA, but we had a great time, as we all end up with a different approach, did one of us had a SOTA system, maybe, we usually end up preferring our own system anyway, as it was the one closer to our priorities.
Maybe, assessing SOTA is not that important.

 

[Chris A]

I am NOT talking about subjective OPINIONS.

Then you are arguing the existence of a null set. All subjective observations, when applied to audio systems, are opinions. And these opinions will spread out over time to encapsulate certain identifiable groups of opinions, based on the group's listening characteristics and beliefs.

Chris

 

[fpitas]

Maybe, assessing SOTA is not that important.

Or even disappointing. You may have old speakers that aren't real accurate but take the sharp corners from the music you listen to. SOTA speakers will illustrate every wart on the recordings. Caveat emptor...

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Is there such a thing as a SOTA system. we hear people talking about the elusive concept, but does it really exist?
To me it is like the SOTA amplifier, it is SOTA because of the specs, but a human cannot hear the difference because even if the spec were 10 rimes worst, it would sound exactly the same if cognitive bias is not involved.

When I was, a long time ago, participating and hosting, what we called musical evening, with friends and acquaintance, in our respective homes, we did not have SOTA, but we had a great time, as we all end up with a different approach, did one of us had a SOTA system, maybe, we usually end up preferring our own system anyway, as it was the one closer to our priorities.
Maybe, assessing SOTA is not that important.

ahaha yeah, you're right. SOTA obsession comes from FOMO ahaha.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Then you are arguing the existence of a null set. All subjective observations, when applied to audio systems, are opinions. And these opinions will spread out over time to encapsulate certain identifiable groups of opinions, based on the group's listening characteristics and beliefs.

Chris

I'm not sure what you mean by "opinion", then.
When one qualifies their own subjective experience, I don't see why the term would apply.

"I feel like I can distinguish the instruments in front of me" is not an opinion, is it? It's the description of one's own experience. In my book, an opinion has to imply a take on an external reality.

Nothing external in the description of "how it feels".