Objectively Good Subjective Descriptions (Of Objectively Good Systems)

[Rob_Gordon]

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...

I thought (almost) everyone prefers linear speakers in ABX testing?

 

[fpitas]

I thought (almost) everyone prefers linear speakers in ABX testing?

That will entirely depend on the quality of recordings. You would have to do tests based on crappy recordings, which I doubt anyone has bothered to do.

 

[eddantes]

I think it's possible to describe the following things without venturing into the land of make believe:

If the speakers produced a good stereo effect that enveloped you.

If the speakers produced sufficient low end to adequately represent the program.

If the speakers produced sufficient volume without introducing odd noises - port noises, other vibrations.

If the speakers produced a neutral tonal balance that didn't draw attention to portion of the FR.

If the speakers fatigued you after a period of listening.

The rest I'm not sure can be adequately describe on subjective basis without starting to make shit up.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

I think it's possible to describe the following things without venturing into the land of make believe:

If the speakers produced a good stereo effect that enveloped you.

If the speakers produced sufficient low end to adequately represent the program.

If the speakers produced sufficient volume without introducing odd noises - port noises, other vibrations.

If the speakers produced a neutral tonal balance that didn't draw attention to portion of the FR.

If the speakers fatigued you after a period of listening.

The rest I'm not sure can be adequately describe on subjective basis without starting to make shit up.

Ok, interesting. So that's where you draw the line. Thank you.

 

[fpitas]

I think it's possible to describe the following things without venturing into the land of make believe:

If the speakers produced a good stereo effect that enveloped you.

If the speakers produced sufficient low end to adequately represent the program.

If the speakers produced sufficient volume without introducing odd noises - port noises, other vibrations.

If the speakers produced a neutral tonal balance that didn't draw attention to portion of the FR.

If the speakers fatigued you after a period of listening.

The rest I'm not sure can be adequately describe on subjective basis without starting to make shit up.

I agree. The only thing I'd add is detail retrieval, which depends on tonal balance, but also intermod.

 

[Chris A]

"I feel like I can distinguish the instruments in front of me" is not an opinion, is it?

Yes, it is--one that I've particularly found to be an unreliable indicator of loudspeaker/room acoustic performance--because of the variability of listener's abilities and experience.

Chris

 

[Matt_Holland]

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 like the thread title!

For me the only reference is Toole’s Sound Reproduction (even though I can’t be bothered to reference it here).

Our objective assessment of loudspeaker performance is derived from subjective consensus. Key parameters being lack of resonance and distortion, linear frequency response, loud and plenty of bass. How you describe those things is up to the individual.
Referring to Toole’s methodology would be the right way to find descriptions we should all use to give comparability of opinion.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Yes, it is--one that I've particularly found to be an unreliable indicator of loudspeaker/room acoustic performance--because of the variability of listener's abilities and experience.

Chris

Ok, now you're just affirming things like you're an authority and yet, you're not rigorous in your use of the word "opinion".
What is your definition of the term?

Are you refuting the existence of qualia? Do you not distinguish between "description of an external reality" and "description of one's own experience" ? If you do not, there's no need for us to keep talking, I suppose. If you do, please explain how it's compatible with your "opinion" frame.

(being an audio expert does not imply that one is also a language/meaning/thinking expert)

 

[fpitas]

I don't know your situation. But I'll say that people I have known that can't afford a great system, or have no room etc. buy good headphones. The cost is dramatically lower than good speakers and room treatments.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

I don't know your situation. But I'll say that people I have known that can't afford a great system, or have no room etc. buy good headphones. The cost is dramatically lower than good speakers and room treatments.

I think that is most often than not, a great advice. One I give myself around me, yes

 

[Chris A]

I'm sorry to have to say this...but this thread's topic appears to be yet another attempt to substitute subjective opinions for objective measurements. I would avoid feeding that if you're thinking about contributing something.

Also, I would recommend to the OP to acquire a copy of Toole's book, and read it from cover to cover--slowly, allowing the deep observations and thoughts of the author to seep into your own.

Chris

 

[Rob_Gordon]

I'm sorry to have to say this...but this thread's topic appears to be yet another attempt to substitute subjective opinions for objective measurements. I would avoid feeding that if you're thinking about contributing something.

Also, I would recommend to the OP to acquire a copy of Toole's book, and read it from cover to cover--slowly, allowing the deep observations and thoughts of the author to seep into your own.

Chris

LOL. This is so blatantly dishonest, I won't even try to explain again. You've proven the weakness of your takes by your incapability to answer my previous questions.

 

[HalSF]

Subjective descriptions of the experience of listening are objective. If honest and lucid, they’re objectively and accurately describing inner states and perceived sensations. But they’re also strictly in the realm of cognitive processing, of psychoacoustics and personal preference subject to a fluent mastery of descriptive, figurative language.

The problem, of course, is that these experiences are themselves subject to profound delusion, deceptive or imaginary perceptive coloration of measurable reality, and various other factors that undermine the validity of confident and authoritative characterization of external sonic facts.

The “sighted” part of the pitfalls of so-called sighted listening is misleading associative linking of hearing and belief. It’s the classic audiophile fallacy of attributing real or imagined elements of music playback to an amplifier, a speaker, a source component, or some ridiculously expensive cable, when these elements are simply an inherent part of the recording or simply nonexistent because the brain is a fool when it comes to audio.

 

[NTK]

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.

This is an example list from AES20.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Subjective descriptions of the experience of listening are objective. If honest and lucid, they’re objectively and accurately describing inner states and perceived sensations. But they’re also strictly in the realm of cognitive processing, of psychoacoustics and personal preference subject to a fluent mastery of descriptive, figurative language.

The problem, of course, is that these experiences are themselves subject to profound delusion, deceptive or imaginary perceptive coloration of measurable reality, and various other factors that undermine the validity of confident and authoritative characterization of external sonic facts.

The “sighted” part of the pitfalls of so-called sighted listening is misleading associative linking of hearing and belief. It’s the classic audiophile fallacy of attributing real or imagined elements of music playback to an amplifier, a speaker, a source component, or some ridiculously expensive cable, when these elements are simply an inherent part of the recording or simply nonexistent because the brain is a fool when it comes to audio.

thanks!

Reading your answer, I was wondering if'd be easier ton describe what constitutes a "bad" experience.

These experiences are subject to profound delusion, yes, but that is more or less true of... every experiences. I don't know if I'm optimistic or pessimistic about it. It seems that people have a really hard time understanding each other when they try to share experiences and the way people talk about art is, imo, extremely revealing how of much we're trapped in naive realism.

So, we can point out to everything that's unreliable, that's for sure. But I don't think that rule out the possibility to collectively build a regimen of signs that would help up characterize experiences in ways that are reliable.

Objectivity is built by interpersonal relationships. There's this fun passage in Wittgenstein's lessons on aesthetics where he basically says that the sine qua non condition for an aesthetic proposition (such as "this movie is great") to make sense is simply that the two persons exchanging said proposition know each other enough.

Objective meaning arise from the repetition of linguistic acts. Pragmatists would say the same. So, I suppose the question is, what is the common denominator and, from there, where can we go without breaking consensus?

 

[Spkrdctr]

It seems to me that this thread is on the edge. LSD use may be needed to get into it any deeper! Not that I have ever used LSD....

 

[Multicore]

At the end of the day we are all subjectivists. The ultimate purpose of the thing is to enjoy the music and the way to talk about that is subjectively. Scientific measurements are useful in steps towards that end but don't in themselves describe the experience when the system is finally put to use for entertainment.

So I'm with you on the general premise, @Rob_Gordon .

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

If there is "a proper way" to do that, one correct way, as opposed to, say, many possibly interesting ways, then it would surely be to not notice and not be interested in the system because it got out of your way and allows you to listen to the music. If a really neutral system, that doesn't add, subtract or distort, sounds different then it is surely because you're used to the sound of non-neutral systems. For example when you hear proper bass extension or a system well installed and adjusted to its environment to control room modes, what's different is not hearing the errors you are used to.

So I think perhaps you may have it backwards. What's really useful is to develop a common language of the subjective experience of defective sound, not one for really successful systems.

 

[DVinylfan]

Man's achievement is to have created a world of the mind, of the intellect and imagination, which is as real in its way as any actual country on the map. Sir Karl Popper, in one of his most important papers, calls it "the third world," or World Three. The first world is the objective world of things. The second world is my inner subjective world. But, says Popper, there is a third world, the world of objective contents of thoughts... Teilhard de Chardin called this "third world" the noösphere-the world of mind.

 

[Multicore]

I'm talking about an objective account of the subjective quality of experience.

Heterophenomenology?

 

[kemmler3D]

At the end of your post you ask for a checklist... I guess this is related to your SOTA /endgame question....

It's tricky to answer. You can go through a checklist and see if there is anything wrong with the sound, and to what extent.

It is harder to go through a checklist and decide if certain aspects of the sound are exceptional. Not impossible if you have more experience, but harder.

It is very difficult to go through a checklist and decide if each aspect of the sound is the best you've ever heard, (was it the room? The music? or the speaker?) and it's logically impossible to decide that anything is the best you will ever hear.