Subjectivist’s rant debunked

[Sal1950]

I'm sure old mate is working his way through Harley Lovers at a fair rate of knots. We all know technical performance is the only measure of potential satisfaction with a consumer product, and the geriatric/overweight retro-bike is surely the fastest around the Nordschleife. The numbers don't lie.

*where "fastest" = faster than a Trabant ...
**reading on paper of course, why go digital?
***there were some nice Harley racers back in the day, iirc

Why don't you quit acting like a fool and quit talking about shit you know nothing about.
NP really, you just went on my ignore list and and I'll never hear another stupid comment you make.
By wanker.

 

[MattHooper]

I put this comment under DeVore's video:

"The fist thing "science" says about audio is that your observations of sound in uncontrolled setting, with your eyes involved is wrong. That is easily proven and is part and parcel of human perception. So no matter what is wrong with science of measurement, you can be sure that the substitute cannot be the subjective experiences you promote. To wit, who says you made the right decision in having a worse frequency response in your speaker? You are the designer with who knows what hearing ability to determine that. The test would have been a blind, level matched one to determine if that correction was needed or not. You know, when only the sound is heard and evaluated. NOT knowing that one position of crossover switch says this and another says that. Just run that test. It should take just a few minutes. Invite a few audiophiles over, don't tell them what you are doing and run a trial 10 times and see if you get 9 times in favor of your preferred setting.

That is how we do audio science. Remember, if your brain can manufacture a band sitting in front of you from two speakers, it is quite capable of fooling you in other ways! As to measurements, we apply science of psychoacoustics to them. Then we can determine audibility. And measurements as far as what I perform at ASR, are a full suite, not one signal as you imply."

I just re-watched a lot of Devore's video, and Amir nailed what, to me as well, stuck out most in the rant. John is talking about how science works, but is making the very "subjectivist" mistake of getting things backwards: Assuming that the subjective impressions are some reliable set of facts first, that science then "has to catch up to."
This is the mindset of just every bit of woo-woo and pseudo-scientific thinking. "My psychic reading was so accurate...maybe some day science will catch up and explain these facts." As Amir points out, if you are actually thinking scientifically, FIRST you want to establish WITH GOOD SCIENCE that there is a "there" there to begin with.

Also, John seemed to be railing at some strawmen in terms of what is said about "one set of measurements telling you everything" (I suspect he's thinking of SINAD as one such target). This is one reason why I think it's often counterproductive to make rants that generalize about "some people" you aren't identifying. Because often enough it's just a strawman, and not giving specific examples means nobody can know if you've characterized what you are critiquing fairly, to begin with.

 

[Sal1950]

This is the mindset of just every bit of woo-woo and pseudo-scientific thinking. "My psychic reading was so accurate...maybe some day science will catch up and explain these facts." As Amir points out, if you are actually thinking scientifically, FIRST you want to establish WITH GOOD SCIENCE that there is a "there" there to begin with.

Your finally catching on Matt, good for you.

 

[Sal1950]

They gotta put almost naked chicks in the Harley mags if they want their demographic to buy.

Another idiotic post having nothing to do with this website, the science of audio, or me personally.
But Congratulations, I just flushed you down the IGNORE toilet too.
BYE

 

[computer-audiophile]

Some can dish it out better than they can take it.

 

[Sal1950]

Some can dish it out better than they can take it.

You too?
Do you wish to discuss audio or just be an idiot trying to make personal insults
that have no application.
I can just as easily add you to the ignore list.

 

[computer-audiophile]

That's why I am a tablet and Kindle reader these days. Also has the advantage you don't need a reading light in bed - and I read at least half an hour every night before I am ready to sleep. Lifelong ritual. But I simply have zero more room for stuff. I am totally bought into minimalist environment, kind of pseudo Japanese or Scandinavian.

Warning: if you read in bed, holding a largish tablet can give you RSI (aka a mild "tennis elbow"), so watch posture and weight. That's why I like a Kindle Paperwhite or such. But the Kindle doesn't do colorful magazines well.

From a purely rational point of view, that's completely understandable. You probably end up reading more and more about screens over time. In fact, I've already reached this stage when I think about my screen time.

Incidentally, I'm also more the tidy type and don't like it when too many things pile up. An art-loving friend who knows our flat said to us yesterday that she was a bit intimidated by how minimalist, artistic and organised everything was in our home. I'm also a big fan of the classic Japanese aesthetic, but I haven't implemented it directly.

I only use my tablet when I'm travelling, otherwise I like real books and read a few pages in bed at night before my eyes fall shut.

In the case of the Japanese edition of MJ, it would be helpful if it were available in digital form, because then I could just have it translated automatically.

 

[Koeitje]

Certainly you don't need to put yourself in any category you don't care for.

But I'd point out that even if someone is ok with some coloration, it does not entail that they don't care about the recordings, or that the result "is not even close to what was put on the disc."

The sonic information on most discs are audible among a range of loudspeaker designs.

People here are excoriating the Devores, for instance. But I compared them to tons of different speakers, including some ASR beloved speakers, and what I heard was pretty much all the information I heard on the other speakers. I would never characterize it as "not even close" to what was put on the disc. This is audiophile hair-splitting, IMO.

ETA:

I like the quotes under your screen name:

"Human beings are poor examiners, subject to superstition, bias, prejudice and a profound tendency to see what they want to see rather than what is really there." - M. Scott Peck


"Man does not see reality as it is, but only as he perceives it, and his perception may be mistaken or biased." - Rudolf Dreikurs

I think it's good to keep in mind this is an issue anywhere humans are reasoning...and that it can show up in forum discussions as anywhere else, including me, and including those who believe they are "just arguing for the science."

Objectively speaking they are not even close to what was put on the disc. We can just look at the audio file (or grooves pressed into the vinyl) and see what frequencies are in there and at what level. If a speaker doesn't produces those within a reasonable offset of those values (lets say +/-3dB) then its not even close. The speaker you are talking about has offsets far in excess of that.

Doesn't mean you cannot like a speaker that does that. We all know what the general preference is of the majority of people, but perhaps you fall in that 5% of people that don't. All I know is that I've heard a ton of speakers and what I found interesting is how I felt about speakers way before I got into the actual science behind sound reproductions. I still have a mental list of speakers I liked and didn't like back then. And years later when I saw measurements of said speakers they pretty much aligned with how I felt back in the days I had no clue. All the speakers I really didn't like had pretty ****** measurements, and those I felt were pretty good had ok to great measurements.

 

[computer-audiophile]

And years later when I saw measurements of said speakers they pretty much aligned with how I felt back in the days I had no clue. All the speakers I really didn't like had pretty ****** measurements, and those I felt were pretty good had ok to great measurements.

This is roughly in line with my experience. I also found it funny that some conventional speakers that I happen to have owned for a long time were later rated as good or ok by Amir.

 

[Moonbase]

This is roughly in line with my experience. I also found it funny that some conventional speakers that I happen to have owned for a long time were later rated as good or ok by Amir.

Yes that make sense to me and I include Erin in my findings.

Being from the UK and one particular standout was Focal Aria 906 which he stated cost around $2000 in the US, needless to say Erin was not impressed. In the uk it can be found for around $1000-$1200 equiv. and while not perfect got the OK from me based on the UK price.

 

[MattHooper]

Your finally catching on Matt, good for you.

Thanks Sal.

But if you thought otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Axo1989]

Some can dish it out better than they can take it.

Not much more to it than that really.

 

[MattHooper]

Objectively speaking they are not even close to what was put on the disc. We can just look at the audio file (or grooves pressed into the vinyl) and see what frequencies are in there and at what level. If a speaker doesn't produces those within a reasonable offset of those values (lets say +/-3dB) then its not even close. The speaker you are talking about has offsets far in excess of that.

Except the characterization of "not even close to what was put on the disc" is your subjective assessment, and I find it to be well in to the "extreme audiophile exaggeration" territory, based on my actual experience listening to the speaker. (As audiophiles, we all tend to do this, not just you). There's your interpretation strictly of the measurements, and then there is what one will actually hear from the speaker. I do not find they map very well. When I get around to a New Speaker Hunt I'm a no-stone-left-unturned type. So I auditioned probably around 25 - 30 loudspeakers, all with a wide variety of music, including the reference tracks I've used for decades. One day I'd spend hours testing out a Revel, Magico or Kii Audio speaker, the next I'd be listening to those same tracks again on the Devores. Far from the Devores being "not even close" to presenting what was in the recordings...everything was there - all the sonic images, their familiar spatial relationships, all the teeniest details from tiniest bits of reverb, recordings I knew to have a bit of coarseness in the sibilince showed that...I heard everything on the Devores that I heard on a Revel or other speakers. So I do find your characterisation to be quite misleading in terms of the actual sonic results with music.

But then, I've actually spent a lot of time listening to the speakers, set up well; it doesn't seem the critics in this thread have.

It's one thing to say "THIS is how we want a speaker to measure and it will sound good, so we will downgrade a speaker that does not measure well in that respect." It's another thing to answer the question from the measurements: "Ok, but tell me from the measurements: What will that speaker sound like?"

And so far I've seen what I find to be a pretty poor job in that respect.

We've got Keith likening Devore speakers to sounding like a kazoo. We've got Sal imagining "screetching" sounding string instruments (furthest thing from how they actually sounded). We have you implying the sound will be "nothing like" what was on the recording. We've got others just dismissing them as "crap." None of this tracks with what I heard. Is it that I just have no idea, no experience from which to judge the sound? Well, I work in post production sound, paying close attention to sound for a living. I'm familiar with professional gear. I work in mixing studios costing millions of dollars set up with acousticians. I've heard a gazzillion loudspeakers, including ones that measure nutty and those that measure neutral, I've owned neutral speakers, I've had set ups with dual subs, room corrected. So, yeah, I do have a reference. I know when something is departing from neutral, but can also assess for myself whether I'm noting pervasive artifacts or not, distracting, or if there is something I find interesting going on in the sound.

Sal thinks, from the standpoint of never having heard the speakers, that John Atkinson was being innacurate and soft peddling what he actually heard when listening to the Devores after measuring. JA wrote:

"Even though I knew about the low-treble resonance and the lively enclosure, these problems were considerably less audible than I was expecting. Only with recordings of solo acoustic piano did they get in the way of the music by producing noticeable coloration, the piano's midrange sounding uneven, with some notes obscured. But with well-recorded rock and classical vocal recordings, the measured problems seemed to step into the background, letting me appreciate the O/96's full-range, evenly balanced sound and superb clarity."

Having heard the speakers I find JA is bang on. The anomolies were occasional, but mostly not obvious and what was there was just as JA described - superb clarity, full range sound, and a generally even balance - they sounded full but not "unbalanced," which I found very impressive. In the Subjective section, Art Dudley also did an excellent job zeroing in on some of the sonic attributes of music played through these speakers (which triangulates very well with many other reviewers and owner descriptions). In the end, I find the combination of measurements AND Stereophile's willingness to not just write off a speaker, but actually try to describe how it sounds, to be more informative (and less misleading!) than what I'm seeing here from the ASR crowd, who are too dismissive to bother with such things.

 

[Purité Audio]

We will all try a little harder Matt to live up to your expectations , I think I could live with a pair obviously not for solo piano,

Keith

 

[Sal1950]

We will all try a little harder Matt to live up to your expectations , I think I could live with a pair obviously not for solo piano,

Keith

Matt's a big fan of vinyl, I don't think he listens to much solo piano.

 

[MattHooper]

Matt's a big fan of vinyl, I don't think he listens to much solo piano.

I'm more about cowbell and bongos.



(Though quite enjoy solo piano on vinyl, as well as digital)

 

[mhardy6647]

1) I'd guess there are about 100-200 thousand audiophiles. So, 8 billion people...about 0.00025%?

So... when I do the arithmetic, I get: 2E5/8E9 =0.000025 = 0.0025% = 25 ppm

Another way to think about this: the world that we live in is 99.9975% audiophile free.
Therefore...

Yes, we can stamp out audiophilia nervosa in your lifetime! Please give whatever you can!

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, we can stamp out audiophilia nervosa in your lifetime! Please give whatever you can!

Where do I sent the check?

The guy on TV asked me to send my money to the Lord.
But then he gave me his home South Carolina address. ???

 

[Koeitje]

Except the characterization of "not even close to what was put on the disc" is your subjective assessment,

The generally accepted range for somewhat accurate reproduction by loudspeakers is +/-3dB. So anything that doesn't meet those requirements cannot be considered to provide a somewhat accurate reproduction. If you are even going to argue about the generally accepted standard in the industry then the rest of you post is not even worth responding to.

 

[pablolie]

The generally accepted range for somewhat accurate reproduction by loudspeakers is +/-3dB. So anything that doesn't meet those requirements cannot be considered to provide a somewhat accurate reproduction. If you are even going to argue about the generally accepted standard in the industry then the rest of you post is not even worth responding to.

Kind of an interesting because there have been passionate objectivist battles fought over smaller differences than that in speakers, though. And I am not about to revisit those ever. :-D