The best way to bring audio enthusiasts from the dark side and see the light?

[litemotiv]

I've never been to a hi-fi show where all the systems sounded good. Usually there's a few that sound very good, a few that are acceptable, and lots (usually the most expensive ones) that are badly flawed.

Maybe it's just like whiskeys and coffee etc where the 'connoisseurs' swear that an expensive niche product is exquisite but to normal people it just tastes like cat piss (or poo).

 

[DanielT]

Isn’t the exact opposite the goal?

It was mostly meant as a joke.Just a play of words, light and darkness. Though, the proverb ( do not know if it exists in other countries), I think fits:

"A candle goes up", "a Liljeholmens is lit" (manufacturer of candles), "a Luma is lit" - all expressions mean that you suddenly understand, see a context or the solution to a problem.

However, if you do not see a problem, no candles will be lit.. There are stories about those who were Hifi subjectivists, but a Luma is lit
, and they became objectivists. That the opposite happens is probably more unusual, I can guess. Though I do not hang out on such subjectivist Hifi forums so I do not know.

Everyone is blessed in their own faith. People get to believe what they want, of course.

 

[litemotiv]

Everyone is blessed in their own faith. People get to believe what they want, of course

There is a strong philosophical case to be made as well against the value of subjectivism, here is a short but well worded argument presented by Timothy Fortin, who is the chair of Philosophical Theology at Seton Hall University:

 

[voodooless]

It was mostly meant as a joke.Just a play of words, light and darkness.

I prefer to teach other how to find the light switch, or even better, how to install the whole lighting setup. Just bringing light has never made anyone the wiser.

 

[DanielT]

I prefer to teach other how to find the light switch, or even better, how to install the whole lighting setup. Just bringing light has never made anyone the wiser.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

There is a strong philosophical case to be made as well against the value of subjectivism, here is a short but well worded argument presented by Timothy Fortin, who is the chair of Philosophical Theology at Seton Hall University:

Interesting.
What he describes is extreme, when people can not communicate with each other. Fortunately, people do that in reality, communicate, understand each other, cooperate and so on. Of course, misunderstandings and misinterpretations happen all the time.

_________
Another tip:

 

[kongwee]

Many people can setup monitor, audio inference, mic and headphone. Compare spec to spec. Able to produce music or video. There will be a geographically shift in audiophile in future. Just look at Genelec studio monitors. When do you heard they were just for music playback back than decade ago.

 

[Mart68]

Maybe it's just like whiskeys and coffee etc where the 'connoisseurs' swear that an expensive niche product is exquisite but to normal people it just tastes like cat piss (or poo).

Yes, but sometimes it can be disconcerting. I'm thinking of one show where some large multi-way horns with SET amps was being demonstrated. Maybe 20 people in the room including a long-serving magazine reviewer and some other self-confessed golden ear types.

I thought it sounded terrible, and no doubt it measured terribly, but everyone else there thought it was wonderful. . That's why. or one of the reasons why, there's never going to be any sort of consensus on the approach to good sound, and why some people will dismiss out of hand the assertion that good measurement = good sound.

We're not all chasing the same rainbow.

 

[voodooless]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I guess usually those horse get brought to the slaughterhouse

 

[litemotiv]

What he describes is extreme, when people can not communicate with each other. Fortunately, people do that in reality, communicate, understand each other, cooperate and so on. Of course, misunderstandings and misinterpretations happen all the time.

But is it really extreme? For instance:

When we have a discussion with another person, are we really talking and perhaps upset about the same things, or are we both in our own bubbles sending messages across about different aspects of reality?

When you say to someone "this amp is bad" and you mean because of it's measured SINAD, and the other person says "no this amp is good" because they like how the distortion colors the sound, then the discussion is ultimately pointless. If your goal is to find truth and solutions to common problems in a shared reality, then you have to make sure you are talking about the same things. That is why subjectivity is an enemy of effective communication.

So while it can work in a practical sense to only share a reality in estimation, for instance by saying 'i believe in my god and you believe in yours, and that's okay', this means that the basis for your concept of reality will radically differ from mine. And from that basis rise all sorts of other frictions and battles, such as questions about what is right or wrong, topics that have so much implications that people are willing to go to war over them, and submit or even kill each other.

This all starts from the very beginning, whether you have a shared goal of defining an objective reality and an objective truth as much as possible, so that conflicts can be avoided and harmony is most likely to occur.

 

[DanielT]

But is it really extreme? For instance:

When we have a discussion with another person, are we really talking and perhaps upset about the same things, or are we both in our own bubbles sending messages across about different aspects of reality?

When you say to someone "this amp is bad" and you mean because of it's measured SINAD, and the other person says "no this amp is good" because they like how the distortion colors the sound, then the discussion is ultimately pointless. If your goal is to find truth and solutions to common problems in a shared reality, then you have to make sure you are talking about the same things. That is why subjectivity is an enemy of effective communication.

So while it can work in a practical sense to only share a reality in estimation, for instance by saying 'i believe in my god and you believe in yours, and that's okay', this means that the basis for your concept of reality will radically differ from mine. And from that basis rise all sorts of other frictions and battles, such as questions about what is right or wrong, topics that have so much implications that people are willing to go to war over them, and submit or even kill each other.

This all starts from the very beginning, whether you have a shared goal of defining an objective reality and an objective truth as much as possible, so that conflicts can be avoided and harmony is most likely to occur.

Of course, but you have a conversation with someone who at least has an idea of what an amp can do. It's not like you're talking amp and the other person thinks it's blueberry muffin you're talking about. That's what I meant by extreme.

I guess usually those horse get brought to the slaughterhouse

I just want to have added to the protocol that I think that even subjectivists within Hifi have the right to live.

 

[Gorgonzola]

In my observations amongst old-timer audiophiles who believe in tubes or class A is that the reverted from AB S-S because they didn't like what they were hearing from the latter. (I'm an old-timer myself, though relatively enlightened I like to think). These folks realized that raw THD wasn't an indicator of whether they were going to like the sound of an amp.

As for why they reverted I think there were a couple of things whether they understood these things or not:

• Good solid state amps of the '70s had relatively low THD, (though more than the best amps today). However they produced much more higher-order HD than 2nd/3rd order distortion.
• Class A, tube, and low-feedback amps had higher THD but 2nd and/or 3rd order was predominant.

These things are revealed by looking at comprehensive measurements. Many of those old-timers, however, dismiss measurements as irrelevant. Still, I believe the best hope to enlighten a few is to convince them of a correlation between measurements and the subjective sound that they prefer.

 

[RayDunzl]

"The best way to bring audio enthusiasts from the dark side and see the light?"

Ok, my real answer would be to say "Uh-huh" to whatever, using specifically practiced vocal inflections suitable for the offending statement.

 

[RayDunzl]

Show them a few optical illusions, and then ask, that now, when they know they cannot trust their eyes, why they still think they can trust other senses like their ears.

My favorite visual trickery:

The squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray.

Checker Shadow Illusion – Persci

persci.mit.edu

What makes it even more remarkable to me is that even when you know they are the same, you just can't see it.

 

[DanielT]

It is interesting that even among objectivists there are different opinions. Take for example this with Spotify in its current form vs probably, perhaps, upcoming Spotify lossleess. How to deal with that now? There are lots of different aspects to consider when it comes to choosing streaming provider, and that makes it even more interesting:

Will you stop using Spotify now? Vote

It seems that Spotify will not offer lossless, as they said they would in 2021. We do not know when and if Spotify will come with lossless.This is Spotify's only public ,as far as I know, information about lossless...

audiosciencereview.com

Edit:
Although okay, there are few in that thread who think they can hear ( big?) differences. Those who say that are perhaps subjectivists? I do not know. In which case there are a lot of factors to consider in choosing HiFi, soft as well as hardware. For example:
Dirty ugly speakers that sound / measure really well in the living room?

 

[DanielT]

My favorite visual trickery:

View attachment 180965

The squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray.

Checker Shadow Illusion – Persci

persci.mit.edu

View attachment 180967
What makes it even more remarkable to me is that even when you know they are the same, you just can't see it.

But...eh....

...cool..

 

[litemotiv]

My favorite visual trickery:

I keep posting videos, but this optical illusion is also featured in a really informative TED talk by neuroscientist Anil Seth, who explains why rather than actually experiencing reality, our brains work as prediction engines that constantly hallucinate new realities for us based on our prior experiences. Well worth a look if you have some time to spare:

 

[voodooless]

I just want to have added to the protocol that I think that even subjectivists within Hifi have the right to live.

I wouldn’t want to have it any other way

 

[steve59]

I'm not clear on why speakers react how they do, but before buying a $25k pair of speakers from a local dealer we listened to 5 different sources of amplification and 3 different dacs. With these speakers some differences were audible. The easiest to notice was when the soundstage was altered most notably one amp made miniatures of the artists shringing the stage to exciting, but unrealistic size. There were a couple class d amps in the mix, one I was able to notice another I didn't. There was 1 integrated of the bunch that made the system sound so realistic (to my ears) that became the standard. The demo was single blind level matched with a cell phone app. As to listening to the dac's there was 1 highly regarded $5k model that had a midrange glare that might have mated well with speakers that need some boost in the mids.

Flavor of the week purifi, big woop.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I wouldn’t want to have it any other way

Kit that measures well but sounds like s***?
People who believe measurements are the be all and end all. Are like a team of Surgeons who announce the operation was a success but the patient died!

 

[rockphotog]

What makes it even more remarkable to me is that even when you know they are the same, you just can't see it.

That's why I recommend people to read Daniel Kahneman - Thinking, Fast and Slow. Even if you know about all kinds of cognitive biases, you can't help it. Your brain is,, as a feature, lazy.

"This stove top is really hot, should I remove my hand, or maybe see what happens?". You act quick in a "preprogrammed" way, and so does many biases also work.