The Subjectivist

[Wes]

Recent posts on cars and on the look and feel of integrated amps, and even speakers, brought this post to mind.

If you think about the fact that there is little or no difference in SQ of electronics, then the issues about buying one over another boil down to things like visual aesthetics, control functionality and ergonomics. Such things matter critically for fighter pilots and astronauts where a mistake can cause death (witness the existence of a Behavior Performance Laboratory at NASA, which a high school buddy of mine used to run). But they can strongly affect the "audiophile experience" too - either on their own or by way of cross-sensory effects (better feeling switches lead to increased oxytocin and thus to higher perceived sound quality).

Such issues are the quintessential subjective effects.

So, I wanted to post about the world's premier car designer, Gordon Murray. He gets it. He understands what is important in making the ultimate driving machine, and that is the subjective experience of driving. He's said that his forthcoming supercar does not focus on the highest speed or acceleration (tho it ranks highly in those items). Instead, he talks about how the switches feel, how the shifter feels, how Cosworth made a new V12 that sounds a bit like the Columbo V21 in older Ferraris, how it looks inside and out, and etc.

There are a number of videos on YouTube about him and his various cars, but here is an article:

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/supercars/27-things-gordon-murray-told-us-about-t50

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

It would be interesting to send some high end audio reviewer two amplifiers of identical internal circuitry but one in a visually stunning chassis and the other in a plain 'Bud Box', without the reviewer knowing they are identical see what the resulting review yields.

 

[FrantzM]

It would be interesting to send some high end audio reviewer two amplifiers of identical internal circuitry but one in a visually stunning chassis and the other in a plain 'Bud Box', without the reviewer knowing they are identical see what the resulting review yields.

Dreaming of that day!

 

[Katji]

But they can strongly affect the "audiophile experience" too - either on their own or by way of cross-sensory effects (better feeling switches lead to increased oxytocin and thus to higher perceived sound quality).

Is it [scientifically proven etc.] that switches/etc. that feel better cause increased oxytocin, and that increased [level?] of oxytocin results in higher perceived SQ?

 

[anmpr1]

With cars, you can both 'feel' and measure differences. A Corvette with performance package might be pretty much 'paper equivalent' to a GT3. But no one would ever confuse the two when driving; certainly not visually or in tactile feel.

With hi-fi you can measure a lot of differences, but 'hearing' differences?

That said, I would like to own a GT3. I wouldn't want to own a super expensive Pink Faun music streamer.

 

[Katji]

Hearing/auditory/music perception is part of the whole perception. Possibly affected by other sensory perceptions, like visual and tactile.

Is it [scientifically proven etc.] that switches/etc. that feel better cause increased oxytocin, and that increased [level?] of oxytocin results in higher perceived SQ?

If it is so, it shows that science of physiology/etc. has advanced.

However, the reviewer is comparing 2 different things. The internals are identical but the externals are different. So they are 2 different things.
When there can be more holistic measurements and evaluation, physiological and psychological as well as electronic measurements, that will be significant advancement.

 

[Wes]

With cars, you can both 'feel' and measure differences. A Corvette with performance package might be pretty much 'paper equivalent' to a GT3. But no one would ever confuse the two when driving; certainly not visually or in tactile feel.

With hi-fi you can measure a lot of differences, but 'hearing' differences?

That said, I would like to own a GT3. I wouldn't want to own a super expensive Pink Faun music streamer.

What Murray is saying is that measurable differences are not the goal (at least at a certain level). Instead, what one wants is a high level of "look and feel" from switch feel to the feel of nearly instant acceleration. IOW, he is focused on sensory impressions.

He obviously uses engineering and measurements to get there. That is the analogy for sound reproduction.

 

[Wes]

Hearing/auditory/music perception is part of the whole perception. Possibly affected by other sensory perceptions, like visual and tactile.


If it is so, it shows that science of physiology/etc. has advanced.

However, the reviewer is comparing 2 different things. The internals are identical but the externals are different. So they are 2 different things.
When there can be more holistic measurements and evaluation, physiological and psychological as well as electronic measurements, that will be significant advancement.

I am not sure what you mean by the "whole perception" - maybe you mean the umwelt?

Certainly, auditory perception is influenced by cross-sensory effects.

Moreover, oxytocin production is influenced by anticipation of future events.

 

[Katji]

umwelt.....ok, the entire environment, and what that implies. I meant just the 2 amplifiers. (internals + housing + tactile.)

 

[KSTR]

It would be interesting to send some high end audio reviewer two amplifiers of identical internal circuitry but one in a visually stunning chassis and the other in a plain 'Bud Box', without the reviewer knowing they are identical see what the resulting review yields.

Almost 20 years ago it did something like that, very close. Two identical stereo chip-amps based on LM1875's, one packaged in a simple DIY enclosure, the other located inside a dummy tube amp (with the internal guts still running, heaters and high voltage, just not connected to the input/output). Presented to a couple of innocent friends in an effort to see how strong expectation bias really could get (that was fairly new territory to me, then, and I did not have a full grasp of the power of biasing/priming). "The panel" was very decided that the tube amp definitely sounded better and more musical, compressed nicer, had a slightly softer bass impact, all the "obvious" stuff about the differences between solid state and tube amps...
The point is, their listening impressions were real, they certainly did "hear" it that way, so I would never say someone's deluding themselves. Rather, we have to make up out minds what are the root causes of a perception and we will find they can and will quickly be dominated by other factors than the sheer physical event that reached our sensors. When presented with that fact, the subjectivist camp is split in two sections: those who can accept it and those who cannot. Only the former group may engage in meaningful discussions with the objectivists.

 

[solderdude]

Almost 20 years ago it did something like that, very close. Two identical stereo chip-amps based on LM1875's, one packaged in a simple DIY enclosure, the other located inside a dummy tube amp (with the internal guts still running, heaters and high voltage, just not connected to the input/output). Presented to a couple of innocent friends in an effort to see how strong expectation bias really could get (that was fairly new territory to me, then, and I did not have a full grasp of the power of biasing/priming). "The panel" was very decided that the tube amp definitely sounded better and more musical, compressed nicer, had a slightly softer bass impact, all the "obvious" stuff about the differences between solid state and tube amps...

Did a similar thing... built a 4 transistor Philips design amp in a tube amp enclosure with tubes only glowing and a 1 min timer to not let a user suspect anything when powering off and on.
It worked. People thought it sounded 'tubey'.

similar to this (but higher power).

 

[pma]

This is a horrible design, @solderdude . 4R7 emitter resistor and no feedback - not even trying to imagine how it sounded.

 

[SIY]

not even trying to imagine how it sounded.

"Musical."

 

[pma]

Well it would not be difficult to put it into Microcap and make a test music sample distorted by this thing and then to prepare an ABX test. Anyone would be interested?

 

[pma]

"Musical."

Just to imagine what it means

 

[SIY]

Well it would not be difficult to put it into Microcap and make a test music sample distorted by this thing and then to prepare an ABX test. Anyone would be interested?

Not me.

I honestly lost interest a long time ago in trying to determine how terrible something has to be for me to hear the degradation. Since making not-terrible stuff is so easy these days, that's my preferred path.

 

[pma]

I'll tell you something. IMO audiophilia is as bad as technophilia. I am missing a balanced approach.

 

[solderdude]

This is a horrible design, @solderdude . 4R7 emitter resistor and no feedback - not even trying to imagine how it sounded.

It wasn't this exact design but one found in many Philips stereo amps but this kinda looked like it.
It had Darlingtons TIP142/147 in the output stage and the obligatory bootstrap, 0.47 Ohm emitter resistors running of 50V rails.
Sounded just fine.

Much closer to this design

 

[pma]

No FB, tons of crossover distortion - you must be joking. The designs like this created the bad reputation of the solid state amps that we are facing till now. And there was no reason to make it so badly, even 50 years ago. It was just the incompetence.

 

[solderdude]

There is feedback R6, R4.
It sounded fine and good enough to convince folks they were listening to a tube amp.
The actual design was from a well sold Philips receiver.
It was just a fun experiment. Not an amp I would ever use.