Why is audio objectivism so frequently focused on all the wrong things?

[LuckyLuke575]

If you want to do more, setup parallel shop and perform them.

That line put a couple of hundred people to shame

 

[pkane]

And the question remains: To what extent does this matter to the human ear, and is there a waveform that's preferred universally, or do individuals have individual preferences? Without knowing the answer to those questions, you don't know what's significant anymore than you do when looking at speakers' step responses.

Speak for yourself I've done preference measurements on myself. I built software to allow me to do blind tests to measure preferences. I've also measured my ear response to frequencies, and amplitude. I've built tests to determine my own sensitivity to distortions at different levels. But far be it for me to presume that all my results somehow translate into a universal truth that applies to everyone else.

 

[MediumRare]

Not the way everything else is.

Thanks, I learned a lot from that!

 

[Fluffy]

I believe you just proved my argument: You place yourself (and even audiophiles in general) in a different segment from the mass.

You can just look at what music audiophiles listen to, compared to what tops the charts right now. If sound preference is connected to program material, than it's easy to deduce that there will be a difference between them and the general population. Like wanting more "air" and less pounding bass, for example.
(Edit: I think you actually said something like that yourself earlier, so we are probably in agreement here)

Here are some similarities between wine and audio:

- A product for which emotional connection (even brand affiliation) are part of the product
- A product for which price and quality are only vaguely correlated
- A product which "experts" perceive differently from average people

Ok, the first one in this quote has nothing to do with audio gear. I doubt many people have emotional connection to their DAC. On the other hand, it's very applicable to music… as I said.
Price and quality in well-engineered products can be somewhat correlated. In music, again, it is definitely not.
And there are experts in every field, this doesn't really say anything about this specific case…

Anyway, my point was that wine preferences and audio equipment preferences seems to me not really comparable. Wine and music, that I can understand – but that is not the topic here.

 

[MediumRare]

Ok, the first one in this quote has nothing to do with audio gear. I doubt many people have emotional connection to their DAC....

Anyway, my point was that wine preferences and audio equipment preferences seems to me not really comparable.

Oh, but DACs are a great example of emotion as part of the product. Think about how the PS Audio fans have reacted to testing on their favorite brand. It's like you insulted their mother.

People (in general) are VERY invested emotionally in their audio equipment. That's why design, brands, etc. are so important, and people are willing to pay ungodly amounts of money for it. For some people the choice of products (brands) is about their very identity.

 

[Wombat]

I don’t see the OP as trolling. It is a justifiable position and something I share as well.

The best analogy I can provide is a site that measures (and with the best precision and statistical validity possible) the efficacy of different Statin brands to lowering cholesterol but with dubious link to those levels lowering heart attacks. The measurements here have the same dubious links to audibility.

At the extremes, it does make sense and there are some benefits. Obviously anything that lowers cholesterol couldn’t hurt but at what price (i.e., side effect)? Obviously, brands that don’t actually lower cholesterol while claiming to do so should be exposed regardless of whether the lowering results in less heart attacks or not.

On the other hand, the encouraged misinterpretations are dangerous
Given the uncertain link to lowering heart attack rates

1. Does it matter if one lowers the levels to 40% while another does so by 50%?
2. Does it make sense to bash a multi-drug that amongst other benefits (control sugar levels, inflammations) lowers cholesterol only by 20% while the best Statins do so by 50%? Shouldn’t this multi-drug be produced to the same level of cholesterol efficacy as the best of the Statins? Never mind if the additional 30% gives any benefit or not.

And yet, that is exactly what the measurements and relative comparisons here are doing.

I would rather have objective evidence of the make-up and wider performance of medications than an individual's subjective impression of how it affects them. That is why I get professional medical advice.

Some people can take a medication without noticing side effects whilst another is put at serious risk from it.
Some people get therapeutic benefit whilst others get none.

Analogies are a poor excuse for explanation compared to knowledge and understanding of the subject in backing up an explanation.

 

[Fluffy]

Oh, but DACs are a great example about emotion as part of the product. Think about how the PS Audio fans have reacted to testing on their favorite brand. It's like you insulted their mother.

People (in general) are VERY invested emotionally in their audio equipment. That's why design, brands, etc. are so important, and people are willing to pay ungodly amounts of money for it. For some people the choice of products (brands) is about their very identity.

Well in this context then yes, audio gear can be emotionally investing… to crazy people like these . Anyway, we've gone too far off topic, so I don't see a point discussing this any longer.

What I mean is that microphones, AFAIK, have now been designed to accurately capture basically any sound we want and at an attainable cost. So the problem is not "no microphone has been invented to do the job we need them to do", so, i.e. that problem has been "solved".

EDIT: @Blumlein 88 has convinced me I was completely wrong about that!

I'm in agreement with your statement about the range of choices.

@Blumlein 88 Definitely brought some good technical examples. What I wanted to add on top of that, is that there isn't really one microphone to cover all use cases. You first need to know want you want to do with a microphone, and then get one with the fitting attributes and capabilities. If you want to record a perfect flat response of a single acoustic instrument in an anechoic chamber, I believe there are high precision microphones that can do that. But this is a hypothetical scenario and no microphone is ever used like that – there are always limiting conditions like acoustics, SPL, directionality, environmental conditions, practicality, and of course tastes and personal preferences of performers and technicians.

 

[Mikey]

Based on my many years of working with consumer preferences, I find it completely inconceivable that each person perceives sound the same and hence would have the same preference in speakers. Add to that differences in the types of music listened to and different levels of attentiveness.

The part about each person perceiving sound the same is one of those dorm-room "whoa man" unknowables; the part about preferences being fairly universal is, apparently, empirically, actually true. That's why you do the tests, I guess.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Based on my many years of working with consumer preferences, I find it completely inconceivable that each person perceives sound the same and hence would have the same preference in speakers. Add to that differences in the types of music listened to and different levels of attentiveness.

I mean, that's just obvious when you think about it, isn't it?

That was perhaps the most surprising aspect of NRC and later Harman research. If you let people listen, and judge perceived quality, the groups pretty much came to the same conclusions. They later tested groups with different native languages, and from different cultures and the results were the same.

Now trained listeners picked this up more precisely. Untrained listeners might rate speakers in the same order, but with a lesser differences in relative ranking.

So it doesn't mean everyone hears the same thing the same way, except departures from accuracy were judged as less good by everyone. Uneven response, off axis coloration etc. were judged as less good by all groups.

 

[GrimSurfer]

That was perhaps the most surprising aspect of NRC and later Harman research. If you let people listen, and judge perceived quality, the groups pretty much came to the same conclusions. They later tested groups with different native languages, and from different cultures and the results were the same.

Now trained listeners picked this up more precisely. Untrained listeners might rate speakers in the same order, but with a lesser differences in relative ranking.

So it doesn't mean everyone hears the same thing the same way, except departures from accuracy were judged as less good by everyone. Uneven response, off axis coloration etc. were judged as less good by all groups.

I wonder what the standard deviation was in the findings?

 

[Island_Kenny]

I wonder what the standard deviation was in the findings?

A very good question indeed. I always wonder the same thing about Amir's numbers which are based on a single unit of a model as far as I can tell. I assume that the repeatability of his analyzer is quite good

 

[GrimSurfer]

A very good question indeed. I always wonder the same thing about Amir's numbers which are based on a single unit of a model as far as I can tell

I was talking about the blind testing for speakers, not the production tolerances of electronic equipment (the latter which are pretty damned tight today).

 

[Island_Kenny]

I was talking about the blind testing for speakers, not the production tolerances of electronic equipment (the latter which are pretty damned tight today).

Assume that outcome from the blind test is binary, so the standard error depends pretty much on the sample size

for Amir's test, I still want to know how tight the unit to unit variation is

 

[GrimSurfer]

Assume that outcome from the blind test is binary, so the standard error depends pretty much on the sample size

for Amir's test, I still want to know how tight the unit to unit variation is

Except there is a big difference in the diversity of people vs. an engineered and professionally produced product of industry.

To wit, not all human parts are interchangeable.

Industry solved this problem almost 100 years ago, so the variations today with electronic equipment are vanishingly small.

 

[Island_Kenny]

Industry solved this problem almost 100 years ago, so the variations today with electronic equipment are vanishingly small.

that's a very high claim, I assume that you never receive a defective unit from online retailers.

 

[GrimSurfer]

that's a very high claim, I assume that you never receive a defective unit from online retailers.

Mean time between failure (or mean time to failure) is another issue altogether. It has almost nothing to do with production tolerances of electronic components.

MTBF/MTTF follows a very predictable curve for electronic devices (save those slapped together by 3rd world producers with no QC).

 

[Island_Kenny]

Mean time between failure (or mean time to failure) is another issue altogether. It has almost nothing to do with production tolerances of electronic components.

MTBF/MTTF follows a very predictable curve for electronic devices (save those slapped together by 3rd world producers with no QC).

At least you agree that not all the units coming off production line meet the specs, and we are talking about the spec numbers. You can only test the time to failure on a batch but not actual unit going to consumers and QC is mostly not time to failure

 

[MediumRare]

The part about each person perceiving sound the same is one of those dorm-room "whoa man" unknowables; the part about preferences being fairly universal is, apparently, empirically, actually true. That's why you do the tests, I guess.

It's not unknowable at all. My daughter and I can easily discuss the differences in what we hear. And you gave us a whole paragraph on how headphone preferences (more easily testable, apparently) vary across individuals. Given additional variation in ear shape, how could speakers be any different?

 

[MediumRare]

That was perhaps the most surprising aspect of NRC and later Harman research. If you let people listen, and judge perceived quality, the groups pretty much came to the same conclusions. They later tested groups with different native languages, and from different cultures and the results were the same.

Do you have a link so I can read up on this?

 

[restorer-john]

for Amir's test, I still want to know how tight the unit to unit variation is

The variation would range from non-existent to minuscule in well engineered gear, through to small to wide variation in less consistently manufactured gear.

Take for instance a single board D/A converter. The variations between functioning products will be absolutely minimal.

Take a hand constructed point to point tube amplifier or a multi PCB amplifier product with considerable inter board wiring and routing issues and the variation would be greater, especially in the THD and noise results. Consider at the extreme low levels of THD in say the Benchmark AHB amplifier, simply cleaning a speaker terminal socket could result in lower THD.