Audio Debates - Consensus?

[Negotiableterms]

The Greeks got the idea of debate eons ago, and their analysis of the elements is still right. Every debate contains three basic parts:

Logos - meaning real facts and reasoning
Pathos - meaning emotional content that persuades with no logical connection
Ethos - meaning the authority behind a claimed statement.

To me, in audio these elements always seem to wind up in the same form:

Logos - amateur science, at high school level or lower, with any graduate level discussion dismissed as nonsense vs a technical discussion so esoteric that no one without a PhD can even define the terms used;
Pathos - human hearing is the only worthwhile measurement, machines are overly simplistic and sterile, and if you spend more it will sound better, vs science gave us the atom bomb, and it can get your stereo to sound good too for $1.95 and a trip to a dumpster;
Ethos - Roger Russell and Peter Aczel said it, therefor it's correct... whether it makes sense or not, vs a guy with 8 PhDs and an Eagle Scout said it, and no one is quite sure what it means.

We see these debates, with their usual components every day here on AK. Other than EW and our crew of real experts, has anyone seen a genuine attempt to bring the two sides together? I'm looking for discussion that explains why we hear some things while the measurements appear to disagree, in an attempt to reconcile the sides.

NB: This is NOT an invitation to restart the debate.

 

[Tangent]

NB: This is NOT an invitation to restart the debate.

I'd like to debate that.



(Sorry. I must have a weirder sense of humour than usual tonight... )

Other than EW and our crew of real experts, has anyone seen a genuine attempt to bring the two sides together? I'm looking for discussion that explains why we hear some things while the measurements appear to disagree, in an attempt to reconcile the sides.

That's a tough one.

If someone hears a difference and then measures the cable resistance (for example) do they then not hear a difference afterwards?

If someone measures cables first and sees a difference, do they then hear a difference?

I remember a story about hazing in a university. They told the freshman that they were going to brand him with a hot poker (like a cow!), blindfolded him and then applied ice to where they said the hot poker was going to be placed on his skin.

He felt heat. Not the ice. :scratch2:

I think it has a lot to do with the human psyche...

For me, I just plug stuff in and listen. For days or weeks if I have to. If I'm happy with the results, I keep whatever it is. If not - back to the old stuff!

So in my case, human psyche (or lack thereof :sigh: ) is trumped by long term listening and enjoyment factor.

 

[JonL]

I'm hoping to embark on a bit of a personal exercise along these lines. I'm dissatisfied with the bass response of my primary turntable/cartridge. I have a general sense of the frequency range that I feel is lacking, but I cannot quantify it at present. The cartridge in question only fits later B&O turntables. I have some options for making comparisons and changes. I have another table/cartridge setup that has much more satisfactory bass, but it is not as good in other areas. I have another B&O table with a different type of tonearm and of course different wiring and cables. I've ordered a test record so that I can begin to use measurements along with my hearing to quantify changes along the way. I intend to try the different tables and tonearms, measure cartridge loading (capacitance and resistance) on all the configurations, and measure frequency response on all the configurations. I hope to be able to use the measurements to help me define what I'm hearing better. Not to use the measurements as the final arbiter, but so that I can better understand that when a piano sounds like it lacks body that means there's an issue within the range of frequencies from approximately x to approximately y, or when a kick drum has no punch, or when a cymbal sounds too hot... etc. With ears that are at least a little bit "calibrated" to numbers I'll be better armed to know what to address. Is it really that my speakers don't have the bass extension? Is it the capacitive loading is wrong? And as I make changes and note the audible differences, I hope to be able to see those changes reflected in frequency response measurements using the test record.

Perhaps I'll find that the measurements track what I'm hearing, perhaps I'll find that they don't. For me music and the way it sounds on my stereo is an emotional thing. It has to be pleasing regardless of the measurements. But a stereo is both art (music) and science (electronics), and there's nothing wrong in my mind with collecting data scientifically to help make the science support the art.

 

[sheltie dave]

Negotiableterms, it isn't even a debate when the terms and limits of the debate can't be finalized.

For instance, this TOL forum seems to be the sanctuary for the subjectivist camp, and there is nothing held more dear to their hearts than cables - speaker, power, and interconnects. Despite a year of searches, I have yet to run across a good thread for advice on speaker wires that would be in the wheelhouse for my high efficiency speaks, or even my ARs.

If I go over to the tubes forum, I can readily find lots of helpful threads on what output or driver, or even rectifiers, would be a good buy for performance, sound, and value for my tube gear.

When it comes to using a scientific approach to sound analysis, Zilch and EchoWars are only two of many people who know about, use, or have access to useful gear, computers, and measurement equipment. Some of us have even worked in the field, or are working in markedly similar fields that engender use of the same physics principles as sound radiation and production.

For the sake of modeling, let us call the process of sound recording and conversion to an electronic medium the primary step. Let us call the conversion of the electrical signal that is amplified, transmitted, and reproduced by speakers as the secondary step, and the listener hearing and interpreting the sound as the tertiary step.

Using the argument many have presented in TOL forum, there is no way to measure the secondary step in part or en toto, or any changes internal to that process, so therefore there should be no scientific value attached to that process.

Therein lies the conundrum of having a discussion, debate, or chance for a consensus.

 

[Negotiableterms]

My question was whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. So far, no one's seen anything, it appears.

 

[Art K.]

My question was whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. So far, no one's seen anything, it appears.

It's an excellent question. I, for one, am very interested to see if anyone has seen such a discussion. Seems that I read that Mike Fremer was involved in a forum or discussion that attempted to bring these two sides together but I don't remember where, when, or what the result was. Hell, it could all be another reason why I keep getting the rest home brochures...early onset and all, you know.

 

[crackerkorean]

Its really hard for those of us that take the middle of the road. I am technically minded and getting educated in the field but I know that I don't and will not know everything.

But when something is stated in the middle one or the other sides jump in arguing the extreme and nothing else. People like echowars is well versed in what he does and people listen when it does have something to say but if I was to say the same thing it would fall on deaf ears.

I know I lean to the technical side so my statements will be biased, but there are many things that I dont know even if I have do have my own theories. At the same time there are many times when I didn't even want to post because its not worth the discussion that would come out of what ever question I would ask.

I was even reluctant to post my DIY CD player thread in DIY because I didn't want to deal with the people saying I should do this or that or I did something wrong and should have done it this way. I was talked out of not posting and so far so good.

There are some things that you can count on hard facts in audio when it comes to "proper" reproduction that fall on the technical side but the golden ear types will fight you tooth and nail to say that your wrong.

I think some people who are in the gray just dont feel like discussing the point because its very difficult to change the way somebody thinks of something unless your well revered on the board. I hope this was the type of response you were looking for.

 

[Sam Cogley]

My question was whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. So far, no one's seen anything, it appears.

It's an excellent question, but I fear the result would be somewhere along the lines of combining matter and antimatter.

 

[dogscanskate]

I for one believe it will be difficult to reconcile any two sides. Testing an amplifier's performance on an 8 ohm resistor and putting the same amplifier through its paces on musical program through loudspeakers can yield totally different results (from what we expect). In the latter case we are adding room acoustics to the equation and no speaker is necessarily an 8 ohm ( possibly non inductive resistor) load at audio frequencies, the impedance of the loudspeaker will rise and fall, making it it very difficult to replicate in a laboratory. What you measure may not always correlate with what you hear.

I'm still inquisitive about how we measure components and how these results translate into a better/worse musical performance of a typical system. I'd rather have the gurus answer our queries to better understand the matter at hand.

 

[JonL]

Its really hard for those of us that take the middle of the road.

:thmbsp:
For me, audio gear is a wonderful marriage of art and science. I'm an engineer and a musician. I fully believe that a scientific approach driven by data and measurements is necessary and gets one much if not most of the way to Nirvana. I also fully believe that there is a sizable element of art to the process. There is an interface to a very subjective set of human senses. There is not a real duplication of the musicians in the room. It is an illusion, so the more real it sounds the more human perception is being fooled. I'm not aware that science has yet involved itself deeply in optimizing methods for fooling human perception. That is the "art" part of the marriage. I've reached a comfortable compromise in my own mind. I don't really care too much what camp anyone else falls into, though I'll certainly express my own opinions from time to time.

 

[House de Kris]

My question was whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides.

Thanks for the clarity, I wasn't sure what you were asking at first. By reconcile, do you mean to bring the two sides together in agreement? If so, I doubt anyone would waste their time, since that would never happen. In my experience, the Pathos is so strong that the Logos is ignored no matter who the Ethos is.

For instance, this TOL forum seems to be the sanctuary for the subjectivist camp...

This was not my impression. TOL is my favorite forum at AK, yet I'm probably the furthest from being a subjectivist you can find amoungst our membership.

 

[RayW]

I'm still inquisitive about how we measure components and how these results translate into a better/worse musical performance of a typical system.

Therein lies the crux, I believe. There can be no technical definition of better or worse because it's subjective. It's based on personal preference. How can we discuss meeting a criteria that doesn't exist?

Negotiableterms, I recall a thread that touched on this, however as usual, it devolved into snarkiness. It was Tom Brennan's thread on loudspeaker accuracy. It was trying to define accuracy and relate it to preference. It just went way off track. Try looking that one up and see if it's what you're thinking.

 

[Negotiableterms]

Thanks, Ray!

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm looking for:

Amplifiers have impedance curves, which show that the output voltage does not stay constant over a range of resistance. A tiny number of amps behave (more or less) as a "true voltage source" ("TVS"), meaning that the voltage stays constant and the watts rise or fall exactly per Ohm's law, but these are very rare, and expensive.

No speaker has a flat impedance curve, so every speaker hooked up to a normal amp will experience different voltages over the frequency range, and thus, will have different driver excursions, unless the amp is one of those rare TVS units. Thus, the sound will be different between most amps. The only way you get truly identical sound is if the two amps happen to have identical impedance curves (highly unlikely) or (in a special case of identical) are both TVSs (also unlikely).

What all this means is that any two amplifiers will likely not sound precisely the same on any particular speaker, even though the two amps measure identically under a constant resistance load. If the listener's speakers have impedance curves with substantial variations over the frequency range, the less likely any two amps are to sound alike. The flatter a speaker's imedance curve, the more likely it is to make amps sound similar.

The foregoing analysis is one explanation why amp measurements say one thing, while listening experience says another. This example is not alone, there are plentiful others. What I'm looking for is some kind of study, or commentary, or whatever, in which all these things are brought together in a way to start bringing the two sides closer.

 

[Art K.]

No link to a debate or an explanation but here is a wonderful example of a speaker whose subjective performance floored the reviewer and then subsequently bombed the the measurements. I'm a huge DeVore fidelity fan and believe that John's designs will often not measure up to par but when setup correctly will perform wonderfully in a real world setting. Perhaps when measuring we are not measuring the right parameters. Link to the review and subsequent measurements below.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/306devore/

 

[sheltie dave]

"No speaker has a flat impedance curve, so every speaker hooked up to a normal amp will experience different voltages over the frequency range, and thus, will have different driver excursions, unless the amp is one of those rare TVS units. Thus, the sound will be different between most amps. The only way you get truly identical sound is if the two amps happen to have identical impedance curves (highly unlikely) or (in a special case of identical) are both TVSs (also unlikely)."

There is one advantage to an engineering/measurement approach. For a problem or situation like above, a clever engineer can draw up and produce a good solution, ie the following at www.alkeng.com. I'm not shilling for Al, and please note that he makes his plans available for FREE to DIYers from his webpage.



The crossovers aren't cheap either way, but they end up making the Klipsch Heritage big boy speakers a very simple load for ANY amp to drive.

As far as reaching a consensus, I think we already are at a consensus - we all want good sound. Some people build a good system from scratch, some people read and act on reviews, some people buy their way into a good system, some people find a good system, some people sort by listening, some people measure and integrate, some people are given a good system.

 

[grumpy]

Hell if I am reading all that. Point lost. Sorry.

 

[sheltie dave]

That in itself makes a point, Grumpy. Many people are unwilling to spend a little time going to a site where all the pretty graphs and charts are located. They don't want to spend five minutes reading or thinking about an engineering solution to a problem, especially if they are technophobic, or adverse to using a different approach.

In your case, knowing you have heard Craig's La Scalas at the various AK Fests, you have heard the solution, and know that La Scalas actually have some kick-ass bass and can be balanced, when properly utilized.

This is a good example of using sound engineering principles, good design, applicable measuring and listening, and cherrypicking better sounding components to create a great soundstage from a speaker that has its faults.

I hope this is more clear.

 

[RayW]

The foregoing analysis is one explanation why amp measurements say one thing, while listening experience says another.

Personally, I would file that one as a prime example of "we're measuring the wrong thing." I think there's a lot of that going on.

 

[Fisherdude]

Well, I've been giving this some thought...

It would be nice if more of the subjectivists were more curious and inquisitive about trying to find out why they clearly prefer the sound of one particular speaker/amp/cable over another. Some are inquisitive, too many simply have closed minds.

It would be nice if more of the objectivists were curious and inquisitive about trying to find out why measurements don't often correlate to which one particular speaker/amp/cable they clearly prefer over another. Some are inquisitive, too many simply have closed minds.

"Only a fool would design a speaker based on measurements alone and only a total fool would design a speaker based solely on subjective listening." Paul Dicomo, Marketing Manager, Polk Audio.

So, while the respectful and open-minded members are having a good debate in the middle, the main problem is that on the fringes we have two groups of closed-minded fools shouting at each other.

I'm not sure how to fix that, other than for those of us who are a bit more open-minded to be more participative, and to set the example by walking the walk and talking the talk.

I'm not talking about mods moderating threads, I'm talking about mods participating in threads.

Currently, we let potentially controversial threads go and see if they stay ok, or if they get worse. If they start to get worse, we wait and see if any of the more sane members make appropriate comments to try to bring the thread back on track and hopefully get the more abrasive members to tone down their comments. If the thread starts circling the bowl and not enough good members step in to save it, we step in and moderate it by either editing, deleting, or closing.

I'd like us to be doing more participating as participants, and not as mods.

I'd like us to be the ones in the middle of the debates that David talked about. I'd like more of us to be the "sane" members who cajole, or hint, or, when needed, confront another member who is getting out of line.

Instead of sitting on the sidelines, we need to get in the game.

 

[Art K.]

It would be nice if more of the subjectivists were more curious and inquisitive about trying to find out why they clearly prefer the sound of one particular speaker/amp/cable over another. Some are inquisitive, too many simply have closed minds.

This was a good post...lots of good things to think about. However I'm going to take just a bit of an issue with this one piece...keep in mind that I agree with the spirit of the post.

This is a bit of an over generalization. I am a subjectivist who definitely cares very little about the whys. It's not due to close mindedness but instead because I'm not a technical person. Also because I'm not trying to convince anyone else to try what I've tried. That's never at the heart of my reports relative to my experiences. I know what I hear and when it improves my enjoyment of music, that's all that matters.

In the end, anytime someone describes their experiences at an audio website, this and all the rest, one becomes the target of folks who can't explain why. Then we wrestle back and forth relative to the merits of the experience reported. Here's the problem with all that argument, neither you or I can control for all of the variables that could possibly play into the "why" I experienced what I did. Trying to explain anything but your subjective experience then becomes an exercise in futility. I can ofcourse describe all of the variables that I can think of, but for every one I list there are probably two that I didn't, and we still are no closer to the why.

I enjoy reading the explanations and technical reports. It will not however change what I experience. Anyway, this ought to be a good thread.