Audio Debates - Consensus?

[Sam Cogley]

My issue with pure subjectivism is that it leaves the door open to all sorts of psychological effects and scammers. If something causes an audible difference, IMO there should be a measurement that describes the effect, and a definite cause for it. Of course, in order to measure something you have to be looking in the right place, and that may be where some issues vis-a-vis the debates between the subjectivists and objectivists. Double-blind/ABX type tests are important here - if you can verify that a reproducible effect exists, it gives a starting point for figuring out the whys and wherefores.

Personally, I don't need to understand exactly what's going on from a technical standpoint - as long as someone reputable who does understand the technical issues verifies that the technical data is accurate and makes sense.

 

[Fisherdude]

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 of 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.

...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...

Hey, Art...thanks for the reply.

Yeah, generalizations are by definition incorrect for all data points except one that matches! I certainly didn't want to paint all with the same brush.

I consider myself an "objective subjectivist", and I mean that just the way it reads. I believe that I want music that I like and equipment that I like, because it sounds the way I like it. And there is no question that's what is most important to me.

However, I'll quickly admit that I have an engineering mindset, and I've enjoyed taking things apart just to see how they work since I was five years old. I really like my JBL L100s, and I don't care if anybody says they're not accurate. Otoh, (and I guess I shouldn't admit this in public!), I really am fascinated by Zilch's charts and measurements. I have my speaker building textbooks as backup reference material, and I avidly read what Zilch and RayW and dnewman and Ken Kantor and all the other speaker experts say about different speaker parameters. I love to learn new stuff!

So, I have one foot in each camp, and that's the way I like it.:yes:

 

[Negotiableterms]

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.

Absolutely right. Between measuring the wrong thing and the very real problems with human experience and memory, we wind up with an endless debate. I'm trying to narrow the gap.

 

[Negotiableterms]

...So, I have one foot in each camp, and that's the way I like it.:yes:

Me too, and I think that if we work on measurements and quantifying listening experiences, the gap can be narrowed.

 

[marc mc]

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.

I agree with every word except the last part about tht tech reports which as I have said before I consider worthless. I don't even know the gas milage of my car. I was mentored in audio during a time or by people that did not believe a single written spec by a single audio company. I have never read the specs on any of my main system componants, and nothing would change if I did. Jud Barber is genious! How do I know? because I listen to his pre every day. Do I need to know more than that? No. Do other people? Some do.

"The Joule Electra LA-100 Mk III and VZN-80 Mk III are in the high end of high-end components, capable of drawing you into the music as few others can. They have very distinct and impressive sonic virtues by themselves, but when they’re used together, they really shine, surpassing either when used alone. Were they engineered to be used in tandem? I think not—they work so well on their own. I would speculate, instead, that their obvious synergy comes not from any predetermined set of sonic parameters but from the designer himself. Jud Barber designs by ear, and if his products are any indication, he’s a careful listener."

Designs by ear, hmmmmm

marc mc

 

[Art K.]

Me too, and I think that if we work on measurements and quantifying listening experiences, the gap can be narrowed.

Wherever there is a gap between our listening experience and what either can be measured or what science has already explained, there will be a debate. There can be no narrowing of the gap within the framework of the question as posed.

Folks who can have the faith that what they hear matters regardless of what measurements or science say, can effectively straddle the fence.

I like reading speaker measurements and though not a technical person, I did work in the hi-tech industry for several years. However in the end for me and I think for many, music listening is inherently a subjective activity. We all find meaning in it differently. Different moods, music, ambience and on and on. Do you listen while sitting, with the lights on, while cleaning the house.

Our mood will effect what we hear, how we hear, what we listen to and for. Science can only effectively measure the performance of a device within a controlled environment...it can't measure the human factor on the other end of the device. Not effectively and not without more variables to control than is really possible.

Since music listening is a subjective activity I give the most importance to what I hear. I have used measurements to explain what I hear. The slight nasality in vocals explained by a Stereophile reviewer for the Totem Rainmaker, it could easily be identified on the graph provided...the killer performance of the DeVore Silverback, on the other hand, could not be explained as easily. The measurements were not as clear...and even with them, the reviewer concluded that it was one of the best speakers he had heard.

As a subjectivist it's important for me to keep in mind the importance of science and measurement in the design and development of the products I love. There was a quote in this thread that I liked.

"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."

This is a about as close as this will come to being reconciled IMO.

 

[marc mc]

Can the two exist on the same level? well I have never seen it. We had a group that tried to destroy another forum I belong to. They attacked any subjective comment instantly with science , truth and constant reference to their educational levels and grammer skills.

marc mc

 

[JonL]

I think that narrowing the gap would require subjectivists and objectivists to agree on certain premises. The premises I'd lay out would include:
1. Appreciation of music reproduction is subjective. People will have individual preferences for sonics and therefore there is no single ideal.
2. Our perceptions are based upon physical phenomena detected by our senses and then interpreted by our brains using our prior experiences, predispositions, biases, and expectations as filters.
3. The filtering our brains do on our sensory inputs is entirely individual and likely cannot be measured or quantified. It is part of what makes each of us unique, and that is a good thing.
4. The physical phenomena our senses detect can most likely be measured with existing technology, or will be able to be measured in the future. If there is a physical phenomenon, technology can or will be able to measure it.
5. The parameters of interest in measuring audio performance may not all be known, defined, or adequately measured. Clearly, many listeners identify preferences in equipment that cannot all be defined by existing measurements.

I think I'm a middle of the road guy. I don't need to know the specs and measurements for my gear as long as it is pleasing me. But if I have a problem or I'm seeking an improvement I become very interested in using measurements to assist me in solving my problem. I'm going through a very interesting and enlightening exercise with this right now that will hopefully help me get to the root of a problem and fix it without simply trying lots of new gear until I reach a solution by happenstance.

 

[Art K.]

I think that narrowing the gap would require subjectivists and objectivists to agree on certain premises. The premises I'd lay out would include:
1. Appreciation of music reproduction is subjective. People will have individual preferences for sonics and therefore there is no single ideal.
2. Our perceptions are based upon physical phenomena detected by our senses and then interpreted by our brains using our prior experiences, predispositions, biases, and expectations as filters.
3. The filtering our brains do on our sensory inputs is entirely individual and likely cannot be measured or quantified. It is part of what makes each of us unique, and that is a good thing.
4. The physical phenomena our senses detect can most likely be measured with existing technology, or will be able to be measured in the future. If there is a physical phenomenon, technology can or will be able to measure it.
5. The parameters of interest in measuring audio performance may not all be known, defined, or adequately measured. Clearly, many listeners identify preferences in equipment that cannot all be defined by existing measurements.

I agree with this. Here's the deal...it will not happen. You and I can agree on this, but the majority of shouters will not. Especially number 4. Many folks cannot conceive of the fact that not everything can be measured at present. You were very astute at putting in this piece..."The physical phenomena our senses detect can most likely be measured with existing technology, or will be able to be measured in the future".

Good post.

 

[fotno]

Not the first time I've said this, but what the heck...

Technical measurement is absolutely essential to building audio devices, it's just not a slap-dash, fly by the seat of your pants pursuit. However, as long as there is a human component to listening to music, part of the experience will always remain unmeasurable. We can state with a great degree of accuracy, why a device sounds the way it does and use that information to build similar (or even differing) devices; but I really don't think there will ever be a way to determine whether a given person will like the end product or not, or why person A does, and person B doesn't.

All bets are off when the sound leaves the gear and enters the human ear.

 

[marc mc]

Technical measurement is absolutely essential to building audio devices, it's just not a slap-dash, fly by the seat of your pants pursuit. However, as long as there is a human component to listening to music, part of the experience will always remain unmeasurable.

I like this and have also said that designing and listening are 2 different disciplines. The designer uses measuring data to various degrees. They develop guidlines for what they want to accomplish. But even with data in hand many of them still use thier ears as the final judge. I have a friend that can talk tech at the highest level. He is friends with the best designers in the world and we talk all the time without any conflict. The reason is he can leave the technical side were it belongs! In design, modification and repair.

The audiophile does not need this data for his or her enjoyment and the data for them plays a far smaller role in the final analysis, if any. In the same way that a lady can buy a Corvette and know that it is an exceptionally engineered car. She does not need to understand a single piece of technical data to know that she likes it more than a Mustang or Camaro. I'm the same way, I have a very long list of sound priorities. These are things that I need or want to hear when I audition a piece of gear. Technical data is not even on the list and never has been.

marc mc

 

[crackerkorean]

I like this and have also said that designing and listening are 2 different disciplines. The designer uses measuring data to various degrees. They develop guidlines for what they want to accomplish. But even with data in hand many of them still use thier ears as the final judge. I have a friend that can talk tech at the highest level. He is friends with the best designers in the world and we talk all the time without any conflict. The reason is he can leave the technical side were it belongs! In design, modification and repair.

The audiophile does not need this data for his or her enjoyment and the data for them plays a far smaller role in the final analysis, if any. In the same way that a lady can buy a Corvette and know that it is an exceptionally engineered car. She does not need to understand a single piece of technical data to know that she likes it more than a Mustang or Camaro. I'm the same way, I have a very long list of sound priorities. These are things that I need or want to hear when I audition a piece of gear. Technical data is not even on the list and never has been.

marc mc

Your stance on things is what some audiophiles dont have and I think thats the rub. They read or are told semiscience or partial technical facts and take it as complete truth. I dont want to come off as an ass, and I am not saying they are not intelligent. Just saying that they might not have the technical knowledge that some others have and they need to realize this. I am not going to go into a mutual fund management place (see i have no clue about the money business) and try to run the place because I slept at a holiday inn and paid with cash that I counted.

For example what is important in a clock design for anything digital. Is it low jitter, frequency stability, phase noise or something else that I dont know about. The thing is I am not even sure yet and im a 4th year EE student, personally I think its a bit of all of it per a given application. But the person that might not know will focus on jitter and jitter only ignoring anything that is pertinent when it comes to design.

Or people will focus on things like cryo treatment of cables since nasa said it makes things better. (supposedly there is a paper out there about it). But what environment are they testing for, bandwidth, analog or digital. Being NASA I would imagine it has to do with the harsh environment if space where temp fluctuations can be 600 or so degrees (i think that's what it is) and many other technical things that don't matter here on terra firma.

On the flip side it can be the same thing. The THD is .00000000000001% but what is bandwidth of the amp. That low of a THD doesnt matter if its only good for 100hz to 130hz, from 1000hz to 20k its 10%. (this is a gross fabrication of numbers BTW)

I think if the frame of reference is a very important thing in seeing that both sides come to closer agreement. Its just trying to get some people to think that certain numbers are considered negligible, a 0.0000000001% differences really doesn't matter even if you are the most experienced listener. At the same time on spec of a piece of equipment will not automatically make it the best thing on the world if certain key things are not taken into consideration.

 

[RayW]

He is friends with the best designers in the world and we talk all the time without any conflict. The reason is he can leave the technical side were it belongs! In design, modification and repair.

Who decided that's where data belongs?

Here's a scenario...you and I walk into a room at AK Fest 2010. The room has some top shelf electronics and some Binford 3000 speakers. You listen for a while and say, "I don't like those, vocals are too honky." I listen for a while and say "I don't like the upper midrange, could I see the FR plot for those?" Upon looking at it I see a 3dB hump centered at 3kHz and remark, "there's the reason I don't like them."

Are you any more correct because we weren't designing, modifying, or repairing them?

Are hardcore subjectivists right because they talk about buttery soft mids and luscious bass and sparkling, airy highs? Are objectivists right because they talk about frequency response, power response, and distortion figures?

IMO, they're saying the exact same thing, just in different languages. If you don't speak the other language then it sounds like gibberish. And, as I see it, if you don't speak the other language then you're missing out.

 

[marc mc]

Who decided that's where data belongs?

It belongs there because very few audiophiles use, believe, care or understand it. And all design, modification and repair guys do.

Here's a scenario...you and I walk into a room at AK Fest 2010. The room has some top shelf electronics and some Binford 3000 speakers. You listen for a while and say, "I don't like those, vocals are too honky." I listen for a while and say "I don't like the upper midrange, could I see the FR plot for those?" Upon looking at it I see a 3dB hump centered at 3kHz and remark, "there's the reason I don't like them."

I understand you need to see "why" you do or don't like stuff Ray. You have made that clear in every post. My point is the majority of audiophiles don't need to see any data to decide. They just use their ears and that is why they are subjective. They just like what they like and don't care why. The scientists are always trying to educate, change or make fun of the words we use but we don't care and never have.

Are you any more correct because we weren't designing, modifying, or repairing them?

Who cares who's right? I just need to know what I like. Not why.

Are hardcore subjectivists right because they talk about buttery soft mids and luscious bass and sparkling, airy highs? Are objectivists right because they talk about frequency response, power response, and distortion figures?

Nope. But one of us is using the language that any audiophile can understand and the other one is not.

IMO, they're saying the exact same thing, just in different languages. If you don't speak the other language then it sounds like gibberish. And, as I see it, if you don't speak the other language then you're missing out.

Sure, and thats all the more reason to keep the conversation on common ground. And for the most part thats subjective for audiophiles and technical for design, repair and mod's like on the DIY audio site.

But language is not the real problem Ray. It's certain groups that want to change the audio landscape to a standardized criteria (most of whom are not designers, they just know the science). And direct discussion to that level. A level that subjectivists have long said they have no interest in. Which is and has always been the source of the conflict. These are usually attempts at controlling conversation and making converts.

I have been very fortunate to meet and talk to great audio designers. Guys that made and make products at a very high level and yet I can speak to them on a purely subjective level and they have no problem understanding what I'm saying without boring me with the technical reasons for what I'm saying. While technical audiophiles create strife when they demand science from me for saying "I like the huge soundstage" that a pair of speakers has.

marc mc

 

[Sam Cogley]

However, as long as there is a human component to listening to music, part of the experience will always remain unmeasurable.

I disagree. If there is a provable (read: double-blind/ABX testing) sonic effect going on, there is some cause for it and there is something there to measure. It's possible that the person doing the measuring isn't looking in the right place or doesn't have the right tools for the job, but anything that exists can be quantified.

 

[fotno]

I disagree. If there is a provable (read: double-blind/ABX testing) sonic effect going on, there is some cause for it and there is something there to measure. It's possible that the person doing the measuring isn't looking in the right place or doesn't have the right tools for the job, but anything that exists can be quantified.

quan·ti·fy
tr.v. quan·ti·fied, quan·ti·fy·ing, quan·ti·fies

1. To determine or express the quantity of.
2. Logic To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

Can we quantify love, hate, the smell of bacon, explain color to the blind, or why some people can't resist pushing a button clearly marked "don't press"? I don't think so.

Yes an audio signal can be measured, but what does that mean? Music is as much art as mathematics. I am a musician, and I can break a song down into its individual mechanical parts, replicate and modify it a thousand different ways, discover that it contains diminished, 7th, 9th, major or minor chords; but even knowing all of that, I will never be able to define what that song means to another person. You and I can look at the measurement of a loudspeaker and agree on where the peaks and valleys are in the chart, but that doesn't mean that you will like it and I won't, or vice versa.

For some I think there's a overwhelming compulsion to know how things work, believing that by knowing, all the mystery will be explained away. That by knowing the whole of the universe down to its tiniest component, there will be nothing left that isn't known. That's a fine pursuit. Personally I believe that that no matter how well we may know how... We will still never be able to explain why.

 

[RayW]

It belongs there because very few audiophiles use, believe, care or understand it.

That sounds like you're speaking for all audiophiles. Have you polled them to find out how many actually understand the data? I know that you have a bunch of audiophile friends but you most likely hang out with like minded guys. I would imagine there are plenty of audiophiles that use, believe, care, and understand data. Those are the gray area guys. They're the ones trying to reconcile subjective and objective.

My point is the majority of audiophiles don't need to see any data to decide.

And the point of this thread is to try to shrink the chasm between subjective and objective views. Not simply say "I don't care." Stating that "audiophiles" don't care about the data accomplishes nothing other than establishing the camp that you're in and the fact that you have no desire to narrow the gap.

The scientists are always trying to educate, change or make fun of the words we use but we don't care and never have.

No, a lot of the time the "scientists" are simply trying to have a discussion when someone jumps in to tell them that the data is meaningless.

Nope. But one of us is using the language that any audiophile can understand and the other one is not.

The audiophile language is anything but precise. Your definition of "chesty vocals", "airy highs", or "sublime midrange" may not jibe with the next guy. Those are not terms that can be really meaningful in conversation because their is no commonality. Sure you can sit around with a glass of wine and wax poetic about the liquid mids of the Binfords, but what does that actually mean? Will it mean the same to the guy on the other side of the table.

Sure, and thats all the more reason to keep the conversation on common ground.

And, as I understand it, the goal of this thread is finding common ground. Not saying, "I don't care about data therefore the audiophile lingo is the only language I'll speak." It's about learning the other side's point of view and being open. Not dictating what "audiophiles" do or do not care about and writing off the rest.

But language is not the real problem Ray. It's certain groups that want to change the audio landscape to a standardized criteria (most of whom are not designers, they just know the science). And direct discussion to that level. A level that subjectivists have long said they have no interest in. Which is and has always been the source of the conflict. These are usually attempts at controlling conversation and making converts.

Is that not the same as subjectivists speaking only in "audiophile" terms and refusing to even consider data? Isn't saying "I don't care about data, I'll only speak in my lingo" an attempt at controlling the conversation?

I have been very fortunate to meet and talk to great audio designers.

Same here. And I've had some great technical discussions with them as well as subjective. The great thing about many of these guys is that they can speak both languages. They're interested in speaking to both sides, and quite possibly in bridging the gap between them.

 

[Brett a]

but anything that exists can be quantified.

Yeh, that's so wrong. I mean sure, you can come up with some sort of abstract "measuring" practice for things that exist such as gravity, or drunkenness, but when it comes right down to it, we don't know what any of these things are. (Last i knew, we still don't know what gravity is. And as my doctor recently opined, we don't know why alcohol makes a person drunk-there are no alcohol receptors in the brain. that's not to say we can't measure these things, but it serves as a caution that the "real" knowledge of these things is as yet unkown)

As for DBTs of audio equipment, i have yet to hear of one that sets out to prove that an individual can discern changes in his or her own system under conditions that are conducive to the challenge at hand.

Which is to say that if you came to my house, swapped 3 sets of interconnects that i own and am familiar with between my CDp and amp, allowing me to determine when you'd switch them out, I could name them with an accuracy greater than chance.

Another issue I have with DBTs is that they assume there's a 50% chance of a person choosing "A" or "B". I'm not sure there is. We are talking about humans remember.

EDIT to add:
After posting this, I more fully grokked the intent of this thread--common ground. So I'll add that my preferred approach is trying to understand the view of those that seem so foreign to me. I have asked questions about common testing methods over at Audioholics---a forum dominated by passionate objectivists---and was abused and attacked for it. So it leaves me wanting to understand the radical objectivists' view, but they aren't into helping me. Common ground is impossible to find without mutual respect.

 

[JonL]

I think that if there is a sonic effect going on it can be measured. Perhaps we don't yet know how or what to measure, but if there is a real effect - meaning there is a physical phenomenon at work - it can be measured. That is analogous to determining the difference between two very close shades of color by measuring wavelength and luminosity, and whatever other parameters define a color and it's brilliance.

We cannot measure, and likely never will, how a particular sonic effect is perceived by an individual and what their emotional response may be. This is analogous to being unable to explain color to the blind.

So, to me, the bridge between objectivism and subjectivism crosses a river of perception and preference. A subjectivist can tell you there is a difference and which one they prefer but some seemingly would rather not know if or how the difference can be measured. An objectivist can tell you if there is a measurable difference using some subset of all the theoretical measuring and analytical tools but some seemingly would prefer to disbelieve that there are perceptible differences that we do not yet understand how to measure.

There are certainly many people who can reconcile the two camps for themselves. I've got no problem with someone who says that one thing sounds different from another without knowing or caring why. I do have a problem with people who market or justify differences by using some of the language of the objectivist but in a manner that makes no plausible sense. I think objective measurements can be used to assist one in finding their preferences and avoiding traveling dead-end paths in seeking their goals. I think both camps would be well-served by attempting to reconcile their differences. It would be nice if subjectivists could assist objectivists in finding the measures that define audible differences. It would be nice if objectivists could look beyond existing methodologies in attempting to quantify the subtleties that subjectivists perceive.

 

[JonL]

Yeh, that's so wrong. I mean sure, you can come up with some sort of abstract "measuring" practice for things that exist such as gravity, or drunkenness, but when it comes right down to it, we don't know what any of these things are. (Last i knew, we still don't know what gravity is. And as my doctor recently opined, we don't know why alcohol makes a person drunk-there are no alcohol receptors in the brain. that's not to say we can't measure these things, but it serves as a caution that the "real" knowledge of these things is as yet unkown)

All of that may be true, and is a great argument for working harder at making subjective observations and taking data with objective instruments. That is the process by which understanding of the world around us increases. We may not yet know what gravity is, but because of the observations and measurements of people like Gallileo and Newton, we understand how gravity behaves and we can now do things like fly airplanes and go to the moon. You don't need to know how to measure gravity to ride an airplane, but I'm glad the engineers who design them use accelerometers to determine the gravitational and inertial forces on the structure to make sure they are safe. I'm also glad that somewhere along the way scientists used accelerometers along with subjective human observations to determine what kinds of accelerations are tolerable, what kinds are unpleasant, and what kinds are dangerous. I'd be happier if my pilot understood gravity, inertia, and accelerations from a scientific perspective rather than a strictly seat of the pants perspective, though the seat of the pants perspective would be very valuable too and probably lead to an overall smoother ride. Stretching this analogy a bit (too far?) I think most of us on AK who enjoy our rigs think of ourselves more as pilots than passengers, and some are even the engineers and designers. If we are pilots, shouldn't we understand some of the basic physics? Won't that understanding contribute to our enjoyment? I know it does for me.