Audio Debates - Consensus?

[Sam Cogley]

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.

Very good post, and I don't think mine came across quite the way I intended it to. As I said, anything that can be determined to be a real effect and not psychoacoustics can be measured, even if we don't have the tools or references to determine the measurement yet. However, that doesn't meant that what sounds good to me sounds good to you. A good analogy would be a painting. It's relatively easy to determine, in objective terms, what sort of paint base was used, what the pigments are, and even define various forms of composition. That's all good, but one person can look at the painting in awe while another thinks "WTF?" I don't have an issue with people who enjoy one thing more than other - variety makes the world go 'round. The point at which I start having a problem is when we run into people who charge big money for devices supported only by meaningless technobabble. If your device does something, tell me why, in terms that can at least be explained to me by someone familiar with electrical science and engineering. If it does something and you don't know why, just say that.

Long story short, there is probably too much credulity on the hard subjectivist side and too much incredulity on the hard objectivist side. IMHO, it's healthy to examine things and look for the truth, while being open to new ideas and concepts. Many great scientific discoveries were accidents. Many people trying to make a great scientific discovery ended up falsifying evidence - anyone remember the room-temperature fusion guys from about 20 years ago?

 

[Fisherdude]

Nobody's getting it. At all.

The whole point of this thread isn't about objectivists vs subjectivists, or listeners vs measurers, or who cares what about what.

It's about you pointing your finger at me.

Don't point your finger at me.

Don't point your finger at me and tell me what I think.

Don't point your finger at me and tell me what I hear.

Don't point your finger at me and tell me what I should be hearing that I don't.

Don't point your finger at me and tell me what I'm hearing that I shouldn't be hearing.

Don't point your finger at me and tell me because you think I'm part of a certain group that means you know me.

Don't point your finger at me!

Show me enough respect to listen to me!

Just because you listen to me doesn't mean you have to agree with me.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong.

Just because we agree to disagree doesn't mean it wasn't a meaningful, respectful conversation.

Please, just show me enough respect to listen to me.

 

[Brett a]

All of that may be true, and is a great argument for working harder at making subjective observations and taking data with objective instruments. (...) 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.

Well put. It is this kind of middle ground/inclusion of both the objective and the subjective i think is correct. I find myself reacting however, to those people who deny the value and usefulness of the subjective. Even to the point of calling those who value subjectivity as "stupid", idiots", "fools" and a host of other unkind names. My own reactivity to this abuse often distracts me from reason---that being the balance between. and inclusion of, science and perception.

I find AK is very much a refuge from that kind of hostility. And I think it's why many of us enjoy it so much (Thanks Dave).

 

[Brett a]

I guess I don't get it then. How is this:

The whole point of this thread isn't about objectivists vs subjectivists, or listeners vs measurers, or who cares what about what.

...different from this?

It's about you pointing your finger at me.

It's about world-view and trying to understand each other. That's what I see us talking about here.

But maybe you can say more about what you had in mind?

 

[marc mc]

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 reason the gap is difficult to shrink Ray is not just the language. It has far more to do with the position that the camps leaves a person in. Ray the camps believe fundamentally different things about sources, amps and speakers.

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.

Ray I have never ever said they are meaningless!!!! I have only ever said they are meaningless to me!!

I trust the designer to do the techical work. I judge the results with my ears (sound), not my eyes (data). And every audiophile that I know is the same as me.

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.

The internet has blurred the language and this I admit. It takes time with and around a certain group to establish a glossary. I can speak to any of my friends over the phone and have no problem understanding a description of a new componant or a new combination they are trying. The same can happen on the web over time once a persons descriptions of gear you know is described by them.

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.

Scientists right off subjectivists descriptions on every thread and have since the days of Stereo Review. The average audiophile lacks both the time and equipment to master anything but thier ears. Ray I can get any data I want with a phone call. But I don't because I don't need it.

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 speak in subjective terms because thats the language I know. But the camps are different Ray. Your trying to make it look like it's just language. It's not! Scientist believe that CDP's all sound the same. That wow and flutter are the most important TT spec. That transducers are the end of the story. That all amps that measure the same sound the same. That ABX testing is the only true test. And I say bullcrap to all of that.

marc mc

 

[JonL]

Scientist believe that CDP's all sound the same. That wow and flutter are the most important TT spec. That transducers are the end of the story. That all amps that measure the same sound the same. That ABX testing is the only true test. And I say bullcrap to all of that.

marc mc

I think your characterization of "scientists" is as wrongly narrow and stereotypical as is the view of subjectivists that you feel "scientists" have. I'm sure there are people in both camps who have such strong "black and white" opinions of the other side, but I think the majority of people are more moderate in their opinions. I think part of the reason there is acrimony between the camps is that the most vocal participants in a discussion tend to be the ones with the most narrow and rigid viewpoints. Those who are seeking greater knowledge through considerate dialog are often drowned out or simply walk away from the brawl in disgust.

 

[RayW]

Don't point your finger at me and tell me what I think.

Scientist believe that CDP's all sound the same. That wow and flutter are the most important TT spec. That transducers are the end of the story. That all amps that measure the same sound the same. That ABX testing is the only true test. And I say bullcrap to all of that.

See what Clay said above. That's your interpretation of what the "scientists" think. I don't know anyone who says that all CDPs sound the same. I don't know if I've ever seen that at AK at all. I've seen plenty of people say they couldn't hear a difference between this one and that one, but nobody said they all sound the same, at least not that I've seen. You're throwing around generalizations based on your own bias and then condemning all who are interested in data using that generalization. I know some believe ABX to be the only relavant subjective "test" but the rest of that is you putting words in someone else's mouth.

Ray the camps believe fundamentally different things about sources, amps and speakers.

Fundamentally, the source takes an archived audio signal from a medium and translates it into an electrical signal, an amplifier makes that signal bigger so that it can be passed to the speakers which translate from electrical into acoustic energy. Does either camp believe something different than that?

The internet has blurred the language and this I admit. It takes time with and around a certain group to establish a glossary. I can speak to any of my friends over the phone and have no problem understanding a description of a new componant or a new combination they are trying. The same can happen on the web over time once a persons descriptions of gear you know is described by them.

Otherwise known as learning the language.

Back to Clay...

Please, just show me enough respect to listen to me.

I would amend that with "and not discount my opinion simply because you don't agree with it."

I think some of the folks in this thread are saying the same thing, Clay. Understanding the other side will bring more respect and less finger pointing, hence narrowing the gap.

 

[Fisherdude]

I guess I don't get it then.

It's about world-view and trying to understand each other. That's what I see us talking about here.

But maybe you can say more about what you had in mind?

I'll give it a run. And it IS about us trying to understand each other, without injecting emotion or disrespect or other distractions that get in the way of that understanding.

We can't have a debate unless we first agree on how we're going to conduct it. Actually, I prefer to think of it as a discussion and not a debate, because the entire purpose of a debate is to win, and that concept couldn't be further away from what we're trying to accomplish here, both in TOL and in AK as a whole. Most importantly, the discussion never has to come to a conclusion! It's about the discussion!

For those of you who are cursed by having to attend meetings at work, you'll probably be able to identify immediately with the difference between keeping a discussion at 40,000 feet, looking at the big picture, as opposed to diving down to ground zero and digging into the details. While the group is trying to decide what to do, somebody always jumps right to how to do it, when the group hasn't even decided what "it" is.

This thread has sorta gone right to the details of whether or not individuals believe in measuring sonic attributes, etc., while I'm not sure we've yet agreed about how we're going to talk about it. Although, generally, I think it's going pretty darn well!:thmbsp:

The main points I'm trying to make are to not paint everybody "else" with your own broad brush of opinions, biases, beliefs of what they're all about. And I'm not just taking context from this thread alone, but I'm trying to address those things that cause the most negative emotions in TOL.

If I tell you I consider myself to be an "audiophile", whatever the hell that means, then don't tell me that means I don't care about frequency response.

If I tell you I'm interested in how something measures, then don't tell me that means I don't care how it sounds.

If I can hear something, don't tell me I'm imagining it. If I can hear something, don't tell me that's "physically impossible".

If I can't hear something, don't tell me my equipment is obviously low-fi, or my ears are low-fi, or I'm simply in denial.

If RayW and I are sitting side by side on a couch at this year's Fest, listening to a pair of speakers, I positively guarantee that he and I won't be hearing the same things. He'll have one opinion about why they sound the way they do, and I'll have another, pathetically inadequate opinion, because I won't be able to hear half the things he's hearing.

Why? Because I'm all distracted because he's got his hand on my knee again!!

No, wait, that's not it. It's because he's so much more experienced at listening to speakers than I am. He really IS hearing things I'm not hearing, and I'm really NOT hearing things that he is hearing.

I guess I'm trying to say that we're supposed to talk from our experience (assuming you have some, otherwise stay out), and not extrapolate our own experiences on to the other person.

Just because I can't hear the difference between two cables doesn't mean that you can't. Just because we can or can't measure the difference in capacitance between the two cables doesn't mean they do or don't have to sound the same. Every cable is made with different materials, different construction processes, has different resistance, capacitance, and inductance, and two of those change constantly with the changing frequencies of the music signal. How do the three interacting parameters affect each other as the frequencies of the music are constantly and rapidly changing?

I haven't got a clue. I'm not sure anybody does, really. So how can we tell anybody else what they're hearing?

I can only talk about what I hear, and you can only do the same.

And we must respect what the other person says they're hearing.

 

[Fisherdude]

The reason the gap is difficult to shrink Ray is not just the language. It has far more to do with the position that the camps leaves a person in. Ray the camps believe fundamentally different things about sources, amps and speakers.

marc mc

That's easy to fix, marc. Just don't join a camp.

If you join a camp, that means you have to agree with your camp, and disagree with the other camp.

I refuse to be in a camp, because there are things I agree with in both camps, and things I disagree with in both camps.

Join me! It's very liberating.

 

[RayW]

I have to take issue with a couple of things here...

and I'll have another, pathetically inadequate opinion, because I won't be able to hear half the things he's hearing.

First here...what you do or do not hear has nothing to do with the adequacy of your opinion. Each listener is entitled to their own opinion and none is more valid or adequate than any other.

Why? Because I'm all distracted because he's got his hand on my knee again!!

Second issue...Clay, I might give you "ruggedly handsome" but you're just not my type. Sorry.

No, wait, that's not it. It's because he's so much more experienced at listening to speakers than I am. He really IS hearing things I'm not hearing, and I'm really NOT hearing things that he is hearing.

I think you're giving me too much credit...or yourself not enough. A look into my mind would be like looking at a copy of a Picaso done by MC Escher but here's a little peek. When I'm building/testing/tweaking speakers, I listen for all sorts of details. I pick out what I like or don't, find it in the data and adjust accordingly. However, when I sit down to listen I tend to get lost in the music, provided it's something I like. I don't pay attention to what's going on with the gear, I just listen to the music. It's like a switch in my brain. When I'm cruising rooms at the Fest I have to consciously decide to listen to the equipment, otherwise I wind up hanging out in the Venus HiFi room taking in whatever killer blues he's playing at the time.

I guess I'm trying to say that we're supposed to talk from our experience (assuming you have some, otherwise stay out), and not extrapolate our own experiences on to the other person.

Well said.

 

[marc mc]

Ray and Jon, I can't tell you how happy your posts make me feel!. I guess I can say to the OP that we have bridged the chasm and made peace among the camps. I really mean that. I admit that I have been wrong all these years and have made gross generalizations.

The scientist camp believes that:

1) CDP's can sound very different.

2) Wow and Flutter is not the deciding spec on a turntable.

3) Transducers are not the end of the story.

4) That amps can measure the same and sound different.

5) ABX is not the test that matters.

If you guys agree with those statements, we are good as gold and we have settled this issue of camps for good. What do you say? Can we agree on those points? And if not could you please help me with the specific points that we still are in disagreement? To prevent further generalizations on my part.

Please and Thank you

marc mc

 

[JonL]

Ray and Jon, I can't tell you how happy your posts make me feel!. I guess I can say to the OP that we have bridged the chasm and made peace among the camps. I really mean that. I admit that I have been wrong all these years and have made gross generalizations.

The scientist camp believes that:

1) CDP's can sound very different.

2) Wow and Flutter is not the deciding spec on a turntable.

3) Transducers are not the end of the story.

4) That amps can measure the same and sound different.

5) ABX is not the test that matters.

If you guys agree with those statements, we are good as gold and we have settled this issue of camps for good. What do you say? Can we agree on those points? And if not could you please help me with the specific points that we still are in disagreement? To prevent further generalizations on my part.

Please and Thank you

marc mc

I can't speak for what the "scientist camp" believes or does not believe. I don't count myself as part of any camp (except for the human race camp). I don't even know if there are "camps." I don't think that lumping whole groups of individuals into compartmentalized thought structures is constructive. I think that it becomes too easy to be "for" or "against" if you can boil things down to oversimplified talking points. It's more constructive to having a dialog, IMO, if we recognize that people as individuals and as parts of groups have a range of opinions and beliefs, and that there is often inconsistency even within an individual's beliefs. The world is made of many hues and shades of gray as are people's opinions.

I hope I haven't spoiled your warm and fuzzy mood.

As far as my own opinions (not that they really matter), I've edited your list to reflect my thinking.

1) CDP's can sound very different.

2) Wow and Flutter is not the only important spec on a turntable.

3) Transducers are not the end of the story.

4) That amps can measure the same (using the typical limited measures) and sound different. If they sound different, there is a physical difference that can theoretically be measured even if the methods are as yet unknown or undefined.

5) ABX is not the test that matters, though properly performed it can be useful at times.

I'll add to this list:

6) Claims of product performance that require a suspension of scientific understanding (or a leap of faith) may be assumed to be false until proven otherwise by a reasonable consensus of listeners. (In other words, if someone claims that painting a green dot above my turntable will make it sound better by absorbing wavelengths of light that excite the dustcover and create a resonance, I don't have to try it for a month before I can question the legitimacy of the claim. And that example that I just made up is more plausible than many others I've seen... perhaps I should market special green sonic paint.)

 

[Fisherdude]

If RayW and I are sitting side by side on a couch at this year's Fest, listening to a pair of speakers, I positively guarantee that he and I won't be hearing the same things. He'll have one opinion about why they sound the way they do, and I'll have another, pathetically inadequate opinion, because I won't be able to hear half the things he's hearing.

...what you do or do not hear has nothing to do with the adequacy of your opinion. Each listener is entitled to their own opinion and none is more valid or adequate than any other.

Thanks for the kind words on the validity of each others' opinions, but I guess I was trying to point out that different levels of experience matter, a lot, and you have more than I do. Equally important is that I recognize that, and I'm looking forward to continuing to learn more myself.

 

[Sam Cogley]

5) ABX is not the test that matters.

Considering the vast potential of the human brain (and body) to do things we don't understand, some sort of blind testing is, IMHO, the only way to find out if an effect really exists. If something is there, it WILL show up in blind testing. If something is NOT there, it won't show up. Simple as that. It's why double-blind placebo tests are so important in the pharmaceutical industry - read up on the placebo effect and apply that concept to the audio world.

And yes, CDPs can sound different. Different components, different firmware, different circuit topologies - plenty of room there for differences.

 

[Pili]

Wow, Great thread. To understand why we love different characteristics of audio systems may be beyond our ability to measure, but the posts here ( JonL in particular) gives me great insight as to to the intelligence and sensitivity of the members here. There seems to be a common trait here, regardless of the fact that we arrive at this trait through endlessly different experience. Great job guys .

 

[marc mc]

Ray?

marc mc

 

[RayW]

The scientist camp believes that:

I can't speak for the "scientist camp", but I can speak for me, and I can make educated guesses about the folks I know in both circles.

1) CDP's can sound very different.

Agreed.

2) Wow and Flutter is not the deciding spec on a turntable.

I wouldn't say the deciding spec, however an important piece of the puzzle.

3) Transducers are not the end of the story.

I'm not really sure what you mean there but I don't think transducers are the end of anything. If you mean room effects after the speakers, then you are correct that they're very important. However, transducers in the generic sense would also include the turntable. I still don't think it's the end of the story.

4) That amps can measure the same and sound different.

I believe it's possible, but I also believe that means the right thing isn't being measured.

5) ABX is not the test that matters.

I think ABX testing is valid, but not that it's the only test that matters. I do believe that blind testing is a must because the brain can play all kinds of tricks based on previous bias.

How's that?

edit: I started this before dinner and came back to it a couple of hours later. Didn't see Jon's response until after I posted this one. The first line of my response is coincidental, but interesting.

 

[Sam Cogley]

2) Wow and Flutter is not the deciding spec on a turntable.

I really should put up an audio clip of my malfunctioning PS-X70 - a truly fantastic table that's hobbled by an annoying cogging problem caused by something in the speed control circuitry. It has enough W&F going on to set anyone's hair on end.

 

[Art K.]

I can't speak for the "scientist camp", but I can speak for me, and I can make educated guesses about the folks I know in both circles.



Agreed.


I wouldn't say the deciding spec, however an important piece of the puzzle.



I'm not really sure what you mean there but I don't think transducers are the end of anything. If you mean room effects after the speakers, then you are correct that they're very important. However, transducers in the generic sense would also include the turntable. I still don't think it's the end of the story.




I believe it's possible, but I also believe that means the right thing isn't being measured.



I think ABX testing is valid, but not that it's the only test that matters. I do believe that blind testing is a must because the brain can play all kinds of tricks based on previous bias.

How's that?

edit: I started this before dinner and came back to it a couple of hours later. Didn't see Jon's response until after I posted this one. The first line of my response is coincidental, but interesting.

I agree with much of what you said Rich..except the blind test piece. It's exactly because the mind can play tricks that blind testing is not valid with regards to audio and sound. If mood can have an effect on how we perceive sound then it stands to reason that so too would ones level of arousal. If party A is more nervous or anxious relative to a rest than party B that may have a profound effect on his/her concentration and therefore accuracy...as I've stated and will continue to believe, blind testing introduces more variables than than can be controlled and renders any results invalid. Listening isn't science it's all about the human factor...it's all about our preception.

 

[marc mc]

Well Ray and Jon, very diplomatic :thmbsp: But on the other hand I was so hopeful.

BTW those 5 were off the top of my head. The list is endless, but any discussion of other points of difference would produce very similar and equaly useless results.

marc mc