I have been following (with much amusement) various threads about cables and tweaks where some claim "game changing improvements" and other claim "no difference". My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference. If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same. So what are your opinions on what those differences might be and what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?
I'll give you guys a mystery of my own. I got into upgrading speakers for a little while and the results were fun and educational.
I used a DATS V2 to measure replacement parts. I believe Focals use Solen as their OEM and IMHO it shows. I really prefer the sound of the almost as inexpensive Mundorf MKPs instead. Anyway, I replaced the tweeter caps after measuring the original and new caps for capacitance and equivalent series resistance (ESR). Both were very very similar.
For about 4 days after replacement I kept hearing weird surround sound effects. I would hear sounds from the recording appear to happen below and behind me. Later on this cleared up and never happened again. The resulting sound was less harsh and more mellow than the original caps.
The weird sound effects I have always chalked up to head related transfer function (HRTF) effects. The idea that the right comb filtering can make us hear things happen in 3D space.
HRTF effects are complicated. If I wanted to measure or prove/disprove this was happening I'd need to have recorded the sound and compared the frequency response and phase responses of the before and after. If that measured the same I'd chalk it up to my hearing, but to this day I think HRTF would explain what I heard and capacitor break-in behavior a lot more than uF and ESR.
“What “what are objectivists missing? Trust in their senses, which may be good thing in that certain individuals have a less developed aural acuity.”
So the problem here for those trained in science is that we have learned early on that our senses cannot perceive things that are there and conversely can also perceive things that are not there. Measurement and replication are the only tools we have in the struggle with self deception.
“Audio subjectivists are the furthest thing from being religious, we disagree on so much. While we may believe in our systems and/or choice of equipment, we allow other's those same prerrogatives. If this religion, sure is one incoherent belief system.“
Have you checked lately how many religions there are on earth? And that is just one planet :-)
I don't know if someone has touched on it in this thread, but when considering the manufacturers goal is to sell product, they come up with supposedly innovative designs for their cables with exotic processes that (according to them) make profound (positive) differences! The question from a scientific perspective is if you can't measure the differences, then how do you formulate your hypothesis to even begin to design a cable?! Without a sound scientific methodology, where would you even begin to innovate? Regardless of whether there is actually a sonic difference, without a point to begin from, they are only guessing at what will or won't work, and how could anyone trust that?!!!
what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?
This is a very hard question, as it refers to unknowns.
There are many sensed qualities for which there is no quantifiable, measure-able correlate.
We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."
So the problem here for those trained in science is that we have learned early on that our senses cannot perceive things that are there and conversely can also perceive things that are not there.
SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and brought forth by man's human senses
You need both objective to get a base to replicate or advance from and subjective to tell if it's enjoyable since that can not be measured. Nearly all audio products built by subjectivists have parts or materials that were carefully measured and meet specifications based on advanced objective measurements. All objective products meant for humanity’s replication of art must work, feel, sound, or look good to humans and that’s all subjective.
SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and brought forth by man’s human senses
So do you trust your speedometer in your car to give you an idea of how fast you are going, or do you go by just watching the terrain go by? Have you ever tried flying an airplane when you don’t have visual reference to the horizon? It’s important to understand in advance that your senses will confuse you in that situation about something as basic as which way is up and which way is down. You can build instruments in advance that are immune to the effect and use their readout to tell you which way is up when your naked senses are disoriented. It's not about not trusting our senses. It's about knowing the limits of our senses and finding ways to augment them.
We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."
Exactly...
Objectivist and subjectivist alike wear blinfolds that make them unable to understand a dynamic acoustic/psycho-acoustic process of correlation it seems..
Why the straw man argument when I never made an argument against machines & science? Apparently my point went straight over your head. Sometimes airplane crashes mare due to faulty equipment, NOT human error, excerpt in trusting the faulty machine. The weathermen use all kinds of equipment. Yet, how often are they wrong? let me reverse your last sentence
"It’s not about not trusting our science It’s about knowing the limits of our science and finding ways to augment them."
Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best. This is scientism...and its very popular at the moment
@painter24Thanks. Atttaboys are always helpful when we are generally outnumbered
It's true, the equipment can go wrong sometimes. When it comes to keeping the plane upright without visual access to the horizon the human will go wrong every time. We just can't do it at all. Even birds can't do it. I'm with you though on knowing the limits to our equipment and science. When the science can't explain something we need to acknowledge that and explore it further. First we need to make sure there's actually something there that needs explaining. If someone could deftly maneuver an airplane without visual horizon cues and no attitude instruments, then that would be something to investigate. If they just said they could, not so much. But we could easily put a hood on them and have them demonstrate this ability. If they argued that the hood distracted them, we'd have to wait for actual inclement weather. If they said the presence of an observer or the settings of the test distracted them, or the poor handling characteristics of a perfectly good plane didn't give them enough feedback, I'd just disregard the claim. With audio claims, if someone won't expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen then I'll just accept that they do perceive a difference in non blind testing situations but I've got no reason to infer it's anything beyond just a perception. I'm personally interested in these sighted perceptual effects but see no reason to assume they're actually caused by a meaningful change in the sound that's reaching their ears.
These folks keep talking about "making claims" for some reason. Whereas people are simply sharing what they experience. Nobody is here to claim anything, or impose something on others, especially to THOSE others. If they like to "expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen", have at it! If that's what you want to do, do it.
"if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference"
The above statement misses one crucial point. It is the difference between what you ACTUALLY hear and what you THINK you hear. 99% of the audiophile world falls into the latter category. As for the the other 1%, those descended from the monsters from the movie "A Quiet Place" :-)
🙄🙄🙄. The usual rhetoric. This one is even funnier, as usual on his posts. He quantifies the number of deluded audiophiles at 99%. 🙄🙄🤦♂️. Yeah, we are all hallucinating
Obviously. Unless you can “prove” it what you hear by either 1) measurements, or 2) third party independent panel certified blind test. Preferably both! Otherwise what you “claim” is null and avoid. You should not post such thing in the internet 😉
A room is like a piano, it is easy to spot a lack with few months of listening experiments though... I never said it was easy for sure.. it must be learned...
People like to qualify 99% of people being deluded like idiots...And they like to put themselves in the 1 % of enlightened spirit. for sure..
This is not a sign of intelligence this labelling fury...
The truth is different, it is more 50 %...
It is more like a Bell or Gauss curve...
Like the I.Q. distribution...
Cretins are not a crowd of 99 %...
More like 50%...
And guess who claim to be in the 1% ?
Myself i claim to be in the good 50%...
I cannot prove it, save by rational post arguments...
It is the difference between what you ACTUALLY hear and what you THINK you hear.
Interesting statement.
What does it mean to actually hear something I don’t think I hear?
My dad has macular degeneration.
If I hold up an envelope to him and say, "What return address do you see, Dad", he will say, "It’s all a blur."
If I then add, "Ok, now what do you think you see, Dad?" He’ll say, "It’s all a blur."
If I then ask him, what’s the difference between what you actually see and what you think you see, he’ll say, "Please stop."
He really sees the blur he thinks he sees. I really see the address that I think I see. If I put it under a microscope, I would really see the pixels I think I see.
There is no independent access to "reality." There are just different components in different complex systems of experience.
Subjective claims are null and void for everyone but the one making them. In order to show that the subjective claim has any relevance beyond that it needs to be verified. This is true for things besides audio as well. I can claim a teapot is orbiting Mars, that I have seen it, but until such time it can be verified this claim is only true for me. This isnt some wild radical notion it's true for all human experiences the idea some ignore it for audio, to claim audio is different is depressing in a way.
The point of blind testing isn't to claim someone is delusional. All humans have biases, the only way to eliminate bias and continue the investigation into why something sounds different is by testing the claim.
100% true. But, this works both ways. For the "objectivists" too
Subjective claims are null and void for everyone but the one making them
The emphasis is mine on the quoted phrase. Again, I don’t think people are making claims. Instead, they are sharing their impressions. It’s a public forum. Meaning people gather, talk to each other, share what they like and don’t like, sharing their experiences. If you don’t like what people share, ignore them. Let the people who enjoy the discussion with each other be. As easy as that. Go by whatever fits your bill, including the measurements you take yourself or read on the internet from a measurement guru of your preference.
Subjectivist sometimes dont learn how to listen by themselves, and this is acoustic science training by the way... they trust more the branded name of the gear they bought than their ears training ...They train their ears distinguishing amplifiers marketed sounds qualities 😁😊
Objectivist are worst, they trust their measuring tools ONLY...Or they trust misapplied very limited blind test which are an industrial methodological statistical tool not a tool for learning concrete acoustic ...
None of them most of the time learn with their EARS acoustic concrete science in listening experiments...
Solving equations of acoustic is not enough in applied acoustic of complex small room by the way...Acoustic like medecine is an art based on science...
100% true. But, this works both ways. For the "objectivists" too
Absolutely. If I say 2 dacs sound the same I will add if it's simply a subjective opinion or one I have tested.
This thread isn't about cable A sounds better than cable B to John Doe but why will some claim A is sounds different than B yet measure the same. Are there unknown measurements we need to make? My point is bias has to be eliminated to see if the reason is bias or some unknown before we can begin to investigate this unknown as a real factor. Share whatever impressions you want but if someone is asking for RELEVANT feedback on a component my or anyones subjective opinion isn't really worth squat.
A cable measured or bought for his magical true or untrue quality will not sound the same in two different rooms, especially if the evaluating ears read the publicity of the cables before buying it or worst because some measured it instead of listening it...
Astounding that people dont seems to understand that basic acoustic listening training is needed to be able to evaluate ANY component and optimize his working...
Subjectivist and objectivist focus on the GEAR market publicity, one group favorably the other group with defiance....Same error, one group trusting the branded name of the product the other group an electrical tool to measure it...
Astounding ignorance....But at least subjectivist guess that they can educate the way they listen....Objectivist are measuring tool fetichist.... 😁😊
None of them learn how to tune a room by themselves, nor to eliminate vibrations and to control the electrical noise floor of the house to some extent, AS the three main experiments in audiophile life... Not blind test nor upgrade...
None of them most of the time learn with their EARS acoustic concrete science in listening experiments...
Good experiments use trained and untrained listeners. I agree with a lot of what you say about audio, not all. To me 90% of what we experience is room/ speaker interaction and how we've tuned them with either passive room threats, EQ or both. As long as your electronic system is competently designed and most is, not specifically made to have a sound signature it's no more than 10% of it, and yes, that's only my opinion.
Share whatever impressions you want but if someone is asking for RELEVANT feedback on a component my or anyones subjective opinion isn't really worth squat.
You seem to completely go past what I wrote. Let me repeat:
Again, I don’t think people are making claims. Instead, they are sharing their impressions. It’s a public forum. Meaning people gather, talk to each other, share what they like and don’t like, sharing their experiences. If you don’t like what people share, ignore them. Let the people who enjoy the discussion with each other be. As easy as that.
You keep focusing on "claims" over and over again.
Let me break it down for you:
1 - People are free to share their impressions on anything audio in an audio forum
2 - You pick what is relevant to you. Ignore the rest
3 - Something that may not be relevant to you may be relevant to others
1 - People are free to share their impressions on anything audio in an audio forum
2 - You pick what is relevant to you. Ignore the rest
3 - Something that may not be relevant to you may be relevant to others
I’ll break it down for you.
I don’t care what you and John Doe discuss about subjective impressions. I do ignore it.
I am free to discuss my impressions on anything audio as well.
If the questions asked in an OP are given subjective impressions as answers then I’ll point out to him or her that’s all they are and should be taken with a grain of salt.
To return to the OPs question. We can't identify if something else needs to be measured based on subjective listening claims. Bias has to be eliminated first.
I don’t care what you and John Doe discuss about subjective impressions. I do ignore it
That’s clear 100% for the "care" part. But, not so sure about the "ignore" part. You seem to reply to all threads on these very "subjective impressions" topics, cables, DACs, you name it. Majority of your 5,000 posts are replies to these threads. Not really ignoring them for some reason, they seem to bother you.
Some other people may, just may, however, be interested on John Doe’s subjective impressions.
The definition of objectivism is the philosophy or theory that the main objective of the human experience is to pursue personal happiness and respect other humans. An example of objectivism is the philosophy made known by author Ayn Rand
I am happy that we are almost on the same page about that...
My best to you ...
Good experiments use trained and untrained listeners. I agree with a lot of what you say about audio, not all. To me 90% of what we experience is room/ speaker interaction and how we've tuned them with either passive room threats, EQ or both. As long as your electronic system is competently designed and most is, not specifically made to have a sound signature it's no more than 10% of it, and yes, that's only my opinion.
Wow. Two shoutouts for Ayn Rand who did not write about respecting other humans. She was the forerunner of Gordon Gecko (greed is good) and promoted selfishness above all else.
She admired serial killer Willian Edward Hickman so much that she modeled her protagonists in her books after him. She saw him as above all others and not tied down to societies laws and precepts. A superman, as she said.
For many things, subjective impressions are share-able -- if you see me accidentally stab my hand with a fork, you’ll probably say "ow" at nearly the same instant I do. We overlap so much for our experiences because we share a very similar physiology.
Measuring is useful when we are beyond the easy cases. Then, it can help a lot. But so can training of listening (or other senses). A chemistry kit can educe a chemical element that might not be immediately apparent. A training in tasting can help make apparent what was not, before.
It’s not "subjective" vs. "objective," as I see it. It’s how to make something apparent and also definite, qualitatively.
Perhaps we’re coming from different perspectives. To me subjective and objective could be described thus;
Subjective observation is centered on a person’s own mind and perspectives, as opposed to being general, universal, or scientific. In this way, describing an observation as subjective often implies that it comes with (or is based on) personal biases.
Objective;
Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis.
Let’s say you’re a restaurant critic. There may be certain foods that you subjectively dislike—ones that are just not to your taste. But when critiquing dishes, you must leave your subjective tastes aside and be objective about what you eat—making objective judgments about things like how it’s cooked and seasoned and how the ingredients work together. Even if you’re served a dish that you subjectively don’t like, it’s your job to objectively assess its quality.
In a scientific experiment, your hypothesis might be based—at least in part—on your subjective opinion about what the results will be. But science is about being completely objective by gathering data and making conclusions based on the data.
In everyday life, your objective opinion is the one that sets aside your subjective preferences or feelings about something and instead assesses it based on facts and reality.
Dictionary dot com
Personally I dislike tube amps, inefficient, to much trouble to maintain, but there are tube amps that are well made, do a competent job within their specs and if someone likes them it’s none of my business. I've heard tube amp I couldn't tell from Solid state it's just my personal bias. Different strokes for different folks. If they start claiming they are superior to Solid State and sound better then I need more than their subjective opinion. How are they superior and have you compared tube amps to solid state in a blind listening test and pick tube amps better than chance.
I'm totally for people sharing their subjective preferences. I take them seriously and accept that they really do prefer the equipment they say they do under the conditions they are using it. If they don't care about how measurements might correlate to sound preferences that's perfectly ok. No need to do blind testing if you're not interested.
To answer the OP post, all evidence suggests that under properly controlled conditions we do know how to measure audio signals in a way that accounts for the limits of human hearing. In uncontrolled, sighted settings there are a huge number of variables that change our overall perception of sound quality. Nevertheless, between any two models of speakers it's easy to measure differences that fall within the known abilities of human hearing, often even between two speakers of the same make. There can be all kinds of interesting interactions between different components, such as amps and speakers, or even pre-amps and amps, and dacs and pre-amps, and even the cables used to connect them. This need not be the case, but it might be preferred to introduce audible non linear responses between these devices to give people room to tailor their sound by mixing and matching components. I believe that almost any speaker in any room can benefit from a little EQ - unless someone just hit the jackpot with the perfect match of room and speaker. Sometimes a little noise and distortion of the right kind can be nice too.
Objectively, Hitler took a country devastated after WWI and one of the worst states suffering from depression and brought it to a point where it almost took over the world. No such thing as “pure evil”. Or pure anything.
Thanks for these remarks...
Not less worst than Hitler are those who control money who financed his views nevermind his ideas about expelling jews and alleged "inferior" poeple and stole them of their right at first before deciding it is better to kill them...The bankers and corporations without with there will never be no Hitler, no chemical to kills, etc....
No one is pure evil...You are right..
But a systenm can be pure evil .... Some political and economical system are born from pure evil... For exemple the mechanic of enslavement by debts... It is pure evil and pure economical catastrophy....We are free to participate to these systems or not....
It seems to escape people that in acoustic and psycho-acoustic, separating perceptive subjectivity and material objective conditions and measure make no sense at all...
It seems to escape some people that we dont listen to the gear, but to the gear/house/room/ speakers relation... Acoustic material dispositions and concepts being the first and last with psycho-acoustic factors to consider...Not the electronic design...
Incredibly some seems to not understand that and prefer to be charcterized by their obsession with their beloved gear branded name or against it, with a measuring tool and a blind test...
Many dont seems to understand that the only way to learn to listen is studying music and/or acoustic...
Picking 10 amplifiers or 100, and comparing them is ridiculous if someone pretend to know audio because of that...
it is more important to know how to embed the gear mechanically, acoustically and electrically than buying many amplifiers or upgrading......
The relation between subjectivity and objectivity is anyway ALWAYS an ongoing dynamical LEARNING correlative process...
@erik_squires ...I experience that same (wrote 'sane' 1st, but applicable..*L*) with my omnis' if I'm in a 'surround' situation....HTF is expected, and I like to play with it as I'm able....
It would seem as if that could have a handle one could grip with ongoing digital advances....but the 'trad crowd' will freak over that.... ;)
I think the word "impartial" does better work than "objective."
I like what you said here:
Let’s say you’re a restaurant critic. There may be certain foods that you subjectively dislike—ones that are just not to your taste. But when critiquing dishes, you must leave your subjective tastes aside and be objective about what you eat—making objective judgments about things like how it’s cooked and seasoned and how the ingredients work together. Even if you’re served a dish that you subjectively don’t like, it’s your job to objectively assess its quality.
One of the niggling things about scientific experimentation, is that it always involves a selection of which data to pay attention to and how to weight that data. Those aspects of scientific procedure are not written in the "book of nature." Such selection and weighting come back to the purpose of the experiment — what one wants to accomplish. And that's a valuational question.
One of the great things about science is the corroboration process. No one can get away with the partiality we decry around here because there is a procedure to describe the experiment's objectives, control variables, etc. In other words, to make sure that everyone has aligned what counts as "the" data, valid results, and relevant facts.
Other than these ways of operating, there is nothing more we can do to check our results because we don't have an extra-human access to reality. But this has gotten us to the moon, etc., so there's not much to worry about.
One last point, pertinent to another post. Because listening is about the reception of meaningful sound, the idea that we have machine to measure what we hear misses the point.
Someone could know (and hear) all the words in a poem and yet be quite unskilled in interpreting what it could mean. That's one reason this debate is somewhat wooly and wild -- the "meaning" factor is unaddressed by measurement science.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
