clearthinker  

Your father was and is right, This hobby would be ever more boring if everything was uniform without subjective judgments and choices coming into play. Nevertheless, from the first part of my post, even though I have no objective proof chocolate IS far better than vanilla!

@pmiller115      Certainly you are entirely correct when it comes to subjective judgements.  My father used to say 'comparisons are odious'.  I don't know where he got that from,and it isn't heard much today, but should be.

@eagledriver_22 ....*G*  Yup....

In the final analysis, at the end of the day...

...is the end of the day.  And what made it through it... ;)

@chcook, I like the title of your post, especially your comments quoted below. Because I share this 'philosophy'.

---> KISS

I don't care too much about (..............). I care how it tastes. If I like it, and the value proposition works for me I purchase it.

I will just have to rely on my ears with the helpful advice and experience of others. I fully recognize that this will always come with inherent confirmation bias, but as long as I am enjoying what I hear I can live with that :)

A 'live' example: Right now, I am listening to music from active bookshell speakers (Edifier 1380BD). I am sure, from an 'audiophile's' point of view, there are one million reasons why I should not (even must not) like the sound coming out from these speakers. However, right now, I like it very much. I could switch to my others, more costly stereo setup. And it would sound different (well, most certainly better). But I do not see the reason why to do it. Because for now, I like what I hear. And I do not question the 'why'. I am pleased/happy right now. For my, that is what counts. Because I want to have such moments on the plus side in my life.

Certainly, this could be (over)discussed in a separate tread 😉

Greetings to all

eagledriver

clearthinker

  I think you may be missing the point of my analogy. There is no objective or final measure or determination as to the correctness or incorrectness of the opinions of others as to certain audio issues.

More thoughts:

I agree with a poster that mentioned that product development is mostly "trial and error." The "Hey, lets try THIS and see what happens" may be a common occurrence. So, it sounds better. Now what? Then the task of objective assignment of cause and effect takes place.

I can see several scenarios here when significant a sonic benefit is achieved:

1) They nailed it!! The SQ is there, they are highly confident in their engineering, the science aligns with empirical data and scientifiy community, and there’s a strong concensus in the technical community that something valid just happened. The item get great reviews and glowing technical writeups.

2) They have a pretty good idea what just happened from an engineering perspective, and do their best to describe it, but understand there may be other variables. The possibility also exists that some of their assignment of the "whys" are not correct. White papers are presented, they are met with some pushback. Critics may listen, compare and comment.

3) It sounds awesome, they have no idea why, and are left providing their "best guess" of why it sounds like it sounds. The scientific community’s propellers spin so fast their collegues have grab hold of them to keep them going airborn. The product is widely adopted, gets favorable reviews from those willing to listen. The item is shunned, ridiculed, and mocked by those that can’t attach the correct metric to the outcome. Or, reject the premise of "better sound" altogether.

Then, there’s a 4th possibility:

- They nailed it! Wonderful sonic improvements across the board. The science is spot on, yet does not agree with some in the scientific community whose education, training and experiences differ. We find ourselves here quite often, in my opinion, where gaps in knowledge bases are unacknowledged.

It brings up the question: If the wrong ’why’ is assigned, does it justifiably disqualify the premise that the item has real world sonic benefits? Or, does it just make life more difficult for those producing and marketing the item?

Someone, for example, introduces a brilliant speaker with highs so delicate you’re terrified to move your head from side to side in fear you’re going to break something. Their explanation of the ’why’ is: "Compared to the lower-priced models in our line, we’ve found that the symphathetic resonances of genuine zebrawood veneers produce more musically satisfying even order harmonics compared to simulated vinyl materials." Giving the above "technical explanation", should we disqualify the item? Or, just rough up the technical writer a bit, and give them a listen? The correct technical explanation is buried deep in there -- somewhere. They just haven’t found and/or properly communicated it. They could be sitting on a breakthrough product.

@pmiller115 

Horse race is a poor analogy.  Whilst there can be differing opinions before the race as no-one knows the winner, after the race there can only be one opinion because there is only one winner and everyone knows which horse (and rider) it is.

...brains.....

*huge metallic sigh*  "A brain the size of a planet....and they have me opening doors...."  Marvin, your Friendly Robot Companion.

...it still devolves into the premise that, being unfamiliar with your equipment, speakers, and space, that the odds that I may not hear what you do Precisely in the same manner and fashion that you experience daily....more or less on that time frame...

Not that I may find it 'bad', objectionable, or even +/- 'ok'...

My enthusiasm may be 'curbed'; I Will be diplomatic at min.

You may have the same response here.

Lifes' like that.

Too little time....too many places 'n things to listen to....*sigh* ;)

@thyname - "Tricking" would be a fair assessment.  I think he would see the humor in it or I wouldn't do it.

@kiwiscott

I love this thread. As someone who’s just getting started I’d love it if we had a standard set of terminology we could start to communicate but to do that we really need reference systems. 

Sorry to say, but if it hasn't been accomplished in the last 145 years, it probably never will be. In fact we are going the opposite way. Anarchy rules!!!

1878 – Thomas Edison perfects a cylinder based Phonograph that he invented the previous year. It expanded on the principles of Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville‘s phonautograph and recorded sound onto a tinfoil sheet phonograph cylinder, and could both record and reproduce sounds. His first recording? It was the nursery rhyme “Mary’s got little lamb.”He also sets up the Edison Speaking Phonograph Company in the same year.

When do you really know if a wine is good - or not? Next morning...

This thread tells more about all the posters, than it says about wine or music... mcslipp (good post, sir) mentioned humility... less the person actually knows how little they really know, more arrogant (and ignorant) they are.

If we drink long enough, and if we are open to taste all the different wines we have available, we could become more informed. Or, more entrenched in what we prefer - or what we think we do. All in all, that too is a very personal thing.

In my opinion, HiFi equipment is a tool. No more, no less. If I must, I can compare HiFi equipment to a glass, used to taste the wine (or Cognac, or Armagnac, etc). One can have the best HiFi setup money can possibly buy, but if a recording is crap, all you going to hear will be that crap. No stereo can make mp3 sound like live event. Suddenly, measurements are not important any more. Same for Wine or Cognac. If your VS is a headache in the bottle, the best tulip glass will not prevent that hungover... Guess what - some XO are not much better!

And if you can't make yourself buy and try $100 bottle of wine, stick to the beer. Life is too short and wine is not for you. Better yet, just drink water. 

I should test my brother-in-law sometime.  He and my sister actually named my niece after a favorite wine.  I could track down someone that could recommend the most similar inexpensive wine and see if I could get my sister to pour him a glass of it on the down low and see if he would recognize that something was off.

IMHO this is called “tricking”, not “testing”. A test would be if you actually told him what you were trying to accomplish, and put together (with his permission) a blind test for him which you would administer. It’s also fair to your BIL

mceljo

I could track down someone that could recommend the most similar inexpensive wine and see if I could get my sister to pour him a glass of it on the down low and see if he would recognize that something was off.

That would be a biased test because you’re not allowing the test subject a chance for a fair evaluation. Spicy food, for example, could easily swamp subtle differences in wine.

@jond  - "Conspiracy Theory" is probably too strong of a word.  I was just referring to the classic debate on how much the price of a given wine impacts the experience.  Can most people really tell the difference between different wines that cost orders of magnitude different?

I should test my brother-in-law sometime.  He and my sister actually named my niece after a favorite wine.  I could track down someone that could recommend the most similar inexpensive wine and see if I could get my sister to pour him a glass of it on the down low and see if he would recognize that something was off.

@mceljo What conspiracy theories have you found in the wine world? Other than natural wine that is. 🤣

Audio is stuff a bite of everything on the table, add a sip and chew.  What would a sommelier recommend?  He/she might get ripped to shreds too.

      I think your approach is very well written and very to the point you are seeking to make. If there is an answer to this issue it can be found in the same manner as would be used to determine whether chocolate ice cream is better or worse that vanilla ice cream.

     For the most part I think you are dealing with issues to which there is no or very little objective proof that one opinion is correct and one is not. In other words we all have opinions on things the correctness or truthfulness of which is not easily provable if provable at all. On the other hand, what fun would a horse race be if everyone knew who the winner was before the race and there was no judgment and betting involved before the race. There is always going to be differences of opinion and that is what drives people in selecting certain products over others, different cars over others, different speakers over others. \

     I think there are a least two variables here- one is the person's judgment that a system is too harsh or too laid back, etc. and the second is that person's  judgment that changing a cable or the position of speaker or effecting some vibration control etc. corrected the problem -based on that person's first judgment- that there was a problem that needed to be corrected.                                                                                             If it could all be objectively measured I think if wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

Quick story,

I’ve been involved in speaker upgrades for many years. After retirement as an audio dealer, my tech of 25 years and I work one day a week trying to keep good, but broken hifi gear from going into the dumpster. We also offer performanace upgrades. I’ve discovered that power delivery matters, and began the practice of installing "better stuff" in vintage gear. Begin at the wall outlet, we take the high voltage upgrades internally, improving anything in the high voltage power path. We’re pretty proud of our work, but are often surprised ourselves at the results. When we’re expecting noticeable improvements in "A", "B" and "C", and we get "A", "B", and "C" in spades, PLUS "D", "E" an "F" in good measure, I find myself unexpectedly glued the listening chair for an extended period of time taking in the new experience.

The two most accomplished and successful gentlemen in my orbit are my old college roommate, and a friend of 30+ years. When I spoke of my hobby, and some details related to what I was doing, my college roommate, a literal rocket scientist, shut me off abruptly with: "Nope!!! That doesn’t matter! You have to have atleast 50 feet of that cable to make a difference". I quickly changed the subject to something we agreed on: fast cars.

The other friend is an engineer who keeps vintage radio stations on the air. He’s also involved in the service and restoration of vintage broadcast gear -- open reel tape recorders, turntables, etc. One day I invited him over to my shop to listen to some "new" items I was feeling pretty good about. His reply: "That would be a total waste of time. Have you seen the power supply in my <popular amp brand>?!!"

So, here I was. A guy who merely tippy-toed into college physics, and after years of involvement, finally arrived at the esteemed position of being slightly smarter than the Radio Shack soldering station on my bench. I was faced with a near genius-level individual, and another who keeps classic rock stations playing in a 100-like radius of a major city. I had a confidence level of 90%+ in my findings, but had no superior technical track to pursue.

I still do what I do. My confidence level has nudged up to 95%. No regrets.

@alaskaman

You presented me with a real dilemma this morning.

I can’t decide which of your quotes to print out, frame, and hang on the wall.

Subjectivity is inherent in the human brain.

Self-assuredness can lead one down the rabbit hole of ego in an attempt to self validate.

The anonymity of the Internet removes decorum and propagates untruths.

(not that some need the Internet)

Many people actually believe what they think - regardless of its validity, even in the face of proof to the contrary. (I think therefore, I am)

Wine can be the thesaurus of the sense of taste.

Exquisite music reproduction intoxicates the sense of hearing,

(and the spirit because music is the language of the universe, and therefore the soul)

Ivan Bacon

(written, while intoxicated by  Beethoven’s piano, Concerto, No. 5)

mastering92

The one thing a man should be is the master of himself. 

George Costanza would agree with that one. In fact, he even won a contest.

@waytoomuchstuff 

Sounds like the same kind of sensory differentiation.

As kiwiscott sez... This is one of the best threads I’ve ever come across at any website. We’re all going above and beyond. No insults. Just different folks articulating their different strokes. Audiophiles rule! We are truly superior beings! So there!

It IS a classic Ron. They don't make 'em like that anymore. That reminds me, my Greg Kihn Band CD should be coming in the mail.

I love this thread. As someone who’s just getting started I’d love it if we had a standard set of terminology we could start to communicate but to do that we really need reference systems. 

Mum trying get started and I get told, oh that’s a little bright and warm but if you pair it with these other components you’ll be fine. (Not helpful). 
 

mid love a level 1 course on different sounds form different equipment like amps, speakers, etc - and for fun throw in some room acoustics training. That would be great for us. 
 

im buying speakers and I’m curious about the British sound, the modern stand mount, floor standers, Klipsch la scales etc but there’s no way I can get all those to compare them - and sadly most dealers are forced to focus on select brands. 
 

thankfully some of the hifi shops have wxperts and can talk to you but everyone is different: 

@toddsyr 

I stand corrected. I loved that show. Happy listening. 
 

Ron 

@ronboco 

WAYYYYY off topic but...

You stated "Its I’m coming Elizabeth.  Fred G Sanford. The G..."

Just for the record, it's "Elizabeth! I'm coming to join you, honey..." followed by "I'll be the one with..."

There were variations on the first part but I seem to remember Fred always using the word Honey with the phrase. 😀

I really like the wine expert analogy, but... these guys study lots of stuff and they do have objective tasting/testing to validate their knowledge. That said, it’s true that their knowledge and experience are the only basis for evaluating their opinions... and they are allowed to have their opinions (unlike the experience of dealing with audio skeptics.) Too bad the perpetual skeptics can’t be happy just to shake their head, rolls their eyes and go their merry way, enjoying their own audio systems.

@jcoehler .  Noted.  And, thank you.

@edcyn
I would suggest that art is sublimely precise in it's ability to communicate emotion, trigger memory, and influence thought.  Science, on the other hand, is clunky in comparison with its manufactured measuring tools, limited precision, and dependence on established thought.
I tend to agree with the OP. Let your own feelings and emotions guide you in evaluating reproduced sound.  The physical excitement and emotional response to music can only exist in your imagination – how your brain processes the information.
On the other hand, intellectual involvement in choosing audio equipment is necessary to make cost/value comparisons.  We all have budget parameters, and must choose equipment we can afford.  We also need to be able to choose equipment that satisfies our own peculiar aesthetics.  How equipment looks and blends into our environment is important.
There are no hard and fast rules for achieving audio satisfaction.  I can be moved and thrilled when I hear something on a cheap radio just as easily as when I hear something on my expensive home hi-fi.  The message, for me at least, is in the music – not the equipment.
In other words, a bottle of Boone's Farm apple wine can trigger memories and emotions just as easily as a bottle of Château Le Pin.

@waytoomuchstuff You are giving too much time to 'ebm'. Look at his profile and then check his thousands of responses. They are usually one sentence with ZERO to add to any thread. Just like the one here, throwing a non-sensical thought without any solution provided or any context to the reply.

The answer is human interaction and experience. 

To have someone who's never heard your system tell you what you're hearing borders on insanity and yet, they're here on these forums, telling you so.

All the best,
Nonoise

Why is it viewed as an inferior process for seasoned professionals to just listen, "swish" it around in their brains for a bit, and comment?

It's not. That's why audio stores allow auditioning and direct sale companies allow 30 day auditioning..

@ebm

"This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!"

Okay then, let me take a another whack at it.

Someone with extensive experience with high performance audio, ventures into the world of the "unknown" and installs something NEW in his system. He leaves his preconceived notions and biases on the back porch, ready to engage in a "neutral" evaluation of said component. After a couple of evenings of careful evaluation, he is torn with his impressions, and asks himself: "Was this the musical equaliviant of being shot out of the canon? Or, was it more like skydiving naked?" Still conflicted, he does the unthinkable and posts his enthusiastic remarks on an audiophile forum - not just embracing a (contraversial) product category, but the actually recommending the component!

Then, someone with the personality of a wounded leopard responds and rips him a new orifice -- because he CAN. Afterall, it IS a public forum.

The antagonist here has a pedigree as long as his arm and not afraid to use it. The OP has a mere 50 years of critical listening experience including professional stints in something Hif-fi related. But no accreditation. He is outguned. So, he’s sitting there with fingers frozen on the keyboard, having one of those God vs Moses moments, not sure how to response to the antagonist. After all, advisary has professional credentials. He does not.

The question, then becomes, what is more valid? A growing and evolving scientific knowledge base with tons of empiracal data? Or, human interaction and experience. To the OP, his musical experience was REAL. To him, denying what just happened would be the equalivant of someone driving a vehicle over his foot and trying to convince him it didn’t happen.

Which is the greater culprit? Gaps in our scientific knowledge base offset by accompanying degrees and certifications? Or, flaws in the human experience greatly minimized by thosands of hours of listening impressions and implimentation of musically significant, sonically predicable solutions in the field?

I’ll go with the human experience, with a high degree of optimism that our ability to measure, theorize, and comment with a degree of respectability will catch up to it someday.

Imagine if you had the technology to put tone controls on a bottle of wine. That changes everything it’s too bad we don’t have the technology to put tone controls on audio equipment. That would change the whole world of audio don’t you think?

@ghdprentice 

In my younger days, I could go to the drag strip and differentiate the burnt exhaust smell of nitro, alcohol, or high octane pump gas.  Does that count?

I recall reading a news story about beer aficionados and their preference towards intense, high hop content brews.  They were bartenders and had gained experience with a wide variety of beers and similar libations.  As a result of all that drinking they came to prefer beers that most people would consider harsh and unappealing.  The aficionados would call what those people liked bland.  I too wonder whether something similar happens with many audiophiles and their sound preferences.

@mceljo … horse sweat, not cat urine… my god man. What were you thinking? No one would drink wine that smelled like cat urine. 😊

But like all nuanced things… very small nuances of many flavors make up good wine. Fortunately I have not picked up undertones of horse sweat… but if I did… I am pretty sure it would go down the drain.

On the other hand I stay away from Malbecs… to me the have the bouquet of swamp gas. I don’t get why anyone would like it. But on the other hand many folks like audio systems that scape every detail off the media, stripe it of all musicality, and add a large portion of distortion and think it is an “audiophile sound”.

@ghdprentice - I don't drink, but am fascinated with the concept that there are wines that people think smell like cat urine and still drink it.  If I needed to give a gift to a wine drinker...

As others have mentioned, the wine industry isn't without it's conspiracy theories.  I'm fairly certain that professional "tasters" and "smellers" can be tested to on some level (i.e. at what concentration can they identify a known taste or smell) but I don't know if this is done.  I'm not into it at all, but I think the wine industry is based primarily on subjective evaluations of the taste along with how exclusive the product is.

The audiophile world is certainly similar in a lot of ways.  I think the controversies come from a couple of different directions.  One is that because audiophile equipment is, in theory, and engineered product there's an expectation that measurements on meaningful.  Another is that the placebo effect is absolutely (in my mind) in play for a lot of audiophile while there are a few with truly golden ears that detect differences that most simply cannot.  Another is that most audiophiles are influenced by expectation bias when it comes to hearing what are only differences.

Probably the biggest aspect, in my mind, is that so much of the industry relies on pseudoscience that many that have some understanding of the related physical and engineering simply lose all confidence.  I think that a lot of companies "design" by trial and error using their ears and then try to explain the differences scientifically.

I try to keep an open mind that there are systems and ears that transcend mine and my experience is very limited.  I have heard differences that I did not expect and in some cases don't understand how someone else might not hear the difference.

What really bugs me is when people compare two products that have little beyond the product type in common and then attribute the differences that they hear to a cherry picked attribute and then that experience becomes evidence for another audiophile.

Well, one big difference between wine and audio is that the chemical composition provably differs from one wine or vintage to the next, whereas the composition of an audio signal, pre-speaker, is electrical and it does not vary based on the multitude of variables that can affect wine.  Some things can (an amplifier) and some things cannot, and so where you get into these big arguments is when someone argues that something changed the electrical signal when from an engineering/physics standpoint it cannot. So a somm. will carry more credibility than a guy playing with the direction of fuses. 

Connoisseurship is a lot like marriage. There is no objectivity in choosing a partner or what to be partnered with, and our criteria is always changing anyway. None of us wakes up every morning and repeats the same pledge of allegiance, or if we do we are just fooling ourselves. We are willing to risk being fooled because that's how life stacks up. Many times we get fooled, but it turns out to be fortuitous after all.

@thyname 

I make my purchasing decisions the same way as everyone else, not only by listening/tasting but by recommendation, research, review etc.

But to repeat - all I'm saying is we're all kidding ourselves if we think listening/tasting are entirely objective.

When I got back into red wine a few years ago ( a real passion since college) I read several books on sommelier and what it takes… etc. Then I bought an

https://aromaster.com/product/master-wine-aroma-kit/

Kit. With 88 auroras. From lemon grass, to horse sweat (yes, it comes up). To train my nose. It is amazing how you can go from oblivious to relatively sensitive… in. Months or years of training.

When it comes to wine tasting I just can't get past the Frasier Crane depiction. I guess I'm just not elitist enough to understand why anyone would have a need to do it!

I was at another, informal wine tasting last night and along with the usual tasting, the owner did three blind tastes with the crowd. After pouring, he asks if it's new or old world, going from person to person. Then he asks what country, province or state it came from followed by what the varietal is. It's all done aloud and rather fun to do. 

Doing it that way, I see no angle where confirmation bias resides as it's a blind tasting. One can will it to be something but it won't make it so. Case in point: on the second round I got it right with it being new world. I also got it right with it being from California. Where I messed up with is I changed my mind as to the type of grape. When I first smelled and tasted it, my inner self said clearly, this is a Cab. But the more I discussed it as the pours continued, the more I started to doubt it and came up with some lame rationalizations as to why. I even said it was a Cab and then asked if it was okay to change my mind, which the owner allowed (with a look I'll never forget) and said it was a Merlot. 

The point is, confirmation bias ain't gonna make it so. That, and although a nice analogy at first blush, wine tasting involves two senses with smell being the strongest of any of our senses when it comes to invoking memories, and you can't really taste all that well without a great sense of smell. Our hearing only involves one sense, which is further down the ladder when it comes to invoking and recalling memories as it was initially meant to keep us safe and tells us where to look.

We've only learned at a later stage of our development to enjoy sounds and relate to what pleases us. First and foremost, it's the type of music that draws us in and not its accurate reproduction. That comes later. Take any properly sorted out system and music we don't like will not appeal to us. It would be very difficult to determine if a system was better sounding listening to music we don't like or are unfamiliar with. It has to be music we enjoy and then refining the system can start.

You can rationalize away guessing the correct wine, despite knowing deep down what it is, but I can't see someone doing the same when it comes to listening to something and choosing the wrong, inferior sounding set up. A different set of  variables are involved. We don't listen the same way we taste.

All  the best,
Nonoise

So I'm a Master Sommelier. I studied 9 years to pass the exam in 2014. Since then I've run wineries, worked in the vineyards, owed restaurants and retail wine shops and teach about wine around the world. I've worked/studied/observed wine from every angle and it's fair to say I probably know more about the subject than 99.236% of the entire population. That said, when I'm teaching my main goal is to try and instill humility into my students because first and foremost we are in the service industry and wine much like high-end audio can quickly devolve into douchebaggery. 

This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!

That comment, though, says quite a lot, doesn't it? 

@edcyn

Excellent points. I like your train of thought.

These are personal questions, so I’ll do my best keep my comments relative to the subject.

I played guitar and keyboard, and wasn’t very good at either one. I developed a fond admiration for those who could actually play well and was awed by their talent. I took music appreciation in college and learned to grasp the complexity of classical music. It did change how I viewed other genres as well. So, music as "art" has been part of me for a very long time.

I was a bit "geeky" and wanted know how things worked. I did well in college physics classes and thought seriously about becoming a math/science teacher. After a few unexpected turns I opened a hifi store, and later found a way to earn a speaker patent on what I designed and built. So, I am "compelled to figure things out."

I also understand that my knowledge base is incomplete. I stand with a engineer/reviewer of decades past who was quite comfortable taking the position that he could not explain in engineering terms what he was hearing. So, that may best describe me. I’ll do my best to try to analyze what I hear in scientific terms. But, if I can’t figure it out, it in no way invalidates my listening experience.

@waytoomuchstuff Some of us gravitate toward the mess that is art. Some of us gravitate toward the precision that is science. Are you compelled to precisely figure things out? Or is it okay to get enough info to be able to intellectually/emotionally fill in the cracks? To make 2+2 equal 2000?