Popular Post Archimago Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. Certainly OK to have skepticism around whether pure objective analysis is enough to determine quality (seems like you prefer "opinion" of self and others). One is free to decide. But the comparison with wine tasting, a multimodal experience of perceiving a substance produced by complex biochemical reactions controlled but originating in nature to the electrical engineering efforts of sound reproduction hardware leaves much to be desired. I would not consider the vague similarities between the two to be within the ballpark as the differences are even more striking! semente, Ralf11, sullis02 and 1 other 3 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Archimago said: Certainly OK to have skepticism around whether pure objective analysis is enough to determine quality (seems like you prefer "opinion" of self and others). One is free to decide. But the comparison with wine tasting, a multimodal experience of perceiving a substance produced by complex biochemical natural reactions to the electrical engineering efforts of sound reproduction leaves much to be desired. I would not consider the vague similarities between the two to be within the ballpark as the differences are even more striking! And it's been shown that wine tastings have radically different results when the tastings are blind. Less expensive , even not well known wines, often outpoint expensive and known ones, which is the opposite of what happens in sighted tastings. I think that outcome probably applies to audio comparisons also. Ralf11 and Nordkapp 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
adamdea Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 13 hours ago, crenca said: I hope I don't offend you, but could it be that your carrying features of your own philosophy into your evaluation of subjectivism? What I mean is what you are expecting to see in a subjectivist epistemology (i.e "thought-through, consistent") would only be found in an objectivist person/philosophy? Could it be that this incoherency, seemingly random application (audio yes, accountancy no, medicine yes, bridges no) and (from an objectivist viewpoint) shallowness IS part of the central character of subjectivism? Another way to put it is that you "think hard" about pattern and consistency in Reality (i.e. the real, the cosmos, etc.) because you presume that Reality has this character. However, because the subjectivist does not presume that Reality has this character, they only appear not to "think hard". Indeed, from their philosophy it is the objectivists who have not thought through reality and realized it subtlety and poetic character - this is one of Herb's Reichert's central accusations! Again, people are not their philosophy, and no one is a "pure objectivist" or "pure subjectivist" - these categories are shorthand that allow us to think about a cluster of tendencies, beliefs (conscious and unconscious), impressions, etc. that would otherwise overwhelm. In vain do we look for a pure example "in the wild", so to speak Thanks All good points. Don’t get me wrong, it can be fun to play a sort of “what if” thought experiment about this stuff, but I don’t think that objective/subjective tags correspond to anything much in philosophical terms and tend to obscure the issues. One of my hobby horses is that the physics/metrology side of the debate is largely a misdirection as, if you try hard enough you will always find some difference; the other is that the issue is not the infallibility of experience as such but an assumption that rather the reliability of “intuitive” causal explanations. And a third is that subjective/objective as traditionally (and more accurately) used do not map. The only connected use of obj/subj I am aware of is that of Ayn Rand. In general the use of this sort of tag just helps people to make empty, pointless statements which sound clever to them. Best avoided if possible. You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
adamdea Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 14 hours ago, GUTB said: I dislike the term objectavist but it gives them a sense of scientific legitimacy that they don't remotely deserve. QED You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
semente Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. Subjective judgement is akin to tasting: it won't tell you that something is good (in this case accurate at reproducing the signal) but whether or not you like it. Good = objective Pleasing = subjective "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Rexp Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 22 minutes ago, semente said: Subjective judgement is akin to tasting: it won't tell you that something is good (in this case accurate at reproducing the signal) but whether or not you like it. Good = objective Pleasing = subjective As I said I judge audio systems subjectively cos as far as I know no one has come up with a way of objectively proving the analog signal captured during recording is identical to the one reproduced by the audio system. Or have they? Link to comment
semente Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, Rexp said: As I said I judge audio systems subjectively cos as far as I know no one has come up with a way of objectively proving the analog signal captured during recording is identical to the one reproduced by the audio system. Or have they? Measurements are made by comparing the signal going in with what is coming out. So yes they have. Will this tell if you like the outcome: no. Gradient even performed an AB comparison where the listener would hear the recording in one channel and the live feed from a speaker reproducing into an anechoic chamber. Only one speaker was deemed"transparent", but that was in the early 90's if I'm not mistaken. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post JoeWhip Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 7 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. I try to stay out of these types of arguments as they are more akin to arguing about religion, fun but ultimately pointless. However, the wine analogy made me think of a social event I attended with a real wine snob, I mean right out of central casting. I don’t drink alcohol so just observed this. Someone brought an expensive bottle of wine and showed it to him for his approval at dinner. He approved. He was then served two buck chuck and couldn’t stop complementing the wine during dinner. We just chuckled. I often think of this when I read certain people poo poo confirmation bias. To be sure, we ultimately have to listen, but confirmation bias is real. Nordkapp and Ralf11 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post adamdea Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 8 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. Well great, except -and this is surely obvious- making value judgment about stereos is more like making value judgments about wine glasses not wine : 1. yes it really is that tragic 2. the decision might benefit from technical input; it may be possible that changes in the wine glass affect the taste of the wine; there are probably better uses of one’s time. tmtomh and pkane2001 1 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
crenca Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 5 hours ago, adamdea said: ... the other is that the issue is not the infallibility of experience as such but an assumption that rather the reliability of “intuitive” causal explanations.... 9 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. I don't know adamdea, I think Rexp's succinct statement, which in so many ways captures the essence of Audiophiledom's "subjectivism", is the very definition of "infallibility of experience" or said another way, infallibility of the subject or a set of trusted subjects Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 9 hours ago, Rexp said: The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope. Could there be a more succinct statement of Audiophiledom and the Audiophile culture? Sound quality rests on unknown and unexplainable art wielded by speaker/amp/DAC manufacturers, though these very same people will explain to you in meticulous detail how they design by know principals, math, etc. - they are quintessential "nerds with scopes". Writers and reviews who know next to nothing about electronics and technology "taste" various combinations of electronics. These guys are artists (often with art/literature degrees) and as such are trusted to judge art on an artistic basis. The proverbial (and largely mythical) "unknown" about sound proves their worth - they capture what a nerd and his scope will never capture, which is nothing less than what a recording really sounds like. @Archimago, @firedog, @semente all mentioned just a few of the many reasons and realities this position is "problematic" (to put a word to it) but in the end @JoeWhip is right is he not in that this belief resists anything from the "outside" with a religious fervor. Archimago, Ralf11 and semente 3 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
adamdea Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 31 minutes ago, crenca said: I don't know adamdea, I think Rexp's succinct statement, which in so many ways captures the essence of Audiophiledom's "subjectivism", is the very definition of "infallibility of experience" or said another way, infallibility of the subject or a set of trusted subjects True, but I think it’s more about connoisseurship ie more of a practice than a study. semente 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
crenca Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, adamdea said: True, but I think it’s more about connoisseurship ie more of a practice than a study. Ah! I think I get what your saying now. I agree with you fully, neither "subjectivism" nor "objectivism" as descriptors in Audiophiledom is a "study" or a coherent philosophy or practice. No, these terms are only used to gather together tendencies in a diffuse setting (i.e. a "hobby"). However, if you were to scratch the surface of these folks some of them (certainly not all) would reveal that these tendencies "go all the way down", as it were. In other words some of these folks (not all) are expressing deeply held beliefs about life in general. Take Herb Reichert or Michael Lavorgna - these guys are "artists" and "subjectivists" through and through, and approach all of life that way. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 45 minutes ago, crenca said: Could there be a more succinct statement of Audiophiledom and the Audiophile culture? Sound quality rests on unknown and unexplainable art wielded by speaker/amp/DAC manufacturers, though these very same people will explain to you in meticulous detail how they design by know principals, math, etc. - they are quintessential "nerds with scopes". Writers and reviews who know next to nothing about electronics and technology "taste" various combinations of electronics. These guys are artists (often with art/literature degrees) and as such are trusted to judge art on an artistic basis. The proverbial (and largely mythical) "unknown" about sound proves their worth - they capture what a nerd and his scope will never capture, which is nothing less than what a recording really sounds like. @Archimago, @firedog, @semente all mentioned just a few of the many reasons and realities this position is "problematic" (to put a word to it) but in the end @JoeWhip is right is he not in that this belief resists anything from the "outside" with a religious fervor. I'm certainly not a hard core objectivst or subjectivist - I'm somewhere in the middle, so in the end I just try to make the best evaluations of SQ I can and accept the results - even if I'm "fooling myself". In practical terms, there isn't anything else most of us can do most of the time. I think, everything in your post could be true; but the reality of sighted testing is still highly problematic. I'd wager many reviews and comparisons would have different results if the listening wasn't sighted. christopher3393 and pkane2001 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Rexp Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 hour ago, adamdea said: Well great, except -and this is surely obvious- making value judgment about stereos is more like making value judgments about wine glasses not wine : 1. yes it really is that tragic 2. the decision might benefit from technical input; it may be possible that changes in the wine glass affect the taste of the wine; there are probably better uses of one’s time. Did I say making a value judgment about wine is like making a value judgment about stereos? I buy wine on the recommendation of trusted souces, and similarly I mainly audition audio gear suggested to me by trusted sources. I get less disappointments that way. Link to comment
adamdea Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 21 minutes ago, crenca said: Ah! I think I get what your saying now. I agree with you fully, neither "subjectivism" nor "objectivism" as descriptors in Audiophiledom is a "study" or a coherent philosophy or practice. No, these terms are only used to gather together tendencies in a diffuse setting (i.e. a "hobby"). However, if you were to scratch the surface of these folks some of them (certainly not all) would reveal that these tendencies "go all the way down", as it were. In other words some of these folks (not all) are expressing deeply held beliefs about life in general. Take Herb Reichert or Michael Lavorgna - these guys are "artists" and "subjectivists" through and through, and approach all of life that way. Yes I’m sure that is right. I prefer to call this set of ideas the audiophile belief system. It includes a number of myths such as the belief that it has been demonstrated time and again by audiophile listening that there existed hitherto unknown distortions that engineers had been unable to identify let alone measure, and that everyone agreed that the engineers has been wrong about devices which were supposed to sound the same. But in general I consider that the really important characteristic is an over-dependence on kit as the primary cause of all differences in experience and a belief that changes in kit are needed to stimulate one’s enjoyment. One of the most puzzling things about the general debate is that it is frequently asserted that “objectivists” (i want you to note that I am holding this word with long tongs and wearing thick gloves) are dull, prosaic sorts not interested in art. What I find odd about this is basically the wine/ wine glass point mentioned above. I think people would find it very odd if they came across a group of poetry fans whose primary interest was in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper, typefaces and glasses in order to see whether they improved the experience of reading poetry. Well there you have it. tmtomh 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, adamdea said: Yes I’m sure that is right. I prefer to call this set of ideas the audiophile belief system. It includes a number of myths such as the belief that it has been demonstrated time and again by audiophile listening that there existed hitherto unknown distortions that engineers had been unable to identify let alone measure, and that everyone agreed that the engineers has been wrong about devices which were supposed to sound the same. But in general I consider that the really important characteristic is an over-dependence on kit as the primary cause of all differences in experience and a belief that changes in kit are needed to stimulate one’s enjoyment. One of the most puzzling things about the general debate is that it is frequently asserted that “objectivists” (i want you to note that I am holding this word with long tongs and wearing thick gloves) are dull, prosaic sorts not interested in art. What I find odd about this is basically the wine/ wine glass point mentioned above. I think people would find it very odd if they came across a group of poetry fans whose primary interest was in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper, typefaces and glasses in order to see whether they improved the experience of reading poetry. Well there you have it. Well stated. The kit change is promoted by the industry, because it drives $sells$. This is the "bad" side of consumerism. Yep, you're right about objectivists but that is the nature of dialectic - the extremes become caricatures. In this context (audiophiledom), the terms are only useful as a kind of shorthand (so most are going to want to be "in the middle" and "both/and). That said I argue that because the whole culture is off balanced - heavily leaning toward a "subjectivist" emphasis (for all sorts of reasons), the average "objectivist" is in fact the "both/and" and the average "subjectivist" is in fact mostly the caricature... Archimago and adamdea 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Allan F Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 5 hours ago, JoeWhip said: To be sure, we ultimately have to listen, but confirmation bias is real. But it works both ways. If you don't expect to hear a difference, the effect of confirmation bias will be that you won't hear it even if there is one. Summit 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
kumakuma Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, Allan F said: But it works both ways. If you don't expect to hear a difference, you won't. Some would argue that differences so subtle that they require faith on the part of the listener, can probably be ignored with little or no impact on the overall listening experience. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
tmtomh Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 hour ago, adamdea said: Yes I’m sure that is right. I prefer to call this set of ideas the audiophile belief system. It includes a number of myths such as the belief that it has been demonstrated time and again by audiophile listening that there existed hitherto unknown distortions that engineers had been unable to identify let alone measure, and that everyone agreed that the engineers has been wrong about devices which were supposed to sound the same. But in general I consider that the really important characteristic is an over-dependence on kit as the primary cause of all differences in experience and a belief that changes in kit are needed to stimulate one’s enjoyment. One of the most puzzling things about the general debate is that it is frequently asserted that “objectivists” (i want you to note that I am holding this word with long tongs and wearing thick gloves) are dull, prosaic sorts not interested in art. What I find odd about this is basically the wine/ wine glass point mentioned above. I think people would find it very odd if they came across a group of poetry fans whose primary interest was in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper, typefaces and glasses in order to see whether they improved the experience of reading poetry. Well there you have it. Your final statement here, which I have bolded, is a great analogy. Well said! Link to comment
Allan F Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, kumakuma said: Some would argue that differences so subtle that they require faith on the part of the listener, can probably be ignored with little or no impact on the overall listening experience. And others might argue that some deliberately describe the differences as being that subtle in order to justify their bias in not hearing and/or ignoring them. kumakuma 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post JoeWhip Posted April 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2018 If I have one rule for myself in evaluating components or file types or anything in audio, it is if I have to really think about whether I hear a difference, I don’t. Tiny minute differences aren’t worth me fretting over. Of course, YMMV. daverich4 and Nordkapp 1 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 interest ... in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper ---> sumi Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 What if I let 20 people listen to music on 2 different types of equipment (blind, A/B/X) and guess which X is A or B? That is subjective, right? Suppose I then apply statistical analysis to determine the chance they guessed right by chance? That is objective, right? Link to comment
greyscale Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Just had a look at AS. There is a new video by AR regarding a record cleaning device. If I didnt know better, I'd swear these guys are trying to get fired. Or perhaps, the people at HiFi are going to buy the rights to Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and post equipment revues there. I dont find a reference to the Christian religion or a Nazi salute funny. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive to this sort of humour, but what the hell are these types of comments doing in a HiFi equipment review publication? greyscale Marantz 6007, PSB Image B6 & B5, Synology 216+, 2010 Macbook Pro Audirvana 3.03, JRiver. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now