Objectivists/Subjectivists

[fas42]

I'm not in the mood to digest this brand new, for me, thread - umm, the weather ... ... excellent OP, BTW .

 

I can guess most of what's been said, repetition of everything said already an infinite number of times - with very little crossover between the parties.

 

My POV is that everyone is 'right' - in some areas. That is, no new physics is needed; engineering can get it to work "perfectly"; every tiny damn thing matters; amazing quality can be realised if one keeps fiddling with "silly stuff"; and so on ...

 

How does this reconcile? The simple answer is that human hearing is remarkably acute to minor anomalies in the sound, and they have to be dealt with, thoroughly, for one to be at peace, during the listening; and it's the lack of desire by the "scientific crowd" to accept, 1) that this is true, and, 2) that what they do currently is not "good enough", that they have to lift their standards.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

BTW, yeah I've tested myself on echoic memory.  The difference in quick switching 10second segments and 30 second segments is huge. Yet so many insist only long term listening works. 

 

See, here I'm "on the side of" the objectivists. The audible difference should be clearcut, as noticeable as an unwanted rattling that suddenly pops up in your car; if you have to switch on your thinking, to decide, then "you've lost".

[fas42]

Man, if only speakers were all that mattered ... that thought will keep me happily chuckling for a good 24 hours, .

[fas42]

It's quite easy to organise a real world test for the qualities need; piano or audio rig behind a curtain, can an idle person, or one curious to understand what matters, trivially pick the real from the fake; or be basically guessing - 120dB down stuff is meaningless; it's "show off skill" territory.

[fas42]

19 hours ago, firedog said:

One of my issues with audiophilia is the language. “Completely different”, “veils lifted”, “dramatic” and other superlatives and extreme language.

If you aren’t talking about something involving speakers, I think these same differences, even when they do exist, are often much smaller than described. A power supply change or a digital source change may have improved your results, but it probably didn’t “totally change” the sound of your system.

 

The concept of "Completely different” is 100% relevant to audio ...

 

Just to spell it out again, we aiming to get the mind to be fully deluded by what it's hearing - not to be able to detect whether what we're listening to is 'fake' or not - this produces a magical listening experience, and there are no subsitutes for this.

 

What nearly everyone in the audio game seems incapable of grasping, is that a single problem area, buried somewhere in the playback chain, is all that's needed to disrupt the chance of this illusion forming solidly. Change a million other things, throw vast amounts of money at the setup - and nothing "dramatic" happens; finally, that last lurking issue is addressed, accidentally or otherwise, and the 'miracle' happens - convincing playback is in the room.

 

What is done, as the last step, could be almost anything: power supply or source change, or a myriad other things. All that matters, is that the last crucial weakness has been dealt with ...

[fas42]

This is one thread where I'm pleased to gloss over almost everything said - it's an episode of the Vikings.

[fas42]

Maybe you could put this to shame ...

 

 

 

[fas42]

The divide is mainly because the objectivists don't know how to measure what the subjectivists can hear ...

[fas42]

The heathens get a consolation prize - they can console the virgins ...

[fas42]

The heavy handed application of "attitude" is what disturbs many ... like in a post just above, "(forums) dedicated to group stroking of delusional hearing."

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

I find that subjectivists simply trust, objectivists verify.

 

Subjectivists simply trust (that their ears are telling them the most important information), objectivists (attempt to) verify (that there is something measurable that is easy to correlate with significant audible changes, but usually fail).

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Do you know of any "significant audible changes" that cannot be measured?

 

Careful use of language is required - there are no "cannots"', and a paucity of "something measurable that is easy to correlate" - the answers are there to be found, but the motivation doesn't exist to do so.

[fas42]

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Depth of image is hard to measure and the illusion of HEIGHT which the better gear can also portray if present in the recordings  is probably damn  near impossible to measure using normal techniques.

 Even " The Storm" from the Chesky Surround recording can give a frighteningly real depiction of height with a very good amplifier such as  Pass 100W Class A monoblocks even when downconverted to Stereo.

 

 

The key one I'm interested in is the aural disappearance of the speakers - this is so abrupt in the transition, because it is subjective to its core. But it would be relatively easy to 'measure' with respect to the listener - simply hide the true location of the speaker, behind a curtain, say - and ask the audience to point to where they think the speaker is. Measuring what is so significant in the SQ to make this happen, OTOH, would be the really hard bit!

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

According to Amir, if the USB cable makes any difference connected to your DAC that only means your DAC is poorly designed. 

 

And, he's exactly right. If any part of the system which is consumer exchangeable makes a significant difference to the sound then it means the robustness of the setup is poor - it's fragile to variations in the environment, which means that what you experience at any time is dependent on many "wrong things".

 

The best rig is one where you can "jump up and down", do whatever you damn well please - and the the sound remains exactly the same.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Here's the issue. There is no 'The heavy handed application of "attitude" '.  What you just did was paint the honest question I asked with the color of it having attitude.

 

Bottom line is if you don't trust your ears, why should I?

 

 

I'm sorry if you misunderstood - I wasn't reacting to a post of yours at all, when I made that comment.

 

You don't "test ears" with an arbitrary test, chosen by the one questioning an ability - if someone has become sensitive, or acute in picking up on something "specialist" using the physical senses, then that normally won't generalise - if you can easily identify wines by their smell, you would shake your head if someone asked you to identify different animal poop by smell, "as a test".

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

To answer a question a few pages back...

 

everything relating to the science of electronics is already known as far as audio goes

 

That does not mean all technological implementations have been made, or that new materials or processing will not occur in the future.  I started a thread 1-2 days ago for just this question.

 

Everything is in place, right now, for brilliant subjective quality to be realised. And the same was the case, 30 years ago. The only reason it doesn't happen is that not enough attention to detail is applied; and while everyone keeps chasing the Adding Goodness! goddess, year after year, all the same old problems will still be present, to drag the perceived quality down ...

[fas42]

Fair enough. The subjectivists can trip themselves up just as easily as anyone, if they decide to be dogmatic about things - I have been aware of myself getting drawn into a self imposed 'trap' of trying to discern something; and having to pull back. If I can't pick it, then there is nothing of real value there in the exercise of choosing - the alternatives are equally OK.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Many will say that the complete opposite is true, e.g. if you make significant changes to the source components of your system and there is no difference to the sound, your system lacks transparency.

 

OK, the way to look it is that there is "your system", and then there is everything else. You want the "system" to be 100% transparent to the recording, that's what you work towards. So, you do whatever's necessary to get closer to that, and anything you do that modifies, and adds to it, to make that happen, is part, becomes part, of "your system".

 

It's a process of refining - not a "Gee whiz! I put in a different amplifier - and my rig sound is totally altered!" ... bad sign! Your rig is now like a theatre stage with a powerful lighting setup - flip a couple of switches, and the mood changes completely. Great, if you want that - but, if you want everything to look 'natural' the method is different.

[fas42]

Note the fascination with, "identification" ... Now sir, we have introduced two rattles in your car, Rattle A, and Rattle B; to win the Jackpot, you have to identify the correct rattle, 15 out of 20 times ... Umm, I just don't want to hear any rattles, at all ... I'm afraid, sir, that is an unacceptable answer! To be worthy, you have to be able to identify the rattles consistently; this shows you have the correct level of hearing skill to appreciate well engineered audio equipment! ... Ummm, I just want to enjoy a quiet ride in my car, and the music ... That does not compute! That does not compute! That does not ...

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Taz777 said:

I think the whole has to be considered rather than the graphs and charts for one specific component. If the whole feels good then does anything else really matter?

 

For me there is a tipping point when the music I feel is simply marvellous. That could be with a length of wet string or a component that is so technically competent that it challenges the measuring equipment.

 

But that takes the fun out of "playing with gear", n'est-ce pas? What's the point of listening to recordings, when it's far more satisfying juggling and judging components and accessories ... .

 

Yes, the tipping point is when the music feels simply marvellous, to listen to. How do you know the rig is at that point ... ummm, when the "music feels simply marvellous" ... ... the measurements mean sweet bugger all, unless that's happening, .

[fas42]

The people who constantly object in part do so because they need to feel that they have the business of getting an audio rig working well completely under control - they're in command, and not subject to the eccentricities of the particular pieces of gear ... umm, down the track full characterisation of a system's capability will be available to peruse, but we are nowhere near that sort of understanding, as yet.

 

Interesting encounter yesterday. Busker, again, at the shopping centre - one chap; cool jazz, cornet(?) plus vocals, no PA!!; very skilled. And he had some backing filler going, which blended nicely; its volume suited the live content - and it was, a 3 Coke can assembly, lying on the ground: one can for each side, the third added the bass oomph ... now, if only some audiophile rigs could do the sound that good, .