Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

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

TFTFY

[Shadders]

Hi,

I am thoroughly disappointed with this thread.

 

An actual subject of objectivists versus subjectivists and 7 pages with no locking of the thread. Disgraceful.

 

Anyway :

 

35 minutes ago, Norton said:

I suspect there’s also an element of hypocrisy here, a case of “do what I say, don’t  say what I do”.  From occasional information gleaned from posts and profiles, it looks likely that, in at least one case, a declared objectivist’s own home system falls firmly in the “art and wine” category we are continually  berated about.  For example, it would be  hard to accept “objective” advice that cheap Chinese kit is all we need, from someone whose headphones alone retail at $4k. (declared objectivists tend to be shy about their systems, so apologies in advance if I am wrong in my understanding)

 

My kit is DIY transmission line speakers, and UK badged, Chinese manufactured equipment for pre-amplifier/processor and integrated amplifier. The preamp/processor is as cheap as you can get (for Dolby/DTS - Audiolab) and amplifier is Cambridge Audio with sufficient power and performance.

 

I have not heard any difference between cables (cheap, expensive) and specialist products such as energy absorption, cable lifters, green pens, and demagnetising CD's machines, are pure bunkum. The latter is opinion, and the former - cannot hear differences, is experience. Yet i have received insults that my system is not revealing enough, i have not paid enough for my system, that i am purposefully not hearing the differences, and one from this site - i am deaf.

 

As others have said, hifi is a religion, and we all know how that ends up with fanatics who believe.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You shouldn't be so English too. But I'd say you should not be mocked upon because, well, you don't deserve it ?

You are also not an objectivist (I think) but very eager to learn and verify. But maybe too much theoretical ?

Stupid question: did you really try MQA yourself ?

 

(a No will lead to posts I won't post because I am sure you will know what I mean in advance)

Peter

Hi,

For me, it is the responses as to why i did not hear a difference that indicates that the other person believes that expensive means better equipment, which is distinctly not the case.

 

The Bob Carver test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver) shows how a generic, cheap, good performance amplifier can be made to sound like any other.

 

In the Hifi Critic magazine (about 6 years ago ??), Stan Curtis wrote about a plugin to a sound program where the processed sound was exactly like a reel to reel tape recorder he used to use.

 

Ken Kessler stated that a digital recording of the LP master pressed onto CD, sounded just like a vinyl from the CD.

 

What this is - is that along the path of hifi experiments etc., that we already know what makes a specific sound of system in regards to amplifiers and other equipment, and in Bob Carver's case we can imitate it for an amplifier, CD is better than vinyl since it can replicate the vinyl sound, and a computer sound plugin can imitate reel to reels.

 

All this has been done with measurements and recreation of the target system characteristics.

 

So, i am an objectivist, i am not bothered about subjectivity - but we must save them. ?

 

On the MQA question - no, have not heard it - but then, why should i purchase a new DAC which means i have to purchase other equipment to implement into my system. making it a manual switch over, when i can purchase the lossless CD anyway. The MQA AES paper was full of serious errors and an own goal. MQA is a scam.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

(context created by me, above - haha)

 

So why should you ? well, because despite someone like me (and who am I) sees Shadders as a seriously investigating person (far better than me), there's still something that holds you back from real progress - and that is applying the theories. This is how I asked for MQA because by now you know quite a lot of it, but it is still theory only. This places you in that camp of the others. "Bash it but don't know for real".

I don't know myself how I related this to all your green pens etc. etc. not working out, but it is characteristic for that "camp". And I say it again (with different words now): you don't deserve it. I mean, you are too thorough in working all out to deserve no result.

 

I apologise if I get sentimental, but some times I must express the opposite of all the idiocy happening in here (which in the end is what this thread is about, right ?). So I need a target for that and you came along.

 

Let me end this mood by stating that most probably you never really learned what to listen for. This is not a negative - it could just be explanatory.

In a next post(s) I will try to get into a few of your remarks. Skip in advance if you think it is inappropriate. I just have an opinion ...

 

Regards,

Peter

Hi,

I do not think people are bashing MQA. They have exposed it.

 

MQA could be applied to the masters and the CD issued as a lossless CD (16bit, 44.1kHz) and we could all reap the benefits. The labels get to sell the same album, but hold on, MQA Ltd do not get to tax every part of the audio chain. Hmmm. I now see the light. ?

 

I am not sure there are camps - just people who agree. It is not a movement against MQA. The MQA AES paper - is rather bad and alludes to what it does, but the theory does not connect together - as per the errors.

 

Everyone in general, had a lot of respect for Meridian and Bob Stuart - but now, their reputation is quite ruined.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Supposed you are like me (or my system) and you'd know that I can apply those same measurements *and* you'd see that there is nothing to differentiate in measurements WHILE with the flip of whatever I change the sound so drastically that that you would hear it with your ears closed (stuff-in fingers), then you'd see that with that as a base nothing can hold of the remainder of your text/findings.

Btw, perceiving differences with your ears closed is easier than doing to with ears open. Go to the hall (door of listening room closed) would imply the same. Try it.

 

 

I understand and I would agree. Still, I know (and many people know - more do than do not) that any sound of CD can be massively improved upon, be that with green pens or demagnetisers (OK, not your thang) or be that computer playback with 1000s (really) of variations and resulting different sound (for better or for worse). This tells me that there is no logic at all in anyone saying that LP will sound the same when played back from digital. I agree all right, but those telling it under these conditions I don't believe (and this is Kessler in this case - it is not about you). The logic:

- LP is LP and it does not vary with computers in the house or whatever USB cables etc.

- Digital varies with said means all over the place (too bad not for you, yet).

- Both now can not be compared really. All we could say is that the most lousy digital already can mimic LP playback (which may make Kessler be right after all).

Hi,

I was trying to convey that digital techniques can replicate an analogue sound. You would have to characterise the target system (as per Bob Carver experiment), but once this is done, then a digital process can then give you your favourite amplifier, or turntable/arm/cartridge using a well designed amplifier etc.

 

I would envisage that in the future, we can replicate the analogue sound using a DSP processor and plugins.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

I did not read it, heard often about it, but I dare state that the noise line is not straight - which is what I personally aim for, *or* that at least the noise is at another level compared to "any other" amp.

 

The logic:

Well, heavily based on my presumption that this noise won't look the same, it is my claim (not logic) that he won't be right because the amp *will* sound different than mine. If you have it, bring it, so we can compare.

 

I know, there is no logic in this. But the point I like to make is the same: I can do everything and all to change sound which is not measurable anywhere, and so his amp story won't hold for the same reason (because Carver will show you measurement - am I right ?).

Hi,

Bob Carver mimicked the specific harmonics of the target amplifier - so the second and third orders were the same. He proved to the stereophile reviewers that this was what distinguished amplifiers from each other. They could not determine the difference. It is not a perfect mimic - but so close that the reviewers who are trusted by subjectivists, could not tell the difference.

 

This does seem to be rather obvious - if an amplifier is a perfect wire with gain, then what makes it "sound" like it does ?. It has to be distortion.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

The better context (as brought by me) would be that this would be correct. OK, I am not so sure this will count for CD as well (I just don't know any more and can't try either) but if we are allowed to translate this to "digital", then yes.

 

And here we have the perfect example of proof without measurement.

Hmm ... for you and for me. But not for the 1000s of vinyl die-hards. They just believe that vinyl sounds beter.

But you know what ? they never tried the test you refer to.

 

And there we are (the actual subject of this thread).

Hi,

The Ken Kessler statement is that if you digitally record vinyl, it sounds like vinyl. Essentially, the current digital recording is sufficient - and is perhaps too clean for most people. People like distortion - whatever type that is.

 

So i should have said digital exceeds the performance of analogue. People like vinyl really due to its deficiencies - not a bad thing, just human.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Shadders, I am afraid you did not get my message as I intended it. It is not about MQA. It most certainly is also not about me and MQA (it never was and never will), ... it is about you who a. rigorously investigate to b. next leave it at the theories. To me this feels as a waste because you apply only half of your capability.

I hope it is clear better with my other posts, by now. They debunk theories by means of theory but held against practice.

And now my green pens and Densen CD's work. Haha.

Hi,

For MQA - it does not offer anything positive. It does not try to replicate another sound (vinyl, tape, tube amplifier etc). It states to correct the recording - but we know that is a fallacy. If as reported by Brian Lucey, it adds harmonics (euphonics ??), then the "liked" sound is a con. Subjective or not - you are hearing something designed to please rather than restore a recording. A con.

 

Therefore, subjectivity is just that - do you like it ?. Does not mean MQA is the holy grail of audio - it is just another process like HDCD, or Q-Sound. A proprietary system designed to lock people into MQA so MQA can make lots of money.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

21 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I'm sorry you took my OP that way. I understand there was likely an element of humour intended as well but I wanted to respond. I realize my post ended up rambling off but my true intention was only to try and give some of the more objectivist readers some insight into how me as a subjectivist (but definitely not hard core) thinks (and reacts). I thought this might help some see how and why some of their responses in some threads may cause reactions they're seemingly surprised by. I believe CA has been slowly devolving into more of an us against them mentality which isn't good for anyone, at least anyone that wants CA to continue. I was hoping a clearer understanding of the thought process from at least one side of that might end up being helpful.

 

I can say for me, reading the responses from both "sides", that it's helped me understand quite a bit better where others are coming from with some of their posts. I actually find myself feeling much more tolerant.

 

I've read quite a few responses where I'm amazed at how something I posted was taken so differently from what I meant or intended. That alone has made think about how much more careful I/we should try and be with our reactions or responses to some posts.

Hi,

My initial response was to indicate that despite the controversial subject - it has progressed rather well, considering the other thread on the petition to remove another member.

 

I don't take it too seriously - if people believe in foo - then ok - but maybe the discussion of foo from a scientific perspective can let people question their expectations of what foo really is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I have a brilliant suggestion.

 

Lets all book a hotel conference room, turn up at the right date, and have hundreds of custard tarts, cream cakes, and trifles delivered, and see what happens.

 

I suggest a good cable discussion to initiate proceedings.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

Any objectivist here prepared to detail their system and the regime of comparative physical and listening tests undertaken, and publish the resulting data underpinning their choice of that system rather than any other?  

 

Or is objectivism just about criticising  other people and their systems? 

Hi,

For me, amplifiers, and most signal sources i purchased based on their specification. The transmission line speakers - if i did not like the sound, i would have changed, as they make the most difference, and are vastly significant when compared to an amplifier difference (assume solid state).

 

I have seen many people talk about burn in - and it takes a few weeks before the equipment sounds its best. To me, this is someone just getting used to it - getting used to the difference.

 

The objectivists just analyse what the new equipment is for example. They question anything new - to expose scams, as an example.

 

Most well engineered equipment is sufficient - and do the claimed differences actually exist ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

If you examine stereophile link as follows :

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-corona-c15-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

This amplifier uses the UcD700HG where the specification states the output impedance at <1kHz is 20milliohms, whereas the stereophile measurements indicate 100milliohms.

 

At the following stereophile link :

https://www.stereophile.com/content/theta-digital-prometheus-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

This amplifier uses the NC1200 which has a max output impedance of 2milliohms (from a web forum, datasheet is not available to public) whereas the stereophile measurements are 110millohms.

 

Does anyone know why the datasheets state figures either 5x or 55x lower than the stereophile measurements ?

 

As per above, there seems to be some discrepancy here. It is possible that the specification sheet is the switching node output before the output filter.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That completely disqualifies JA, as no self-respecting geek will ever be a part of something nearly as cool as a band.

What about brass bands.