The problem with subjective impressions

[STC]

I think the problem with subjective impressions is they are mostly made up to justify their choice of purchases.  
 

I grew up with a reasonable collection of good music and it is always been about music. I remember the gramophones, TT, cartridge, cassettes and CDs. It was never about equipments.   
 

Audiophiles created a non existent problem and then attempted to remedy them. A music lover only needed clarity and loudness. They use treble and bass to address room acoustics and placements. It worked and works well for 99% of the population. 
 

Then they wanted something better without understanding what they want. They buy, say a powerful amplifier, it didn’t turn out to be the best purchase. Without treble and bass, the sound wasn’t what they were accustomed too. Then after few amps they change the speakers. Then they spend hours on speakers position. Then they realize they need to to treat the room to address the bass boom. And the the vicious cycle continuos....

 

The hobby from getting a better system to enjoy the music now becomes the hobby of listening to the equipments. Then the time will come where your system will be talk of your friends. You by virtue of having a more expensive system naturally will become an expert. Your subjective words than becomes another person’s reference. 
 

Slowly you go out and listen to other systems. Some of them going to sound much better than yours. That persons opinions and subjective description of sound quality now becomes your guide. The vicious cycle continues....

 

Audio is not difficult to understand. Good sound production is not complicated. Not one person in the world would argue that the sound of the 60s cinemas were better than current cinemas. But we have audiophiles still believe a 60s amplifiers or speakers supposedly to be the holy grail of the ultimate SQ. 

[STC]

6 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I do not share your belief that subjective impressions mostly are made up to justify choice of purchases.

 

I believe it’s true that in the effort to get better and better audio system to enjoy the music it can become the hobby of listening to the equipment.

As we age we tend to forget our first purchase. It can be shoes, nice shirt, racquet, car or phones. 
 

When we’re young it was all about music. There was no soundstage or depth that we bothered about. Just good sound. 
 

I am an accidental audiophile because I had no idea what high fidelity was. The only thing I knew about good sound was the more expensive and bigger the system the better the sound was. 
 

When I was young I was on the road most of the time driving long distance. The only think that kept me company was the music. Those days after market car audio were not a well known concept. One of the car had a Blaupunkt New York system and another one with a Clarion player. The Blaupunkt sounded better. 
 

One day during one of the business lunch, the client asked for the car key and unknown to me he took the car for audio upgrade. After a long lunch, he told me he got a surprise and took me to the car where the audio system was still being installed. That’s when I heard a sound which was far superior than any of the car audio that I was familiar with. It cost about US$7000 ( I didn’t pay for it) in the 80s. 
 

The subjective opinion started from there. My car sound was the reference for others. And I formed an opinion based on what was done to my car about sound quality.  I described the sound using words that I know of. Formed an opinion that Clarion player was the best because that was not changed during the upgrade. It was only much later that I came to know they had changed the speakers and added amplifier. 
 

Everything was fine until I feel that one or two tracks could be better. Took to the shop, and was lectured that I needed two additional mid woofer for vocal accuracy and the tweeter need to be placed in the dashboard. And they told I needed a better cable and a capacitor.......

They all made a huge difference in my mind. The others who fancied good sound just started to get opinion from me. Soon I was an audio expert.  I started to listen to equipments. 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

We also have respected and successful tube amp manufacturers that would say the same thing, though not about Scott and Fisher.

 

I also know of speaker manufacturers that will tell you the greatest sounding driver ever built was the RCA.

unfortunately they are not consistent. They declared digital sounded awful but now promoting digital product. One guy went around challenged everyone that he could make his amplifier to sound like any other amplifier but now selling all tube sound with excuses.  We also have one famed engineer who doesn’t believe in IC or cables but admit using the highly rated product of other engineer because that’s what customers would like to see. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

.  I never did get the fetish over preamps, most didn't make a big difference one way or the other. 

This is the only part I disagree. A preamp is the most crucial thing for what comes out you Amp. A good preamp should have the input and output adjustment. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Dennis

 You really need to get out and hear  more equipment of different types at other friend's houses. I have heard gear way in excess of my ability to afford, in fact, systems costing >$100K, that sounded way better than most people hear especially at a typical Hi Fi show.

Try that in the same room. 

[STC]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

... my current NAD integrated was pretty awful to listen to when I first tried it - I had to steadily go through it, and "rip out" all the preamp functionality, for it to evolve into a decent sound path.

 

Always have two units. One untouched with your tinkering. After a year or two listen to them side by side and you would realize what a big circle you have been walking for decades. 

[STC]

31 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the problem with saying "subjective impressions mostly are made up to justify choice of purchases" is that it is ambiguous as to conscious (likely untrue) vs. unconscious state of mind (likely true)

Audio is not a necessity. It is a luxury. It gives you the pleasure in being part of a elite group. Of course, in between you may exercise common sense for the purchases but the very fundamental reason for buying high end equipment is the sense of self esteem (sic)?  I can’t think the the right word for now. 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No. It doesn't work that way ... at least for me - get two cars, full of squeaks and rattles, and unpleasant, non-motoring noises. Leave one alone, and excise all the irrelevant noises from the other - and listen again. Now, you may not like the remaining wind, road and engine noises of the 'fixed' car - but it doesn't take any effort to realise how far you've 'travelled', if you listen again to the untouched vehicle.

because you got an objective measurement to know which is better!  That is known as NVH unlike the imaginative sound quality which you are unable to prove or demonstrate. 

[STC]

21 minutes ago, Summit said:

How do you identify shortcomings in different components/equipment in an audio system by listening?

By listening objectively. Like how you would use a microphone to measure the frequency response of a loudspeaker. Listen to the same track at predetermined level with each changes. 

[STC]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

The affordable microphones that most members are likely to use are NOT capable of accurately measuring the frequency response of speakers, especially in the area above 15KHZ, and this should be left to the experts . Hobbyist measurements are normally a guide ONLY.  These microphone  limitations are clearly revealed in many recordings on CD where we know that many instruments have harmonics to well past 20kHz, yet there is often very little information shown in spectrograms above 19kHz, which is way short of CD's limitations .

The person who invented the musical instruments with harmonics extending above 20kHz didn’t hear them nor aware of its existence. Even at a moderate 30kHz the frequency would drop by about 1dB for every meter and it will not be audible at the listeners position.
 

There are Hirez audio samples of cheap to few $$$$ microphones so that you can compare and decide if you really possess the magical ability to know the difference. 

 

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

As in my friends and I sit and listen to the same system and mutually share what we are hearing as different.  In this way when a friend is describing sound I can pin it easily to a real experience we've had when he is describing something he has heard I haven't.

This is the real reason why we can’t judge sound objectively. Humans are programmed to decode sound to information. It is good in filling in missing words in a sentence. Hearing non existent sound based on prior exposure. At times even artificially create a rhythm. Try recording a bird tweet from the floor and a dog bark from a balcony. Play them to someone not familiar to the scenario and they all would hear the bird tweet coming from top and the dog from the bottom. 
 

For concert goers, they will have no trouble in placing the instruments when listening to the playback but ask a person who got no clue of a concert or an orchestra music and you would notice he would be identifying  placements differently from what you perceive. 

 

[STC]

6 hours ago, 4est said:

I am not really sure how to take this. A part of me thinks this states more about your past personal experiences than anything else.

 

Within 20 minutes drive , I have 8 “audiophiles” that would fit perfectly to what I described. 

 

6 hours ago, 4est said:

 

I am not sure exactly what to think about this diatribe "story line". My first thought was that this seemed like parable an evangelical might tell about their past as a sinner or viewing others as they have sinned. Oh, the unwashed masses that line up to the counter for all of the latest, biggest and priciest gear because the neighbor has it. Then it occurred to me that this is largely BS as you appear to be into multi channel, even starting a thread about a 30.2 system of yours. It doesn't get much more complex than that IMO, and talk about viscous cycles- thirty channels? Sorry, I have tried to get up-channeled multi channel to work well.

 

 

This is a good example of a audiophile who failed to grasp basic principles of sound reproduction. Multi channel recording and reproduction using multichannel speakers are not the same.  But audiophiles known to mixup those too.  To simplify things for you. You treat room with diffusers and absorbers. I treat room with speakers. 

 

6 hours ago, 4est said:

 

 

 

 

I even briefly tried using high end gear. My Soundlab A3 as main, and three or five Quad 63's powered by a ARC D250 plus five EAR 509s as well as a Parasound Halo JC1 / A52 combo. It worked alright on real multi channel material, but ho hum on the up channeled stuff. This was a decade ago, but I somehow doubt it has advanced THAT much since then. I have since happily gone back to very well done two channel with no perceived need to change it.
 

Only hardcore audiophiles still believe 2 channel stereo can be better than 5.1 and that too based on the feeble attempt to compare those two.  [ Note: multi channel recording and multichannel speakers production are not the same. ]

 

 

6 hours ago, 4est said:

 

Then there is the final paragraph about 60's gear and audiophiles that think it was the pinnacle of sound reproduction. IIRC, you are Europe based and perhaps cinemas are different there, but IME cinema sound is not all that great these days. In fact, a case could be made for the film Fantasia's Fantasound systems. In either case though, the dynamics of yesteryear trump the present multi channel I encounter in many of the present theaters. I say that with an IMAX theater mere miles from my home. I am not suggesting that 60's equipment is all that. Then again, there is tube based gear capable of great sound when paired with the right speakers. Modern tubes themselves are largely shit however IMO.

 

Lastly, I do not get what this exactly has to do with problems with subjectivity. This seems more like a hearsay issue to me. That said, I think it would be much more productive if everyone quit focusing on what other people might say or think, and reflect upon their own experience. The masses are full of sheep. If we focus on them, we will all be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

maybe living in a developing country is much better to experience the latest tech. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, 4est said:

Call me hardcore, stupid or a Luddite but I prefer well done two channel.

You have summarized it pretty well. 

[STC]

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/12/result-archimagos-lp-needle-drop-blind.html?m=1