The problem with subjective impressions

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

I don't think that we are going to be able to set an objective scale for subjective impressions for much of anything in life.  How much hotter is vintage Jennifer Garner than vintage Pam Anderson?  We are still stuck with subjectively even when talking about different kind of 10s.   

 

Funny you should mention this.  I think subjective impressions are hard to get consistent with audio systems.  But I was reminded of Playboy centerfolds.  At one time before celebrities were willing to be in Playboy, when Hefner did the final selections there was a formal procedure.  Hundreds of girls would go and request being in the magazine, and there was a place you went and were photographed and selections made.  So hey, send me a few hundred girls who think they are sexy, have been told they are, and then let me select the 12 best out of those hundreds.  Even if I don't do a perfect job or have biases it would get checked by others and it isn't hard to pick some outstandingly attractive sexy girls in that context.  

 

When I've seen these girls in person, the photos don't do them justice.  Generally they are far beyond girls you'll normally see in basic attractiveness.  

 

Now back in the early days of the subjective mags (Stereophile and then TAS), those guys got to listen to noteworthy gear you didn't find just anywhere.  When in time I managed to hear some of that gear in person it was notable in some way well beyond the norm.  Which gave them credibility in my eyes.  Turntables, arms, cartridges, speakers, and amps would be at least generally as they described them, and while maybe or maybe not to my preference there were differences. Preamps not so much.  I never did get the fetish over preamps, most didn't make a big difference one way or the other. 

 

So fast forward to now, and you don't have TT's (yeah I know some do) just digital sources, and amps and speakers.  I think all of those are so good other than amps and speakers there isn't much difference.  Saying so isn't good business.  I think consumers fancy themselves to be reviewers or have their abilities.  Like a mystic group where you wish to ascend into the ranks of the worthy ear inner circle.  Yet they lack the exposure to much outstanding gear or notable gear.  Combined with the fact there actually is little difference in gear other than amps and speakers, and I think the whole industry went off in left field.  

 

If it weren't about business, magazines wouldn't subjectively review anything except transducers.  If a component other than speakers has a sound it is a failure of design.  

[esldude]

Let's get back on topic for @Summit.

 

The best way I've managed to use subjective listening is when I have a commonality of experience.  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.  Now this would be limiting for internet communication purposes.  

 

I think a big problem with descriptions of listening impressions on the internet or modern reviews is laziness.  Certain memes get into people's heads and are all to easy to draw upon more than is warranted.  When I think back to very early reviews at Stereophile and TAS, they went to a lot of trouble to parse their words carefully and describe in great detail.  It could seem to be flowery writing, and if one isn't careful modern reviewers are just too flowery without the proper substance behind their writing.  Early reviews were rather short, very carefully written to be highly descriptive of the important attributes, and I imagine weeks were spent fine tuning the final presentation.  

 

Forum postings by subjectivists I think almost never get done this way.  Too many toss off cliches.  You get the cliche's of there being more there there, a blacker more silent background and more analog like ease.  These are like taking a finely done multi-flavored omelet and pouring a big helping of cheap syrup over it.  Stop it, you are not helping communicate anything. 

 

I also think the difference in gear was greater back then.  That subjective listening impressions do have many pitfalls and is the worst way to do such things.  Imagine a published review where the reviewer said, "well I don't find much that is different than what I normally listen to and any differences are minor in the end of little importance to listening enjoyment."  If differences are really small, then quit going on about them.  

 

I suppose one could ask at least for level matched listening comparisons when doing A/B listening impressions.  One might even ask a more formal detailed description using a MUSHRA format. 

 

Mainly, stop being lazy, craft your descriptions with real precision, and if it isn't much or is hard to describe then say so and quit describing it as if you have to write something.  

 

The words don't even have to be fully formalized to work.  If you tell me stringed instruments had a noticeably steely quality I can sort of get it.  Steel, metal on metal sound, hard, hard edged not rosin-like.  Describe a handful and only a handful of such things and I can recreate a simulacra in my head.  Just be sure you are describing something I won't have to listen to for 6 months to barely hear and agree with you about.  

 

Other than speakers, and speaker/amp combinations, I don't think subjective impressions have any place anymore unless a device is bent from accurate pretty badly.  Like an SET is bent from accurate.  Okay to like the sound, and okay it is a difference you can usefully describe to someone else if you aren't too lazy to describe it with accurate, precise meaningful words.  

 

If you've heard an early M-L CLS or an original Quad 57, you can describe that in a way that hints how different it is, and what it is like vs a good modern 3 way cone and dome box speaker for those who haven't heard it. Ditto for a Bose 901, Grado SR60 phones, early 1980's Cerwin-Vega, Altec VOT, or Klipsch K-horn.  Not every difference is important, and not every device has enough signature to much care.  But mainly quit being lazy and don't vomit half-assed descriptions.  

 

Beyond that get over your precious self.  Interconnects don't effing matter, unless they are a broken design, and one has to try hard to break them.  If you are hearing really significant differences in IC's, it is a virtual certainty you are being deluded. See my signature for why that isn't an insult.  Learn why it is so, and quit fooling yourself.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I agree with most of what you've written.

 

I'd add that it is important to use recordings that are fit for purpose. A spot mic near a violin can make it sound "steely" falsifying the conclusion.

 

It is also very important to have references of both high performance reproduced sound and live unamplified music.

And to understand that different recording and production methods are responsible for the feeling of "being there" or of "having the musicians in the room", for a soundstage between the speakers or extending to the sides of the speakers, that mechanical and mouth noises result from close-mic'ing, etc.

 

When I started buying magazines in my late teens I expected to be trained in how to listen. It took me almost two decades to realise that reviews were little more than tasting sessions, hardly ever comparative, almost always glowing... And then the cable nonsense started.

 

Bin them all I say.

 

This brings to mind something else that could be tried.  Firstly yes, you need some handful of very well done recordings.  

 

Perhaps if one took these recordings, and altered the response of them.  Divide them into octaves, and bump up by 3db or down by 3db one octave.  Listen and decide whether up, down or no change was better.  Do this for all 10 octaves until you had a chart that made them sound the best on the device under test.  You probably would have to go through this a few times as when you altered one octave it may effect your judgement of another octave later.   Then you can do this for other DUT's, and see how they compare in some sense.  One could even do this through a second round for another 3 db up or down, but if you have to go that far then the device is pretty far from good.  Then when done one could give an estimate as to whether the changes got close to a neutral result or still was noticeably far from it.  One need not do this in a few minutes, one could make changes and live with them a while if you think that is the better way. 

 

Of course even this crude response would result in so many possible permutations it is easy to see why speakers even if having pretty similar response can all sound different. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

I could be wrong but I believe it was someone no less knowledgeable than John Swenson who said that, not only does he leave his DAC on all the time, but also running music through it continually achieves optimum performance.

Wonder if the type of music changes the sound quality?

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Let me pose a hypothetical situation involving communication between an engineer and a layperson.

 

You're an engineer, and your neighbor tells you about a fuel additive he's using in his car that you know for a fact can't work. Do you figure you'll get a more positive reception confronting him as directly as possible, or trying to help him understand in a friendly way that this stuff won't work?

 

You explain to him it won't work and why, but he persists in believing and in purchasing the additive. Do you suppose you'll meet with better success if you repeatedly explain to him why he's wrong?

While not an engineer, I can provide anecdotal testimony.

 

A friend who should know better was all jacked up on the idea adding acetone could improve his gas mileage.  Asked my opinion, and I told him I was pretty sure it would not.  He asked for an explanation (I was going to be nice and say nothing more).  I explained how its BTU value vs gasoline was less, it wouldn't increase octane etc. etc.  He was only more adamant about trying it then.  And threw up to me all these web sites, and testimonials by others about how it really worked.  I told him the simple thing.  Run a few tanks without it for baseline and the same with it and let me know how it goes.  He did, and it didn't work, and he didn't bring it up anymore. 

 

But if just the right pitch is given him for some other similar product he'll be no less likely to believe it again.  His experience won't seem to stick in such cases.  Even if you point out previous failures of a similar nature.  He is intelligent enough he should know better.

 

What does this tell me?  Not much. 

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

What is most frequently met with discord, if not resentment, is the hijacking of threads intended to share subjective experiences by objectivists who demand scientific proof or measurements to justify the opinions expressed. A most obvious example are threads such as those sharing experiences with different cables and their effect on sound quality. Repeatedly insisting that cables cannot sound different contributes nothing to the discussion to those who hear such differences, and for whom the topic is intended..

 

Moreover, one should not conflate science and engineering. While the laws of physics may be known, the application of those laws to practical solutions is quite another matter, and innovation often makes possible that which previously had been generally believed not to be possible.

I agree, and see this quite often.  What is a person to do?  I typically stay out of such discussions where someone says up front they don't want to hear from such people. 

 

You see someone sharing their experiences about something that can't be so.  Do you prefer we let them go on happily deluding themselves?  They seem to be happy. 

 

I think Jud recently very neatly characterized how this place is different now.  At one time most posting consisted of people trying to help each other get better sound or enjoy it better.   Many didn't know how to do computer audio both hardware and software.  There were a few years when real serious computer audio products were being released where previously there were none.  I don't know any other way to put it from my own point of view, we now have much, much more snake oil BS do nothing products that are only designed to separate you from your money and make you feel good.  (If someone will assume my previous sentence is correct, but knows the nicer more effective way to put it then use it as an example).  If my opinion is even sometimes correct, how should you help people?

 

I'll give a generic example, someone asking (obviously and usually stated as being new to this stuff) should they replace some bit of gear or add some accessory to substantially improve their music.  It is something I can tell them with high certainty that the answer is no, it will not help you. I happen to be an early responder, and state as much as simply as that with a perhaps concise explanation.  Which is followed by people saying the reverse or even suggesting the OP do more.  I sometimes respond no more or if someone specifically criticizes my advice then I probably will respond.  But it back to the same problem.  Should I post on a homeopathic medicine site if I'm a doctor and all these people seem to happy with their remedies that don't work?

 

I prefer to be helped and help people.  Or together figure out something neither of us know.  Not much of that is possible here now.

 

One of the cleanest things I remember doing which wasn't controversial, and was helpful.  Someone wanted to know if there was a way to play a file and figure out if their system was in correct or inverted polarity at the speaker terminal.  I thought about it, and replied sure, here is a short file with a 440 hz asymmetrical tone.  Play it, check the speaker terminals with a DC voltmeter.  If you get a varying low positive voltage polarity is correct.  If you get a negative voltage it is inverted. I was glad to help and the OP and some other people were happy.  Far cry from someone wanting to know if an audiophile ethernet switch is really helpful for improved sound.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Increasing octane does not increase gas mileage. Filling a car with higher octane gasoline than that for which the engine has been designed to run is simply a complete waste of money. So, offering an explanation while lacking the requisite knowledge and/or expertise is often unhelpful, and the reason why some people feel they have to prove or disprove things, as the case may be, for themselves.

I knew that.  It was the friend who put that forward as a reason initially.  I told him same as you wrote. 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

Would the effect or no effect of power cords have anything to do with unregulated power supplies in tube amps?  Seems like you could measure this one pretty easy.  

 

 

You do know the overwhelming majority of solid state amps have unregulated supplies don't you?

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, Kimo said:

But still much less voltage than a tube amp supply, so less demanding, no?

Actually the reverse is usually true.  High voltage lower current in tube amps.  Lower voltage higher current in solid state.  But both are similarly related to the power output vs power drawn from the wall plug.

[esldude]

Then there is Brandolini's law. 

[esldude]

8 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

 

Your whole post is good. I think that this (quoted) is always going to be a personal thing, as you say.  How do you gauge the value of an incremental improvement to someone other than yourself?  Hell, I wrestle with myself all the time over that one!  I LOVE the sound of my system as it is - best I've ever had in my life since I dove into this rabbit hole buying good equipment starting in the early 80s.  The incremental for me would cost huuuuge money but for someone else starting out it may not.  And my gains will, most likely, be less than theirs.

 

I used to (somewhat) jokingly say:  The universe is 100% physics and 100% personal preference.  Respect both!

You are confusing some things here.  The value of a difference is one thing, and the magnitude of a difference is another.  And keeping that in mind would go a long way to help with sound descriptions. 

 

As a for instance: I very much valued panel speakers because they don't have boomy bass.  I hate boomy bass.  Loose bass, uncontrolled under-damped bass.  It sounds like it muffles the music to me.  I don't like even a little tiny bit of it.

 

Now were I a reviewer I could listen to a speaker, describe the bass as just noticeable as being a bit under-damped, a bit boomy.  Nothing terrible just a little too much in the low end.  Now to me as someone who hates boomy bass I'd mark it right off the list, but to those whom this isn't a big issue, it probably is just fine.  As the speaker sounds very good everywhere else. 

 

Or on another speaker I could describe the bass as being very over blown, under-damped a large noticeable difference.  I'd suggest you won't like it so loose is the low end of this speaker. 

 

If one is careful, you can separate value from description if you try. 

 

I remember in literature class being told that a review of a play or movie or book that says only I like it or I didn't like it you have a useless review.  A review should describe the item reviewed.  An excellent review won't even need a like don't like phrase attached to it.

 

I'd say early Stereophile and TAS reviews are good examples.  Somewhere along the way too many audio reviews seem to think the primary purpose was to get to the I like it/I don't like it conclusion.

[esldude]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Value is like beauty, in the eye or wallet of the beholder. 

Which is why good reviews tend to avoid that.  You would need to touch upon it at some point in regards to cost vs performance although one can do a good review leaving even that out.

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Solstice380 said:

 

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  Nobody can determine the value for you, that's up to you.  And there really isn't any way to measure the magnitude of these differences.  So reviews of anything other than functionality and whether or not it hurt the reviewers ears are useless.

I don't agree at all past your second sentence.  Any reviews for which that is true are not worth the time it took to write them.

[esldude]

27 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

 

Okay, we agree to disagree on this one. 🙂  Can a reviewer truly determine the value of something for you?  i don't think you really mean it that way do you?  You seem an independent sort who proves things to themselves.  Your posts may just read that way.  

Didn't disagree with the value statement.  I disagreed with the idea no one can measure the magnitude of differences.  With the idea one can only review functionality and whether or not it hurts their ears.  One can do much more than that without trying to value something for other people.

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Octopi might have a shot.

 

you are never going to get an advanced civilization going without the ability to manipulate objects - ask a dolphin if you don't believe me.

Maybe with a few more crisper experiments we could give dolphins arms.  Wonder if China would jail someone for doing that?

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

They need their fins to swim.

They could have both.  Fins and arms/hands. 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

best thing is to just mind meld with a monkey and get it to act like your robot butler

 

- this has worked well for Golden Retrievers

And more so for cats. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

There are $500 DACs which measure extremely well- basically state of the art -  and $12000 DACs which measure slightly better, although marginally so.

Some people will conclude that this means there is no reason to buy any DAC other than the $500 dollar one. Ohters will want to get that last bit of extreme performance. 

I'd bet for both camps the amount of disposable income plays a large part in that decision. 
 

I'm not convinced all DACs that measure above a certain threshold sound the same, but clearly there is a curve of diminishing returns in audio - and  a steep one. But where along that curve of diminishing returns I want to get off the curve is a very different question. 

Pretty much at some threshold of fidelity all DACs that measure above the threshold will sound the same.  Where the threshold is might need work or not.  I think this is a problem for many audiophiles.  They just can't believe there becomes a point where everything sounds the same as everything else meeting some given performance spec.  But it will.......or it has.

 

There are many reasons to buy this DAC vs another beyond sound quality.  Just don't get confused about why you are choosing one.