The problem with subjective impressions

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

Yes, we know Dennis, if people like yourself are unable to measure any differences, then there can't possibly be any.

 The last paragraph would have to be among the most arrogant posts addressed to Subjective members that you have yet posted in this forum, and I am surprised to see such a post after a previous post where I gave quite a few technical reasons why this sometimes may be the case, and you did not rebut what I posted. 

 

Perhaps you need to listen to some of the systems from other members in your general area.

[semente]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

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.

 

[semente]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I will put it another way.

There is evidence that people can hear the ABSENCE of musical harmonics above 20kHz when they are removed from the recording.

 That's why several Music sites, including Soundkeeper Records  provide Format Comparison pages.

 I get it that people like yourself are more likely to believe High Res is BS, yet there are many members that love their high res LPCM, SACD  and DSD recordings.

 

See also https://www.stereophile.com/content/hi-rez-audio-distinguished-blind-testing

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 

I am convinced that the reason why some people (myself included) are able to distinguish between 44.1 and higher sample rates is not because of the ultrasonic content but because the filtering is operating within the audible range.

 

Try high-passing one of the recordings you've mentioned at 22kHz and reproduce the result at normal listening levels over a NOS DAC and let us know if you can hear anything.

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I am convinced that the reason why some people (myself included) are able to distinguish between 44.1 and higher sample rates is not because of the ultrasonic content but because the filtering is operating within the audible range.

 

Try high-passing one of the recordings you've mentioned at 22kHz and reproduce the result at normal listening levels over a NOS DAC and let us know if you can hear anything.

I gave up on NOS DACs for more  modern designs years ago as they are more suitable for High Res material.

With my old DSD1792 based X-DAC V3 used with my PC, but not in my main system, everything is upsampled internally to 192 K.

TBH, with almost all 16/44.1 material I find the HF detail a little " soft" sounding in comparison with the high res . version, EXCEPT in one particular case only, where E.E. John Dyson has taken the original 16/44.1 file, corrected it, and placed it in a 24/88.2 container.

Even when John has correctly down sampled this to 16/44.1 again it still appears to retain the " high res" advantage.

 This also appears to be part of what MQA is doing,(sharpening) but John's S/W is capable of a far greater improvement to poorly decoded material while needing no changes to existing DACs to sound in many cases like GENUINE high res material.  I believe that John's technology is capable of blowing MQA right out of the water !

 

I don't doubt that some of the reason for the preference for high res is the more relaxed filtering, but in the case of the X-DAC V3 this doesn't seem to apply, even when doing format comparisons. I also passed the test that FrederickV virtually coerced  me into, where I had no problems selecting the genuine 24/96 version and describing the differences that I heard when using the X-DAC V3 with ATH M70x headphones.

[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. 

 

[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. 

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

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.  

This would have been a good 'final post' from you, shame.. 

[Kimo]

Speaking of problems with subjective comparisons, or maybe even on objective ones for that matter.  Has anyone ever had the chance to compare multiple samples of the same unit?  I wonder what type of sound variation you might find, though I would hope it would be pretty subtle if everything was working properly.

[4est]

On 12/29/2019 at 8:58 AM, STC said:

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. 

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.

 

On 12/29/2019 at 8:58 AM, STC said:

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. 

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. 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.

 

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.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

What you do is learn how "audiophiles listen" 😉 - this was brought into stark relief when I listened to two separate ensembles, while standing next to a chap who does reviews for one of the online audio sites; one sounded like yer typical pair of box speakers squawking away, sound firmly attached to the drivers; the other threw up a nice sound field, with real sense of space, and presence of music making - I of course preferred the latter, but guess which the other person preferred? 🙃 ... I guess some people need to have hifi, sound like a hifi ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Yes, we know Dennis, if people like yourself are unable to measure any differences, then there can't possibly be any.

 The last paragraph would have to be among the most arrogant posts addressed to Subjective members that you have yet posted in this forum, and I am surprised to see such a post after a previous post where I gave quite a few technical reasons why this sometimes may be the case, and you did not rebut what I posted. 

 

Perhaps you need to listen to some of the systems from other members in your general area.

 

Some people assemble systems which are highly resistant to showing changes - but in the 'wrong way'. If a setup discards a lot of fine detail as a part of its inherent operating, than "fiddling at the edges" will hardly change anything, subjectively. I've come across systems like this, which simply lop off large chunks of what was recorded - the plus is that it's 'stable', the minus is that much of the music goes missing ...

[crenca]

On 12/30/2019 at 4:16 AM, Summit said:

Interesting and the issue I wished to discuss. Can you elaborate on what you mean by “the need for an objective (repeatable) subjectivity” and how this can be done?

 

 

TLDR answer:  I am not exactly sure

 

I have found folks who do reviews that have an "objective" subjectivity - they use language consistently and they have enough consistency in what they hear to use comparative/descriptive language such that I know what they mean when they say "this transducer is 'warm' but has greater 'detail/transparency' than this other transducer".  @JoshM, @firedog, and to a lesser extent @The Computer Audiophilehere for example are examples of folks I have been able to correlate my experience with and understand what they mean.  Tyll Hertsens of Inner Fidelity (now retired) was part of the way there, but for some reason at times he would deviate (in other words, a handful of his reviews did not seem consistent with the majority to my ears).  There are some folks over at SBAF whom are consistent, and SBAF consciously promotes this consistency and use of language, but then there are some folks over there whom seem to deviate as well.  

 

I have noticed that those who do this, or even just try to do this, are not "radical" subjectivists nor are they "radical" objectivists.  They to a person seem to have a balance and realism when it comes to electronics and engineering (and are able to admit voodoo when they see it), yet are also able to admit that gross measurements such as THD+N is not the sum total of the differences between equipment...

[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. 

[4est]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

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

 

 

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. 

 

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. ]

 

 

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

Once again you are displaying your bias and making assumptions about others by applying it to us/them. What you are calling audiophiles, I'd likely describe as gear/tech heads. There are plenty of them out there. If they weren't spending on audio, it'd be something else. Read a little, buy some shit and display it to their friends and neighbors. It's nothing new, and really has nothing to do with this site. I find it unlikely any of those eight people spend time posting here. We are the remaining 1%s, not the 99s. I wouldn't expect them to grasp what you do, and who cares? It certainly doesn't define me nor effect my hobby interests. There is plenty of gear to go around. If nothing else, it helps keep prices down via volume while providing plenty of used gear. I almost always buy used.

 

Two channel, five channel or thirty channel. Whoopee! I never really directly made much direct comparison, and so yeah, it likely is feeble. Your basic premise seemed to be that 99% of the population didn't require anything other than basic stuff, and I sorta agree. It just so happens that there are some within that percentage who spend a lot too. Call me hardcore, stupid or a Luddite but I prefer well done two channel. There just wasn't enough draw for the extra complexity of multi channel. Obviously you feel different.

 

As to the developing country thing, once again your bias arises. If I might segue back to where I began, this displays more about you than I. What someone buys or states they know about audio just doesn't matter much to my pursuits. I also happen to prefer the sound of my stereo to the new THX certified theater up the road.

[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. 

[4est]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

You have summarized it pretty well. 

Hmm. I'll not take this bait. A happy New Year to you as well!

[fas42]

8 hours ago, 4est said:

 Call me hardcore, stupid or a Luddite but I prefer well done two channel. There just wasn't enough draw for the extra complexity of multi channel. Obviously you feel different.

 

Well done two channel does everything that's necessary to create a powerful, intense, immersive listening experience. Provided the system is capable of distortion free SPLs from the two speakers that match live music, then adding extra channels adds nothing to what one experiences. Of course, there are very few rigs that can run cleanly to the higher volumes without introducing excess, disturbing anomalies, so extra channels are an easy workaround, "sharing the load" - each channel has to work less hard, so distortions are significantly lower ... job done!  😉

 

The downside is, that the spatial information now presented to the user is much more complex. so much of the ambience encoded in the recording may no longer make sense - swings and roundabouts, 🙂.

[Kimo]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well done two channel does everything that's necessary to create a powerful, intense, immersive listening experience. Provided the system is capable of distortion free SPLs from the two speakers that match live music, then adding extra channels adds nothing to what one experiences. Of course, there are very few rigs that can run cleanly to the higher volumes without introducing excess, disturbing anomalies, so extra channels are an easy workaround, "sharing the load" - each channel has to work less hard, so distortions are significantly lower ... job done!  😉

 

The downside is, that the spatial information now presented to the user is much more complex. so much of the ambience encoded in the recording may no longer make sense - swings and roundabouts, 🙂.

 

If these are your ultimate objectives, you will be slightly limited in your quest.  Wide baffle pro style speakers with active crossovers and amplification.  Best bets would be ATC, Grimm, PMC, Westlake, etc.  

 

You will also need to listen in the near field in general, and have plenty of room treatment and maybe some DSP.  You ain't getting there with tubes, horns, and wide dispersion speakers.  Nothing wrong with the active route, but I would say most of those pro audio focused manufacturers aren't aiming for a subjective approach.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

If these are your ultimate objectives, you will be slightly limited in your quest.  Wide baffle pro style speakers with active crossovers and amplification.  Best bets would be ATC, Grimm, PMC, Westlake, etc.  

 

You will also need to listen in the near field in general, and have plenty of room treatment and maybe some DSP.  You ain't getting there with tubes, horns, and wide dispersion speakers.  Nothing wrong with the active route, but I would say most of those pro audio focused manufacturers aren't aiming for a subjective approach.

 

Those methods are shortcuts using currently available  equipment - my goal is to hear the recording, and only the recording. at any volume level I choose - the gear is purely a means to that end. It turns out that nearly all hifi systems are too severely handicapped when set up without thought; so lots of DIY and/or tweaking is needed to get them to the right status.

 

If the accuracy of the sound coming from the drivers is good enough, then the ear/brain does all the sorting out to balance the sound in the room - it always "sounds right", whether listening from within a few inches from the speakers, or from another room, or heard through the windows from outside.

[Kimo]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Those methods are shortcuts using currently available  equipment - my goal is to hear the recording, and only the recording. at any volume level I choose - the gear is purely a means to that end. It turns out that nearly all hifi systems are too severely handicapped when set up without thought; so lots of DIY and/or tweaking is needed to get them to the right status.

 

If the accuracy of the sound coming from the drivers is good enough, then the ear/brain does all the sorting out to balance the sound in the room - it always "sounds right", whether listening from within a few inches from the speakers, or from another room, or heard through the windows from outside.

 

They are not shortcuts.  They are state of the art equipment designed for maximum accuracy to be used by mastering professionals in rooms designed for minimum interaction.  If you really want to hear the differences in how recordings sound, this is the way to do it with speakers, and yes, you need volume to get all the way there.  I can't imagine too many engineers master at a low volume, even when using a horn based model like an M2.

 

All your set up magic and tweaking isn't going to overcome a high noise floor, or a a phasey crossover, though it might improve on what is already there.   The mastering studio is pinnacle of set up, no?

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

They are not shortcuts.  They are state of the art equipment designed for maximum accuracy to be used by mastering professionals in rooms designed for minimum interaction.  If you really want to hear the differences in how recordings sound, this is the way to do it with speakers, and yes, you need volume to get all the way there.  I can't imagine too many engineers master at a low volume, even when using a horn based model like an M2.

 

They're shortcuts in the sense that if someone wants wants to hear what's on the recording, rather than an 'interpretation' by their system, then using that "pro" equipment is a "shortcut" to achieving that end result, as compared to trying with conventional audio setups - far less, hopefully, needs to be done to provide an optimised working, in order to realise an accurate rendition of the source ... the Dutch & Dutch 8C appears to be close to the best of that bunch, at the moment

 

Quote

All your set up magic and tweaking isn't going to overcome a high noise floor, or a a phasey crossover, though it might improve on what is already there.   The mastering studio is pinnacle of set up, no?

 

A high noise floor of what? I run my systems at live, or close to it, levels, meaning a solo piano recording plays at a volume that matches the "real thing". I find that the brain deals very easily with technical "problems" like non-perfect phase, say - what counts, I find, is that what I pointed to here, happens ...

 

 

[Kimo]

They are still not shortcuts in that you won't get there without them, if you are looking to hear all that is on the recording, and even if they don't all sound alike.  You need to hear what a pro mastering solution sounds like to hear what one designer's interpretation of neutral playback of your recording really sounds like,or maybe at least a Benchmark system on a pair of really good monitors.  Hey, it may only come down to studio effects and reverb, and even stuff the engineer couldn't hear when he finished the recording.  But if your goal is to really hear what is on the recording, this is the route you pretty much need to take.

 

I can give you very specific examples of what is lost with 16 bits with Doors and CCR recordings, per the guy who mastered them.  If your system (not likely), room (a little more likely), or ears (more likely) aren't up to it, you won't notice the difference and it won't matter how loud you play the system  It needs to be loud and revealing.  As I understand it, most of the engineers basically damage the hearing over time, due to this practice.

 

That being said, maybe you can get the best for you, without going to extremes, if you are older and suffering from the inevitable decline in hearing that goes with advancing years, a system with an SNR of 120 may mean little to you.  I would like to think that it is not inevitable, but I understand the exceptions will be few.

 

Of course, none of this means that you will have the most subjectively pleasurable system going this route.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

I can give you very specific examples of what is lost with 16 bits with Doors and CCR recordings, per the guy who mastered them.  If your system (not likely), room (a little more likely), or ears (more likely) aren't up to it, you won't notice the difference and it won't matter how loud you play the system  It needs to be loud and revealing.  As I understand it, most of the engineers basically damage the hearing over time, due to this practice.

 

What "specific examples" are lost, with Doors and CCR recordings?

 

Quote

 

That being said, maybe you can get the best for you, without going to extremes, if you are older and suffering from the inevitable decline in hearing that goes with advancing years, a system with an SNR of 120 may mean little to you.  I would like to think that it is not inevitable, but I understand the exceptions will be few.

 

S/N is actually highly irrelevant  - a rig may blast you with theoretically low noise sound, but if it's contaminated with disturbing distortion anomalies, then your hearing will give it a big thumbs down.

 

The best I've heard from a living room type system used Bryston monoblocks, and close to the best Dynaudio speakers - this had clarity, and all the nuances that matter - I've heard plenty of lower grade pro monitors, and they're basically pure shite; so many things wrong with the SQ they're laughable. The Bryston combo showed how it should be done - could do standing a couple of feet away from a drum kit being given a full workout, with ease - you know, your head is almost exploding from the intensity of the sound type of thing, 😊.

 

I don't do this loud, but the quality is at that level.

[Summit]

On 12/31/2019 at 11:57 PM, crenca said:

 

 

TLDR answer:  I am not exactly sure

 

I have found folks who do reviews that have an "objective" subjectivity - they use language consistently and they have enough consistency in what they hear to use comparative/descriptive language such that I know what they mean when they say "this transducer is 'warm' but has greater 'detail/transparency' than this other transducer".  @JoshM, @firedog, and to a lesser extent @The Computer Audiophilehere for example are examples of folks I have been able to correlate my experience with and understand what they mean.  Tyll Hertsens of Inner Fidelity (now retired) was part of the way there, but for some reason at times he would deviate (in other words, a handful of his reviews did not seem consistent with the majority to my ears).  There are some folks over at SBAF whom are consistent, and SBAF consciously promotes this consistency and use of language, but then there are some folks over there whom seem to deviate as well.  

 

I have noticed that those who do this, or even just try to do this, are not "radical" subjectivists nor are they "radical" objectivists.  They to a person seem to have a balance and realism when it comes to electronics and engineering (and are able to admit voodoo when they see it), yet are also able to admit that gross measurements such as THD+N is not the sum total of the differences between equipment...

 

I have also found that I prefer reviewers that use well-known sound quality descriptions and are consistent in their observations and reviews about what they hear. Though it takes time and many reviews to get to know a reviewer and how he/she use those well establish words/terms to describe various sonic alterations, and remember that it is easy to mix those reviewer up. How many reviews does it takes before I will know if I can trust and relate to the reviewers sonic view and wording for describing what he/she has heard subjectively 5, 6, 7 or 10?

 

Would we use recipes with very vague and subjective measures? No, small can sometimes be 5 gram and in another recipe it can be 20 gram.

 

Even if I get to “know” and trust a reviewer so much that I will take their impressions as of any real value at all we still have the problem of gradation.  What I mean and think is a big problem is that we lack ways to describe how big or small one identified sonic alterations really is in one gear VS another gear. What am trying (hard) to explain is that besides that we need universal terms/vocabulary to describe different sonic attributes, like warm, full, transparency, rich, harsh and so on, we also need a way to quantify those difference better. I have read many impressions and reviews and found that that even the best ones use just a few different words/adjectives to quantify the difference.

 

We use such subjective wordings as the DAC A had a clearly more harsh upper minds or the amp had more grunt and better low bass punch. How much is more or clearly more? I mean compared to what reference, and are we only comparing to other DACs or the final sound? I would like to know how small/big the difference is in reality as well.

 

To me it doesn’t matter which quantifying adjective we use they are always very vague and subjective. It can help if they compare the reviewed gear to another similar audio gear, but it is uncommon that the reviewer also tell how big the SQ difference is in the grand scheme of things. Can the much more transparent DAC for example be describes as 2 or 4, if the gradation could be everything from 0-10 (0=no difference 10= night and day difference)?

 

Yes the gradation is subjective and not truly objective, but with them we would at least know how big/small the sonic difference the reviewer think they have and doesn’t need to guess about that. Today it is possible to write a very long review where every word has to be interpret, and often in a context which is not well known if you haven’t read many other reviews by the same author and you also know how the rest of his gear in his reference audio system sound like.   

 

TL; DR Good reviewer that use well-known sound quality descriptions consistently and that compare the SQ characteristics to other well-known gear, and that at least are trying to be objective about how big/small the impact is in their audio chain (preferably by gradate the influence they have).  

[semente]

21 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

I have also found that I prefer reviewers that use well-known sound quality descriptions and are consistent in their observations and reviews about what they hear. Though it takes time and many reviews to get to know a reviewer and how he/she use those well establish words/terms to describe various sonic alterations, and remember that it is easy to mix those reviewer up. How many reviews does it takes before I will know if I can trust and relate to the reviewers sonic view and wording for describing what he/she has heard subjectively 5, 6, 7 or 10?

 

Would we use recipes with very vague and subjective measures? No, small can sometimes be 5 gram and in another recipe it can be 20 gram.

 

Even if I get to “know” and trust a reviewer so much that I will take their impressions as of any real value at all we still have the problem of gradation.  What I mean and think is a big problem is that we lack ways to describe how big or small one identified sonic alterations really is in one gear VS another gear. What am trying (hard) to explain is that besides that we need universal terms/vocabulary to describe different sonic attributes, like warm, full, transparency, rich, harsh and so on, we also need a way to quantify those difference better. I have read many impressions and reviews and found that that even the best ones use just a few different words/adjectives to quantify the difference.

 

We use such subjective wordings as the DAC A had a clearly more harsh upper minds or the amp had more grunt and better low bass punch. How much is more or clearly more? I mean compared to what reference, and are we only comparing to other DACs or the final sound? I would like to know how small/big the difference is in reality as well.

 

To me it doesn’t matter which quantifying adjective we use they are always very vague and subjective. It can help if they compare the reviewed gear to another similar audio gear, but it is uncommon that the reviewer also tell how big the SQ difference is in the grand scheme of things. Can the much more transparent DAC for example be describes as 2 or 4, if the gradation could be everything from 0-10 (0=no difference 10= night and day difference)?

 

Yes the gradation is subjective and not truly objective, but with them we would at least know how big/small the sonic difference the reviewer think they have and doesn’t need to guess about that. Today it is possible to write a very long review where every word has to be interpret, and often in a context which is not well known if you haven’t read many other reviews by the same author and you also know how the rest of his gear in his reference audio system sound like.   

 

TL; DR Good reviewer that use well-known sound quality descriptions consistently and that compare the SQ characteristics to other well-known gear, and that at least are trying to be objective about how big/small the impact is in their audio chain (preferably by gradate the influence they have).  

 

Unless one's looking for a very particular sonic signature (say a vintage-sounding, extremely coloured presentation - the typical AD selection) I can't see how a sonic appraisal as it's currently performed by magazine reviewers can help.

Shortcomings are almost always glossed over, deeply buried between the lines, or the reviewer actually enjoys the resulting perceptual effects in which case a downside surprisingly becomes an asset.

 

The quest for hi-fi is a personal journey. In my opinion we need to equip ourselves with as many "tools" as possible and keep focusing in things that matter. I really dislike this cliché but there really aren't any free lunches...