My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Albrecht]

22 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

While I completely agree, I suspect this ship has already sailed.  Look at all the polite posts made by the polite people celebrating (politely, of course) the conquest of those rude rational thinkers!

 

CC took the gloves off completely, so this thread is an exercise in utter futility IMHO.  CC believes without reservation that the "true believers" should never be made to feel uncomfortable or have to justify their irrational beliefs.  I don't think there's anything else to be said.  And let's not beat around the bush, True Believers spend way more money than rational thinkers.  Despite CC's protestations, having a forum that never challenges irrational thought will be a draw to the True Believers, and that's clearly where the money is.

 

All that's left is for Quint to pop in and declare that Chris made the right decision, and Scoggins will be suddenly unbanned and all will be forgiven.  I wouldn't be surprised if Chris actually apologizes.

 

This is the new day that has dawned here.  Let them sing "ding, dong, the witch is dead" to their heart's content.  It's not the witch that died, but they'll never believe that.

 

Best to just boycott the forum completely I think.

Are you saying that the process of comparative listening, and investigating differences in various systems is somehow "irrational?"

 

[Albrecht]

43 minutes ago, firedog said:

Many objectivists would say that sighted listening comparisons are irrational, as your conclusions from them are unreliable, by definition. 

 

@firedog

Thank you for answering.

I think that what you write is 100% correct: does that necessarily lead to the next step in the objective thought process that comparative listeners are irrational "fools" that objectivists should not be made to suffer? So, not only wrong? And, doubly wrong that somehow irrational "fools" are treated with equality?

@TheComputerAudiophile: Do you perform metrics on what sub-forums are most popular on Audiophile Style?  

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I don't think it's fair to say that's the "next step" in the thought process. Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it. 

BTW, I also don't think sighted listening for comparison is worth much, but since often no other way of listening/comparing exists for most of us, that's all we can do. That doesn't make us fools - unless we refuse to acknowledge that our sighted listening is of  limited usefulness, at best. 

Thanks for engaging with me about this. From what I've read here, you, @jud, @jabbr, (and some others) seem to be respected by both "camps."

"" Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it.""

Yes of course, but those that "don't really relate to it" are not (lets say) getting the attention.

 

I would like to think that we are all learning people. I am a songwriter, musician, recording producer. I don't listen to a system to judge how good any given speaker wire is. (When I received my speakers, I listened to 7 different sets of speaker cables after begrudgingly acknowledging that my speaker manufacturer was right and his recommended cables made me enjoy the recordings more. I don't evaluate or want a good digital file player specifically. I want to have more fun listening to the recordings I love. I evaluate an entire playback system that makes the recording that I made, (in conjunction with musicians/songwriters), and the recordings that we love, - sound RIGHT. (How do I tell if they are right? By listening to them on 100 thousand systems. They surely will not be "right" on every one).

 

(the learning part): I don't know what a Stradivarius is supposed to sound like. I just don't listen to enough acoustic violins. If someone played a recording of Jean Luc Ponty's lucite electric violin with the same recording equipment etc. , - I probably couldn't tell the difference between that and a Stradivarius. But, - I can always go out and listen to both, and LEARN what the differences are through experience! (Of course there are lots of variables that can be thrown in here, - but hopefully you get my point).

 

I don't evaluate the engineering chops of any given amplifier manufacturer. If a WHOLE SYSTEM sounds great, - and many systems sound great with that particular manufacturer's gear, - and it gets corroborated by me listening to many different systems, and it gets corroborated by 100s of other people: the engineering chops are a given. I suspect that Ed Meitner's players jitter levels are amazingly low, - but I don't need to know or care, - Ed Meitner is a bloody great engineer based on what happens to the music when one of his players is in the system.

 

Anyway, - the above may sound like another one of my arguments for the subjective approach to evaluations. But my intention here is to actually stay on topic of the OP as the events that have transpired surrounding the creation of the new forum, folks leaving, etc. made me re-examine my own behavior and the way I react to posts: especially those reactions that may be perceived as part of the problem, instead of part the solution. I really don't ever want to feel like I'm disrespected, and then get pissed off, and in turn, piss others off. I want to learn. I think that the OP had/has some very good things to say re: MQA.

[Albrecht]

39 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

@Albrecht
Jim,
People in this hobby have a undisputed tendency to act less rational than i.e their SO. I wouldn't call that irrational. 😉
But that does not mean they are fools, and there is no need made to suffer anyone, be it subjectivists or objectivist.
There are unkind people at both camps, and their civility (or the lack thereof) had been much to often a disruptive factor.

From my point of view, it is important to find a common understanding that perceived sq differences related to audio gear during comparative listenings are what they are: sq differences perceived by one person or a group under certain conditions.
Most of them not qualified (the conditions, not the people) to be regarded as "universally valid" in the objective sense (therefore the term controlled environment, afaik). At least from the viewpoints of people, who are regarded as objectivists.

Personally, I wouldn't care about the question of validity if the system sounds extraordinarily good!
If the result makes you and me happy and you are or I am willing to pay the price for it, everthing should be fine.
In my view, these people - enjoying our hobby that way - are blessed, and I have no intention to crash their party (not my personal style). IMHO, it is even even better, if these perceived effects are repeatable for the individuals, and everything is just perfect and acceptable.

There is just no "universal validity" deriving from that experience, like the the follwing one: At a level of 5% humidity you won't find roses growing in the desert. At that point starts the divide and the dispute.
This point may be even more important for some people than the happiness/satisfaction about their perceived sound quality. The core problem of understanding/acceptance starts when the one person/the  people try to create the rule that what they experienced has changed into a proven fact with "universal validity", which in turn could prove problematically, especially in discussions with people who doubt it.

In reverse, for some people it iseems to be more important to insist that their findings create "universal validity" and to have a saying on everything rather than listen to their system and accept different opinions or just keeping calm. That's a recipe for disaster, and imho that has unfortunately proven valid for both poles in our hobby, with a tendency that the objective campers have spoiled the fun of the majority. Often, I'd guess, these forms of disputes are as well perceived as attacks on personal integrity.

For myself, I would be even more interested to share their experience than to challenge them, as I do my listening (tests) as well sighted.  In my case, I try avoid presenting my own findings/perceptions as the gold standard, and I refer to them as perceptions and impressions. I just can't exclude that I can be proved wrong. Though, I try to be honest and prefer the use of systematic approaches.
In order to give people an idea about a product I review, I try to create situations, i.e. describing my personal perception of specific music with the reviewed gear, with which they can connect to (or not). To which extent these findings may correspond with their own perceptions is a questions of theirs. Some findings are obvious, others are more questionable and some are little in their peculiarity. IMHO, if we are descriptive, we should take care, that we do not overstate our importance plus the "universal validity" of our findings.

I find it always interesting to learn/reflect on my own confirmation bias, which definitely exists. I.E., for the review in progress, using a product with advanced DSP function, I have tested about 11 configurations to achieve peu a peu acceptable results, even I knew from the settings, that It would/should be possible, I was very much frustrated during the process and more than pleased with the final result. Which gives me some believe/confirmation that I can discern certain audible differences with my ears and approaches. Though, I have made measurements for every step in the process with sighted listening results beforehand.
 

Best, Tom

Hi @DuckToller, Tom,

 

Thank you very much for that thoughtful and well reasoned post. (Some of the things that you've written above are things that I likely overlook in trying to counter arguments: some are things that I've tried to say before, - only not as well).

 

""There is just no "universal validity" deriving from that experience, like the the follwing one: At a level of 5% humidity you won't find roses growing in the desert.""

 

So true. And, - I bet that sometimes with the way I write, and add into that, perhaps some anger at feeling disrespected, - I tend to be way too self-righteous: and too sensitive. And, also, I think, - not too disagree, - on the objective side: there's no right and wrong either in that a Meitner can be a great DAC as part of a great system, - but it can be a bad DAC when hooked up to something else.

 

""I find it always interesting to learn/reflect on my own confirmation bias, which definitely exists.""

 

Something that I do not enough of....

 

One thing that I've said in the past, and something in your post that triggered me, - was I say often that this is an Audiophile website, and that objectivists are going to encounter audiophiles here. (People who care more about evaluating how well the recording is experienced). But that, in of itself, is big mistake on my part. For me, - it's an audiophile website. But this place exists as different things to different people. For others, talking about the intricacies of how MQA unfolds files (may) be what the site is all about...(as an example).

Thanks again for your post, - there's a lot to your post, - gives me, (and I hope others), - quite a lot to think about.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Albrecht]

15 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing.

 

This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉.

I don't think that it is that simple. Firstly, - tubed/valve preamp(ed) DACs in general will measure very differently than a SS DAC.

And, - how do those DACs affect what comes out of the speakers? The final sound? So, - different DACs (can possibly) affect the final sound of an entire system with different "downstream" components. No matter how a DAC measures, - it can affect the rest of the system a certain way depending on how it effects the other components.

 

A Vandersteen-Pass Labs based system will sound significantly different with Schiit Yiggy than will a Harbeth-Manley system.

 

 

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi Archi, your paragraph above made me think about people's desire for a black and white world, where decisions don't need to be made, one can't be judged by a decision, and one doesn't have to use his/her brain to decide something. I obviously know this isn't what you're getting at, but I can't help but believe some in the objective crowd are this way. 

 

Life is easy when it's 1+1=2. Nobody risks anything and there is no need for discussion. Thus, one possible reason for people to love objective measurements in audio because they are being told that the decision has been made for them and there is nothing more to think about. Again, this is just a stream of thought that just came to me and needs to be fleshed out much more. I'm not directing this at anyone and don't mean to be negative toward any one or group. I think it's human nature to desire simplicity and measurements are one way of taking the brain out of the equation. 

 

Perhaps part of what I'm getting at is the status of measurements in many peoples' eyes. To me they mean something, sometimes. I like them, but always read them with a "how does this effect me" type of lens. There are just so many variable in life when humans are involved, that it's hard for me to look at a measurement and make a decision.  

Thanks for this post.....

I think that this ties into what you wrote before when you said that "listening to music is subjective."

You reviewed two different $30,000 DACs. Which one is good and which one is bad? The answer is that neither are good or bad. Nothing is certain. Each DAC is "well engineered." One DAC makes a particular system sound more like "vinyl" the other can be said to sound more accurate. There's no certainty. One could also plug these two DACs into the type of system that makes them indistinguishable from each other. One could measure the jitter and maybe find that the jitter levels are identical. But in some systems, the DACs will sound significantly different. Someone may find that one of the DACs sounds "too romantic." Someone may find the other one may sound "too clinical."

There are way to many elements (and measuring points) in a system (and a room) to make an accurate prediction of final outcome.

[Albrecht]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

I specifically asked there if other than features and/or looks there is any SQ reason to buy a DAC that costs more than $500, if a $500 DAC like a some of the Toppings measures "state of the art", according to the measurements Amir does. I couldn't get a straight answer out of them. 
Some of them seem to acknowledge that the filtering on a DAC can make a small difference. They haven't slagged off on the expensive DACs Amir has measured like the Holo or the Mola Mola, because they measure so well. But the comments there are mostly "it still isn't worth the money b/c it doesn't sound better than my $500 Topping DAC, or my Benchmark DAC" variety. 

 

I'd like to believe that's true. My unscientific testing/listening indicates it isn't, even though I agree that the difference in SQ is not as dramatic as audiophiles tend to describe it,  and for that a large premium is paid. 

You used a great example regarding the Topping vs the MolaMola.

 

""I'd like to believe that's true. My unscientific testing/listening indicates it isn't,"

Is that because you think that certain measurements are "missed" with something like the MolaMola that allows for it to make the system "sound better." Or, - is that the downstream amp/speakers are affected differently by each? Or does it matter?

 

"even though I agree that the difference in SQ is not as dramatic as audiophiles tend to describe it,""

Yep, - I agree that that is true. Describing this stuff is HARD. Sometimes I feel like musicians who have experience with recording, playing their instruments on stage, and also listening to recordings on all manner of quality of playback systems, do a little better job in describing these SQ/tonal differences. But that being said, - what you wrote triggered in me that cliche of "law of diminishing returns."

I admit that there are times when I overlook that........

[Albrecht]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If you want to focus on how a particular combo of components distorts the sound as compared to another lot, then indeed it is HARD. If however you focus on how close you are getting to the sound of recording then everything becomes a lot, lot easier ... so, how do you know what the "sound of the recording" is? Well, think of all the times you've heard it, and pick out the one which was "stunning", bowled you over - the "Gosh, I didn't know that was on the recording!" moment which made your day, and perhaps is a special memory ... THAT's the sound of the recording ... 😉.

Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself   😀

Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc.

Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra.  🤣 

(And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments)  over and over, and/or hearing them live.