My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Archimago]

Hmmm guys, to be honest I don't like the change either and think CC's incorrect; we'll leave that for another discussion...

 

However, is it possible to make the "Objective-Fi" forum become actually the most popular of the forums on here?

 

Actually "the" place to go to for truly open and honest debate? A place where truth and facts about technology and hardware matter more than some bland concept of "respect" that honours members of the Industry just because they say so, and afraid of stepping on toes because someone might feel bad about it and shy to speak up. Courtesy does not mean having to agree with all opinions and there comes a time when one just has to express to another "you're wrong... here's why..." But let's still be courteous.

 

Members could easily look at the topics from other forums and import some of the questions being asked and speak about it candidly. Even if objective-talk and attitudes are ring-fenced into some kind of virtual "underground", we could make that underground a place that even subjectivists know to look at to really get another, potentially more complete discussion...

 

At least the subjective folks who appreciate that maybe it's good to take the "red pill" and come to terms with reality might find this interesting. Heck, we could even respond in the regular forums with a message like "Guys, I have something to say about it... Take the red pill and check out the O-F thread on this." 😉

 

Just a thought.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour 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. 

 

Well said. I agree that it's important not to paint all subjectivists (and all objectivists) with the same brush stroke.

 

Beyond salesmen in the Industry, almost all audiophile consumers I'm spoken to will display some level of doubt about certain things being promoted... I've been to 3 audio shows including RMAF 2019 and a number of local dealer events. Every time one goes to a cable demo for example, just look around and notice the smirks and groans when the audience hears about hard-to-believe claims during the sales pitch.

 

I know some of these folks are way more "subjective" than I am. But even if they've never hooked up a measurement device, or tried a blind test, or never bother reading measurement results, many inherently are aware of controversies and can recognize when certain claims are simply "too good to be true".

 

Anyhow, I've certainly met folks who are "subjective" through and through who through their own experience with things like digital cables have figured out for themselves that they don't make a difference. They've arrived at that insight themselves and it happens to be consistent with what objective measurements show. Just because sighted listening isn't controlled and prone to bias doesn't mean that it's worthless.

 

As such, I agree that there is no "next step" here. I don't think objectivists need think those more in the other "camp" are "fools".

[Archimago]

58 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

It's not a bad thought, Arch - and I heartily endorse and agree with your "but let's still be courteous" reminder.

 

If I had to guess, however, I'd say that a critical mass of self-identified objectivists are more like to join, or step up their activity at, ASR rather than work to turn the Objective-Fi subforum here into, essentially, ASR minus the equipment reviews.

 

I could be wrong, of course, and I recognize that each of us has a choice and therefore can perhaps play a role in whether or not Objective-Fi becomes an isolated wasteland or a vital, super-active discussion area. But I have to say, being told repeatedly to "be part of the solution" - and having entirely civil comments characterized as me not working to be part of the solution, is not making me feel like I want to help Objective-Fi thrive. And I can't imagine I'm alone in that.

 

 

Yeah, maybe ASR will grow because of the events here.

 

Ultimately I think people stay and participate if they find a "culture" that works. The AS infrastructure with the way this forum functions, the private messaging, easy ability to embed graphics to share, notification of responses, etc... works pretty well for me and it has been fun collaborating with folks using the site that Chris has built.

 

While measurements and objective tests are useful, I don't think that's necessarily the most important thing even as "objective-leaning" audiophiles. (I think it's better to post my measurements and data on my blog anyways because of the freedom that provides as my "domain".) What is more important is how this "world view" on the hobby affects how we think. How we use the information to inform decision making in a wise way that as consumers also remains value conscious. Whether objective or subjective, if we act like rational beings and can tolerate each other with humor, I think it's all good...

 

As such, "objectively oriented, rational" audiophiles I know can discuss many things without needing to throw in numbers or graphs. But knowledge of those things will allow us to dream up ways to test and verify assertions beyond "just go listen" (which anybody can do). It allows us to explore deeper what we might consider as "ideal" parameters for gear we're seeking. An "objectivist" can speak to words like "transparency" and "high fidelity" with a clear meaning and purpose beyond our own idiosyncrasies. To me, the "complete" audiophile is capable of embracing BOTH the subjective and objective with grace; knowing when to engage and to what degree.

 

Dunno if the "Objective-Fi" subforum will thrive or not but already I can imagine saying things in there that some Industry folks might not like 😏. There's freedom in that. And of course freedom for readers to choose the red or blue pill should they want to engage.

[Archimago]

49 minutes ago, jabbr said:

This is the issue: measurements are only useful if they predict sound quality.

 

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 😉.

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, Rexp said:

The majority of solid state amps, for example, measure the same within the limits of human hearing. Correct or not? 

 

Yes, they measure well.

 

Whether it's within the limits of human hearing is a different matter. Try out the THD blind test and I'll have some information for you in May :-). This is because I have incorporated some thoughts about this in the choices I made for the test based on what I know of actual modern amplifier distortion levels.

 

 

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I keep hearing that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality and I have to take that at face value.  But it would help me immensely if you can provide some examples from currently produced equipment. Thanks.

 

I think it's true that measurements do "not necessarily predict sound quality". But that qualifier "necessary" is a big one. With whose ears and brain are we going to judge that "sound quality" with?

 

If we're simply talking about "enjoyment" of the sound to the point of feeling good about it, heck I can enjoy an AM radio just fine. Does that mean all the "necessary" sound quality I need can be found in a Bose Wave radio because I can feel good about the song and the sound coming out of that? Of course not! We're arguing about much better devices, right? Things with "high fidelity" that achieve a level of transparency and accuracy to the recording, aren't we?

 

Objectivism is literally about taking this concept of the "sound quality" outside and consider whether it measures up to an "ideal". That "ideal" might not be for everyone but at least it provides a level playing field from which we can judge devices using a common yardstick. Furthermore, that ideal exists outside of whether a person's hearing might be failing, or if that person's perception is idiosyncratic, if that person is not an "expert listener", or even if that person lacks insight and may be biased toward a wonderful ad they saw an hour ago or what the salesman just said a few minutes ago before they changed to the expensive cable 🤨.

 

I have of course measured stuff over the years and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the two come together when you pay attention to what you measure and take time to listen both before and after the process:

 

Synergistic power cables like these sound no different than other power cords. They appear cheaply made and not good value.

 

A "Modded" Oppo like this is a bad deal. Some might like the sound but the measurements are terrible and they've ruined what was pristine high-resolution sound.

 

The highly praised Vitus Audio amplifier in Class A adds nothing to the sound. Despite high price, a 1:1 comparison even to my Emotiva amp, shows that it's noisier objectively and when listening to music in a quiet room.

 

Human perception has its limits and our attention to things also can be limited, missing out on what we actually CAN hear but didn't notice. For example, look at all the positive comments about the recent AudioQuest Dragonfly Cobalt. From my perspective, it totally sucks as a USB DAC at this price point. Good that Mans found similar issues with distortion that I saw. Once one is tipped off to these anomalies, one can start picking out examples and select music that can bring out the anomaly that one might have missed before. This is what "perfectionist audio" IMO is about.  If I am going to pay big(er) bucks, it certainly would be nice to be clear about what performance I'm buying.

 

The opinion of any specific listener is nice, but IMO, not as strong as what objective means might reveal.

 

[Archimago]

1 hour 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.  

 

I don't think this is true or fair Chris. In fact, I believe objectivism makes the decisions harder because one has to use one's intellectual and "best judgment" resources to decide what to measure and judge for oneself whether the results apply to how I understand the world and ultimately whether that result applies to me and how well I can perceive difference.

 

Hmmm... Let's bring this to the Objective-Fi forum :-).