Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, Archimago said: 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". Well said. For many people it's about the journey just as much as the destination. We like to listen to cables, as it provides an opportunity for listening enjoyment if nothing else and possibly a good conversation among friends with shared interests. Shimei, Sonic77, sandyk and 2 others 2 3 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Shimei Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Well said. For many people it's about the journey just as much as the destination. We like to listen to cables, as it provides an opportunity for listening enjoyment if nothing else and possibly a good conversation among friends with shared interests. I was considering joining a local audio club. I've been told by a member of one that they as you shared have casual conversations while having a beer or brandy during listening of a member's system each go around. The way some people here talk to one another. I'm a little hesitant now because if in-person someone stated something like they do here I'd toss them out of the house onto their head. I guess, it isn't always what we say but how we say it? Having a good conversation while listening to an enjoyable system among friends with shared interests. That appeals to me! Bill Brown and tmtomh 1 1 SMSL M400 DAC Bluesound Node 2i Sony 65 inch OLED A8G, Sony 4k Blue Ray X700 Parasound Halo A31 Amplifier Tekton Ulfberht Speakers w/ Be high frequency upgrade [4 ohms ea.] Two Tekton Active [300 watts rms] 4-10 Subwoofers Link to comment
Popular Post JoeWhip Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 Shimei, by all means join the audio club. I have been a member of one here in the Philly area for years. The meetings are always cordial and we can have great face to face discussions, even if we don’t agree on things like cables, vinyl, tubes, digital and the like. Nothing like you see on audio forums goes on in our monthly get togethers. RickyV, Shimei, Teresa and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
fas42 Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 47 minutes ago, tmtomh said: <sigh> Frank, you know full well that if equipment chains exhibit electrical characteristics that are the results of the interaction of the various components, that such electrical characteristics can be measured, and therefore objectivists believe in those "parasitic behaviors" you talk about. It therefore seems contradictory for you to use this kind of scenario to bash objectivists. The key phrase there is "can be" ... the real world reality is that they are not - because it is, of course, too hard; and there is no sarcasm attached to that. So the exploration which would lead to greater understanding never occurs ... Interesting that the term "bashing objectivists" is used, when the tone of what I said is no worse than that which occurs in half of the objectivists' comments ... on the other side of the fence, they prefer, "instructing subjectivists", 😜 sandyk 1 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Heads you win, tails I lose. I let people be themselves and I get criticized because all I had to do was moderate more rather than take drastic action. I take action, followed by telling people the blunt truth and I get criticized. I hate to hurt people's feelings by telling them to be part of the solution, not the problem, but such is life. I've instituted a solution to a problem and am giving people the chance to be part of this solution. I don't understand why some continue to feel the need to remain part of the problem by attacking the decision over and over. We aren't going back to the free for all. It feels like they only want to stick it to me by attempting to call out technicalities rather than get on with discussing audio and enjoying this wonderful hobby. Objectivists should like being called out and challenged :~) I'm sorry you feel like I'm trying to "stick it to you" by "calling out technicalities." What you characterize as technicalities, I see as the nuts and bolts of how we are actually supposed to participate here. The exchange you and I had where you accused me of trying to call out technicalities was about whether I'm allowed to respond to someone's claim that "most audiophiles" hear or believe something by saying that we actually don't know if "most audiophiles" believe or hear it. You accused me of acting like the "debate coach" and urged me to just "let it be." I'm a bit gobsmacked by that. I asked because I honestly did not know if it was appropriate to respond that way - and I am glad I asked because I was guessing it was probably okay, but your response indicated that it's not. What concerns me is that my comment was completely civil; it was free of sarcasm; it said nothing about measurements; it was not made in a thread about a subjectivist topic; and it did not claim or imply that people don't hear what they say they hear. Nevertheless, your exasperated "why can't you just let the comment be" followed by your accusation/suspicion that I was trying to cause trouble, clearly indicated to me that the response I was contemplating is not in fact permitted now, despite the fact that it would appear not to violate any of your stated principles for forum behavior. I gather that you seem to think I'm probing for loopholes, but I assure you I am looking for the converse: I am trying to figure out what is and is not permitted so I can figure out whether or not the acceptable range of commentary outside the Objective-Fi subforum is wide enough for me to want to remain a participant here. So here's what I take away from our interaction on this matter: a subjectivist stated that most audiophiles hear X, and an objectivist was scolded by the forum's owner for asking if it's acceptable to reply that there is no evidence that most audiophiles hear X. The subjectivist went on to admit that he has no evidence for his claim, but "this is a forum not a white paper" so he should be free to make whatever claim he wants. But you have made it clear that I should not feel free to make whatever claim I want, specifically the claim that there's no evidence of what most audiophiles hear or don't hear and so we don't know. For what it's worth, I can assure you that I am not trying to keep this back and forth going indefinitely. I honestly am trying to get the new lay of the land so I can figure out if participating here will continue to be a source of fun and enjoyment for me, as it has been for many years. This interchange is not pleasant, but I feel it has helped give me a clearer understanding, and I do appreciate that. Teresa, daverich4, sandyk and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 36 minutes ago, Shimei said: I was considering joining a local audio club. I've been told by a member of one that they as you shared have casual conversations while having a beer or brandy during listening of a member's system each go around. The way some people here talk to one another. I'm a little hesitant now because if in-person someone stated something like they do here I'd toss them out of the house onto their head. I guess, it isn't always what we say but how we say it? Having a good conversation while listening to an enjoyable system among friends with shared interests. That appeals to me! You make a very good point. Fortunately I think few if any members here would talk in person the way they do in the more heated arguments here - the internet makes us behave in appalling ways. There is nothing better at diffusing tension than a face to face interaction. RickyV, sandyk, Bill Brown and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment
Popular Post Shimei Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 Just now, tmtomh said: You make a very good point. Fortunately I think few if any members here would talk in person the way they do in the more heated arguments here - the internet makes us behaving in appalling ways. There is nothing better at diffusing tension than a face to face interaction. Totally agree and nice meeting you! I appreciate those that masterfully deescalate a situation quickly rather than provoke more emotion. When the subject becomes heated and I exhibit difficulty separating my emotion from the subject or topic matter I tend to leave the discussion for a cool down period. Then through introspection attempt to understand how and why my emotional responses. Granted, I cannot control what comes out of another's mouth but my own reactions should meet the standard I hold dear. Have been enjoying your responses and posts @tmtomh. Enjoy, William Bill Brown, tmtomh and Teresa 2 1 SMSL M400 DAC Bluesound Node 2i Sony 65 inch OLED A8G, Sony 4k Blue Ray X700 Parasound Halo A31 Amplifier Tekton Ulfberht Speakers w/ Be high frequency upgrade [4 ohms ea.] Two Tekton Active [300 watts rms] 4-10 Subwoofers Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, fas42 said: The key phrase there is "can be" ... the real world reality is that they are not - because it is, of course, too hard; and there is no sarcasm attached to that. So the exploration which would lead to greater understanding never occurs ... Interesting that the term "bashing objectivists" is used, when the tone of what I said is no worse than that which occurs in half of the objectivists' comments ... on the other side of the fence, they prefer, "instructing subjectivists", 😜 You don't think you're overgeneralizing about objectivists here? Even AS's favorite "love to hate, narrow-minded, biased" objectivist, Amir over at ASR, routinely investigates component interactions in his tests. He tests DACs using different inputs; he compares RCA vs XLR inputs and outputs; he tests headphone amps with headphones of different impedances; he tries USB galvanic isolators with multiple DACs; he has "rolled"/swapped op amps in multiple pieces of equipment in order to compare the op amps in more than one "test bed"; he has used different Windows drivers to feed his test signals into equipment when he's gotten strange measurement results; he's added new types of measurements to test or capture certain interactions his members have asked about; he tests for thermal stability; he tests amps at different impedance loads; he opens up equipment to look at grounding, component quality, and possible causes of power supply noise getting into the audio stream; and he's tested multiple pieces of reviewed equipment with each other, for example he's tested a DAC with digital outputs as a USB-optical converter feeding another DAC. So I don't see how you can make your claim that objectivists could investigate equipment interactions or electrical "gremlins" but don't holds any water. esldude and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 57 minutes ago, Shimei said: Good luck fellas in finding the truth ya'll seek to share with others. As for me I believe truth exists and is absolutely beautiful. Like a painter that can look into the sunset and discern the various hues and repeat them upon a canvas into his art. Or even a musician that may hear a melody and pluck a note from out. These things require skill and do not just come naturally to everyone. I imagine both objectivist and subjectivist may find themselves with distorted sight and hearing. Good luck in perceiving what you're hearing and ultimately attempting to convey to others. As a writer do we hate or trust the reader for them to decide? On that note enjoy, William </rant> I would just say, that truth is a set of ideas that 'works' in the long term - mankind developed a set of ideas on how machines could fly through the air, and we apply the label Truth to them - because vast numbers of people get to enjoy the benefits of these "ideas", every day. One of my Truths is, that the recording is what it's all about - everything else, no matter how expensive, or flash, is merely a means to an end - to get closer to what actually exists on the tracks. And I call it a Truth because it has served me faithfully for over 3 decades, never let me down, 😉. Link to comment
DuckToller Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Albrecht said: 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? @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 Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
Popular Post kennyb123 Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 The reaction a few have had to the new sub-forum brought to mind the following. "A narcissistic injury occurs when narcissists react negatively to perceived or real criticism or judgment, boundaries placed on them, and/or attempts to hold them accountable for harmful behavior." I post this not to attack those individuals, but to provide some insight into what may be underlying some of the reactions we've seen. It's unfortunate - but some folks feel real injury when simply asked to behave better. dean70 and Sonic77 2 Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Shimei said: Kinda ironic subject matter, no? I mean objectivist believe truth exists outside themselves and subjectivist believe no truth exists outside themselves. Nice writing. I don't ascribe to either camp. The objectivist is ?rationalist and the subjectivist ?empiricist in which case Quine's "The Two Dogma's of Empiricism" applies. Let me add that the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy is regarding two (old) camps of scientific thought. Here "objectivist" seems to be associated with "scientific" and "subjectivist" with non-scientific ... hmmm To wit, the reason that "1+1 = 2" is because math is useful, and using math allows us to make useful predictions about the world, for example I can get on a plane, and believe that I will arrive in Europe unscathed The thread regarding which measurements predict good sound is apropo. That said, this is a hobby and ultimately I want the best sound, and no I don't use DBTs to decide which products to purchase ... I use my ears ... that said, I also use rational thought to decide which products not to bother with because life is short and I know that my fiberoptic ethernet cable blocks 100% of common mode noise so why would I bother with an "audiophile" ethernet cable? Now amplifier or speakers ... you can read impressions but ultimately you need to just listen! Teresa 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
fas42 Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 12 minutes ago, tmtomh said: You don't think you're overgeneralizing about objectivists here? Even AS's favorite "love to hate, narrow-minded, biased" objectivist, Amir over at ASR, routinely investigates component interactions in his tests. He tests DACs using different inputs; he compares RCA vs XLR inputs and outputs; he tests headphone amps with headphones of different impedances; he tries USB galvanic isolators with multiple DACs; he has "rolled"/swapped op amps in multiple pieces of equipment in order to compare the op amps in more than one "test bed"; he has used different Windows drivers to feed his test signals into equipment when he's gotten strange measurement results; he's added new types of measurements to test or capture certain interactions his members have asked about; he tests for thermal stability; he tests amps at different impedance loads; he opens up equipment to look at grounding, component quality, and possible causes of power supply noise getting into the audio stream; and he's tested multiple pieces of reviewed equipment with each other, for example he's tested a DAC with digital outputs as a USB-optical converter feeding another DAC. Unfortunately, all the examples you present are just extensions of the normal testing regimes. And they only involve at the most two pieces of equipment, each time - no evaluation of a complete system is ever done ... to put into context with "my world", there is only about one item in that list that I have concerned myself with, when I'm trying to optimise. 12 minutes ago, tmtomh said: So I don't see how you can make your claim that objectivists could investigate equipment interactions or electrical "gremlins" but don't holds any water. What they could investigate is a complete setup which subjectivists claimed changed significantly when a certain part was altered - until they located what was actually in the signal that the subjectivists could hear. A rather good example is at hand: Chris claims 😁 his rig sounds remarkably better, because an isolation transformer is in the circuit. Therefore, what has changed should be measurable - if it's not, is Chris deluded; or are the wrong things being measured? Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 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. Teresa, Bill Brown, The Computer Audiophile and 7 others 6 3 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Albrecht Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 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. jabbr and Iving 1 1 Link to comment
tmtomh Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 35 minutes ago, fas42 said: Unfortunately, all the examples you present are just extensions of the normal testing regimes. This is manifestly untrue, and so we're going to have to agree to disagree. Link to comment
Popular Post fas42 Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, tmtomh said: This is manifestly untrue, and so we're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes ... what subjectivists react to is the 'big picture' of what their systems present - which is one thing that is never measured ... Albrecht and thyname 2 Link to comment
Albrecht Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 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, DuckToller 1 Link to comment
Popular Post lucretius Posted February 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 20, 2020 All these rants are reminders to me that I should be spending more time listening to music. The Computer Audiophile, tmtomh, kennyb123 and 2 others 4 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
tmtomh Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, fas42 said: Yes ... what subjectivists react to is the 'big picture' of what their systems present - which is one thing that is never measured ... Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 57 minutes ago, tmtomh said: Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Can we all agree to put on an album tonight and post in the Album of the Evening thread? I think we’ll find much that brings us together in that one. jabbr, tmtomh, lucretius and 2 others 4 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
tmtomh Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Can we all agree to put on an album tonight and post in the Album of the Evening thread? I think we’ll find much that brings us together in that one. I can always agree with that! The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
sandyk Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, tmtomh said: You don't think you're overgeneralizing about objectivists here? Even AS's favorite "love to hate, narrow-minded, biased" objectivist, Amir over at ASR, routinely investigates component interactions in his tests. He tests DACs using different inputs; he compares RCA vs XLR inputs and outputs; he tests headphone amps with headphones of different impedances; he tries USB galvanic isolators with multiple DACs; he has "rolled"/swapped op amps in multiple pieces of equipment in order to compare the op amps in more than one "test bed"; he has used different Windows drivers to feed his test signals into equipment when he's gotten strange measurement results; he's added new types of measurements to test or capture certain interactions his members have asked about; he tests for thermal stability; he tests amps at different impedance loads; he opens up equipment to look at grounding, component quality, and possible causes of power supply noise getting into the audio stream; and he's tested multiple pieces of reviewed equipment with each other, for example he's tested a DAC with digital outputs as a USB-optical converter feeding another DAC. So I don't see how you can make your claim that objectivists could investigate equipment interactions or electrical "gremlins" but don't holds any water. But can you trust listening reports from someone who likes MQA ? daverich4 1 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, sandyk said: But can you trust listening reports from someone who likes MQA ? I'll give you a pass on going off-topic since you added that smiley face at the end. 🙂 Seriously, though, for me it's not a matter of trusting or not trusting Amir's listening reports. I just don't care about them because they are of little value to me. He finds DACs that measure well - and even DACs that measure mediocrely - sound pretty much transparent. That's not surprising to me. He finds that underpowered or poorly measuring headphone amps don't sound very good when driving demanding high-impedance headphones. Also not surprising. And he finds that cheap AV receivers whose noise and distortion specs are 25-40dB worse than better equipment, and whose current handling is far inferior to better equipment, don't sound great. Also not a revelation. His listening tests of speakers I find to be interesting but not very useful either, because transducers are the least accurate, most distorted components in any system (assuming everything in the system is properly engineered), and therefore I find both measurements and listening reports not terribly decisive or helpful - with speakers my view is that one is dealing with more variability and bigger tradeoffs, and so the measurements from speaker to speaker are going to be less similar than from, say, DAC to DAC, and the listening impressions are going to be more shaped by listener preference than by a listener's ability to discern transparency. Put simply, I would consider buying a DAC without listening to it first, but not speakers. So I don't "trust" Amir's listening reports because I don't really trust anyone's listening reports. 🙂 As for MQA, I don't think anyone at ASR has been more vocal in arguing with Amir about MQA than I have. And yet somehow his favorable view of MQA has not impaired his brain so much that it makes him unable to operate his AP analyzer. So all good. jabbr, Teresa, pkane2001 and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment
Popular Post jabbr Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, tmtomh said: Seriously, though, for me it's not a matter of trusting or not trusting Amir's listening reports. I just don't care about them because they are of little value to me. He finds DACs that measure well - and even DACs that measure mediocrely - sound pretty much transparent. This is the issue: measurements are only useful if they predict sound quality. Rexp, Albrecht, Teresa and 3 others 4 2 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Recommended Posts