John Westlake outlines REALITY to the 'deaf daftees'...! [Archive]

Macca

01-07-2012, 14:48

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1729323&postcount=169

Nail > Head. Fucking YEE-HAH!! :exactly:

From the thread, a 'deafy' writes:

I really do despair for some so-called 'objectivists'...... Why they even bother attempting to build a half-decent hi-fi system is beyond me!! :rolleyes:

Marco.

I had a chat with the gentleman in question (and he is a gentleman) at Scalford show back in March. I had to butonhole him as I could not understand how he got those Behringer A500s to sound clean and not like a bag of spanners being smashed against a wall - which is what mine sound like. I thought he must have modified them. But he hadn't. His suggestion was that they didn't like my Croft and it was distorting into them. Which is possible, I have not experimented further to date.

For the record I have some sympathy with the 'all transistor power amps sound the same when not clipping' having tried a Croft 7 series, Williams dual mono and a Linn Lk100 in my system, all with the Croft pre, the differences were slight and wholly inconsequential. The key words to note in that statement are 'Transistor', 'power' and 'clipping' i.e it is a qualified statement.

Just in case anyone thinks I have gone over to the (objectivist) dark side. ;)

NRG

01-07-2012, 14:56

Yes, he has a point, if you constrain the operating parameters of the amplifiers under test IE: power output, distortion % and harmonic mix, none reactive load, flat frequency response within accepted limits, not clipping on peaks etc etc then I'm sure that a whole swath of amplifiers would indeed be virtually indistinguishable from each other.

It would be like trying to road test a bunch of same class cars with similar power, tyres etc driven at 40mph in a straight line with no cornering, braking or acceleration allowed...they would feel more of less the same.

Luckily life is not straight jacketed like that and we know in reality amplifiers, DACs, PSUs etc do in fact sound different..;)

DaveK

01-07-2012, 15:00

And who are we to pour scorn on minority opinions posted on another audio forum? Is it strictly in accordance with our ethos? AoS has it's minority of members who post their views which are often at odds with perceived wisdom - do we really have to go looking on other forums to find them?
Just my opinion :) .
Dave.

Marco

01-07-2012, 15:19

Hi Martin,

I had a chat with the gentleman in question (and he is a gentleman) at Scalford show back in March.

Undoubtedly, but I simply cannot agree in any way with his views on audio, quite simply because my personal experience (and ears) tell me the polar opposite!

I had to butonhole him as I could not understand how he got those Behringer A500s to sound clean and not like a bag of spanners being smashed against a wall - which is what mine sound like.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there, as a friend and I also heard the system in question, and "anodyne" or "bereft of merit" would be giving it a compliment!

As for Behinger amps, sorry, but I've not heard any yet that I would classify as hi-fi. I simply wouldn't give any of the things house room.

For the record I have some sympathy with the 'all transistor power amps sound the same when not clipping' having tried a Croft 7 series, Williams dual mono and a Linn Lk100 in my system, all with the Croft pre, the differences were slight and wholly inconsequential. The key words to note in that statement are 'Transistor', 'power' and 'clipping' i.e it is a qualified statement.

If that's what you hear, then that's what you hear, mate. I've no reason to doubt it. Of course, I wasn't there to hear what you did.

All I can say is that in 25+ years of having an interest in high-end audio (and by that I mean better than what's sold in Comet, etc), every amplifier I've ever used has sounded different, sometimes the difference was subtle, sometimes very apparent, but different they have always been!

Quite simply, if that's not been the case for anyone, then only three things are possible:

1) Their hearing acuity isn't up to the job.

2) Their system doesn't have the necessary resolution, in order to highlight the differences. A combination of 1) and 2) could also be the case.

3) Their 'scientific religion' won’t allow them to believe that which is non-intrinsic to the half-truths and dogma, common amongst the beliefs of 'measurists' (note how I didn't use the term 'objectivists'), often mistakenly portrayed as fact.

End of!!

Marco.

YNWaN

01-07-2012, 15:27

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there, as a friend and I also heard the system in question, and "anodyne" or "bereft of merit" would be giving it a compliment!

Unfortunately, those were exactly my thoughs when I heard it.
__________________

The hi-fi objectivity zealots seem to believe that everything that can be measured has been measured. In reality, genuine scientific investigation is an ongoing process and new forms of measurement, and methods of interpreting said measurements, are continuously being developed. A good example is the measurement protocol that Paul R has recently developed for measuring turntable speed stability; this is very much more critical than traditional wow and flutter measurements and does genuinely highlight the modifications made to drive systems.

I am genuinely all for measurement of equipment, but I am not prepared to subjugate my subjective experience to the demands of an oscilloscope. All amplifiers that measured the same probably would sound the same; however, as they obviously do not sound the same we are obviously not making all the required measurements needed to assess an amplifier's true performance. Alternatively, we are making the correct types of measurements, but are not applying them, or interpreting, them in the correct manner.

The dogmatic stance adopted (and vociferously promoted) by some, so called 'objectivists', does more to harm the investigation and development of hi-fi performance than any other aspect of this 'hobby' of ours.

Marco

01-07-2012, 15:28

And who are we to pour scorn on minority opinions posted on another audio forum?

They're not "minority opinions". If you read a lot of other forums, you'll find plenty of people holding such views. They're entitled to their views, of course, as I am to highlight and disagree with them.

Is it strictly in accordance with our ethos?

Yes, it's common practice sometimes for forums to refer to a thread posted elsewhere, and subsequently to discuss the contents of that thread.

AoS has it's minority of members who post their views which are often at odds with perceived wisdom - do we really have to go looking on other forums to find them?

If what's discussed is likely to be of interest to people here, then there isn't a problem, just as if people choose to link to discussions here on other sites, and do the same thing, then that's their prerogative.

Marco.

Macca

01-07-2012, 15:29

), every amplifier I've ever used has sounded different, sometimes the difference was subtle, sometimes very apparent, but different they have always been!
.

I did say the differences were 'slight' I did not say there was no difference at all.

As for the Scalford system in question (and we discussed it at the time IIRC) it may or may not have been anodyne, my fascination was that it was clean sounding i.e not distorted despite the fact that it was using some Behringer amps, which, when I tried them, sounded very nasty indeed.

Marco

01-07-2012, 15:33

Marco

01-07-2012, 15:36

As for the Scalford system in question (and we discussed it at the time IIRC) it may or may not have been anodyne, my fascination was that it was clean sounding i.e not distorted despite the fact that it was using some Behringer amps, which, when I tried them, sounded very nasty indeed.

Luck? Or perhaps if one takes as little care in setting up a system, as I witnessed in that room, the sheer blandness of the sound made nullifies the distortion? ;)

Marco.

Macca

01-07-2012, 15:39

Luck? Or perhaps if one takes as little care in setting up a system, as I witnessed in that room, the sheer blandness of the sound made nullifies the distortion? ;)

Marco.

:lol: You really didn't like it, did you? I wish I had had the time to listen longer but I only spotted the room as we were leaving and the intention was to get back to the record stall before it packed up. I may well have come to the samer conclusion as you, I guess. Anyway I think you should invite Serge to post on here, would be fun ;)

DaveK

01-07-2012, 15:55

It does not matter what the charts and specs and tests tell us, all that matters is whether we like what we hear, no?
We tell ouselves and our new members that it does not matter what sort or value of kit we've got, it's what we hear that matters, no?
Even when we've got the resources to upgrade (spend more on) our kit we say it is not necessary just to get a better sound, it's all abour SVPP, no?
Then why do we pour scorn on someone who's God given (and therefore non-upgradeable) kit, his ears, do not let him appreciate the difference between an amp bought in Comet and one bought in, say, Harrods? If he's as happy with what he's hearing as we are with our's, we should be encouraging him not laughing at him.
That is not to say we should agree with him, we should politely tell him that maybe his hearing is not as sensitive as that of the vast majority of others. As Granny used to say, "It's wicked to mock the afflicted."
All IMHO of course.
Dave.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:01

You really didn't like it, did you? I wish I had had the time to listen longer but I only spotted the room as we were leaving and the intention was to get back to the record stall before it packed up. I may well have come to the samer conclusion as you, I guess. Anyway I think you should invite Serge to post on here, would be fun...

Lol... He's very welcome to join, but I know that he wouldn't touch this place with a bargepole, simply because staunchly subjective views on audio, such as are the norm here, are a complete anathema to him.

As for the system in that room, I live in hope that one day I could live with a system that has been assembled solely on measurements and technical spec. Sadly, that day has yet to come! :nono:

Anyway, let's move away from discussing individuals (I've got nothing against Serge, as a person) and onto the notion of all amplifiers sounding the same, or preferably what I'd rather discuss: the idea that ANY amplifier could ever truly be sonically 'transparent' :)

For me, that's an impossibility, as I believe that every component an audio signal negotiates, affects its integrity slightly, thus colouring it to some degree, and so the cumulative effect of this process, throughout the signal path, gives an amplifier (or any other audio component, for that matter) a unique 'sonic signature'.

Try measuring for that, of course, and you'll get precisely nowhere, unless you know exactly what to measure and how to do it. Aside from that, of course, we already know that not everything that we can genuinely hear in audio can currently be measured, but perhaps not if your 'scientific religion' tells you otherwise!

Marco.

YNWaN

01-07-2012, 16:09

For me, that's an impossibility, as I believe that every component an audio signal negotiates, affects its integrity slightly, thus colouring it to some degree,...

+1

Welder

01-07-2012, 16:10

I can’t help wondering why when such debates arise many contributors completely ignore what the major protagonists on the “objective” side have stated. :rolleyes:
I have looked very hard and I’ve still to find anyone involved in any of the testing or comparisons who has said “all amplifiers sound the same”.
What has been written is that under the given test conditions very few people have been able to differentiate between one competently designed amp and another.
What this means, is of course open to debate.

Shouting yer deaf, or delusional or yer systems shite doesn’t really answer the question of why people don’t hear any differences if they are there to be heard.

What such tests may illustrate is that the differences are small. This doesn’t make them non existent.

I happen to think the most published test conditions are entirely reasonable and conditions I would aim for in setting up a home system.
Here they are.
http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/rcrules.htm

Do I think all amps sound the same? No.
Do I think all amps sound the same under the above conditions? Yes. So far, in my rather limited experience I have yet to be able to pick one from another.
Does this make me deaf? Apparently not given there are very few reported positive outcomes.

Of course, I can substitute an amplifier into my system and notice a difference, just not if I set them up as close to the test conditions as possible.

If you (general) think you can easily pick out your amp under the test conditions go ahead and take the test.

Macca

01-07-2012, 16:11

It does not matter what the charts and specs and tests tell us, all that matters is whether we like what we hear, no?
We tell ouselves and our new members that it does not matter what sort or value of kit we've got, it's what we hear that matters, no?
Even when we've got the resources to upgrade (spend more on) our kit we say it is not necessary just to get a better sound, it's all abour SVPP, no?
.

I'm a big believer in SSPV especially with regards to amplification. And so are you, Dave, given you are using a brace of mini-T amps at less than £100. Now I could chuck more money at my system if I felt so inclined however I try to resist temptation. If I did/when I do succumb that money will be thrown at the source and possibly the loudspeakers becuase that is where to get the most improvement IME. I wouldn't bother to replace the power amp unless it died or something with a lot more power on tap came up at a good price.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:16

+1

In reality, we agree more than we disagree, eh Mark? :)

Marco.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:25

Hi John,

IIf you (general) think you can easily pick out your amp under the test conditions go ahead and take the test.

Or alternatively, you could just use your ears and trust what they tell you (within reason)! Also, examine the specific text, which I chose to quote from the thread on pfm:

My criticism of modern HiFi is that in technical terms there is no sonic difference between a £150 power amplifier and a £10,000 power amplifier, as both are transparent.

For me, anyone who writes the above on a high-end audio forum, populated in the main by experienced and discerning enthusiasts, and believes it, is leaving himself wide-open for a few chuckles!! :eyebrows:

Also, what is it about what John Westlake wrote that you disagree with? For me, what he wrote made perfect sense.

Marco.

Clive

01-07-2012, 16:31

Neal's 40mph car on a straight road is a great analogy.

I know I can hear differences between different SS amps in my system. Less so with traditional amps with multiple output transistors and more so with T-amps (even if they have multiple output transistors).

Multiple (ie > than one pair) output transistors create a haze what clouds any differences. Also, so much depends on the speakers in use, mine are painfully revealing of a below par amp but some speakers can cloud the issue to the extent that no differences are apparent.

Macca

01-07-2012, 16:35

What if it was re-written to say:

'The sonic differences between a competent £150 transistor power amp and a competent £10000 transistor power amp are so small they cannot be detected in a blind test'

That could easily be true. Valve amps tends to get excluded from such challenges - also from John Welders link point 7 is very crucial:

7. All amps must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers. This does not exclude high current amps. Amps can not be modified and must meet factory specs. "

In other words Marco could not take his Copper amp along. And many others would be excluded too. Why? Because they do sound different, I guess.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:43

In other words Marco could not take his Copper amp along.

Ah, but there you're wrong, amigo. My Copper amp has not been in any way modified outside of the remit of the designer. In effect, no-one but Anthony TD has worked on it! ;)

As for the rest, sure. However, if you've ever heard a *really* good £10,000 amplifier, then comparing it sonically to ANY £150 commercial one, I'm sorry, is nothing other than laughable.

Marco.

YNWaN

01-07-2012, 16:48

In reality, we agree more than we disagree, eh Mark? :)

Marco.

Do we disagree....?

;)

DSJR

01-07-2012, 16:49

Unfortunately, those were exactly my thoughs when I heard it.
__________________

The dogmatic stance adopted (and vociferously promoted) by some, so called 'objectivists', does more to harm the investigation and development of hi-fi performance than any other aspect of this 'hobby' of ours.

The dogmatic stance you refer to is also product driven, where these people have a particular product to flog and promote its idiosyncracies as "correct" when in fact, it has measurable shortcomings..

By the way, I believe the Behringer amp DOES have oddities about it which are PERFECTLY measurable from what I've read about it, the gain controls being a starting point IIRC. You don't get owt for nowt in this world and even Chinese manufacture doesn't mean "Krell/Levinson" for a hundred smackers :lol:

There's little that can't be measured, I firmly believe, but the real art in creating long lasting and well loved product is in deciding HOW the compromises are going to be balanced up. It's done in good loudspeakers all the time and was done as a matter of course when all our amp favourites were designed and, of course, is taken for granted in vinyl sources. I just don't believe that you can design truly great gear by numbers, as certain firms would have you believe, either because they lack modern and costly test gear, or because they don't know what they're listening to in the first place.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:50

Do we disagree....?

Only when it comes to T/T mats and belt-drive turntables! :D

Marco.

Marco

01-07-2012, 16:58

The hi-fi objectivity zealots seem to believe that everything that can be measured has been measured. In reality, genuine scientific investigation is an ongoing process and new forms of measurement, and methods of interpreting said measurements, are continuously being developed. A good example is the measurement protocol that Paul R has recently developed for measuring turntable speed stability; this is very much more critical than traditional wow and flutter measurements and does genuinely highlight the modifications made to drive systems.

I am genuinely all for measurement of equipment, but I am not prepared to subjugate my subjective experience to the demands of an oscilloscope. All amplifiers that measured the same probably would sound the same; however, as they obviously do not sound the same we are obviously not making all the required measurements needed to assess an amplifier's true performance. Alternatively, we are making the correct types of measurements, but are not applying them, or interpreting, them in the correct manner.

The dogmatic stance adopted (and vociferously promoted) by some, so called 'objectivists', does more to harm the investigation and development of hi-fi performance than any other aspect of this 'hobby' of ours.

:clap: :clap:

Quality, Mark - particularly the last paragraph, and the bit highlighted in red, which with your permission, I may add to my signature!

Marco.

YNWaN

01-07-2012, 16:59

Only when it comes to T/T mats and belt-drive turntables! :D

Marco.

Well, I guess you are entitled to be wrong about some things :D

Marco

01-07-2012, 17:06

:lolsign:

Aye!

Can I add the bit I said to my sig, daddee - pretty puhleese?

Marco.

sq225917

01-07-2012, 17:19

I have a lot of time for Serge's view. Sorry, let me rephrase that, I've had to waste a lot of time reading Serge's views on various fora.

I geddit, he's a bit deaf, doesn't have any personal preference for sound and will simply take the measurements give him. That's great for him, now he can STFU and stop posting it on every single thread about sound quality of pertaining to the individual sound of any component.

As Neal very neatly summed up on the first page, all amps aren't driven at constant speed in a straight line, all day every day. In fact I'd warrant that all of us listen with our amps drifting in and out of clipping.

I know Ynwan does, he loves it loud.

Marco

01-07-2012, 17:25

I'm wholly in agreement, Simon. Perhaps you could tell Serge your views, on pfm? If not, then enjoy your freedom to do so here! ;)

TBH, fluffy old Serge isn't the worst offender on pfm of spouting blinkered objectivist dogma. For that, there's a certain equipment 'repair man' I could mention, but won't...

Marco.

Puffin

01-07-2012, 17:48

the difference between an amp bought in Comet and one bought in, say, Harrods?
Dave.

We have not heard from the guy who was hoping to sell his "coffins" in Harrods. Looks like you have bagged yourself a bargain:lol::lol:

YNWaN

01-07-2012, 18:53

I know Ynwan does, he loves it loud.

.......pardon........;)

I don't listen at the whisper quiet levels you do though, that's true.

f1eng

01-07-2012, 19:36

Unfortunately, those were exactly my thoughs when I heard it.
__________________

The hi-fi objectivity zealots seem to believe that everything that can be measured has been measured. In reality, genuine scientific investigation is an ongoing process and new forms of measurement, and methods of interpreting said measurements, are continuously being developed. A good example is the measurement protocol that Paul R has recently developed for measuring turntable speed stability; this is very much more critical than traditional wow and flutter measurements and does genuinely highlight the modifications made to drive systems.

I am genuinely all for measurement of equipment, but I am not prepared to subjugate my subjective experience to the demands of an oscilloscope. All amplifiers that measured the same probably would sound the same; however, as they obviously do not sound the same we are obviously not making all the required measurements needed to assess an amplifier's true performance. Alternatively, we are making the correct types of measurements, but are not applying them, or interpreting, them in the correct manner.

The dogmatic stance adopted (and vociferously promoted) by some, so called 'objectivists', does more to harm the investigation and development of hi-fi performance than any other aspect of this 'hobby' of ours.

Spot on.
I have been saying more or less exactly this since the mid 70s, and subsequently expanded it to apply to anything technical!
If there is a clearly audible difference between 2 items which measure the same it merely means there is at least one important parameter missing from the measurements. It seems self-evident.

It first occurred to me when I fancied changing my Goodmans 1-10 (highly regarded at the time perfect-measuring amp) for a Cambridge Audio P60 'cos I like the styling.
There I am at the local Huddersfield HiFi shop (this is about 1973/4 at a guess, and I see there is still a HiFi shop on Cross Church St, Bravo!) and I believe all the stuff about perfect amps being available and my only concern was whether 30 WPC was going to be enough (the Goodmans was 55WPC IIRC). The dealer let me try it at home and to by amazement the Cambridge am sounded -much- better. It took me some time to ascertain that it really was the amp which was responsible for the improvement, since I thought it impossible. I dicked around with everything before deternining and accepting that it really was the amp making the difference.
I have taken everything I am told about HiFi since then with a pinch of salt, and eveluate everything for myself.

It was not that difficult to accept really since, as an engineer, I had already made a bit of a name for myself in my field for questioning "accepted wisdom" and eventually with sufficient success to afford my current system ;)

Another interesting thing, at least interesting to me, is how some massively visible-on-an-oscilloscope things are inaudible, and some other completely-invisible-on-an-oscilloscope things are blatantly obviously audible.

Marco

01-07-2012, 21:21

Hi Frank,

If there is a clearly audible difference between 2 items which measure the same it merely means there is at least one important parameter missing from the measurements. It seems self-evident.

Ah, but you're not taking into consideration the susceptibility of the human mind to be fooled, so of course, whatever difference you heard, which wasn't measurable, was simply ‘imagined’.

How could you forget that we are all suggestible fools!!

I have taken everything I am told about HiFi since then with a pinch of salt, and evaluate everything for myself.

Come on now, don't be daft, if you leave your mind that open, you'll let all sorts of nasty and unwanted stuff wander in, like oh, common sense! :eyebrows:

And they'll lock you up, you know, for having the audacity to think for yourself!!

It was not that difficult to accept really since, as an engineer, I had already made a bit of a name for myself in my field for questioning "accepted wisdom" and eventually with sufficient success to afford my current system...

Carry on questioning it, brovva. It's cool to be a 'heretic'.......

Another interesting thing, at least interesting to me, is how some massively visible-on-an-oscilloscope things are inaudible, and some other completely-invisible-on-an-oscilloscope things are blatantly obviously audible.

Well, maybe it's because, for attempting to understand many genuinely audible effects in audio, an oscilloscope is about as much use as a fart in a spacesuit?

Marco.

Welder

01-07-2012, 21:49

The point that seems to be getting completely ignored here is the original debate wasn’t about measuring, or even trying to prove that the chosen amplifiers were sonically identical.
From what I’ve read some amplifiers in such tests did in fact measure differently.
The point is that using only the ears the success rate in telling one amplifier from another was insignificant.

Frankly, I’m really not interested in the subjective v objective bit. What I want to know is why the differences that I and a great many others hear in their own systems are not picked up under the test conditions.

Until this point is addressed and some rational explanation forthcoming we aren’t likely to move forward and all we get is this “the other lot are deaf or daft” argument.

Science and technology designed and built this stuff and I would prefer that science and technology provided an answer.

Marco

01-07-2012, 22:01

Science and technology designed and built this stuff and I would prefer that science and technology provided an answer.

No it didn't, man (using his ears) did; in conjunction with science and technology. As they say: 'it takes two to Tango', therefore the same 'dance' will be required once again to provide the answers that you're looking for!

I would've thought that, as such a self-confessed fan of 'Strictly', you'd have known that! :D

Marco.

Marco

01-07-2012, 22:23

A classic from Mr Pig:

Originally Posted by sergeauckland {who staunchly will not entertain embracing any form of subjective analysis, during the course of living his life}
The last 5 cars I've bought I've not test driven.

Mr Pig: Superb! :0)

Tell me, your wife, did you meet her before you were married or did you just check the spec on the birth certificate and extrapolate potential suitability?

:lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl:

Marco.

jaym481

01-07-2012, 22:43

I tread here with some trepidation. I don't have the post count to provide any cred, though I suppose that also means I can immediately avoid Argument From Authority.

I'll hitch my wagon to John's horse here. The issue isn't measurement, but whether difference can be discerned under controlled conditions. Personally, I believe that differences in amps only become really obvious when they are stressed, which is why the good ones sound so good - they handle it without getting all whiney. Far more significant differences occur between sources and transducers, and even preamps.

Assuming anyone who doesn't hear those differences is pigeoneholed into one of three categories is simply the other side of the coin that claims anyone who hears differences is self-delusional. As annoying as it may be to address the same old arguments, it doesn't advance the debate to resort to Ad Hominem.

As to believing one's hearing can't be fooled, "trust your ears," I would add "up to a point." No matter how many decades of experience one has, the senses can be fooled. Even if one is fully aware, there are subconscious cues and effects from other senses that can impact how the brain interprets the signals provided by the sensors. Bias is always going to have an impact, and even someone trained to recognize when bias is in play needs to be jogged ones in a while (I say that from experience - bias was a huge issue in my former line of work).

But why do we argue? Some feel the need to "protect" adults from "snake oil." Why? If you want to protect me, give me a bollocking for the amount of whisky I consume in a week - that's far more harmful than spending a ton on cables (and the money on cables could have been spent on whisky). Sometimes the whole audio thing starts to sound like religion - which really turns me off.

Time for another glass of pure malt. With a dash of water, because children think it should be consumed with ice, adolescents think neat is is "manly," but real whisky drinkers know how to take it. :cool:

Elephantears

02-07-2012, 13:04

I use two teaspoons of water in my Talisker Distiller's edition. I hope you aren't going to say that all whisky's taste the same when drunk within measurable parameters.

nat8808

02-07-2012, 15:03

Nice to see John Westlake on a normal hifi forum rather than only DIYaudio.com - will have to check out what he's been posting as it's normally pretty interesting.

It's fair enough for people to want to try to better sound reproduction without the influence of human judgement - human judgement just can't be part of the equation if you want scientific truth and the best experiments try to bypass it.

Unless you're going for a Nobel price though or want to sacrifice your personal enjoyment of sound so that new circuits can be designed off the back of your work, I don't really see the point - life's too short.

I appreciate what Serge does and his view and how he goes about it - nothing wrong with in my opinion - but it's not for me and also he's not exactly pushing the boundaries of science is he?

But it keeps him happy and he certainly enjoys getting the technical bits completely right - life is probably too short for him to start worrying about whether it actually sounds that great. Fair enough!

Marco

02-07-2012, 15:14

jaym481

02-07-2012, 21:39

Yes, but I sometimes wonder if these people are more into dicking around with oscilloscopes and reading graphs, than listening to music, which *should* be what owning a decent hi-fi system is all about! :rolleyes:

Marco.

Perhaps, but owing a car should be about driving, yet some own one for commuting, and some have a never ending "project" taking up space in the drive (I plead guilty to the latter). While I've more-or-less stopped caring about "why" when it comes to audio, I can certainly understand the quest of those who keep trying to figure out the magic formula for changing various materials into music. That said, some experiment, and some keep measuring (perhaps hoping that taking the same measurement often enough will finally reveal the secret).

I prefer to think of the hobby as a big tent that can accomodate many related interests, jut just those who take the time out to critically listen (I don't do that very often either - it gets in the way of actually listening to music. But that's just me).

dr.jones

03-07-2012, 07:33

As for Behinger amps, sorry, but I've not heard any yet that I would classify as hi-fi. I simply wouldn't give any of the things house room.

Marco.

This comment suprises me, as it's a very similar thing to what people say about the Technics SL1210 (which I can see in your avatar)?!

Personally I can see how anything working within set parameteres doing it's job properly can sound good and be "transparent". But I also know how easy it is to go outside those parameters and that's usually where things start sounding bad.
Most people don't have the time or equipment to start measuring where their equipment is being pushed beyond it's spec, match gain levels precisely etc etc and I also beleive that's why "better" amps sound better for most normal listeners.

Ali Tait

03-07-2012, 17:08

T
Hi John,

Or alternatively, you could just use your ears and trust what they tell you (within reason)! Also, examine the specific text, which I chose to quote from the thread on pfm:

For me, anyone who writes the above on a high-end audio forum, populated in the main by experienced and discerning enthusiasts, and believes it, is leaving himself wide-open for a few chuckles!! :eyebrows:

Also, what is it about what John Westlake wrote that you disagree with? For me, what he wrote made perfect sense.

Marco.

I haven't read the thread, can't be bothered, had a long day, but could it be this is being taken out of context? He may have meant those two amps have very little difference in their measurements despite the price dfference?

Marco

03-07-2012, 18:18

Hi Ali,

Maybe he did, I don't know. Even still, however you cut it, it's still a bloody ridiculous statement to make, if you know anything about how the best £10k amplifiers sound!! :mental:

Ok, just for fun, let's look more closely at Serge's statement, and quickly remind ourselves of it again:

in technical terms there is no sonic difference between a £150 power amplifier and a £10,000 power amplifier, as both are transparent.

The key words there are "no sonic difference".

Anthony TD's Soul Series 15W stereo amplifier, details of which can be found here: http://www.tubedistinctions.co.uk/soul_amps_1.htm, costs roughly £10k.

This Marantz PM5004, in Richer Sounds, costs £149.95: http://www.richersounds.com/product/amplifiers-receivers/marantz/pm5004/mara-pm5004-blk

Now, given your knowledge and experience of hi-fi, to date, do you think that there would be no sonic difference between those two amplifiers?

Or let's put it another way: give Nick a budget of £10k and tell him to build the best amp that he could for that price. Do you think that there would be no sonic difference between the Marantz being sold for £150 in Richer Sounds, and the amp that Nick would build for £10k?

Marco.

Ali Tait

03-07-2012, 19:02

Daniel Quinn

03-07-2012, 19:16

Your both wrong and correct and the same time :)

this is because you are having to interpret what serge means because what he says his bollocks language .

in technical terms there is no sonic difference between a £150 power amplifier and a £10,000 power amplifier, as both are transparent. :steam:

this sentence is meaningless , it is not English . it doesnt mean anything . hifi people can interpret what they think he means because of the apriori knowledge they possess and this is the reason why there is a dispute . But in simple what does this sentance mean , it means fuck all . it is gobbeldey gook .

Most arguements are caused by different interpretations of ambigtious , equivocal or bollocks language .

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY .

Marco

03-07-2012, 19:27

No, I think the emphasis you make may be wrong. What he is saying is that TECHNICALLY i.e. how the amps measure, there is very little difference. How they may sound in the real world is another matter.

Then why did he use the words "no sonic difference"?

In any case, I very much doubt that Anthony's or Nick's amp would measure the same as the Marantz, for sale in Richer Sounds, and that's NOT because they'd be in any way technically inferior!! :eyebrows:

Let's face it, like Dennis says, Serge's statement, whatever way you cut it, is primo BULLSHITE, to which I'd add, based on his deluded worshipping at the altar of science! :rolleyes:

Marco.

Reid Malenfant

03-07-2012, 19:31

In all probability any high feedback class AB amplifiers will sound similar as long as they aren't clipping.

The simple reason for the high amount of feedback used is to attempt to elliminate the distortion generated by the output transistors taking there time to switch on & off - crossover distortion :rolleyes:

However, while a low feedback class A power amp will measure very similar to the class AB amp, it'll sound very different indeed :eyebrows:

If the output stage is biased into class A then crossover distortion is out of the window & lower feedback can be used to get the same kind of low THD figures as the AB amp.

The thing is though, it'll make music, rather than sounding like some kind of emasculated & half choked has been...

I trust my own ears entirely, I better have as I have played about with quite a few solid state amplifier circuits. The way to make music is with a low feedback amplifier & class A biasing - simples :cool:

Making it efficient is another matter entirely :lol:

Marco

03-07-2012, 19:46

The simple reason for the high amount of feedback used is to attempt to elliminate the distortion generated by the output transistors taking there time to switch on & off - crossover distortion.

However, while a low feedback class A power amp will measure very similar to the class AB amp, it'll sound very different indeed...

Indeed, Mark, which is what I was alluding to when I wrote this:

In any case, I very much doubt that Anthony's or Nick's amp would measure the same as the Marantz, for sale in Richer Sounds, and that's NOT because they'd be in any way technically inferior!!

;)

If the output stage is biased into class A then crossover distortion is out of the window & lower feedback can be used to get the same kind of low THD figures as the AB amp.

The thing is though, it'll make music, rather than sounding like some kind of emasculated & half choked has been...

Exactly! And that's how Serge's system sounded at Scalford: musically strangled, and for the very reasons you've explained.

Marco.

Marco

03-07-2012, 20:16

Hi Gaz,

Sorry I missed this earlier:

This comment suprises me, as it's a very similar thing to what people say about the Technics SL1210 (which I can see in your avatar)?!

Lol... Well, those would most likely be ignorant opinions, based on little or no exposure to how a judiciously modified one sounds! ;)

My comments on the Behringer were based on my relevant listening experience of it. The last one I heard was a horribly grainy, thin, bright and screechy sounding thing, certainly compared with what I'm used to. YMMV.

Personally I can see how anything working within set parameteres doing it's job properly can sound good and be "transparent".

Well in my opinion, the term doesn't exist in reference to audio equipment, for reasons given earlier.

Most people don't have the time or equipment to start measuring where their equipment is being pushed beyond it's spec, match gain levels precisely etc etc and I also beleive that's why "better" amps sound better for most normal listeners.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

Marco.

Ali Tait

03-07-2012, 23:13

Then why did he use the words "no sonic difference"?

In any case, I very much doubt that Anthony's or Nick's amp would measure the same as the Marantz, for sale in Richer Sounds, and that's NOT because they'd be in any way technically inferior!! :eyebrows:

Let's face it, like Dennis says, Serge's statement, whatever way you cut it, is primo BULLSHITE, to which I'd add, based on his deluded worshipping at the altar of science! :rolleyes:

Marco.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the OP might have originally meant that despite the vast difference in price, technically (sonically) there was little difference in the performance. I don't think he meant how they sound in the real world, he was talking purely on measurement. As Mark points out, there may be little difference in THD between AB and A, but the spread of harmonic distortion will be very different, or at least it usually is between AB and A, hence how they generally sound different in the real world.

dr.jones

04-07-2012, 07:31

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

Marco.

with regards to my comment about most people not having time or equipment to measure amps...

My point was that most people will just run an amp "out of the box", turn the volume up and listen - hence the sound being sometimes regarded as poor.

I think Serge messed with some of the pots on the A500, measured where it clipped, measured/tweaked gain levels and generally spent a bit of time making sure it was doing what he wanted.
Most people wouldn't want or be able to do that.

Marco

04-07-2012, 09:05

Hi Ali,

No, what I'm suggesting is that the OP might have originally meant that despite the vast difference in price, technically (sonically) there was little difference in the performance. I don't think he meant how they sound in the real world, he was talking purely on measurement. As Mark points out, there may be little difference in THD between AB and A, but the spread of harmonic distortion will be very different, or at least it usually is between AB and A, hence how they generally sound different in the real world.

Yeah, I get that, but at the end of the day it's bullshit. All that matters to anyone who buys an amplifier to play music, as part of a hi-fi system, not to fanny-arse about with it in a 'test lab', is how it SOUNDS.

And of course, as we all know, a £150 amplifier from Richer Sounds is not going to sound the same as a bespoke made 'cost no object' design, from the likes of Nick or Anthony, or one from a 'proper' high-end commercial manufacturer, who doesn't just build audiophile jewellery, even if by some miracle they measured the same. One listen by any experienced audio enthusiast, with an open mind, would confirm that.

However, neither will be sonically "transparent" (a ridiculous notion, IMO), although as Mark (Reid Malenfant) correctly pointed out, one will reproduce music more accurately, without sounding strangled!

Trouble is, when it comes to people like Serge, we're not dealing with genuinely open minds, but rather those which have been programmed since birth to robotically obey the laws of 'established science', to the detriment of their further learning, and that of others who mistakenly take people like him (nice enough chap that he is) as being some sort of audio 'guru'.... :rolleyes:

As Mark (YNWaN) correctly wrote earlier:

The dogmatic stance adopted (and vociferously promoted) by some, so called 'objectivists', does more to harm the investigation and development of hi-fi performance than any other aspect of this 'hobby' of ours.

Ain't that a fact... And on AoS, we're here to continually rain on their parade, and dilute the influence of their bullshit on the gullible! :exactly:

Marco.

Marco

04-07-2012, 09:13

with regards to my comment about most people not having time or equipment to measure amps...

My point was that most people will just run an amp "out of the box", turn the volume up and listen - hence the sound being sometimes regarded as poor.

I think Serge messed with some of the pots on the A500, measured where it clipped, measured/tweaked gain levels and generally spent a bit of time making sure it was doing what he wanted.
Most people wouldn't want or be able to do that.

Ah, gotcha now, Gaz! :)

Marco.

DSJR

04-07-2012, 10:17

Marco

04-07-2012, 10:49

Haven't I said before that the classic amps we all revere from the 50's and 60's were listened "through" as well as technically designed. Maybe not the kind of way we listen at home, but listened to, to make sure any faults or aberrations were as innocuous as possible on the music reproduced.

Indeed, Dave. That's probably why a lot of them sound more musically accurate, and thus more involving to listen to, than a lot of the stuff made now, born from a 'measurist's' wet dream.

I think certain arch objectivists who don't even listen to speakers much before putting them on the market, trusting the driver specs implicitly, couldlearn much from the people who went before and designed such wonderful stuff that holds its value and has stood the test of time..

Hehehehe... Old 'deafies' Ashley and co, eh? ;)

By the way, I think Beobloke would confirm that a sub £300 Cambridge Audio integrated *used within it's fair limits* would actually sound quite well indeed, "going wrong" in all the right places.

Sure, it'll be 'adequate', but ultimately it'll still sound like a sub-£300 amplifier, with the inherent sonic limitations on its performance which that entails. Musically, it certainly isn't going to sound like the best £10k amps, that's for sure! Some of us want a damn sight more than merely 'adequate'.

Of course, it wouldn't have any bling-factor at all to get the heartstrings going, but as a functional machine to do the job without ever drawing atention to itself, I'm sure it would be fine and make a very worthy backup for someone with an amp concoction on-the-edge and prone to tweaking and/or failure, if you see what I mean.

Yup, undoubtedly, but the point is of course that some of us demand rather more from our equipment, in terms of sonic performance, and can get it, by judiciously selecting the best designs on the market from our favourite high-end manufacturers.

Therefore, the notion that ANY £150 or sub-£300 amplifier could compete, in that respect, is ludicrous.

Marco.

Beobloke

04-07-2012, 11:58

Anthony TD's Soul Series 15W stereo amplifier, details of which can be found here: http://www.tubedistinctions.co.uk/soul_amps_1.htm, costs roughly £10k.

This Marantz PM5004, in Richer Sounds, costs £149.95: http://www.richersounds.com/product/amplifiers-receivers/marantz/pm5004/mara-pm5004-blk

In my opinion, this is a poor analogy with which to respond to Serge's supposition of transparent amplifiers.

If one follows the link, the Marantz is black and the Soul Series is black with chrome bits, so I'm afraid neither are transparent.

;)

On a more serious note, although I respect Serge's methodology as one that works for him, I'm still a little concerened by his love for the Behringer A500 and his assertion that it measures well. When we had one at HFW back in 2006 it had notable measurement issues in certain areas, which seemed to us to explain why it made a grand piano sound like a Casio keyboard. Personally, I'd use on for bass in a tri-amped or active setup but for anything north of upper bass - not a chance!

Macca

04-07-2012, 12:14

On a more serious note, although I respect Serge's methodology as one that works for him, I'm still a little concerened by his love for the Behringer A500 and his assertion that it measures well. When we had one at HFW back in 2006 it had notable measurement issues in certain areas, which seemed to us to explain why it made a grand piano sound like a Casio keyboard. Personally, I'd use on for bass in a tri-amped or active setup but for anything north of upper bass - not a chance!

No he didn't claim it measured well, it has quite high crossover distortion, but not enough distortion to be (in theory) audible in the specific application.

Incidentally Jerry (Jandl) used A500s (I know 'cause I bought his) and had no issues with them at all although I suspect he considers his Parasound to be superior.

Marco

04-07-2012, 18:42

In my opinion, this is a poor analogy with which to respond to Serge's supposition of transparent amplifiers.

If one follows the link, the Marantz is black and the Soul Series is black with chrome bits, so I'm afraid neither are transparent.

Arf! :eyebrows:

When we had one at HFW back in 2006 it had notable measurement issues in certain areas, which seemed to us to explain why it made a grand piano sound like a Casio keyboard...

Based on my experience, that sounds about right!!

Sorry, Martin...

Marco.

SPS

04-07-2012, 21:06

On a more serious note, although I respect Serge's methodology as one that works for him, I'm still a little concerened by his love for the Behringer A500 and his assertion that it measures well. When we had one at HFW back in 2006 it had notable measurement issues in certain areas, which seemed to us to explain why it made a grand piano sound like a Casio keyboard. Personally, I'd use on for bass in a tri-amped or active setup but for anything north of upper bass - not a chance!

i had a behringer pre amp which I used for a few hours.. i can confirm it did serious damage to the bass as well as everywhere else...

anthonyTD

04-07-2012, 21:45

colinB

04-07-2012, 22:06

It makes sense that a well implemented transistor amp should sound the same as another well designed amp and yet every amplifier i have owned sound completely different from the other.

Marco

05-07-2012, 08:33

A couple of very good comments, in reference to subjectivism vs. objectivism on pfm:

Interesting people always think that science is the absolute truth. And science can explain everything. It is not. Science is a method of thinking. Scientific knowledge is always changing and evolving.

If someone goes back to 1850s and tell a bunch of cambridge physicists that position of an electron can be anywhere inside an atom. The whole bunch of physicsts will think that the person is nuts. Nowadays quantum physics is already accepted by all physicists, and such an idea of electron's position (wavefunction) in an atom is widely accepted.

Damned right, particularly the bit in bold! It's the folk who see it as an "absolute truth" that I don't get. I will never understand why some people seem to need a 'black & white' set of rules to govern their decision making/way of thinking in audio, and in life in general.

Why can't they accept that science in NOT an 'absolute truth'??

I'd *really* love an answer to that!

And this rather erudite observation:

Yes, that is right. The 'flat earthers' seem to think science' froze' somewhere around 1900. Much of what passes for 'objectivism' on pfm is simply a tautology:
''things that measure well....measure well.'' The connection between that necessary truth and human experience is a yawning chasm. We don't even hear in a linear manner! Science is always changing, because it is a human activity. Even if there are such things as 'absolute truths' (excluding tautologies), we have little chance of being sure of them. Just live with it. Life's pretty mysterious, then we die.

"Just live with it". Indeed - that's my philosophy entirely. I don't see why things need be any more complicated that that! Why crave 'certainty', when certainty in this life simply does not exist?? :scratch:

Marco.

YNWaN

05-07-2012, 10:59

"The 'flat earthers' seem to think science' froze' somewhere around 1900"

I agree in general with the comments quoted in the posts above, but this bit about 'flat earthers' is entirely incorrect!

DaveK

05-07-2012, 11:42

Why can't they accept that science in NOT an 'absolute truth'??

Marco.

Marco, hope I'm not nit-picking here but good science is an absolute truth - that is until a new theory comes along to update it - every aspect of our modern life is based on that premise IMO.
Where science 'falls down' in trying to explain why we hear what we hear despite the measurements is that the science of the subject is currently incomplete and therefore not 'good' science.
It is not helped by the fact that the science involved crosses several disciplines and the whole subject is not important enough in the grand scale of things for a multi-disciplinary team to get together to resolve the apparent anomalies.
Just my PoV :) .
Dave.

synsei

05-07-2012, 11:46

Years ago I used to worry quite a bit about the technical capabilities of any given component in my system and then I grew up. This has been brought home to me very recently after buying an Amptastic T-Amp. It wipes the floor with my Hafler DH220, which in itself is a fairly well regarded piece of equipment, and frankly I don't give a shit as to the "where's" and "why for's", I just care that I get more out of the music now :cool:

nat8808

05-07-2012, 13:36

It makes sense that a well implemented transistor amp should sound the same as another well designed amp and yet every amplifier i have owned sound completely different from the other.

Things making sense to the common man (or woman) is neither here nor there..

Sacrificing your livestock for better havest made sense once, that you'd fall off the edge of the earth if you went too far made sense..

Before these things are shown to be untrue, no matter how they appear to make sense given a person's percieved image of the world and its workings, someone has a feeling or has real experience that contradicts these notions. The right person will then go on to try to find out why. There are lots of people about who feel their experiences contradict these notions, some are experienced designers.

In hifi, there are many people "investigating" the science of sound reproduction. Unfortunately many are hobbiests who are stuck in their own beliefs, many have commercial interests so aren't belived no matter how idependant their thoughts and findings, many keep things to themselves for commercial reasons and many are simply quacks and charletans ready to extract money from every sucker that passes by. Much like to world of medicine not that long ago..

So may as well give up on finding the truth and get on with life but perhaps add to the evidence from personal experience of sound reproduction experimentation on forums in the hope that maybe someone somewhere might start a proper, official branch of real science.

Reid Malenfant

05-07-2012, 18:18

:)
I would also add that a big part of making a decent performing [sounding] amplifier is getting the circuit as linear as posible without feedback, and later' adding just enough to improve what is already potentially there.
A...
:)
I couldn't agree more :cool:

DSJR

05-07-2012, 19:19

Marco, hope I'm not nit-picking here but good science is an absolute truth - that is until a new theory comes along to update it - every aspect of our modern life is based on that premise IMO.
Where science 'falls down' in trying to explain why we hear what we hear despite the measurements is that the science of the subject is currently incomplete and therefore not 'good' science.
It is not helped by the fact that the science involved crosses several disciplines and the whole subject is not important enough in the grand scale of things for a multi-disciplinary team to get together to resolve the apparent anomalies.
Just my PoV :) .
Dave.

Dave, I'm not disagreeing with you, but in domestic audio, the truth is exaggerated hopelessly sometimes and aspects that may make a tiny difference at RF frequencies are put forward as important at relatively low audio ones. Other vociferous so-called objectivists shout their "truth" loudly as scientific fact (more like marketing spin), but this "truth" is then tested severely once someone finally gets hold of the product in question and properly tests it and finds the true measured performance of the device in question is rather different from the "textbook" claims made in theoretical, rather than dynamic music conditions.

Marco, I'm genuinely sure that there are proper technical reasons why your Copper amp is as good as it is, the hideous weight of the transformers as reported to me by Alex, who was actually allowed to carry the thing :eek: must count for something where low output impedance and subsequent low distortion is concerned. Also, a very soft clipping 40 Watts per channel would be truly deafening with your Lockwoods, another reason why you never or rarely clip the amp because the continuous volume would be very uncomfortable IMO. Perfect for reproduction of dynamics though...

Science done right is right, but I still believe proper scientists keep VERY open minds and try to push the boundaries for ever deeper answers (Higgs-Bosun proof anyone?). Domestic audio is very mundane in comparison, but this is where the ART comes in, in juggling the compromises around to get a great audible result.

Hope I haven't spoken out of turn again...

DaveK

05-07-2012, 19:53

Dave, I'm not disagreeing with you, ....... Hope I haven't spoken out of turn again...

Not with me you haven't mate - I would not disagree with you but I might debate it with you in the sense of putting a different 'slant' or emphasis on aspects of what you said. No argument from me, just differing PoV, and just a topic to discuss over a pint (if I ever get back to drinking again :) ).
Dave.

NRG

05-07-2012, 20:07

"there are no absolute truths in science" - Dr Brian Cox December 2011

Which is very true but Hi-Fi is engineering and as highlighted in the MDac thread its engineering that defines what we hear not some scientific theory.

Reid Malenfant

05-07-2012, 20:13

"there are no absolute truths in science" - Dr Brian Cox December 2011
While not the best TV presenter, or music maker come to that :eyebrows: Brian Cox is 100% right!

Science is about the best fit theory to explain things, I don't think there is likely to be absolute truths to anything ;)

Or if there is, we have a hell of a long way to go :eyebrows:

nat8808

05-07-2012, 20:24

Yes, but I sometimes wonder if these people are more into dicking around with oscilloscopes and reading graphs, than listening to music, which *should* be what owning a decent hi-fi system is all about! :rolleyes:

Marco.

In your personal world and opinion maybe..

People can do what they like and interact with things in any way they like - many people for example will buy a rare exotic car just to look at in a line in their massive garage or an artist, an absurdist (is there such a thing?) might buy something that was designed meticulously and expensively for a particular use and to delightfully use it as a door-stop.

People may buy an expensive exotic watch in order to wow at the intricately made mechanism, yet never set the time on it.. never use it for telling the time at all even. That's not considered unusual either.

There are many reasons for buying and using equipment - all of them equally valid, no matter what the original design intention is for.

In fact I'd say measuring the input and comparing it with the output and seeing there is 0.001% distortion for example actually lies within the original design intentions.

DaveK

05-07-2012, 20:37

"there are no absolute truths in science" - Dr Brian Cox December 2011

Again, I wouldn't really argue with that either - he was being a bit more specific than I was, that's all. I regard Engineering as the practical application of Science and when the theory has been accepted enough for the Engineers to be allowed to apply the theory it had better be damn near the absolute truth or someone's gonna be in trouble :lol: .
OTOH, according to the laws of aerodynamics, on which every airplane ever built depends, a Bumble Bee cannot fly, or so I'm told :) - good job nobody's told the Bumble Bees :lol: .
Dave.

nat8808

05-07-2012, 20:37

Then why did he use the words "no sonic difference"?

I think really its a mis-understanding of Serge.. if you read other posts by him, he quite openly says time and again that what is 'transparent' to him is based on his measurements.

When he measures something as being transparent, he accepts it as transparent and accepts what it sounds like as being what is on the recording (or at least is coming into the amp's inputs).

Perhaps what he means to say is that all amps that measure transparently to HIM, using his measurements of transparency, all sound the same to HIM.

i.e. the things that he find measures the same all sound the same with his equipment and judgement.

In fact, he never makes any judgement on sound that I've seen... he never remarks on how something sounds to him personally at all. He implicitly trusts the sound that he hears if the gear measures right to him.

He does say that things sound different sometimes.. but is always able to justify the difference by finding something that measures wrong to him or to theorise what is wrong before he finds the measurement that prooves him right.

To compare his way of doing things and his experiences with perhaps your own Marco is not one of right or wrong but one of deeper philsophy and how we react to the world around us.

Perhaps one looks out from within and the other looks in from without... maybe.

chelsea

05-07-2012, 20:46

Think we all dick around with hi fi to much.

NRG

05-07-2012, 21:27

....
OTOH, according to the laws of aerodynamics, on which every airplane ever built depends, a Bumble Bee cannot fly, or so I'm told :) - good job nobody's told the Bumble Bees :lol: .
Dave.

Sorry Dave but it was proven years ago that the 'bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly' is a complete and utter myth and they actually conform to the laws of aerodynamics ....

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/article/why-bumblebees-can-fly-yvfu3xg7d7wt-65/

Ali Tait

05-07-2012, 21:36

Yes indeed, was about to post the same. I do remember some nutter on a tv program at the time postulating that they actually flew through hyperspace!

DaveK

05-07-2012, 21:58

Sorry Dave but it was proven years ago that the 'bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly' is a complete and utter myth and they actually conform to the laws of aerodynamics ....

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/article/why-bumblebees-can-fly-yvfu3xg7d7wt-65/

Sorry Neal,
Below is the last two paragraphs in the article to which you link - obviously Bumble Bees can fly, we've all seen them :) : -

"The consensus seems to be that the clever bumblebee is able to fly by somehow exploiting some very intricate combination of vortex dynamics, which however is beyond quantitative mathematical analysis:
•Rapid oscillations pose one of the most difficult questions for fluid dynamics. Things become very messy Z. Jane Wang.

Yes, the bumblebee can fly, but existing fluid dynamics does not seem to offer a clear explanation of why this is possible, except hand-waving insufficient for take off."

That is not what I call convincing proof - it's just hypothesing about what might actually be happening in front of our eyes, not laying down the principles and providing evidence of conformance, which would get nearer to proving it.
Ner! :ner:

jaym481

05-07-2012, 22:13

Think we all dick around with hi fi to much.

Or not enough.

NRG

05-07-2012, 22:21

Sorry Neal,
Below is the last two paragraphs in the article to which you link - obviously Bumble Bees can fly, we've all seen them :) : -

"The consensus seems to be that the clever bumblebee is able to fly by somehow exploiting some very intricate combination of vortex dynamics, which however is beyond quantitative mathematical analysis:
•Rapid oscillations pose one of the most difficult questions for fluid dynamics. Things become very messy Z. Jane Wang.

Yes, the bumblebee can fly, but existing fluid dynamics does not seem to offer a clear explanation of why this is possible, except hand-waving insufficient for take off."

That is not what I call convincing proof - it's just hypothesing about what might actually be happening in front of our eyes, not laying down the principles and providing evidence of conformance, which would get nearer to proving it.
Ner! :ner:

Heaven above Dave, I like you but please, its folklore...just Google it...

One of hundreds:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm

DaveK

05-07-2012, 22:56

I like you too Neal ;) - didn't know you cared though :lol: .
I think that I am arguing semantics here (or something). I accept that Bumble Bees can fly and we now know how they fly but I still haven't seen evidence of my original statement, that they donot obey the laws of aerodynamics as we currently understand them. In other words they have their own system which, to paraphrase a statement in your second link "is probably unique and unlike anything else in the animal kingdom" or words to that effect.
Anyway,that's it for tonight, I'm off to bed :) .
Dave.

StanleyB

05-07-2012, 23:25

No doubt the aerodynamics behind the flight of the bumble bee is interesting but the flight of the humming bird is a lot more spectacular.

Marco

06-07-2012, 11:28

Hi Dave (K),

Marco, hope I'm not nit-picking here but good science is an absolute truth - that is until a new theory comes along to update it - every aspect of our modern life is based on that premise IMO.

No problem at all. You're not nit-picking in the slightest :)

I actually largely agree with what you've written, with the exception that my issue is with the word "absolute", which suggests that the truth in question is 'complete', 'unconditional', 'perfect' and/or 'unquestionable', when the reality is that it is NONE of those things, and in fact, only a 'best fit theory' to help explain a particular phenomenon, until a better, more thorough, explanation arrives.

"Currently known truth", in that respect, would be a much more accurate description of the reality, than "absolute truth". It's the notion that any 'scientific fact' is unconditional or unquestionable, which I take issue with and that irritates me beyond belief. Genuinely open, continually questioning scientific minds, would never view any 'scientific fact' as being incontestably conclusive! :nono:

Absolutist thinking, in my experience, rarely supplies one with all the answers which fully explain a particular phenomenon. It's the way that some people bandy about 'scientific facts' as being irrefutable, often in a way which is rudely dismissive of one's contrary (but often valid) subjective experiences, which really irks me.

Genuine scientists (not the pseudo-scientists or 'technical jobsworths' populating, although I would say more like 'infecting', forums), remain forever aware that new phenomena are continually being discovered, which redefine the accuracy of previous 'scientific facts'. In my view, that principle should also apply to the subject of high-fidelity audio, and the sonic effects genuinely heard by human ears, which as yet cannot be conclusively proven, disproven (or necessarily measured properly) by our current scientific test apparatus.

Where science 'falls down' in trying to explain why we hear what we hear despite the measurements is that the science of the subject is currently incomplete and therefore not 'good' science.

Indeed. The emboldened part is more likely to be the reality of the situation. It's just a pity that some blinkered objectivists on forums steadfastly refuse to accept that notion, simply because it doesn't fit with their sensibilities and/or programming since birth to robotically obey the laws of 'established science' :rolleyes:

It is not helped by the fact that the science involved crosses several disciplines and the whole subject is not important enough in the grand scale of things for a multi-disciplinary team to get together to resolve the apparent anomalies.

Again, spot on! And until that happens, all current 'scientific facts', relating to audio are incomplete, and thus only valid up to a certain point. In effect, they only tell part (not all) of the story, and so that detail should be automatically factored into the equation before one's blinkered dogma or cognitive dissonance turns a scientific fact erroneously into an "absolute truth"...

Marco.

Marco

06-07-2012, 17:13

Hi Nat,

People can do what they like and interact with things in any way they like - many people for example will buy a rare exotic car just to look at in a line in their massive garage or an artist, an absurdist (is there such a thing?) might buy something that was designed meticulously and expensively for a particular use and to delightfully use it as a door-stop.

Sure, and people, if they like, can wear a pirate's outfit to the Post Office, whilst sporting a stiffy, and wave it under the noses of grannies collecting their pensions, saying "Go on, Mavis, sniff that cheesy Twiglet!" - or prance around their house, dressed in an adult baby-gro and nappy, whilst dancing to Boney M, but it doesn't stop the rest of us commenting on it, if we see it! ;)

People may buy an expensive exotic watch in order to wow at the intricately made mechanism, yet never set the time on it.. never use it for telling the time at all even. That's not considered unusual either.

Maybe not in your world, but it is in mine. In my world, folk buy things, expensive or otherwise, in order to use for their intended purpose - and that includes hi-fi equipment.

In fact I'd say measuring the input and comparing it with the output and seeing there is 0.001% distortion for example actually lies within the original design intentions.

Maybe, but what does it tell you about the ability of the equipment in question to accurately reproduce musical information? Fook all!!

Marco.

walpurgis

06-07-2012, 17:51

It seems this has been a very long journey, just to say that no piece of measuring equipment can tell you what your ears do!

Marco

06-07-2012, 18:18

Indeed, Geoff. If some folk just had the gumption in the first place to trust their ears, years of circular and repetitive debates on forums would've been saved! ;)

Marco.

bobbasrah

06-07-2012, 19:02

Indeed, Geoff. If some folk just had the gumption in the first place to trust their ears, years of circular and repetitive debates on forums would've been saved! ;)

Marco.

:lol:

PS - Just think how much this site's value would have dropped were that the case...

Mr Kipling

06-07-2012, 20:27

Hi,

Is it really possible to measure how transparent an amp is? Is it really a quantifiable unit? It's like saying you can measure depth, instrument timbre or small-scale dynamics. I don't see it - but I'm no expert.

Bit surprised Marco hasn't come accross transparent as an audio term before. I've seen it used often in the past. It's in my 1977 editon of "Boy's Own Book Of Hi-Fi Superlatives & Definitions". "Transparent: A component or system that conveys music without serious or significant impingement by processing of said device". (My joke!)

I would say that a good amp is "transparent" - transparent to source. When the mains is off, quality-wise, mine sounds less transparent. It sounds more leaden and congested. More box-bound and less hear-through, if you like.

I've no experience of exotic hi-fi, but In The Name Of All That's Holy, I just can't see how a £150 power amp is going to have the ability to reproduce music (which is the intention) that a £10,000 will have. I just don't see it. I can accept that they might actually measure pretty much the same - but that doesn't mean to say they will thus sound the same. Components can measure the same, but can sound different. If they don't - why is there a market for rebuilds using quality parts? It's been said before that measurements aren't everything. In the late '70s the Japanese were doing somersaults with feedback (feedforward) to get 0% distortion. Did it result in great-sounding amps? Well, not according to British journalists at the time (granted, they may have been somewhat biased). Typically they were described as sounding compressed, rerstrained and metalic. I can imagine there being a raft of stuff that measures and sounds basically similar - but there will be others that won't. In the earley '80s a then friend had a Nad 3020 which he then replaced with a Nait 1. I fitted some banana plugs and connected it up for him. Was there any difference? Yes. Much of a difference? Yes! It was night and day! I remember hearing Phil Collins and being absolutely STUNNED at the sound of him thrashing hell out of his kit. And by that I don't mean the amp was being thrashed, as it wasn't. I'm meaning the dynamics and attack were now being reproduced. The opening clocks on "Time" from Pink Floyd's D.S.O.T.M. sounded fantastic! So real. There was real scale and architechture that just wasn't there with the Nad. The front-end was a Rega 3 with A&R P77 and the speakers were Mordaunt Short Carnival 3s which had just come out. On the face of it nothing exotic - but it did sound great. For some rearon he changed the speakers for Kef Codas which wasn't a success as the sound then became hard and fatiguing.

Concentration's going - so I'll end here.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Marco

06-07-2012, 20:49

Hi Stephen,

Bit surprised Marco hasn't come accross transparent as an audio term before.

Of course I've heard of the term; I just don't believe that any such component exists, in the true meaning of the word, as every piece of audio equipment I've owned to date has, to some degree, exhibited its own (unique) 'sonic signature'.

As soon as an audio signal passes through a capacitor or resistor, its integrity is lost to some small degree, thus subtly altering the sound of the equipment in question, and that effect is cumulative by the time the signal completes the circuit.

Therefore, in my opinion, no piece of audio equipment can ever be truly sonically 'transparent', despite what some flawed and incomplete scientific measurements say to the contrary.

Marco.

walpurgis

06-07-2012, 20:59

Mr Kipling

06-07-2012, 21:16

Marco

06-07-2012, 21:17

By the way, didn't DNM make transparent amps. I'm sure you used to be able to see through the case.

Indeed, and that was because they believed (as I do) that the sonic performance of audio equipment is not only determined by the components used, but also the casing which houses them! ;)

Marco.

walpurgis

06-07-2012, 21:31

Yes, I was just having a little joke. I'm aware of Denis Morecroft's use of non-magnetic materials.

DSJR

06-07-2012, 21:31

Stephen's friend was right about the NAD 3020. Why they seem to be perceived by some as 'a bit special' is beyond me. I've owned them and used them and been unimpressed. To me they've sounded two dimensional and dull and that was in a system using Tannoy IIILZ speakers and a Decca London cartridge for Christ sake! If anything was going to bring it to life that combination should have.

Sorry old chap, the IIILZ's are so truly awful I doubt you'd be able to tell much of anything, due to the resonant cabinets and ancient crossover. These DON'T sound like the lauded bigger ones and never did I remember, any more than the Eaton and possibly the Devon from the replacement range did to the Cheviot upwards. As for the Decca, well "those that know" Know that there is Deccas and there is Deccas and two extreme ones can sound so different from each other you'd be amazed, as I was when shown :)

I only say the above because I SOLD the bloody 3020 by the dozen, used one (a 3020A) on my set-up bench for 15 years and compared them with many alternatives, the best being the increasingly pricey during its life A&R A60 and the cheap-n-cheeful Creek 4040. The 3020 had a slightly plump bass, but NO shortage of air and space if there in the source and/or recording. Set-up tweaks on turntables were very easy to hear and yes, never the slightest hint of listener fatigue. Most will be well shagged by now though and others not well put together. A good one is a very fine amp in my experience :)

walpurgis

06-07-2012, 21:46

I agree with your opinion of the IIILZ. I wasn't recommending it, as it is bass light, coloured and ragged at the top end, but it was certainly incisive as were the Decca cartridges. The Tannoy Eaton is in a different class altogether and although it is the smallest of the HPD series, I find it superior to the Devon and Cheviot and at least as good as the Monitor Gold Chatsworth, all of which I've owned and compared (and five pairs of IIILZs). The HPD 295A (not the HPD 295 8) is basically a ten inch version of the 12" Monitor Gold and benefits greatly by not having the Girdacoustic cone or the nasty, rotting Tanoplas foam surrounds.

Mr Kipling

06-07-2012, 21:48

Sorry old chap, the IIILZ's are so truly awful I doubt you'd be able to tell much of anything, due to the resonant cabinets and ancient crossover. These DON'T sound like the lauded bigger ones and never did I remember, any more than the Eaton and possibly the Devon from the replacement range did to the Cheviot upwards. As for the Decca, well "those that know" Know that there is Deccas and there is Deccas and two extreme ones can sound so different from each other you'd be amazed, as I was when shown :)

I only say the above because I SOLD the bloody 3020 by the dozen, used one (a 3020A) on my set-up bench for 15 years and compared them with many alternatives, the best being the increasingly pricey during its life A&R A60 and the cheap-n-cheeful Creek 4040. The 3020 had a slightly plump bass, but NO shortage of air and space if there in the source and/or recording. Set-up tweaks on turntables were very easy to hear and yes, never the slightest hint of listener fatigue. Most will be well shagged by now though and others not well put together. A good one is a very fine amp in my experience :)

Hi, Dave,

I wasn't saying the Nad was no good. It was just the Nait was in another league. Some time later he switched to the A & R A60 and Linn Kans. It sounded quite good, but I'd have had the Nait/Mordaunt Shorts.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Marco

06-07-2012, 22:04

Yes, I was just having a little joke. I'm aware of Denis Morecroft's use of non-magnetic materials.

Lol, I know. I just wanted to make the point that he was right! ;)

Marco.

Alex_UK

07-07-2012, 06:34

or prance around their house, dressed in an adult baby-gro and nappy, whilst dancing to Boney M

Oh God, I left my webcam on again, didn't I - sorry! :doh:

Marco

07-07-2012, 08:12

Yesh, how much will you pay me not to put the vid on YouTube? :eyebrows:

Marco.

wiicrackpot

07-07-2012, 08:31

Yesh, how much will you pay me not to put the vid on YouTube? :eyebrows:

Marco.
Thought up a novel idea one time on the Wam or was it Xovernetwork when i saw a gorgeous piece of kit for sale which i wanted real bad,
instead of selling kidney's which was the the norm, i offered to make porno videos saying it's less painful and more fun,
needless to say no members wife/GF took up the offer. :scratch:

wii.

f1eng

07-07-2012, 19:53

Hi Stephen,

Of course I've heard of the term; I just don't believe that any such component exists, in the true meaning of the word, as every piece of audio equipment I've owned to date has, to some degree, exhibited its own (unique) 'sonic signature'.

As soon as an audio signal passes through a capacitor or resistor, its integrity is lost to some small degree, thus subtly altering the sound of the equipment in question, and that effect is cumulative by the time the signal completes the circuit.

Therefore, in my opinion, no piece of audio equipment can ever be truly sonically 'transparent', despite what some flawed and incomplete scientific measurements say to the contrary.

Marco.

I quite agree Marco. The only component a HiFi enthusiast has ever had the ability to evaluate to his/her own satisfaction the transparency of is a tape/cassette/DAT, etc recorder. Then it is fairly straightforward to compare the input and output and hear for yourself the difference.
I have been an amateur recordist since the 60s and done this a gazillion times. I used to use my ears as well as the meters to set recording levels.
Every other bit of kit you have no way of comparing the output to the input so there is no way of knowing what is added/subtracted.

I suppose you should be able to get close with a power amp by doing a bypass test, as long as the load on the output of the amp is real. I haven't tried this though, so I don't know.
cheers,
Frank

DSJR

07-07-2012, 21:50

Every time a bypass test of some sort has been carried out and little to no difference discovered, all sorts of excuses have been forthcoming..

I'm just glad that the best of vintage gives very little away to most modern gear if properly fettled and set up and the reason for many new models is to "solve" an invented problem that doesn't really exist in the first place.. - in my opinion :)

The Grand Wazoo

09-07-2012, 07:57

Dipping into this thread rather late, I know, but some things things occur to me after reading through it.

Science is not finished.
It's no good measuring something with the wrong tools, no matter how precisely you make the measurement
Question: "How far is it to London from here?" Answer: "It's 3 minutes and 32.56797 seconds past 4.
Someone famous once said "If the only tool you own is hammer, then all of your problems are going to look like nails"
Finally, these wise words seem to sum it up for me:

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgement. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway?
The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not." (Nelson Pass)

..........it can stay as my signature for a bit!

John

09-07-2012, 08:27

Does expensive equipment grantee great sounds.....In my view no I heard quite a few expensive set up that have been very muddled, there a lot more going on to achive good results and I also experienced set up sounding good in one environment and not in another (so in my view quite a few variables to consider)
Are measurements important for manufactures..... Yes they give a bench mark on how something can be measured
Can figures be miss used .....of course they can
Do all amps sound the same...well not to my ears

DSJR

09-07-2012, 08:40

I'm going to cite the Rogers Cadet III and Naim Nait mk1 here. Technically, the latter at least is a tidy 20WPC amp with nothing exceptional about it apart from a way doctored RIAA stage which gently rolls off the bass at 100Hz and band-limits the hf to 25kHz or so. However, compared with far typical eastern 30WPC models which may well measure better for all I know, the Nait 1 and dear old Cadet just present music with ease and I even had the Nait 1 driving 'Briks with no harshness at all. Why? because of the soft-clipping nature of this amp and I suspect the band limiting helped with audible IM distortion too. Later Naits just didn't go wrong so nicely as this one did and the Nait 3 just sounded sloppy to me, the 5 models being excellent until they let go, upon which they HURT!!!!!!

Barry

09-07-2012, 09:43

wiicrackpot

09-07-2012, 11:19

WAD62

09-07-2012, 12:03

:goodthread: ,as well as a good post.

+1

Interestingly on the M-Dac, one of Mr Westlake's products, there are a selection of 'Digital Filters' available, one of which is specifically implemented to produce the best 'objective' test results...'Optimal Spectrum' which is even described in the manual as such, with a warning that it can lead to listener fatigue...

The filter I use 'Optimal Transient', sounds much better IMHO, and would seem to be the filter of choice for most users (or one of the three variants, XD & DD being other versions)...again the manual openly states that this filter produces worse 'test measurements' but retains the musicality.

So whatever measurements are used in establishing an 'objective' view of a components performance, we appear to be missing something...

DSJR

09-07-2012, 12:13

Interesting post Dave, having never owned Naim gear, i bought a minter Nait2 a few years ago very cheap (gumtree) as a back up amp and to see what the fuss is about, lets just say i agree with you,use within it's envelope,it's very good indeed and it's a stayer. :cool:

wii.

nait 2 is also a classic although I prefer the nait 1 for some reason. When I was ex-communicated from naim for a few years because I preferred the tonality of the Linn LK1 and 2, I found the Nait 2 and 135's were by far the best sound and almost as natural in timbre to the Linn amp which sounded a bit like a mid period Quad but with balls, the 135's especially, but the 62/140 (CB) was a godawful racket and the 250 (CB) hard as nails.

realysm42

09-07-2012, 12:13

I've got the v0.99 firmware for the M-dac and still for the life of me can't hear any difference between the sound filters for it with perhaps the exception of the sharp and slow roll off (on bass).

Funnily enough, I did have it on the optimal spectrum without realising it and had to change it because it began to hurt my ears.

Can you honestly hear a difference?

+1

Interestingly on the M-Dac, one of Mr Westlake's products, there are a selection of 'Digital Filters' available, one of which is specifically implemented to produce the best 'objective' test results...'Optimal Spectrum' which is even described in the manual as such, with a warning that it can lead to listener fatigue...

The filter I use 'Optimal Transient', sounds much better IMHO, and would seem to be the filter of choice for most users (or one of the three variants, XD & DD being other versions)...again the manual openly states that this filter produces worse 'test measurements' but retains the musicality.

So whatever measurements are used in establishing an 'objective' view of a components performance, we appear to be missing something...

Marco

09-07-2012, 12:14

Hi Will,

So whatever measurements are used in establishing an 'objective' view of a components performance, we appear to be missing something...

Indeed; the bit that's missing is the bit which shows that technical specifications, and their related objective measurements, can only EVER tell PART of the story, until we invent a device which accurately measures the criteria which results in we, as human beings, enjoying the sound of recorded music, reproduced by a hi-fi system! ;)

Marco.

Marco

09-07-2012, 12:50

Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgement. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway?

The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not." (Nelson Pass)

:clap: :clap:

Absolutely brilliant quote, Chris! May I borrow it after you? ;)

Marco.

WAD62

09-07-2012, 12:54

I've got the v0.99 firmware for the M-dac and still for the life of me can't hear any difference between the sound filters for it with perhaps the exception of the sharp and slow roll off (on bass).

Funnily enough, I did have it on the optimal spectrum without realising it and had to change it because it began to hurt my ears.

Can you honestly hear a difference?

Hi Simon,

Yes absolutely, particularly between OS and OT, OT has a 'weightier' feel to it...

I'm on V99 too, on V90 I was using OT XD, but it would appear that there's some suspicion that OT & OTXD got switched somehow...not sure if that's the case but after some 'blind drunk' testing this weekend I keep on going back to OT...;)

Do you use it as a 'Pre-Amp' too, as I found I couldn't tell the difference between the filters when I used it solely as a DAC.

I found that utilising it as a pre amp gives the greatest SQ improvements, but I suppose it all depends on the quality of your preamp :)

WAD62

09-07-2012, 13:01

Hi Will,
Indeed; the bit that's missing is the bit which shows that technical specifications, and their related objective measurements, can only EVER tell PART of the story, until we invent a device which accurately measures the criteria which results in we, as human beings, enjoying the sound of recorded music, reproduced by a hi-fi system! ;)

Marco.

Indeed Marco, let's face it we're discovering more about 'particle' physics every day...what exactly are we measuring, do we really understand?

Take one look at a simple single electron 'sigma' bond between atoms...WTF!!!

I'm happy with my ears as measuring devices...until we have a better alternative, and a greater understanding ;)

realysm42

09-07-2012, 13:18

Hi Simon,

Yes absolutely, particularly between OS and OT, OT has a 'weightier' feel to it...

I'm on V99 too, on V90 I was using OT XD, but it would appear that there's some suspicion that OT & OTXD got switched somehow...not sure if that's the case but after some 'blind drunk' testing this weekend I keep on going back to OT...;)

Do you use it as a 'Pre-Amp' too, as I found I couldn't tell the difference between the filters when I used it solely as a DAC.

I found that utilising it as a pre amp gives the greatest SQ improvements, but I suppose it all depends on the quality of your preamp :)

Interesting; no I don't use my as a pre amp and I use an intergrated one right now, I might have a play and see if it's of any benefit to me.

WAD62

09-07-2012, 13:29

Interesting; no I don't use my as a pre amp and I use an intergrated one right now, I might have a play and see if it's of any benefit to me.

Ooo! you're in for a treat...:)

I first tried it straight into my power amps, as I'd noticed that was the recommended set-up, I think 'Technobear' put me on to it. Then I tried it as a standalone DAC into my 8000Q pre...and was disappointed, yes it was better than my old DAX, but the soundstage & dynamic range seemed to have deteriorated.

To such an extent that I tried to have my Q modded to have a 'pass through' input, as I need my Q for my TT and AV inputs. Unfortunately this wasn't so easy as I'd hoped, all input selection is done by relays etc. Eventually I bought an RCA router from Mr Beresford which now allows me to switch between the M-Dac (digital pre) and the Q (analogue pre), and still retains the SQ of both...It really is worth the effort :)

P.S. there's a bit of a thread on the subject here...

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17472

and...

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17164

Welder

09-07-2012, 14:42

I just can’t help myself…..:doh::lol:

I’m more than happy to grant that there may be more to our perception of audio than can be measured.
However, it doesn’t address the issue that some very well regarded ears have not been able to differentiate between one component and another in what have generally been acknowledged as a fair test.

People posting that the differences between say amplifiers, for the sake of argument, are obvious to all but the deaf is all well and good but perhaps these same people would care to elaborate on why they think these differences don’t seem to be so obvious under the test conditions.
Further, measurement can demonstrate differences between components that the ear and brain just can’t.

Now in my system I’ve long preferred the sound of my Exposure kit over the other amplifiers I’ve been able to compare them against. I have absolutely no logical or even testable justification for this preference. I just have come to prefer their sound over a long period of time and I’m quite happy with this and no amount of DBT listening is going to persuade me that something else sounds exactly the same.
The same applies to certain speakers cable and interconnects; I have preferences and after some initial measurement and calculations I just don’t bother making any further objective comparisons and just accept that these are what I prefer.

Now I realize that the inability of the vast majority of those who have participated in what are essentially listening tests to differentiate between certain products is an irritation to those who advocate a completely subjective stance and the supremacy of their hearing over any measurement but it’s equally irritating to the objectivists that so many audio enthusiasts do apparently hear differences that such tests seem unable to reproduce.

Okay, I realize from earlier attempts that neither camp really want to address the issue; in fact some would rather ban those who question the rhetoric of either camp than attempt to provide a rational and reasoned explanation of what may be going on. While this approach may remove the irritant from the camps of the faithful it doesn’t really address the issue.
I don’t in fact care who is right or wrong. I would however like an explanation of a) why such tests produce null results and b) why each camp gets so hostile when this issue arises.
After all, there is probably an answer somewhere and knowing what it is must surely be good for audio if not for one or the other camps.

Marco

09-07-2012, 14:59

People posting that the differences between say amplifiers, for the sake of argument, are obvious to all but the deaf is all well and good but perhaps these same people would care to elaborate on why they think these differences don’t seem to be so obvious under the test conditions.

Erm, maybe because the test conditions are in some way flawed, and therefore the results they produce are not entirely accurate?

Show me imperfect measurements, which don't tell the FULL story of what audio equipment sounds like to the human ear, and I'll also show you similarly imperfect test conditions, blind or otherwise! ;)

The mistake you're making, John (which is in fact common amongst 'objectivists'), is in automatically assuming that the tests in question are somehow 'perfect' for their purpose, which in reality simply isn't the case.

Marco.

Welder

09-07-2012, 15:02

Erm, maybe because the test conditions are in some way flawed, and therefore the results they produce are not entirely accurate?

Show me imperfect measurements, which don't tell the FULL story of what audio equipment sounds like to the human ear, and I'll also show you similarly imperfect test conditions, blind or otherwise! ;)

The mistake you're making, John (which is in fact common amongst 'objectivists'), is in automatically assuming that the tests in question are somehow 'perfect' for their purpose, which in reality simply isn't the case.

Marco.

I'm quite prepared to accept there are flaws in such tests but what are they?
Just stating the test is broken doesn't really do an awful lot for any debate. ;)

Marco

09-07-2012, 16:10

SPS

09-07-2012, 17:00

john..

i have a view, not an answer.

i think ultimate sound quality is down to the many variables.. and some are in the specs..

feedback.. and how much.

the power supply... its ability to suppy smooth power to the peaks, (a smooth DC at no load can get quite rough and drop voltage underload conditions),

the quality of the components, ie caps/resistors/ valves and or transistors, volume controls impact the sound, but not the specs

the speakers varying impedance over the frequency range vs the amps measured specs into a fixed resistance.

how linear the amplifing devices are to start with before corective feed back is applied in the amp

normal tests are usually done with test tones and 1 watt, thats not really music, multi tone tests are better, but as far as i know not the specs

variations in most push pull amplifiers due to poor component matching and phase splitting, causing imbalances to the signal.

I'm sure many will add to this list or argue against some of the points....

Ali Tait

09-07-2012, 17:13

DSJR

09-07-2012, 18:02

There's a discussion on the HUG about the use of tilt/tone controls with a basic view that they should never have been abandoned, since most domestic listeners cannot or won't spend a fortune having their listening rooms sorted out professionally as studios usually are. Having the facility to gently tweak the balance of the reproduced sound may well be an advantage and since many tone circuits are in the feedback loop of the line buffer stage, so not directly in the signal path (citation needed here please).....

I do agree with the previous statements that "science" wasn't fixed as of the year 2000 and is still fluid as of now. The thing is, if "we" can genuinely hear things that cannot be measured, then the "science" should research WHY we can hear it and not measure it. It's a deep subject methinks and I get really cross with other forums where everything is taken in such a basic manner (and I'm not talking PFM here...)...

Marco

09-07-2012, 18:14

There's a discussion on the HUG...

HUG? Wossat, den? :scratch:

Marco.

Marco

09-07-2012, 18:23

That's an interesting point Steve. There is little doubt in my mind there are easily discernible differences between components such as caps, resistors etc. yet the amp will measure the same or almost so, yet differences to your ear are easily apparent. This would appear to support the idea that measurements of hi fi still have some way to go in giving a complete picture of what's going on.

Too right, Ali. You and I, not to mention everyone on audio talk and every other DIY site on the 'net, where people have upgraded caps, resistors, etc, and experienced the results, know what significant sonic differences things like that can make. It ain't subtle!

And yet, as you say, more often than not, the equipment measures the same, despite sound quality changing (not always for the better), I might add.

However, I'm convinced that the changes we can clearly hear *can* be measured, as we're not dealing with magic, BUT I'm also equally convinced that our current test apparatus is either not up to job, or we're not using it properly, through not knowing exactly WHAT to measure....

For me, it's one or the other, as I simply don't buy that the differences we can so often clearly hear in audio, yet not measure, are automatically being imagined! :nono:

The latter, although undoubtedly possible sometimes, is largely just a convenient excuse of those objectivists who are unable to trust their senses, and therefore craving certainty (as they seemingly cannot function without it), cling onto the notion that current science is the master authority for all we experience in life.

Quite simply, these people NEED a set of rigid 'rules' to follow and are incapable of relying, if necessary, on gut instinct or the results of their valid subjective experiences. In some ways, I actually feel sorry for them, as quite frankly, they're not functioning as normal human beings.

Maybe one day they might wake up and smell the coffee?

Marco.

DSJR

09-07-2012, 18:37

HUG - Harbeth user group - where detailed (too detailed?) discussions go on and although the tone is objectively science based (mandatory), the emotions and gut-feelings about our perception of sound and music, especially via loudspeakers, is paramount in importance and clearly explained and discussed. The GOOD thing about these discussions I think, is that the subjects discussed readily apply to other makes, not just the "BBC Legacy ancestry" speaker products sold by this firm and are a very far cry from the spun-out "truths" shouted out elsewhere.

Ali Tait

09-07-2012, 18:38

Agreed, there is more to it. The question is though, what is it that is lacking?

walpurgis

09-07-2012, 18:39

Marco

09-07-2012, 19:08

Hi Dave,

HUG - Harbeth user group...

Ah, thanks for the clarification. It's not a place that I ever look at :)

...the emotions and gut-feelings about our perception of sound and music, especially via loudspeakers, is paramount in importance and clearly explained and discussed.

I absolutely agree. That's the problem with very rigid scientific thinking in audio, which doesn't entertain the notion of how significant the impact of the above is on what we hear.

It's all very well if you think and act like a robot (and see everything in a very 'black & white' way), but not if you're in touch with your senses and can appreciate the more subtle shades of grey in between, like most of us!

The GOOD thing about these discussions I think, is that the subjects discussed readily apply to other makes, not just the "BBC Legacy ancestry" speaker products sold by this firm and are a very far cry from the spun-out "truths" shouted out elsewhere.

Ha - you mean the "truths", which are merely a thinly disguised marketing tool, and where in private, the 'protagonists' in question believe in an entirely different truth! ;)

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo

09-07-2012, 19:08

:clap: :clap:

Absolutely brilliant quote, Chris! May I borrow it after you? ;)

Marco.

No, you may not!

..............this one (from the same author in the same paper) is far more fitting for a man of your sensibilities Marco:

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines"

Marco

09-07-2012, 19:21

Ha - fucking awesome; I'm changing it now! :D

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo

09-07-2012, 19:22

Hehehe - thought you might like that one!

Marco

09-07-2012, 19:22

Indeed. Who's the quote from?

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo

09-07-2012, 19:26

Look again matey!

..............this one (from the same author in the same paper) is far more fitting for a man of your sensibilities Marco

Welder

09-07-2012, 19:27

What has measurement got to do with ABX listening?

The Grand Wazoo

09-07-2012, 19:31

Marco - you'll find it, & some other choice nuggets of test gear shmunching here in Nelson Pass' paper on Single Ended Class A amplifiers (http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/seclassa.pdf)

Marco

09-07-2012, 19:39

Churz, dude. I missed that bit of your post.

What has measurement got to do with ABX listening?

Not sure exactly what you're getting at, John, but most 'proper' ABX listening tests in audio are carried out in controlled environments, and it is precisely the negative effect of that type of environment, on the psyche of the listener, which can (and does) skew the results of such tests.

Marco.

Welder

09-07-2012, 19:41

Lol... Well seen you never read other forums, as this kind of stuff comes up all the time, particularly on pfm, which is why I never went into detail, as I presumed you'd get where I was coming from.

I'll reply properly later, as I'm just about to go out for a Chinese, but the answer is based around the inability of the test subject (i.e, the listener) to arrive at proper conclusions, due to the pressurised and unnatural environment of the test conditions, compared with the more relaxed conditions a listener is usually confronted with, when assessing equipment at home.

Basically, like I said, we've yet to invent the 'perfect' method for blind testing (or otherwise) in audio, just as we've yet to invent the 'perfect' measurement apparatus for testing the equipment itself, which tells us all we need to know, in order to prove or disprove what we can hear, subjectively.

More later, muchacho, after munchies! :cool:

Marco.

I used to read a few forums many years ago Marco but came to the conclusion that some of the contributors have mental health issues and nothing I’ve read since has altered that view. I only belong to one other and that’s not surprisingly Computer Audiophile but I rarely post.
So, AoS has pretty much got my undivided attention where Hi Fi forums are concerned.………….:eyebrows:

General.
I accidentally got involved in ABX when building my music server. I’ve done a fair bit of it now, using a comparator very similar to this; in fact I’ve pretty much hijacked my friend’s kit while I try to build my active project.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

I’ve also been using the foobar ABX dll and another computer software comparator to compare MSFL, DCC, Audio Fidelity rips to standard CD’s.
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

Interestingly, I’ve had quite a lot of success picking MFSL from standard redbook and just to add further controversy and something Marco brought up a while ago, AAD v DDD CD recordings.
While not very scientific due to not knowing anything about the recording process for the “normal” CDs it has at least demonstrated to me that I’m not completely deaf and positive ABX results are possible.

I would rather separate out the measurement v listening debate from the ABX testing; it just seems to encourage rhetoric and ABX is all about what people can hear under the test conditions and not an awful lot to do with measurement once the conditions are set.

I’ve read some of the stress related arguments regard ABX failures and everything I learnt during my time in avionics engineering lead me to believe that the opposite may well be true. Pilots operate under extreme levels of stress compared to someone sitting comfortably listing to music and the pilots are apparently able to differentiate sounds in what are often very difficult environments.

Marco

09-07-2012, 20:13

Interesting, John, so thanks for sharing that with us. I'd be particularly interested in your findings with regards to 'AAD', 'ADD', and 'DDD' CDs :)

I’ve read some of the stress related arguments regard ABX failures and everything I learnt during my time in avionics engineering lead me to believe that the opposite may well be true. Pilots operate under extreme levels of stress compared to someone sitting comfortably listing to music and the pilots are apparently able to differentiate sounds in what are often very difficult environments.

Yes, but not everyone has the mental agility and/or toughness to become a pilot! Pilots aren't representative of typical individuals. They're highly trained and skilled people. We're talking here about your average 'Joe', attempting to analyse the sound of his stereo.

Although I did quite well at school, academically, I always hated exams, simply because I didn't perform as well under pressure (especially with having a time limit to complete a task), as I did when producing the same answers for a homework exercise, where I was comfortable in my own environment and had all the time I needed, in order to complete the required task to the best of my ability.

In short, my level of knowledge of the subject was the same, whether doing an exam, or the same work at home, but the pressurised and stressful environment of being put in a timed test situation often meant that I was less able to perform at my best, and I sometimes suffered the consequences.

I relate that experience very similarly to being put into a similar position during an ABX test, in audio, where I'd feel under significant pressure in order to come up with the 'right' answer: a pressure which simply otherwise isn't there during my normal assessment procedure in the comfort of my home, and where time isn't a factor. That's why I consider ABX testing in audio, in an artificially controlled (and alien) environment, to be fundamentally flawed.

Marco.

Welder

09-07-2012, 20:44

Interesting, John, so thanks for sharing that with us. I'd be particularly interested in your findings with regards to 'AAD', 'ADD', and 'DDD' CDs :)

Marco.

I will probably write a bit about this at some stage Marco because I’ve been a bit shocked by what I’ve found I prefer and why. I doubt you’ll be surprised.:)

I’ve pretty much had myself down in the digital re-masters are good camp, but not only am I not so sure about that, I’m beginning to have some reservations regarding the bulk of digital mastering. It’s not so much that digital masters can't produce excellent results; it just seems that the temptation for the engineer to tinker is just overwhelming perhaps and easier to listen to results may be obtainable if they left the feckin mix alone and just did a straight master tape to digital transfer.

Off out.

Daniel Quinn

09-07-2012, 21:11

There is a myth running through this thread , A myth that a lot of subjectivists rely upon and in doing so dilute the force of their argument. It is the myth of golden ears or that hearing is somehow qualitative .

There is no evidence that human hearing differs from person to person save for the fact it declines with age , frequency response goes first and then ability to listen to low levels .what is known for sure is there is no biological basis for qualitative differences in hearing.

however there seems to be an assumption if some one can’t hear what you can it because your ears are better . Hearing is not intelligence .

I think a better analogy is that of wine tasting. Appreciating the difference in wine requires instruction and training it also requires a specific vocabulary to make the taster detect and interpret the subtle nuances of taste between varities . A person who upon learning the language of wine can taste the grapes and the region would not have done so prior to instruction , testing and learning the language. His ability to taste as not altered , merely the language employed .

They way language works on the brain is little understood , but is clearly self evident that language opens up process and connections in your brain which effect the way you see hear and taste the world . Anybody with a child will appreciate how more nuanced all these processes become as they develop language.

Hifi is like this, it requires time , effort , knowledge , willingness and a language to interpret what you hear . Thus if you think a certain tweak or amplifier design sounds more musical or places the drums further back in the soundstage , it is a pre requiste that you have acquired a language of hifi and invested time in applying it .

Thus whether what you hear is what another persons hear is an academic argument because it is not capable of ultimate resolution , however similar to truth being possible subject to the heremtically sealed rules of language , I think a common language can be employed to identify a common sound. Similar to if a call binded pages of writing a book and you agree , then it is a book.

This is what Wittgenstein called language games , the fact they are necessary is because we can only interpret an objective world through subjective interpretation .

In the end its all of load of language games . Objectivist simply cant deal with this fact.

synsei

09-07-2012, 21:30

I like your wine tasting analogy Dennis, it is very apt. :thumbsup:

Marco

09-07-2012, 21:37

I will probably write a bit about this at some stage Marco because I’ve been a bit shocked by what I’ve found I prefer and why. I doubt you’ll be surprised.:)

I’ve pretty much had myself down in the digital re-masters are good camp, but not only am I not so sure about that, I’m beginning to have some reservations regarding the bulk of digital mastering. It’s not so much that digital masters can't produce excellent results; it just seems that the temptation for the engineer to tinker is just overwhelming perhaps and easier to listen to results may be obtainable if they left the feckin mix alone and just did a straight master tape to digital transfer.

Sounds very interesting, John - I'd love to read your findings on the subject :cool:

Dennis, it's interesting that you should mention wine tasting, as I'm a genuine connoisseur, and have attended quite a few blind tastings, where I (honestly) more often than not correctly identified grape varieties, countries of origin, etc.

I've no idea, however, if that has any bearing on my ability to (usually) easily discern and describe sonic differences between amplifiers, cables or such like, but it's certainly one of the reasons why I ultimately have faith in my senses, as they usually don't let me down :)

Marco.

DaveK

09-07-2012, 21:51

Dennis,
I think you make a very good case and I agree with everything you're saying except one point. I infer from the words you choose that you are certain of your facts when you first mention it and then the next time you mention it you seem to suggest that you may not be so sure - or am I misunderstanding you - it has been known ;) .
Your first statement is, "There is no evidence that human hearing differs from person to person ......" and the second statement is, "Thus whether what you hear is what another persons hear is an academic argument because it is not capable of ultimate resolution, ..... "
I raise this point only because I personally think that there may well be differences in what different people hear when listening to the same music at the same time and location. No two (pairs of) ears are exactly the same shape outside the head and most probably inside the head. To me that suggests that there is ample scope for subtle changes to have taken place by the point at which the brain translates it into what we call noise or music.
Like you say, this aspect is not capable of ultimate resolution but the lack of (possible) evidence does not mean that it can not happen, IMO.
Dave.

SPS

09-07-2012, 21:53

Agreed, there is more to it. The question is though, what is it that is lacking?

I think thats simple, its the originality of the signal, all amps take both something away from it, and usually add something,
they usually filter out the finer harmonics, and gloss over the finer detail... the same thing really,

and most seem to add a colour or a tone and a just a little distortion if your lucky....

its yet to be disproved to me, that the simple high quality circuits are better at preserving the original signal ...

Mr Kipling

09-07-2012, 22:30

Should this language include the word "transparent"?

Can it be said for certain we all hear the same? I don't think so. Everyone's pinnes are different. Someone with years of experience in the music profession might hear music differently. Some are said to have "an ear for music". What about cultural differences to music?

Stephen

Ali Tait

09-07-2012, 22:50

I think thats simple, its the originality of the signal, all amps take both something away from it, and usually add something,
they usually filter out the finer harmonics, and gloss over the finer detail... the same thing really,

and most seem to add a colour or a tone and a just a little distortion if your lucky....

its yet to be disproved to me, that the simple high quality circuits are better at preserving the original signal ...

I don't disagree Steve, but what I meant is, what is lacking in how gear is measured that doesn't show the difference between different components, yet the differences are plain to the human ear.

AlfaGTV

10-07-2012, 06:08

Well spoken Dennis!
I would like to another perspective also; i'ts not only about what you hear, the experience is bound to be influenced by how you percieve what you hear.

To make a crude example; If you were subject to "water boarding" while hearing Mozart, and on another occasion got yourself a blowjob while Lady Gaga were playing in the background... Which music would you prefer?

And my point is, you cannot separate what you can actually hear from the emotion that is connected to it. And the emotional effect is hardly easy to pin down on paper, and certainly different from listener to listener.
IMO thats why this is such a difficult area to pin down.

Regards
/Mike

sq225917

10-07-2012, 06:57

Is she on the radio in the background or just on the other side of the room, I'm a little shy.

Darren

10-07-2012, 06:59

Is she on the radio in the background or just on the other side of the room, I'm a little shy.

I'm not, she can watch or join in!

SPS

10-07-2012, 07:41

I don't disagree Steve, but what I meant is, what is lacking in how gear is measured that doesn't show the difference between different components, yet the differences are plain to the human ear.

million dollar question Ali... you would think it was possible...

it was possible back in the 30's as far as i know, well at least with valves, they new how to build valves for all types of applications and for the highest quality sound, so they most have known what to measure to achieve the standards they did

StanleyB

10-07-2012, 08:06

Having followed this thread across more than a dozen pages, and being a design engineer myself, I couldn't help noticing the consistent reference to measurements. As is being pointed out, the measurements might be the same, but the differences are plain to hear. I hope that my overall assessment is correct so far. If it isn't, please feel free to correct it.

Now, let's look at these measurements and methods of measurement. What constitute a valid method scientific or otherwise? Does an oscilloscope hold more sway as a measurement tool than a pair of ears? Can we say that even though the amps measure the same, they sound different? If we do, then at a stroke we dismiss our ears as a valid measurement tool. We can't have it both ways.

Let's look at electronic measurement equipment for a minute. What is it that they measure, and are those measurements comprehensive or merely limited to nice marketing objectives? Let me offer an example of what I mean. The total harmonic distortion of an amplifier is measured at a certain impedance. That impedance is normally around 8 Ohms and consist of a high wattage 8 Ohms resistor. But is that method valid? I say it isn't. And the reasons are:
1. The temperature of the resistor at the time of measurement is not given. But in real life condition the value of the THD reading varies with temperature.
2. The 8 Ohms impedance of a real speaker is likely to consist of a set of resistors, inductors and capacitors, generally known as a cross over network. However, THD measurements are not made with a cross over. If they were the distortion figures would be far worse than quoted. So the measurement figures are in effect meaningless.

So this brings me back to the beginning. Can we trust the measurements carried out with electronic test equipment? I say NO. They are fine for reference, but are deemed suspect in the way that they are carried out.

MartinT

10-07-2012, 08:07

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgement. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway?
The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not." (Nelson Pass)

Concisely put, and Pass is someone I greatly admire :)

MartinT

10-07-2012, 08:19

To make a crude example; If you were subject to "water boarding" while hearing Mozart, and on another occasion got yourself a blowjob while Lady Gaga were playing in the background... Which music would you prefer?

LOL - fantastic visual imagery there, Mike :lol:

bobbasrah

10-07-2012, 08:20

Russel posted this on the digital thread "Dithering.....", parts of which touch on real world auditory perceptions versus measurement....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
It is a long piece but quite interesting....

PS - Think given the choice of Lady Gaga and anything, Water Boarding would be preferable.....

DSJR

10-07-2012, 08:23

Hi Dave,
Ha - you mean the "truths", which are merely a thinly disguised marketing tool, and where in private, the 'protagonists' in question believe in an entirely different truth! ;)

Marco.

Regarding the people I'm thinking of, in private they spout exactly the same things they spout online :(

We've been "here" many times before, but I think the best way is to get a decent BASIC performance technically, stable and reliable hopefully, and then see about fine tuning, either for better sonics today, or as in the past, to "tune" less desirable aspects away from where we'd notice them. That's how the most revered classic vintage stuff was designed and, if it worked back then, surely it would work now, especially with CAREFULLY applied component tweaks here and there...

Regarding fine wines vs plonk - wasn't there an experiment when a good but cheap wine was put into bottles with "expensive brand" labels and vice versa. The tasters preferred the one from the dearer labelled bottle, even though it was the plonk....

I'm not arguing for objectivism only, but I feel a designer needs an established base upon which to work - Stan, isn't that how the designers of the chipsets you use in your DAC's work? Without this framework, little could be achieved?

Marco

10-07-2012, 08:58

Regarding the people I'm thinking of, in private they spout exactly the same things they spout online :(

Aye, JC's Bum spouts 'digital is best and vinyl is shit', and then runs off and secretly spins some 78s on his vintage T/Ts! ;)

Regarding fine wines vs plonk - wasn't there an experiment when a good but cheap wine was put into bottles with "expensive brand" labels and vice versa. The tasters preferred the one from the dearer labelled bottle, even though it was the plonk....

Oh yes, that's definitely happened. However, that would generally only work on the untrained, not on those with the experience of being able to distinguish between different grape varieties, countries of origin, etc, and thus who can tell the difference between fine wine and plonk. When your palate has been honed over the years on regularly sampling fine wines, you know exactly what flavours are associated with different wine types.

Honestly, if you blindfolded me, and put down in front of me, say, an Australian Shiraz and an Italian Bardolino (or a French Beaujolais), the difference would be immediately obvious to me in smell (bouquet) alone, as to which was which, not to mention the colour of the wine inside the glass (if I weren't blindfolded, but the label was hidden), before I even tasted it! :eyebrows:

My dad used to play a game with me, and deliberately went out of his way to find the most obscure wines he could (usually bought from Oddbins), and then covered up the label of a selected wine, before serving it with dinner, and 95% of the time, I guessed at least what country the wine was from and the grape variety, and sometimes the name and vintage of the wine, too!

The latter happened most recently when he thought that he was being smart by buying a bottle of famous Lebanese wine (well, famous to me, not him), called Château Musar, which unknown to him, just happened to be one of my favourite wines, and also, unfortunately for him, one with the most distinctive (and unique) of flavours. He was convinced that this time he'd get me, but of course within one sip I knew straight away what it was! He's now given up trying...

It was fun though, while it lasted! :D

Marco.

Marco

10-07-2012, 09:58

sq225917

10-07-2012, 14:48

Do we have any examples of the difference in THD when an amp is measured into a pair of speakers as opposed to into a fixed load, it would be an enlightening example.

StanleyB

10-07-2012, 18:08

Typical figures are 1 to 3% when measured at the loudspeaker's end.

Daniel Quinn

12-07-2012, 09:15

As an adjunct to my previous post on this issue concerning , qualitative differences in human hearing, the importance of language and objectivity there was an interesting documentary on BBC which showed recent developments in how the brain interprets what you think you see and hear in the world.

Of interest to hearing was the McGurk experiment which shows HOW the brains visual langauge process's can override the brain's hearing processes . On the screen is a man saying "baa" repeatedly . The soundtrack is also saying "baa" in sync. The sound track remains constantly saying "baa" over and over , but half way through the visual changes so the man says "FAR" . As soon as the man begins silently saying "far" you hear him saying "far" , this is despite the sound on the tv is still saying "baa" if you close you eyes , you hear baa as soon as you open them you hear far. you know it is wrong but you can not stop you brain hearing far. Your eyes and ears are not passive interpretors of the world , they collect information and pass it to your brain for interpretation.

the subjectivist/objectivist arguement is mistaken as everything is subject . as stanleyb points out even so called objective measurements are nothing of the sort , even if the measurement measures the same thing , it is still premised upon a scientific theory which cannot be known to be true {c.f Karl Popper on falsification}

the real question should be in a world were everything is interpreted through and individuals personal senses how do we establish common quality criteria or should my cable mantra be extended to every single piece of hifi equipment . "try this piece of equipment at home , you may be able to hear why I the manufacturer thinks it good , you may think its better than I do or you may think its a piece of crap , I dont know and you wont know till you try it .

Marco

12-07-2012, 09:37

the subjectivist/objectivist arguement is mistaken as everything is subject . as stanleyb points out even so called objective measurements are nothing of the sort , even if the measurement measures the same thing , it is still premised upon a scientific theory which cannot be known to be true {c.f Karl Popper on falsification}

Indeed, Dennis. Scientific facts are true (or as 'true' as anything ever can be in this life), although *only* up to a certain point, which of course is the limit of our current understanding of the phenomenon in question. The mistake staunch objectivists make, is in treating said facts as 'absolutes', when in fact they are no such thing.

The trouble is, as soon as you develop that type of rigid mentality (which can so easily turn into dogma), the genuine inquisitiveness and open-mindedness needed, in order for one to continually learn and make progress in life, goes right out of the window!

For some people (those who seemingly cannot function without certainty, or rather their own notion of such), it's simply much easier, and more comfortable, to consider that science is 'master of all' - and therefore the 'perfect entity'. For them, entertaining the subjective alternative as having validity, would be most disconcerting, due to their absolutist 'scientific programming', seemingly since birth.

It's a blinkered (not to mention somewhat non-human and unnatural) mindset that I cannot, and will not ever, relate to. At this point you should consider researching the condition known as 'cognitive dissonance', which is fascinating and rather enlightening...

Marco.

realysm42

12-07-2012, 11:09

Until we know everything about everything, there's always room for error.

It strikes me as madness that people are arrogant to assume we know everything about any given field, or enough to talk about it with authority. Big fish in little ponds.

I understand the need for progress and knowledge, but just because as a race we're the most enlightened we've ever been, it's not to say we're anyway near a holistic understanding of anything.

Rant over.

anthonyTD

12-07-2012, 11:39

There are more questions than answers, And the more i find out the less i know. :)
Johnny Nash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAH6Zt30n58

Marco

12-07-2012, 12:09

Trouble is, mate, some people can't handle, and so won't entertain, that notion.... For them, there must forever exist some objective 'all-knowing' entity. In effect: science is their 'God', the irony of which I find most amusing! ;)

Marco.

realysm42

12-07-2012, 12:11

I was going to say that it doesn't matter as long as they don't inflict it on others (especially as the undisputable truth) but I guess they do, just as I wouldn't.

Daniel Quinn

12-07-2012, 12:14

Truth is to loose a word . Karl Popper says there no such thing as truth only things we have up to now been proven false. {falsification theory of knowledge}

Thomas Kuhn, is structure of scientific revolutions will argue that scientific truth is a product of social conditions , status ,power , funding as well as scientific method - ie observation , hypthotheis, prediction , repitition and theoretical explanation. . And whilst a theory may have a purchase on reality its is possible its explanatory power is coincidence and/or much more likely represents only a % of the truth to be found , however once a theory becomes useful and/or economically productive the search for truth is actually abandoned until developments mean it can no longer be sustained.

Now if you tranpose this state of affairs to hifi , what it means is objectivists are akin to the pope imprisoning Galileo, because they refuse to acknowledge the logical consequence, ie if everything is subjective how can you ever say anything of relevancy to me vis a vis the sound of any piece of equipment.

However, no subjectivists - of which i am one - i have ever read as come to terms with this fundamental problem, so they are left in a curious position of saying measurements don't mean a thing ,all hifi equipment sounds different, some are better than others and if an individual can not hear the difference then the issue is with the individual not the equipment . However , they still wish to say this piece of equipment is good and this equipment is bad . They refuse to collapse their argument to its logical conclusion, which is: this equipment is good to me , but because i am a subjectivist i cant say what you will think of it and i can make no recommendations because i am simply unable to know what you will hear when you play it .

However, they offer no explanation as to why all recommendations should not be dismissed as subjective and of no relevancy .

This issue would be academic if it were not for the fact that the hifi industry is full of the biggest bullshitters , Schillers and schisters known to any manufacturing sector and also egotists who wish merely to advocate there particular audio nirvana as gospel.

additionally , if you take the subjectivist argument to its logical conclusions then this and all forums would be one great bloody waste of time :lol:

So to conclude - objectivists are idiots , but subjectivists are right for the wrong reasons and cant really explain the reality they know to exist .

realysm42

12-07-2012, 12:53

One day I'll learn to use the multi quote button. Tuth is a loose term if used on a subjective... subject. For example, if I saw a dead man with a knife in his back I'd probably think what a tragedy. However, if I'd known he was a convicted war criminal, guilty of x amount of devious crimes (pardon the clumsy example), I'd see the same thing differently, I'd probably be grateful he's no longer with us. So in that example, the truth is a justified perception and still subjective.

I think the way we measure things in sound may be usful to some extent, but given that hi-fi music is subjective, there's never going to be a correlation between tech specs and enjoyment. After all, who am I to tell you this Audio Note system sounds better than that cheap mp3 player?

People don't use technical measurements to tell us why the Mona Lisa is such an amazing work of art, it's (almost) absurd people do it here (in my eyes).

They can tell you how to use certain paints in certain ways to obtain desirable results (same with picking gear that should match well).

I wouldn't blame someone's ears if they can't hear what I do with a certain bit of kit (especially in their own setup), they are only one part of an (almost) infinitely changeable chain of elements, each of which can have profound impact on sound/enjoyment.

I don't think objectivity as a tool itself is stupid, to use it solely as a criteria to base all of your judgements is foolish; you don't build a house with only a hammer. The same goes for subjectivity.

Ultimately, this thing we call hi-fi is very personal; I value a lot of what I read on here because it's made my journey a lot more enjoyable.

Can I quantify this? No.

Am I fussed that I can't? No.

Am I happy with the changes I've made? Most definitely.

Marco

12-07-2012, 14:19

Excellent post, Martin :)

Can I quantify this? No.

Am I fussed that I can't? No.

Am I happy with the changes I've made? Most definitely.

The above suggests a relaxed and contented state of mind, where you're satisfied trusting your senses, whilst also acknowledging that they are not infallible; in effect you're happy accepting your limitations as a normal human being, and not robotically chasing some unattainable ideal of 'perfection'.

Well done. You and I inhabit very similar worlds - a world which is sadly alien to most measurement-obsessed objectivists, who are in constant doubt of everything that they experience, unless it conforms to their notion of 'measurable truth'.

What an uncomfortable place that must be to live! :nocomment:

Marco.

Welder

12-07-2012, 14:37

So to conclude - objectivists are idiots .

I object to that statement.:)

So, I briefly carried out a range of tests and measurements on a random selection of self confessed objectivists.
Out of 100 randomly chosen self confessed objectivists I found 3 certifiable idiots, 96 of average ability and intelligence and one subjectivists infiltrator. :D

Still, at least I now know who the idiots are which is more than the subjectivists can say. ;)

Joe

12-07-2012, 15:20

because i am a subjectivist i cant say what you will think of it and i can make no recommendations because i am simply unable to know what you will hear when you play it .

That's where I stand. Often I've read people praising equipment I've disliked, or slagging off my favourite source/amp/speaker, but given that they have different ears and a different brain and are listening in a different room, there's no real point arguing the toss about which of us is 'right'. I limit my comments to things like 'to me, this speaker sounded dull', backed with info about what I was using with the speakers, the size/furnishing of the room, etc.

Mr Kipling

12-07-2012, 17:55

There are more questions than answers, And the more i find out the less i know. :)
Johnny Nash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAH6Zt30n58

"Stir it up. . . little darling."

Johnny Nash - or was it Ogden?

Daniel Quinn

12-07-2012, 18:41

That's where I stand. Often I've read people praising equipment I've disliked, or slagging off my favourite source/amp/speaker, but given that they have different ears and a different brain and are listening in a different room, there's no real point arguing the toss about which of us is 'right'. I limit my comments to things like 'to me, this speaker sounded dull', backed with info about what I was using with the speakers, the size/furnishing of the room, etc.

This is the position we should all adopt , but the trouble is this forum is full of subjectivists with agendas , who do not leave it at that and are determined for commercial or ego reasons to trumpet and triumph one universal method or giant killing product after another which as created a hegemony of products and methods and recommendations. there are way to many subjective fundamentalists who insist there way is the best way and seek to aggressively question and contradict those who dont agree.

footnote- in keeping with my dogmatic rhetoric on this forum I have not particularised or personalised . However in light of recent comments upon critique , If considered appropriate I am happy to particularise and provide a plethora of direct quotes/example. This is not my preference , i prefer people to ponder the relevancy of what i say in the abstract and make up thier mind ,not engage in persona critique

p.s Welder :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Joe

12-07-2012, 19:23

"Stir it up. . . little darling."

Johnny Nash - or was it Ogden?

Hilda?

synsei

12-07-2012, 19:54

Considering the provocative subject matter it gladdens my heart to see how well everyone is behaving on this thread. Who's to say which of us is right or wrong, as long as we are all enjoying the music then it shouldn't matter a jot ;)

Marco

12-07-2012, 20:15

Hi Dennis,

This is the position we should all adopt , but the trouble is this forum is full of subjectivists with agendas , who do not leave it at that and are determined for commercial or ego reasons to trumpet and triumph one universal method or giant killing product after another...

Whilst I respect Joe's way of doing things, which no doubt works for him, if we all adopted that position, it would hardly make for riveting discussion or provide much interest for our members to want to contribute to threads, would it? :)

Remember that, first and foremost, this is a discussion site, so whatever stimulates discussion is what's important and what keeps it alive.

As for this forum being full of "subjectivists with agendas", sorry I don't really see that, so perhaps you could elucidate? All I see are enthusiasts keen to relate to others their valid experiences, in the hope that other people may benefit from their experience. I certainly have no "agenda" other than that.

The other thing you may not realise is that much of what is written here, certainly by me, is in an attempt to dilute and/or counteract the extreme objectivist views written on other forums, quite simply to provide some balance and present the 'other side' to on-lookers/lurkers who may be seeking such, after having their legitimate subjectivist views belligerently dismissed by the 'objectivist mafia' elsewhere.

Therefore, do also consider that aspect of things, when you see me going up on my 'soap box'! :eyebrows: That may be partly where you perceive the existence of an agenda.

Of course, in general, you can only tell is as you see it, so I respect your views, but frankly I think you're being a little too cynical, most likely because you haven't been here long enough to get to know the people behind the opinions expressed, and are therefore judging matters somewhat too superficially and simplistically.

...which as created a hegemony of products and methods and recommendations.

I know what you're getting at, and to an extent you're right. However, that's what happens when a group of people find products that they consider sound superb and offer excellent value for money: they recommend them to others. That, of course, creates what could be superficially perceived as a knock-on 'bandwagon effect'. It's not intentional; it's simply something that tends to happen on forums.

If you look around the other major UK audio forums, you'll see that they all have their 'fanboy' products, and respective followers. Here, it's the Techy and Beresford DAC, on pfm, for example, it's the M-DAC and Linn/Naim, and there are valid reasons for that other than people having individual agendas or the desire to create a 'bandwagon effect' - sometimes these things just evolve 'organically'.

...there are way to many subjective fundamentalists who insist there way is the best way and seek to aggressively question and contradict those who dont agree.

Again, I don't see that genuinely happening here, but do realise that it could be the perception some have, mainly because they don't know the 'people behind the opinion' sufficiently, or their reasons for posting in a particular way, in order to make a more accurate judgement.

footnote- in keeping with my dogmatic rhetoric on this forum I have not particularised or personalised . However in light of recent comments upon critique , If considered appropriate I am happy to particularise and provide a plethora of direct quotes/example.

Lol... I think that providing a couple of relevant examples would be good, simply so those responsible for writing the 'offending' remarks (and I suspect that some of them will be mine ;)) can get the opportunity to defend why they wrote what they did. This of course will be done simply in the spirit of getting to know and understand each other better :cool:

Marco.

DSJR

12-07-2012, 21:18

Some of my fave products are made by Harbeth, Croft and Rega. Why? because I've OWNED the bloody stuff, sold two of the brands over a period since the late 70's and owned the third since 1989 or so and have no agenda other than to share my enthusiasm and love of what they do. OK Mr Quinn, my mate sells 'em but there are other dealers in the UK where interested parties can go to hear and buy. Anyway, we've been here before recently, so no need for repetition :)

Mr Kipling

12-07-2012, 22:06

Can't we all just be more tolerant and accept the fact that opinions will vary because of one's own personal experiences? One of the positive aspects of AOS (for me) is having members like Dave R who have a great wealth of experience and can comment on a great many areas that I would know little or nothing of personally. Peoples' differing experiences and viewpoints interest me, even at times when I don't always agree with them. I just wish more people here would comment.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Ali Tait

12-07-2012, 23:14

I'll comment that I like your avatar!

YNWaN

12-07-2012, 23:42

Can't we all just be more tolerant and accept the fact that opinions will vary because of one's own personal experiences? .......I just wish more people here would comment.

Well, I agree; but adherence to the first rather tends to mitigate against the second. To be honest, I've heard both sides of this circulatory argument too many times. I know where I stand, but stating my opinion will make no difference to those who believe otherwise and I am already familiar with the arguments they propose in support of their position. To be blunt, both sides are a 'no win' argument which exists primarily for the sake of argument in itself and, for me, has no inherent value or merit.

Mr Kipling

13-07-2012, 07:19

Well, I agree; but adherence to the first rather tends to mitigate against the second. To be honest, I've heard both sides of this circulatory argument too many times. I know where I stand, but stating my opinion will make no difference to those who believe otherwise and I am already familiar with the arguments they propose in support of their position. To be blunt, both sides are a 'no win' argument which exists primarily for the sake of argument in itself and, for me, has no inherent value or merit.

Well, yes, what you say is true and at the end of the day is what it boils down to. More often than not, change never comes easy and often takes drama, crisis or pressure in whatever form for it to happen. What I said about wishing others would comment more was just a general comment across the board.

StanleyB

13-07-2012, 07:43

This is the position we should all adopt , but the trouble is this forum is full of subjectivists with agendas , who do not leave it at that and are determined for commercial or ego reasons to trumpet and triumph one universal method or giant killing product after another which as created a hegemony of products and methods and recommendations. there are way to many subjective fundamentalists who insist there way is the best way and seek to aggressively question and contradict those who dont agree.
Yes, some people are quite happy with their Bush midi system and Goodmans mp3 player and good luck to you. No amount of positive comments by other people who have bought something better is going to make a difference in the opinion that you express.

It is however a fact that electronics and electronic products do improve and better ones are released by the day that surpass even the far more expensive ones made previously.

It has nothing to do with their agenda. It's your agenda to keep us living in the dark ages and continue to pay a high price for outdated and overpriced electronic designs that no longer matches the performance of a more recent and cheaper design is what strikes me as very strange.

Even worse is your attack on the "hegemony of products and methods and recommendations". A community like AoS relies on members passing on their findings, good and bad, with their latest acquisition. If you got several hundred members you are likely to get a fair selection of people who would try a variety of different combinations of varying products. There is no "one size fits all" stereo system out there, as much as Apple might try to let many of us think otherwise.

Having an ego works both ways. And that includes one that attempts to deride fellow members who wish to express their joy in whatever kind of emotion with their ownership of a new piece of gear. Nobody is forcing you to read it.

DSJR

13-07-2012, 07:50

One of the positive aspects of AOS (for me) is having members like Dave R who have a great wealth of experience and can comment on a great many areas that I would know little or nothing of personally. Peoples' differing experiences and viewpoints interest me, even at times when I don't always agree with them. I just wish more people here would comment.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Thanks muchly :)

I try not to make my experiences as "gospel," although I've tripped up on one or two occasions in the past. I do like the relatively broad church expressed on here and I think most of us need to continue to realise that although some of us post prolifically about our fave and current fave products, the real truth comes out in the end, several years down the line (most of the time :lol:) and it's these products that people enjoy and KEEP for years/decades, only changing if a genuinely better/more advanced model comes along - i.e. Beresford 7510 to Bushmaster...

Mr Kipling

13-07-2012, 09:08

Mr Kipling

13-07-2012, 09:13

Marco

13-07-2012, 10:06

To be honest, I've heard both sides of this circulatory argument too many times. I know where I stand, but stating my opinion will make no difference to those who believe otherwise and I am already familiar with the arguments they propose in support of their position. To be blunt, both sides are a 'no win' argument which exists primarily for the sake of argument in itself and, for me, has no inherent value or merit.

I agree. pfm, these days, is unfortunately littered with tediously repetitive 'subjectivist vs. objectivist' arguments, to the extent that they're virtually unavoidable. For me, this has seriously spoiled the forum, but I'll leave it at that.

We tend to dip in and out of those types of debates here, and otherwise try and stick to general discussions about audio, where the focus is on allowing people to freely express their opinions, without being harangued by so-called objectivists, intent on 'saving' others from being 'fooled' :rolleyes:

Marco.

StanleyB

13-07-2012, 11:10

We tend to dip in and out of those types of debates here, and otherwise try and stick to general discussions about audio, where the focus is on allowing people to freely express their opinions, without being harangued by so-called objectivists, intent on 'saving' others from being 'fooled'..
You hit the nail on the head.

Beobloke

13-07-2012, 11:52

Can't we all just be more tolerant and accept the fact that opinions will vary because of one's own personal experiences?

It's a lovely idea, but I think you'll find that it breaks the rules of the internet... ;)

Daniel Quinn

13-07-2012, 15:49

Stanley , you seem to want to pick an argument with me and i'm more than happy to do so as it what i do for a living and ive been of work for 7 days and i'm missing it . However , there is an old lawyer trick which is if you dont understand your opponents arguement then just spout your own agenda at the judge in the hope he is baffled by it . This is exactly what you have done and i aint going to argue with what you think i said .

i could engage in a textual analysis of what you said , but at the end of every paragraph all i could say was ehhhh????. You ascribe to me beliefs and opinions i do not express , one of which is borderline defamatory

where deos your nonesense about bush midi's come from ?
Your opinion on hifi progression is an opinion not a fact , saying something is a fact does not make it a fact . your arguement is tautological .
where have you got this dark ages agenda from ?
the agenda you ascribe to me is nonesense and insulting , thanks a lot :)
your use of the adjective "attack" is unjustified , at worst its a mild criticism.
your accusation that i deride fellow members is nonsense and again insulting .

perhaps after a hard day making excellent hifi you were tired and the complexity of my argument passed you buy, so just for you i will summarise .my post was an attempt to highlight a logical inconsistency in the subjectivist arguement in that it simultaneously fails to deal with the logical conclusion of its antecedents and at the same time seeks to rely upon elements of objectivity . I'm sorry but the Machiavellian somewhat dishonest motives you ascribe to me are in your head not in my text.

Marco

13-07-2012, 16:05

And what of my reply to you, Dennis? :)

Regarding Stan's response, yes it was a little 'full on', but come off it, your post (which was rather lacking in tact) was quite clearly designed to provoke a reaction, so don't complain when a reaction is precisely what you got! I was surprised that you got off as lightly as you did from others, which was that they didn't react at all...

Unfortunately, the condescending tone of your reply to Stan is liable to provoke a response of a similar tone from him... [Note to Stan: I'd be obliged if you didn't rise to it].

Marco.

bobbasrah

13-07-2012, 16:11

The Obkectivist National Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

If Objectivists and Subjectivists really do exist which presumably they do if for no other reason but to prove existence of their opposites, what are the other 99% called? DontCareListeningToThe Musicists?

Marco

13-07-2012, 16:28

An interesting point, Bob! :)

Marco.

Daniel Quinn

13-07-2012, 16:44

Barry

13-07-2012, 16:58

Where is the post of Stan's to which Dennis objects?

Marco

13-07-2012, 17:02

#184, Barry :)

Marco.

Marco

13-07-2012, 17:16

marco , im not complaining .

there are many legitimate criticisms Stanleyb could of made-

irrelevant emphermera , pompous , simplification of certain arguments for the sake of a point , confusing :amongst others .

he did not do this , instead his post was nonesense . i simply pointed this out for one reason only he played me not the argument .

Sure, but your earlier comments could've been construed as an attack on the Beresford:

... but the trouble is this forum is full of subjectivists with agendas , who do not leave it at that and are determined for commercial or ego reasons to trumpet and triumph one universal method or giant killing product after another which as created a hegemony of products and methods and recommendations.

...given that Stan's products are amongst those you were referring to above, albeit obliquely. Yes, he took those comments rather personally, but when you're very close to the products you make, and sales of such are responsible for your livelihood, it's understandable if such criticism is taken personally by the maker of those products.

...and from your reply to my initial post , it is abundantly clear my point was made and so i see no point in raking over past posts . I have no desire to win arguements ,merely to make a point

Sure, that's fine. Hopefully, my earlier reply will have provided some insight into the points you raised, the details of which you may not have considered before ;)

Marco.

sq225917

13-07-2012, 17:50

I find the thread slightly reminiscent of the fights you used to see at school involving the kids chosen last for the football team in a games lesson.

It has some sporting promise but ultimately the main protagonists leave more than a little to be desired in their ability to deliver the raw aggression and excitement required to satisfy.

;-)

Daniel Quinn

13-07-2012, 18:23

To be honest it never occurred to me that this description could apply to Stanley B's products and I'm still not sure it does .

so i am happy to make clear , i did not have you in mind at all Stanleyb. As advised last time i upset you , i don't do digital , I have no interest. additionally I am not aware of any comment from you on this thread which would have alerted me to the possibility you would take umbrage or that your products could be encapsulated within the term "hegemony of products"

Joe

13-07-2012, 18:30

[mildly interesting aside re perception]

When I first saw Daniel Quinn's avatar, I didn't see a picture of Karl Marx, but a picture of a dragon looking over its right shoulder.

[we now return you to your normal programming]

bobbasrah

14-07-2012, 07:08

.... I was surprised that you got off as lightly as you did from others, which was that they didn't react at all....

Do you concede it is possible that nobody else interpreted it "obliquely", read objectively in other words, hence the lack of reaction ?

Joe - It took several re-examinations of that avatar to get what you were seeing. A dragon with a hump...

synsei

14-07-2012, 08:02

When is the interval, I require popcorn and a fizzy beverage? :D

Marco

14-07-2012, 09:26

Do you concede it is possible that nobody else interpreted it "obliquely", read objectively in other words, hence the lack of reaction ?

Indeed - or they were too busy enjoying music and couldn't be arsed responding! ;)

Marco.

Joe

14-07-2012, 11:28

Arguments between die-hard objectivists and die-hard subjectivists are bound to be circular, as with arguments between atheists and believers; they have diametrically opposed views, contradictory starting points, and no common ground. What's more, each distorts the position of the other, so that subjectvists are portrayed as gullible purchasers of 'foo', and objectivists as cold-hearted, cloth-eared wielders of slide-rules.

Essentially, subjectivists are expressing personal preferences, which, as we know, there is no arguing with. The problem is that when they use words like 'transparent', 'accurate' and 'faithful to the original recording' they raise the hackles of those with a more scientific take on things, who want to know how such terms are being defined, and how they can be measured. Then the subjectivists quote great wodges of half-understood stuff from Wikipedia etc to 'prove' that science can't explain everything, and so the sorry saga continues.

There are three solutions; for subjectivists to stick to phrases like 'I like the sound of ...' or 'I prefer X to Y ..' and avoid words like 'accurate' and 'transparent', for mods to pounce on circular discussions as soon as they emerge, or for everyone to agree to differ, and not worry about other peoples' errors.

MartinT

14-07-2012, 11:45

Arguments between die-hard objectivists and die-hard subjectivists are bound to be circular, as with arguments between atheists and believers

How about not bothering?

I am way past the point where I need to 'win' such arguments and I find both debates ultimately tiresome.

Joe

14-07-2012, 11:50

How about not bothering?

I am way past the point where I need to 'win' such arguments and I find both debates ultimately tiresome.

Oh, sure, me too. I write as an observer rather than a participant in such arguments. I'm scientifically illiterate, so don't understand the technical points being discussed. My own preferences are driven solely by the number of blue LEDs on the equipment

The Grand Wazoo

14-07-2012, 12:05

How about not bothering?

I am way past the point where I need to 'win' such arguments and I find both debates ultimately tiresome.

+1

MartinT

14-07-2012, 12:10

My own preferences are driven solely by the number of blue LEDs on the equipment

We have a Which? consumer in our midst :lol:

Marco

14-07-2012, 12:47

And a discerning one, too. In the forthcoming review of my LED shootout, where I blind-tested a bunch of 'bulbs', the clear-blue ones clearly sounded best, as they were the most transparent.

Marco.

Marco

14-07-2012, 17:49

Hi Joe,

Arguments between die-hard objectivists and die-hard subjectivists are bound to be circular, as with arguments between atheists and believers; they have diametrically opposed views, contradictory starting points, and no common ground.

Oh, I don't know. Objectivists are unwilling to concede that they have a faith, or 'believe' in anything, contending that they only deal in 'scientific facts', and that which is objectively measurable.

Well, in my opinion, if they're blinkered enough to believe that all 'scientific facts' are conclusive and irrefutable, then I'd contend that such a notion is based simply on what they want to believe, as their absolutist sensibilities couldn't handle the alternative, and therefore is a valid example of 'faith' ;)

In summary, objectivists and subjectivists have their own respective 'belief systems'. For objectivists, it's the notion that science is a 'perfect entity', and for subjectivists, it's faith in their senses... Neither 'belief system' is currently provable conclusively as being 'all-knowing' or infallible.

Essentially, subjectivists are expressing personal preferences, which, as we know, there is no arguing with. The problem is that when they use words like 'transparent', 'accurate' and 'faithful to the original recording' they raise the hackles of those with a more scientific take on things, who want to know how such terms are being defined, and how they can be measured.

Sure, although as I've said before, when relating one's subjective experiences on an audio forum, unless they are presented as FACT, rather than merely an opinion, based on the best description of what one has heard, there is no onus whatsoever on the person posting such to 'prove' what they're describing. Therefore, the style of language which is used is immaterial.

If someone remarks that, to their ears, amplifier A sounds more 'transparent' or 'accurate' than amplifier B, then it is only in reference to their notion of accuracy or transparency, not a definitive statement of such! :doh:

Basically, all contributions to forums should be read simply under the premise of 'IMHO'. After all, one is not completing a technical dissertation for formal appraisal; merely informally sharing some thoughts with like-minded enthusiasts, so people should be free to do so, in whatever language they feel best describes what they experienced, without being harangued by belligerent objectivists, seeking to impose their dogma on those who don't want (or indeed need) their 'help'.

Marco.

DSJR

14-07-2012, 17:55

I think the arch, blinkered and sometimes unpleasant objectivists in the local audio world have been banned from this site in any case, haven't they?

chelsea

14-07-2012, 17:57

From my pov both sides are as bad as each other.

At the end of the day who cares.

Marco

14-07-2012, 18:05

I think the arch, blinkered and sometimes unpleasant objectivists in the local audio world have been banned from this site in any case, haven't they?

Absolutely, and most others wouldn't join here because the heavily subjective nature of the majority of views posted AoS is an anathema to them, which is precisely why we nail our colours so firmly to the mast, in order to keep such unpleasant 'characters' well away.

In effect, our ethos acts as a very efficient 'twit filter'! ;)

The difference is that, unlike Tony L, on pfm, I'm not running a record selling business, and so maximising 'traffic flow' to the forum, in order to capitalise on potential income, is of zero importance. All I'm concerned with is that AoS is as full of as many nice and friendly people as possible, who respect the way that we do things here. If they're knowledgeable about hi-fi and music, then that's a bonus! :)

Therefore, in terms of our membership, quality (as in those who 'get' what we're about, and behave accordingly) is more desirable than quantity.

I should add that pleasant objectivists (diehard or otherwise) are very welcome, but I think that I've only ever come across a handful of those in my 11 years of posting on hi-fi forums. Most simply refuse to respect the valid views of a subjective mindset, belligerently hammering home their own agendas, and ultimately paying the consequences, a la JC Brum, Ashley James, Tim Farney, etc.

Marco.

Welder

14-07-2012, 18:51

Absolutely, and most others wouldn't join here because the heavily subjective nature of the majority of views posted AoS is an anathema to them, which is precisely why we nail our colours so firmly to the mast, in order to keep such unpleasant 'characters' well away.

In effect, our ethos acts as a very efficient 'twit filter'! ;)

I should add that pleasant objectivists (diehard or otherwise) are very welcome, but I think that I've only ever come across a handful of those in my 11 years of posting on hi-fi forums. Most simply refuse to respect the valid views of a subjective mindset, belligerently hammering home their own agendas, and ultimately paying the consequences, a la JC Brum, Ashley James, Tim Farney, etc.

Marco.

Oh dear, I’m beginning to feel like a total failure as an objectivists now.:(
I mean for a start what objectivist with any kind of grasp of science wouldn’t admit it’s a faith. Come to that it isn’t even a very steady faith because the rules keep changing. :doh:

Maybe we should start an agnostics group. :idea:
Erm are there any agnostic fanatics? :scratch:

(gone off to search for a radical agnostic faith group to pick up some rhetoric and learn how to slag the other two faiths off)

Barry

14-07-2012, 19:20

Marco

14-07-2012, 19:38

Did you read my reply to Joe, Barry? :)

Marco.

Marco

14-07-2012, 19:58

Btw, I meant to tackle this:

There are three solutions; for subjectivists to stick to phrases like 'I like the sound of ...' or 'I prefer X to Y ..' and avoid words like 'accurate' and 'transparent'.

I agree with the latter (although see my earlier reply, in this respect). Undoubtedly, using those words is not ideal, but I also wouldn't want to see people's subjective reviews reduced to a state of descriptive blandness, such as you're advocating above.

There has to be some leeway to allow a reviewer, or simply someone making a subjective observation, to use language descriptive (or 'colourful') enough in order to effectively portray what they've heard, and in a way which allows the reader to 'picture' in their mind what they mean. *That* is what the best subjective reviewing is all about...

If all we've got to look forward to reading is people writing: "I like the sound of" this or that, or "I prefer" X to Y, then it's going to be very boring indeed! Also, what happens when someone asks you to qualify WHY you like the sound of something? Do you just reply: "Because I do"? :eyebrows:

How wonderful (not)!!

Marco.

Barry

14-07-2012, 20:07

Did you read my reply to Joe, Barry? :)

Marco.

Yes, but Joe's reply seemed to me to sum it up sufficiently.

Well, in my opinion, if they're blinkered enough to believe that all 'scientific facts' are conclusive and irrefutable, then I'd contend that such a notion is based simply on what they want to believe, as their absolutist sensibilities couldn't handle the alternative, and therefore is a valid example of 'faith'

Such 'objectivists' are wrong. The scientific method is one where ideas and theories are proposed, and from these theories predictions are made that are tested by experiment. As long as all the predictions are shown to be to be explained by the current theory, that theory holds. As soon as a phenomenon is discovered that cannot be explained by the current theory, the theory is found wanting, discarded and replaced by one which can explain the facts. This process is on-going. If science is a faith or a belief system, then it one which is constantly being updated and is not one 'set in stone'. The only constant is the method: proposal of an explanation, or theory; test the predictions of the theory; revise or replace the theory as soon as new phenomena are discovered that cannot be explained.

Sure, although as I've said before, when relating one's subjective experiences on an audio forum, unless they are presented as FACT, rather than merely an opinion, based on the best description of what one has heard, there is no onus whatsoever on the person posting such to 'prove' what they're describing. Therefore, the style of language which is used is immaterial.

Unfortunately subjective experiences are often presented as fact. And I agree the use of language is a problem. There is a tacit assumption of "IMO" or "IMHO"s in anything that is posted here, or should be, but it is not only the 'objectivists' who can come across as dogmatic.

Regards

Marco

14-07-2012, 20:27

Yes, but Joe's reply seemed to me to sum it up sufficiently.

You may wish to read my last post (#218), which challenges Joe's summary on a rather crucial point....

If science is a faith or a belief system, then it one which is constantly being updated and is not one 'set in stone'.

Spot on! Fancy popping over to pfm, and telling Serge Auckland, and co, that? Perhaps, coming from a fellow 'objectivist' (albeit a friendly and open-minded one), they might pay more attention and let the facts sink in? ;)

Unfortunately subjective experiences are often presented as fact. And I agree the use of language is a problem. There is a tacit assumption of "IMO" or "IMHO"s in anything that is posted here, or should be, but it is not only the 'objectivists' who can come across as dogmatic.

Indeed, although I've yet to see a subjectivist crapping all over an objectivist's thread, when the latter are 'wanking over' graphs and numbers, claiming them as 'irrefutable proof' of the existence (or not) of a particular phenomenon, and trying to save them from their 'delusions'! ;)

*That*, my friend, is the difference.

Marco.

Mr Kipling

14-07-2012, 22:01

Sadly, I only have my two ears to go by. When my father made me he didn't fit a 'scope, as my Granny might have said. Sorry.

This week I watched a documentary about the heart. For long enough scientific thinking was that it was simply a pump - nothing more;nothing less. It pumped the blood, and that was it. New research however has showen there's more to it than that. It responds to stress and one's emotional state. It feeds impulses to a frontal section of the brain. Show someone a human face displaying pain, pleasure happiness or whatever, and it responds. The end result is that the heart is an active element in how we empathise with how others might me feeling. Old adages like 'dying of a broken heart' or something being 'heartfelt' now have some scientific fact to them.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

P.S.
Thanks Ali T.. Your avatar has a certain charm to it to my mind.
Another thing I like about AOS is you get to meet stars and luminaries of the 'hi-fi world' ! Adam, what's that Noel Keywood really like!?!

Joe

14-07-2012, 23:15

I agree with the latter (although see my earlier reply, in this respect). Undoubtedly, using those words is not ideal, but I also wouldn't want to see people's subjective reviews reduced to a state of descriptive blandness, such as you're advocating above.

I wasn't advocating that, just raising it as a possible solution to circular arguments. The problem with the Alice in Wonderland world, where words mean whatever individuals choose them to mean, is that they essentially become meaningless. 'Accurate' has a precise meaning; one watch will be more accurate than another if it keeps better time, and this degree of accuracy is easy to check. So if you say a hifi system or component is 'accurate' then I think it's fair enough to ask the questions 'accurate to what?' and 'how are you measuring accuracy?'.

Other words used in subjective reviews don't raise this issue; 'dynamic' or 'musical' will mean different things to different people; ie they are non-measurable. But even here, it's always best to qualify praise or criticism, by giving as much context as possible about the system in question, the room in which it was used etc. That avoids the simplistic 'X amp absolutely destroyed Y amp' approach and is far more likely to be useful to others.

Joe

15-07-2012, 07:47

Oh, I don't know. Objectivists are unwilling to concede that they have a faith, or 'believe' in anything, contending that they only deal in 'scientific facts', and that which is objectively measurable.

Well, in my opinion, if they're blinkered enough to believe that all 'scientific facts' are conclusive and irrefutable, then I'd contend that such a notion is based simply on what they want to believe, as their absolutist sensibilities couldn't handle the alternative, and therefore is a valid example of 'faith' ;).

n my experience they mostly want evidence, or data, to back up assertions eg about cable directionality or the effect of different types of equipment support. That's the scientific mindset, and it's how science has progressed since Francis Bacon set out the 'scientific method'.

The problem, as you say, is when absolutism sets in, which is why I used the term 'die-hard'. An atheist and a born-again Christian can't both be right, and neither will not concede the possibility that they might be wrong, whereas an agnostic and a vaguely religious person who is not dogmatic in their beliefs can have a polite discussion about the existence or otherwise of God.

My preferred solution(s) in the context of audio forums are 1) for posters to respect others' beliefs and opinions, 2) bear in mind that if you've made a point once in a thread, there's no need to make it 200 times and 3) for mods to stop circular arguments as quickly as possible. And I think AoS mostly get these things right.

Marco

15-07-2012, 11:37

Hi Joe,

In my experience they mostly want evidence, or data, to back up assertions eg about cable directionality or the effect of different types of equipment support. That's the scientific mindset, and it's how science has progressed since Francis Bacon set out the 'scientific method'.

Sure, and that would be perfectly acceptable if it wasn't usually also accompanied by a sneering (and dismissive) disdain for one's perhaps contrary, but perfectly valid, subjective opinion. If the objectivists in question lost their judgemental and condescending attitude in the first place, then there would be more likelihood of both parties conducting a sensible debate.

As soon as you make it personal by stating as FACT that someone is being 'fooled' or imagining something that, in fact, they could've genuinely heard, then you've virtually guaranteed that the discussion will quickly degenerate into pointless bickering, as you're making statements that you're simply not qualified to make - and which are rather ignorant and patronising to boot!

Mutual respect and tolerance from both parties, of their respective opinions (when in reality NONE are irrefutable facts), is the ONLY way forward, but I seriously doubt it will ever happen. We've tried it here before, with the 'objectivists' I've mentioned who were banned, and sadly, it just doesn't work.

John (Welder) and Barry remain here as our resident 'objectivists', simply because they're ultimately able to respect (although perhaps not always agree with) the opinions of an alternative mindset - after all, AoS is primarily a subjectivist site - and conduct themselves properly within the guidelines that are given. I'm not sure that would be the case with some others who inhabit pfm or Wigwam! :eek:

The problem, as you say, is when absolutism sets in, which is why I used the term 'die-hard'. An atheist and a born-again Christian can't both be right, and neither will not concede the possibility that they might be wrong...

I disagree with that. There are plenty of subjectivists I know of (including myself) who are perfectly willing to accept that they are sometimes wrong, and who will even gladly admit that sometimes they imagine hearing things, in terms of sonic effects in hi-fi.

What we're not willing to do, however, is if we believe, for good reason, that an effect we've heard is real, that simply because it doesn't conform to any known 'law' in 'Eddie Egghead's book of 'scientific facts'', that it's ignorantly dismissed as nonsense.

*That* is the difference!

My preferred solution(s) in the context of audio forums are 1) for posters to respect others' beliefs and opinions, 2) bear in mind that if you've made a point once in a thread, there's no need to make it 200 times and 3) for mods to stop circular arguments as quickly as possible. And I think AoS mostly get these things right.

I completely agree, and thanks for your supportive comments. We do try our best to get it right :)

Marco.

Marco

15-07-2012, 12:01

The problem with the Alice in Wonderland world, where words mean whatever individuals choose them to mean, is that they essentially become meaningless. 'Accurate' has a precise meaning; one watch will be more accurate than another if it keeps better time, and this degree of accuracy is easy to check. So if you say a hifi system or component is 'accurate' then I think it's fair enough to ask the questions 'accurate to what?' and 'how are you measuring accuracy?'.

Sure; in which case I'd reply: 'based on my current benchmark of how, from considerable experience of attending live (acoustic and otherwise) musical performances, I consider how real voices and instruments sound'. *That* is how I judge my notion of 'accuracy' in audio, and I require no measurements to 'prove' it.

As an example, I may write something like this:

'In my opinion, the Pioneer CD player produced a sound with my favourite music which, to my ears, was likely more accurate [one could also use 'faithful'] to the sound that left the studio, than that of the Denon, which appeared to 'caricature' the music, as a result of the player having a more defined sonic signature'.

Now, in my opinion, there's bugger all wrong with that. It's crystal clear that my use of the word 'accurate' is not in any way factual, and at the same time, I've described what I've heard to others in a meaningful way :)

In reality, I'd probably avoid using words like 'accurate' or 'transparent', as I do take your point, but I refuse to be dictated to by dogmatic objectivists what words I can and cannot use, when describing what it is I believe that I can genuinely hear - and I don't need to 'prove' my statements either if, as shown above, they are clearly my subjective opinion, and not fact!

Marco.

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 15:02

I wonder what sort of vocabulary sound engineers and producers engage in, whom at the end of the day, we all are reliant on for the pleasure we all derive from our love of recorded music? And what 'instruments' do they have to use?

synsei

15-07-2012, 15:23

Am I the only person who is slightly bemused by this thread? I mean really, the subject matter has been done to death here and on so many other forums and it is becoming just a tad boring, IMO of course :doh:

I'd like to read a review from both the 'objectivist and 'subjectivist' camps on how each rates this current debate compared to previous debates they have taken part in... ;)

Macca

15-07-2012, 15:31

I'd like to read a review from both the 'objectivist and 'subjectivist' camps on how each rates this current debate compared to previous debates they have taken part in... ;)

Reminds me of a letter to Viz comic, which began:

'Dear Sir - The letters complaining that Viz is not as funny as it used to be are not as funny as they used to be.'

And with that, gentlemen, I am off to get drunk and listen to loud music. :cool:

synsei

15-07-2012, 15:43

Ah, a fellow Viz reader... Class!!! :D

Marco

15-07-2012, 18:06

Hi Dave,

Am I the only person who is slightly bemused by this thread? I mean really, the subject matter has been done to death here and on so many other forums and it is becoming just a tad boring, IMO of course :doh:

I agree. The original purpose of this thread was to address what I considered to be a ludicrous statement, made by someone elsewhere, and discuss the (equally ludicrous) notion, IMO, of an amplifier being genuinely sonically 'transparent'. Unfortunately, whilst that was discussed earlier to some degree, there's been more chat about 'objectivists vs. subjectivists', which I guess, like it or not, is intrinsically linked to a discussion like that.

However, as long as people are still posing questions about it, I'll answer them, and then I'm sure the thread will die a natural death, the same as any other :)

I'd like to read a review from both the 'objectivist and 'subjectivist' camps on how each rates this current debate compared to previous debates they have taken part in...

Great idea!

Even better, would be next time at Scalford, for a well-known subjectivist to set-up and demonstrate a system, incorporating all manner of 'foo', such as specialist supports, the use of better than 'freebie' interconnects and kettle leads, etc, and for a similarly well-known objectivist to do the same, shunning the use of anything that to them the effect of which is being 'imagined', and that featured sonically 'transparent' amps, etc, and let everyone attending be the judge of which system sounded best.

In effect, let both 'camps' back up their respective claims in public, where there is no place to hide behind a computer, and show everyone what they can do!

Now, *that* I'd find extremely interesting!! :eyebrows:

Marco.

synsei

15-07-2012, 18:14

Even better, would be next time at Scalford, for a well-known subjectivist to set-up and demonstrate a system, incorporating all manner of 'foo', such as specialist supports, the use of better than 'freebie' interconnects and kettle leads, etc, and for a similarly well-known objectivist to do the same, shunning the use of anything that to them the effect of which is being 'imagined', and that featured sonically 'transparent' amps, etc, and let everyone attending be the judge of which system sounded best.

In effect, let both 'camps' back up their respective claims in public, where there is no place to hide behind a computer, and show everyone what they can do!

Now, *that* I'd find extremely interesting!! :eyebrows:

Marco.

That is a bloody good idea however, whether either camp would be capable of hearing through their own prejudices to deliver an honest opinion is open to question. I would hope so of course ;)

Marco

15-07-2012, 18:36

Oh, I've no doubt that wouldn't be the case for most 'objectivists' (;)), but joking aside, I'd be relying on 'Joe public' (non-forum members), paying through the door on the Sunday, devoid of any such bias, to supply the genuine verdict!

I'd volunteer, no problem, for the role of the subjectivist. It'd have to be done a bit like it is at the Owston DIY fest, where various systems are demonstrated against each other in one huge big room, so that in this instance, both systems at Scalford would be similarly 'hobbled', or otherwise, by the effects of the same room. We could even share the same speakers (as I know that most 'objectivists' are of the 'speaker-first' mentality, thus removing another major variable), providing that the respective amps both parties used drove them equally capably.

Therefore, in one of the bigger rooms at Scalford, at one end would be the 'objectivist system', and at the other, the 'subjectivist' one, and each person would get a turn at playing some music, through their respective systems (in fact the SAME music would be ideal, in order to remove the variables of who preferred what type of music and/or the quality of recordings), and the paying public (non-forum members), coming on the Sunday, would then be asked to complete a voting card, indicating which system they preferred, with the votes being counted up and the winner announced at the end of the day!

Could be fun? :cool:

Marco.

synsei

15-07-2012, 18:45

It could be a really big selling point for the next Scalford Show to be honest as this debate has raged across every Hi-Fi forum and publication for donkeys years. Let's get it out in the open and demonstrate it practically... :cool:

Marco

15-07-2012, 19:34

Well, it'd simply be a case of, as they say, 'putting your money where your mouth is' ;)

Marco.

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 20:10

I've really no idea what has been said on other forums as I've never really bothered with them previously. I did join another earlier in the year simply to post information as an offer of help. There wasn't a great deal of activity and so I didn't bother with it. It didn't certainly have the range of commet that is found here.

I've never thought of myself as being in either camp. I listen to music using the two ears I was given. I don't see why I can't use the same two ears to make valid assessments of what I'm listening to and fail to understand to descriptive terms. If you have a photo and you say it looks 'washed-out', can I not comprehend that and understand what you mean, despite the fact I can't see it for mysel?

I don't quite understand why 'transparent' as a descriptive term is such a problem. Obviously in absolute terms nothing is 'transparent'. If you want to go to the extreme forget about the component itself and begin with the mains cable and plug. I still don't see why the word can't be used as a relative term. If A speakers are said to sound 'box-bound' and 'congested' and B speakers are described as, yes. . .'transparent', I know which of the two I'd investigate if I was looking to buy a pair.

I am surprised that I've found myself replying to this thread so much as I have. Suppose I've said all I have to say. Anyone know what's happen to the two Marks? Or shouldn't I ask?

Marco

15-07-2012, 21:11

Hi Stephen,

Which "two Marks" are you referring to? :)

Marco.

Joe

15-07-2012, 21:26

Which "two Marks" are you referring to? :)

Groucho and Harpo?

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 21:30

Hi Marco,

I was referring to Reid Malenfant & Jac Hawk. Seems like ages since JH put in an appearance.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 21:37

Groucho and Harpo?

Can't keep a good man down.

Actually, it was Gummo and Zeppo.

Marco

15-07-2012, 21:40

Hi Marco,

I was referring to Reid Malenfant & Jac Hawk. Seems like ages since JH put in an appearance.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Well, JH is actually a 'Mike'! He's been around, but hasn't posted. Mark (RM) has done his back badly, and is currently recouperating :)

Marco.

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 21:57

Groucho and Harpo?

Can't keep a good man down.

Actually, it was Gummo and Zeppo.

Mr Kipling

15-07-2012, 22:06

Thanks. Sorry, Mike. Sorry to hear about Mark's predicament, which I can appreciate as mine has been shagged for the past 22 years after an operation to have discs out. Hope it's not that serious.

Kind Regards,
Stephen

Barry

15-07-2012, 22:34

Oh, I've no doubt that wouldn't be the case for most 'objectivists' (;)), but joking aside, I'd be relying on 'Joe public' (non-forum members), paying through the door on the Sunday, devoid of any such bias, to supply the genuine verdict!

I'd volunteer, no problem, for the role of the subjectivist. It'd have to be done a bit like it is at the Owston DIY fest, where various systems are demonstrated against each other in one huge big room, so that in this instance, both systems at Scalford would be similarly 'hobbled', or otherwise, by the effects of the same room.

Therefore, in one of the bigger rooms at Scalford, at one end would be the 'objectivist system', and at the other, the 'subjectivist' one, and each person would get a turn at playing some music, through their respective systems (in fact the SAME music would be ideal, in order to remove the variables of who preferred what type of music and/or the quality of recordings), and the paying public (non-forum members), coming on the Sunday, would then be asked to complete a voting card, indicating which system they preferred, with the votes being counted up and the winner announced at the end of the day!

Could be fun? :cool:

Marco.

Where are you proposing to find this 'objectivist' (from the membership of AoS) to put such a system together? Despite having been cited as one of AoS's resident objectivists, it wont be me!

My system has evolved over the years through subjective development. As an objectivist I am often initially attracted to various items, either by their design or specification. However if they fail to deliver sonically, I don't and won't use them.

The only occasion I have chosen something on objectivist grounds, were some cables I assembled for use in a blind listening tests conducted by MAD in London. A few AoS members were there, and 'my' cables performed very well in the company of some very expensive competitors.

Marco

15-07-2012, 22:39

Hi Barry,

Remember that AoS is read not only by its members, but by people on other forums, too! ;)

Therefore, ideally, I'd like someone from pfm or Wigwam to volunteer to run the 'objectivist's' system. My 'dream selection' would be Serge Auckland, 'Mescalito', 'Arkless Repairs', 'Teddy Ray', 'darrylfunk' or perhaps even Rob Holt, all of whom post on pfm :)

I don't really know the 'objectivists' the same on Wigwam, as I rarely look there, but they know where I am, if any of them are up for it.

Marco.

AlfaGTV

16-07-2012, 07:06

Would that "test" be something similar to this?:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

It would be very interesting to do this kind of test! At least to challenge my own beliefs and hearing! :eek:

Regards
/Mike

Clive

16-07-2012, 08:18

My system has evolved over the years through subjective development. As an objectivist I am often initially attracted to various items, either by their design or specification. However if they fail to deliver sonically, I don't and won't use them.
I'm 100% with you on this Barry. I select equipment I'm interested in on design and spec (usually more technical design). This is just a starting point as over the years I've worked out what delivers the type of sound I want. As you say the real test is subjective, spec and design are just an initial filter.

sq225917

16-07-2012, 09:03

"dream selection"

Stuff of nightmares.

You did hear the blandest hifi ever assembled at Scalford last year, didn't you?

Marco

16-07-2012, 10:29

Lol - the 'dream selection' bit has more than a touch of irony! I simply selected the most die-hard objectivists I could think of, in order to try and prove a point. I'd also love to hear the sound of the systems these guys use, just out of sheer curiosity.

For me, all the objectivist or subjectivist pontificating in the world means jack-shit if you can't demonstrate to an audience of unbiased listeners that YOUR way produces the best results, by assembling a system that the majority of people consider sounds superior...

Now, if the claim of the objectivists is that all amplifiers and equipment are 'sonically transparent', providing that they conform to certain measurement parameters, then let's get some test equipment along to Scalford, 'do the necessary', as it were, and then LISTEN to see if such 'sonic transparency' actually materialises in the real world! ;)

I wonder if any of them will have the gumption to take up the challenge, or simply remain in their comfort zones, from behind the safety of their computers, preaching their dogma on forums to 'poor subjectivists who need saving from their delusions'?

What have they got to lose??

Marco.