+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Do audiophiles know better than scientists when it comes to hi-fi?

  1. #1
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default Do audiophiles know better than scientists when it comes to hi-fi?

    Nick Arran (CEeng MIET) makes the point here:

    http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/Secto...35C8065D59ACD4

    I would hesitate to use the word "audiophiles" and would replace it with 'experienced listeners' or in fact anyone with better hearing acuity than someone else be it a scientist or whomever. In fact, sometimes non-audiophile, non-professional people have better ears than anyone with hi-fi (I'm thinking wife's, partners and such like here). I certainly don't feel that scientists automatically or necessarily have more discerning ears than others!

    Russ Andrews addresses the issue and Mr Arran's assertions (in the latest copy of his company's booklet 'Connected'):

    This is a way of thinking that prevents progress and improvement. In its most extreme expression it says "if we can't measure it - it can't exist". The assumption being that we can measure everything of any importance. I believe, in fact, that we can measure very little of importance to the realistic reproduction of music.

    At its root, conventional measurement is based on simple, steady state signals to quantify frequency response, harmonic distortion, signal-to-noise ratios, etc. On the face of it, this approach produces quantifiable, repeatable measurements of a range of important parameters. In reality all they do is tell you whether the device under test is working or faulty. They tell you nothing about how well the device handles music signals to deliver enjoyable and realistic music. In other words, they are not predictive and if they cannot describe exactly how something will sound, they are useless for that purpose.

    I own and use lots of test equipment, but I don't try and use it to tell me how good or bad something sounds. I use my ears for that. They are educated, trained and very discerning. They are consistent, predictable and I trust them.

    Until we have a measurements system, based on dynamic, complex, real-world, real-time signals (like music!), we have no choice but to base our assessments on listening tests. To do that, we must must trust our senses and know that what we hear is real world and not imaginary.
    I find myself nodding in total agreement with Mr Andrews, particularly the bits I've highlighted in bold as they represent my own judgement methodology with hi-fi. It also neatly ties in with another discussion currently taking place about speaker cables.

    Personally, I think it's a fallacy to believe that measurement apparatus alone can determine the efficacy of hi-fi equipment, particularly when the human brain deciphers musical signals in a totally different way to a computer. Listening to music is largely an emotional, not a cerebral experience, and so applying science to hi-fi in terms of it being the sole arbiter of what is deemed as 'correct' and 'incorrect' I believe is an exercise in futility. Understanding how we as human beings derive pleasure from music, and ascertaining how hi-fi equipment is best designed to accurately facilitate that experience through the processing of recorded music signals, I feel is far more complex than known science can fully explain or quantify.

    So, guys, what do you think about the assertions of Mr Arran, the subject in general, and about what Russ wrote above?

    <Discuss>

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  2. #2
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: South Wales

    Posts: 9,151
    I'm NotTakingLifeTooSeriouslyTheseDays.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Nick Arran (CEeng MIET) makes the point here:

    http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/Secto...35C8065D59ACD4

    I would hesitate to use the word "audiophiles" and would replace it with 'experienced listeners' or in fact anyone with better hearing acuity than someone else be it a scientist or whomever. In fact, sometimes non-audiophile, non-professional people have better ears than anyone with hi-fi (I'm thinking wife's, partners and such like here). I certainly don't feel that scientists automatically or necessarily have more discerning ears than others!

    Russ Andrews addresses the issue and Mr Arran's assertions (in the latest copy of his company's booklet 'Connected'):



    I find myself nodding in total agreement with Mr Andrews, particularly the bits I've highlighted in bold as they represent my own judgement methodology with hi-fi. It also neatly ties in with another discussion currently taking place about speaker cables.

    Personally, I think it's a fallacy to believe that measurement apparatus alone can determine the efficacy of hi-fi equipment, particularly when the human brain deciphers musical signals in a totally different way to a computer. Listening to music is largely an emotional, not a cerebral experience, and so applying science to hi-fi in terms of it being the sole arbiter of what is deemed as 'correct' and 'incorrect' I believe is an exercise in futility. Understanding how we as human beings derive pleasure from music, and ascertaining how hi-fi equipment is best designed to accurately facilitate that experience through the processing of recorded music signals I feel is far more complex than known science can fully explain or quantify.

    So, guys, what do you think about the assertions of Mr Arran, the subject in general, and about what Russ wrote above?

    <Discuss>

    Marco.
    hi marco,
    i am in agreement with mr andrews on this one, [but then you already know that] and have always stated that test measurements are a must when designing, and fault finding, but the finale test: as far as audio replay equipment is concerned is and must be down to what we actually hear!

  3. #3
    Join Date: May 2008

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Posts: 9,962
    I'm Nick.

    Default

    Hi-Fi is in the ear of the beholder. The enjoyment derived from audio playback is entirely subjective and often derived from equipment that would never win any hi-fi awards. Colouration, vinyl surface noise, room acoustics can all contrive to make a sound more enjoyable than that from the best source, amp and speakers in an anechoic chamber...

  4. #4
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Anthony,

    Yep, I know exactly where you stand on this matter. Nick (Lurcher) and you are very open-minded in that respect - much more so than some other engineers I could mention who post on audio forums!

    The essence of what I'm trying to get at though is why scientific/measurement types seem to think that professional people are better judges of hi-fi than your average hi-fi enthusiast and music lover.

    Yes, in their particular specialist field they will know more than an average punter but out with of that area I would contend that 'experts' are no more able to judge how good hi-fi equipment is than anyone else - in fact in many instances I believe their obsession with science and measurements being the be-all-and-end-all and shunning of what their ears tell them often clouds their better judgement. The fact is the reproduction of music is not a perfect science so prioritising the applying of scientific principles over subjective listening when assessing hi-fi equipment will not provide all the answers and will lead I believe in some cases to inaccurate conclusions.

    To give you an idea what I'm referring to, this is something I once received from Ashley in response to me commenting on him sending me a link to some professional person making a comment about ADM9s and me pointing out that he doesn't necessarily know more about what constitutes as a good sound than anyone else.

    He's a member of the Royal Institution, a genius, a brilliant writer, a friend of Leonard Setright and a noted Consultant Anaesthetist, so would obviously have far less idea than you, you being, well I don't know what, but I do know it's not going to improve, because you've shut down the learn centre.

    There's no so blind as them that will not see, as they say.
    Now call me daft, but what does a consultant anaesthetist necessarily know about hi-fi? If you're in hospital about to go in for an important operation and want knocked out safely he's *da man*, but I'm not sure I'd be seeking his opinion when looking to upgrade my system!

    Marco.

    P.S And who the hell is Leonard Setright?
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  5. #5
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: Boddam Aberdeenshire

    Posts: 272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Anthony,


    P.S And who the hell is Leonard Setright?
    That would be the late L.K.J. Setright, a highly respected Motoring and Hi-Fi journalist (he used to write for Hi-Fi World), musician and all round good egg.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005...sandpublishing

    P.S.
    I wouldn't think that being his friend would necessarily make someone an expert on anything.
    Last edited by Prince of Darkness; 19-06-2008 at 22:25.
    "Always carry a large flagon of whisky, in case of snake bite and, furthermore, always carry a small snake."


    Kevin

  6. #6
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Ah, thanks Kevin. I know who it is now. If I remember correctly he's quite an unusual looking character with a long beard?

    I'm sure he knows a thing or two about hi-fi but I'm not sure about his anaesthetist friend!

    LOL. I've just read your edit

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  7. #7
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Central England

    Posts: 2,932

    Default

    I think real scientists as opposed to the pseudo-scientific techie types are open minded enough to accept that not everything can yet be measured and that there still exist phenomena awaiting explanation.

    I don't think we can throw our arms up in the air and say it is all in the ear of the individual beholder either. I believe that perceptual differences are frequently common to all who may be listening and that it is only the preferences that vary.

    Consider perceived tonal differences between valves, for example, when the measurements show a consistent flat response. There is more to tonality than the output/frequency curve and I have my theories as to what else may explain these tonal inconsistencies...

  8. #8
    Join Date: May 2008

    Location: Well below the Mason-Dixon line

    Posts: 370

    Default

    I think audiophiles are much more qualified to judge audio equipment because the human ear, and perhaps more importantly, the human brain responds to things that can't be measured with man-made instruments.

    And I think audiophiles are the least qualified to judge audio equipment because as a group, they show absolutely no penchant for objectivity. An internet discussion group full of audiophiles is more filled with fantasy and wish-fulfillment than a roomful of 13-year-old girls with a scrapbook of pop idols.

    Actually, there is a scientific method capable of measuring the immeasurable in audio. It's called the ABX test. But audiophiles even manage to reject those results when they don't agree with what they must hear. No logic, no methodology, no data will stand between the audiophile and his unfettered desire to spend money on that which he must hear to justify spending money.

    It's a very strange crowd.

    Tim
    Last edited by tfarney; 20-06-2008 at 02:51.

  9. #9

    Default

    The cost and looks of an item affect brain functions ( feeling of pleasure ), this was recently proved with bottles of wine.
    Hans

    MBL 1531 -> Allnic L-4000 -> Audiolab 8000S used as power amp only -> Quad 2805. Cables: Transparent Ultra

  10. #10
    Join Date: Mar 2008

    Location: Halifax, UK

    Posts: 1,399
    I'm Nick.

    Default

    Actually, there is a scientific method capable of measuring the immeasurable in audio. It's called the ABX test. But audiophiles even manage to reject those results when they don't agree with what they must hear. No logic, no methodology, no data will stand between the audiophile and his unfettered desire to spend money on that which he must hear to justify spending money.
    While I worry about opening this can of worms...

    The problem is there are significant problems with using ABX when its used with audio, it looks like a nice piece of science, but unfortunatly its not.

    Its main problem is it makes the assumption that the subject returns to the same condition after each sample is heard, and thats not the case. So the test will consistently fail to show a difference, even in cases where there is a clearly measurable difference.

    The comparison is often given to the double blind testing that is used (not as often as you might think) in the pharmacutical industry. But to be a direct comparison, you would take a subject. Give him the drug/placibo see if he got better. Then gave him the drug/placibo again, see if he got better, then continued to repeat. as you can see this won't measure exactly what you might want, and tend to show negatives in most cases (or kill the patient).
    Last edited by lurcher; 20-06-2008 at 12:50.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •