Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: "Someone trying to get some real work done might get annoyed by this "

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on May 12, 2008 at 18:11:43

In Reply to: RE: "Someone trying to get some real work done might get annoyed by this " posted by Ugly on May 12, 2008 at 15:25:55:

>>>"because it is a widely understood term for a particular belief system in audio.">>>

>> Please cite one credible source that supports this notion. The dictionary certainly does not. The urban dictionary does not. Where other than the school of Analog Scott/Tubeguy is one able to pick up these useful and valuable tidbits which by all appearances are complete nonsense? Ha! widely understood! maybe in your mind...>>


http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=11234

The debate about:

Double Blind Testing

ABX Testing

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

These are all basically the same time-honored audiophile topic (really: argument). We (Robert and Jeff) have participated on many an audio email list / forum / newsgroup over the years watching and participating in this debate.

Indeed, we come from opposite sides of the argument - Robert tends to be a subjectivist, I lean towards the objectivist camp. Robert believes in tweaking, I'm very doubtful that anyone can hear tweaks and are imagining things (I mean, come on, *especially* Robert! )

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/blogs/blog/archive/2005/06/11/99812.aspx
Subjectivist/Objectivist hi-fi
There is a long standing conflict between two schools of thought in the hi-fi world, objectivist vs subjective. The war has always existed but today the battle rages over the Home Theater market that has brought new inexpensive digital technologies to the masses. What used to be an exclusive endeavor of the wealthy, building a component audio system for your home, has become inexpensive and spread to just about any home. In the new mass market Home Theater and Hi-Fi scene we’re seeing this struggle play out between the traditional elite audio buffs who follow a highly subjective idea of sound quality and the hi-fi objectivists who want to apply specifications to good sound. A lot can be learned by looking at both sides, I’ll try to break it down as objectively as I can (irony intended).

A hi-fi objectivist is someone who lets numbers, specifications and double blind testing demonstrate what an audio component is capable of. Generally the hi-fi objectivist is uncomfortable with a lot of the adjective laden audio reviews you might see in magazines like Stereophile.

Objectivist +

+ Double blind testing between components to determine which sounds better is the bottom line, make no mistake.
+ Counters the snake oil salesmen who think putting a $500 rock under you amp will make music sound better, not to mention many more scandals.
+ Backs up claims with hard science that cannot be refuted.

Objectivist –

- Often lacks the passion for the hobby, bereft of the desire to find creative ways to make things sound better.
- Too often simply has no appreciation for the sound of music, more interested in specs than music.
- Stats and specifications rarely tell the whole story. We know this if we so much as follow the evening news.
- “Meter Heads” (as they’re affectionately known) often like to getting hung up on certain specs at the expense of the whole picture.
- Taking the extreme Objectivist approach leads to Consumer Reports as the end all review of audio components. If it’s guaranteed to last a lifetime; what else is there?

On the other side is the hi-fi subjectivist. At worst the subjectivist is the poor slob who lives their whole lives sadly believing they’re just that one more $10,000 component or $700 cable away from the “complete” system. They’re subject to unnecessary “upgraditus” in a vain effort to find the fulfillment possibly lacking in other areas of life.

Subjectivist +

+ A bit of snobbery in any serious undertaking is healthy, they’re called standards and they’re good for you, try them in other areas of life and you won’t be disappointed.
+ Closing your eyes and really listening for sound quality and trying to find words to describe the qualities you’re hearing isn’t just an endeavor for the insane, it’s food for your mind.
+ Finding creative ways to make components “sound” better is fun, a part of hi-fi the subjectivist hasn’t forgotten. Often there is scientific reason for a seemingly superstitious improvement, even if it only feels right. Trust your instincts.

Subjectivist –

- Buying into acoustic snake oil is stupid. Selling acoustic snake oil is evil and will adversely affect your chances of making it to heaven.
- Subjectivists often natter to each other about acoustic qualities they supposedly hear in components and it’s rarely consistent. No two subjectivists will tell you what speakers match well with what amp, they’ll always report a variety of reasons and qualities.
- “veiled sound”, “liquid highs”, “slow bass”, “harsh mids” (subjectivists claim to hear) rarely stand up to objective double blind testing and worse still those Stereophile reviews, full of colorful adjectives are just plain dishonest if they don’t give you a full analysis of the room in which they were playing said component and detailing all other components in the system. For this reason, highly subjective “liquid highs” individual component reviews are practically worthless.

That near audiophile sound quality has been made cheaper by digital technologies has only served to exacerbate the age old battle between these two schools of thought. New scams suck in would-be subjectivists are constant; such as expensive replacement power cords made from some exotic material that is supposed to improve the sound from your component… Yes, a freaking power cord that plugs your unit into the wall! Too often the subjectivists unduly take the rap for the scams. Perhaps the worst scam of all is the $30 DVD from WallMart. Whosoever is happy with the performance from a $30 DVD player might as well not have bothered upgrading from VHS, yet they sell like hotcakes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_equipment_testing

[edit] Objectivists
Objectivists believe that audio components, accessories, and treatments must pass rigorously-conducted double-blind tests and meet specified performance requirements to meet the claims made by their adherents.

Objectivists point out that every properly conducted and interpreted double-blind test has failed to support subjectivists' claims of significant or extremely subtle sonic differences between devices if measurements alone predict that there should be no sonic differences between the devices when listening to music.[2][3]
Objectivists feel that some subjectivists lack engineering training, technical knowledge, and objective credentials, but nevertheless praise a product's innovation and performance. [1]
Objectivists reject concepts that while superficially based on accepted physical principles, apply them to circumstances where they are irrelevant. The skin effect, for instance, which relates the efficiency of cables to the frequency transmitted, is often applied to audio frequencies where it is insignificant [2].
Objectivists believe that some subjectivists' practices seem driven by fashion—e.g., the late eighties' vogue for marking the edges of CDs with a green felt marker[4] or suspending cables above the floor on small racks—and bear no relation to well-known laws of physics.
Subjectivists often reject attempts to categorize differences in sound using measurements despite evidence of its effectiveness. It has shown that by tailoring the transfer function of a particular amplifier, it is possible to make it sound indistinguishable from another amplifier.[5]
Measured-audio distortion is immensely higher in electromechanical components such as microphones, turntables, tonearms, phono cartridges, and loudspeakers than in purely electronic components such as preamplifiers and power amplifiers, making it logically more difficult for objectivists to accept that very subtle differences in the latter can have an appreciable effect on overall musical-reproduction quality.
British audio equipment designer Peter Baxandall, who may be considered an objectivist, has written, "I ... confidently maintain that all first-class, competently designed amplifiers, tested under completely fair and carefully-controlled conditions, including the avoidance of overloading, sound absolutely indistinguishable on normal programme material no matter how refined the listening tests, or the listeners, may be; and that when an inferior amplifier is compared with a very good one and a subjective quality difference is genuinely and reliably established, it is always possible, by straightforward scientific investigation, to find a rational explanation for this difference." Baxandall also proposed a "cancellation test", which he claimed would prove his point.[6]


[edit] Subjectivists
One statement that has influenced some audiophiles' values is from Harry Pearson, long-time editor of The Absolute Sound:[7]

"We believe that the sound of music, unamplified, occurring in a real space is a philosophic absolute against which we may judge the performance of devices designed to reproduce music."

Subjectivists will rely on demonstrations and comparisons, but believe there are problems in applying double-blind methods to comparisons of audio devices. They believe that a relaxing environment and sufficient time measured in days or weeks is necessary for the discriminating ear to do its work.[8]
Subjectivists believe that careful individual listening is an appropriate tool for discovering the true worth of a device or treatment, and will generally acquire equipment that suits their own listening or style preferences as opposed to measurable equipment performance.
Some audiophile-equipment designers and consumers are obsessed over seemingly irrelevant details. Many components, for instance, are able to reproduce frequencies higher than the limit of human hearing—20 kHz.[9] Some sources, such as FM radio, will not reproduce frequencies higher than 15 or 16 kHz.

Experienced listeners can be relied upon for valid subjective advice on how equipment sounds. British Hi-fi critic, Martin Colloms, writes that "the ability to assess sound quality is not a gift, nor is it the feature of a hyperactive imagination; it is simply a learned skill", which can be acquired by example, education and practice[10]. In any event, the eventual purchase decision will be made by the end-user, whose "perception is reality" and can be influenced by factors other than the equipment's actual performance.

For fear of running out of space i'll just post links to other references

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0907/aachapter95.htm
http://www.teoaudio.com/liquid_cable.php
http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1106awsi/

I could list more references but this ought to do the job. You only asked for one.


>>>"Just because you don't understand it don't make it wrong.">>>

>> What is to understand?>>

I already explained it to you. will repeating it help? I don't think so.

>> At least Tubeguy has admitted that this is his bad habit and I've noticed is being more careful now and using the term LFO which I still take issue with but agree it is less confusing.>>

I am sorry that you are so easily confused. But that really isn't my problem.


>> Whereas you actually believe this is good practice and are of the opinion I should relearn the incorret slang definitions for thse words just to communicate with you when it is pretty clear that you are probably in a small minority of ones using this so called slang if there even is actually someone else.>>

really? You've done a survey? You have some data to back up your B.S.? You are talking out your ass.

>> I have better things to do than try and learn your baby talk.>>

Better things like arguing about well established terminology? Get a life.


>> Why don't you just grow up and speak fluent English?>>

Dude take a good hard look in the mirror.

>> Dis aint da hood dogg.>>

??

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---