advertisement


How do the 'non-subjectivists' choose their hi-fi systems?

We wouldn’t have hifi without science but we wouldn’t need hifi were it not for art (music)! We need each other.

Scientific input is very useful, it’s the preaching and conversion attempts that are a pain. A very few people are on their scientific hobbyhorses...it’s rather like visits from a Jehovah’s Witness. Anyway, with lockdown it’s a distraction.
 
DimitryZ said:
I agree.

This was simply a half-hearted effort to demonstrate the bare minimum of the experimental rigor that would be required for audio objectivists to actually follow long established testing protocols, like we mostly do in defense and aerospace. Which they claim to adhere to, but do not come close. And yet, they ※believe※ in the "results."
Click to expand...

Again, your main point isn't clear, so I'll seek to resolve it:

Can you perhaps point to two or three AES journal papers or conference reports which support your contention and that it is need for all tests for all audio purposes? We can then examine this in the relevant audio context, not simply as a page on stats plucked from a wiki, or on the basis of your assertions. FWIW my understanding from having read various audio comparison tests is that the methods vary according to the purpose of the test, etc, as appropriate- as I've pointed out in the past.

Or is your point that pro audio engineers, etc, never get this right?
 
BTW If anyone is interested more generally, but isn't really into maths, I'd tend to suggest looking at something like Floyd Toole's book or Borwick's on Speakers and Headphones as a gentle start to how listening tests can be done. Both include references to pro publications to back up their basic explanations, etc. No doubt there are newer texts someone could recommend.
 
Woodface said:
There hasn’t been a hobby invented that a group of scientists can’t ruin;)
Click to expand...

It also works the other way round. Nearly 20 years ago before I took an interest in the audiophile phenomenon I worked at an engineering acoustics research institution and shortly after joining was asked by the head to help sort a bunch of applications for research positions. After the first round of sorting into our "no" and "maybe worth interviewing" piles we compared and I noted that unlike myself he had rejected everyone that expressed a hobby interest in audio. I commented on this and he said something like that although it was theoretically possible that someone with a hobby interest in audio could reason like an engineer/scientist in his experience it was too rare to be worth investing time interviewing.

Over the few years I worked there I got to know those who had interests in audio (not many) and those who were competent at their job. With the exception of a couple of older technicians who were more than competent at their jobs and had interests in audio this didn't extend to the researchers. Those with a significant rather than passing interest in audio had all accepted varying degrees of magical thinking in order for their hobby interest to become interesting. This inability to reason clearly about scientific evidence meant they tended to require higher levels of supervision and guidance to progress their research. They needed to be provided with more recipes to follow in the manner of a technician rather than being able to operate more independently as an engineer/scientist by progressing their work by gathering, checking and following evidence that is correct in a scientific/engineering sense.

Asking Dimitry to go through the process of designing a scientific (not audiophile) experiment might be a reasonable way to help build his knowledge of the scientific process if someone is prepared to make the effort (not me). The formulation of the scientific hypothesis to predict the outcome of the experiments to be performed requires a fair degree of clear thinking around existing scientific knowledge. Like everyone else that has performed scientifically valid audibility research he will have to consider how sound is perceived, the variables that change sound perception and which set he wants to hold constant and which to vary in his study. The guff about hardware combinations is irrelevant because the sound impinging on the ear can be measured to a higher degree of accuracy than we can perceive assuming one accepts established scientific knowledge on the subject. There are of course a fair few other variables apart from the physical sound impinging on the ears that affect how we perceive sound. It is sorting this out that requires most of the effort in designing useful audibility experiments.
 
h.g. said:
It also works the other way round. Nearly 20 years ago before I took an interest in the audiophile phenomenon I worked at an engineering acoustics research institution and shortly after joining was asked by the head to help sort a bunch of applications for research positions. After the first round of sorting into our "no" and "maybe worth interviewing" piles we compared and I noted that unlike myself he had rejected everyone that expressed a hobby interest in audio. I commented on this and he said something like that although it was theoretically possible that someone with a hobby interest in audio could reason like an engineer/scientist in his experience it was too rare to be worth investing time interviewing.

Over the few years I worked there I got to know those who had interests in audio (not many) and those who were competent at their job. With the exception of a couple of older technicians who were more than competent at their jobs and had interests in audio this didn't extend to the researchers. Those with a significant rather than passing interest in audio had all accepted varying degrees of magical thinking in order for their hobby interest to become interesting. This inability to reason clearly about scientific evidence meant they tended to require higher levels of supervision and guidance to progress their research. They needed to be provided with more recipes to follow in the manner of a technician rather than being able to operate more independently as an engineer/scientist by progressing their work by gathering, checking and following evidence that is correct in a scientific/engineering sense.

Asking Dimitry to go through the process of designing a scientific (not audiophile) experiment might be a reasonable way to help build his knowledge of the scientific process if someone is prepared to make the effort (not me). The formulation of the scientific hypothesis to predict the outcome of the experiments to be performed requires a fair degree of clear thinking around existing scientific knowledge. Like everyone else that has performed scientifically valid audibility research he will have to consider how sound is perceived, the variables that change sound perception and which set he wants to hold constant and which to vary in his study. The guff about hardware combinations is irrelevant because the sound impinging on the ear can be measured to a higher degree of accuracy than we can perceive assuming one accepts established scientific knowledge on the subject. There are of course a fair few other variables apart from the physical sound impinging on the ears that affect how we perceive sound. It is sorting this out that requires most of the effort in designing useful audibility experiments.
Click to expand...
Oh my, it was an obvious joke, I used the ;).
 
I find it interesting that the time 'subjectivism/audiophilia" became, ahem, popular, dominant even, coincides with the time all those excellent direct drive decks , chunky beautifully made Japanese amps etc fell out of audiophile favour only to be rediscovered decades later as absolute gems, where does that place the efficacy of subjectivism?
 
cooky1257 said:
I find it interesting that the time 'subjectivism/audiophilia" became, ahem, popular, dominant even, coincides with the time all those excellent direct drive decks , chunky beautifully made Japanese amps etc fell out of favour only to be rediscovered decades later as absolute gems, where does that place the efficacy of subjectivism?
Click to expand...

It is always wise to take a global view as the UK market was very much on its own trajectory and arguably a marketing cartel at the time. Stereophile and The Absolute Sound represented the other side taking a very rational and articulate approach to subjective audition backed up with measurements where interesting or applicable.
 
Tony L said:
It is always wise to take a global view as the UK market was very much on its own trajectory and arguably a marketing cartel at the time. Stereophile and The Absolute Sound represented the other side taking a very rational and articulate approach to subjective audition backed up with measurements where interesting or applicable.
Click to expand...
I remember well, JBL's and Tannoys where the work of the devil despite (to these ears) trouncing much that was being reviewed, dem'd stocked and bought. DB testing is exactly the ball-ache it sounds like(I'd rather visit a dentist) and indeed does have flaws but when it comes to being open to manipulation, bias, sleight of hand the subjective approach via dealers showroom is off the scale. Fortnight loan could be the best way to choose gear as it gives you time to dredge your record collection and gain a broader impression of the kit.
 
cooky1257 said:
I find it interesting that the time 'subjectivism/audiophilia" became, ahem, popular, dominant even, coincides with the time all those excellent direct drive decks , chunky beautifully made Japanese amps etc fell out of audiophile favour only to be rediscovered decades later as absolute gems, where does that place the efficacy of subjectivism?
Click to expand...
It pretty much saved the home audio industry in the UK. The UK home audio companies that had been providing cost effective technical performance in volume had become uncompetitive in the 70s because of the UK environment. A few tried to move upmarket but most failed. Most of the brands that survived did so by being taken over mainly by companies from countries where manufacturing low tech products in volume was more viable but lacked the brands to support the marketing. The exception to this was companies like Linn and Naim which added value (for some) through marketing and other factors not directly related to technical performance. Serving the interests of such companies also enabled some of the publications to survive. OK this was on a smaller scale compared to earlier but it maintained an industry of some form. One might take a dim view of audiophile nonsense but it provided jobs, taxes,... and brought pleasure to some here in the UK.
 
h.g. said:
It pretty much saved the home audio industry in the UK. The UK home audio companies that had been providing cost effective technical performance in volume had become uncompetitive in the 70s because of the UK environment.
Click to expand...

At this time UK companies such as Quad, Spendor, Tannoy, Rogers were still highly successful on the world stage, they were just out of fashion at home due to the Linn/Naim/BADA thing. The latter was little more than a ‘blip’ on the world stage, we think of them as being huge here, but in reality they were quite small and local, the myriad of smaller brands all but unheard of outside of the UK.
 
DimitryZ said:
I have stated my credentials previously on another thread, such as they are. My understanding is that people I am arguing with are indeed highly educated, with superb graduate degrees and accomplished and respected academic careers. And they prefer to remain semi-anonymous, which we all should respect.

Given my relatively truncated education and a career in engineering and not science; I am certainly an underdog. My lack of academic cred has been pointed by opposing parties previously - with concomitant disdain that is common to the highly educated.
Click to expand...

That's not the impression I get at all.

The most vociferous protagonists here lack what any true scientist possesses - a degree of humility and the realisation that in many fields of endeavour (the branch of psychoacoustics pertaining to music most definitely being one) science is merely a work in progress. Indeed, it could realistically be argued that the study of the perception of music is by definition a futile exercise, and this question would perhaps make for a more interesting discussion than the endless back and forth here about DBTs, etc, etc.

Way back on page 33 of this thread I asked one of the so-called objectivists how he (it just has to be a "he"!) became interested in audio in the first place, and what his tastes in music are. This small but significant biographical detail has yet to be provided and is proof to me that this person's interests lie in the reproduction of sound, rather than the reproduction of music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top