advertisement


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

I took something different from your post.
No doubt but we have rather different knowledge bases on which to reason about how audio works which is likely to lead to drawing rather different conclusions.

I was refraining from stating what I really think about people like John Curl in order to maintain a civil tone and because he is a person putting his audiophile trade/reputation on the line to some extent whereas I am semi-anonymous non-audiophile chatting on an audiophile forum with nothing much to lose or gain. I have refrained from comment/speculation about the chap from Onix for similar reasons although I am intrigued to know what is going on and whether what I suspect happened in the past did. A topic for conversation over beer but not archived posts on a forum.
 
I find it hard to believe anything from an out-and-out audiophile like John Curl is going to be informative and I am sorry but I am not going to waste my time looking in this case. When I first came across him on a forum and knowing he was a "designer" of amplifiers I tried to get him to translate some of his "rantings" on amplifier design into conventional engineering design decisions and that was revealing.

Having said that my speculation on the SID/TID/TIM/... stuff as marketing is speculation from someone who at the time was sufficiently disgusted with the arrival of the audiophile phenomenon (which in my intolerant youth I saw as straightforward dishonesty with everyone involved on the supply side knowingly pushing snake oil) that I jacked in a career in home audio and shifted to another form of engineering. The form of distortion is of course perfectly real it is the promotion of it at the time that is suspect plus any claims to it not been known.

Believe what you want. Curl discusses the article he co-authored with Otala - A Method for Measuring Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM)*

https://proaudiodesignforum.com/images/pdf/Leinonen_Otala_Curl_TIM_Measurement.pdf
 
"Non-subjectivists" demand that the musicians, etc, bring the musicality to the party. Subjectivists demand that their systems do that job, thereby letting the artists off the hook.
 
"Non-subjectivists" demand that the musicians, etc, bring the musicality to the party. Subjectivists demand that their systems do that job, thereby letting the artists off the hook.

I think we’ll be needing a music collection fight for that one! My impression is relatively few of the more vocal measureists appear in the music room.

PS Streaming the same Dire Straits album 5982 times from Spotify really doesn’t count!
 
So you think that you can rate systems by the music played through them? Or who owns them?

Expectation bias writ large.
 
So you think that you can rate systems by the music played through them?
Not really (apart from the normal thing from audio writing that aspects not mentioned are as informative as those mentioned i.e. tonal colour in flat earth era reviewing), but a lack of obvious enthusiasm for music is fairly telling in some (but by no means all) cases.
 
"Non-subjectivists" demand that the musicians, etc, bring the musicality to the party. Subjectivists demand that their systems do that job, thereby letting the artists off the hook.
This is, without doubt, one of the silliest things I've seen written on this forum in a long time.

Clearly, if the musicians didn't get the musicality onto the recording, the system can't bring it out. But even if the musicality is on the recording, there's no guarantee the system will recover it, or not all of it anyway. That's the subjectivist view. Either you didn't understand that, or you did and were trolling.
 
So you think that you can rate systems by the music played through them? Or who owns them?

The broader and deeper a listener’s knowledge and taste in music the more likely they’ll understand and hear issues rather having to rely on the security blanket of reading measurements they likely don’t even understand.
 
At the end of his article "Some Factors In Loudspeaker Quality" (Wireless World, May 1976) BBC's H.D. Harwood (Harbeth's dad) issues the following warning:

A/B testing

Now the alarming fact is that A/B testing may under certain circumstances give rise to completely wrong results when comparing the sound quality of two loudspeakers.
If pink noise is used as a convenient source, and a deep narrow crevasse produced in it, it has been shown that the effect will be almost inaudible.
If this is listened to for, say, half a minute as if programme were being used to judge a loudspeaker, and then the crevasse is switched out so that a uniform spectrum is produced, the ear will hear a strong colouration at the frequency of the crevasse.
It seems that there are two mechanisms at work; the conscious one ignores the crevasse but the subconscious one detects it clearly.
When the uniform condition is suddenly heard the subconscious mechanism comes forward and points out that there is now a considerable amount more sound energy at the frequency of the crevasse, and as that condition had been accepted as satis-factory the only conclusion to be reached is that there is now an excess in this region and that the sound must now be highly coloured.
Transferring this to loudspeakers it is implied that if one with a crevasse is first listened to then it will probably appear that one with a uniform response is coloured.

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/UK/Wireless-World/70s/Wireless-World-1976-05.pdf

Yes. This is why tests need to be carried out in ways that expose such effects as and when appropriate. Human hearing does, indeed, 'adapt' as we listen, altering what we perceive. However one underlaying point in the above example is that the listeners *do* detect a 'difference' - but misjudge its nature and risk altering which they think is 'best'. Hence a single test in isolation isn't sufficient for all conclusions which might be drawn.
 
I enjoy listening to music, not arguing about it on the internet.
If you spent any time in the music room, you'd know it was remarkably argument-free.

I lurk there more than I contribute, but I find it a really useful resource for finding music that I'm unfamiliar with, to check out.
 
Yes. This is why tests need to be carried out in ways that expose such effects as and when appropriate. Human hearing does, indeed, 'adapt' as we listen, altering what we perceive. However one underlaying point in the above example is that the listeners *do* detect a 'difference' - but misjudge its nature and risk altering which they think is 'best'. Hence a single test in isolation isn't sufficient for all conclusions which might be drawn.
In these discussions, people all too often focus on determining _preference_ when the more important task is to establish that a _difference_ can be reliably detected (or not).
 
If you spent any time in the music room, you'd know it was remarkably argument-free.

I lurk there more than I contribute, but I find it a really useful resource for finding music that I'm unfamiliar with, to check out.
What makes you think I'm any different?
 
I would distrust the views of anyone who only had a handful of records & liked Jazz at the Pawn Shop.
What's wrong with Jazz at the Pawn Shop? Although I don't understand how it acquired its audiophile cult status, I also don't have any problem with it. As live jazz recordings go, you could do a lot worse.
 
In these discussions, people all too often focus on determining _preference_ when the more important task is to establish that a _difference_ can be reliably detected (or not).
Here's another area where subjectivists and objectivists differ, I think. If you have a preference, it is a given that there is a difference (even if only perceptually, anticipating your rejoinder).

The purpose of subjective listening is to discover the most suitable piece of equipment for your purpose, which means establishing a preference. If your listening merely establishes a difference, without identifying a preference, then from a subjective POV it's been pointless.
 
I enjoy listening to music, not arguing about it on the internet.

What makes you think I'm any different?
I'm merely taking what you said in the upper quote there at face value. If you didn't mean it, why did you say it?

Edit: I've read it again, and can see that your comment about 'arguing' might have been in response to Tony's suggestion of a 'music collection fight'. Which I can see makes it look a little different.
 


advertisement


Back
Top