1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

fo.q tape

Discussion in 'audio' started by MarkieW, Jun 30, 2022.

  1. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    Measurements indicate nothing about individual preference. I don't know any hard core objectivist that claims otherwise, individual tastes being so diverse.

    You can broadly say as a trend that people prefer lower distortion, but that's just statitistical averaging.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  2. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    No argument from me on this! Both extremes are equally absurd. As with so many things, the 'truth' is somewhere nearer the middle than the edges. I don't get annoyed at the objectivist viewpoint so much as at the blinkered outlook it implies, and the attempt to force it on everybody.

    We can and should accept the value of measurement in creating products that satisfy our needs, and I don't see the subjective viewpoint as anything like as dismissive in this regard. If it strays into dismissing measurement, it is usually (IME) in response to the absolutist approach to measurement, rather than in measurement itself.
    NickofWimbledon and Fergus like this.
  3. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    I think the hard core objectivist stance I quibble with is more about the invalidity of preferences that run counter to, or aren't evidenced in, the measurements, rather than a claim that these preferences don't exist. It's that approach that is objectionable.

    On the second point, that's clear and, to a large extent, self-evident. It's also the only logical starting point for an engineering solution. But it is only really a starting point.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  4. awkwardbydesign

    awkwardbydesign Officially Awesome

    Language controls thought. If your language is measurements, it is hard to hear past that. Similarly with the language of sensation.
    When I was at school I learnt French for a few years, and I got to the point where I could think in French without having to translate to English. But as my vocabulary was limited, so too were my thoughts. I simply could not think beyond that, in French.
    Some of those who think in one language appear to be unable even to understand what the others are saying, as evinced by sq225917. He just doesn't understand what those words mean, so is trapped by his language. It works both ways, so the multi-linguists have an advantage here. Protecting one's own viewpoint simply exacerbates the problem.
    I understand some of the language of measurement, so do not fear it, but even more with the language of sensation, which to me seems to be the whole point of music reproduction.
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  5. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

  6. adamdea

    adamdea You are not a sound quality evaluation device

    As with so many contemporary issues, this seems to turn on whether it is sufficent that people be allowed to live their life as they see fit, or whether it is necessary in addition that others have to humour them.
  7. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there


    As with so many issues, this seems to turn on whether it is sufficient that people be allowed to live their life as they see fit, or whether people with a different viewpoint feel entitled to insist they change.
    NickofWimbledon and Fergus like this.
  8. adamdea

    adamdea You are not a sound quality evaluation device

    I don't think that quite makes sense, but if that's how you like to reason that's obviously ok by me.
  9. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    It's more of an observation on how some conduct themselves in these discussions. I have no problem with dissent, or disagreement; my problem is with the stance of some, who feel entitled to ridicule or otherwise pressure the other side into capitulating to their view.
    NickofWimbledon and Fergus like this.
  10. adamdea

    adamdea You are not a sound quality evaluation device

    Yes, well interactions with other people can be tiresome.
  11. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    Which, I'm sure you'd agree, is not a reason for tolerating it. Ideally, people will be able to disagree, and present different viewpoints calmly and respectfully. Sadly, humans being only human, that isn't always the case. We may recognise that, but it doesn't mean we have to excuse it, tolerate it, or indulge it.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  12. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    @spt, I'm a hard core objectivist, and anyone is free to prefer whatever they like. I'd never try and push someone towards a component purely because it measures better, unless they say they want that from their kit. It'd be pointless.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  13. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    Yes, indeed, and I have absolutely no issue with that (and it reflects what I see in your posts). Please don't think the remarks were directed at you - the criticisms are of others, those who debase the discussions with barbed comment, snidery and sarcasm, or passive-aggression. And, for the sake of balance, I'd include those on the subjective side who get overly aggressive too. Neither approach helps anybody's cause, nor makes entertaining or edifying reading.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  14. cooky1257

    cooky1257 pfm Member

    Its hard to disagree with the sentiments that call for mutual respect but lets face it upthread you 'liked' 2 posts that the OP has since generously apologised for that contained uncalled for ad hom attacks. Let he who is without sin n all that...
  15. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    Likes are a crude instrument. I also 'liked' his apology (and posted something of my own which I subsequently deleted). I considered removing my 'likes', but they related to the sentiment in the post, and I didn't and don't consider it to have been particularly ad hom. I don't think the lack of respect is automatically ad hom, or it would contravene the AUP, but rudeness is seldom helpful. FWIW, I also apologise for any negative impression I have given you.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  16. herb

    herb brain's right hemisphere

    No. People like me prefer a more dynamic system, more like real music. The materialistic, reductionist scientific atheists prefer to be dazzled by their own prefrontal cortex:mad:
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  17. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    More like real music in what way, measurably so, or how you feel it sounds?
  18. NickofWimbledon

    NickofWimbledon pfm Member

    I am delighted by the calls for a little respect and courtesy from all, but otherwise we don't seem able to make much progress here. I was out last night (Vaughan-Williams and Tippett at a slightly warm Albert Hall), but have tried to catch up. So...

    It looks as if speaker cables are a more widely considered issue than the FOQ tape that started this thread, and I have speaker cables and no FOQ tape. I hope it's ok for me to use speaker cables as an example in these discussions, and it looks to be helpful in understanding how different many people's views are, but the range of different products that we are dancing between on this thread does make it all a bit more complicated.

    @sq225917 - you mention above the view that cables are pointless, that their differences in result can all be replicated by a few pence spent on a resistor and a capacitor and that the only difference is in frequency response. Is that always consistent with what you hear when listening to a hi-fi, and how universally would you apply it (no difference if above QED79 or if above Naim A4 or if above Naim A5, for example)?

    @Purité Audio - I think the comment that all expensive cables offer no improvement in SQ is as clear and unequivocal as any of us could ask for.

    Most here who disagree vigorously with that on the basis only of what we consistently hear over many years have no such problem with your statements that seem to suggest that looking at the measurements can only go so far, and won't typically tell us whether A will sound better than B to 0%, 50% or 100% of listeners.

    I find it hard to understand how your views on listening to power amps are consistent with your views on speaker cables. However, I am very willing to accept that this is because I have not really understood your actual approach in the real world. If not bored to tears already, can you try explaining again?

    @Octavian - I am struggling here. You have asked repeatedly for examples of generalisations that I don't regard as supported by facts, while quoting sections from me that include examples! See the snippet on BICC cables for an example of those examples.

    You also mention being a non-native speaker, though by comparison with my negligible French and Russian (it's a long time since I was at school), I would say that your English should be complimented. However, when I see you using 'methodology','supernatural', 'proposition' and so on so correctly, it becomes easy for me to forget that you are not as fluent as you would like to be. In any event, if there are things I have said that you would actually like me to make comprehensible (rather than merely avoid), please let me know.

    You also say directly that 'cables and racks are foo because there is no evidence of their significance'. Can we agree that the crux of the matter here is what is 'evidence'? Do you think that results of any sort (including 'hated it') from listeners can be evidence of anything, or do you think that how much people think they enjoy A versus B is largely irrelevant to what hi-fi they should have?

    I think we agree that some speaker cables measure differently from others to some degree, but (as @Purité Audio said, if I understood properly) no-one can explain why small measured differences produce perceived sound A and not B. Thus I would argue that we each need to decide what is evidence for the key question - and I think that that is whether A or B will please more listeners more of the time.

    If what we hear is not evidence at all, and only measurements are evidence (even though we cannot predict what the measurements will mean for perceived sound), doesn't that make all testing beyond checking for gross distortions and all listening tests equally pointless?

    @awkwardbydesign - are heading toward the works of Wittgenstein now? In any event, I'd agree vigorously here. If one does not accept that any of the reviewing cliches (perhaps soundstage depth or timing or crispness or even excessive sibilance) mean anything at all, and that only things that can be measured (and with measurements whose relevance we fully understand) have any useful meaning or worth, then what most of us have written here will make no sense at all. On the other hand, why would music 'work' at all for someone who actually thinks that?

    Part of the reason that this thread is now on page 23 (!) seems to me to be various disbeliefs.

    Most obviously, most here do not currently believe that FOQ tape can make music 'better' in any meaningful sense of the word.

    A smaller number don't believe non-basis speaker cables (or supports better than a carpet or sideboard) can make music better.

    A yet smaller number don't believe, if I have understood correctly, that there can be any meaningful and consistent difference in SQ from two amps (say) that both measure 'blamelessly'.

    It is easy for those with a more subjectivist stance to group all those people together, which is unfortunate. However, it may encourage a second problem, which is that several of us clearly find it hard to believe that even the most hardcore objectivists are nearly as unequivocal in the real world as they say.

    If what is measured is what matters, and we know enough science to be able to be able to measure all the right things, then I don't really understand why all objectivists don't have the same hi-fi at home (unless rooms or tastes are really weird). More generally, I have a sneaky suspicion that I am being biased by my not really believing that the more extreme views are really sincere or consistent with enjoying music at all. However dispassionate I think I am being, I suspect that this suspicion (even when wholly unwarranted) may be colouring things for me.

    On the other hand, I am still more biased by the limited number of people producing the sneering, the patronising and what looks sometimes to be the misuse of science just as bad as many Woo salesmen manage.

    In any event, it may be that other people find it hard always to keep on a properly even keel for similar reasons.
  19. herb

    herb brain's right hemisphere

    I have been to many, many live jazz and classical concerts, I have some CDs of the music and have listened to occasions of R3 repeated tapes of events I was at. The techie's reproduction of these events is admiral. Unfortunately they always reduce the dynamics of the event.

    I find that distortion and frequency are not important within accepted limits, which are defined by 'HiFi technology'.

    My flat earth system connects to me physically and emotionally, reproducing the live event dynamically.
    NickofWimbledon likes this.
  20. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    I broadly agree, and would just add this:

    I don't obsess over whether the system is transparent, or faithfully reproducing the recorded event. I'm more interested in reproducing the feelings that I got from attending a live event. If you go to a live music event, any domestic reproduction is likely to be a pale imitation of the original in terms of obvious things like scale and dynamics, but provided I can get the same sort of buzz from listening at home, to that I'd get from being at the gig, then that's what I want from my hifi. Obviously, if distortions intrude on that feeling then the hifi isn't meeting those objectives to its potential, so transparency has its role; but so do other things like the noise floor, where I've observed reductions in an already inaudible noise floor making a significant difference to that feeling of the buzz, most probably by improving on the dynamics of the reproduction.
    herb and NickofWimbledon like this.

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice