advertisement


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

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Indeed. Test systems and methodologies generally don’t distinguish between test tones and music. The assumption that the first remains valid for the second is one I’ve never seen convincingly argued.
Click to expand...
I think the first can used as a tool but I have discovered that for my ears those “really fine measuring speakers” don’t necessarily translate into a suitable device for enjoying, at least some, genres of music. it is quite a catchy advertising phrase for certain dealers to shill their wares in discussion forums, but doesn’t necessarily translate to listening pleasure of music.

It is easy to believe the objective approach until one owns speakers that make music sound like music, then one realises that the objective only approach really is pointless. Assuming, of course, that enjoying music (or speech of course, let’s not forget R4) is the aim of a hifi system.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Indeed. Test systems and methodologies generally don’t distinguish between test tones and music. The assumption that the first remains valid for the second is one I’ve never seen convincingly argued.
Click to expand...
I have never seen a convincing argument for why it would not.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Having been affected by this at the time, my experience was slightly different but perhaps parallel to the above. Armstrong didn't cease directly because the Japanese arrived. But because those with money to invest decided not to do so. It might well have proved viable, but those who had the money decided that they could make more profit from investing in things like 'property', not manufacture. Combine that with:

UK component makers who also failed to invest in new plant and improved components. Thus meaning we had to buy in *Japanese* components, which meant we were 'back of the queue' compared to their *Japanese* customers - and often were also makers of Japanese hifi so we could only get components after they had 'better' ones to use for themselves.

A few companies surived because the investors were the owners and keen on audio. But they did so by focussing on niches and ingenuity - and/or marketing. :)

Contrast: QUAD made a fuss about ESLs and 'current dumping'. Arnstrong did things like electronic switching, double loop feedback, etc, but did it just to get decent results and didn't make a fuss about it. Marketed in a different way. That was set to change, but plugs got pulled and by then the parade had moved on to flat earth obsessions in the magazines. And TBH to some extend 'reviews' for many items during that time were, erm, 'death by review' in some cases and could be quite, erm, misleading for readers.

An example of what I mean by that can be found here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/reviews/finale/1982.html

it also makes some, erm, comments about listening tests. :)
 
vesuvian said:
T

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.
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can answer it for myself FWIW.
 
vesuvian said:
Hilarious!
May I ask what led you to become interested in audio in the first place?
Do you actually enjoy listening to music? Favourite musicians or music genres? Have you ever played a musical instrument?
Click to expand...

The above wasn't directed to me, but FWIW

I got interested in audio because I liked the music coming out of radios and record players and found that better kit made it easier and better to hear, thus more to enjoy.

About 50% 'classical' of all kinds from early up to about Shostakovich, etc. The rest a mix of Jazz and older pop/rock.

I tried to learn to play the piano but after a few years gave up. Hand control and co-ordination to do it well was beyond me and it was a struggle rather than a source of pleasure. So focussed on enjoying what people are talented can do.

In contrast, I found I could understand and build bits of electronics and understand relevant physics, etc. So got to enjoy designing and making kit which I could then use, along with good kit made by others.

I don't think any of that is particularly unusual for someone who worked in the area. Albeit some were a lot better as musicians than I would ever have been! :)
 
mansr said:
I have never seen a convincing argument for why it would not.
Click to expand...
To borrow and paraphrase a maxim from the measurement factions on here: it is for those who advocate a thing to argue for its use.

But seriously, how does measuring a system using a steady-state test tone, or even a smooth tone sweep, tell you how that system will react with a fast-changing and highly dynamic musical signal? At best, you can infer things, but you can't show those inferences are valid, nor that there aren't use cases where they don't stack up.

I can understand that taking measurements using a fast-changing, dynamic, and (in electrical terms) somewhat unpredictable music signal is next to impossible, which is why it isn't attempted. But it strikes me that the advocates for test tones as evaluation mechanisms (rather than as tests of engineering integrity and verification of design assumptions) are making a virtue out of a necessity.
 
For something like an amp, it would actually be rather more feasible these days than in the past to do a test of the kind I think Hafler (?) suggested. This is, indeed, to use music with a nulling system that corrects for plain linear effects like the gain vs frequency of the amp. Thus to uncover the relationship between the music and any alterations that aren't simple linear ones. I'm now wondering if anyone has recently tried this. But it could certainly be attempted.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
For something like an amp, it would actually be rather more feasible these days than in the past to do a test of the kind I think Hafler (?) suggested. This is, indeed, to use music with a nulling system that corrects for plain linear effects like the gain vs frequency of the amp. Thus to uncover the relationship between the music and any alterations that aren't simple linear ones. I'm now wondering if anyone has recently tried this. But it could certainly be attempted.
Click to expand...
It would be very interesting to learn if anybody has, and their findings.
 
Given a defined source pattern - i.e. an LPCM file of music to be played - this could be done on a system. Although in practice the really compicated bit would be the speaker + room + mic part. Compared to that, using an ADC to capture the signals at the speaker terminals should be relatively possible to do and analyse these days. Having thought of this, maybe it has been done and I've not noiticed. But modern digital kit should make it possible now in a way that was unimaginable a few decades ago!
 
vesuvian said:
May I ask what led you to become interested in audio in the first place?
Click to expand...
When I was really young I used to share one of these all-in-ones with my sister. It had a mic, so I even experimented with recording.
As I grew older I was allowed to use my dad's just renewed system, consisting of an Aiwa mini separates system and Pioneed DD turntable.
In my early teens I convinced my dad to get "us" a CD player, he conceded and bought a Yamaha CD-X5 and a pair of YH-1 headphones. I bought myself a Walkman an set up his Philips amplifier and speakers in my bedroom.
A couple of years later I bought myself my first system, a cheap as chips JVC midi amplifier and dual cassete recorder.
Then replaced my Walkman with a Discman. At this time I had started then given up on reading What Hi-Fi? and was also reading Hi-Fi Choice, Hi-Fi News and Audio (Portuguese).
...
Nowadays I buy almost exclusively used gear. I use measurements for shortlisting. If it doesn't measure well it's not worth my time and effort. Once I have a piece of equipment in my system I listen for shortcomings, not by direct comparison but long term. If I find something I don't like I try to find possible causes in measurements when available and look for a suitable replacement. I don't care about cables.

vesuvian said:
Do you actually enjoy listening to music?
Click to expand...
I love music. There is nothing more tedious than comparing gear so when I sit down music gets my undivided attention. I've even banned the TV set from our 4-strong family living room. Before that I would always get comments from visitors like "why such large speakers but such tiny TV?".
I try to go to the Monday lunch-time recital at one of local churches every week, and to any of the colleges if there's free music.

vesuvian said:
Favourite musicians or music genres?
Click to expand...
My favourite genre is classical, about 80% of my staple diet, particularly music from the Romantic period. I also enjoy '50s and '60s jazz, a bit of rock/pop/alternative music mostly stuff from when I was young (Radiohead, R.E.M., Nick Drake, Tom Waits, early Rolling Stones, the Tindersticks) and also ethnic/folk.

vesuvian said:
Have you ever played a musical instrument?
Click to expand...
I've sung in a classical amateur choir, though not for as long as I would have wished.

vesuvian said:
The reason I ask these questions is that you seem more interested in flaunting your very narrow technical expertise in a futile effort to convince the music lovers amongst us that we shouldn't trust our own ears.
Why don't you focus your 'scientific' mind on matters that actually lend themselves to scientific analysis, such as bicycles or car aerodynamics?
Because as soon as you include the human brain in your endeavours you're just whistling in the wind and no one can hear you!
Click to expand...
My audio system is a tool, like a toothbrush or a screwdriver. I don't feel any emotional attachment to it. Its goal is to reproduce what is in the recording which is the same as audio signal.
People often use the wine analogy when referring to a playback system. I equate my system to the glass and the music is my wine. The best wine glasses are designed to potentiate the highest sensory pleasure. The finest systems will do that too.
For some people that can be achieve through reproducing the recorded signal with the highest possible fidelity; others find that some degree of euphonic distortion enhances the expressiveness of the recording.
I'm OK with that.
 
vesuvian said:
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.
Click to expand...
And here I think we get to the nub of why subjectivists*, and I include the vast majority of the population, mistrust scientists*. The absolutism pushed by some who really should be more open about the fact that scientific facts* are only valid until they are superceded by new research and theories** is compounded by their dogged refusal to contemplate the idea that they don't have all the answers. The scientific method is just that; a method.
If you add in the memorable disasters like Thalidomide and BSE (scrapie won't transfer to cattle, BSE won't transfer to humans), belief in science is a fragile thing. A reputation takes time to build, but can be lost in a second. Our own senses, and even religions, have had far longer to win the hearts and minds of people, so denigrating either is counter productive.
And the scientific principle* that answers are temporary and conditional doesn't sit well with most people. They (we) want answers so we can get on with more important stuff*, so what use is science, really? It enables useful stuff to be made, and that's about it. It should also be born in mind that the early scientists were also often poets, religious and believers in alchemy.
* Terms as used by the general population.
** As used by scientists, not the general population.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
To borrow and paraphrase a maxim from the measurement factions on here: it is for those who advocate a thing to argue for its use.

But seriously, how does measuring a system using a steady-state test tone, or even a smooth tone sweep, tell you how that system will react with a fast-changing and highly dynamic musical signal? At best, you can infer things, but you can't show those inferences are valid, nor that there aren't use cases where they don't stack up.

I can understand that taking measurements using a fast-changing, dynamic, and (in electrical terms) somewhat unpredictable music signal is next to impossible, which is why it isn't attempted. But it strikes me that the advocates for test tones as evaluation mechanisms (rather than as tests of engineering integrity and verification of design assumptions) are making a virtue out of a necessity.
Click to expand...
With the right test signals, we can measure the transfer function of the device. Once the transfer function is known, the response to any input can be calculated. If you do not believe this, then you also do not believe in mathematics, Maxwell's equations, or Ohm's law.
 
With the right test signals, we can measure the transfer function of the device. Once the transfer function is known, the response to any input can be calculated.
Click to expand...
I’ll ignore the implied insult. The term transfer function is meaningless to me. Can you express that in lay terms? What is the transfer function? How is it expressed? What do you mean by ‘the device’? Are you referring to a hifi component (eg amplifier) or an electronic component (eg power transistor)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top