There's nowt so queer as folk
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
All probably true and fair enough. But the heat and light on the forum is not about that stuff. I can't remember the last time anyone said that people shouldn't like the sound of valve amps they should like the sound of .001 THD etc etc.
The major source of heat and light is over whether things sound the same or sound different. Once it is established that things sound different most people are happy to leave others to their foibles. That ought to be that but....
that characterisation really really really gets up the noses who think that their foibles are the equivalent of x ray vision or extra sensory perception and that they are living in a world of muggles.
Julf
Facts are our friends
I hear you - but some people not only insist that their opinion is an absolute truth, they also claim that a glutein-free diet is best for everybody - and get very annoyed when somebody points out that cadmium is glutein-free too...
darrenyeats
pfm Member
The problem is people giving reasons for preferences.
The objectivists can't stand people giving pseudo, sometimes anti, scientific reasons why vinyl or valves sound better to them.
The subjectivists can't stand people claiming the subjectivists like vinyl and valves because they are distorted euphonically and insisting all about audio is known.
If everyone stopped trying to explain their own and each other's preferences, it might go a lot smoother. But of course, the why is an interesting topic - many of us not only want to achieve better sound but to know the whys and wherefores!
Julf
Facts are our friends
We have to draw our line somewhere, otherwise we all slide down into a lukewarm, wishy-washy moral vacuum... That is the road that leads to beats headphones...
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
Maybe not valve amps and .001 THD and so on, but there are plenty of people who express clear preferences based on their perception of what's technically superior or inferior: active speakers, electrostatics, standmounts, full-range drivers, class A amps, NOS DACs, vinyl, DSD, 12" arms, idler drives etc etc etc etc.
That was kind of the point of my little OT skit. We may like to think that people will respect other peoples' preferences, but that's just a pious hope. The reality is that people know they're right.
In everyday life we may forbear to ask one another where we go on Sunday mornings, out of some sense of what we call decency. On a hi-fi forum that decency tends to be very short lived.
EDIT: crossed with Darren's post that says pretty much the same thing.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Personally I'm in a bit of a quandary because I believe things like:
- All else being equal active performs better
- All else being equal stand mount performs better
- All else being equal solid state performs better
But I've only ever experienced audio sounding "absolutely real" twice - both systems were with floor standers, both with valves. One passive, one active (yeah active valve system).
Do my beliefs contradict my experience? Yes to a degree. But I remember there are many confounding factors like room acoustics, recording etc that make it difficult to draw a line from two exceptional experiences to a general conclusion. Also memory is tricksy and no impression happens in a vacuum, what you're used to up to that point colours it (perhaps I'd feel differently about those sounds if I could re-hear them now?) And I am a bit of a numbers guy, so I have a soft spot for specs and measurements.
But at least these two experiences do keep me from being absolutely dogmatic, and definitely they make me separate ideals from implementations, which I think is a good thing.
- All else being equal active performs better
- All else being equal stand mount performs better
- All else being equal solid state performs better
But I've only ever experienced audio sounding "absolutely real" twice - both systems were with floor standers, both with valves. One passive, one active (yeah active valve system).
Do my beliefs contradict my experience? Yes to a degree. But I remember there are many confounding factors like room acoustics, recording etc that make it difficult to draw a line from two exceptional experiences to a general conclusion. Also memory is tricksy and no impression happens in a vacuum, what you're used to up to that point colours it (perhaps I'd feel differently about those sounds if I could re-hear them now?) And I am a bit of a numbers guy, so I have a soft spot for specs and measurements.
But at least these two experiences do keep me from being absolutely dogmatic, and definitely they make me separate ideals from implementations, which I think is a good thing.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
All else is never equal.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Yep, agreed.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
I agree with both of you. Another way of putting it is that the idea that this hobby is about high fidelity is a sticky one. Many people have pointed out in various different ways that maybe we should let go of that idea and just admit that one goes for one's preferred flavour. But very few people mean it. They just can't help it. [edit I should perhaps add here that what I mean is that one can't let go of the idea that what one likes more must in some technical sense be better]
Thus, depending on one's temperament one ends up convincing oneself that what is more accurate sounds better to one, or that whatever sounds better to one is more accurate. Or possibly that it all sounds the same.
However Vital's point remains a good one- there is much less argument about which speakers are better than there is about dacs/cables/transports. With the exception of ATC mania and the odd bit of turntable brand worship/hatred most people seem to be happy to leave others to their choices.
Perhaps the vinyl vs digital thing is the exception, but that's precisely because the accuracy/fidelity thing comes into play.
Julf
Facts are our friends
The thing is that pfm will never be Hydrogen Audio II: Electric Boogaloo, and if that's what you're looking for you're in the wrong place.
But I suspect you are here because this is the right place.
Joe, I think one HA is enough
, PF is great as long as it doesn't become one of those "subjective claims are not to be questioned" cult places...
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
My guiding principle is to seek an often spurious post hoc justification for my choices. It's worked well so far.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Good call. I have gone down a very strange route where I'm quite interested in the technicalities [mainly because of their application to other areas outside hifi] but not massively bothered one way or the other about the hardware I'm using to listen at the moment. I'm more interested in this years proms line up (and a few other festivals besides.) and am currently thinking of recorded music for large part as a way of preparing for concerts.
I may stir myself to working out what speakers/DRC combination will work best in my new surroundings, or possibly to get interested in headphones, but if I don't get round to it I doubt I'll be sorry. Still, who am I trying to kid: addiction is addiction.
Hook
Blackbeard's former bo'sun.
I think it is a given that there are different, yet equally valid ways of building an enjoyable hi-fi system.
A few years back, TAS magazine made an attempt to categorize these different approaches, albeit at a very high level. First, there the folks who believe in fidelity to the master tape. They look for low distortion measurements, and tend to gravitate towards solid state gear. Then there are those who want their audio systems to sound like "live music". They want to capture the ambience of the recording location, and seek the "you are there" or "they are here" experience using large horned speakers, or maybe 'stats with great soundstage depth. And lastly, there are those who just want their music to sound...beautiful. They tend to love the warm, rich sound of vinyl and valves, and don't rank fidelity as highly as others.
I think it feels natural to organize pretty much anything in to threes, and I've found this attempt by TAS useful in trying to understand where others are coming from.
ATB.
Hook
A few years back, TAS magazine made an attempt to categorize these different approaches, albeit at a very high level. First, there the folks who believe in fidelity to the master tape. They look for low distortion measurements, and tend to gravitate towards solid state gear. Then there are those who want their audio systems to sound like "live music". They want to capture the ambience of the recording location, and seek the "you are there" or "they are here" experience using large horned speakers, or maybe 'stats with great soundstage depth. And lastly, there are those who just want their music to sound...beautiful. They tend to love the warm, rich sound of vinyl and valves, and don't rank fidelity as highly as others.
I think it feels natural to organize pretty much anything in to threes, and I've found this attempt by TAS useful in trying to understand where others are coming from.
ATB.
Hook