advertisement


Thinking aloud: obj / sub / ABX cyclic arguments etc Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul R said:
So you can assume a context and then they mean whatever you choose them to mean? Very subjective.

Subjective relates to the mental state of the observer, the 'subject', objective relates to the physical qualities of the object. A properly controlled listening test is therefore objective.

Paul
Click to expand...
if you look at the old BBC papers on loudspeaker evaluation on their website they use the word "subjective" to refer to listening tests and "objective" to refer to measurement. I think this was all well understood and perfectly sound use of terms by very good engineers.

The problem is that after the appearance fo the term objectivist and subjectivist (which are confused labels/insults) people have started to reverse engineer the word subjective and objective to take their meaning from the confused ideology words.

There is no need for any confusion about this if you refer to subjective and objective evaluation techniques without being attached to the notion that all objective evaluations are good/bad (delete as applicable) and all subjective evaluations are bad/good (mutatis mutandis).

No one is ever going to get out of this pathetic mire if they won't let go of the half-digested conceptual claptrap.
 
Here is a blind A-B test of musical aptitude, in particular musical memory and pitch-perception, used in research to screen for tone-deafness. What do you score?
 
AndyU said:
OK arthur, so accepting you bought an MDAC for the remote control, nice-guy that makes it, bit-perfect test etc. and accepting that you agree with Robert that nonetheless the original MDAC sounds no different from a Dacmagic, why did you send it away to be improved? No features were being added, only revisions that were claimed to affect the sound quality. Yet Robert would claim it already was transparent, and so if the sq changes it must be because of added distortions. And you have heard a change. So it must be, if you believe Robert and if you have heard a difference in your modded MDAC, that JohnW has added distortions to it. Though measuarably it still meets Roberts 'transparency' criteria. So, either you are mistaken in hearing a change in sq (and so have wasted your money and your time) or JohnW has deliberately added distortion to the MDAC. If Robert is correct that is.

I hope you will follow Roberts advice and set up a properly controlled blind AB-X trial of your new MDAC against an unmodded one and report back on the differences.

But meantime it is useful to know that you don't think an MDAC sounds any different from a Dacmagic.
Click to expand...

Look at the the post again. I can't be bothered to teach you to read past what you need to see.
 
arthur said:
Look at the the post again. I can't be bothered to teach you to read past what you need to see.
Click to expand...

Hope you are enjoying your remote-controlled Dacmagic soundalike upgraded with added distortion. :)

(Either you can hear the difference between an MDAC and an upgraded MDAC or you can't. If you can, then according to Robert you have paid to have distortion added. If you can't, then you've wasted your money.

Which?)
 
I do think the Ratners situation is relevant here.

Their goods were selling well, presumably from a 'subjective' assessment on the part of their customers, in that they were pleasing and gratifying.

As soon as Gerald Ratner declared in his speech, that they were actually 'crap', pesumably based on his 'objective' assessment from his knowledge of them, then the 'subjective' purchasers abandoned their position and sales fell dramatically.

So much of 'marketing' and 'reviews' is dependent on the value of 'branding and image', and I feel this prevalent in the HiFi trade and it's followers.

Objective assessment does help to separate the 'fool's gold', from the genuine article.

JC
 
AndyU said:
Hope you are enjoying your remote-controlled Dacmagic soundalike upgraded with added distortion. :)

(Either you can hear the difference between an MDAC and an upgraded MDAC or you can't. If you can, then according to Robert you have paid to have distortion added. If you can't, then you've wasted your money.

Which?)[/



Your somewhat harpy ish reply gives away your emotional involvement Andy.

Can you really not tell?

I didn't buy the CA because it has no remote and not enough inputs.

I bought the Mdac because the designers rep is more than 20 yrs old and impeccable.

Because it has a remote controlled digital preamp and can therefore be lobbed straight into my active speakers without the price of an additional box being added.

It looks cool ( IMO natch).

I liked the idea of being able to check the bit perfectness or otherwise of my music data being fed into the dac.

And I think john's a very decent chap. He even took the time to phone me twice when I had an issue with the original CDQ just to make sure the new bits were good stuff. Such a customer centric attitude is remarkable and to be cultivated at all times.

Anything else?

Ps I also wrote a quick note here when I got my M-dac back from a fettling by John.
I believed, and still do that it was an improvement on the original.

BUT!!!!

That was only my ears doing the judging so it may very well be that I was deluding myself and that there is no difference.

AND!!!!

( this is the important bit)

If I'm ever able to do a DBT and I find that I'm unable to tell the difference, then I will not hesitate for even a fraction of a second to say so.

I will say I was mistaken and that the old devil called expectation bias had me by the short and curlies.

Therein lies the simple difference between me and the evangelical ears know best erm...people.

I'm not wedded to my opinions through a maladjusted ego.

Cheers.


There you are...I've made it nice and easy for you.

Please point me to the spot where I said I had heard the DacMagic? I have not. Why would I? It does not have the functions I need. Even if it is identical, it does not have the functions I need. Even if it is better, it does not have the functions I need.
Click to expand...
 
adamdea said:
if you look at the old BBC papers on loudspeaker evaluation on their website they use the word "subjective" to refer to listening tests and "objective" to refer to measurement. I think this was all well understood and perfectly sound use of terms by very good engineers.

The problem is that after the appearance fo the term objectivist and subjectivist (which are confused labels/insults) people have started to reverse engineer the word subjective and objective to take their meaning from the confused ideology words.

There is no need for any confusion about this if you refer to subjective and objective evaluation techniques without being attached to the notion that all objective evaluations are good/bad (delete as applicable) and all subjective evaluations are bad/good (mutatis mutandis).

No one is ever going to get out of this pathetic mire if they won't let go of the half-digested conceptual claptrap.
Click to expand...

Good post

Chris
 
adamdea said:
if you look at the old BBC papers on loudspeaker evaluation on their website they use the word "subjective" to refer to listening tests and "objective" to refer to measurement. I think this was all well understood and perfectly sound use of terms by very good engineers.

The problem is that after the appearance fo the term objectivist and subjectivist (which are confused labels/insults) people have started to reverse engineer the word subjective and objective to take their meaning from the confused ideology words.

There is no need for any confusion about this if you refer to subjective and objective evaluation techniques without being attached to the notion that all objective evaluations are good/bad (delete as applicable) and all subjective evaluations are bad/good (mutatis mutandis).

No one is ever going to get out of this pathetic mire if they won't let go of the half-digested conceptual claptrap.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
AndyU said:
Hope you are enjoying your remote-controlled Dacmagic soundalike upgraded with added distortion. :)

(Either you can hear the difference between an MDAC and an upgraded MDAC or you can't. If you can, then according to Robert you have paid to have distortion added. If you can't, then you've wasted your money.

Which?)
Click to expand...

Actually Andy, you have misrepresented Arthur's position which is not dissimilar to mine as I explained a page or 2 back.
 
Steven Toy said:
The a and b was not level-matched.
Click to expand...

Luckily. Level matching might have been counterproductive in this case.

Matching is required when one tests for the presence of audible differences other than those induced by level, and this in cases where that level can be trivially adjusted and is on its own not a parameter of quality. Really a case of 'all else being made equal'.


In the case of the PEEK layer one normally would not expect its introduction to change the signal level, so if the listening then reveals a different loudness (mark this, loudness is not level!), then this is a positive result.
 
Werner said:
Luckily. Level matching might have been counterproductive in this case.

Matching is required when one tests for the presence of audible differences other than those induced by level, and this in cases where that level can be trivially adjusted and is on its own not a parameter of quality. Really a case of 'all else being made equal'.


In the case of the PEEK layer one normally would not expect its introduction to change the signal level, so if the listening then reveals a different loudness (mark this, loudness is not level!), then this is a positive result.
Click to expand...

I know. It was a little check to see if objectivists bother to read what they regard as mere subjective hogwash before they reach for their scripts ;)
 
AndyU said:
Here is a blind A-B test of musical aptitude, in particular musical memory and pitch-perception, used in research to screen for tone-deafness. What do you score?
Click to expand...

67 % , so that proves there where no differences...:D oh i forgot we aren't comparing DACs where that would be the interpretation.....
 
adamdea said:
if you look at the old BBC papers on loudspeaker evaluation on their website they use the word "subjective" to refer to listening tests and "objective" to refer to measurement. I think this was all well understood and perfectly sound use of terms by very good engineers.
Click to expand...
Subjective does not mean listening tests. A person stating whether they can or cannot hear a difference between two sounds is providing objective data. It is a measurement. You can do science with it such as determining audibility thresholds.
 
Tenson said:
Spxy, maybe it shows that the differences were inaudible for you ;)
Click to expand...

...yes maybe or maybe i need to be more skilled....

...trouble is the same methods and results are used when comparing hifi in many "blind ABX tests".

A 67% result in the case of a Hifi test is often assumed to be a "no differences exists" result.

In fact in this case the difference does exist, but can not be tested for in this way.

This type of test can only reveal the skill of listeners, not whether differences really exist.
 
h.g. said:
Subjective does not mean listening tests. A person stating whether they can or cannot hear a difference between two sounds is providing objective data. It is a measurement. You can do science with it such as determining audibility thresholds.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the test itself and the question of whether the results of that test are considered to provide evidentially sound data. You seem to be hung up on the notion that subjective results can't have science done to it. In this way you are neatly illustrating the way that conceptual baggage can get in the way.

It might be useful in some contexts to apply the term "objective" to the data acquired from properly controlled subjective tests, but in this case I think it's just confusing. The words subjective and objective can have different meanings in different contexts, but provided that they are being used to describe methods of evaluating audio equipment the correct usage is clear.

Please look up the BBC loudspeaker papers on their website- you will see that the terms are used in the way I have indicated.
 
Werner said:
Luckily. Level matching might have been counterproductive in this case.

Matching is required when one tests for the presence of audible differences other than those induced by level, and this in cases where that level can be trivially adjusted and is on its own not a parameter of quality. Really a case of 'all else being made equal'.


In the case of the PEEK layer one normally would not expect its introduction to change the signal level, so if the listening then reveals a different loudness (mark this, loudness is not level!), then this is a positive result.
Click to expand...
It's remarkable how much more lucid are the thoughts of people who actually consider what is being discussed, rather than obsessing over the imaginary ideological implications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top