[JadeEast]

This post could fit across any of the sub forums but here it is.

Audiophile hell

. That's what the article linked here is partially about.
Some of you may have read it before.
Are You On The Road To... Audio Hell? by Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup

In it the author proposes the use of Comparison by Contrast as a way of listening for the performance of gear as opposed to the A vs B sampling of reference tracks. Read the article for an explanation of the concept.

I think the idea of comparison by contrast makes allot of sense but can imagine some people would have a differing view on the subject. I would love to hear some opinions on the article as it seems to be contrary to the dominant style of critical listening and reviewing.

 

[nvkid909]

well for one i'm glad i'm not. i see myself as somewhere in the middle between those who don't know & those who want the most perfect of perfection.

imo this quest is driven by differing factors; some just have money to burn, while others are just never happy with their own listening experience (denial over hearing defect?). imo. also the shiny shiny factor.

 

[cegras]

I agree with many points raised in the article.

That's why, short of researching what models were usually held in high regard, I stopped there. I didn't want to come to expect that, for example, my SR80's are 'good' for rock, or anything like that. I wish to not use established audiophile terms because they carry too much weight with them - too many expectations when I use things like 'coloured' or 'tinny.'

All I did was put them on at Bay Bloor and asked myself - did I like what was coming out?

(For the record, I think the Grados I am using produce large differences in different types of music - but this effect diminishes if the volume is too low.)

It's the same thing with the Bose wave system I have. We use it on AM and FM dial, and all that. There really is such a clear difference when you feed the system differing source qualities. This, compared to some junk Sony tape recorder / radio combo, is what would differentiate the Wave as the clear winner here. People like to say that Bose is junk or bad, but really, when I pop in a CD or turn it on to a FM station for music .. it's not bad at all.

The article makes a really good point.

 

[Beagle]

Hell, we paved that road..

 

[tygger]

In my opinion this article is of great value for music lovers (not pure audiophiles more concerned about euphonic sound). I always use this approach auditioning audio equipment.
Peter Qvortrup's experience in designing and building fantastic amps and speakers cannot be overestimated. I listened to some of his products and was lucky enough to speak with him. The way he appreciates music is remarkable. The man is a professional listener, paying much more attention to music itself, not the sound of a particular component or recording.
No wonder the article has raised a lot of disputes in commercial audio press. Peter definitely opposes established routines and practices of auditioning and selling hi-fi gear.

 

[ericj]

I couldn't read through that. Early on, I was distracted by the complete rejection of the idea of scientific measurement.

There is no question that the numbers we typically have available cannot tell us how something sounds. Or that marketing organizations will leave out just enough data that the numbers provided are essentially a hair short of a bald-faced lie.

But to suggest that this means that no scientific metric can possibly be constructed that would give us a meaningful measurement, is a dangerous and idiotic fallacy.

Just because we don't or haven't measured it yet doesn't mean it's immesurable.

 

[Uncle Erik]

There are lots of good ideas in that article - I'm going to take a long look at how I evaluate how a product sounds.

I still think it worthwhile to measure and test gear, though. It may not tell you everything, but measurements reveal much more than the average audiophile believes.

Also, I strongly believe that construction, engineering and quality for the dollar are important. Even if cables have a slight effect on the sound (and I'm not going to reignite that debate here) there is no way in hell I'll pay a 20,000% markup (I do not exaggerate) on any product, audiophile or not. Likewise, some amps have mediocre designs and a premium price tag. I exclude the patently overpriced gear on principle alone.

Finally, evaluating gear based on price is ridiculous. People force gear into a weird quality hierarchy based on the MSRP. Price does not guarantee quality. You do have to spend several hundred on quality parts, but tacking on an extra $5,000 or $10,000 does not improve the performance of those parts. It's hard to say exactly where the cutoff is, but audio gear is nothing more than jewelry or fancy furniture past a certain point.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I couldn't read through that. Early on, I was distracted by the complete rejection of the idea of scientific measurement.

I can understand that sentiment. The main point of interest for myself was the comparison by contrast idea.

Quote:

Instead of comparing a handful or recordings -- presumed to be definitive -- on two different systems to determine which one coincides with our present feeling about the way that music ought to sound, play a larger number of recordings of vastly different styles and recording technique on two different systems to hear which system reveals more differences between the recordings.

 

[nowickia]

I thought I've always wanted to be an audiophile but that article makes me reconsider. I like music for it's ability to compliment my mood, motivate me to perform tasks (especially ones that are tedious or undesirable), and to relax after a long day. Those are truly the important aspects of music listening for me. So long as the music and equipment are good, as opposed to the best, I think can achieve that. True that I analyze music probably the same someone who really gets into a good novel, but only for the artistic sake of it and not the technical part. I think that's important to me since most of my other hobbies are technical in nature. For me it provides a counterbalance. Absolutely nothing against those who disagree with my views....that's what makes each of us who we are. But for me, I think the article has brought me to a better realization of what makes audio important to me.

 

[cegras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I couldn't read through that. Early on, I was distracted by the complete rejection of the idea of scientific measurement. There is no question that the numbers we typically have available cannot tell us how something sounds. Or that marketing organizations will leave out just enough data that the numbers provided are essentially a hair short of a bald-faced lie. But to suggest that this means that no scientific metric can possibly be constructed that would give us a meaningful measurement, is a dangerous and idiotic fallacy. Just because we don't or haven't measured it yet doesn't mean it's immesurable.

I have read a lot of headphone reviews in this forum - and none have come close to the scientific rigor that you describe.

Furthermore, the 'scientific method' of A/B listening in the end depends on the subjective opinion of the listener, who grades the quality of the music based on how well it performs the piece according to what he feels is right.

A holistic and contrasting approach is good way to go about deciding if you should upgrade your system or not.

In the end the only truly scientific way is to measure somehow directly measure the output of the speakers. But then you would need a mic. And have to use that identical mic across all headphones. Not to mention component wear which will change the signal. But then, how do you decide whether that's good or not? The science ends there. The guy makes a good point - sources will always be interpreted differently as they pass through whatever and finally end up going through the speakers.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have read a lot of headphone reviews in this forum - and none have come close to the scientific rigor that you describe. Furthermore, the 'scientific method' of A/B listening in the end depends on the subjective opinion of the listener, who grades the quality of the music based on how well it performs the piece according to what he feels is right. A holistic and contrasting approach is good way to go about deciding if you should upgrade your system or not. In the end the only truly scientific way is to measure somehow directly measure the output of the speakers. But then you would need a mic. And have to use that identical mic across all headphones. Not to mention component wear which will change the signal. But then, how do you decide whether that's good or not? The science ends there. The guy makes a good point - sources will always be interpreted differently as they pass through whatever and finally end up going through the speakers.

Lets set aside power amplifiers and speakers for a moment.

Lets talk about preamplifiers and sources.

Is there any question that we can reasonably provide a realistic synthetic load for a preamp or a source, and measure the signal directly?

I wasn't talking about A/B tests involving human opinion. I was talking about applying solid scientific metrics that have no 'rubber yardsticks' such as human ears.

Just because we do not have these tools yet, does not mean that they cannot be made.

 

[cegras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lets set aside power amplifiers and speakers for a moment. Lets talk about preamplifiers and sources. Is there any question that we can reasonably provide a realistic synthetic load for a preamp or a source, and measure the signal directly? I wasn't talking about A/B tests involving human opinion. I was talking about applying solid scientific metrics that have no 'rubber yardsticks' such as human ears. Just because we do not have these tools yet, does not mean that they cannot be made.

Sure, you can use synthetic noise that cycles through the whole frequency. And then you could record it and see how well the speakers reproduce it. But there are so many things happening to the output and the input as it is captured. What kind of performance metric would you draw from it?

Let's say that indeed the speaker can cycle through the frequency with perfect accuracy. Then would that not be the same as hearing the music reproduced accurately - which would lead to greater differences between genres - which would lead you to conclude this particular system in question is better?

I think the method outlined is interesting and quite reasonable. If a system on a whole makes classical in a theatre sound like classical in a theatre, jazz in a club like jazz in a club, and so on and so on - is that not the better system than a CD player feeding a generic earbud?

Out of curiosity, what metric do you use to judge what you buy?

 

[Sherwood]

I soldiered through the dubious "science has failed us" portion of the article to get to the meat, and I feel it was sufficiently meaty to justify a full read.

The comparison by contrast notion is unique, and one I will visit in my own system. It is far more difficult to perform than the standard ABX method, especially in terms of the quality recordings an individual needs to posess, but it may well yield rewarding results. We shall see.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, you can use synthetic noise that cycles through the whole frequency. And then you could record it and see how well the speakers reproduce it. But there are so many things happening to the output and the input as it is captured. What kind of performance metric would you draw from it? Let's say that indeed the speaker can cycle through the frequency with perfect accuracy. Then would that not be the same as hearing the music reproduced accurately - which would lead to greater differences between genres - which would lead you to conclude this particular system in question is better? I think the method outlined is interesting and quite reasonable. If a system on a whole makes classical in a theatre sound like classical in a theatre, jazz in a club like jazz in a club, and so on and so on - is that not the better system than a CD player feeding a generic earbud? Out of curiosity, what metric do you use to judge what you buy?

You're talking about existing methods still. These methods have obvious flaws. A few people have proposed new methods. They have not been adopted.

Once you determine why two systems can measure the same and yet produce a different signal, you can measure it.

As for my own purchasing? Personal opinion - just like everybody else.

 

[J.D.N]

It is an interesting article, good read, but not once did they mention fun.

Isn't this supposed to be fun?