[redrol]

When I review IEMs, I have a few metrics which are the normal Bass, Mids, Treble. But I also do a Binaural rating, imaging (accuracy of pinpointing instruments), and 3D which how close to a speaker system they sound.

 

[Davesrose]

I think the most random (and over the top) snake oil I heard about was that some audiophiles thought that using a marker on the outer edge of a CD made it sound better.

 

[bigshot]

Never forget the power of... MAGIC PEBBLES!

 

[Bytor123]

Pace, Rhythm and Timing are my solicitors

 

[taffy2207]

Sounds like 3 checks a Doctor would do on a Pacemaker

 

[bigshot]

Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga & McCormack

 

[castleofargh]

You left out a Hungadunga.




In my case, it's objectivist and subjectivist. I always say that I understand the difference between something objective and something subjective, but don't seem to understand audio objectivism and subjectivism. The audiophile misinterpretation of it that supposedly defines the 2 and only possible sides of our community(already it smells like BS).

Is it supposed to have any sort of relation to Ayn Rand or the 20 definitions of subjectivism in philosophy? Or is it yet again stuff that got stolen and misused to make the hobby look more photosynthesis?

I remember someone on Headfi saying that when he joined, he didn't know how to interpret graphs and all the technical stuff(electricity, acoustic...), which seemed to be the domain of objectivists, so he picked the other side because there was no need to know anything about anything to belong to that group. I remember thinking that it was both sad and maybe the explanation of objectivism and subjectivism that made the most sense in this hobby. No actual relation to the philosophical stuff, just the good old nerds VS average Joe wanting to replace his lost earbuds.
But even that doesn't explain everything. Where do the so called elite audiophiles fit in this? surely they don't wish to be assimilated with those ignorant about the hobby. So, was there a third option from the start? A 4th? A 5th one? I did see a bunch of guys with no chill, declaring that they cared about both objective and subjective stuff. "oh you mean a normal human looking at reality? get out of here with your rational thinking! that's not audiophile at all!"


My other idea is basic+. An objectivist will aim for the best objective measurement, even when it's beyond audibility. Doesn't matter how it sounds, it's objectively better and there is worth in that. You're an objectivist when you happen to care more about the objective quality of something.
While the subjectivist would logically care for how he feels about the sound, but not so much about how it measures. That looks like a fair pair of choices. We will often enough find ourselves with a preference for something that isn't the objective best, and we will pick a side when pulling out the credit card. Real simple.

I look at the community and everybody seems to follow this but backward. Our little gang of Sound Science droogs is the one constantly asking to check what we hear and telling people that improvements beyond what they can hear is basically irrelevant. So clearly we're subjectivists. Right? Wrong! the community call us hardcore objectivists.

And the audiophiles getting the DAC with the fastest clock, using ethernet for data correction and data rate extravaganza, saying that 24/192 is better even though they can't pass an ABX(strongly suggesting that the benefit they feel is not heard, but about objective specs and how those make them feel). They're the objectivists! Right?
Wrong, they're subjectivists! why?

I have no idea.

 

[Paul Mohr]

I think what gets me most is how worked up and defensive they get if someone doesn't agree or challenges them. Either equipment isn't good enough to tell the difference, your hearing is good enough or you don't know what to listen for. All the while trying to claim something they can't even describe. And then telling someone they need X product. Why? You already told me my equipment is crap, my hearing sucks and I don't know what I am doing. Not sure why that can't just say "it was my money and I like it." and leave it at that. And if you tell them it might all be in their head just say "sure it might be, but I still like it.".

Another thing that really gets me and I probably shouldn't even bring it up is people that think, and will argue with you that turntables and vinyl is better. I mean sure if you think it sounds better and like it good on you have at it. Some people like Bose music systems. However to argue that it is actually superior from a technical standpoint, come on. I have had a salesman actually get upset arguing this with me lol. Using the same old arguments. Oh you haven't heard a good one, or heard one on a good system or with a good recording. Ya whatever. All I know is a 15 dollar cd player will outperform it and sound better.

 

[BobG55]

You left out a Hungadunga.

 

[bigshot]

The sad part is that most home audio equipment is of excellent quality and does the job with room to spare, but people allow their OCD and lack of knowledge combine into a never ending search for something that might theoretically sound better. They keep at the quest wasting energy and money even if it produces absolutely no rewards.

 

[Redcarmoose]

That woman you saw walking had PRaT, she was maybe almost perfect in how the bounce went into a rhythm and pace. She was not only beautiful but mesmerizing to look at. Now maybe this even is truly subjective (I mean everything is right) maybe she was swaying a little too much for some? Maybe her frame was too big and many preferred a slight reduction of size and weight?

But really much of that subjectivity has to do with cloths. Put pants on her and the experience changes slightly, a dress well.....maybe a short skirt and then it’s great. A balance of cloths and the walk, chemistry really.

Can we fully test a woman walk? Can we delineate it and totally quantify it. Can it be written as a formula? Are any two the same, I mean exactly the same?

So your saying that PRaT doesn’t exist, that it’s the imagination of many to perceive something that never existed in the first place?

I am not sure? It’s all an illusion anyway. The fact of small speakers actually tricking someone into thinking we are hearing humans playing actual music.

Could that walk and sway be imaginary? Maybe?

But it’s maybe more convoluted than first thought.

People are talking about a section of lower midrange that has possibilities of either delineating the rhythm or accentuating it. And maybe there is more that comes from the way the driver starts and stops, that things are connected on other levels. The way the actual bass has a feeling and how the treble changes. It’s purely subjective and maybe there is no test for it in the first place. But can people hold something of value here? I think it may actually have more to do with FR. A certain Frequency Response can get interpreted as musical, where certain low dynamic (like a thin librarian) will have a difference emotionally. Again it all comes back to taste in how the woman walks. Though you can say that certain gals have universal style and pace which is held in high regard by many. So maybe there is something we can agree upon?

 

[bigshot]

We’re talking about fidelity here. How well does the signal coming out match the one going in? We’re not discussing your personal subjective preferences and peccadillos.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Chances are all these things have been discussed somewhere, but maybe not all in the same thread so this is an attempt to do that. If it's been done, my apologies. I was thinking about some of the silly things I've heard about or read over the years that made me scratch my head, and the one that continues to get me is PRaT. It's just baffling to me that someone would think a piece of stereo equipment or any of the associated wiring, in any form, would or even could cause an electrical signal to speed up or slow down to the point of being audible. It fails the common sense test on so many levels, but people believe it. I just read a review about two weeks ago by a very respected person who has been in the business for a long time and he mentioned PRaT and how great a particular component handled that.

So, what causes you to scratch your head in disbelief?

I don't think the term is meant to suggest that signals speed up/slow down to the point of being audible.

As far as I know it's a purely subjective term used to describe equipment that essentially gets you tapping your feet to the music. I do find it odd that somebody gave it a name, though. I think some people like to make things more complicated than they need to be.

I shake my head j disbelief when people claim a 'night and day's difference in sound quality, with something that can't even be measured.

We’re talking about fidelity here. How well does the signal coming out match the one going in? We’re not discussing your personal subjective preferences and peccadillos.

Everything can’t be measured. Take a sunset, every sunset is slightly different. There is an element of subjectivity there. Maybe one sunset has more clouds and another has less, who to say one in better? It’s entirely subjective. There is absolutely a place in science for subjective observations? The perceived bounce of a reproduction can be noted, less or more....to the point of smearing detail or bringing detail into absolute clear focus.

 

[Redcarmoose]

The reason PRaT can be a subjective item is it can exist inside of clarity of response. One way is the application of room responses to a headphone signal. At first this style of distortion may seem unwanted, and that is maybe one reason it has been not used much.

But as of late there has been more room response put into headphone replay. This would sound like the effect of sound reverberations from speakers which are intentionally placed into the headphone response to actually be a style of echo.

I don't know if this can be measured but it is a real phenomenon which is used to add realism in playback. So it’s making headphones sound like speakers in a room. This style of playback in some ways smooths out the PRaT. When bass tones seem to have waves which overlap and connect this reduces the perceived PRaT in only a small frequency area.

It is in a way anti fidelity.

 

[bigshot]

Why do you bother to hang out in sound science? You make proclamations that are so out of tune with this forum, it’s pitiful. Are you just looking for attention? Do you not have people who will listen to you offline? I really don’t have a lot of interest in your performances, I’m afraid. Maybe someone else will play your game.