Points of view: HeadFi vs HydrogenAudio

[PhilS]

Both objectivists and subjectivists have valid points to make and a reasoned opinion considers both points of view. The problem occurs when someone from one camp assumes that their point of view is the only reasonable point of view and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot (unless such an argument is made in jest, which is fun to do from time to time).

 

[Mercuttio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SennFan Yes it has been. Anyway, I had never heard of the site you mentioned (i.e. H Audio). I just checked it out briefly and don't understand their mission. It really just seems like a bunch of people talking about format encoding, algorithms and other things. It's much more esoteric, narrow and limited than this site.

Yeah, I'd never seen it either, but it really doesn't look like they're in it for "Hi-Fi" audio at all... a smaller file size is superior to a better recording there.

 

[gtp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn where's my "debbie downer" pic. "vs." threads can only end in sadness and churros.

SORRY, I was hoping (against hope?) that this thread wouldn't get mean or argumentative.

Obviously everyone has a right to their own opinion and should do whatever makes them feel good (within legal limits of course

).

I think the objective/subjective idea is the answer I was looking for, and I appreciated reading that Wiki. As I have now learned, I am firmly in the objectivist camp (being trained as a scientist).

Thanks for you responses and please let this thread die peacefully.

George

 

[slwiser]

I think it has more to do with focus...

Here the focus is more targeted to Head-Fi.

There the focus is much more general.

Nothing wrong with either, just perspective.

But sometimes prespectives clash which it does from time to time.

My proof would be to compare the forum headings and see what each considers important.

 

[gtp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercuttio Yeah, I'd never seen it either, but it really doesn't look like they're in it for "Hi-Fi" audio at all... a smaller file size is superior to a better recording there.

Actually a common goal there is the smallest file size that ensures measureable transparency (from blind tests, so called ABX'ing) between the compressed file and the original.

Another common goal there is finding a compromise between small size and acceptable sound, something that few here at HeadFi would find palatable.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtp So my basic question is whether the difference in acceptable music formats is a function of them having subpar equipment, listening possibly to speakers rather than headphones, or ignorance on either side, or what???

I feel I don't stand in either camp. Since lossy is dealing with psychoacoustic encoding, presumably there is little or no difference after achieving a certain level of performance in the compressor. I'd say lossy isn't that bad but you'd have to evaluate and choose which one is best to you. This is another form of madness testing yourself vs all these formats/encoders/settings. Sounding the same is one thing but sounding good is another. I don't care if it sounds different as long as it sounds good. Afterall there is no original sound.

As for if they have some bottleneck in their equipment, it could be but I I think that applies here also. I also think interconnect differences are more than the difference between some encodings/formats/etc.

 

[K2Grey]

NotJeffBuckley and Leporello have summarized the situation quite well. I feel the objectivist position is inherently stronger, since it includes confirmation of types of subjective impressions, but try not to advertise it or make bizarre statements like "in the mind (as opposed to ear) of the beholder" or "objectivists listen with meters".

 

[sonance]

Total Objectivists and Total Subjectivists stand on two extremes of a spectrum, each with valid points against the other extreme. Who wants to be an extremist anyways. There's something to be learnt from both sides.
I like measurements, and I also prefer to trust my ears. I've learnt at the very least that a frequency response graph hardly begins to tell the story of what equipment sounds like. A total battery of tests is better. A full review, stereophile style with an accompanying battery of tests is even better. The best measure of a device is me having spent quality time with said device, after having read the detailed discussions, reviews and yes, many pages of measurements with graphs (I was educated as an engineer after all.)

 

[Mercuttio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtp Actually a common goal there is the smallest file size that ensures measureable transparency (from blind tests, so called ABX'ing) between the compressed file and the original. Another common goal there is finding a compromise between small size and acceptable sound, something that few here at HeadFi would find palatable.

Yeah, I have no reason to listen to anything but high quality sound. For my purposes (and seemingly infinite DAP and HD space) I guess I don't have any of the drive to find a compromise.

If you don't have to compromise, why should you?

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley Jude has stated officially that Head-Fi is a subjectivist website. HA is an objectivist website.

This isn't exactly true. What Jude has said is that he doesn't want extended discussion of DBT and other such things because it tends to bring out the worst in both camps of true believers. One side says that the other has tin ears, while the opposing camp says there's really no difference...you're just IMAGINING it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley The difference is primarily that Objectivists are interested in that which can be proven to exist in audio, while Subjectivists ... aren't.

See...it's starting alredy. It only took three posts.

Now, before any more of y'all get your hackles up (that's a term I learned from my buddy who grew up on a farm), please remember that threads like this tend to get locked because someone just can't give up the ghost.

For the record, I really don't want to see any more stuff like this from EITHER side of the fence, as it were. Consider that fair warning...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonance Total Objectivists and Total Subjectivists stand on two extremes of a spectrum, each with valid points against the other extreme. Who wants to be an extremist anyways.

Thank you, oh THANK YOU, for saying this.

 

[Denim]

I, for one, found this informative. I came across HA when I was educating myself on MP3 techniques, software, settings, etc. I believe that gpt was looking for a reasonable explanation for the two scenarios. I'm glad you asked. I never would have expected any ruffled feathers.

 

[Febs]

I just want to point something out. While HydrogenAudio is objectivist in the sense that they require objective confirmation of subjective impressions, it is expressly against the HA terms of service to provide such confirmation with graphs, waveform comparisons, etc.:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HA terms of service 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

HA is not about making measurements with meters. It is about making measurements with ears, but in such a way that the results can be objectively verified to be caused by something other than chance.

 

[Norbert]

"HA is not about making measurements with meters. It is about making measurements with ears, but in such a way that the results can be objectively verified to be caused by something other than chance."

How on earth do you "objectively" verify something from one's ears? The ears do not hear your music, your brain does. Each person's brain is conditioned to hear the same stimuli differently. There is no way to confirm that the exact same measurable stimulus is "perceived" the same way in different brains. There is no "objective" measure in this activity of listening to music.

 

[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norbert "HA is not about making measurements with meters. It is about making measurements with ears, but in such a way that the results can be objectively verified to be caused by something other than chance." How on earth do you "objectively" verify something from one's ears? The ears do not hear your music, your brain does. Each person's brain is conditioned to hear the same stimuli differently. There is no way to confirm that the exact same measurable stimulus is "perceived" the same way in different brains. There is no "objective" measure in this activity of listening to music.

1. If you want to argue semantics, ears "hear" music, the brain interprets it.

2. Whether something exists or not is not subjective. If I say that fire truck over there is "red", you would probably agree even if your "brain is conditioned to interpret stimuli differently," and you actually see "blue" but know that as "red". Sure, if this is true then it's subjective. However whether or not that fire truck I'm pointing to exists or not, that is not subjective.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norbert "HA is not about making measurements with meters. It is about making measurements with ears, but in such a way that the results can be objectively verified to be caused by something other than chance." How on earth do you "objectively" verify something from one's ears? The ears do not hear your music, your brain does. Each person's brain is conditioned to hear the same stimuli differently. There is no way to confirm that the exact same measurable stimulus is "perceived" the same way in different brains. There is no "objective" measure in this activity of listening to music.

You miss the point. I never said anything about whether a particular stimulus is perceived in the same way or differently by different brains. HA requires that if you claim to be able to hear a difference, you verify that with objective data--an ABX test that demonstrates that you can consistently hear that difference. I am simply making the point that HA does not rely on meters, measurements, etc. as some have suggested. They rely on listening.