I think that subjective opinions are definitely what makes this hobby, dare I say, magical. Sometimes a piece of gear or a piece of music can inspire one to 'see a bigger picture', or paint a mental image that nothing else can. I don't think anything can replicate that, no matter how scientific it may be. I find myself getting wrapped up in this or that, reading things somewhere, judging my stuff based on what I think others may think. Then I throw that all aside, put on some music and remember why I love this so much.
I think subjectivity is the most important part of this, sometimes.
I think that subjective opinions are definitely what makes this hobby, dare I say, magical. Sometimes a piece of gear or a piece of music can inspire one to 'see a bigger picture', or paint a mental image that nothing else can. I don't think anything can replicate that, no matter how scientific it may be. I find myself getting wrapped up in this or that, reading things somewhere, judging my stuff based on what I think others may think. Then I throw that all aside, put on some music and remember why I love this so much.
I think subjectivity is the most important part of this, sometimes.
Obviously your enjoyment and experience of music are subjective. OP was asking what you think of other people's subjective opinions shared on forums, and in particular those not backed up or maybe even contested by some objective results. A very different conversation .
Subjectivity is the ruling factor in this hobby...and most attempts at "objectivity backed by science" are just people trying to objectivize their own subjective viewpoints.
Subjectivity is the ruling factor in this hobby...and most attempts at "objectivity backed by science" are just people trying to objectivize their own subjective viewpoints.
Not really, plus you seem to be assuming that the two are mutually exclusive when clearly they can and likely often are closely aligned. We aren't talking about how people perceive things, the subjective, well we are, but not as the main focus. The conversation is about people making claims such as balanced amplification sounds better simply because it reduces crosstalk. We would say yes that crosstalk is reduced, but a well designed single ended amplifier would already have inaudible levels of crosstalk so we would then seek out objective evidence why changing an already inaudible component of the sound should suddenly result in an audible improvement.
Not really, plus you seem to be assuming that the two are mutually exclusive when clearly they can and likely often are closely aligned. We aren't talking about how people perceive things, the subjective, well we are, but not as the main focus. The conversation is about people making claims such as balanced amplification sounds better simply because it reduces crosstalk. We would say yes that crosstalk is reduced, but a well designed single ended amplifier would already have inaudible levels of crosstalk so we would then seek out objective evidence why changing an already inaudible component of the sound should suddenly result in an audible improvement.
Subjectivity is the ruling factor in this hobby...and most attempts at "objectivity backed by science" are just people trying to objectivize their own subjective viewpoints.
Obviously your enjoyment and experience of music are subjective. OP was asking what you think of other people's subjective opinions shared on forums, and in particular those not backed up or maybe even contested by some objective results. A very different conversation .
Oh ok I see, my apologies. In that case, I definitely value others views on things, whether it be music or gear or whatever the topic is.
I can also see how that might not be the most accurate way to describe a piece of gear, for example, but I do like to hear how people feel about something, or their impressions of it, but I wouldn't take it as final word.
A Steve Guttenberg video? One that has nothing to do with blind testing? Not likely going to win over the sound science members with that, given that he also touts the differences in cables without anything other than subjective evidence.
Of course, no surprise that a reviewer with clear profit motive to wants to avoid controlled testing and rely on "Just listen to the new thing and enjoy it".
One of the first laws of the internet is to tell people what they are clicking on if you want them to click on it. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, but it led me to a five minute video with a generic title. If you'd like me to take the time to watch it, you should include a two or three sentence synopsis of the process you think is better than blind testing. The signal to noise ratio on the internet isn't high enough for me to invest five minutes without knowing why.
Edit: Just saw Bfreedma's comment. This is exactly why I don't sit down and watch stuff without knowing why I'm watching it. I have five minutes more of my life to live and savor.
Guttenberg, really? He obviously doesn't like proper blind testing as it has an annoying tendency of not supporting all the myths that he spouts. Let's see, cables make a difference, vinyl has superior fidelity to CD, huge sound differences between amplifiers, DACs and so on. He doesn't even understand the basics of audio science - or throws it aside to cater to his audio naive audience.
There are actually some very respectable people in this hobby that have groups of followers and base all their results on listening. Still it must be a balance of two conventions. IMO
An example of would be IEM graphs. After listening a response graph can help substantiate a guess about the frequency response. The other very subjective study is with equipment combinations.
But in the end even the pricy stuff gets liked by introducing grave distortions that may not measure well. Today I listened to a mid-fi IEM that’s technically correct. Everything was conservative about the listening experience. Everything seemed included in the frequency response. There was nothing out of the ordinary or strange. But in the end the response was boring. Next was a TOTL IEM that had blatant artistic freedom induced distortions. There was a treble spike, a treble dip and the lower midrange was removed to a point. On paper all this may not look good? But listening was great and the preferred response for me? So in the end these issues actually can cause more questions than answers.
With these bizarre graphs sounding good.... many ideas can come to mind. Is the IEM actually complementary to the persons loss in hearing? Is the IEM response correct due to the pinna response of the ear canal?
Would there actually be a response that doesn’t measure well but leaves freedom for the transducers to actually be more well rounded? Why is it that color and distortions are the preferred way to reach musically on many levels? Why do we actually pay more for a technically inferior product? And finally if it does not measure well, but sounds great.........are we missing a measurement?
The thing we aren't measuring is the effect of the room on the sound. Since that isn't a part of the recording itself, and the effect varies from room to room, it can't be listed in the specs. As long as it's a part of the recording, we can measure it. Which makes sense since people designed the system capable of recording the sound in the first place. How would you design a digital capture system to capture sound you can't measure?
[1] There are actually some very respectable people in this hobby that have groups of followers and base all their results on listening.
[2] Still it must be a balance of two conventions. IMO
1. That's not really my experience. The vast majority of the "respectable people" (respected audiophiles) I've seen here on head-fi do not "base all their results on listening", they base their results partly on listening but also largely on suggestions and the perception biases caused by them. Of the dozen or so very serious audiophiles I've personally come across, not one of them had decent listening skills. They thought they could hear things that were not there but could not hear/perceive relatively obvious things that were there. If audiophiles really did "base all their results on listening", rather than on marketing, reviews/impressions, herd mentality and visual appearance, a lot of the audiophile myths and false claims would disappear.
2. I think that's one of the problems here. IMO, it should NOT be a balance of the "two conventions". Effectively: One convention is "listening to a measurement", while the other is "listening to marketing driven perception biases" but asserting they're listening to some objective property of sound/audio, which then requires contradicting the actual facts/science and inventing some unmeasurable, unexplained magical/mystical property that somehow infuses digital or analogue audio and can only be "heard" by certain audiophiles. There's no "balance" or mid-point between these two conventions!
[1] Would there actually be a response that doesn’t measure well but leaves freedom for the transducers to actually be more well rounded?
[2] Why is it that color and distortions are the preferred way to reach musically on many levels?
[3] Why do we actually pay more for a technically inferior product?
[4] And finally if it does not measure well, but sounds great.........are we missing a measurement?
2. That depends on which "level". On the level of actual music creation, a preference for certain pitch relationships was first calculated by Pythagoras and the whole history of Western music, at least since the late middle ages, has been the evolutionary design of musical instruments and compositions that rely on colour and distortions, resulting in extremely sophisticated "Music Theory". Exactly why these colours/distortions/relationships are preferred is not, AFAIK, fully explained and of course, preference varies enormously from person to person, even to extreme opposites. This is all on the "level" of what's actually on a recording but on the "level" of reproducing a recording, I don't know there is evidence to support the assertion that additional "color and distortions are the preferred way". The reliable evidence (Harmon and others) seems to indicate a relatively flat (uncoloured/undistorted) reproduction is generally preferred and of course, the audiophile community self-proclaims High-Fidelity reproduction is a primary concern.
3. Typically: Marketing and/or a priority for something other than high fidelity; visual appearance, brand name or cost for example
4. Yes, we're missing the measurement of personal perception biases/preferences and arguably, the measurement of individual listening skills. If you're talking about a measurement of actual audio/sound properties, then no, we're not "missing a measurement".
1. That's not really my experience. The vast majority of the "respectable people" (respected audiophiles) I've seen here on head-fi do not "base all their results on listening", they base their results partly on listening but also largely on suggestions and the perception biases caused by them. Of the dozen or so very serious audiophiles I've personally come across, not one of them had decent listening skills. They thought they could hear things that were not there but could not hear/perceive relatively obvious things that were there. If audiophiles really did "base all their results on listening", rather than on marketing, reviews/impressions, herd mentality and visual appearance, a lot of the audiophile myths and false claims would disappear.
2. I think that's one of the problems here. IMO, it should NOT be a balance of the "two conventions". Effectively: One convention is "listening to a measurement", while the other is "listening to marketing driven perception biases" but asserting they're listening to some objective property of sound/audio, which then requires contradicting the actual facts/science and inventing some unmeasurable, unexplained magical/mystical property that somehow infuses digital or analogue audio and can only be "heard" by certain audiophiles. There's no "balance" or mid-point between these two conventions!
1. No.
2. That depends on which "level". On the level of actual music creation, a preference for certain pitch relationships was first calculated by Pythagoras and the whole history of Western music, at least since the late middle ages, has been the evolutionary design of musical instruments and compositions that rely on colour and distortions, resulting in extremely sophisticated "Music Theory". Exactly why these colours/distortions/relationships are preferred is not, AFAIK, fully explained and of course, preference varies enormously from person to person, even to extreme opposites. This is all on the "level" of what's actually on a recording but on the "level" of reproducing a recording, I don't know there is evidence to support the assertion that additional "color and distortions are the preferred way". The reliable evidence (Harmon and others) seems to indicate a relatively flat (uncoloured/undistorted) reproduction is generally preferred and of course, the audiophile community self-proclaims High-Fidelity reproduction is a primary concern.
3. Typically: Marketing and/or a priority for something other than high fidelity; visual appearance, brand name or cost for example
4. Yes, we're missing the measurement of personal perception biases/preferences and arguably, the measurement of individual listening skills. If you're talking about a measurement of actual audio/sound properties, then no, we're not "missing a measurement".
What you have written is in short amazing and I’m not arguing at all. But! As we read there seems to be still highly subjective listening then purchasing here at Head-Fi. Obviously I only read a small section/percentage of pages here. Yet I have come to recognize a purchasing trajectory. Also keep in mind the reading is random but may be centered around Sony products as those are the threads I’m involved in. Normally we will have individuals who arrive with curiosity and are in buying mode. I have almost zero scientific understanding of the music replay process and stay very humble, basically explaining my history and/or the history of other members here.
You also have to realize that this is basically not a scientific based site in general. There are highly scientific people, as well as inventors and companies representing the cutting edge of scientific advancement at times. Yet the majority of posts are centered around consumer experience and consumer curiosity.
There are ideas and histories which are fully subjectively based, as a general rule, as few have measuring equipment or even the slightest understanding of how this stuff works. In addition to that corporations have actually started to use compartmentalizations for street knowledge pertaining to repairs. There are no more repair manuals either. Companies have found out that there are giant profit margins for repair. Repair shops in retail stores now need to show direct sales before the manufacturers will let them repair what the public brings in broken. So even if someone took the initiative to learn the basics of electronic sound reproduction, the real mechanics are becoming hidden, due to the understanding having value in certain designated hands.
The next level which we have all seen in the last 10 years has been a rapid advancement of digital playback technology. Much of the DACs from 2010 had limited bit-rate ability. Only a few then even recognized DSD. So in comparison to the 1950s and 1960s even till the 1990s; students could go to school and learn the basic fundamentals of sound science. If they choose to they could capitalize on that ability to understand music replay and actually make stereo equipment. People made solid state amplifiers all the time.
Now some are going to argue that the basics are still the same. I can’t answer that as I’m not an engineer. What I can say is every company has slick marketing and self generated buzz words that represent in-house technology. Now even if it’s not all in-house technology it’s hard for the average consumer to divide the truth from the BS. Everything they write in advertising sounds great. The crazy part is the audiophile doesn’t really mind if he is lied to. The typical audiophile will accept the merchandising lingo and even will become elated reading it. Most of the stuff that the scientific community laughs at is honey to the audiophile fly!
So if your a regular consumer, you can read the opinions and learn by people’s past successes, yet the only real way to buy stuff is still to deal with the unpredictable events of demoing equipment. The sad part is the information is slanted to sell, the people on Head-Fi are all mostly defending their new purchase, and the show rolls on. Even the best of the buyers here know of the issues with attitude affecting sound perception. People fully know what assumptions and biases do to the ability to objectively understand sound quality. So if anything science is actually what’s missing and actually what is desperately needed at this point in history.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
