Subjectivity and objectivity in audio

audio.bill

audio.bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
1,588
Location
Chicago suburbs
I recently participated on another forum's thread discussing bi-wiring, and was responded to with an article stating that it couldn't possibly make any difference. Of course not everyone there agreed, but I responded as follows and thought it might make a good thread here for discussion regarding subjectivity and objectivity in high end audio.

High end audio is a very subjective venture. As an EE many things in audio continue to surprise me. Why are many of us able to hear differences between gear that is sometimes unmeasurable? Maybe we're measuring the wrong things. Human hearing is a very complex system.

You can find articles like the one provided stating that bi-wiring makes no difference, similarly that all competently designed amps sound identical, that CDs provide perfect audio reproduction, all cables sound the same, etc. Why then do some of us still find more emotional engagement from analog recording and playback when compared to digital which may measure better? Even with digital gear in the cost no object range I still haven't heard it connect to me the way it does when I hear a great reel to reel playback system. The textures, decay, and spatial reproduction just excels in analog. Of course digital can still sound excellent, but when I compare it to analog it generally comes up short. I can't really explain why.

To me it's all about having an emotional connection to the music we listen to and love. Isn't that what it's really all about and why we continue to pursue this obsession for better sound? Regardless of what current measurements show I'll continue to be guided by what I hear and enjoy, even though it sometimes conflicts with the objective nature of my formal education. I have to believe that continuing to question objective data is what keeps us moving forward towards further discovery.

Of course I expect there are many that will disagree with this, and that's part of what makes this hobby (and life in general) more interesting. Let's all keep those tunes playing and enjoy the music, and I look forward to your thoughts!
 
The bottom line is that you can't get two audiophiles to agree on anything. We are split into more camps than a Boy Scout Jamboree. Take tube gear for instance. You would think if you love the sound of tubes, you are in the club. Nah. Triodes vs. pentodes, SE vs. Push-Pull. OTLs vs. both SE and Push-Pull. Then we have tubes vs. SS. Then we can move on to digital and how fractured the digital community is. 10,000 different file formats for PCM alone. Then we have the DAC wars. Now bring in DSD against PCM. Speakers-where do we start? See what I mean?
 
Partly due to my job I try to understand what makes equipment sounds good. As an engineer, of course I will agree measurements do not lie when done properly. However, I suspect that in many cases, typical measurements do not necessarily give the whole picture of sound (a 1kHz sine wave on an oscilloscope is far different from a complex classical music), and then there are disagreements about which measurements matter most, e.g. different types of distortion, time domain accuracy vs phase distortion and aliasing, etc.

Then there are things that cause people to hear a difference but cannot be easily explained. In particular I'm fascinated by this story from Charles Hansen:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/charley-hansen-wizard-boulder#tcjKHZhigJ3TPB7Y.97

SM: The voodoo dimension of audio.


CH: Careful system setup is at least half of it, if not more. I'll tell you a story. One year, we went to [the Consumer Electronics Show]—we had the prototype MX-Rs. I said, "Let's go with Wilson [loudspeakers]." They sent them to us a month ahead of time. We took that system—it had been all dialed in, all broken in, and set up for a month in our listening room. I knew how it sounded. We drove it to the show, and set it up, and I listened to it and I said, "Something's wrong. This does not sound the way it sounded back home." This was in a room we had been in before—I knew how it sounded. I spent five hours trying to figure out what it was. I was trying everything I could—room treatments, moving the speakers around. I was so frustrated. The show's about to start—it sounds wrong—something's wrong with the system—it's broken.

I lean my head against the wall, and I'm practically in tears and exhausted. I'm ready to kick a hole in the wall. And I'm looking at my feet. We put all our cables on these little wooden blocks. But guess what? The power cord going from the wall to the preamp was missing one wooden block. So there was two inches [of cord] that looped down and touched the carpet. I said, "Why is this cable touching the carpet?" There were only two guys left with me at that point, as everyone else had gone to sleep. And one said, "Oh yeah—I was setting it up and I ran out of wood blocks. I meant to get another one, but I forgot." I said, "Go get that other wood block, please." We put that one wood block underneath that one power cord, and I listened to it and I went, "Aaaahhh. Now it sounds right—now we can go to bed!"
Click to expand...
 
audio.bill said:
Here's the article that was first referenced: http://www.achievum.eu/bi-wiring.html
then someone else posted this one: http://sound.whsites.net/bi-amp.htm#bi_wiring
Click to expand...

okay, this guy at Achievum has a commerical interest in debunking bi-wring, he makes cables! I skimmed through those articles unless I missed something neither really speaks to 'back EMF' but barely hints at it, the phenomena is real and verifiable in many kinds of electro-mechanical devices.

There's a somewhat useful disccusion of back EMF here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/loudspeaker-back-emf
 
My biggest gripe with bi-wiring is you need to double the cost of speaker cables. Jumpers are a lot less expensive. :)

Glad Magico only provides a single pair of connection posts.
 
I have no choice but to bi-wire with my Vandersteen 7 MkII's. They won't work otherwise. :)

Ken
 
Bud

With most cable companies it is only about 1.5 times the cost.

Ken

It can be done with Vandersteen and just out of curiosity I have tried it with the 2CE Sigs and the 3A Sigs. It works but doesn't sound the same. I never tried it with the Treo's as they never worked for me voicing wise.
 
You forgot to mention hybrid amps... Tube input stage with SS or digital output stage. Or stereo amps vs monoblock amps. ;)

mep said:
The bottom line is that you can't get two audiophiles to agree on anything. We are split into more camps than a Boy Scout Jamboree. Take tube gear for instance. You would think if you love the sound of tubes, you are in the club. Nah. Triodes vs. pentodes, SE vs. Push-Pull. OTLs vs. both SE and Push-Pull. Then we have tubes vs. SS. Then we can move on to digital and how fractured the digital community is. 10,000 different file formats for PCM alone. Then we have the DAC wars. Now bring in DSD against PCM. Speakers-where do we start? See what I mean?
Click to expand...
 
My Wireworld bi-wire cables only cost $50 more than the standard cables.

BlueFox said:
My biggest gripe with bi-wiring is you need to double the cost of speaker cables. Jumpers are a lot less expensive. :)

Glad Magico only provides a single pair of connection posts.
Click to expand...
 
As for measurements vs our ears, a scope will see 1 kHz, but it doesn't see what that 1 kHz actually sounds like (as far as music is concerned). Our ears can detect the zillion variations of 1 kHz. You can play 1 kHz from a piano, a clarinet, a flute, a guitar, etc, etc. They'll all look kind of similar on a scope, but they all sound totally different by our ears.

It's the same when comparing cables as well as comparing digital to analog. There's just some things that measurements can't show, and that's what makes the difference.

And for the record (pun intended), I still prefer analog over digital as well.
 
Most objectivists are full of bunk. They don't even understand what it is they are measuring, yet they go on and on about measurements telling you everything. They don't. Measurements only measure what they are designed to measure.

In my daily profession, I request dozens of measurements every day. One reason I have so much training in my field is so that I know exactly what the false positive/false negative rates of these tests are, and how to weigh up the evidence provided by these tests and whether they agree/disagree with what else I know about the patient. If something doesn't quite seem right, is it a problem with the test? A problem with the timing of the test? The way it was done? Or does it point to something which I haven't suspected so far?

Test results have to be interpreted with nuance, care, and understanding. If you put your life in my hands, I better be sure that what I am recommending is not based on the result of one flimsy test. I sometimes ring up the lab scientist and ask them questions about how the test was done before I am satisfied.

Now, on another forum recently, there was a multi-page debate about the merits of an amplifier which was characterized by a very small suite of tests that were done. All the objectivists who claimed that the high end amplifier was inferior to the cheap amplifier overlooked a very important point - that the person doing the test did not perform a wider range of tests.

If they like measurements so much, then why don't they know more about the limitations of what they are measuring? The reason is because many of them are idealogues. They put the cart before the horse. They reached their conclusion with an incomplete suite of tests, and they made their conclusions out of ideology. And what is worse, they then proceeded to sneer and scorn everyone else in the thread (yes, you know the type).

A real scientist knows exactly what the limits of one's knowledge is. I know what I know, but more importantly, I also know what I don't know. Many of these so-called "objectivists" aren't scientists at all.
 
A subject dear to my heart, this. As a professional musician, my approach is far more subjective than it is objective, and let's face it, I don't really have any kind of engineering background so once the discussion reaches a certain technical level, I'm lost. What I've said in a few other discussions on other sites is that we're all built differently, that is, our ears are different and our brains are different so we interpret sounds differently. That's why one person's taste will tend in the direction of the "tube sound," while others find SS and even Class D more suitable to what they want to hear. (And there's a substantial contingent that doesn't hear the difference, and/or doesn't much care). Measurements might tell one part of the story, but only your ears can tell you the full story, and if somebody hears the difference between a power cord laying on the carpet or up on a wooden block, well good for them. I can't pass judgment on that anecdote because I didn't experience it, but I HAVE experienced the subtle and occasionally not-so-subtle differences between different interconnects and speaker cables, so I believe these differences to be real, but again, isn't that a subjective assessment?
 
I see talk about SS versus tubes, not to mention different tubes, tube rolling for different sounds, etc. And in solid state amps there are Class A, Class A/B, Class D, etc. All striving for that perfect sound and all seem to have justifiable reasons why that method is better.

Being a computer guy when starting to understand digital sound I went into it thinking, well it is all just 1's and 0's, so as long as the signal gets there is tack there can't be any sound differences. Boy was I wrong.

I cannot explain the reasons why, and I can only trust my ears, but I hear big differences in the gear I have tried. I hear huge differences in cables, in different implementations of the same DAC chip as an example. The ESS 9018 for example. I have had a few different DACs that use this chip and they all sound different. The W4S was exceptional at DSD but did not sound as good with PCM, to my ears. The NuPrime was very good at PCM but was not good at all with DSD files. The Benchmark, who state very clearly in their white papers that they support PCM as the finest source, still sound vastly better in DSD than any of the other DACs I have heard.

The new Benchmark using the new ESS 9028 PRO chip sounds the most analog of any digital I have ever heard, either PCM or DSD, even though they still choose to only support DSD64. Granted I do not have nearly the experience with higher end equipment as most in these forums, or near the level equipment as most of you do, however my ears do not lie to me. My biggest point is that I do not feel the differences are necessarily measurable, but certain can be heard. As to a point made earlier, I believe that our measuring methodology may be at fault hear more so than anything else. Maybe the technology and/or methods of testing are simply not as advanced as the reproduction equipment itself is at this point in time.
 
Randy Myers said:
I see talk about SS versus tubes, not to mention different tubes, tube rolling for different sounds, etc. And in solid state amps there are Class A, Class A/B, Class D, etc. All striving for that perfect sound and all seem to have justifiable reasons why that method is better.

Being a computer guy when starting to understand digital sound I went into it thinking, well it is all just 1's and 0's, so as long as the signal gets there is tack there can't be any sound differences. Boy was I wrong.

I cannot explain the reasons why, and I can only trust my ears, but I hear big differences in the gear I have tried. I hear huge differences in cables, in different implementations of the same DAC chip as an example. The ESS 9018 for example. I have had a few different DACs that use this chip and they all sound different. The W4S was exceptional at DSD but did not sound as good with PCM, to my ears. The NuPrime was very good at PCM but was not good at all with DSD files. The Benchmark, who state very clearly in their white papers that they support PCM as the finest source, still sound vastly better in DSD than any of the other DACs I have heard.

The new Benchmark using the new ESS 9028 PRO chip sounds the most analog of any digital I have ever heard, either PCM or DSD, even though they still choose to only support DSD64. Granted I do not have nearly the experience with higher end equipment as most in these forums, or near the level equipment as most of you do, however my ears do not lie to me. My biggest point is that I do not feel the differences are necessarily measurable, but certain can be heard. As to a point made earlier, I believe that our measuring methodology may be at fault hear more so than anything else. Maybe the technology and/or methods of testing are simply not as advanced as the reproduction equipment itself is at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Don't sweat that. I was recently told by a genius on this forum that my system was made up of "cheap stuff." With regards to what you are hearing with digital, your ears aren't lying to you. DACs seem to be either created for maximum quality playback of PCM or DSD-not both. The only exception that I have found so far is the PS Audio DSJ DAC, but it kind of 'cheats' with PCM because it converts all PCM to DSD. Pure DSD still sounds better than PCM upsampled to DSD, but then DSD sounds better than PCM. Of course people who are wedded to PCM even if it was a shotgun wedding will want to argue with you about it (or me in this case). Out comes graphs, charts, receipts for their gear, and a written endorsement from their Great Aunt Matilda who can hear leaves rustle in the forest that is 100 miles from her home.
 
Yea, because ARC is considered "cheap stuff".... omg, that is funny :).

The Benchmark really seems to do both PCM and DSD as good as I have heard either done on other systems, especially the DAC3.... I think this may be because they have specific chosen to not support higher levels of DSD, only DSD64. I always had a very hard time hearing the difference between DSD64 and DSD128 anyway. I think by not accommodating higher levels of DSD their drivers can be more tuned (just a complete guess :))... but I do know they are designed for the professional market and pure accuracy is the only thing the strive for....
 
It's amusing to me that when we audiophiles listen to live music no one says afterwards, "Gee, I sure wish the guitar player had used new strings because the treble didn't sparkle like I expected." You rarely hear anyone state how good or poor the acoustics of a venue might have been, and you don't hear anyone saying, "It's too bad the house amplifiers were Pro Yamaha because I'm certain the concert would have sounded much better if those amps had been Levinson or Crown." I can't remember ever hearing anyone at a live performance comment that the microphones weren't up to the task or the band's roadies should have angled the speakers for a better sound stage. In all seriousness, we enjoy live performances for the MUSIC. Whatever the live event ended up sounding like, it was the music, the experience we took away, not a hand full of negative perceptions about every possible short coming we could conceive. Afterwards we go grab a pizza and a beer, and talk about the music, the musicians, the fun.

Now take the same audiophiles auditioning a sound system at a dealer's show room or a friends home. It's like we didn't go there to hear MUSIC, we went there to hear the gear. Instead of being captured in the moment and moved by the music like at a live venue, we put on a reviewers hat and begin nitpicking at every perceived audible nuance we can focus on. We zero in on the room's size being too small or too large for the speakers. We take note that the owner should have bi-wired or better yet bi-amped the speakers with an active crossover for best sound. We accentuate the negative more readily than we do the positives, like why didn't the owner use isolation feet under the gear, or how come he chose those cables and interconnects, or too bad the system doesn't use power conditioning. We are so absorbed in our critique, whether mental or verbal, of a rack's position, the location of glass windows, the presence or absence of acoustic treatment, how close speakers are to the rear and side walls, the absence of upgraded power cords, the failure to install audiophile grade wall receptacles, the presence of dimmers on the lighting, and on and on. What about the music? We are driving ourselves nuts claiming it's all about the music when it seems like that's secondary to how the music is being reproduced.

Not only are there no two people with the exact same hearing or mental perception of sound, there are no two sound systems that are identical. Even if the gear was identical the rooms will be different, furnished different, carpeted, tiled, or wood floors, etc. Differences exist on every level between all of us as audio enthusiasts and system owners. There is no absolute, definitive, measured, and repeatable result for what is the best sound, so why is it we act like there is a finite answer? We compare and rate our sound systems and each other's like we know exactly what it should sound like when we really don't know the answer to that question. Sure, there's good sound, better, sound, and exceptional sound, but what is the definition of perfect sound? Who knows. Just a simple turning of our head changes the way we hear sound, yet we spend hours, days, weeks, often much longer discussing one supposed advantage over another in an effort to get where we are going, but if you don't know where you are going you will certainly never arrive. It's no wonder we can't hear the music. We are too busy listening to the gear.
 
I hope my previous post didn't give the impression that I'm dismissive of the knowledgeable and accomplished engineers who design our systems. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Without them we'd still be banging rocks together, after all. But it seems all too easy to fall into the trap of obsessing over those parameters of design that CAN be objectively measured and lose sight of the principal ambition which is to make something that sounds "good." The problem is, of course, that "good" is principally a SUBjective assessment and on this we're apt to have a wide range of opinions. That's why there's such a dizzying array of products out there, something for every budget and (presumably) every taste.

The field of psychoacoustics probably has some relevance here. Not sure if engineers take any of this into account, but it could be some real cutting-edge stuff if so.

http://thepowerofsound.net/psychoacoustics-defined/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top