Cable Myths Continued

[mungkiman]

Isn't that the "problem" with perception?

[oldtimer]

Mark, you are using your ear/brain as an instrument to measure. It's just that what you are measuring is that quality, as opposed to a quantity. Mungkiman, the problem isn't the perception it's the communication of the perception. A strict agreed upon set of terms by all participants is required for it to be very effective. Not only that, it would be even more effective if it were accompanied by demonstrations, which of course is only possible if the participants are in the same room preferably at the same time. These are the inherent problems that I see, but it does not eclipse the validity of using perception itself.

[mungkiman]

Mark, you are using your ear/brain as an instrument to measure. It's just that what you are measuring is that quality, as opposed to a quantity. Mungkiman, the problem isn't the perception it's the communication of the perception. A strict agreed upon set of terms by all participants is required for it to be very effective. Not only that, it would be even more effective if it were accompanied by demonstrations, which of course is only possible if the participants are in the same room preferably at the same time. These are the inherent problems that I see, but it does not eclipse the validity of using perception itself.

Thanks for a better explanation. My quotations around the word problem was a poor attempt.

[oldtimer]

Mark, do you expect to get liveness from a studio recording when the musicians themselves were not playing together in the first place?

One reason that could be hard to capture is how the recording was engineered and mixed in the first place. It is magical when it happens though.

[Deang]

I noticed that MANY on the forum now are very resentful of subjective analysis. Their ugly posts are everywhere, making snarky remarks that anyone believing in subjective differences are snake oil and all the rest. It's so obvious it is painful.

It's bleeding over off the forum too.

In a response to another vendor's pilfering of the Universal, Al decided to offer a bare bones Universal built with the cheapest parts available, which actually put him squarely in competition with me, the guy building the "real" version. Now that people are finding out they can buy the crossover for half the price I'm selling it for, they want to know what the difference is, which leaves me fielding emails and phone calls from people who no longer want to know what crossover to buy -- but want to talk about the difference between the Universals (hey, all of these parts sound the same, right).

Because of this, I have decided to drop the Universal, and will no longer be building it. If you want a pair, you can buy the junk yard version from Al.

Al once told me, "competition drives down quality". Well, not in my shop.

Edited February 11, 2014 by DeanG

[DrWho]

What exactly are the conclusions of ABX and DBT testing being referred to here?

He is saying that believers in ABX would have no need for much of the gear they are touting in their systems. IN ABX testing, you quickly get to a cheap receiver instead of a $5000 McIntosh or BAT amplifier. He's challenging the hypocrisy of criticizing people for choosing a $300 wire, but owning a $10,000 stack of electronics, if you supposedly believe in ABX testing. You can't beat others over the head for the same excesses you commit.

I understand the reasoning behind the original statement, but I disagree with the conclusions on two points:

Btw, I thought we weren't going to make the comparisons based on price of the equipment?

But price is often the resentful argument of the ABX crowd. Just read their posts about snake oil. It almost always includes references to "high prices." This is part of the hypocrisy. And we were talking about Dean's post, which is about hypocrisy.

I would argue the hypocrisy goes both ways....

You have guys like ______ that delude themselves into thinking they hear a difference because of _____ . Feel free to fill in the blanks. I won't call out specific people or scenarios because there is a pride component that would dilute the point I'm trying to make.

Let me sum it up like this....the hardcore subjectivists for some reason have this burning desire to be known as ones that can hear the difference. There is this sense of pride that even creates emotions of fear under certain circumstances. I know I've gotten nervous about listening tests at work and wondering how I stack up against those with proven hearing abilities. I would love to have my artistic impression influence the products we design at work.

Btw, I'm not saying all subjectivists delude themselves either. I'm only pointing out that there are motivations / emotions that can bring that about.

So what, really? So guys are proud. I don't get the resentment, Mike?

You don't think these objectivists measuring their gears aren't proud? I think you are getting way off track into a kind of unnecessary personal arena. If you don't like people who are subjective about audio, don't engage them. Right?

I noticed that MANY on the forum now are very resentful of subjective analysis. Their ugly posts are everywhere, making snarky remarks that anyone believing in subjective differences are snake oil and all the rest. It's so obvious it is painful.

I would suggest that if you want to have a subjective discussion, you put the resentment behind and just have the discussion.

I think you might be putting words in my mouth, or maybe missed my point. There is absolutely no resentment on my side.

What I'm sharing is an observation that people (from both sides) are not consistent in their assessments. The value of consistent assessment is addressed below. But first I want to start with an experience I've had on several occasions:

I've been to a few audiophile gatherings now where two pieces of equipment were being compared from a purely subjective perspective. "Screw the numbers, let's just hear how they sound and describe what we're hearing". One thing I've always found interesting is the need to know what is being listened to before making a comment - everyone does it, it's hilarious sitting back and watching as a bystander. But more interesting is what happens when the equipment is unknowingly flipped. So you have two pieces of gear, X and Y. When everyone knows what they're hearing, they always describe X with X language and Y with Y language. However, there have been times when I've swapped things on people just to see how consistent the comments are. Usually, the X language always follows what people think is X....so when it is flipped, X language is being used to describe Y equipment without their knowledge. However, there are occasions where X language always follows X equipment: regardless of what they think is X and Y ahead of time. This would be another example of what I would call a major/minor correlation. What's more interesting is to then add the complexity of not being told which is which - and then suddenly the comments get way less descriptive.

What is the source of this disparity? How can Y be described with both X and Y language? The subjective viewpoint is that the non-audible factors (knowing what is being listened to) is affecting the reference frame of the listener who thinks he/she is describing audible qualities. Surely I'm not the only one that has observed this phenomenon? Both in myself and in others. We could certainly argue about the ramifications of the deceit behind such an experiment, but my point is that the purely subjective approach can be misleading. In fact, is it not an objective measure to identify which piece of gear is being listened to? The purely subjective viewpoint must conclude from this example that you can listen to equipment Y or X and have the same experience as long as you think it is always X. That's not a very enlightened assessment in my opinion.

Btw, the same thing happens to your strawman objectivist. They use numbers to describe sounds and then argue that it must sound the same if the number is the same: like your low THD amplifiers with slew rate distortion.

At the end of the day, we have finite resources and we construct methods for selecting the gear that end up in our systems. Whether it be purely a subjective endeavor, or entirely objective, my experience has been that people's methods are not accurate - and this is proven by the fact that people buy gear that they end up not liking - for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. The point is that the recipe is broken - randomly getting to a good result is not a path of enlightenment, nor a means of sharing wisdom.

I think one of the glues to a strong community is the fact that we all share in a common goal - and although one's listening tastes may vary wildly from my own, it's not hard to share wisdom to help that individual achieve what they're looking for.

[kaiser SET say]

So, if a subject is asked, "How does this perfume smell to you?" He offers a subjective response, like - - "Old, flowery, and filled with love and affection." And the objectivist jumps off the chair and says, "I know every ingredient in that perfume! There is no such ingredient as "affection" and this man is a fraud!"

Tortured example. Most folks, including myself, respond "That smell reminds me of..."

If confronted with your suggested response, a REAL objectivist would say "...this man is a fraud" but would want to find how just why he responded as he did.

Yeah, I know, I am obfuscating, blah, blah. Not really, just pointing out that you often construct very unlikely scenarios that fit your needs but don't reflect reality.

Some pages back...quite a few now...we reached, for a moment, a consensus that the world wasn't made up of objectivists and subjectivists, but of a wide variety of folks who tended one way or the other, maybe one side on one piece of equipment and the other on another.

Personally, I do not know of a single person I would classify as 100% one or the other.

Dave

Tortured example. Most folks, including myself, respond "That smell reminds me of..."

Fill it in. If you are trying to make a counter example and don't like mine, you have to fill it in. Reminds you of what?:

I like this one Dave Although when it comes to music it's "That song reminds me when" I usually don't sit and listen to music and hear a sound or particular note and go "That sound reminds of/when"! Same applies to visual recollection for me too Music is my favorite hobby because it transports me to other places in time, brings back good and even sometimes bad feelings but without being able to go back to any of them we would miss so much as for me sometimes it takes those reoccurrences to really get what I should have got the first time around

Edited February 11, 2014 by kaiser SET say

[Deang]

Mike, but that's not what happened when we did the tweeter test at Colter's -- you tried that trick and we still knew what tweeter we liked better.

Edited February 11, 2014 by DeanG

[Deang]

How did you disable PMs?

[jacksonbart]

I noticed that MANY on the forum now are very resentful of subjective analysis. Their ugly posts are everywhere, making snarky remarks that anyone believing in subjective differences are snake oil and all the rest. It's so obvious it is painful.

It's bleeding over off the forum too.

In a response to another vendor's pilfering of the Universal, Al decided to offer a bare bones Universal built with the cheapest parts available, which actually put him squarely in competition with me, the guy building the "real" version. Now that people are finding out they can buy the crossover for half the price I'm selling it for, they want to know what the difference is, which leaves me fielding emails and phone calls from people who no longer want to know what crossover to buy -- but want to talk about the difference between the Universals (hey, all of these parts sound the same, right).

Because of this, I have decided to drop the Universal, and will no longer be building it. If you want a pair, you can buy the junk yard version from Al.

Al once told me, "competition drives down quality". Well, not in my shop.

Its why the marketing department was invented, to inform the consumer as to what you can sell them.

[DrWho]

Mike, but that's not what happened when we did the tweeter test at Colter's -- you tried that trick and we still knew what tweeter we liked better.

You'd be deaf not to hear a difference between those tweeters.

[Deang]

lmao.

[Thaddeus Smith]

on the left..

[seti]

m

Edited February 12, 2014 by seti

[DrWho]

Because there's no reference language available. This is true in all criticism of all art forms. Try literary criticism is you want to see a tangle of language. Read what five different critics say of Jackson Pollack, or Tchaikovsky. I don't want to sound strained, but maybe you are missing the whole purpose of subjective criticism? There won't be a consensus, is the first thing to appreciate. It's not possible. But look, the lack of conformity or consensus doesn't prevent me from reading the next literary art, or seeing the next photographic art. It's a pool you can jump in, or not.

The lack of consensus wasn't supposed to be the emphasis of that analogy.....

My emphasis was the lack of consistency with the same person. And my main point is that the inconsistency never exists when there is a minimum level of difference between the two pieces of gear.

EDIT: Comparing the original Mona Lisa to a copy would require a very discerning eye and lots of examination / experience to know the difference. However, I wouldn't describe the eloquence of the Mona Lisa's mustache when choosing between the Mona Lisa copy and another photo of some dude with an awesome stache... If you read a review of that absurdity when comparing two different paintings, would you really say that is up to the subjective analysis of the observer? Do you not see any merit in pointing out that the Mona Lisa doesn't have a mustache? Would you trust that person to differentiate between the copy and the original?

Edited February 12, 2014 by DrWho

[mungkiman]

Paragon? Likey!

[DrWho]

My emphasis was the lack of consistency with the same person. And my main point is that the inconsistency never exists when there is a minimum level of difference between the two pieces of gear.

Can we back up? Sometimes analogies focus too much attention on the analogy. Let me try this, please.

You and I go to a HiFi store cuz I am in the market for a new amp. We listen to a few (no measurements) and I say, "Mike I like the Paragon because it has more air, and more depth than the others. And, it doesn't sound as dry. I think I will buy the Paragon."

Now, tell me what you don't like about that. Or, what you disagree with. Or what mistake you think I am making etc.

Nothing wrong with that....

But let's say earlier in the same visit we listened to another amplifier which you described as unpleasant. Then due to a mishap, what we later thought was the paragon was actually the same unpleasant amplifier again. Except this time, you described it as a pleasant sound because you thought it was the paragon. You listened to the same amplifier twice and had a different subjective analysis due to a non-auditory stimulus.

[Cal Blacksmith]

It has been a long time since I was a "regular" on the boards, the wire debate raged then and I see it is still going strong now.

I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would care about how someone else spends their money?

I fall in the realest camp I guess, I have no problem with going along with the electrical point of view that everything can have an affect on the circuit and I have no problem with the point of view that says that there are so many things that affect the end product that the very small part that the wires play esp speaker wires, the low voltage interconnects I agree a little more with, just do not have a huge part when you take room treatments, placements of speakes, even source material into account.

Hey, if you have the money and can hear the difference, even if it is only in the grey matter, go ahead and spend the money.

I for one have a lot of places that need attention before I even start to think of multi $K speaker wire,..... if ever.

It is the weekend, enjoy guys

Hi Cal,

Welcome to the discussion. Are you an audiophile? Do you actively try different amps, speakers and sources and things to chase down an ideal sound? What criteria do you use when you select your gear?

Mark

You know me. We met in person several years back when you were selling JM amps at a L.A. audio show and you had to borrow speakers to complete the setup in the room you had. I was the one who showed up with an orchestral version of "I left my heart in San Francisco" and you made the comment that there were not a lot of people who enjoyed the same music as you. We sat and listened to a few cuts from the LP, we chatted a little about the equipment, you gave me a hat and we parted ways.

I have traded equipment back and fourth, I found what filled my need for equipment and I stayed with it. Currently it is a VTL Ultamate preamp, Sonic Frontiers 2 6550 push/pull amp and Cornwall 2s. They are fed by ultra flex, ultra fine strand O2 free copper calbe. I honestly did not hear the difference between this cable and the 14 gauge "zip cord" that it replaced but as it was paid for and run, I saw no reason to change it. I have about 10 feet of cable to each speaker. The CW2s have the updated Crites Ti tweater and one day I am going to update the Xovers.

Perhaps to some I may not be an audio fool but I did do a lot of looking and found what scratched my itch and stayed with it. I feel I have some nice gear. No it is not the MOST expensive nor is it now considered "current bleeding edge" but at what point do you continue to throw money at any hobby when you find what makes you happy, I listen for me and my pleasure. I am not an electrical engineer but I do understand a little and thus my comment about how on paper everything affects everything but when do you reach the point of diminishing returns? For me, I am at that point but I have no issue with anyone who is searching for more, that simply means they have not found what makes them happy in my book, your book may be different!

Edited February 13, 2014 by Cal Blacksmith

[DrWho]

If that happens a lot to someone they are careless or incompetent regarding the listening. it should not happen often.

So to what extent should I believe this person's comments about similar levels of difference between gear? I think you might be surprised just how often this happens - maybe not to this extreme of an example, but in other smaller ways. In other words, I think there is more going on than merely a shift in listening tastes over time (not to say that doesn't happen).

We call it expectation bias at work, and even with objective numbers it's very difficult to avoid sometimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_bias

The experimenter may introduce cognitive bias into a study in several ways. In what is called the observer-expectancy effect, the experimenter may subtly communicate their expectations for the outcome of the study to the participants, causing them to alter their behavior to conform to those expectations.

I would recommend reading the entire section labeled "Observer-expectancy effect" - that story about the horse doing arithmetic is incredibly fascinating.

When I label myself as objective, it's because I try to avoid effects like this. Confirmation bias would be another one that's hard to avoid - even in the purely objective world.

While looking up to make sure I was getting my terms correct, I came across this very interesting list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Briefly scanning through, I'm noticing several more biases that could dramatically affect both objective and subjective observation.

Btw, sorry for using wikipedia - normally I'd prefer to dig down to the referenced sources, but I'm already spending more time on this than I wanted...

[DrWho]

I get the argument that bias is part of the experience, but that doesn't mean it is always a "good thing", or that it is beneficial to the audio community as a whole. The fundamental audiophile is supposed to be enjoying the auditory experience (at least that's the boring strict definition that I understand). To the extent that non-auditory factors affect perception, they are distracting from the goal of the pure audiophile.

It's certainly the reality that nobody is purely an audiophile, but I would argue that it is the auditory factors in this hobby that are the common areas of interest, and what ultimately holds the community together. There is a lot of enjoyment when people experience the same things and can share in that listening. And as we can see, there is discord when people don't experience the same thing.

To that extent, I think there is benefit in striving to understand the auditory phenomena because it is something that should be universally experienced - whether it be a positive or negative experience is totally irrelevant. The discussion is far more interesting when two people hear the same thing and one prefers the sound, while the other dislikes it. It's a completely different level when someone claims to hear something that doesn't exist as a purely auditory event (like the analogy I provided to show expectation bias). I don't see how it hinders the subjectivist or objectivist to be aware of their own and other's biases. If anything, I think it would be empowering to put things into perspective.

I think to put it another way.....there are some striving towards the fake image of "audiophile" as one who has a very discrete acumen for the different flavors available. That's just outright annoying and ruins the "audiophile image" and therefore affects the identity of those that are truly audiophiles. Then you have the honest subjectivists (like yourself) that aren't chasing a fake image, but unfairly get lumped into the same category.

With the descriptions of "subjectivist" and "objectivist" getting used in this thread, I think I fundamentally don't fit into either. I'd much rather identify myself as a critically minded audiophile - interested in nothing but the auditory experience, which takes a conscious effort to not be distracted by non-auditory factors.