source, sound , speakers - which triumphs ?

[Ant8519]

The idea of trying to remove the unreliability of the human mind - and it's inconvenient habit of liking things that white-coats tell us are wrong - is rubbish.

By the same logic therefore the individual perception is all important.

Therefore the man that argues his mp3 player hooked up to his mini system sounds "better" than whatever high end product you happen to prefer, is right. It is "better" by his subjective measurement.

Which is one fairly obvious reason why subjective opinion is of very limited worth.

Regarding your critique of Fahnsen's post:

Sounds like you need a lab rat rather than someone who loves listening to music.

Fahnsen's post reads clearly and eloquently and is possibly the best I have read here on the subject of how to properly seperate "truth" from opinion and highlights the reality that "memory" of sound is a transient and illusory experience. Note that he doesn't insult or belittle.

I find it ironic that people that have a hobby entirely reliant on science are so quick to reject scientific methodology whenever and wherever it might contradict or disprove their own prejudice.

 

[chebby]

Ant8519:.....people that have a hobby entirely reliant on science.....

Surely at least as reliant on musicians too?

 

[chebby]

Ant8519:Note that he doesn't insult or belittle.

I beg your pardon?

Telling everyone - who choose and enjoy their hifi subjectively - that they are delusional and that they are just nursing their prejudices is more than a little insulting.

 

[Ant8519]

Surely at least as reliant on musicians too?

Yeah but you'll struggle to get them to play in your living room.

Telling everyone - who choose and enjoy their hifi subjectively - that they are delusional and that they are just nursing their prejudices is more than a little insulting.

I would respectfully suggest you re-read his post. When he says "So if we don't hear the different sound samples within seconds, we don't actually compare sound, but subjective memories." he explains that the process of memory of sound interferes with the process of hearing sound, this can be described as a "delusion" and can be removed be blind testing. He does not dispute that you may "hear a difference" when you buy a new cable or amp or whatever, but he tries to open your mind to the possibility that this difference occurs more in your mind than in your ear.

I am sure this is not meant as an insult, that you infer insult from it is an entirely different issue. I do not believe it is an insult to suggest someone is wrong and provide evidence to support that, I believe that is called debate.

Maybe you could be a little easier on him and try and enjoy the spirit of debate a bit more? (also I suspect that Fahnsen's mother tongue may not be English, so dissecting his posts and reading insults into them may be a bit unfair - although if English is his mother tongue, then I apologise to him unreservedy!)

Incidentally, I would like to hear your response to my suggestion that an ipod is better than a high end hifi, if the person hearing it says so. Do you feel on that is a fair description of subjectivity in hifi?

Cheers, Ant

 

[chebby]

Ant8519:Incidentally, I would like to hear your response to my suggestion that an ipod is better than a high end hifi, if the person hearing it says so. Do you feel on that is a fair description of subjectivity in hifi?

Try it for yourself subjectively (listening to both). It's what YOU hear that matters not me or Fahnsen or the white-coats or the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

There are 'high end' hifis that also cater for iPod users (Krell for instance) so the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow - I've been away from this site for about 6 months. good to see the old debate still as heated as ever.

As far as I can see this is a case of one mans meat........ etc.

There can be little question that different source - amp - speakers combos sound different. The differences can be magnified by choice of interconnects. These things can be shown by scientific measurement.

To me the real question is what you are after from your HiFi?

Is it a sound that you personally like for the type of music you chose to listen to or is it the most faithful reproduction of the source material that you can possibly get? (Or is it somewhere in between?)

It is this, is suspect, that drives us to buy different bits of kit. Plus perhaps the ability of some ears to hear more than others if you see what I mean.

Is there an amount of the Kings new clothes involved in our thinking (yes of course there is!!! Silly to think there would not be. Much the same with wine, cars, proper watches etc.)

Oh yes to answer the Op's question Speakers first by a long way then source then amp. Happy to explain that conclusion if anybody asks

 

[Ant8519]

Chebby - that is what I am getting at. If it is a fact that subjective opinion is the overriding factor (and it would be for me when I am parting with my money) then so be it - but this position must accept that is is unscientific and unreliable. Essentially hot air.

Now I ask questions on here hoping for a cross section of answers, which can help to further knowledge, but that involves filtering out the pseudo-scientific nonsense that goes with it. Therefore if someone can describe a type of sound a particular piece of equipment makes and compare it with others for reference, then that can be useful, but when that degenerates into "that amp is rubbish, I should know I've listened to x,y and z" then it is utterly pointless. It is the snobbish notion of "better" that is utterly abused in this forum and to a degree in the magazine.

Despite my (deliberately) sober tone I find it highly amusing how entrenched people are when it comes to justifying their position, when anyone with only a small appreciation of science can see how easy it would be to debunk the various myths around hifi.

 

[the record spot]

idc:
the record spot:........- a Bush MTT1 at £50 is not going to do the honours with my current set-up as well as Rega's P3 is going to.......

Do you know that for sure? That Bush may have a real synergy with the rest of your kit.

Yeah, I think I'm pretty certain with that one.

 

[chebby]

My take on this 'scientific measurement vs personal enjoyment' argument is that some people have trouble with a concept called 'willing suspension of disbelief'. We need this facility to enjoy drama and fiction and art and movies, and we also need it to enjoy reproduced music in our home.

Getting a little 'Heidegger' like for a moment - it is about whether the Bowie-ness of your Bowie CD (or the Abba-ness of Abba, pick your own poison) played on your hifi is convincing enough, to you, there in the moment, to allow you to lose yourself in the music and forget the equipment for long enough for that 'willing suspension of disbelief' to kick-in.

This suspension of disbelief is itself a form of 'delusion' but it is a necessary one to enjoy many forms of art and music and literature. (And hifi.) Our friends don't start looking behind the curtains and in adjoining rooms in order to discover where the musicians are hiding when we play a CD.

Yes, much science and technology has been employed in the last century to refine this 'party trick' of high fidelity musical reproduction, but it does not mean a scientist or a scientific test is required to choose the equipment we like. I would rather leave them back in the lab perfecting the minutiae of the technology rather than telling me what to enjoy and how to enjoy it.

And I don't want some propellor-head telling me the 'delusion' is wrong-headed just as I would protest if someone described the 'willing suspension of disbelief' as wrong-headed because it allows us to enjoy 'lies' in the form of highly subjective fictional worlds created by novels, music and art and poetry etc.

 

[the record spot]

Yes indeed and a certain CEO who used to poo-pooh such opinions - and now no longer does - was famous, still is in fact, for denouncing audiophiles, yet is happy to use the term when it suits him on his company's website.

 

[jaxwired]

Ant8519: I find it highly amusing how entrenched people are when it comes to justifying their position, when anyone with only a small appreciation of science can see how easy it would be to debunk the various myths around hifi.

Your problem is that you are a blind and religious believer in science. Your smug attitude seems to indicate that you are unware of how many times science has reversed major main stream accepted "proven" positions? Hundreds of huge reversals and tens of thousands of smaller reversals. And big stuff too. Science is wrong a lot. As a person gains life experience and wisdom, you begin to be suspicious of what the scientific community espouses especially when it is counter to your own real life experience and common sense.

I'm not saying you can't believe science. I'm an engineer myself. Most of the time science is right, but sometimes there is more to the truth than science has uncovered. When science contradicts my own senses, experience, and common sense, I'm skeptical.

To think that science fully understands how the brain processes music and that we can fully debunk most high end audio with simple A/B/X testing is highly naive and that's what I find amusing.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't knock all the science and you need to accept that there is a lot of hype surrounding high end audio.

When learned bodies publish evidence that most people could not tell the difference between CD and SACD recordings in double blind testing you have to take notice of these facts. I would suggest that the listening public have taken notice of these facts as SACD does not seem to have taken over from standard CD as the medium of choice if you want your music on a disc. You could say the same about DVD audio but there have been no tests to see if it "sounds" different to CD so far so I'll leave that alone.

Jaxwired can you explain a bit more why double blind testing is naive when it comes to high end audio? If there is no scientific measurement that can be used as the apprciation is subjective then why would double blind testing using real people not reveal the subtle differences that high end audio brings to the listening experience?

 

[matthewpiano]

I agree with Chebby.

Stereo itself creates an illusion. The idea behind it is to create some sort of soundstage which represents the positions of musicians that aren't actually present in the room. At this very basic level then, the 'willing suspension of disbelief' is a major part of the whole hi-fi thing.

I personally am coming to the conclusion that this whole hi-fi thing gets a bit too over-involved to the point where it can destroy enjoyment of the music. A system that focuses purely on presenting an enjoyable reproduction of the music, and covers its omissions/failings convincingly, seems to be the best approach for me. I am coming to believe that the further you go beyond that, the better SOME aspects of reproduction get and the more any failings start to stand out and get in the way of musical enjoyment. The magic of a real hi-end system (£3k upwards) that is doing its job properly is that it can get everything pretty much right, leaving you to enjoy the music but at a terrific financial cost.

The most important thing is the music. Hi-fi can help to enhance enjoyment of the music, but it can also get horribly in the way and start becoming the main focus. I just want to hear the 'Abba-ness' in my Abba, the 'Queen-ness' in my Queen, the 'Beethoven-ness' in my Beethoven and so-on. The rest has very little to do with music.

 

[jaxwired]

aldfort:Jaxwired can you explain a bit more why double blind testing is naive when it comes to high end audio? If there is no scientific measurement that can be used as the apprciation is subjective then why would double blind testing using real people not reveal the subtle differences that high end audio brings to the listening experience?

aldfort, good question. If I knew the answer, I could sell it to every major audio manufacturer. I don't know why A/B/X blind testing is flawed, but I do think it is flawed. When "scientists" started doing blind testing, the audiophile community welcomed it because they were so sure they would finally be vindicated. They were shocked to find that the results usually were the opposite. That's how sure people are that amps sound different (as 1 example).

What I do know is that science is wrong some times. We don't know what we don't know. There have been many times in our scientific history that new understanding of a related topic or even previously unrelated topic caused a complete reversal or partial reversal to formerly rock solid positions.

There is almost universal agreement among people that own, sell, and review audio equipment that amplifiers sound different. Yet blind testing shows they all sound the same. Somethings is wrong here.

 

[Ant8519]

To Jaxwired

Your problem is that you are a blind and religious believer in science.

Quite how you can assert that based on a couple of posts on a forum is beyond me. I do not believe my attitude is smug, but we can disagree on that. The "reversals" you refer to are exactly the byproduct of the scientific process, I would have thought an engineer could understand that?

When science contradicts my own senses, experience and "common sense" then assuming the science is rigorous I would question my beliefs, as human fallibilty and the limit of knowledge surrounding perception is vast.

To think that science fully understands how the brain processes music and that we can fully debunk most high end audio with simple A/B/X testing is highly naive and that's what I find amusing

? At no point have I asserted that science understands how the brain processes music. But we have a very good understanding of how the ear processes sound. Nor do I state that high end audio can be debunked by A/B/X testing, which if you had read my post you would know. To be honest I can't really understand what you mean by that. But proper rigorous A/B/X testing can certainly demonstrate whether various claims about hifi performance can be validated to a standard that demonstrates them beyond reasonable doubt and beyond individual subjective interpretation.

That is to say a proper A/B/X test could demonstrate that the chap who assert his ipod and ghetto blaster is "better" than certain high end systems is just as "wrong" as the fairy dust afficionados at the other extreme. Inbetween the extremes, in the real world, we can all trust our subjective ears and enjoy our music...

 

[idc]

Surely for science to 'de-bunk hifi myths' it needs to show an empirical connection between noise and pleasure? The noise produced by that hifi with those cables produces more pleasure than another hifi. Sounds ridiculous doesnt it? It is equivalent to measuring paintings, perfume, the taste of asparagus when cooked by different chefs. For all of those activities we use our sences, not science.

If those involved in hifi have got it all wrong, then so have the people involved in food criticism such as the Michellin Guides and art reviewers such as Matthew Collins. They have no scientific backgounds either.

 

[matthewpiano]

There is no absolute, so 'better' is purely subjective and personal. Trying to measure 'better' in relation to reproduction of music is nonsense. For one man who rates Cyrus as 'better' there is always another who prefers a warmer set-up like JoelSim's Unison Research/AA/Kudos system. Neither are wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:

Surely for science to 'de-bunk hifi myths' it needs to show an empirical connection between noise and pleasure? The noise produced by that hifi with those cables produces more pleasure than another hifi. Sounds ridiculous doesnt it? It is equivalent to measuring paintings, perfume, the taste of asparagus when cooked by different chefs. For all of those activities we use our sences, not science.

If those involved in hifi have got it all wrong, then so have the people involved in food criticism such as the Michellin Guides and art reviewers such as Matthew Collins. They have no scientific backgounds either.

So why bother to listen to what a reviewer says? Their opinion will be subjective and based on what they like. That's fine but it might not be what you like. Your perfune example is a perfect illustration of the point. Most perfume smells pleasant to most people beyond that you are buying into an image, a dream if you like something intangible which actually has nothing at all to do with the product.

 

[Anonymous]

think it all boils down to the fact that most of us want big sound on small budgets ... lets face facts ... a new system costing 100K sounds better than a new system costing 1k

 

[Ant8519]

It is always gratifying to see posts that ask questions and don't resort to insult. Good effort.

A previous post had it nailed already. Is hifi about faithful reproduction or personal preference for one form of distortion over another. If the former then it needs to be measured by science, if the latter then all is well, except that the pseudo-scientific ramblings of high end manufacturers and salesmen need to be exposed for the PERFUME ADVERT (good analogy that one!) that they are

 

[Craig M.]

this thread has gone way off topic, i usually enjoy reading a discussion between the objectionists and subjectivists, and this one has been no different. neither side will convince the other that they are right though. i personally don't have a problem with the notion i wouldn't be able to tell certain components apart blind. it may well be that my prejudices convince me that certain things sound better or worse. what i will say though is i find it sad that some find it difficult to accept that testing could be capable of showing all the differences there are or aren't between kit, which means their own preconceived ideas are responsible, equally i think the objectionists should accept that maybe the tests can't show all the differences. whatever, it's not worth getting bent out of shape over.

back to the o.p. i think it's speakers - room - amps - cdplayers.

 

[idc]

aldfort:idc:

Surely for science to 'de-bunk hifi myths' it needs to show an empirical connection between noise and pleasure? The noise produced by that hifi with those cables produces more pleasure than another hifi. Sounds ridiculous doesnt it? It is equivalent to measuring paintings, perfume, the taste of asparagus when cooked by different chefs. For all of those activities we use our sences, not science.

If those involved in hifi have got it all wrong, then so have the people involved in food criticism such as the Michellin Guides and art reviewers such as Matthew Collins. They have no scientific backgounds either.

So why bother to listen to what a reviewer says? Their opinion will be subjective and based on what they like. That's fine but it might not be what you like. Your perfune example is a perfect illustration of the point. Most perfume smells pleasant to most people beyond that you are buying into an image, a dream if you like something intangible which actually has nothing at all to do with the product.

The main point is in bold and science cannot tell us which one is better, only our senses can. Reviewers can also help, even if it is also their subjective opinion. You become an expert wine taster or theatre critic by becoming very knowledgeable about wine and the theatre. That knowledge is important becuase when faced with a very wide choice of wine or plays, it helps to be able to narrow the field down by reading reviews to see which wine or play appears to be the best. I tend to read mutiple reviews when making such decisions. I am also quite happy, based on my own experiences to ignore reviews.

I see hifi as the same. Sure science goes into making hifi, in the same way science is needed to make wine. But I do not see how science can then measure either to determine which is best. Science can say that wine is acidic or that hifi has 50 watts. That can give you an idea as to whether you would like it or not. But only to a small extent.

 

[Anonymous]

Highly amusing read...

Particularly when chebby goes off about 'white coats' and 'lab rats' - no offence chebby - but highlights so well the common misconception of what science actually is and represents.

So what is science? Call it a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and the organised body of knowledge gained through such research. So then what is the scientific method? It's a means of inquiry based on the gathering of empirical, measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation hypotheses (an attempt to explain the phenomena). Then the design of experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results, and it must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.

The scientific method applies to all areas of science - from medicine and pharmacology to space engineering and computer science to anthropology and economics, sociology and cognitive sciences. It's the reason we can build airplanes that don't crash (very often), construct buildings and bridges that don't collapse, invent drugs and cure decease, fly to the moon and send satellites to Mars. Oh, and whether you like it or not, build HiFi systems...

Comments like 'science can't explain the subtleties in HiFi' and 'I rather trust my own ears than science' are of course complete nonsense. There is no inherent contradiction. But what I find interesting is that HiFi and 'systems tweaking' - which, let's admit it, forms the basis of most posts on this forum and also the core of the WHF - should lend itself perfectly to the scientific method and rational reasoning. However there is fierce resistance from the community, again exemplified several times in this thread, and the publications similarly like to make claims but offer little in terms of backing them up... Blind testing, for example, would seem like a reasonable starting point to asses whether power cable A really sounds different to power cable B. There are challenges of course, but what are the better alternatives?

Wikipedia will tell you that pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology or lacks supporting evidence or plausibility. There can be over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience.

It goes on to say that

Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

and gives the example

Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water as dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

Take your pick...

 

[Ant8519]

Excellent post mate, but I fear it will look a little like this to the flat earthers...

blah blah blah science

blah blah blah rubbish

blah blah blah science

blah blah blah rubbish

which of course leads to the inexorable conclusion that science = rubbish

 

[JoelSim]

Fahnsen:
That's not my experience.

You'll always hear the difference between two speakers. Only if the speakers are demanding (or, as some famous audio engineer put it: Badly constructed), you'll hear much difference between two amps. Unless those amps distort the sound, that is, But then many amps do of course.

As for sources, it depends.

There's a recent test showing that 'audiophiles', not knowing what they actually hear, are unable to distinguish between an original CD track and a copy that's recorded from a cheap CDP, through 5 metres of cheap, thin wire, to a cheap PC soundcard...

Why do you bother with hifi if it's all snake oil?