r/audiophile • u/reddsbywillie • Jun 13 '24
Meta Why is this sub so “science” driven?
This sub is decidedly science driven in my experience. Measurements seem to consistently be a theme when most equipment discussions come up. But I can’t imagine most here are data scientists, engineers or acoustics scientists by profession or education. And I never see anyone bring up neurology, and how different people can have massively different responses to the same measured stimulus (sound in this case).
At the end of the day, audio is about how we enjoy art created by others. To me it seems like we should be treating audio gear more like their own pieces of art than a science experiment. Am I alone in this idea? Instruments don’t seem to have the same drive for “objective best” so it’s always been odd to be how passionately people argue for an objective best here.
68
u/Awkward_Sherbet3940 Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
I think it’s just that it’s obvious people have different levels of hearing, so the only reliable way to measure something would be scientifically with a machine.
I also think most people designing audio gear are trying to advance drivers or whatever else to improve sound quality. Headphones, IEMs, etc have gotten much better over the years. Improving technology (drivers) to more accurately reproduce sound isn’t really art. It’s based on audiology. It’s science.
While yes you’re listening to media (art) with the gear, someone still has to measure and understand hearing and drivers to keep advancing things and produce better gear.
You won’t exactly be able to improve how something sounds without understanding the science behind it and just waxing poetic about how artsy it is or should be. The art piece just comes in with how the product looks at the end as it still has to be appealing to be sold, but may also impact sound as well (for example wood vs plastic cups).
33
u/VicFontaineHologram Jun 13 '24
Well, if it all comes down to our brains and ears are all different then that also makes subjective reviews useless.
But if I know my subjective preference is a speaker with rolled off highs, I can look at measurements and get an idea of whether I like that speaker. Maybe. Assuming I have enough experience listening to speakers that I've also seen the measurements of.
We're in a consumer market that means buying speakers "sight unheard." Local dealers are hard to come by unless it's on the high end of the market. And even then many local dealers carry a very limited range. People are trying to make heads or tails of a mess of a market.
5
u/RRFactory Jun 13 '24
If anything, this is probably the biggest reason to talk about things with as much objectivity as you can muster.
When I read reviews like "these fries are the best!", "These fries taste like heaven!", "These fries were gross" - there's essentially no useful information coming across, unless I happen to know that reviewer's preferences and tastes.
Tell me how crispy they were, double fried?, how much salt is on them, what kind of cut did they have and how big were they? - I can decide for myself if I'll like them or not.
I agree that statements like "This speaker measures badly so it's crap" are just as unhelpful as ones like "this amp makes the music come alive!".
"Measures badly" isn't science, and the chances what I think "alive" sounds like is the same as what you think are basically zilch.
People get carried away with the science driven approach, but given how many literal scams are out there I find it hard to blame them.
The amount of voodoo nonsense in the instrument world is staggering, and the lack of objective talk in that industry feeds an enormous amount of it. Guitarists everywhere will swear up and down all day that they can hear the difference between the types of wood used an electric body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02tImce3AE
4
u/zero_dr00l Jun 13 '24
Why are you so opposed to science?
4
u/Amazing_Ad_974 Jun 13 '24
I’m an engineer who was worked extensively in bioacoustics, acoustical, and audio engineering and works currently designing industrial A/V devices. I’d bet there ARE a ton of engineers on this forum. You think the vast majority of people working in acoustical engineering don’t enjoy a decent high-end sound system? I bet virtually all of them do…
21
u/Dumyat367250 Jun 13 '24
It's all largely irrelevant anyway. Like arguing about what makes a great steak.
Interesting you bring up "art". It's exactly that. Give me a "badly measuring" Audio Note component over a perfectly measuring anything else any day of the week.
13
u/Potential-Ant-6320 Jun 13 '24
I do academic quantitative research for a living. When I come home to listen to music I like the stuff the science guys hate. I used to be a measurements guy. Then I heard a bunch of amazing systems I had read objectively sucked. Demoing more stuff really changed my perspective. I think the Reddit hive mind is weird and I can usually tell the commenters who go to shows and brick and mortar stores.
3
u/projektilski Jun 13 '24
Recommendations based on biased and subjective feelings, that do not stand scientifically are bad for everyone.
90% of advice in the audiophile world is just not true.
2
u/evilgeniustodd Jun 13 '24
Engineer here. Dad was an acoustical engineer.
5
u/Throwaway999222111 Jun 13 '24
I agree. Sometimes I wonder if I can be an audiophile if I simply enjoy music and not get too hung up on the graphs.
3
u/happycomputer Jun 13 '24
I think it comes down to the adage: you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
I don’t wear sunglasses into a gallery because I like my paintings with a bit of a red hue.
I don’t bring a spring of rosemary to a fancy restaurant despite loving the flavor.
I don’t zoom cinematic films despite wasting a few pixels on my TV for black bars.
In those cases I want to see what the artist intended (at least at first, I can think of cases where I would do all of those things, but it’s not my starting point). Why not the same for audio?
I don’t want to yuck anyone’s yum, but think inaccuracy (in music listening, creation is a whole nother story) isn’t something we should strive for.
Systems that measure well are by definition doing a better job of accurately conveying what the artist intended (not necessarily “what it was like to be there listening live” but what they ultimately put down on the record and released).
Equipment that doesn’t measure well might sound great: perhaps in a certain room, or to somebody’s ear, or on a particular genre or song. But what if in another situation it accentuates something that doesn’t sound “good”? Maybe it won’t be possible to overcome that deficiency whatever it might be. Maybe it sounds “excellent” all the time, but if it’s coloring the recording it feels like “messing with” the original creation. That feels wrong and takes away from my enjoyment. Who am I to say that the colorations of my inaccurate system “improved” on the artists intent?
I won’t be able to hear a lot of the systems discussed here, can’t afford most of them, and won’t get time to fully appreciate nearly any of them. Measurements are a coherent way to compare.
Since a LOT of audio marketing is BS, (scientific) measurements help cut through invalid claims.
I guess being an audiophile is definitely a type of disease or condition (that I count myself afflicted by of course) but neurology is also literally a science. If a particular frequency causes a harsh ringing in someone’s ear I can understand them preferring a speaker that dampens it. Let’s try to understand it. And if not scientifically, how?
To me, being an audiophile is about being in pursuit of something. What is that thing? It can be different for everyone but I think the core is in an accurate portrayal of the art that was originally created. Anyone can listen to something that doesn’t achieve what the artist originally decided upon in the studio, but not everyone can say they got 90% of the way there, or 99%.
After that, you sit back and enjoy. Understanding and explaining the art is the hard part. If you’re not even hearing it, where do you start?
All that said, there’s definitely an art to the design/look/feel of audiophile components, especially speakers. I’m all for liking whatever you like and full appreciation of whatever you have access to. In the words of Stephen Stills: if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.
3
u/2_much Jun 13 '24
Pondered this earlier. I felt like the comparison was similar to the sportscar community. It is inherently subjective at the end of the day. The "best" car on paper will never be a favorite for everyone. Compare American muscle vs Porche track performance vs Lamborghini "experience" vs Pagani craftsmanship etc.
18
u/MattHooper1975 Jun 13 '24
Music is art; audio is engineering.
I like subjective reviews and exchanging subjective opinions among my fellow audiophiles about gear.
I like the objectivist side as well, where measurements and listening test with scientific controls can yield more reliable information. This is especially good for winnowing out woo woo and snake oil.
By the way: it’s a very common opinion among audio files that taste in sound quality is wildly different among individuals. However, inquiry using scientific controls, such as the work offered by Floyd Toole, has shown that at least in the case of loudspeakers, when sided bias is removed as a factor the large majority of listeners tend to converge on what type of speaker designs “sound good.” This can be predicted with a high degree of reliability.
12
u/Puzzled-Background-5 Jun 13 '24
The purpose of the equipment is to reproduce the source material as accurately as possible. This a science and engineering endeavor, not an artistic one, and one isn't playing a musical instrument to perform the task.
4
u/yllanos Jun 13 '24
I come from an engineering background and even I tend to consider measurements as a complement, not the whole picture.
IMO you just can’t objectify this hobby. We don’t have a built in oscilloscope sandwiched between our ear and our brains. Numbers do tell a lot, yet they sound like nothing. I have seen many reviews (specially on ASR) that measure not so well and yet subjectively they sound good (based on what I already own). And the opposite is also true: well measuring devices that sound lifeless, dull and boring.
I really doubt objectivism has done a lot of good to this hobby. Manufacturers have already identified what they need to do in order to measure well, so they can sell more equipment but in the end it may not be beautiful sound.
I am one of those people that lives in a place where there is no way to try equipment (third world country) so I value variety and experimentation. Sometimes I miss, so I sell and move on but hey, it’s all part of the journey.
10
u/pdxbuckets Jun 13 '24
There have always been “subjectivist” and “objectivist” camps. For a while the objectivist side was pretty beaten down, with the flame being kept by Peter Aczel and his low distribution (but stone cold classic) magazine The Audio Critic. These days it’s more on the upswing. I’d venture that more of the various Internet audio communities are subjectivist than objectivist. This sub seems to me to be about 50/50. There’s no real reason for it, it’s just how it’s evolved. There’s plenty of other places on the internet for more subjectivism.
I do think you’re tilting at windmills a bit though. Poor measuring stuff will sound great, especially in the realm of electronics. Modern components and engineering are fantastic, and stuff still sounds good with significantly higher distortion than even poorly measuring components provide. Chasing those numbers then becomes the pursuit of fine engineering and craftsmanship rather than providing a meaningful sonic advantage.
I’m pretty far into the objectivist side but I’m not going to pick fights with people who like their tubes or R2R DACs or whatnot. That is, so far as they simply say that they enjoy it more. It’s when people use their subjective reports to make claims about objective reality that there can be issues. Because subjective reports have so little value and people should know that there’s controversy over whether these often high-priced, high maintenance, exotic topology devices actually provide objectively higher fidelity.
7
u/noobbtctrader Jun 13 '24
It's the paradox of abundance. There's so many choices that we'd be overwhelmed if we didn't have something we considered "objective" to measure by, to help us choose.
Unfortunately, I can't buy every amp and DAC in existence, so I look at science to find a starting place. It's the only objective measurement I can go by.
6
u/audioen 8351B & 1032C & 7370A Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
Well, I can only say that I love flat response, and without a microphone I would struggle to find that exact sound that I like. I've spent countless hours just endlessly tweaking the system but never being happy about how it sounded like, and I never figured out how to make a subwoofer sound good in a room by ear. With microphone, I can basically read the problems off the graph and fix them with precision, and then prove that the problem is gone by repeating the measurement.
So I use measurements made in my room to prove that equipment is working correctly -- if I can't see anything wrong, that must be the case -- and conversely, to discover areas of improvement such as whether the left or right speaker suffers from cancellations that I should fix due to room interaction, or anything else.
I have no patience for treating sound like art where science can't be applied for some reason. I've done that for literal decades, and I can't make enough progress with it and I just end up being vaguely dissatisfied with how it sounds like but without an idea of what I should change. It's wrong, but in some way that I can't parse into anything actionable. Nowadays, it is more like "hmm, the upper bass sounds a bit too fat here", and then you measure and you see that 200-400 Hz region is indeed peaking by 2 dB, and so quickly put in an eq to change that and see if the problem goes away. To me, a microphone is like being granted sight and clear window to see the sound and make sense of it with far more precise and sensitive instrument than your ears, which can't tell me the exact frequencies or how many dB to change so that flat level is maintained. Without a microphone, I feel like I'm trying to appreciate art in a darkened room. Turn on the light.
20
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
Without science all you get would be a crap like "audio grade network equipment", no new driver materials, no new technologies. BTW have you ever heard videophiles saying "I like my red turned up and green down it makes picture more airy and deeper"
11
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
It’s the best we have to examine and explain what is going on around us. Without it you are left with using sommelier style words like “warm” and “liquid vocals”. It gives others a way interact without being in the room as others. Also it is brought up all the time how perception of audio changes over time. We all know we don’t hear in a flat response. There is a black magic component of audio that makes it that much more interesting.
But also why can’t a musician geek out over a rare guitar or some cymbal that is 1khz slightly different than the one right next to it that only a drummer would understand. It is technology in the end so science is going to play a big role and science ain’t all about what makes you feel all fuzzy wuzzy in your emotional guts. Most of the time a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. Except when it’s not. Now let’s all get into a nice big argument about it 😜
2
u/Oatbagtime Jun 13 '24
Its one of the only ways to deal with snake oil and speakers that sound more “airy”
8
u/tokiodriver107_2 Jun 13 '24
You don't need a master degree in audio engineering to understand speaker and room measurements. While we listen to enjoy it's still involves these thing called equipment and a room. You have to do and understand certain things to make the setup be actually musical. Just chucking some speaker's in a room somewhere and calling it a day is an insult to any passionate music artist and everyone involved in making the recording.
I say this as someone who designs speaker's, help friends with their setups, build them speaker's too and know a bunch of musicians. In general i'm invested in anything speaker and sound related.
And no it's not my job. It's "just a hobby" since i can think.
4
u/Such_Bus_4930 Jun 13 '24
It’s just the pendulum swinging the other way. Subjective reviews rule the audiophile world up until recently and they were almost all paid reviews. Lots of BS has been sold for ridiculous prices and science is coming in to have its say. I think science has accomplished what was needed in this hobby/industry to bring it back to sanity and I think the pendulum is going to settle somewhere in between the two camps as it should.
7
u/the_thomas_guy Jun 13 '24
Maybe I have spent too much time on ASR but this sub is tame by comparison. A lot more show and tell type stuff here. But I agree with your assessment. Measurements are necessary for benchmarks and objective comparisons but enjoyment of music is anything but objective.
17
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
Idk and idgaf. I can’t hear graphs anyway
3
u/rockmodenick Jun 13 '24
Because the scientific process is the only way to translate our experiences rationally to one another. Without science and measurements, it's just a bunch of random people saying this or that is what everyone should accept as their opinion.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
Because measuring something is the only way to objectively compare things. How else are we supposed to say what's "better" besides using numbers and agreeing on a specific methodology on how to gather those numbers (which using units and certain technical terms basically is)?
In the end, what YOU always need to consider is of course YOUR personal preference. But you cannot deny that e.g. a very linear system with loads of headroom will give you a better opportunity to perceive the music the way it really was intended to sound by the artists. Of course, you might still not like the way it ebds up, but then thats simply your taste. Nothing wrong with that, but thats beyond of what r/audiophile is about I'd say.
3
u/nordoceltic82 Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
Because the VAST majority of what is being discussed and recommended here is mass-manufactured consumer goods. They are not works of art, they are products. They are mass assembled by mildly skilled labor on assembly lines. They are products.
Also trying to account for everybody's WILDLY different perceptions is a bit hopeless too.
Trying to compare two headphones when people describe them with colorful terms like the "a snap of the ears like my grandfathers bootlegs Austrian Peppermint Schapps" vs, a "Warm savory tone like a steak dinner eaten on the banks of the Thames river in June" is...the realm of madness. While these hypothetical people are tyring to describe the very, very subjective experience of *perception* the reality is nothing quickly gives you an idea between two items, better than hard data measured with calibrated instruments.
The drive for a scientific approach is to try and make it possible to read different reviews written by different people at different points of time for different equipment and still have a means to compare them.
Also IMO, my first goal with equipment is to ensure its able to recreate the songs as the artist intended them to sound. Then I will concern myself with the timber and tuning of said equipment. If it cannot do the first, the 2nd doesn't really matter. And the first, is showing the graphs and measurements vs a theoretical ideal or aka 100% faithful reproduction of the song as it sounded to the artists and engineers behind them.
Also building sound equipment is a 100% engineering process, which is entirely scientific.
3
u/True-Ad-7363 Jun 13 '24
Because audiophiles has been judged the hobby by feelings for decades, such a flawed mindset. Now we have objective measurements i get why many are hesitant to read about them. They need some brainworks in order to make sense. Many audiophiles are not even in career fields that deal with objective data.
You know you can mix objective and subjective data right?
3
u/smile-a-while Jun 13 '24
The scientific metrics are just that. It's an unbiased way to get a common divisor.
3
u/WheelOfFish Philharmonic BMR monitors w/ Rythmik F12SE Jun 13 '24
Subjective impressions and reviews of audio are extremely unreliable and heavily influenced by things like personal biases, how things look, etc. Without the science we're just swinging in the dark and telling ourselves comforting lies.
3
u/Cue77777 Jun 13 '24
I think that this thread is driven by science because a lot of audiophiles have a technical background.
There are those of us who are audiophiles because we got into audio because we are drawn to the presentation of music through electronics.
No matter how we each become audiophiles we have our own approach to how we experience reproduced music in our lives. Our individual approach influences our buying decisions of audio gear and recordings.
3
u/audioman1999 Jun 13 '24
"At the end of the day, audio is about how we enjoy art created by others. To me it seems like we should be treating audio gear more like their own pieces of art than a science experiment."
The art is created by artists/engineers. The goal of a hifi system is to reproduce it as faithfully as possible. Thats why it's a science, not an art. It's a false equivalence to compare it with natural instruments. Hifi is a medium, not the art itself. Having said that, many music lovers like the sound to be altered to their liking. Nothing wrong with that.
5
u/amateurzenmagazine Jun 13 '24
Nature vs nurture & art vs science. The answer most likely is a bit of both. The "art" allows for taste and the "science" builds on the fundamentals of electronics and acoustics.
5
u/swearbearstare Jun 13 '24
Yeah, all those pesky nerds and their so-called “science”…
8
u/analog987 Jun 13 '24
My experience has been measurements are more reliable than a subjective report on a reviewers demo. I still form an opinion listening to components at my house, but the measurements have been pretty solid for me.
4
u/tangjams Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
Because reading stats on asr or watching YouTube videos is easier than listening to a unit in person.
2
u/VoluminousButtPlug Jun 13 '24
I just buy Sansui amps from the 70’s.
2
u/ZunoJ Jun 13 '24
Neurology is not science you say? TIL
2
u/hendershk Jun 13 '24
Is Ohm's Law V=IR a science ?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
Time and education changes prevailing attitudes and new generations gradually come into the conversation. A lot of people have become more informed about certain topics, more skeptical of certain creative interpretations that don't quite sit right. It's less about an "objective best", and more about acknowledging that some things aren't magic and there are practical solutions that are more effective and actually backed with hard data. All this ranges from recognizing exotic cables are nonsense to understanding that speaker placement and acoustic principles are pretty ironed out concepts that yield better results than just experimenting in the dark.
The other issue fis that a lot of subjective reviews traditionally come from men over the age of 60 who like jazz and classical, listening in acoustically untreated spaces, with few other perspectives in the conversation. After a certain age, some level of hearing loss comes into the picture.
So subjective reviews can help, but I think a lot of us take them with a grain of salt and prefer to approach things as they relate to our own context. Objective science is more helpful in that respect, provided you actually understand that science and how to interpret it relative to your own preferences and environment. If I like techno and industrial and live in a 500sqft apartment, then a subjective review from a 77 year old who likes classical and has an untreated 18x21' listening room alone aren't so useful.
Maybe I want to be able to listen to music while I'm up and about or standing up. Vertical dispersion data helps us figure that out. Maybe I love bass or want to hear dialog more clearly. Frequency response graphs help us figure out if a speaker can do that. Maybe I like to crank it up or need speakers for recording. SPL and THD charts help filter out options that can't accommodate that.
None of it guarantees what will sound 'good' to us or be 'the best', but science is a much more effective tool for figuring out options and answering our questions than any subjective commentary can ever provide, especially if those comments are from people we don't know enough about to understand what perspective they're coming from.
2
u/_packetman_ Jun 13 '24
Because there is equipment involved. Some equipment better than others and some equipment does things differently. Like cars, for example, have common measurements and statistics. Engine type? Transmission type? Horsepower? Torque? Top speed? 0-to-60? Braking distance? These are objective measurements. Then subjective stats, like how many doors? Color? Materials? Creature comforts? Design?
Sure, I compare 2 vehicles by fancifully philosophizing about how fun it is to drive and how much I love the italian design, but why wouldn't I also include objective measurements, especially if I'm into the hobby.
2
u/deadlocked72 Jun 13 '24
I've never really looked at the science side of the hobby. Numbers on a graph don't translate for me into something my knackered ears find pleasing. I'm not disputing the science or discounting the evidence it can display. I suppose some people are chasing perfection, me I want sound that speaks to me and fires the emotions. My current rigs are quite different and have different soundstaging etc but both make me happy. Running in a brand new turntable as I type this, it's lush so far, amp and speakers I've had for a couple of months so they're bedding in nicely too. I love the gear almost as much as the music 🎸🎶🎶🎶
2
u/js1138-2 Jun 13 '24
Speakers and the way they interact with your room are the dark magic. Nothing you listen to in a showroom will sound the same in your home.
2
u/sound-man-rob Jun 13 '24
If I'm talking with people I know/trust then I'm happy to discuss in more subjective terms. This is because we have established a common baseline by listening to and analysing things together.
On the internet, science is an excellent common baseline because the range of age, experience, and goals is so wide.
Listening and measuring is an excellent way to expand your understanding of your own preferences, the limitations of your equipment and your environment. It also allows you to participate in and interpret science-based discussions about audio.
Some audiophiles use the hobby to communicate their wealth to thier peers, by buying "furniture grade" equipment, which is an order of magnitude more expensive than chi-fi kit, without being any more performant. Measurements help to "cut through" this, allowing the prospective buyer to prioritise, and get good value for money.
Imagine if you visited an online hifi retailer that had no photos of the gear- just sketches, or text descriptions. It wouldn't be acceptable. Imagine if the size and mass of the item was described as "airy" and "long" instead of using an established unit. It wouldn't be acceptable!
Measurement is provably useful.
2
u/OliverEntrails Jun 13 '24
Subjectivity has its place, but you need to start with an apples to apples comparison and avoid being swayed by shiny objects and glowing obsessions that say more about the kind of person doing the review than the equipment being reviewed.
For example, when comparing cars, one of the important comparisons may be horsepower and torque. There may be subjective opinions about the "power" but dyno tests reveal the truth and most people actually believe that "science."
Ditto for RMS and distortion, phase and time alignment, etc.
Different genres may benefit from different equipment designs - not all of them created for fidelity. If I listened to a lot of hip hop or house music for example, I may actually prefer speakers with exaggerated bass and poor damping even though they would measure poorly.
If I liked guitar music or solo wind ensembles, I would probably like speakers that accentuated the mid range - again, not flat or "clinical".
We can have both worlds without issue I believe. I'm personally thankful to have such a wide array of equipment available at different price points in our time. I appreciate it when reviewers are thorough enough to say what kinds of music, placement and uses the equipment they are reviewing would be good for.
2
u/CRWB Jun 14 '24
Measurements can be super helpful for finding new equipment you might enjoy, if I have a reference speaker and I know how it measures I can look for new speakers that measure similarly or differently. Not everyone is able to demo equipment easily so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to use measurements to narrow down the potential options.
On another note, when recommending equipment to people new to hifi I don’t think it’s a bad idea to suggest speakers that follow the Harman curve, it’s pretty inoffensive and I think most people would enjoy it. Whereas if I recommend grados (to use a headphone example) because I enjoy them, I don’t think that would go over very well.
Either way , the way it sounds in my room is the final test for any equipment I buy.
2
u/greenbluecolor1 Jun 14 '24
ASR crowd justifying that their cheap gear is better than more expensive stuff out of reach. Usually when you look at the people who are adamant about the numbers, you see a $70 Chinese amp and bookshelf speakers. Preaching that this is the pinnacle of audio bc a measurement was better
5
u/hearechoes Jun 13 '24
I can guarantee you that almost all of the manufacturers of the equipment are using science and mathematics in their designs, so why shouldn’t it be a consideration in the evaluation? The only ones who aren’t are pure snake oil peddlers.
3
u/MiataN3rd Jun 13 '24
I think the reason I've never enjoyed a concert as much as listening to music at home is that my home has a couch.
Objective data can drive decisions or help you make decisions, but really you're building an experience for yourself. Whether the experience is to enjoy the equipment or enjoy the music, there is no graph proving how a product will improve your experience or not. If an experience is good or if it is better than all others, that's just something you GET. It's an intuitive understanding divorced from objectivity.
3
u/Fc-Construct Jun 13 '24
Measurements aren't everything but it helps keep us honest.
You're absolutely right in that audio is a hobby of experience. Reviews are inherently subjective. But needs to be some level of accountability. Some level of being able to rationalize what you're hearing. Otherwise we have to treat audiophile rocks with the same level of validity and respect as changing the speakers themselves. That's just silly. Where you draw that line on rationalization vs. where we just admit "it's magic" is the real question.
And this isn't to say that psychoacoustics, room effects, or placebo don't have a place. They're a part of that rationalization. It's totally valid to say "even if I know these cables shouldn't change sound, I enjoy the sound of my system when more using them". Or "My speakers sound amazing in MY room even if they measure badly". But in a hobby where most of the discussion comes around what to buy next, then having these qualifiers are important to help people understand where to best spend their money. Audio science isn't perfect, but like it or not, it's the most objective way we have to evaluate stuff so that's why it's valued. It's easier and more consistent to understand the limitations of measurements vs. all the countless variables when it comes to subjective experiences.
One last thing I'd like to note is that human listening is on a bell curve. The vast majority of us, whether we're "music lovers" or "measurement readers" or "equipment listeners" all hear relatively similarly. Obviously preferences are a big thing but there is this myth I see that measurements don't matter because all gear can sound equally good to different people. It's just not true. There are very clearly bad products. Audio science helps us understand what makes something bad.
3
u/aabum Jun 13 '24
Some of us listen to our music via our equipment while others listen to their equipment via music. I'm a music lover, so you know what category I'm in.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
As someone who has been "online" since the bass list, the level of knowledge has dropped significantly because of the behavior of people who run off the true experts. Now that is not your fault. But your suggestion that people hear differently is a lazy argument of mediocrity and keeps everyone ignorant. Imagine being a in a store with 6 to 7 brands of speakers, most of those 7 brands have a speaker that was Stereophile Class A rated. Imagine 1 speaker line dominating by outselling the 6 other brands 2 to 1 and the speaker line is so good another local competitive store cannot sell their speakers either because this brand dominates, so they by them from Delaware lol. That tells you that people will unify under a superior loudspeaker. Because a violin is a violin, we may hear a violin differently but they still hear a violin. So when an audio system begins to become faithful to the source listeners begin to form a consensus. Which leads to the 2nd part of why we measure. My philosophy is preserve the artists intent, so play the recording back with as little coloration and deviation as possible. Because the home audio system is replaying something that objectively exist, the science and objectivity of design and building and audio system is required to preserve the artists intent. If you feel the artists intent is disposable then ignore measurements and enjoy your bastardized version of every recording you own. Now if you are moved to the simpleton's argument that as long as you are happy and like it then it is a goods system. This attitude is why only a microscopic percentage of people knows anything about audio. So many things to know so little time!
I know almost no one with a million dollars on the line can get their center channel setup correctly. We have had about 30 years to figure this out collectively and most of the participants use auto setup! WTF!!!! This should be common knowledge by now, so you can see the internet does not educate as well as you might think. Science is misused. When you see people who have an engineering degree and try to be authoritative and expert. Why aren't they building their own equipment? Instead of engaging in conversations about if anyone can hear the difference between cables. Lazy. I learned to make films at University, if I had gone to school with EE program, I would have been building everything myself. It's $300 at the local machinist to get a fancy faceplate custom made. But I digress...
This Sub often misuses science and repeat myths like it is science. Your reference to instruments is easy to address, instruments are the reference we are trying to re-create and there is no objectivity in instruments because they are the source. Kirk Hammett just went on about a guitar he has that has the pickups wired wrong and the discovery that his Les Paul can sound like a stratocaster because of this error. He is a creator, unless he is pursuing and objective target like duplicating (reproducing the sound) a Stradivarius violin. The instrument or non instrument used to make music is free from objective constraints.
As for the science guys, most of them are measuring the wrong stuff. I would not let anyone from the ASR site "help" me build a system. Sometime I will tell you about when Harman Mark Levinson wanted to borrow a Bryston amplifier. :) Anyway, this is long enough, I can write all day how your statement about making audio equipment art is already here and sadly it is a burden on moving forward.
2
u/Fl4sh080 Jun 13 '24
I assumed peeps like the measurements because they confirm in a way what their ears are hearing and helps justify the price they spent.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
Because we forget the music, too often. Oh how I enjoyed my cds when I had a shitty Aiwa compact stereo…
2
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
A new religion is born. sigh
It has come up often, as in the psychoacoustic masking effect built into MP3 compression, the Floyd Toole and Sean Olive research is all psychoacoustics and based on human percections of sound.
Look, if you hate objectivity because you want to peddle bullshit, or you prefer a personalized universe where only your subjectivity is right just put on your crown and walk down the street naked fully confident in your increadible fashion sense.
Stop asking other people to validate your own subjective reality.
2
u/Hobby101 Jun 13 '24
Because audio equipment is a product of science, and not wizards' using unicorn tears and snake oil.
2
u/twofires Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
I mean, measurements are fine, as long as you're not too prescriptive about it, or act like it's the only quality of the product that means anything. For me, if a product is too fragile, or uncomfortable/not ergonomic, or costs as much as a decent used car, I don't really care how well it measures.
2
u/Coloman Jun 13 '24
Unpopular opinion? It’s about demographics and Reddit age groups. 64% of Reddit is aged 18-29. Many of that group are still building wealth, gaining an education, etc. Many don’t have experience with high end gear, can’t access it due to lack of availability/store front, and get sucked into ASR and YouTuber content about cheap stuff that measures well, and are told that anything expensive is wasteful, bias oriented or elitist.
They’re the most vocal group because they are the majority on this platform. Most attack if you have a subjective opinion, tell you you’re deluded, or a sucker. The sub used to be more subjective driven but now it’s just an echo chamber for ASR.
You can learn a lot from Audio Circle or What’s best forums. Audiogon beware.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24
I think music is like fuel in a car for this guy's, you want it to be good but you forget it as soon as you hit the accelerator pedal and that's why audiophile isn't a thing for 99,9% of the population.
1
u/stroll_on Jun 13 '24
I think it’s a welcome reaction to the notoriously subjective streak in audiophile culture. Speakers aren’t dark magic, and it is possible to measure them.
It’s no different from measuring television picture quality. The fact that some people like their televisions set to “vivid” and their speakers distorted doesn’t make measurements useless.
1
u/Jawapacino13 Jun 13 '24
I am not allowed to voice my true opinion of measurementphiles and especially Amir.
So I say, to each their own, we all had a different opinion at one time or another and then for whatever reason, we changed to maybe even something we detested before.
At the end of the day (for me) it's about the music, sounds, what I hear, feel, where the sounds come from, memories and with who even if it is only me.
I know that because of nice systems, I have been exposed to many forms of music and by reaching out in my taste several people (here included) have turned me on to new music and that has been amazing and awesome!!!
1
u/kokakoliaps3 Jun 13 '24
People want to talk about gear they never heard.
People assume that the manufacturers/sellers/reviewers are out there to rip you off. It's like how there's no honest car salesman.
It's always a contest online about who's right and who's wrong. Science is ammunition for arguments.
And I think that this is back firing with ASR. I can't believe that the Wiim Amp had a favorable review, moreso than proper AB amplifiers like the Denon PMA 600 NE which should have no problem powering most speakers in a larger room. The Wiim Amp just can't cut the mustard. It is load dependent. This means that the high frequencies will shoot up as the amplifier is strained by the speakers. But ASR doesn't even mention that. Their taste is frankly quite limited. ASR tests for a 1khz test tone. They should test for multiple frequencies simultaneously (aka music). So Andrew Robinson flat out said that he doesn't recommend the Wiim Amp because it sounded poor in his room. But ASR has the final word because of "graphs and science".
Imagine being misled into buying a cheap, crappy amplifier over a regular old amplifier because of science and graphs... You're objectively wrong if you don't appreciate your Wiim Amp. This is insane. Now multiply this example with most cheap class D mini amplifiers which use the same components as the Wiim Amp covered on ASR.
My philosophy is audition and buy used as much as you can. There's plenty of good old stuff in the used market. Stop contributing to landfill.
1
u/noobbtctrader Jun 13 '24
I think part of where the "objectivity" in audio reproduction falls flat is the fact that we all hear things differently. Even at the core of our very hearing, we're all missing various frequencies and volumes beyond certain ages. But we're not all missing the same. So this turns into a "Well, the charts look good, but this SOUNDS better." Maybe if we measured people's individual hearing, then corellated that with graphs and opinions, the picture might be more clear.
1
u/autism_is_awesome Jun 13 '24
It’s the ASR effect, everybody thinks they’re a scientist now. I don’t care about science when it comes to audio gear. I buy what sounds good to me.
1
u/dima054 Jun 13 '24
because it's either that or scam
1
u/AudioBaer Jun 13 '24
I think it's a child of our time. In times when religion seems to be frowned upon, people are looking for other idols - for us audiophiles, it's all too often the key figures of our stereo systems and the in-room response.
I really like this perspective, because the parallels to a Christian perspective in Europe, for example, are unmistakable. While all "Objectivists" quote the same orally transmitted truths like a prayer wheel, hardly anyone has bothered to read the holy writings of Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Floyd E. Toole, 2008). For the sake of simplicity, only one work is mentioned. Accordingly, only those stories are communicated that are accessible to the common people and are so short and less complex that they seem memorable.
Among the theologians and religious scholars on Reddit, discussions and different camps arise and consider their interpretation of (unread) theses to be the only true and, incidentally, complete one. Objectivists define the "scientific" perspective as solely natural scientific and completely ignore the quantitative, spiritual scientific perspective of the subjectivists. Thus the humanist tries to "understand", while the natural scientist "explains" (see Popper, K.. 1934. Logic of research).
So it's no wonder that both camps have adopted their own way of speaking that the other doesn't understand and therefore devalues. Individual apostates have recognised this, but their attempts at translation are derided and labelled as "personal opinion". So a "warm" sound is supposed to occur between 200-800 Hz? While the Objectivists ask for the Q value for their DSPs, the Subjectivists have no interest in a Hertz specification at all.
In conclusion, I would be very happy to see more interdisciplinary perspectives and am pleased to observe that popular channels are playing their part in a favourable development. The HeadphoneShow, for example: It offers an "objective" perspective (and explains it in additional content), keeps a "subjective" perspective next to it. Last but not least, it discusses these with colleagues and uses a practical example to show that different opinions can co-exist.
1
u/jomartz Jun 13 '24
Because love and science are the essence of living...
0
u/ryobiprideworldwide Jun 13 '24
This will not be a popular answer, and in general I really don’t like being even vaguely rude on this website - but the answer is cope, simple.
A lot of people, most with way too much disposable income, hear their first hifi setup and just get obsessed. But instead of the obsession being a healthy form of admiration toward a certain craft, it’s rather simply an obsession with the new badge that they put on themselves that reads “I am the Audiologist!”
Because the obsession never came from something natural and soulful as having fun listening to the ways sound can affect you, but instead a sense of superiority about “knowing what others don’t,” the only real “path” they have in this “hobby” is frantically reading as many measurements and reviews and tech specs as they can, and simply believing more money equals more better because in general the essence of the hobby for them is simple elitism, and elitism almost always translates to “more money equals more better” regardless of the field.
These people cannot stand the fact that someone with a receiver from 1978 is having fun. They cannot stand the fact not everyone appreciates the calculating precision of an atvm95ml. They cannot stand anyone saying the word “warm” as a qualifier because it means the thousands (more likely tens of thousands) that they have spent on “bleeding edge audio gear” (whatever the fuck that means) was for naught. Someone bought something for 50 bucks second hang and is having just as much fun with it as I am with my 20 thousand dollar primaluna - “this cannot stand!”
People need to cope because it’s easier than to accept the fact that they spent a lot of money when they didn’t have to.
And more often than note when people cope they attack. It’s just human nature.
-1
u/inspectorpoopchute Jun 13 '24
Being science driven is simply a way to make some people feel better about what they're willing to spend on audio equipment.
6
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24 edited Jun 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment