Audio DesignLine Blog
Comment
kdboyce
If you make and sell audio products, you had better get the 'objective' numbers ...
Paul.Pacini
Another aspect of the great subjectivist/objectivist is money. The objectivist ...
Audio listening enjoyment: Do technical specs matter?
Rich Pell
7/27/2011 11:51 AM EDT
A couple of posts ago I touched on the seemingly never-ending debate between audio subjectivists versus objectivists. The former rely on their ears (and subjective impressions) when evaluating audio components, while the latter argue that technical specs tell the true story.
I'm firmly in the objectivist camp - a distinct minority in the audiophile community, at least, where subjective opinions claiming all sorts of dramatic sound differences among end-user electronic equipment and components (like op amps and cables etc.) are the rule. The problems with the subjectivist approach are well known, and I'm not going to rehash them here.
The bigger question may be, does it matter? Listening to audio (usually music) is ultimately a subjective experience. In fact, it seems for many people audio playback quality plays little role in their enjoyment of the content.
For the rest of us, "better" audio quality usually leads to greater listening enjoyment. For some, however, "better" may mean sound with a particular tonal balance, or with the added distortions of tubes or vinyl, while others may prefer audio playback that is as transparent to the source material as possible.
And there are clearly significant psychological factors at play here as well. For some, the packaging and aesthetic appeal of high-end luxury audio equipment will add to their listening enjoyment, while others may derive great satisfaction from listening to a do-it-yourself project they built themselves in a plastic electronics project box.
On that note, my previous post on this subject mentioned a reviewer/engineer who has recently been bringing a much-needed (IMO) objective measurement-based testing approach to the audiophile/DIY community. Now he has put his money where his mouth is and designed an objectivist-based DIY headphone amplifier that sports some pretty impressive specs.
Will it sound obviously better than other competently designed such amplifiers? Probably not under most normal circumstances. But as a long-time headphone user I'll be building this project for sure. And knowing that its technical specs are just about second to none, I know I'll subjectively enjoy the sound from it all the more.
Comments, questions or suggestions? Email me at rich.pell@verizon.net.
Related links:
Audio subjectivist vs. objectivist debate
Audio cable break-in, analog vs. digital nonsense
Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
Audio Myths Workshop video
|
|
|
|
|
WKetel
7/28/2011 9:33 PM EDT
My preference for sound systems has always been of the more objective persuasion, that is, generically "high fidelity", in my terms, low total distortion plus flat frequency response. That defines an acceptable system. Now some music is recorded with a great deal of "coloration", including frequency-dependent harmonic distortion as well as amplitude dependent distortion. BUT that should be part of how the music is produced, not how it is played back.
Of course, there is another line of thinking that adjusts frequency response and various forms of distortion to a listeners own preference. That is also a valid arrangement, BUT, it should NEVER be called "high fidelity". The two are totally different, but that is OK, just never confuse the two.
Sign in to Reply
vperales
7/29/2011 4:37 AM EDT
For me it is quite clear. Sound quality is something objective (based on the specs that define the high fidelity to the recorded material), and the listening experience is something subjective.
For example, I buy lots of records, both in Vinyl and CD. When I want to buy a record, I sometimes think that that particular album will sound "better" in vinyl than in CD, altough its sound quality is worse (but I like its sound better after the vinyl "processing").
Furthermore, for me, seeing the vinyl disc spinning is also something I subjectively enjoy, having nothing to do with the sound quality.
Sign in to Reply
kendallcp
7/29/2011 3:39 PM EDT
Since I don't sell audio ICs for a living any more, I suppose I can hazard an opinion here. Rick, when you say "knowing that its technical specs are just about second to none, I know I'll subjectively enjoy the sound from it all the more", you encapsulate what some subjectivists believe is a hypocrisy from the objectivists. A firm objectivist tenet is that modern audio circuitry performs so well that it's not credible that humans can detect differences between sufficiently excellent implementations. If that's the case, you should have no expectation about your ability to detect any difference in the sound between this and other equiv-tech amplifiers. As an engineer, I started out as a 'specs are everything' guy. But one can only take so many epiphanies before one realizes that there's just so much more to a truly satisfying audio experience than a bunch of numbers. "Do you expect to dissect me with this blunt little tool?", Hannibal Lecter said, and he could well have been talking about an audio spec sheet's ability to touch your musical soul. Having said that, I'm proud of the results I've achieved in knocking out the few remaining ppm in the linearity performance of my own amplifiers! There's room for both approaches, but let's not kid ourselves that the specs really tell you anything about the experience.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
7/29/2011 3:56 PM EDT
I have to side with the firm objectivist tenet, qualified by the observation that not every consumer chooses to connect all that excellent audio circuitry to a similarly excellent transducer.
Case in point: iPods. Excellent specs from the signal chain point of view, right out to the headphone jack. But how many users still use the cheap earbuds that come with the iPod?
The same could be said for many home audio systems. The signal chain and amps all have excellent specs, but many consumers go cheap on the speakers, nullifying much of that electronic excellence.
Sign in to Reply
rpell
7/29/2011 5:05 PM EDT
"A firm objectivist tenet is that modern audio circuitry performs so well that it's not credible that humans can detect differences between sufficiently excellent implementations."
I don't disagree.
"If that's the case, you should have no expectation about your ability to detect any difference in the sound between this and other equiv-tech amplifiers."
I don't. When I said I would *subjectively* enjoy the sound even more I was referring to the added *psychological* enjoyment I would derive from listening to the amplifier knowing it was designed and tested with the goal of achieving the best objective performance possible (within a reasonable cost).
"But one can only take so many epiphanies before one realizes that there's just so much more to a truly satisfying audio experience than a bunch of numbers."
I don't disagree. In fact this was one of the points I was trying to make in my post.
"... let's not kid ourselves that the specs really tell you anything about the experience."
Beyond a certain point, sure. But as an earlier poster noted, not all audio systems - especially many of those popular among audiophiles - can accurately be described as "high fidelity." In such cases the specs (if based on proper testing) may very well offer some clues about the audio experience one might expect.
Sign in to Reply
kendallcp
7/29/2011 7:41 PM EDT
"added *psychological* enjoyment I would derive from listening to the amplifier knowing it was designed and tested with the goal of achieving the best objective performance possible "
But what makes you think that this goal is any more relevant to its ability to reach you musically than is its colour, or density, or fragrance? The point (or one of them, anyway) is that, by believing that there's a connection between measured performance and musical utility, one is subscribing to a belief system that's just as contestable as the position that objectivists excoriate subjectivists for taking.
We all suffer from cognitive resonance from time to time, sustained by a belief that we've made a good choice because it's aligned with our prejudices. So it's important to concede that it's just as valid to prefer a product because you think it sounds better as it is to prefer it because of the impressive effort that was made to deliver a behaviour that's only of 'interest' to expensive, inanimate test systems.
I think some engineers think it's OK to mock subjectivists because they (the engineers) are convinced of the superiority of the objective position, on whatever grounds. The subjectivists mock back with insults about the deafness of those who choose not to listen. I consider both positions to be (a) regrettably confrontational and (b) of equal status. I listen, and measure, and just spend a lifetime contemplating why the results often don't align.
Sign in to Reply
rpell
7/29/2011 10:29 PM EDT
"...by believing that there's a connection between measured performance and musical utility, one is subscribing to a belief system that's just as contestable as the position that objectivists excoriate subjectivists for taking."
No one is arguing that there aren't many paths to achieving "musical utility." And objectivists for the most part don't begrudge subjectivists their choices of audio systems. However when subjectivists make objective claims based on nothing but subjective impressions it becomes an issue.
"So it's important to concede that it's just as valid to prefer a product because you think it sounds better as it is to prefer it because of the impressive effort that was made to deliver a behaviour that's only of 'interest' to expensive, inanimate test systems."
No one is disagreeing with this (at least I'm not).
Sign in to Reply
kendallcp
8/2/2011 3:20 PM EDT
So it looks like we're not disagreeing about much at all then. Still:
"when subjectivists make objective claims based on nothing but subjective impressions it becomes an issue"
I think that contains the nub of what exercises both of us. Subjectivists shouldn't make objectively-oriented claims based on bogus [says the other side] physics, of the type that purports to explain why stroking your speaker cables with a rabbit's tail makes the system sound better. At the same time, objectivists shouldn't make subjectively-oriented claims based on bogus [says the other side] perceptual 'theories', of the type that purports to explain why you can't possibly hear a difference when some change is made to a system because some inanimate detection process returns a null result. Then we could get on with the job of both enjoying the technical fruits of our labours and, perhaps orthogonally, enjoying the improvements to the listening experience that we can make by doing occasionally contentious tweaks.
Sign in to Reply
rpell
8/3/2011 8:13 PM EDT
"Subjectivists shouldn't make objectively-oriented claims based on bogus [says the other side] physics, of the type that purports to explain why stroking your speaker cables with a rabbit's tail makes the system sound better."
The issue is more fundamental than that. Subjectivists routinely insist that the differences they perceive among amplifiers, cables, and op amps, etc. are in fact objectively real. No doubt some of them are, but it's also clear from blind testing that many - perhaps the vast majority - *aren't.* Yet most subjectivists refuse to even admit the possibility that they themselves might be affected by unconscious bias - i.e., hearing what they want or expect to hear. They can't have it both ways.
"At the same time, objectivists shouldn't make subjectively-oriented claims based on bogus [says the other side] perceptual 'theories', of the type that purports to explain why you can't possibly hear a difference when some change is made to a system because some inanimate detection process returns a null result."
Sure, objectivists are sometimes guilty of dismissing subjectivist claims out of hand, although just as often as not they'll instead spend considerable time hypothesizing on the objective technical issues that might explain the claimed differences. This can make for interesting theoretical discussions, but ultimately leaves the question open. In any case, subjectivists are free to demonstrate the superiority of "their ears" over "inanimate detection processes" at any time simply by successfully identifying under blind test conditions the differences they claim exist.
Sign in to Reply
kendallcp
8/5/2011 2:02 AM EDT
"Subjectivists routinely insist that the differences they perceive among amplifiers, cables, and op amps, etc. are in fact objectively real"
I share your bafflement with purporting like that. Nothing that you perceive can ever "be objectively real", though it may be related to some physical properties. Perception is subjective, as in, it's a function of the subject, not the object.
"most subjectivists refuse to even admit the possibility that they themselves might be affected by unconscious bias"
People will go out of their way to evade cognitive dissonance, even if this is beneath their conscious perception. Two comments, though, not intended to be mischievous:
1: is unconscious bias worse, equivalent to, or not as bad as, conscious prejudice?
2: "most subjectivists" - can you point to a survey? I'd contend that neither of us know what fraction of people who might be called, or call themselves, subjectivists, are in denial as you propose.
"successfully identifying under blind test conditions the differences they claim exist"
You're conflating all claims of subjective difference into one here. Some claims can be readily and quickly assessed by double-blind tests. Some take longer to tease out from the "noise floor" but are readily apparent to anyone with proper experience as a critical listener. A certain fraction of these claims, of the "you've gone too far" ridiculous kind, may well be of the type you suggest. But to assert that all subjectivists believe all those claims is as fallacious as to assert that all objectivists believe that listening to things tells you no more than measuring them.
Sign in to Reply
Paul.Pacini
8/5/2011 4:35 PM EDT
Another aspect of the great subjectivist/objectivist is money. The objectivist claims a $100 amp measures exactly like a $1,000 amp and sounds just like it too when it fails to be reliably picked in a double-blind, ABX test. The objectivist buys the $100 amp and is happy while the subjectivist buys the $1,000 amp and is also happy. The contention starts when someone advertises $10,000 speaker cables that are directional, sound better, image better, help align the planets, etc., yet measure the same as zip-cord and can’t be picked out with ABX testing. Is it okay to charge exorbitant prices and make preposterous claims to sell their speaker cables when it’s demonstrably untrue? Caveat emptor? Is it okay? I honestly don’t know. I’d love to have their profits, but I have a conscience and need to sleep at night. Not everybody does.
What about $485 wooden knobs that dramatically improve sound? (http://www.randi.org/jr/123104my.html#8 ) How about a magic clock-radio that synchronizes oscillation frequencies in your stereo to improve the sound? (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm ) How about tweaking your stereo system by phone? Thin I’m kidding? (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm )
Come on. This is why I tend to follow the objectivist side of things. There’s too much audio-woo out there and lots of people supporting it. A fool and his money…
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
10/7/2011 12:43 AM EDT
If you make and sell audio products, you had better get the 'objective' numbers right. They provide you the credibility needed to be and stay in the game.
If you buy audio products, the 'subjective' stuff helps you enjoy it more and justify the price you paid.
To help sell audio products, enlist those 'golden ears' that like your subjective stuff, and who hopefully are also darn good audio engineers who know what the objective numbers mean.
Sign in to Reply