Which one you doubt?That a budget system cannot show differences clearly,or,a badly matched expensive system?Are you by the way sure that everyone cares about what the magazines say?
Sy and I are oil and water. A cordial day together is not likely to happen, though I do respect his intelligence greatly.
To be honest I am not sure I am following your question. If you are saying that there is a level difference between components(there must be a resistive situation between them somehow) I would have to say that I do believe that tonal differences (not frequency related) might occur. Again I am not sure I am following exactly what you are asking.
To be honest I have never studied 'psychoacoustics' to any degree. I am at a lose to answer this as I lack the knowledge of this field to make a valid comment. What I have learned for myself over the years, was from working with a great audio engineer when I first started in high end audio.
My listening skills are simply based upon my trial and error testing that I have outlined many times throughout this thread. I do not listen for frequency related aspects of sound per say, as these would be fairly obvious if well out of wack. I listen for the spatial clues like imaging, focus of the images and placement on the soundstage of recording that I have used for years that are excellent recordings. Tonality is also very critical to me and something that many fail to understand. It is not frequency related, but it is part of the makeup of the sound. There are many people in the world of audio, manufacturers included, that also do similar things in the design of their tubed products to "voice" them to their ideal sound.
If I have not answered your questions to your satisfaction, please let me know what I have missed. I am always willing to share my thoughts.
Kevin the very best of those components that grace those covers in those magazines, as a rule are quite a bit more revealing than the run of the mill audio equipment. Have you ever experienced any of the finer components in a system yourself? Sure they cost a lot of money, but look at the quality of components involved and the cost vs retail is pretty spot on and not out of line considering that they were intended for a small segment of the audio market place in the first place.
Most people can not afford to drive a Ferrari, but are you going to state that these automobiles are not far better than a Honda? Some view them as elitest toys, but if you have spent time with them (the best from the better vendors) their quality is very evident in sound quality vs run of the lmill components.
Last edited:
I think at a certain point you can reach diminishing returns with audio now. It's just that it's not clear or agreed upon where that is or how to get there and that is where the seemingly endless line of upgrade "quality" comes from in my opinion. At a certain point things like lowering distortions, improving phase/transient response become superfluous because they aren't easy to perceive if they can be perceived at all. You must admit that in quite a few situations an upgrade can be for WAF/aesthetics alone and you can pay pretty penny for a nice glossy finish over a plain looking vinyl finish.
Except they're not subjectivists and they shouldn't be referred to as such.
A true subjectivist would never attempt to assert their subjective experience as the unerring, accurate reflection of objective reality that these people do.
What they really are are pseudo-objectivists.
se
I will not argue that finish quality is a part of something that strives to be the best. The mass is usually needed in a heavily Class A bias solid state amplifier with larger power transformers and massive heat sinks to handle the the very high current outputs. In a tubed amplifier, the transformers alone are quite heavy and a commercial amplifier would most likely have a steel chassis for durability and to control resonances that could affect the tubes. WAF factors are of little interest to me as I have my own listening room, but my wife has been with me through out my audio career and has grown to love my systems. I would not try to bring a box of rocks into the home though as she would balk at that for sure. My Hales Transcendence 8 speakers are far from small, but they are not line source arrays either.
If you can say that the better quality high end amplifiers are not better sonically than the lower priced products built to meet a mass market demand, then I would say that you have not spent much time with them in comparison. They are better sonically and serious listeners will not accept any less. Too many people try to say that they are all hype, but I know from experience that the best of these designs offer real world performance gains over the mass marketed varieties, especially the solid state designs. I prefer tubed components myself, but I understand what many prefer in the solid state designs.
Last edited:
Really I am new to this whole camp thing. And at first I wasn't sure who was who when the terms where thrown around. Maybe we need a FAQ. Subjectivists - one who believes that you can extrapolate objective truths from listening alone
Objectivist - one who believes that listening is subjective at best and only through comparative analysis of subjective listening with the aid of measurements can lead to repeatable truths
That's OK, Doomlord_uk's rehash of the greatest hits of rec.audio '96 wasn't cogent either.
Well John Curl had to take his designs a different direction because of one reviewer. He still writes about that to this day.
That's not how I would define the two terms.
Subjectivist - One who is only concerned with the subjective experience and doesn't attempt to assert anything beyond that experience.
Objectivist - One who believes that subjective experience alone does not establish actual audible differences. That actual audible differences must be established through objective means.
se
Sounds to me like the proverbial Maytag Repairman 😀.
Edit: Kinda like the Shakespeare "If this be not love...".
Last edited:
You don't remember the old Maytag Repairman ads? In that ad, there was exactly one repairman for all Maytag products, and he never had anything to do. He just sat all alone all day. He had a little cap, kind of like a policeman.
I am just razzing you here. I understand where you're coming from. 🙂
Edit: And I do follow your posts on this. One particular post I like is here.
Last edited:
Good question Key, I hadn't really thought about that for a long time. The terms, especially one, have been thrown around as epithets for so long I'm not sure much meaning remains. The origins as I understand them derive from a split in the way audio equipment was reviewed back in the Sixties. Prior to it equipment was rated almost entirely on the basis of a suite of standardized measurements, with maybe a short comment or two on sound. The group who split off didn't feel such a protocol told them anything about a component's sound and focused on listening tests alone.
Much of what passes for Objectivist/Subjectivist today reeks with the stink of decades of fighting. I recommend ignoring them and focusing on the quality of arguments themselves.
Much of what passes for Objectivist/Subjectivist today reeks with the stink of decades of fighting. I recommend ignoring them and focusing on the quality of arguments themselves.
In these sort of threads, for sure!
Oh sure, I just wasn't clear on that. Except for a few kooks, everyone wants their system to "sound good." I just meant that if that is your ONLY goal, then anything goes. You don't have to worry about strict measurements, perfect FR and that sort of thing. Just buy and use what sounds good to you. Not that it is always easy, even if you have lots of money.
But trying to get perfect measurements to sound perfect is a big chore! I've never been able to do it. It takes a healthy combo of measuring and listening (for me). For me it's the correct path. Maybe not for others.
The get-togethers are great. Fun and a learning experience. Some areas have very active clubs. One of the forum members is coming to my place tomorrow to hear "Pro vs Hi-Fi drivers." Should be informative. Hope he doesn't mind my cheap speaker cables!
So the answer is "No, I will not partake of a test and put my beliefs to the test".
Hmm, I must admit I am a bit surprised...not.
gee, am I good or what?? I got that in my previous post already!!🙂 I recall I also pre-empted your 'lab rat' comment. Boy, I am HOT!!
Ok, push it a little, if it were anyone OTHER than SY would you be up for it then?? (BTW, have you two ever met? wondering how you are so sure 'the day would be a disaster')
Well, that IS interesting to say the least. You are unaware of the need for level matching?? As I said, not really applicable to cables 'as such', needed for amps etc.
But, the point is you seem to be unaware of the most basic things that are important in this area. Maybe you need to learn just a little about these things? They are not made up constructs from the objectivists to defend their positions you know, they are psychoacoustic facts learned over years of research.
Hi pano. make a post in the thread about hifi /pro drivers yeah?
I use pro drivers, AND cheapest cables I can find!! Prob drive s/one like andre mad!! cause he 'hates' both haha
FR is not everything.... It is just the surface.
Where are the tests that prove this? If you refer to ABX DBTs, then they do not)
dave
Oh yeah, I remember the Maytag Repairman back to when Jesse White first played him in the 60's.
I'm just having trouble relating the Maytag Repairman to the definition for subjectivist.
Oh, I know you are. I'm just trying to "get" the joke is all. 😀
Glad you enjoyed it.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.