My too-short take: He doesn't understand the problems with THD, so he blames measurements in general.
It would be lovely if it didn't! My personal experience is the less distortion you have in your replay chain, the better. Probably unrealistic to hope for though...
How we perceive distortion as individuals and it's effect on our listening experience is the can of worms that's interesting to me and John's take on how our consciousness deals with it is what I found interesting.
"Weaponized Measurements"
Translation - The more educated consumers are, the less money I will make.
Translation - The more educated consumers are, the less money I will make.
Did he? How does he know that we do hear differently? Did he hear what someone else hears? Or did he just state that it is so because that is what he believes and want to prove? This is why subjectivists think they win, they have no idea what they are talking about and what is "proof".
Says who? We can measure it unless it is some made up conjunction. It is not because the subjectivists say that it is different that it is different. Maybe they just want to have the last word because they have some psychologic issues. Maybe the difference isn't in the audio, the waveforms or other measurable things but in the deformations of their ego's by wanting to be different, by wanting to hear different things?
Seriously, I agree there is some kind of subjectiveness. Even if hearing a real artist in real life, then some people will like it, some will not like it. But this has nothing to do with reproduction. If all possible parameters of reproduction are smaller then what our hearing can discern then the two are identical. And that is measurable and reproducable. But yes, I do not like any organ music later then the sons of Bach. Not in real life, not reproduced. You won't keep me in a concert listening to a symphony of Mahler, I'll be asleep before the first part is halfway. And don't make me listen to jazz if you want to be my friend.
I think you are wrong. IMO subjectivism in audio is like a cult - you can't question it or reason with it. It's also too prone to suggestion via marketing and shaming for being "outside of the cult". What's that? Your amplifier is not Class-A? Psshah, you aren't REALLY an audiophile. <--- like that.
Let me give you an analogy why I think OBjectivism is the better way:
Around the turn of the 19th century all automobiles were "hand made". That is one or a couple of people at most worked in a small shop and crafted an auto-mobile gas powered carriage and then sold it. Many were nice. But you can't really make the same thing exactly twice that way. In comes Henry Ford. He implemented standardization and mass production. Any part of the process could be improved by those who specialized in it: body work, the engine, brakes, etc. This approach to production lead to continual improvements that could be measured in terms of performance. Automobiles were no longer a bespoke or boutique product that was surrounded by some sort of veil of hand-craftsmanship.
I think OBjectivism in audio is the same sort of thing. By measuring and quantifying the performance of audio equipment you can identify how to improve and when there is improvement. The ears are very poor measurement devices. Not useless, but also not good at providing any thing that can be compared with any one else's ears and brain. How to judge/standardize/improve if only using the ears and brain? I am not saying that everything is captured in measurement X, e.g. SINAD is not the end all of information about audio electronics for example. But via measurement objective comparisons can be made and COMPARED TO OBSERVATION. This point is bolded because that is very important, as we are not just chasing numbers. If our current audio metrics are not sufficient for evaluating the listening experience then this calls for newer different and better metrics. But these are still OBjectivism.
Let me give you an analogy why I think OBjectivism is the better way:
Around the turn of the 19th century all automobiles were "hand made". That is one or a couple of people at most worked in a small shop and crafted an auto-mobile gas powered carriage and then sold it. Many were nice. But you can't really make the same thing exactly twice that way. In comes Henry Ford. He implemented standardization and mass production. Any part of the process could be improved by those who specialized in it: body work, the engine, brakes, etc. This approach to production lead to continual improvements that could be measured in terms of performance. Automobiles were no longer a bespoke or boutique product that was surrounded by some sort of veil of hand-craftsmanship.
I think OBjectivism in audio is the same sort of thing. By measuring and quantifying the performance of audio equipment you can identify how to improve and when there is improvement. The ears are very poor measurement devices. Not useless, but also not good at providing any thing that can be compared with any one else's ears and brain. How to judge/standardize/improve if only using the ears and brain? I am not saying that everything is captured in measurement X, e.g. SINAD is not the end all of information about audio electronics for example. But via measurement objective comparisons can be made and COMPARED TO OBSERVATION. This point is bolded because that is very important, as we are not just chasing numbers. If our current audio metrics are not sufficient for evaluating the listening experience then this calls for newer different and better metrics. But these are still OBjectivism.
Every single person who's ever said "there's some things we can't measure" has never actually provided anything of value to further the discussion. Pretty much every time they make an argument, someone is quick to show them that what they are describing is quantifiable and has a body of research around it.
I do think ego plays a huge part in the resistance to audio data, you really have to accept that you can be fooled by your hearing and some are just not ready for that.
Once measurements get so good that improvements are no longer audible, then it's time to quit the chase and just enjoy the music.
Ok measure assumption, influence, pre-conceived notion and then weigh experience and consider the weight of investment…a professionally trained Dr of radiology is often wrong about his interpretation of measurements in life-saving situations, but of course some arm-chair quarterback in an apartment in Germany knows exactly what perfect audio is because he read an even more pompous arm chair quarterbacks inadmissible, hearsay, unwitnessed, unpeer-reviewed personal opinion touted as indisputable scientific fact.
Objectivists become subjectivists when it comes to preference and vice versa when it comes to accuracy, no?
Here's my confession: I am neither a subjectivist or an objectivist. I assert my right to be in neither camp. I'm just continuing my journey trying to learn as much as my monkey brain will cope with about the science, and the art, of sound reproduction. I'm also trying to learn about myself; the other component in the replay chain 😊
Subjectivism or objectivism themselves are not bad.
They just can be used or implemented in wrong way.
John DeVore describes in his video the way how objectivism is wrongly used.
Similar video can be done also about how subjectivism is used in wrong way.
They just can be used or implemented in wrong way.
John DeVore describes in his video the way how objectivism is wrongly used.
Similar video can be done also about how subjectivism is used in wrong way.
Tell a subjectivist that he will be listening to 5 different soundtracks and ask to evaluate. Present him (yes: it is a "him") 5 times exactly the same track and he will elaborate on the differences regarding transparency, image and soundstage prat and so on he has perceived during listening to the track.
John Atkinson over in Stereophile
‘Objectivist fantasy vs Subjective reality’
Measurements should be used to inform the design process, and in the end, as the final arbiter of ‘did I meet my design goals’.
The problem is there is far too much sub par equipment around with nonsense claims about it. There’s also a lot of nonsense about audibility of equipment - both ways. Just look at the reviews and measurements on Stereophile to get a sense of how deluded the industry (and monied consumers) are.
You don’t need 1ppm to enjoy the music, but $10k for something putting out 2% at 8 watts it also ridiculous. Both camps have their ‘extremophiles’ and the answer is to have a sensible balance and to ultimately enjoy the music.
😊
‘Objectivist fantasy vs Subjective reality’
Measurements should be used to inform the design process, and in the end, as the final arbiter of ‘did I meet my design goals’.
The problem is there is far too much sub par equipment around with nonsense claims about it. There’s also a lot of nonsense about audibility of equipment - both ways. Just look at the reviews and measurements on Stereophile to get a sense of how deluded the industry (and monied consumers) are.
You don’t need 1ppm to enjoy the music, but $10k for something putting out 2% at 8 watts it also ridiculous. Both camps have their ‘extremophiles’ and the answer is to have a sensible balance and to ultimately enjoy the music.
😊
Are objectivists measuring the credibility of the stereo illusion of sound stage? Width, depth? One reason I ask is that I have a HPA that measures incredibly well. Superbly. Tried to see if it could be used as a line amp. Unfortunately the stereo imaging was lopsided. Tried a different HPA that also measures very well. No soundstage to speak of, maybe what some people have sometimes described as 'collapsed.'
Anyway, if reproduction of proper stereo imaging performance of amplifiers can be measured, then why does it seem that it isn't being measured?
Anyway, if reproduction of proper stereo imaging performance of amplifiers can be measured, then why does it seem that it isn't being measured?
Last edited:
Bad sound stage has been levelled at feedback and solid state amplifiers for decades. It was and remains a nonsense started off by people like Martin Colloms who can’t even write coherently about how feedback works (see his infamous article in Stereophile here where he persists in dredging up flawed amplifier from the 1970’s :-
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/index.html
Are we to believe an 8 W 2% distortion amp has magical properties that a Benchmark HA1 somehow misses?
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/index.html
Are we to believe an 8 W 2% distortion amp has magical properties that a Benchmark HA1 somehow misses?
The truth is in between. Those far to the subjective side are generally the most honest. However some objectivist will (often dishonestly) insist that a certain measurement proves that this product is better, when its certainly not the case.
I would like to see a good ranking for a product on audiosciencereview when buying, but number 20 on the list might be the better amplifier. The best measuring speaker may not be very good for my room and taste.
If it was simple I would have had a satisfactory system 35 years ago, but Im only just getting there. False information held it back a lot.
Cheers.
PS. I didnt watch the video
I would like to see a good ranking for a product on audiosciencereview when buying, but number 20 on the list might be the better amplifier. The best measuring speaker may not be very good for my room and taste.
If it was simple I would have had a satisfactory system 35 years ago, but Im only just getting there. False information held it back a lot.
Cheers.
PS. I didnt watch the video
A couple of small points I could make. One is the McGurk effect - if you've not heard of this go look it up and realise that human hearing is completely hostage to expectation bias, ie in the face of expectation your ears (actually the auditory pathways in the brain) simply lie to you, subjectivist or not, and the only way to get past this is double-blind testing and comparisons - that's how you find out the limits of human hearing rather than the limits of unconcious self-deception.
And secondly there's a lot of conflation going on here - what you "like" soundwise is to do with the media/content, not the messenger, yet many feel that, for instance, an amplifier's job is to massage the material to "sound good", not just increase the level or equalize the speaker/room response. If you want some non-linear effect or other signal-processing, that's entirely upto you, but this is not logically the job of an audio reproduction system in a sane universe at least (the clue is in the name).
I want an amp that makes bad sounds sound bad as well as good sounds sounding good - think of the music from the shower scene in Psycho - if you really think that should be reproduced to sound nice, is there really any hope for you? The sound reproduction shouldn't be getting in the way of the content like that. And my pet hate, adjective-soup in equipment reviews. Its like trying to describe a plate by describing the food on top of it - it all depends on the food.
And secondly there's a lot of conflation going on here - what you "like" soundwise is to do with the media/content, not the messenger, yet many feel that, for instance, an amplifier's job is to massage the material to "sound good", not just increase the level or equalize the speaker/room response. If you want some non-linear effect or other signal-processing, that's entirely upto you, but this is not logically the job of an audio reproduction system in a sane universe at least (the clue is in the name).
I want an amp that makes bad sounds sound bad as well as good sounds sounding good - think of the music from the shower scene in Psycho - if you really think that should be reproduced to sound nice, is there really any hope for you? The sound reproduction shouldn't be getting in the way of the content like that. And my pet hate, adjective-soup in equipment reviews. Its like trying to describe a plate by describing the food on top of it - it all depends on the food.
‘human hearing is completely hostage to expectation bias’
Probably the best description I’ve seen about hearing.
That’s why if you build a DIY amp, it always sounds better than anything else.
Probably the best description I’ve seen about hearing.
That’s why if you build a DIY amp, it always sounds better than anything else.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.