Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[coaltrain]

@Vineethkumar01

I didn’t understand a word of what you wrote in your post above, yet it makes perfect sense to me
It’s heartening to see an ‘objectivist’ with a deep understanding of the science, providing a rational explanation backed up by relevant links.
Oh, and I loved the last line! Ignorance is certainly bliss for ignoramuses like me

 

[Enkay78]

You can listen to both and see what sounds better Of course the phono, the cartridge the tonearm are all important and must be matched and needs to be identified depending on your own preference. They will definitely not sound the same

But if so technically proficient maybe you read the specs and visualize how it sounds like Or you could go and listen to some systems whenever you can and figure out what you like

Personally I would not choose either irrespective of the other components.

Somehow I beginning to feel this .......


Lost in translation.

 

[prem]

I agree coaltrain. Nice to have someone like Vineethkumar01 on the forum. At least he knows what he’s talking about. Most on this forum are just arm chair specialists.

@Vineethkumar01 , on a separate note apart from the usual commercial speakers, I have heard the Geddes Summa and Amphion which uses cardioid principle. I didn’t hear anything special. I was keen on owning the Geddes but it didn’t materialise. What is it that’s special about the Geddes? I know it’s directivity is controlled but what does that bring to the table?

 

[ssf]

A basic doubt. Is analog measurable like digital ?

 

[Analogous]

Now I am enjoying this thread too.
Just so that all this effort and time doesn't go to waste, I recommend this course to the objectivists among us (and anyone else who is interested) so that we can learn to speak the language that describes all this "objective" fairy dust that is floating around here.
I hope it will put things in perspective and will make one a bit more humble before/while taking things for granted in objective territory.

Amar G. Bose: 6.312 (Acoustics) | Teaching Excellence at MIT

teachingexcellence.mit.edu

It is a basic course on acoustics by the Amar Bose, who was legendary as a teacher.

At least one can read through this book: https://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/index.html

If one is still more interested, here is a course about the current state of the art:

NPTEL IITm

nptel.ac.in

I listened (and watched) his introductory lecture. Fascinating !!!
I think a lot of FM might want to watch (minutes 35-50 if short of time) this…
Thanks for sharing this link @Vineethkumar01

 

[arj]

Somehow I beginning to feel this .......


Lost in translation.

Yup. Exactly.
And Ill get back to people who have actually heard stuff

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Yup. Exactly.
And Ill get back to people who have actually heard stuff

Hear? Speakers? Music?

Sacrilege!

 

[arj]

A basic doubt. Is analog measurable like digital ?

Are you talking about the output from a phono ?

 

[ssf]

Are you talking about the output from a phono ?

Output from phono, tape decks and also signal from speaker cables.

 

[arj]

Hear? Speakers? Music?

Sacrilege!

you mean play directly into a spectroscope kind of thingie and imagine the music in the head ?

Output from phono, tape decks and also signal from speaker cables.

i think thats what all the amp specs give you . since the audio signal consists of so many different frequencies at different levels at the same time really doubt it.

While a digital (audio) signal is still technically an analogue signal but measured only at 2 states ie the upper threshold and lower threshold ie 1 and 0, its still only 1 frequency .

 

[Enkay78]

Yup. Exactly.
And Ill get back to people who have actually heard stuff

Really?

 

[Vineethkumar01]

I agree coaltrain. Nice to have someone like Vineethkumar01 on the forum. At least he knows what he’s talking about. Most on this forum are just arm chair specialists.

@Vineethkumar01 , on a separate note apart from the usual commercial speakers, I have heard the Geddes Summa and Amphion which uses cardioid principle. I didn’t hear anything special. I was keen on owning the Geddes but it didn’t materialise. What is it that’s special about the Geddes? I know it’s directivity is controlled but what does that bring to the table?

Thank you @prem and @coaltrain.
Other than Gedlee speakers and the Amphions, speakers which apply the cardioid concept down to bass frequencies include the Dutch and Dutch 8C, which applies passive cardioid principle. The KII 3 uses active cardioid principle.
I have not heard any Gedlee speakers in person. So I can just make objective comments about it which may/may not be useful. But I know and am in touch with an FM named fluid on diyaudio forum who has a pair of Gedlee's speakers (and is an expert on acoustics). FM Patrick Bateman there also owns Gedlee's speakers. If you want more info, I can get in touch with them and ask about their impressions.
Beyond that, to my understanding liking or not liking directional radiation (cardioid is a specific polar pattern amongst that) of bass/mid/highs comes down to personal preferences. For example, I have heard that Floyd Toole uses the high end Revel floor standers with small waveguide on tweeter in his multi-channel setup because he prefers it over the high end JBL horns which have more directional control. Gedlee prefers horns over more direct radiating type of speakers.
The objective idea used here is to control the radiation hitting the sidewalls and wall behind the speaker. This is supposed to reduce the 'colorations' they add to the overall sound. But the thing is sometimes we might like those colorations. So we may find one type or the other lacking/ having nothing special based on the in-room placement conditions of the two types of speakers. I myself have wondered about my own preferences about whether I like more the sound of waveguide-mounted tweeter or direct radiating tweeter in my personal set up. So I decided to have both..

 

[prem]

Thanks Vineethkumar01 for explaining. I use a JBL 4343. So have some idea of what you explained.

 

[Hari Iyer]

OB speakers have a better polar response because of its figure "8" pattern. I have used in my OB speaker a parabolic reflector at the rare side to induce diffusion and have control on the early reflection. Also added a Telefunken Isophone Alnico tweeter on the vertical plane for omni-directional cues for getting ceiling refections and have better directivity control on the vertical plane for high frequency. I had to use multiple drivers to achieve this. Also my H-frame subwoofer gave me a good low end directivity control by energizing both ends of the room equally - not creating any dead spots in the room.

 

[drkrack]

figure "8" pattern. I have used in my OB speaker a parabolic reflector at the rare side to induce diffusion and have control on the early reflection.

Can you share the pictures?
I was Contemplating an OB design with Qrd diffusers on Rarer sides.

 

[superczar]

This thread is one that just keeps on giving

I will go out on a limb here and say this:
Audio reproduction is rooted in science..
Scratch that, audio reproduction is possible because science!

Any and every aspect of audio reproduction can thus be measured precisely by numbers.
It's another story though that personal preferences vary - A perfectly neutral / flat system would not sound pleasing to either the subjectivists or objectivists around here.

So to make the sound pleasing/tune it to their preferences, lets say we had an objectivist and subjectivist who have the same auditory preference:

- The objectivist will (for example) try to take a speaker that measures well and tune the measurable input to suit said preference

- The subjectivist will try to audition a much larger number of devices and test various permutations and combinations till she/he hits the jackpot that maps out to said preference

The end result in both case should be very comparable if not exactly the same.

The former approach will likely end up being less effort intensive (and likely cheaper) - but again, for many, the journey is half the fun!

 

[Hari Iyer]

Can you share the pictures?
I was Contemplating an OB design with Qrd diffusers on Rarer sides.

I checked images of the QRD diffusers on the web and think they are meant to be used on the rear walls. They will just diffuse the sound hitting the front wall and will not do much to act on the early reflections imo. They will prevent some late reflections though.

What i have done is added a parabolic reflector directly on the OB baffle behind the drivers so that they diffuse the rare wave from the FR drivers and allow early reflections and diffusion in a controlled fashion. This gives me a concert hall type dynamic response. The vertical positioning of the Alnico tweeters allows omni-directional dispersion pattern in conjuction with the front drivers giving 3D holographic sound stage at all listening positions. Attaching some images for your review -

 

[Enkay78]

I will go out on a limb here and say this:
Audio reproduction is rooted in science..
Scratch that, audio reproduction is possible because science!

Any and every aspect of audio reproduction can thus be measured precisely by numbers.
It's another story though that personal preferences vary - A perfectly neutral / flat system would not sound pleasing to either the subjectivists or objectivists around here.

So to make the sound pleasing/tune it to their preferences, lets say we had an objectivist and subjectivist who have the same auditory preference:

- The objectivist will (for example) try to take a speaker that measures well and tune the measurable input to suit said preference

- The subjectivist will try to audition a much larger number of devices and test various permutations and combinations till she/he hits the jackpot that maps out to said preference

The end result in both case should be very comparable if not exactly the same.

The former approach will likely end up being less effort intensive (and likely cheaper) - but again, for many, the journey is half the fun!

And both will like similar music and sound, which has been backed by years of audio research.

 

[viveshsahu]

Due to audioscsiencereview’s bad reviews on Hegel, naim, regas and so on the resale value on these stuff has taken a huge hit. And day by day more and more people are switching camps/getting educated about what to look for in audio. So, consider getting something which is decent in measurements and sounds good to your ears at the same time to avoid disappointment in few years. Colored sound would give an immediate satisfaction but once you start noticing that amps filter in everything you hear you would want something different. A transparent amp on the other hand would be boring at first, but once you start noticing the differences in different recording styles of different artists without filtering by the amp, you would be forgetting more About the gear. Over the years, I have used lot of hifi targeted amps like atoll, gold note, holfi, creek and several niche brands. Every time when you hear it for the first weeks you will be flattered, then the excitement dies as that particular coloring is intrusive to the music all the time. It used to be easy to flip them when you don’t like it but now if you put any of them on sale,anyone who looks for a used amp who knows how to “google search” would land in the audiosciencereview’s page would be reluctant to buy them regardless of their positive reviews. Nobody wants a product which is bashed by 100s of random guys on internet.

They say end of the day, trust your ears but I would say, trust your ears only after you do your homework. Otherwise the moment you discover some of the flaws, then there is no way back.

Well said!! Music is not about how detailed it is or how transparent a speaker/amp is. It is about how it sounds to your ears.

Some speakers/amps have their own character. One might like it or not but a natural sounding setup will give you satisfiction on a long run though at first you might not like at all.

 

[Enkay78]

For those who are interested.

https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Harman_Int%27l/AES-Other_Publications/Trained_vs_Untrained_Listeners.pdf

This study reports one of the largest controlled loud- speaker listening tests conducted to date in terms of the sheer number of listeners involved. It is also unique in that most of the listeners (96%) had no formal training and lit- tle or no prior experience in controlled tests. One of the most significant findings is that the loudspeaker prefer-
ences of these nominally untrained listeners were very similar to those of the panel of trained listeners. The results may finally validate the use of trained listeners on the basis that their preferences can be extrapolated to a larger population of untrained listeners. The notion that the loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners are some- how biased can cannot be used to predict those of review- ers, audio retailers, and the intended (untrained) customer is not supported by scientific data.
The differences between trained and untrained listeners are mostly related to differences in performance. The mean performances of the trained listeners based on loud- speakers FL values were 3 – 27 times higher than any of the other four listener occupations measured in this study. Training and experience in controlled tests lead to signifi- cant gains in performance so that fewer listeners are required to achieve the same statistical power. The com- paratively poorer performance of the students relative to the other three groups of audio professionals suggests that in field job experience can be beneficial to making more reliable judgments of sound quality. This implies that some form of training may be necessary in order to meas- ure statistically significant preferences using more naïve and inexperienced listeners. Fortunately Bech has shown that very little training (four to eight sessions) is required [1].


The study provides strong validation for the current set of acoustic loudspeaker measurements used to design and test loudspeakers in our organization. There are clear visual correlations between measurements and subjective preference ratings, which supports the earlier findings reported by Toole [20], [21]. While interpreting the loud- speaker measurements still takes some skill and experi- ence, the set of frequency-response curves alone could have largely predicted the outcome of these listening tests. The audio product reviewing industry could do a great service to consumers if they adopted a more meaningful set of technical measurements such as the ones shown here. Unfortunately such measurements are difficult and costly to perform, and beyond the reach of most audio reviewers. In the end it is the listening test that is the final arbiter of performance, and it is here that the reviewers need to spend more time and take greater care. Hopefully doing so will prevent reviewers from recommending two loudspeakers (P and M) as “state-of -the-art” equals when their technical and subjective performances have nothing in common. In retrospect, the only common denominator between these two loudspeakers is price.