What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Fëanor]

Funny thing is, objectivists end up insisting on blind tests, in plain terms just listening with your ears. Yes, ears not gadgets. To me that sounds like admitting measurements are useless for judging audio.

Uhmm ... no.

But ultimately regarding blind listening tests, IMHO, while they can prove the difference do exist, they cannot prove that differences don't exist for all listeners under conditions.  (Proving a negative usually is hard but that's just the way it is.)

[AnotherSpin]

I assume you're joking. 
[..]

No, I'm not joking. There isn't a device that can decide what we like for us and explain why we like it. Not as far as I'm aware.

[Fëanor]

No, I'm not joking. There isn't a device that can decide what we like for us and explain why we like it. Not as far as I'm aware.

Ah, indeed, but of course people vary in their likes & dislikes so such a device is unlikely.

It's reasonably clear that some people enjoy the effect of a little 2nd/3rd order harmonic distortion but that is easily measured with test equipment

[AnotherSpin]

Ah, indeed, but of course people vary in their likes & dislikes so such a device is unlikely.

It's reasonably clear that some people enjoy the effect of a little 2nd/3rd order harmonic distortion but that is easily measured with test equipment

Exactly. People are all different, they hear differently, and everyone ought to have their own preferences. The only exception are the strict objectivists, who put no faith in their own impressions but trust whatever figures they find on some website.

The result is rather amusing, to my mind. It goes along the lines of:

'I don't like how this DAC sounds, it's harsh and unpleasant, but Amir or someone else said the measurements are fine, so I'll just put up with it and keep listening.'

Or:

'I really like how this valve amp sounds, but it distorts the signal, as authoritative sources have told me, so I'd better sell it quickly and buy some current Chinese wonder with fantastic measurements.'

[StudioGuy]

My experience with tube preamplifiers is that they can modify the sound.
I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but I believe I hear a differences with the few tube preamps I've owned. HOWEVER admittedly I haven't gone through the hoops necessary to do rigorous blind comparisons.

There is no doubt that some (few) tube amps produce not only enough distortion to modify the sound but also to actually be audible. To "modify the sound" requires a series of prerequisites: Firstly and most obviously, the level of distortion must exceed the minimum limit of acoustic sound itself. For example, distortions peaking at say -110dB (or lower) when the listening level is 85dBSPL puts those distortions at -25dBSPL which is below the absolute minimum limit of sound (-23.7dBSPL) and therefore cannot exist as sound. Secondly, even if the level of distortions is higher than the -23.7dBSPL that still doesn't mean the sound will actually be modified, the transducers actually have to be able to reproduce that distortion, EG. Are the speakers able to resolve such tiny voltages into sound? Thirdly, the distortion cannot be swamped by the transducers' own distortion or by the noise floor of the transducers, listening environment or of the recording itself. Once these prerequisites are all fulfilled we can say that the sound is modified but that does not tell us if it's audible, that's a far bigger step:

Hardcore objectivists, IMHO, tend to be dismissive of the possibility of subtle sound differences without definitively proving their case that those difference are inaudible to all people under all circumstances.

I'll assume by "hardcore objectivist" you mean someone who strongly supports the facts/science and scientific principles, in which case, then "yes", we do tend to be dismissive of claims of hearing "subtle sound differences". Scientific principles dictate skepticism until a claim is supported by reliable evidence, in addition many of the "subtle sound differences" claimed to be audible are not in fact differences in sound, they're sometimes not even differences in an analogue signal but more commonly they are differences in the analogue signal that do not fulfil some or any of the prerequisites mentioned above. Even in those cases where there are actual differences in sound, they're often demonstrated to be inaudible. Time after time we see audiophiles put to a controlled DBTs and their reports of huge, "night and day" differences magically vanish.

In the specific case of harmonic distortion caused by tubes we run into a whole slew of problems, both physical and psychoacoustic effects; Complex waveforms produce varying amounts of harmonic distortion and there is no linear correlation with inter-modulation distortion in transducers, the non-linear response of tubes themselves, serious "Auditory Masking" issues and formal listening training, to mention only four. There are so many variables that under certain circumstances 10% total harmonic distortion is completely inaudible while under others, 0.1% harmonic distortion can be audible. For most people listening to music recordings, around 1-3% harmonic distortion is the threshold of audibility. As a rule of thumb, 0.1% can be considered a safe absolute threshold (IE. -60dB) but this can be broken under conditions that consumers typically won't encounter (EG. Specific test signals which "manipulate" a THD measurement). Only controlled DBTs of specific conditions will provide a truly accurate answer but even then, only to the limits of statistics and sample size. Although scientific protocols allow significant extrapolation from the sample size.

Your specific requirement is logically and in practice impossible; it is impossible to test just one person "under all circumstances", let alone "all people", science cannot prove a negative, it requires a falsifiable hypothesis.

Funny thing is, objectivists end up insisting on blind tests, in plain terms just listening with your ears. Yes, ears not gadgets. To me that sounds like admitting measurements are useless for judging audio.

A fairly common claim amongst some of the more hardcore audiophiles, which makes one wonder how they ever manage to survive in the world?! For those of us with some logic who remember their basic schooling: Measurements quantify the physical properties or attribute/s of things, they do not judge things (inc. Audio)! A standardised measurement of a thing allows us to compare that quantified physical property/attribute with another thing which also has that quantified physical property/attribute. That's it, nothing more and certainly not a judgement, if there is any "judging" occurring, that's down to the individual interpreting those measurements, not the measurements themselves.

Take for example the measurement of a car's 0-100kph acceleration time at say 7 secs. Does this measurement tell us anything about how comfortable the car is, about how practical or how fast it is? Obviously not, does that make it a "useless" measurement for "judging" cars? Obviously, it only tells us exactly what it's measuring, it doesn't even indicate how fast it will feel. 7 secs 0-100kph feels slow to me because I owned road vehicles capable of 0-100kph in 3 secs for a couple of decades but to my mother 7 secs feels horrifically fast. This "judging" is obviously down to the individual and of course, it requires understanding what the measurement is actually measuring, in this example the 0-100kph acceleration time of the car and NOT the impressions/feelings of a driver. As this applies to pretty much all measurements, how is it possible for an adult not to know or understand any of this?

In the specific case of determining if a physical property/attribute of sound is audible to humans, we can compare the measurement of that attribute to the measurements of human hearing thresholds. If it is clearly outside those thresholds then it is inaudible but if it is near or within those thresholds, or if it is some attribute for which we don't have a well established threshold, then we have to use a controlled DBT to ascertain if it is audible or inaudible.

[Fëanor]

There is no doubt that some (few) tube amps produce not only enough distortion to modify the sound but also to actually be audible. To "modify the sound" requires a series of prerequisites: Firstly and most obviously, the level of distortion must exceed the minimum limit of acoustic sound itself. For example, distortions peaking at say -110dB (or lower) when the listening level is 85dBSPL puts those distortions at -25dBSPL which is below the absolute minimum limit of sound (-23.7dBSPL) and therefore cannot exist as sound. Secondly, even if the level of distortions is higher than the -23.7dBSPL that still doesn't mean the sound will actually be modified, the transducers actually have to be able to reproduce that distortion, EG. Are the speakers able to resolve such tiny voltages into sound? Thirdly, the distortion cannot be swamped by the transducers' own distortion or by the noise floor of the transducers, listening environment or of the recording itself. Once these prerequisites are all fulfilled we can say that the sound is modified but that does not tell us if it's audible, that's a far bigger step:

What can I say?  Everything you say, above, sound knowledgeable and reasonable.  Nevertheless you aren't going to convince me that the differences that I hear are simply imagination.  FWIW ... read on only if interested.

I've own only three tube preamplifiers

• Sonic Frontiers Line 1, including before & after a restoration/upgrade
• Glassware Aikido 12Vac DIY
• Schiit Freya + (in Tube mode)

They all sounded noticeably different from each other ... maybe not "day & night" except in the case of the Glassware Aikido.  The Sonic Frontiers sounds most like a quality solid state and is the one I'd most like to compare in a blind comparison with the latter.

The salient characteristics of the tube preamp is a warming and/or loss of bass articulation, and loss of detail/transparency -- very little least in case of the Sonic Frontiers;  quite a lot in case of the Glassware.

[Florestan]

Take for example the measurement of a car's 0-100kph acceleration time at say 7 secs. Does this measurement tell us anything about how comfortable the car is, about how practical or how fast it is? Obviously not, does that make it a "useless" measurement for "judging" cars? Obviously, it only tells us exactly what it's measuring, it doesn't even indicate how fast it will feel. 7 secs 0-100kph feels slow to me because I owned road vehicles capable of 0-100kph in 3 secs for a couple of decades but to my mother 7 secs feels horrifically fast. This "judging" is obviously down to the individual and of course, it requires understanding what the measurement is actually measuring, in this example the 0-100kph acceleration time of the car and NOT the impressions/feelings of a driver.

To push the analogy further: claiming that one can hear what is below the threshold of physiological human audibility is exactly like claiming that one can drive at 230 kmph a car whose speed is limited to 180 kmph by design and manufacturing.

[AnotherSpin]

[...] Nevertheless you aren't going to convince me that the differences that I hear are simply imagination.  [...]

This is precisely what Harry, myself, and also you have been trying to get across in this thread. Alas, we might as well be talking to the wallpaper. The objectivists aren't the least bit interested in listening; they simply stare at the measurement charts as if they were holy scripture.

[StudioGuy]

What can I say?  Everything you say, above, sound knowledgeable and reasonable.  Nevertheless you aren't going to convince me that the differences that I hear are simply imagination.

Mmmm, you say that everything I stated sounded reasonable but that I'm not going to convince you the differences you're perceiving are simply imagination. This is a contradiction, because I was not trying to convince you of that and in this particular case, if I were, that would have been unreasonable. Baring in mind I clearly stated more than once that some (few) tube amps do produce audible harmonic distortion and that I didn't know which tube amps you own, it would have been very unreasonable to try and convince you there were no audible differences! I actually stated and tried to explain that despite audiophile claims of tube warmth and euphonic harmonic distortion many/most tube amps do not produce audible amounts of harmonic distortion. However, even if I knew what tube amps you owned, due to the complexity of trying to relate THD measurements to audibility and the non-linear characteristics of tubes, the ONLY way to know for sure would be a DBT.

I've own only three tube preamplifiers

• Sonic Frontiers Line 1, including before & after a restoration/upgrade
• Glassware Aikido 12Vac DIY
• Schiit Freya + (in Tube mode)

They all sounded noticeably different from each other ... maybe not "day & night" except in the case of the Glassware Aikido.

The Sonic Frontiers has quite typical tube amp performance and a THD of 0.01%, which suggests the harmonic distortion will be well below audibility. The Freya in tube mode appears to have pretty bad THD compared to most tube amps, possibly above 0.1% THD which is close to audibility in certain conditions. However, any tube will produce audible THD if overdriven and, without a multi-tone test/measurement we don't know how they will respond to more representative signals. I couldn't find any measurements for the Glassware from a quick search but being a DIY build, it's certainly possible it could produce clearly audible harmonic distortion. Again, I'm not trying to convince you the differences are imaginary/inaudible, I do not know in this example, the only way to know for sure is to do a DBT.

This is precisely what Harry, myself, and also you have been trying to get across in this thread. Alas, we might as well be talking to the wallpaper. The objectivists aren't the least bit interested in listening; they simply stare at the measurement charts as if they were holy scripture.

And another classic old textbook example from the audiophile playbook of falsehoods and fallacies in lieu of truth and facts, to defend a rationally indefensible position. In this case based on not understanding the most basic facts of what measurements are, what particular measurements actually measure or what can be interpreted from them. I'm an objectivist (based on the definition of someone who accepts the facts/science) and I'm far more than just "interested in listening", I've been formally trained in "Listening Skills" even to the point of formally training others and I critically listen to audio recordings far more than you and at least the vast majority of other audiophiles. And, measurement charts are pretty much the exact opposite of holy scripture and I never look at them as if they were. So my example alone disproves the falsehood of the above assertions! Not to mention the fallacious basis of your point in the first place, as I've clearly explained I was NOT trying to convince Feanor that the differences he perceived in this case were imaginary.

[71 dB]

Funny thing is, objectivists end up insisting on blind tests, in plain terms just listening with your ears. Yes, ears not gadgets. To me that sounds like admitting measurements are useless for judging audio.

The whole point of blind listening is to remove the psychological effects like placebo and expectation bias. It is not about nullifying the usefulness of measurements. It is about nullifying claims that have nothing to do with how we really hear.

Say amp A was measured 0.1 % THD and amp B was measured 0.2 % THD. Clearly there is a difference in the measurements, but is the difference audible? Listening tests reveal this, but only if it is only about sound (blind listening). 

[71 dB]

The objectivists aren't the least bit interested in listening; they simply stare at the measurement charts as if they were holy scripture.

I can't speak for other objectivists, but I don't "stare at the measurement charts." I have bought gear which has good enough specs for high quality music reproduction. I can concentrate on enjoying music. Because I am not a subjectivist, I don't worry about other gear sounding better or different. I don't waste my time and money on testing snake oily cables and audiophool fuses. I don't believe there are objectivists who are not interested of actually listening to the music.

Measurements are most important for the manufacturers developping their products. That's engineers doing their job so that we consumers have good products to buy.

[Fëanor]

The whole point of blind listening is to remove the psychological effects like placebo and expectation bias. It is not about nullifying the usefulness of measurements. It is about nullifying claims that have nothing to do with how we really hear.

Say amp A was measured 0.1 % THD and amp B was measured 0.2 % THD. Clearly there is a difference in the measurements, but is the difference audible? Listening tests reveal this, but only if it is only about sound (blind listening). 

Funny thing is, regarding my subjective experience of a given component, that what I hear, (or believe I hear), very often isn't what I expected.

I agree that the difference between 0.1% distortion and 0.2% isn't likely to be audible (unless the harmonic spectra have substantially different profiles).  But can the same send for 0.1% versus 0.001%?  That is, -60 dB vs. -100 db, several orders of magnitude?

[AnotherSpin]

The whole point of blind listening is to remove the psychological effects like placebo and expectation bias. It is not about nullifying the usefulness of measurements. It is about nullifying claims that have nothing to do with how we really hear.

Say amp A was measured 0.1 % THD and amp B was measured 0.2 % THD. Clearly there is a difference in the measurements, but is the difference audible? Listening tests reveal this, but only if it is only about sound (blind listening). 

When I referred to blind testing, I had something rather different in mind. What I meant was that even those who place their faith in measurements ultimately invoke blind testing as evidence. In other words, listening with one's ears rather than relying solely on measurement.

For my part, blind testing holds little appeal. I can only judge whether a DAC or a set of cables truly suits me after a reasonably extended period of listening, ideally over several days at least, better weeks. Time and again I've found that first impressions can be deceptive. A may seem to outshine B in an immediate, side-by-side comparison (blind or not), yet with longer listening I may well conclude that B is the more satisfying choice.

[AnotherSpin]

I can't speak for other objectivists, but I don't "stare at the measurement charts." I have bought gear which has good enough specs for high quality music reproduction. I can concentrate on enjoying music. Because I am not a subjectivist, I don't worry about other gear sounding better or different. I don't waste my time and money on testing snake oily cables and audiophool fuses. I don't believe there are objectivists who are not interested of actually listening to the music.

Measurements are most important for the manufacturers developping their products. That's engineers doing their job so that we consumers have good products to buy.

That sounds reasonable. Still, in my years of listening I've often found that some music, whether a particular album or even a whole group of recordings, didn't seem especially engaging at first but suddenly began to sound wonderful after an equipment upgrade. For example, when I switched to linear power supply units, many archival recordings became noticeably more natural and lively, even those where the hiss and crackle of age had once made the music hard to follow. And that is just one of many such instances.

[Harry]

Mmmm, you say that everything I stated sounded reasonable but that I'm not going to convince you the differences you're perceiving are simply imagination. This is a contradiction, because I was not trying to convince you of that and in this particular case, if I were, that would have been unreasonable. Baring in mind I clearly stated more than once that some (few) tube amps do produce audible harmonic distortion and that I didn't know which tube amps you own, it would have been very unreasonable to try and convince you there were no audible differences! I actually stated and tried to explain that despite audiophile claims of tube warmth and euphonic harmonic distortion many/most tube amps do not produce audible amounts of harmonic distortion. However, even if I knew what tube amps you owned, due to the complexity of trying to relate THD measurements to audibility and the non-linear characteristics of tubes, the ONLY way to know for sure would be a DBT.The Sonic Frontiers has quite typical tube amp performance and a THD of 0.01%, which suggests the harmonic distortion will be well below audibility. The Freya in tube mode appears to have pretty bad THD compared to most tube amps, possibly above 0.1% THD which is close to audibility in certain conditions. However, any tube will produce audible THD if overdriven and, without a multi-tone test/measurement we don't know how they will respond to more representative signals. I couldn't find any measurements for the Glassware from a quick search but being a DIY build, it's certainly possible it could produce clearly audible harmonic distortion. Again, I'm not trying to convince you the differences are imaginary/inaudible, I do not know in this example, the only way to know for sure is to do a DBT.And another classic old textbook example from the audiophile playbook of falsehoods and fallacies in lieu of truth and facts, to defend a rationally indefensible position. In this case based on not understanding the most basic facts of what measurements are, what particular measurements actually measure or what can be interpreted from them. I'm an objectivist (based on the definition of someone who accepts the facts/science) and I'm far more than just "interested in listening", I've been formally trained in "Listening Skills" even to the point of formally training others and I critically listen to audio recordings far more than you and at least the vast majority of other audiophiles. And, measurement charts are pretty much the exact opposite of holy scripture and I never look at them as if they were. So my example alone disproves the falsehood of the above assertions! Not to mention the fallacious basis of your point in the first place, as I've clearly explained I was NOT trying to convince Feanor that the differences he perceived in this case were imaginary.

O boy, that made me laugh for at least 30 minutes "Formally trained in Listening Skills", have you any idea how ridiciously that sounds? Your skills are primarily that you try to reprimand people, on the basis of yourself not being able to grasp the essence of sound, your just an agitator trying to stir things up and to thrive on the satisfaction of being able to draw blood. There are forums were they like agitators like you, so sod off please, I you don't mind, your clearly in the wrong place. Formally trained huh.....            

[71 dB]

When I referred to blind testing, I had something rather different in mind. What I meant was that even those who place their faith in measurements ultimately invoke blind testing as evidence. In other words, listening with one's ears rather than relying solely on measurement.

Huh?

The whole point of audio is to listen to music, not to have something to measure. Since we can't reliably hear everything in a consistent manner (you hear better, when your ears have rested and are "fresh"), it does make a lot of sense to use measurements that are systematic and consistent and can even reveal detail that is inaudible for human ears. You seem to lack any understanding of what things are relevant, practical, beneficial etc. and in what manner or you just ignore these things in order to craft arguments against objectivists as if we were your enemies (we are not).   

For my part, blind testing holds little appeal.

Same here. I don't want to test anything. I just want to enjoy Elgar and other music I love. This doesn't nullify the importance of DBTs in some situations (such as to demonstrate there aren't audible differences between decent audio cables).

I can only judge whether a DAC or a set of cables truly suits me after a reasonably extended period of listening, ideally over several days at least, better weeks. Time and again I've found that first impressions can be deceptive. A may seem to outshine B in an immediate, side-by-side comparison (blind or not), yet with longer listening I may well conclude that B is the more satisfying choice.

To me the differences are in the recordings. One has too much reverberation for my liking, the next has abysmally bad spatiality for headphones, the third lacks bass, but is otherwise good etc. Hardly any recording is near perfect in every way and this means worrying about microscopic differences at best in cables and DACs is nonsensical to me, especially when I can allocate very limited amount of money in this hobby. Good for you if you can...

[AnotherSpin]

Huh?

The whole point of audio is to listen to music, not to have something to measure. Since we can't reliably hear everything in a consistent manner (you hear better, when your ears have rested and are "fresh"), it does make a lot of sense to use measurements that are systematic and consistent and can even reveal detail that is inaudible for human ears. You seem to lack any understanding of what things are relevant, practical, beneficial etc. and in what manner or you just ignore these things in order to craft arguments against objectivists as if we were your enemies (we are not).   
Same here. I don't want to test anything. I just want to enjoy Elgar and other music I love. This doesn't nullify the importance of DBTs in some situations (such as to demonstrate there aren't audible differences between decent audio cables).

To me the differences are in the recordings. One has too much reverberation for my liking, the next has abysmally bad spatiality for headphones, the third lacks bass, but is otherwise good etc. Hardly any recording is near perfect in every way and this means worrying about microscopic differences at best in cables and DACs is nonsensical to me, especially when I can allocate very limited amount of money in this hobby. Good for you if you can...

There we go again...

I'm not crafting anything; I simply write about what I see and hear. I couldn't care less if someone understands it all differently from me. I have no need for anyone's agreement, and I will never accuse anyone of falsehoods or of deliberately spreading lies, even if to me what they've written seems like utter nonsense.

Every person has the full right to listen to whatever they wish, and in whatever way they wish. I have no enemies, nor do I intend to make any.

There are people I choose to ignore, but mostly because I can't be bothered to reply and see no benefit in engaging with them.

[StudioGuy]

O boy, that made me laugh for at least 30 minutes "Formally trained in Listening Skills", have you any idea how ridiciously that sounds?

Oh dear lord. Have you really never heard of formal music or audio engineering education or that degree courses in these subjects always include core "Listening Skills" (sometimes called "Critical Listening") modules? In fact it's hard to imagine any formal music or sound engineering course which did not include "Listening Skills" training. It took me all of a minute to look up the Music Degree syllabus for Oxford University (link here) and the famous Tonmeister Degree at Surrey University (link here). You should now laugh for a whole hour that both Oxford and Surrey unis don't have "any idea how ridiculous that sounds" and when you're done, you can look up the syllabus at pretty much any university or music academy course in the world and laugh for the rest of your life! Seriously, is there something wrong with you?

Your skills are primarily that you try to reprimand people, on the basis of yourself not being able to grasp the essence of sound ...

The essence of sound is simple to grasp and I've already quoted it: "sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid." - so there's the basis of your false assertion ruined!

There are forums were they like agitators like you, so sod off please, I you don't mind, your clearly in the wrong place.

If you're apparently "agitated" by my posting of the facts (science) then clearly you're the one "in the wrong place", unless you're saying this forum only allows audiophile marketing BS?

So I state "... the audiophile playbook of falsehoods and fallacies in lieu of truth and facts" - And you respond with falsehoods and (ad hominem) fallacies, how could you possibly have proved my assertion any better?!! Lol

[AnotherSpin]

O boy, that made me laugh for at least 30 minutes "Formally trained in Listening Skills", have you any idea how ridiciously that sounds? Your skills are primarily that you try to reprimand people, on the basis of yourself not being able to grasp the essence of sound, your just an agitator trying to stir things up and to thrive on the satisfaction of being able to draw blood. There are forums were they like agitators like you, so sod off please, I you don't mind, your clearly in the wrong place. Formally trained huh.....            

Harry, be honest, you haven't got a degree in listening skills, have you?? So how on earth do you dare listen to music??? You're probably doing it all wrong anyway. Tell me, have you got a diploma in proper digestion??? How can you eat??? Ever taken a course on how to drink water skillfully?

I could keep going, but I'd hate to back you into a corner and have you lose sleep over it.

Actually, hang on, have you even studied how to sleep properly???

[ritter]

If personal attacks, or derogatory and ridiculing comments persist, this thread will be locked. And, again, I'm looking at both sides of the aisle,

Guerra avisada no mata soldado...