tmtomh

I'm one of the folks who stopped participating when Chris consigned objective discussion to a single subforum. I didn't ask for my account to be deleted, and for context I should note that I was a strong and frequent voice in favor of deleting trollish and needlessly combative comments and repeatedly urged the banning of a couple of members who clearly could not or would not behave. I look in on the site perhaps once every 2-3 months, though I don't log in (except now). I check the site mainly to see if @JoshM has posted another one of his excellent "the best-sounding version of" series. When I do that, I also take a quick look at the forum homepage too, and sometimes click through to the Objective-Fi forum, and occasionally to the MQA Is Vaporware thread if it shows up on the forum front page as a recently updated thread. For what it's worth, here are my observations and opinions on the status of scientific inquiry, objectivist discussion, the objectivist-subjectivist debate, and so on. 1. It doesn't matter to me one bit why @The Computer Audiophile made the change in the forum structure and rules that he did. As I've said repeatedly in the context of debates where folks try to attribute specific motives to MQA/Bob Stuart, I don't think hypothesizing and arguing about someone's motives is useful or the main point. What matters are the actions themselves and their effects. In that regard, it is clear to me, as it was at the time, that Chris' action ghettoized objectivist discussion. I don't use that term for sensationalism. It's the most apt description: a formal, forcible, restriction of a group into one sub-area of the larger community. Yes of course, self-described objectivists are still free to post anywhere in the forums, but they cannot post as objectivists in any area except objective-fi. In other words, if someone makes a subjective listening claim outside the objective-fi forum, I am free to comment on their claim, but I am not permitted to make an objectivist comment on their claim. So as a practical matter I am barred from participating in that discussion because forum rules do not permit me to write what I really think or believe in that thread. And I think every reasonable person can understand that no one enjoys participating in a discussion if they cannot say what they think. To be clear, I do NOT a restriction on my free speech rights, because a private forum is not obligated to enable or respect free speech rights in the first place, so I have no complaint there. But it is nevertheless a ghettoization of views and therefore of certain members here, and it is indeed a restriction on what can be said anywhere in the forum (including the Q&A subforum!) except in the objective-fi ghetto. 2. It is Chris' right and prerogative to run things this way, and again I have no complaint in that regard. But I find his explanation and justification for why he did this partial, self-serving and - looking at his rehash now compared to when it first happened - increasingly self-satisfied and unreflective. Not surprising that the narrative would harden over time, but it has done so nevertheless. As part of this, I was struck by the petty way Chris chose to treat another audio site whose culture and purpose are objectivist and science-based: the way he mocked its name, and if memory serves the way this forum set up some kind of auto-barrier to correctly displaying the name of that site or perhaps to linking to content there (apologies - I can't recall the details and I don't look in here often, so I am happy to be corrected if I am misstating the details of this particular bit or if something has changed in that regard). 3. Another important - though IMHO totally predictable - change is that the Objective-Fi subforum itself very quickly became more or less the opposite of what it was supposed to be. Most of the threads there appear to be dominated by Chris and some self-described subjectivist members engaging in speculation about whether or not there are scientific bases for subjective listening impressions. But the point of those threads isn't to actually answer or even seriously investigate the objective truth of those impressions. Rather, the point is merely to pose the question and keep it perpetually open and unanswered. This is a key feature of subjectivist audiophile culture (and, to be fair, of many hobbies): the artificial maintenance of mystery and open questions by ignoring some portion of human knowledge, so that space can be left open for interesting and enjoyable explorations, new purchases, expenditures, and so on. The thread Chris started on fiber transmission of digital data is a good example. He raises a question to which the answer is already known, with the implicit use of "science" as a cudgel - "if you haven't done a test, then how can you really know it won't make a difference?" This is such a basic red herring and rhetorical fallacy that it is difficult for me to believe that Chris honestly is not aware of the fallacy; it is difficult for me to believe that he is not casually and intentionally indulging in the fallacy simply to be able to have a conversation he finds interesting and to cloak it in the dressings of "science" and "objectivity." The ridiculous demands being made of @plissken as he tries to engage in a reasonable discussion about what would constitute empirical evidence illustrates that "science" is simply being invoked as a rhetorical tactic to keep actual scientific information out of the discussion, even in the objective-fi forum. 4. I have considered asking for my account to be deleted. It didn't sit right with me at the time, as I don't like the idea of "taking my marbles and going home," and I wanted to have an open mind and give things a chance to see if they might perhaps develop differently than I thought they would. They have not. Now, Chris might very well say they have gone the way they have because so many of us objectivists stopped participating. But it takes only a cursory look at the consistent participation of @pkane2001 and plissken to see that this is not the case. In this vein, if Chris actually thinks that we stopped participating because we no longer "had anyone to yell at" or no longer had an "audience" of subjectivists, he is ignoring the fact that the objective-fi forum is filled with just such an "audience" of self-described subjectivists, and still very few objectivists from before are participating. Moreover, I am a member and frequent participant at the other forum I referred to above, and there's plenty of fascinating, educational discussion there. Putting aside for a moment the fact that a good number of subjectivists actually do post there and do not get chased away, that other forum is evidence that objectivists have enjoyable, vigorous, informative, extended discussions without needing a bunch of people to "yell at" and without needing a subjectivist "audience." So Chris' claims in that regard are (not to put too fine a point on it) empirically untrue. Or to put it another way, his claim is true of this forum but not of audio forums in general, which therefore suggests that his characterization of the issue is inaccurate. 5. Finally, following on point #4, Chris said repeatedly at the time he made the forum-structure change, "you can be part of the problem or part of the solution." But what he never addressed then, and what he seems even less interested in or cognizant of now, is that most of the people he directed that claim towards chose the third option of just stepping away, because to take your time, energy and effort to be "part of the solution," you have to feel that your time, energy, and effort will be valued, respected, and put towards a "solution" that you actually view as a solution (in other words, as a desirable, feasible, or enjoyable state of affairs). And I can tell you that I have no desire to be part of a "solution" in which by participating here I lend credence to demonstrably false claims that this is a balanced community with a fair and open opportunity for multiple viewpoints to be shared; that Chris is in any way, shape or form interested in a scientific or evidence-based approach to audio; and that others who share my views but no longer are members here left simply because they were babies, trolls, or attention-seekers not interested in real discussion but only in fighting with others. I'm just one person, and my views and preferences matter only insofar as anyone else here cares about them - and it very well might be that virtually no one here does care. That's fine. But so long as as such self-serving narratives are being spun; so long as the objective-fi forum functions as the inverse of what it is claimed to be; so long as I remain a member and the rules permit me to post a comment like this (which perhaps they don't!) - then I have the prerogative not to let such things pass without comment, and for this one time I have decided to exercise that prerogative. I fear I've already spent too much time composing this, to too little end. But I console myself that the time spent writing this is a tiny fraction of the time I spend enjoying other online venues for discussion audio - and that that time online is, in turn, a tiny fraction of the many hours a day I am lucky enough to be able to enjoy listening to my favorite music. To anyone who's made it to the end of this comment, thanks for reading. Be well.

Thanks! When @JoshM does a new Best Version of, I have to jump in! 😀

@JoshM, once again a fantastic article, filled with great background info, passion for the music, and of course excellent sonic analysis. And once again, you arrive at the correct conclusion as well! 😀 I've been a huge fan of the Nunn/Wood mastering ever since I first heard it around maybe 2015 - I thought it blew the others away for all three albums. It is indeed possible that Five Leaves Left is not as much of an improvement because it's just the mastering that's new compared to 2000 rather than the digital transfer of the analogue source, but I feel that too clearly surpasses the 2000 remaster. It wasn't until last year, though, that I became aware that the Nunn/Wood mastering had been pressed to CD in the form of the Japan mini-LP issues from 2013. They were not super-cheap, but I snapped them all up, brand new, from CD Japan for about $30 each including the more expensive shipping (since EMS is suspended from Japan to the US during the pandemic) and I love them. One curiosity, though - when I put rips of the CDs in my computer playback system and look at their ReplayGain values, the three albums differ significantly. In particular, Bryter Layter is 9-10dB quieter than the other two albums. I don't know if this is just the CDs or is also true of the high-res files. Did you encounter this? Oh, and finally - the only downside I can see of this mastering is that it kind of spoils you for other Nick Drake releases. I have the Treasury SACD and I like it, but the mastering is IMHO not nearly as good.

If you were willing or able to articulate what I misrepresented about what you wrote, then it would be possible to give credence to your indignance. As it is, though, you've responded twice to the same comment and have said nothing of substance either time. You have, however, engaged in name-calling and ad hominem attacks, which as you know are now against forum rules more clearly than ever before. @The Computer Audiophile, this is what happens when subjectivist members of the forum get the message that they can respond to any use of logic or reasoning by an objectivist with the claim that the objectivist is just using logic to troll them. It narrows the range of feasible discourse between subjectivists and objectivists to nothing.

Reported.

This comment illustrates a key part of the problem with this conversation. I wrote that objectivists don't rely on measurements alone - they use them to rule out some gear, and then they still have to consider other factors, and of course they still listen and evaluate on that basis. I also wrote that subjectivists don't purely use their ears, and also take measurements into account. You've responded with selective and completely one-sided "agreement," concurring that subjectivists use measurements to rule out bad gear - precisely what I wrote about what objectivists do - and you've acknowledged exactly... nothing about what objectivists do. In essence, I said, "Both objectivists and subjectivists are more nuanced than the stereotype," and you responded, "Yes I agree, subjectivists are more nuanced than the stereotype." As for the "controversial" topic of cables, the question of whether or not measurements tell us a lot or "tell us little," is precisely the source of the controversy. So you can assert that cable measurements tell us little, but it's nothing more than an assertion, since there are plenty of us who believe that cable measurements are quite useful. Similarly, your own comment shows that the majority of people who enjoy this hobby do in fact use measurements as a diagnostic tool ("e.g. a speaker frequency curve falls off a cliff below 60Hz"). The differences among us are about how much of a diagnostic tool, in regard to which equipment, and in regard to which measurements. So it's hard to see your articulated viewpoint here as anything other than a tautological formulation: If someone uses measurements in a way and to a degree that you agree with, they're a subjectivist, because you like subjectivists and you don't like objectivists. If someone believes that speaker measurements are of use, they are - or at least can be - a subjectivist, since that's okay with you. But if someone believes that cable measurements are of use, they are an objectivist, and therefore they are bad because they are factually incorrect since you know that cable measurements are of little use. It's a perfect example of the attitude that generates push-back from objectivists on this forum. The form that push-back has taken has at times been out of line - but the push-back itself is entirely justified.

Thanks for your reply, Chris. A belief in measurements is "absolutely the simplest thing possible" only if one agrees with your caricature of that belief as "1+1=2, my work is done here." It's the same thing you did in response to @Archimago's comment above - ignore and dismiss every bit of nuance in what he wrote, and instead say that his comment "reminds you of" people who like everything to be black and white - the most simplistic version of an objectivist that you can conjure. This is straw-manning. No one gets to buy or audition infinite brands or models of equipment. Everyone uses heuristics to winnow down choices and make their decisions. So someone who believes in measurements might, for example, rule out certain pieces of equipment if they measure poorly. That still leaves a lot of other pieces of equipment that measure well. That person still would need to consider the build quality, features, aesthetics, price, and other factors - and that person still would need to listen to the equipment and decide if it was to their liking. The notion that an objectivist doesn't factor listening into their decision-making and pre- or post-purchase evaluation is fanciful. What a belief in measurements and technical aspects does help with, however, is precisely an understanding of what one might be hearing when one's components interact and one hears something that sounds off, or when one is looking to improve the sound of one's system and is trying to make a decision about what to swap out or upgrade. If the high end sounds grainy at times, is that because of the speaker tweeters, the digital source component, the DAC, the amplification, the interconnects, the power cord, the ethernet cable, or the room acoustics? The world of "anything goes" is not about being open to things. It's about willfully closing oneself off to some portion of the existing knowledge we have about how this stuff works. Using technical knowledge and measurements does not enable us to come to an instant certainty about what's going on, but it does enable us to reasonably discern what factors are extremely unlikely to be relevant, and what factors are possible or highly likely to be relevant. To be clear, I don't expect everyone else to agree with that - and I certainly don't expect others to use measurements to guide their journey if that's not what works for them. But I do object to the claim that those who do use measurements are not engaged in the journey and are not open and do not listen. Virtually every objectivist here will readily volunteer that measurements cannot describe or predict 100% of what we hear - and you and every other subjectivist regularly uses measurements and technical knowledge to help shape your perceptions and guide your thinking. Many things go, yes - but as a matter of fact not everything goes. Finally, objectivists do not have the franchise on the self-satisfied sniff. For every objectivist who tells someone that any DAC with xyz measurements will sound essentially the same, there is a subjectivist - or two, or three - who will tell someone that if they don't hear a difference between two bit-identical digital files, it's because their system isn't resolving enough or they haven't upgraded their power cords, or they're too close-minded to really, truly listen to the soundstage differences between different ethernet cables. These subjectivist responses are just as pat, tautological, and intellectually lazy as the objectivist positions that you are calling out. There are simplistic, lazy thinkers on both sides, and nuanced thinkers on both sides.

How is relying on others’ listening impressions any more active or any more rigorous a use of one’s brain than analyzing measurements? How is the conviction that measurements have limited or no useful correlation with sonics any more or less black and white than the belief that measurements and sonics have a fairly strong level of correlation? How does a belief in measurements reflect the human desire for simplicity any more than a belief that one need not pay much attention to measurements? it seems to me that the desire for certainty and for comfortably restricted arenas of inquiry cuts across the objectivist-subjectivist divide, and that a generous (or even accurate) reading of Arch’s comment would be a productive way to move forward.

It's interesting that your second comment emphasizes the lack of correlation between measurements and sonics, while your first comment - "How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns" - presumes a fairly smooth and reliable correlation between price and sonics. Personally I have found the reverse - that the price-sonics correlation is weaker and less reliable than the measurement-sonics correlation.

This is an extreme, highly disparaging statement, and such statements require some evidence if they are to be taken seriously and not be viewed as bad forum behavior. So too does the placing of the word reviews in scare-quotes require some explanation or justification if it s not to be considered gratuitous nastiness with no substance behind it. I would encourage anyone reading this thread who does not already have a strong opinion about ASR to visit the site and decide for themselves.

I'll give you a pass on going off-topic since you added that smiley face at the end. 🙂 Seriously, though, for me it's not a matter of trusting or not trusting Amir's listening reports. I just don't care about them because they are of little value to me. He finds DACs that measure well - and even DACs that measure mediocrely - sound pretty much transparent. That's not surprising to me. He finds that underpowered or poorly measuring headphone amps don't sound very good when driving demanding high-impedance headphones. Also not surprising. And he finds that cheap AV receivers whose noise and distortion specs are 25-40dB worse than better equipment, and whose current handling is far inferior to better equipment, don't sound great. Also not a revelation. His listening tests of speakers I find to be interesting but not very useful either, because transducers are the least accurate, most distorted components in any system (assuming everything in the system is properly engineered), and therefore I find both measurements and listening reports not terribly decisive or helpful - with speakers my view is that one is dealing with more variability and bigger tradeoffs, and so the measurements from speaker to speaker are going to be less similar than from, say, DAC to DAC, and the listening impressions are going to be more shaped by listener preference than by a listener's ability to discern transparency. Put simply, I would consider buying a DAC without listening to it first, but not speakers. So I don't "trust" Amir's listening reports because I don't really trust anyone's listening reports. 🙂 As for MQA, I don't think anyone at ASR has been more vocal in arguing with Amir about MQA than I have. And yet somehow his favorable view of MQA has not impaired his brain so much that it makes him unable to operate his AP analyzer. So all good.

I can always agree with that!

That's a shame since room acoustics are important and their impact on the sound can be demonstrated very easily by both listening and measurements. In fact, room acoustics are one of the strongest areas of agreement among subjectivists and objectivists. Of course, room acoustics do become irrelevant with headphones, and if you are using a stereo system that - as you have said yourself - is akin to headphones with the ear cups pulled away slightly, then room acoustics aren't going to be an issue for you because you're engaged in near-field listening. But your use case is not all use cases, and room acoustics are significant in non-nearfield listening.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

This is manifestly untrue, and so we're going to have to agree to disagree.