Subjective vs Objective Debate

8/19/2019 Subjective vs Objective Debate

1/19

INTRO: Given the strong reaction to some of my articles here are somethought’s on what’s likely behind the more emotional responses. Theworld of high-end audio can be almost religious and divided something

like the Republicans and Democrats. n this case it’s the !ub"ectivistsversus the #b"ectivists. t’s been called the $Great Debate% a $&oly 'ar%and more. (photo: )rancis *arnauba+

HIGH-END AUDIO’s DIRTY SECRET: 'hat if told you there wasa proven way to evaluate gear using your own ears that highlights eventhe smallest audible differences between two pieces of gear, *omparedto typical listening methods it’s been found to be far more reliable andrevealing of subtle differences. ore on this later

THE SUBJECTIVISTS: The hardcore !ub"ectivists trust their ownears above all else and often ignore/ downplay/ or sometimes evenactively discredit ob"ective efforts. !ome argue they have superiorhearing and0or listening skills and more refined tastes. That sometimescreates at least a whiff of an elitist $club% that some are drawn to (think

Robb Report +. 1ut/ regardless/ their genuine passion for audio is to beadmired. 2nd believe at least some of them do have superior listening

skills compared to the 2verage 3oe. Despite their more emotional left brains/ which might imply a greater love of music/ there’s someconsensus !ub"ectivists spend more of their time tweaking andevaluating their hardware than a typical ob"ectivist. Stereophile’s ichael )remer is generally considered a strong sub"ectivist.

THE OBJECTIVISTS: This group tends to prefer some sort of science/measurements/ or ob"ective listening tests to back up claims of $2 is

better than 1%. 'hen reading a gear review they’re more likely to skip tothe measurements section (if there is one+ than read sub"ectiveimpressions. They tend to be skeptical of outrageous claims and ultrahigh priced gear. They also tend to buy less e4pensive gear/ less often/than sub"ectivists making them less attractive to manufactures. 2smentioned above/ they tend to be more satisfied with their systems sothe spend more time "ust listening to music rather than the gear. !ome

http://robbreport.com/http://robbreport.com/


2/19

have speculated this is because they’re confident more of their hardwareis already $good enough.% 5eter 2c6el and the late 3ulian &irsch areclassic audio ob"ectivists. 2nd a lot of the folks at &ydrogenaudio fall inthis category.

THE MODERATES: 3ust as with politics and religion/ it’s not blackand white. !ome have a foot firmly in both the ob"ective and sub"ectiveside of things. !ome e4amples are 3ohn 2tkinson at !tereophile/ 3ohn!iau at 1enchmark edia/ and to some degree/ myself. 'e valueob"ective measurements but also trust our ears and "ust because we maynot hear a difference we accept someone else might. believe those inthe middle are generally the most open minded.

CREDIBILITY: 'ine critics need credibility and trusted taste buds todiscern all the subtle details of wine. !ub"ective audio reviewers aree4pected to have good hearing and highly developed listening skills. 1utobjective geeks only have to make proper measurements others canverify. 7ven Grandpa with his hearing aids could do it. (photo:heatheronhertravels+

ACCOUNTABILITY: The sub"ective

reviewers have it easy. f someonedoesn’t agree with one of their reviews/e4cuses are plentiful. 'hen sub"ectivereviewers are 8uestioned/ haveseriously seen or heard variations of allof these responses:

• 'hile you might not like it I

preferred the slightly more recessed presentation of the 9berD2*1lack 7dition

• The 9berD2* is a better match with my ultra e4pensive reference

system than your more modest gear

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/


3/19

• Did you use the 9berink Reverse Twisted 9nobtanium cables

recommended for the 9berD2*,

• was in a noisy restaurant for lunch immediately before reviewing

the 9berD2* and my ears hadn’t fully recovered

• didn’t know it at the time/ but it turns out was in the early stages

of a head cold when reviewed the 9berD2*

• had too much wine the night before (my personal favorite+

OBJECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY: #b"ective reviewers have it hard.'e either publish reasonably accurate measurements or we get caughtwith our pants down. The whole idea is to publish numbers in a waysomeone else can reproduce (or come close enough+. !o the quality ofour measurements determines our credibility. 2n error is an error. tre8uires a lot of wine before ;. 'e can’t simply ignore or changethe well established principals of audio engineering. 'e have to admitwhen we’re wrong or "oin the 5lanet 7arth s )lat !ociety.

JUST MESSENGERS: ndependent ob"ective reviewers/ me included/

"ust test gear and publish the numbers. 'e don’t make the gear/ weusually don’t make up the measurements/ and we certainly better notmake up the results. 'e didn’t invent T&D/ the decibel or #hm’s aw.!o the numbers are what they are. f we’re doing our "ob right/ we’re

just messengers delivering numbers we have little control over . #fcourse nothing but numbers is boring and only useful to hardcore geeksand engineers. !o it’s best when the numbers are presented in arelatively understandable way.

YACA (?et 2nother *ar 2nalogy+: !ay you’re in the market for a newfast car and you’re comparing them online. *hevy and )ord both haveall new versions of the *amaro !! and ustang GT. They’re so newnobody has done any track testing yet but here are the factory’s

published numbers:


4/19

!pecification)ord ustang

GT*hevy *amaro

!!

*urb 'eight >@AB 5ounds >C@A 5ounds

&orsepower ;E &5 E@ &5

Tor8ue >FA ft-lbs EA ft-lbs5erformanceA-@A 5& .C seconds .F seconds

Gas ileage(city+ ;C miles0gal ;@ miles0gal

1ased on the numbers/ the ustang is lighter/ 8uicker and uses less gasso you check it out at the dealer. t looks great and seems to have enough

power so you buy it. 'hen you get home you find the latest issue of Road & Track in your mailbo4. They "ust tested the your ustang GTand here’s what they found versus )ord’s numbers:

!pecification )ord’s !pecRT’s

easurement

*urb 'eight >@AB 5ounds >F;A 5ounds

&orsepower ;E &5 EFA &5 (on dyno+

Tor8ue >FA ft-lbsEHB ft-lbs (on

dyno+

5erformance A-@A5& .C seconds

F.; seconds (ontrack+

Gas ileage (city+ ;C miles0gal; miles0gal (test

loop+

MARKETING MEETS REALITY: t turns out )ord’s marketing teamwasn’t even close to accurate. The car is way heavier/ has a lot less

power/ drinks more gas/ and a 5rius with a full charge might give you agood run at a stoplight. This is what you "ust paid I>B/AAA for, )acedwith the bad news/ here are some possible options: (photo: )ord otor*ompany+


5/19

• Take the car back to the dealer/

show them the article/ and ask what’s going on

• Jo longer trust )ord and buy a*hevy

• #ffer your buddy with the dynamometer a case of beer if he’ll test

your ustang’s horsepower and tor8ue

• Try a few of your own A-@A runs to see if it’s really closer to F.;

seconds than .C seconds

• 1urn the issue of Road & Track as you don’t really care about

numbers anyway

• )ire off an angry email to Road & Track accusing them of being

incompetent without ever trying to verify if their measurements areeven correct

BUGS ON THE WINDSHIELD: f we treat cars like audio/ it seems

most who already own the ustang prefer the last choice above alongwith some or all of the following thrown in for good measure:

• !hoot The essenger &e’s clearly an idiot

• trust )ord is less biased than some guy at a maga6ine

• &is KC ustang was only running on B cylinders

• &e can’t tell the big hand from the little hand on his stopwatch

• Those bugs on the windshield were slowing it down


6/19

CARS vs AUDIO: #f course younever see automotive numbers off bythe huge margins shown above. 'hynot, 1ecause maga6ines like Road &

Track keep the car manufactureshonest. f they know their cars will betrack tested/ dyno tested/ etc. it’s in their best interest to publishreasonably accurate data. f they didn’t it would be obvious. !o why

should audio companies be different or e!empt from being held similarly

accountable" #photo$ dbaldwin%

FLAK JACKET REQUIRED: Jot only is audio myth-busting a

relatively thankless "ob/ it sometimes re8uires protection from an angrymob of sub"ectivists. !ome wonder why ’m relatively anonymous. )irstof all/ it’s recommended 1loggers write under a pen name. 2nd it’s agood thing as ’ve been threatened/ called all sorts of names/ accused ofhaving other agendas/ and much more. 2pparently it’s dangerous work

being a messenger/ reporting real numbers/ and challenging audio claimswith real engineering sn’t )ord responsible for publishing misleadingnumbers, 'hy would someone attack Road & Track for helping e4posethe truth" The same is true of industry standard 5* benchmarks. f theDell claims their laptop is faster than the competing &5/ but it’s reallythe other way around on a do6en different tests/ would you attack theguy doing the review, There’s something odd going on with audio.

IT GETS PERSONAL: There’s a long history of attacking ob"ectivistswho try to clarify what matters and0or bust audio myths. 5eter 2c6el ofthe udio 'ritic is a long time e4ample and a newer one is eyer andoran for their !2*D hi-res audio work . 9nlike cars or 5*s/ much of

high-end audio has little basis in fact. 'hen someone tries to bring factsinto the mi4/ some take it as a challenge to their personal beliefs/

personal hobby/ etc. 2nd/ unfortunately/ some go on the defensive andtry to discredit the messenger. t’s not too far removed from creationistsattacking the science behind evolution.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdfhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdfhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195


7/19

FOLLOW THE MONEY: They say to figure out what’s really going inour messed up political system you "ust have to follow the money. tturns out/ you can largely do the same thing in high-end audio. 2 lot ofmoney gets spent based on highly biased sub"ective evaluations of audio

gear. n fact/ the more e4pensive the gear/ the more likely it’s boughtentirely based on sub"ective criteria. show an e4ample below inSubjective Report 'ards. f you look at what most influences buyingdecisions--websites/ maga6ines/ the largest forums/ etc.--you’ll findnearly all of them are largely bought and paid for by the companiesmaking the gear. !o it’s hardly surprising few do ob"ective testing. 2ndwhat ob"ective tests they conduct often give the e8uipment the benefit of doubt. 2 classic e4ample are 20K receiver tests where the manufacture’s

power claims are rarely directly challenged. nstead they typically run acouple of power tests done in such a way to not highlight the fact aI;AAA $;EA watt 4 H% receiver might manage only EC watts0ch with all Hchannels operating.

SUBJECTIVE BIAS: !ome interesting studies have been done aboutsub"ective bias in audio. Tom Jousaine published a ;FF; 27! papertitled 'an (ou Trust (our )ars" t included several different tests/ butone of the more interesting involved listeners evaluating (unknown tothem+ identical musical selections. They were asked if they preferred 2/1 or had no preference. H@L of them e4pressed a preference despite theselections being identical. t showed people readily hear differenceswhen none e4ist. That’s not good news for someone who "ust replacedtheir I>AA D2* with a I>AAA D2* because they thought the moree4pensive one sounded better. The two may really sound the same. )ormore on this recommend: Dishonesty of !ighted istening Tests by!ean #live. (photo: !ean #live+

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5539http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.htmlhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5539http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html


8/19

HEARING BIAS: There’s anentertaining and e4cellent 27!2udio yths 'orkshop Kideo withsome very interesting observations

by e4perts in their respective fields.#ne talks about how the brain andear work together. &umanMs are notlike an ideal microphone treatingeverything the same. 2s with the restof our senses/ the brain adapts our hearing for the needs of the moment. f you’re trying to pick out aconversation across a crowded room you naturally filter out everyone

else talking without even reali6ing you’re doing so. This same filteringgoes on when listening to audio gear. ?ou might listen critically to the

bass one moment and the highs the ne4t/ but you can’t listen to both atonce and glean as much information. 'e do the same thing with ourvision. There are televised e4amples of naked people running acrossfootball fields in plain view during key plays and few people ever evensaw them. Their senses were heavily biased toward the players. Theyalso talk in the video about replacing the circuitry of a high-end

audiophile amplifier with a really low-end amp that no audiophile would be caught dead listening to. 2nd/ guess what/ audiophiles still loved theamp because their eyes were telling them it was a high-end amp so that’swhat their ears heard.

INVOLUNTARY BIAS (added B0E>+: !ub"ective audiophiles oftenclaim they’re not affected by the sort of sighted listening biasdocumented by Toole #live. They argue bias is only an issue foruntrained listeners. 1ut what if it’s genuinely involuntary, There’s a

well understood phenomena called the cGurk 7ffect. t shows howcertain knowledge/ such as what we see/ influences what we hear. 2nd/even more significant/ the bias is involuntary. 2round the E minute mark in the video linked below they talk about how/ even when yourconscious brain knows what the truth is/ your subconscious brain stillalters your hearing in ways you cannot control* The researcher says he’s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ


9/19

been studying this effect for EB years and it still affects him "ust as muchas an untrained listener. The cGurk effect goes away if you close youreyes. 1ut in evaluating gear just closing your eyes isn’t enough if yourbrain still knows what you’re listening to. ?ou need a blind test to

eliminate the bias. Try it yourself with this fascinating video: (photo:11*+

• Try The cGurk 7ffect - 11*

>.B inute Kideo

FOLLOW THE MONEY PART 2:

t’s human nature if you go out andspend your hard earned cash on somenew piece of gear you want it to beworth the investment. This feeling is compounded by all the sub"ectivereviews you read where others raved about the same piece of gear. nmultiple ways your subconscious is already wired to hear a niceimprovement even when there isn’t any improvement* This isn’t farremoved for hearing $)a% when the guy in the video above is clearlysaying $1a%. ?our brain and senses are "ust telling you what they thinkyou want to hear.

THE NEED TO BELIEVE: Thereare some negative comments in myini> review saying lost allcredibility by comparing it to the IEA)ii# 7B. f you look at themeasurements/ the two amps are

relatively similar in many areas. 1utthere are obviously some who needto believe a I;CA amp is a lot better than a IEA one. They probablyalready have a ini> so it’s an insult for someone (me in this case+ toindirectly suggest they spent many times more than necessary. receivedsimilar comments for suggesting the IEF 1ehringer 9*2EAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/amb-mini3-diy-headphone-amp.htmlhttp://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/03/fiio-e5-headphone-amp.htmlhttp://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/amb-mini3-diy-headphone-amp.htmlhttp://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/03/fiio-e5-headphone-amp.htmlhttp://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.html


10/19

measurements were respectableNvery likely from people who spent alot more for their 9!1 D2*. 2gain/ in their need to believe/ these gearowners would rather shoot the messenger. t’s a kind of denial.

JUDGMENT DAY: Tens of thousands of $believers% launched massivecampaigns to warn of $ay E;st EA;; 3udgment Day%. The world wassupposed to start self destructing with massive earth8uakes and more.!cientists tried to point out the facts but the believers didn’t want to hear any of it. f you’re reading those masses of fierce believers wereobviously wrong. 7ven in EA;; lots of people fall under the spell ofothers/ give in to peer pressure/ myth/ etc. They’re surprisingly willingto believe things with little or no basis in fact. #nce these beliefs reach a

critical mass/ those within the group are very difficult to persuade theymight be wrong. 1ut they don’t have a good track record. )rom thosewho believed the earth was flat/ to those who thought it was going to self destruct in EA;;/ the science geeks are the ones who are far more oftencorrect. (photo: !cott 1eal0aughing!8uid+

BELIEVING BIAS: f the guywho thinks ’m an idiot for

comparing the ini> to the 7B wereto sit down and listen to both side-

by-side which do you think he’d saysounds better, There’s almost 6erochance he’d choose the 7B. This same bias is widespread in audio. ?ouhave a I>AA D2*/ you arrange to listen to a I>AAA D2*/ and even ifthey sound e4actly the same/ your brain and hearing are $wired% to think the I>AAA D2* sounds better. !o how do we get around this problem,

BED SHEETS ! TESTING: 2s you probably guessed/ blind testing isthe $dirty secret% referred to at the start of the article. atri4 2udioconducted a relatively simple and eye opening e4ample. The photo at theright shows the test set up with two different systems under a bed sheetsharing a pair of high-end speakers. Kolunteers stood behind the


11/19

speakers and swapped the high-end cables. There were no switch bo4esinvolved. The result/ if you haven’t seen it elsewhere/ is the listenerscouldn’t tell a high-end I;E/AAA stack of gear from a IHAA (’d saycloser to IAA+ set up with a pro-sound power amp/ bargain basement

*D player/ and a cheap obscenely long R*2 cable connecting the two.?ou can read all about it here:(photo: atri4 2udio+

• atri4 2udio Test

LONG TERM LISTENING: 2 lotof blind testing involves switching

between 2 and 1/ or replaying musictracks after something is changed. *ritics of these tests argue that’s notthe best way to evaluate audio gear. They say you must live with it for awhile to appreciate the differences (never mind most of them claim toswap out a piece of gear and hear immediate and obvious differences+.David *lark and aurence Greenhill came up with a clever idea. Theymade a bunch of sealed black bo4es where some had a direct connectioninside while others distorted the audio signal to a significant degree.They were built with high-end connectors/ etc. They sent the bo4es

home with members of a local audiophile club to live with and decide ifthey had a $straight wire% bo4 or one that did ugly things to the audio.Despite living with them for a while/ the audiophiles who took the bo4eshome failed to determine which was which. The same bo4es/ however/were identified with relative ease in a blind +,+- test . Thisdemonstrated the e4act opposite of what many audiophiles claim: ongterm listening is less sensitive than 2010O testing. This test/ and others/are summari6ed in Ten ?ears of 21O Testing.

A NEW WINE ANALOGY: any have probably heard the analogy before/ but here’s a short entertaining article by a wine critic describing blind testing. &e rated the IE.BA *harles !haw wine very poorly insighted tasting. 1ut he discovered/ with brown paper wrappers on the

bottles/ it was $not going to be easy%. won’t spoil the outcome but his

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htmhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htmhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549


12/19

e4perience is e4actly analogous to what usually happens in blind audiotesting. !uddenly that IEA )ii# or I>A 1ehringer is a lot harder to pickout. 2t least this critic was humble enough to go public with hise4perience:

• 'ellesley 'ine 5ress 1lind Tasting

BLIND BANNED: The largest headphone forum around/ &ead-)i/ prohibits the discussion of blind testing in all but one of their EA<forums. They only/ seemingly grudgingly/ allow it in the back-of-the-bus!ound !cience forum that’s all but ignored by the mainstream. 'hy,*ould it be their many sponsors/ say Pables selling i5od cables priced atmany times the i5od itself (I;AAA< for a @ inch i5od dock cable+/ don’tapprove of having their products debunked with blind test results, ?ouwon’t see many blind tests in the audiophile maga6ines or on ad-supported websites. t seems an e4cellent tool has been strategicallymarginali6ed/ swept under the rug/ and discredited over the last decade

by the $industry%. t’s time for more people to start asking why.

SUBJECTIVE HAS ITS PLACE:

'hen choosing a car/ new laptop/ andaudio gear/ the sub"ective sidematters. t’s not all numbers. Thingslike ease of use/ aesthetics/ and build8uality are all important. 'hen itcomes to the sound of differentspeakers and headphones/ sub"ective opinions are often what mattermost. 2re you a basshead/ like it bright and detailed/ laid back/ or as

accurate as possible, ’m not trying to dispute sub"ective preferences. fyou like the sound of tube gear/ even if it measures poorly/ that’s your business. f it puts a smile on your face that’s what matters most. 2ndsome buy high-end gear for the 8uality/ looks/ status/ etc. y concern ismisleading objective data/ ob"ective claims with no basis in reality/

http://www.wellesleywinepress.com/2009/05/charles-shaw-blind-tasting-or-are-we.htmlhttp://www.qables.com/http://www.wellesleywinepress.com/2009/05/charles-shaw-blind-tasting-or-are-we.htmlhttp://www.qables.com/


13/19

marketing $pseudo-science%/ and when the line between sub"ective andob"ective is intentionally blurred.

SUBJECTIVE REPORT CARDS: Stereophile maga6ine assigns letter

grades in their annual Recommended *omponents issue. n the 2prilEA;; issue the Kitus 2udio 5-5EA; phono preamp/ for a paltryI@A/AAA.AA/ rated an $2 rated asorry $D%Nthe kid who didn’t study for the test. Stereophile is to becommended for conducting measurements of some of the gear theyreview. n this case/ the bargain J2D measured better than the uber-e4pensive Kitus. The J2D had notably lower distortion and lower noise

Nan especially important parameter in a phono preamp. !o is it safe to

assume the e4tra IBF/CA;.AA of value in the Kitus must be purelysub"ective,

WHEN OPINION BECOMES FACT: n the e4ample above one person/ ichael )remer/ apparently decided the I@AQ Kitus was vastly better based on his personal opinion of how it sounds. )rom what gather/ he didn’t conduct any sort of rigorous blind listening tests thatincluded others. Jor did 3ohn 2tkinson’s inferior measurementsultimately carry much weight. gather )remer listened to the Kitus in his

particular system/ using his phono cartridge(s+/ with his particular tastesin music/ and decided it’s worth the astronomical price tag. s the rest ofthe world to believe they would also prefer the Kitus over the J2D evenwith their different personal preferences/ phono cartridge(s+/ and musiccollections, This often happens at all price levelsNsomeone else’s highly sub"ective (and nearly always biased+ opinion becomes ob"ective$proof% that Gear O is better than Gear ?. !o lots of other people buyGear O even though they might have different tastes or not hear any

difference at all. There are many things wrong with thisNespeciallywhen seemingly ob"ective ratings like !tereophile’s $2%/ $1%/ etc. oranother maga6ine’s B stars/ imply some clear criteria.

PEER PRESSURE: The Stereophile ratings are a lot like .ineSpectator scores. They create a sort of $peer pressure%--much like

http://www.stereophile.com/phonopreamps/vitus_audio_mp-p201_masterpiece_series_phono_preamplifier/index.htmlhttp://www.stereophile.com/phonopreamps/nad_pp_3_digital_phono_preamplifier/index.htmlhttp://www.stereophile.com/phonopreamps/vitus_audio_mp-p201_masterpiece_series_phono_preamplifier/index.htmlhttp://www.stereophile.com/phonopreamps/nad_pp_3_digital_phono_preamplifier/index.html


14/19

wanting to serve wine with a high score regardless of the wine buyer’sown personal tastes. 2nd even if a critic en"oyed a particular wine withhis talian food/ it might be a lousy match with someone else’s !ushi.The same can be said for ichael )remer’s reviews. 3ust because the

Kitus sounded good for him/ using his gear/ music/ etc./ doesn’t meanit’s audio nirvana for someone else. 2nd how much was )remerunavoidably biased by the I@AQ price tag and similar factors, Didsomeone from Kitus fill his head with hyperbole beforehand over agourmet lunch, 5erhaps most serious of all: 'hat if the Kitus really

sounds just like the cheap but well engineered /0, That outcome is far more likely than most reali6e or want to admit.

BACK TO ACCOUNTABILITY: f ichael )remer can go aroundrecommending I@A/AAA gear based on his listening abilities/ some mightreasonably want proof he’s 8ualified. 2nd being a good sport/ r)remer broke rank and participated in at least a few blind listening tests.The result was a rather mi4ed bag and at least one included lots of handwaving. Jot surprisingly/ few want to follow in his footsteps. Today it’seven more difficult to find listeners with a public reputation willing to

participate in a blind test. The same people who publish hearing$immediate and obvious% differences in everything from cables to power conditioners typically make all sorts of 8uestionable e4cuses when askedto do so with brown bags or bed sheets concealing the gear. 5ersonally/ suspect )remer probably can hear things FFL of the population wouldhave trouble hearing. f anything/ he’s a $ringer% for the sub"ectivists and have genuine respect for his listening abilities. !o it’s especially ashame he/ and other skilled critics like him/ won’t participate in more

blind tests.

WIRED WISDOM (updated @0>+: Tom Jousaine published a greatarticle in Sound and 1ision called 'ired 'isdom. The goal was to see ifaudiophiles/ in their own homes using their own familiar high-endsystems/ could hear differences between cheap and e4pensive cables. nall three trials/ they could not. The cable myth suffered a serious blow


15/19


16/19

$every opportunity% to detect a difference. The testing lasted a year andincluded @A members of the 1oston 2udio !ociety/ many professionalrecording engineers/ fresh eared college students/ and a whopping BBlistening trials. 2fter all that/ the only way anyone could identify a

consistent difference was by cranking the volume unrealistically highduring 8uiet passages e4posing the higher noise floor of the ;@ bitconversion.

Think about the implications of the above. ost sub"ective audiophilesclaim to hear differences between *D players/ D2*s/ and indeed mostanything that performs a digital to analog conversion. They also consider !2*D and other high resolution formats as being plainly superior. 'hy

can’t audiophiles detect any difference at all when the music is sub"ectedto an e!tra 20D and then another e!tra D02 process when they don’tknow that’s happening,

SHOOT THE MESSENGER "$%$&'#: Jot surprisingly/ many havetried to discredit eyer and oran claiming they didn’t use the rightsource material/ etc. The study authors have responded to much of thecriticism in this little cited follow up. t’s my personal opinion nobodyover the last years/ despite plenty of attempts and desire/ has

invalidated the overall results. f nothing else the study demonstrates "usthow genuinely transparent ;@0 digital audio can be. The best challenge’ve seen is a single EA;A study finding a tiny minority of e4pertlisteners/ under very specific circumstances/ could discern very slight differences. There are many other interesting references about !2*D vs*D as well as a summary of the above test here:

• 'ikipedia !2*D 2udible Differences

THINK ABOUT IT: Two guys come along and the most respectedob"ective audio organi6ation in the world publishes their paper thatthreatens to destroy the entire !2*D audio industry and also doesdamage to high resolution audio formats of any kind. eyer and oranattempted to demonstrate *D 8uality audio really is good enough. f

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15249http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Audible_differences_compared_to_PCM.2FCDhttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15249http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Audible_differences_compared_to_PCM.2FCD


17/19

5hilips/ !ony and the music labels behind !2*D knew the study wasflawed/ and !2*D was audibly superior/ it would have been pocketchange for them to fund a study demonstrating where eyer and oranwere wrong. 1ut/ surprise surprise/ that never happened. The closest was

the EA;A paper on !ampling Rate Discrimination mentioned above (ifyou want to geek out on a lengthy discussion of the EA;A study checkout this &ydrogenaudio thread+.

RINSE LATHER AND REPEAT WITH VINYL: ots of claims aremade for the analog nature of vinyl 5s and a small fortune is spent onesoteric turntables and phono gear as an analog source for pure analoghigh-end systems. 'hen playing vintage analog-mastered music the

audio never suffers the indignity of being whacked up into a bunch ofnumerical values and put back together. uch like the !2*D test above/there have been various tests demonstrating even devout vinyl loverscan’t tell when you slip an 20D S D02 loop into their otherwise allanalog signal chain. &ere’s a link to one but there are some better ones’ll work on finding the links for. ’ve also done my own informal blindvinyl test on the sly. The vinyl lover wasn’t even aware he’d beenlistening to digital for several days on an e4tremely high-end all analogsystem. 2nd this guy really hates digital anything. Don’t get me wrong/ own a nice turntable and listen to vinyl. 1ut for me it’s mostly aboutmusic that’s only available on vinyl. don’t pretend it’s a technically superior format.

• Kinyl yths on &ydrogenaudio (added B0>;+

OBJECTIVE ISN’T EVERYTHING: said above sub"ective stuffmatters/ and ’m including the reverse "ust to be clear. The numbers only

tell part of the story. They make a convenient way to compare somethingsNespecially say power output/ output impedance/ how suitable agiven source0amp is for a particular headphone/ fre8uency response/ etc.1ut there are limits. f nothing else/ great measurements provide asignificant piece of mind for some people. They can rela4 and en"oy themusic knowing their gear is among the most transparent available. 2nd

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264&st=50http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=7953http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264&st=50http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=7953http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)


18/19

blind tests $wrap% sub"ective listening in a controlled/ and moreob"ective/ environment free of the usual bias while keeping score. Thetwo complement each other well.

WHEN SPECS ARE NOT ENOUGH: )irst the easy part. )orspeakers/ headphone and phono cartridges think everyone agrees it’stough to look at the specs and know e4actly what they will sound like.?ou can still make some valid comparisons but the specs only give you a

partial idea of the sound. 'ith speakers and headphones the acousticsare a big part of the listening e4perienceNall rooms and ear0headgeometries are different. The sound of cartridges are altered by thetonearm and turntable geometry they’re used in (effective arm length/

KT2/ arm resonance/ damping/ etc.+. They also perform very differently playing worn vinyl as stylus tips come in an almost endless variety ofshapes and si6es. !o cartridge 2 rides in a different part of the groovethan cartridge 1. 2nd measurements are limited by the relatively lowresolution of vinyl test albums. !o/ in other words/ your mileage mayvary and caveat emptor. ?ou have to listen to speakers/ headphones andcartridges to fully evaluate them. ,ut that’s much less true withelectronics.

GRAY AREA (added B0>;+: There’s a solid consensus on the sub"ectivenature of speakers/ headphones and phono cartridges but what abouteverything else, ost ob"ectivists will tell you a IEA well designedinterconnect and a IEAA well designed interconnect will sound the same.2nd that’s been demonstrated many times (see .ired .isdom above+.&ardcore ob"ectivists (such as 5eter 2c6el+ argue any amp that measures

sufficiently well and is operated well within its limits will beindistinguishable from any other amp. 2nd that’s been demonstrated in

countless blind listening tests. 1ut what about when an amp nears itslimits, 'hat if you have difficult to drive speakers for e4ample that areE ohms at some fre8uencies, 'ill the cheap amp still sound "ust like thehigh-end model, 5erhaps not. !ome of these behaviors can at least be

partly measured but some are more difficult. 2nd what defines$measures sufficiently well%, 7nough studies have been done it’s fairly


19/19

safe to make several generali6ations/ but there’s still room for discussionand further research in some areas. ’ll hopefully be publishing a future

blog article on the topic of correlating specs with listening observations.

MAGICAL THINKING: 2s someone pointed out in the comments/some audiophiles are in this for the $mysticism/ magical thinking/ andnever ending 8uest% (their words+ and certainly know a few in thatcategory. The purveyors of tube products tend to be rather clever in theirmarketing. They rarely make boastful performance claims and someoffer hardly any specs at all. They know certain people en"oy their

products and they make an appropriately sub"ective sales pitch. That’shard to argue with. 1ut when someone makes objective claims/ and

they’re far from being realistic/ that’s "ust deceptive and wrongN regardless of the buyer’s priorities. t’s easy for some to get $sucked in%to the hype/ myths/ and mania when the real facts are constantly beingswept under the rug. t’s not unlike .ine Spectator scores. !ee 4eer

4ressure above.

Documents

Subjective vs Objective Debate