Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC
@dbb Yes but it's your brain telling you it sounds different when the tests speak for themselves. How could one piece of wire sound different from another one? It's just impossible. We're all scientists here so don't dispute the facts. Jen Psaki and all her BS would get on great over there. |
The reason testing crowd can't get past measurements is they simply can't get past the idea of NOT trusting their senses, or anyone else's for that matter. The one listening test they use, blind testing is so often inconclusive, which only proves the faultiness of our senses for them. I've watched these O vs S arguments for so long, always circular, and always goes back to distrust of senses. I'd think it wise and logical for measurement crowd to measure listeners as much as the subject or component under review. For them, testing of listeners is validated by plenty of existing measurements of human hearing, the individual sensory perceptions never addressed. They invalidate individual sensory perception through a priori inability to control for it. In other word, individual biases of all kinds contaminate the results, therefore, this can't conform to good science.
Trying to apply science to audio reproduction and our individual sensory perceptions is a futile undertaking. Removing the individual sensory perception part of equation allows them to claim this is good science. I've argued at the point they have robot or replicant of myself, with testing apparatus built in to measure all my sensory perceptions in relation to reproduction of music over audio components I'll believe this good science.
Testing and measurements also bring to mind, analog/vinyl setups vs digital, vinyl measures much worse in some parameters, yet many consider vinyl reproduction the reference for audio reproduction. I certainly hear a difference in analog vs digital audio reproduction. Do SINAD , dynamic range, or any other measurements explain explain all these differences. And what about the instruments that produce this music, can measurements explain the texture and tonality of a Stradivarious violin vs. that of generic, both measure exactly the same, they HAVE to sound the same according to measurement crowd! Well, I guess musicians have been wasting their money on these equally instruments for centuries, they're just imagining they have superior or even different sound qualities. Not hard to imagine the smugness of those who judge us as deluded and reliant on our totally faulty sensory perceptions. I can only say I'm awestruck by the textures and colors I hear at live concerts and in music reproduction on my system, the unmeasurable content makes all the difference for me! |
The argument over "objective" (which are often not objective) measurements vs. "subjective" (which need not be subjective) listening is as old as modern audio, perhaps older. Some of us of a "certain" age will recall references to the "Julian Hirsch" school of objective audio reviewing. It was, at first, the only school. Julian Hirsch was the principal reviewer for "High Fidelity" magazine. It was pure measurement. No listening. It proved, for example, that cheap Japanese direct-drive turntables were better than expensive belt-drive turntables. Sometimes these were called manufacturer sanctioned measurements. I call these measurements not objective because if they don’t correspond to what you hear, you’re measuring the wrong things. They also measured electronic components for the usual specifications and "proved" that early solid state outperformed the best tubed electronics. They were busy selling whatever the mass producers were making. So along come Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson (HP) with their iconoclastic choice of listening to systems and components. Though called and still called subjective, they showed there was an objective side to listening. That was an educated ear’s comparison to acoustic music in real space. HP soon invented a vocabulary of sound including the concept of "sound stage" He made it a requirement that his reviewers regularly attend concerts of live unamplified music. Most of that is classical. It was HP’s assertion that if a component was good on classical music it would be good on everything. The listening was always done by substituting the component into a familiar reference audio system and listening to familiar recordings, many of which were available for the reader to buy. That was followed by a discussion of how the component brought the system closer or further from the real thing. If this seems somewhat familiar to those on this thread it is because of @dbb’s outstanding writing. That kind of listener reviewing is very different from most of what I read these days which are simply multiple ways of saying, "I like it." So this distinction between measurement and listening will go on and on. As has been shown there’s really no point to interrupting the other side’s party. |
I like quibbling. Quibbling is what we do here and you’re absolutely correct about Julian Hirsch. Mea culpa. High Fidelity and what was first called Hi Fi Review were the two mass market magazines in the day They were pretty similar in approach. Hi Fi Review renamed itself Hi Fi Stereo review and then Stereo review as the industry changed. In 1989 them merged under the Stereo Review banner. |
