TIDAL is NOT Worth it! Listening Test

[Sal1950]

As such, the only acceptable product performance criteria would be instrumented specifications, or large sample size well controlled listening tests. Therefore, the personal auditioning of an component, whether it is an purely electronic device or an transducer, is an scientifically invalid selection method.

Anything else is then strictly a opinion and has no factually supporting evidence, useless IMHO.

As it stands, consumers are typically left with a slew of technicaly accurate measurements which should supplement the selection decision, but may or may not sum to natural sound for a given audio consumer.

Or they are left with drivel such as Mikey Fremer telling readers how much the inclusion of a Audioquest Hurricane power cord to at $99K Boulder amp improves it's sound. (Stereophile Feb 2017 issue).

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think anyone disputes that sighted expectation bias may (but not necessarily) corrupt an subjective evaluation. The issue, to me, is that objectivists view any observation that isn't fully scientifically controlled as being invalid. They would necessarily have to. As such, the only acceptable product performance criteria would be instrumented specifications, or large sample size well controlled listening tests. Therefore, the personal auditioning of an component, whether it is an purely electronic device or an transducer, is an scientifically invalid selection method. Which is why I asked Amir whether he, as an objectivist, ever listens to a component prior to purchasing it. Any excuse that personal listening is done only in the absence of scientific test data only serves to counter the objectivist argument.

The only valid choice when lacking properly scientific data for a given component is to select only among those components providing such data, as limiting as that may be. Defaulting to selecting based on brand, or price, or features maybe practical, but is not objective regarding product performance. Double-blind single person listening is a statistically invalid method, and therefore not scientific, because a sample size of one is too small. While expectation bias is eliminated via double-blind, other biases and error sources are not. All that one really is doing there is selecting the sound that is personally and subjectively preferred. Which is certainly superior to selecting the component producing a less preferred sound character simply because scientific testing declares that it SHOULD sound the more preferred.

It may surprise you that I'm all for accurate and reliable quantification of system sound. The problem is that such meaures don't currently provide a figure of merit accurately leading one reliably to the selection of one component over another for the purpose of delivering the more natural/realistic reproduction. I believe that such a figure of merit would greatly boost audio sales as it would serve as a dependable proxy for the long education process and listening experience otherwise required. As it stands, consumers are typically left with a slew of technicaly accurate measurements which should supplement the selection decision, but may or may not sum to natural sound for a given audio consumer.

You have quite the objectivist straw man built there. Several limitations not necessary just to further your peculiar view of them. Some strange ideas about where preference fits in too.

 

[Ken Newton]

This is only true if you want your results to apply to general population. In the case of arriving data for yourself, it is statistically valid as long as your results reach above certain threshold of uncertainty (95% confidence). I actually strive for 100% here as to leave no doubt.

Yes, except, you have not escaped the fact that you are still utilizing your own personal subjctive judgment to evaluate and decide. Even after removing most sources of psychological bias, it comes down to your ears informing you based on your personal experience (which is it's own sort of bias), not some objective instrumented measurement.

 

[Ken Newton]

Anything else is then strictly a opinion and has no factually supporting evidence, useless IMHO.

Yes, it's opinion, or my choice of word, preference. But, so what? Is the purpose of your audio system to satisfy your own ears, or to satisfy the ears of other people, or the spectrum analyzer of some test lab for that matter? There is fact involved, which the fact of whether or not the sound seems more natural and realistic to your ears than via some alternative gear choice.

Or they are left with drivel such as Mikey Fremer telling readers how much the inclusion of a Audioquest Hurricane power cord to at $99K Boulder amp improves it's sound. (Stereophile Feb 2017 issue).

Ageeed, most subjective audio reviews are drivel. However, there can be a useful role for subjective reviewing, which is that should you discover a product reviewer whose opinions largely seem to mirror your own, it can help you to target which gear to seek out for further evaluation, as the choices are too many for practical consideration otherwise.

 

[amirm]

Yes, except, you have not escaped the fact that you are still utilizing your own personal subjctive judgment to evaluate and decide. Even after removing most sources of psychological bias, it comes down to your ears informing you based on your personal experience (which is it's own sort of bias), not some objective instrumented measurement.

Not following you. Controlled listening test are part and parcel of objectivity in audio. It is not at all insistance on using measurements. Indeed I prefer to see controlled listening tests to measurements.

 

[Ken Newton]

You have quite the objectivist straw man built there. Several limitations not necessary just to further your peculiar view of them. Some strange ideas about where preference fits in to.

Care to clearly elaborate?

 

[Ken Newton]

Not following you. Controlled listening test are part and parcel of objectivity in audio. It is not at all insistance on using measurements. Indeed I prefer to see controlled listening tests to measurements.

What is the role of subjective listening relative to that of objective measurement for the purpose of evaluating audio gear in your view? You seem to exclude subjective evaluation as invalid, except, when you don't. In my view, applying objective controls to an inherently subjective test still leaves the result as subjective, just more rigorously so, which I have no problem with.

 

[watchnerd]

Is the purpose of your audio system to satisfy your own ears, or to satisfy the ears of other people

It depends: am I mixing a recording or not?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Care to clearly elaborate?

May do later. Posting from phone now.

 

[Ken Newton]

Not following you. Controlled listening test are part and parcel of objectivity in audio. It is not at all insistance on using measurements. Indeed I prefer to see controlled listening tests to measurements.

Amir, if I've still not made my point clear then I don't know what else to say.

 

[Ken Newton]

It depends: am I mixing a recording or not?

No, the context is listening in your own home for your own enjoymemt.

 

[amirm]

What is the role of subjective listening relative to that of objective measurement for the purpose of evaluating audio gear in your view?

Depends on the measurement and what we are trying to assess. Take MP3 compression. No standard audio measurement technique will quantify its distortions so we 100% rely on listening tests. In other cases like a cable, then measurements speak the truth as far as bandwidth, characteristics, etc.

In yet another example, measurements provide the breadcrumbs that need to be interpreted. One is example is digital audio jitter. That jitter spectrum needs to be examined to see if it is within masking window or not.

Ultimately it is the combination of measurements, how things work and listening tests that we arrive at a high confidence answer. The pure "measurements are us" are forum objectivists with a mission. Good objectivists are curious to learn the technology, know the limitations of what we measure, and research into the topic. It is that well-rounded approach is what I advocate.

Mind you, we could still arrive at wrong conclusions but we have high confidence that we won't be going there often.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think anyone disputes that sighted expectation bias may (but not necessarily) corrupt an subjective evaluation. The issue, to me, is that objectivists view any observation that isn't fully scientifically controlled as being invalid. They would necessarily have to. As such, the only acceptable product performance criteria would be instrumented specifications, or large sample size well controlled listening tests. Therefore, the personal auditioning of an component, whether it is an purely electronic device or an transducer, is an scientifically invalid selection method. Which is why I asked Amir whether he, as an objectivist, ever listens to a component prior to purchasing it. Any excuse that personal listening is done only in the absence of scientific test data only serves to counter the objectivist argument.

The only valid choice when lacking properly scientific data for a given component is to select only among those components providing such data, as limiting as that may be. Defaulting to selecting based on brand, or price, or features maybe practical, but is not objective regarding product performance. Double-blind single person listening is a statistically invalid method, and therefore not scientific, because a sample size of one is too small. While expectation bias is eliminated via double-blind, other biases and error sources are not. All that one really is doing there is selecting the sound that is personally and subjectively preferred. Which is certainly superior to selecting the component producing a less preferred sound character simply because scientific testing declares that it SHOULD sound the more preferred.

It may surprise you that I'm all for accurate and reliable quantification of system sound. The problem is that such meaures don't currently provide a figure of merit accurately leading one reliably to the selection of one component over another for the purpose of delivering the more natural/realistic reproduction. I believe that such a figure of merit would greatly boost audio sales as it would serve as a dependable proxy for the long education process and listening experience otherwise required. As it stands, consumers are typically left with a slew of technicaly accurate measurements which should supplement the selection decision, but may or may not sum to natural sound for a given audio consumer.

Straw man. Second sentence. Objectivists don't view any observation that isn't scientifically controlled as being invalid. Depends on the particulars of the observation. Nor is there any reason they necessarily have to. That part is most definitely a straw construction on your view. If someone says they swapped from SS to tube amps on an ESL and it sounded different, sure I would believe that because we know ways the gear will interact to make that so. No need for additional scientific observation. The measurements are available to go with prior observation to believe it. So you then jump to the idea any personal auditioning is a scientifically invalid method. That's a fabrication built upon false premises to create a straw man. The final sentence of that first paragraph is too. Objectivists don't say sighted observation of any form is invalid. It just becomes invalid under the right circumstances and at the smallest of differences. Change speakers and discuss how the bass changed might be quite believable even sighted. Change the power cord and explain how you picked up another half octave on the low end and yes we need further investigation.

The second paragraph then leads on from earlier false premises to say an objectivist lacking data would only select among those providing such data. Depends on the situation in which one is picking. Some tests are too simple to know if you know how not to bother. If you can't get hands on then you likely avoid such gear until someone does measure it. Or like Amir sometimes does," hey I'll buy one and see what it is doing." None of that fits your overly narrow boundaries of being rationally objective. As far as picking by brand price or features not being objective well how ridiculous. If you mean taking a shot in the dark with no knowledge other than those features then maybe, but such is a highly fictionalized circumstance one is hard pressed to imagine being real. So again a straw condition just to support your overly restrictive ideas on the matter.

You final paragraph has plenty of assumptions that could stand some checking. Without better delineation of the parameters we don't know if you are discussing gear situations that are audible when you talk about figure of merit. Looking for figure of merit ratings when such merit has come from experiences of differences that aren't real will never be possible. Part and parcel is the idea sighted listeners know what is better recording by it being more natural. If audiophiles would accept the areas that are already fleshed out, take part in some simple listener training exercises to learn what their real performance envelopes as judges of gear actually are you will have far less disagreement in this area.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, it's opinion, or my choice of word, preference. But, so what? Is the purpose of your audio system to satisfy your own ears, or to satisfy the ears of other people, or the spectrum analyzer of some test lab for that matter?

The purpose of the pursuit that I grew up in was a thing called High Fidelity, not Sounds Good To Me. If you chose to build your system on "preference" that's all well and fine for you. But that attitude and approach would never have gotten us to the level of accuracy and excellence that our components exhibit today. Preference as a tool is worthless.

 

[Ken Newton]

Straw man. Second sentence. Objectivists don't view any observation that isn't scientifically controlled as being invalid. Depends on the particulars of the observation. Nor is there any reason they necessarily have to. That part is most definitely a straw construction on your view...So you then jump to the idea any personal auditioning is a scientifically invalid method. That's a fabrication built upon false premises to create a straw man.

Firstly, I wrote, "in my view". A straw man argument is one purposely constructed to be easy to knock over. I did no such thing. If you wish to disagree with my view, you are free to present your own and we can debate them. The term straw man is a pejorative, and does nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Secondly, observations which have not or cannot be reliably reproduced by others is not scientific. What you subjectively perceive as an individual observer may or may not be identically observed by others, there's no way to know without large sample testing. So, if objectivists do not view personal empirical observations as scientifically invalid, exactly what do they view them as?

If someone says they swapped from SS to tube amps on an ESL and it sounded different, sure I would believe that because we know ways the gear will interact to make that so. No need for additional scientific observation. The measurements are available to go with prior observation to believe it.

That's not a valid example because major system variables are being changed. So, there's nothing scientific to discover.

The second paragraph then leads on from earlier false premises to say an objectivist lacking data would only select among those providing such data. Depends on the situation in which one is picking. Some tests are too simple to know if you know how not to bother. If you can't get hands on then you likely avoid such gear until someone does measure it. Or like Amir sometimes does," hey I'll buy one and see what it is doing." None of that fits your overly narrow boundaries of being rationally objective.

I didn't write that an objectivist would only select among products providing objective data, but that they should if they are endevoring to be objective. Lacking data for a given component, how is an objective choice to be made? How's that a false premise? What it does is lead to the real point I'm attempting to make. Which is, that many who consider themselves as objectivists really aren't that in their purchasing behavior. For one reason, it's not very practical. Many objectivists, it seems to me, are an hybrid that very often include their own subjective observations. Which is sort of what I personally do. Specifications serve as a guide, but I trust my ears for final determinationof what sounds most real and natural to them, not my eyes reading some specification sheet.

Think in extremes for a moment. Which would you rather have, a system with excellet specs. which moved you emotionally not at all, or a system with questionable specs. that shoves an air guitar, or an air baton in to your hand, or brings you to tears, or to joy each night? The core disconnect between objective and subjective approaches to system construction is that the objective approach is based on the rational presumption that excellent specs. equal excellent sound. Except, that our experiences with audio systems has informed many of us otherwise.

As far as picking by brand price or features not being objective well how ridiculous. If you mean taking a shot in the dark with no knowledge other than those features then maybe, but such is a highly fictionalized circumstance one is hard pressed to imagine being real. So again a straw condition just to support your overly restrictive ideas on the matter.

You both misquote and misunderstand me here. I wrote that brand, price or features are not crtiteria for objectively determining product PERFORMANCE, which they aren't.

You final paragraph has plenty of assumptions that could stand some checking. Without better delineation of the parameters we don't know if you are discussing gear situations that are audible when you talk about figure of merit. Looking for figure of merit ratings when such merit has come from experiences of differences that aren't real will never be possible.

Yes, now your helping to make one of my points. Instrument based quantifications do not accurately and reliably inform a given person of what listening experience they would have with a given audio component. Your own ears provide such informing. I only wish that there were such an accurate single figure of merit quantification, it would make everyone's audio purchasing life far easier.

Part and parcel is the idea sighted listeners know what is better recording by it being more natural. If audiophiles would accept the areas that are already fleshed out, take part in some simple listener training exercises to learn what their real performance envelopes as judges of gear actually are you will have far less disagreement in this area.

Agreed, the fundamental consumer issue is a lack of audio system education and listening experience. Only we audiophiles seem willing to commit the necessary time and effort required.

 

[Ken Newton]

The purpose of the pursuit that I grew up in was a thing called High Fidelity, not Sounds Good To Me. If you chose to build your system on "preference" that's all well and fine for you. But that attitude and approach would never have gotten us to the level of accuracy and excellence that our components exhibit today. Preference as a tool is worthless.

I've heard solid state amplifiers, both featuring uniformly impeccable specs., sound subjectively quite different from each other. Perhaps, you have as well. The question was beyond non-flat fequency response, or audible distrotion and noise. If one was right the other had to be wrong, but how then to determine which? This is a situation where personal subjective evaluation can make the correct determination for a given listener. As we acquire knowledge and listening experience we can aquire better subjective judgement.

 

[Sal1950]

I've heard solid state amplifiers, both featuring uniformly impeccable specs., sound subjectively quite different from each other. Perhaps, you have as well. The question was beyond non-flat fequency response, or audible distrotion and noise. If one was right the other had to be wrong, but how then to determine which? This is a situation where personal subjective evaluation can make the correct determination for a given listener. As we acquire knowledge and listening experience we can aquire better subjective judgement.

That's easy for you to claim in your hypothetical case.
In reality 99.999 % of the time the answer will be that
1. The amps were feeding a speaker with a VERY irregular load and the frequency response WAS being affected by such.
2. The perceived differences would evaporate in the blind test.
3. Use of some ridiculous speaker cables that introduced a VERY irregular load and the frequency response WAS being affected by such.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Firstly, I wrote, "in my view". A straw man argument is one purposely constructed to be easy to knock over. I did no such thing. If you wish to disagree with my view, you are free to present your own and we can debate them. The term straw man is a pejorative, and does nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Secondly, observations which have not or cannot be reliably reproduced by others is not scientific. What you subjectively perceive as an individual observer may or may not be identically observed by others, there's no way to know without large sample testing. So, if objectivists do not view personal empirical observations as scientifically invalid, exactly what do they view them as?



That's not a valid example because major system variables are being changed. So, there's nothing scientific to discover.



I didn't write that an objectivist would only select among products providing objective data, but that they should if they are endevoring to be objective. Lacking data for a given component, how is an objective choice to be made? How's that a false premise? What it does is lead to the real point I'm attempting to make. Which is, that many who consider themselves as objectivists really aren't that in their purchasing behavior. For one reason, it's not very practical. Many objectivists, it seems to me, are an hybrid that very often include their own subjective observations. Which is sort of what I personally do. Specifications serve as a guide, but I trust my ears for final determinationof what sounds most real and natural to them, not my eyes reading some specification sheet.

Think in extremes for a moment. Which would you rather have, a system with excellet specs. which moved you emotionally not at all, or a system with questionable specs. that shoves an air guitar, or an air baton in to your hand, or brings you to tears, or to joy each night? The core disconnect between objective and subjective approaches to system construction is that the objective approach is based on the rational presumption that excellent specs. equal excellent sound. Except, that our experiences with audio systems has informed many of us otherwise.



You both misquote and misunderstand me here. I wrote that brand, price or features are not crtiteria for objectively determining product PERFORMANCE, which they aren't.



Yes, now your helping to make one of my points. Instrument based quantifications do not accurately and reliably inform a given person of what listening experience they would have with a given audio component. Your own ears provide such informing. I only wish that there were such an accurate single figure of merit quantification, it would make everyone's audio purchasing life far easier.



Agreed, the fundamental consumer issue is a lack of audio system education and listening experience. Only we audiophiles seem willing to commit the necessary time and effort required.

An objectivist will work rationally toward fidelity. Your ideas sound like someone just trying to work it back around to the primacy of the human ears. Fidelity is important because understanding fidelity, being able to transfer and reproduce music with fidelity gives one a solid base from which to work. We have sufficient fidelity beyond reproach for pretty much everything other than transducers. In judging fidelity the ears are not anywhere close to our best method. When judging preference that is something much more varied. To believe your own preference is always settling toward best fidelity is going to lead you astray. You'll end up chasing your tail at worst or simply being very inefficient at reproducing enjoyable music. We know our personal experiences and bias misleads us, we know sight and knowledge about things we compare influence us beyond just the fidelity.

Now with transducers (speakers and microphones) we can't have full fidelity yet. So you have to judge what parts of fidelity are most important or pick your preferences. Even there relying too heavily on preference, especially sighted preference will put you lost in the woods.

Now what kind of system do I want, I want the one that speaks most enjoyably and emotionally to me. Being of an objective bent doesn't mean I would throw a highly involving rig out because it was down on fidelity. I do however believe pursuing a high fidelity base I can then alter for my purposes pays far larger dividends than mistaking my misperceptions for that fidelity and chasing ghosts. I can use what is known to get the sound I want even if that isn't maximum fidelity. The old idea with experience you get to be a better judge etc. etc. while true enough is so second rate an approach it holds the industry back. Satisfying the ears is always the goal. Using those ears to make fine judgement of what is really fidelity is choosing to use a very poor instrument for the job when much better is available. Audiophiles seem to commit huge amounts of time, effort and resources into a big circle jerk that gets them nowhere.

 

[watchnerd]

Ultimately it is the combination of measurements, how things work and listening tests that we arrive at a high confidence answer. The pure "measurements are us" are forum objectivists with a mission. Good objectivists are curious to learn the technology, know the limitations of what we measure, and research into the topic. It is that well-rounded approach is what I advocate.

Do you think we understand why people like tubes?

I used to think it was euphonic distortion, but I've since heard some topologies with very very low distortion specs and they still sounded different from solid state.

 

[watchnerd]

Audiophiles seem to commit huge amounts of time, effort and resources into a big circle jerk that gets them nowhere.

It's worse than that...it's wasted time listening to gear instead of music.

Which sort of defeats the point of it all....

Maybe I'm a too much of a music lover to be a good audiophile because I think it's the job of the music to speak to me emotionally, not the gear.

The gear is there just to get out of the way.