Audio Debates - Consensus?

[Art K.]

the gap cannot be bridged!

it is the audiophile "language" I feel is the main cause of it!

just one example from stereophiles list: http://stereophile.com/reference/50/index2.html

chocolatey Like "syrupy," but darker and more full-bodied

draw your own conclusions from that one :thmbsp:

That's the list I posted in my last post.

"Audiophile language" is the main cause of what, the gap? I don't agree. The "audiophile language" is a symptom, or example of the difference between subjectivists and objectivists, not the cause.

 

[Art K.]

Well folks, I'm afraid this thread is slowly winding to a close. Please recall that I asked whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to bridge the gap, and didn't want to start the debate over again...

The discussion has gone along politely, and for that I thank everyone, but as many have pointed out, the sides just don't get any closer by discussing.

I'm thinking about another thread in which we think of some experiments to start bridging the gap. Anyone interested in joining in that, post here. Anyone only interested in pointing out that we're wasting our time because they won't care what we come up with, please don't attend, as I'll be moderating the daylights out of that thread to prevent it going the way this one did. We may, or may not, conduct some of the experiments at the coming AK Fest, if we can come up with the gear... which often ain't cheap or easily moved.

NB: no one did anything wrong here, and I'm not closing the thread, it's just not going anywhere useful, and my goal was to come up with something useful.

Too bad you feel this way. I think an open discussion can get to the crux of the issue and opens up the possibility of reconciliation. A facilitated discussion where you know the answer you want seems pointless.

Bastek has a point. This is probably best settled between individuals listening together in the same room and discussing what they hear and why.

 

[whoaru99]

Well folks, I'm afraid this thread is slowly winding to a close. Please recall that I asked whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to bridge the gap, and didn't want to start the debate over again...

I've seen a number of attempts to (IMO) bridge the gap by comparing electrical specs of cables and the effects thereof upon frequency response. However, it seems that in many (most) cases, the "scientific" results don't support the reported observations.

The point that I'm not really grasping in this "bridge the gap" concept is how both sides come together after someone finally mentions "we don't know everything and we can't measure everything". Which, of course, at the very topmost (or would it be most fundamental?) level is essentially true. So, when the debates are presented, how is the "Higgs Boson effect" overcome if the standards of what we do know and can test for aren't accepted as the most plausible answers or as sound testing/comparative evaluation criteria?

 

[fotno]

It may well be that trying to bridge the gap between subjective and objective points of view is just about impossible in the abstract; and let's face it, writing about what we each hear is a pretty abstract way of discussing audio. If a group of us were able to point out a certain audible trait in a system we're all listening to and say; "that's what I mean by ______ or ______" would probably go a lot farther towards giving us common ground.

 

[bolly]

The language IS a cause. When someone uses "audiophile language" in their description like my copy and pasted example, CHOCOLATEY, to describe sound, that IS a stumbling block when trying to bridge the gap as most people cannot equate chocolatey and sound.

Someone might describe a specific car-tire's grip over another car-tire using the word "supple".

This X-Brand tire sticks to the road with an increase in supple as I can corner at higher speeds as compared to the other tire.

I will go out on a limb and say that a tire manufacturer, or a master mechanic will have a "hard-time-believing" this "supple" factor.

 

[Fisherdude]

The language IS a cause. When someone uses "audiophile language" in their description like my copy and pasted example, CHOCOLATEY, to describe sound, that IS a stumbling block when trying to bridge the gap as most people cannot equate chocolatey and sound...

You're absolutely correct, in the case of "chocolatey", because there is no such word in the "audiophile sound description dictionary".

There is, however, a most definite group of words used to describe how something sounds, and if a good discussion is to take place, all participating must know the vocabulary, otherwise it will be a mess.

Actually, your inclusion of a tire example is a great one, because it made me think of race car drivers. If you've ever listened to the radio transmissions on a NASCAR broadcast, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Drivers talk about a car being loose, or tight, or pushing, or any other shorthand words used to describe whether a car has understeer, or oversteer, or any other of the words that mean nothing to somebody who doesn't understand car handling.

You can't get away from it, you gotta know the lingo. Sure, some of it sounds like you're describing wine, or cigars, but if you stick to the basic glossary terms, it really helps to make a better conversation.

 

[Art K.]

It may well be that trying to bridge the gap between subjective and objective points of view is just about impossible in the abstract; and let's face it, writing about what we each hear is a pretty abstract way of discussing audio. If a group of us were able to point out a certain audible trait in a system we're all listening to and say; "that's what I mean by ______ or ______" would probably go a lot farther towards giving us common ground.

I agree. That's the point Bastek was making and I agreed with earlier. You put it more succinctly.

 

[Art K.]

You're absolutely correct, in the case of "chocolatey", because there is no such word in the "audiophile sound description dictionary".

There is, however, a most definite group of words used to describe how something sounds, and if a good discussion is to take place, all participating must know the vocabulary, otherwise it will be a mess.

Actually, your inclusion of a tire example is a great one, because it made me think of race car drivers. If you've ever listened to the radio transmissions on a NASCAR broadcast, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Drivers talk about a car being loose, or tight, or pushing, or any other shorthand words used to describe whether a car has understeer, or oversteer, or any other of the words that mean nothing to somebody who doesn't understand car handling.

You can't get away from it, you gotta know the lingo. Sure, some of it sounds like you're describing wine, or cigars, but if you stick to the basic glossary terms, it really helps to make a better conversation.

Very well stated...

That goes to the point that was made earlier about us agreeing to a basic language relative to audio.

 

[Bigerik]

However, for the language to be useful, their has to be a basic acceptance of the fact that those who hear the things they say they are hearing, actually DO hear them. All the language in the world is useless unless there is a trust in the integrity of all parties in the discussion.

 

[JonL]

However, for the language to be useful, their has to be a basic acceptance of the fact that those who hear the things they say they are hearing, actually DO hear them. All the language in the world is useless unless there is a trust in the integrity of all parties in the discussion.

Sadly I think there are those who are invested in the notion that there is an unbridgeable chasm and only seek to validate their belief. For those who are willing participants I think having a common language is a critical element.

 

[fotno]

That's what I meant by the second part of my last post. All the descriptors in the world do us no good if something isn't audible to begin with. The problem with the audible part of the discussion, is that what may be audible to one person may not be to another. Let's face it, we have members who range from youthful folks who can damn near hear a dog whistle, to older people who have acknowledged hearing loss. It's not a level playing field when the instrument of detection and evaluation being used has such variability.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are members here, who can hear things that I can't. The only way to be relatively certain that a given quality of a system is audible, is to have multiple people with closely matched and tested hearing, listening to the same system, in the same room at the same time, reproducing the same source material; and even then it may be difficult if not impossible to define exactly what they're hearing using terms common to all parties.

Which goes back to what I was saying about this discussion being held in the abstract. Of course we continue to have difficulty coming to consensus, because we aren't comparing the same things, or even using the same terms. In order to have any chance of consensus, we need common ground to stand on, and several people sitting at a thousand computers scattered all over the world is a pretty sorry substitute for gathering together and actually listening for the things we're trying to describe.

 

[doucanoe]

Can we quantify love, hate, the smell of bacon...

I love bacon :yes:


RC

 

[RayW]

There is, however, a most definite group of words used to describe how something sounds, and if a good discussion is to take place, all participating must know the vocabulary, otherwise it will be a mess.

Righto! That's where Art and I were headed. BTW, that last one is what I was looking for, thanks Art! The only problem with it is that some of the audiophile terms are defined using other audiophile terms but that's an issue of learning any language. You also have to learn a dialect that maybe spoken by a person or group.

However, for the language to be useful, their has to be a basic acceptance of the fact that those who hear the things they say they are hearing, actually DO hear them. All the language in the world is useless unless there is a trust in the integrity of all parties in the discussion.

Absolutely true. I think that's where David is headed with his new thread working on experiments. He's asking the naysayers to stay home and people who are honestly looking to figure out the other side to participate. I'm in.

 

[whoaru99]

However, for the language to be useful, their has to be a basic acceptance of the fact that those who hear the things they say they are hearing, actually DO hear them. All the language in the world is useless unless there is a trust in the integrity of all parties in the discussion.

Is there any room whatsoever between the beginning and end of where ever this may go, for consideration that some claims of what is heard are, in fact, not heard?

It would seem, at least to my train of thought, that if there is no possibility of that conclusion then the whole effort is essentially an exercise in building a one-way bridge. Yes, no??

 

[Mr. Lin]

Is there any room whatsoever between the beginning and end of where ever this may go, for consideration that some claims of what is heard are, in fact, not heard?

While this is almost certainly true, how could we ever know since we're discussing this online?

 

[Negotiableterms]

The other thread is now open: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274722

Warning: Keep the Debates in This Thread.

Debate in the new thread is prohibited.

 

[LIONKING]

Sadly I think there are those who are invested in the notion that there is an unbridgeable chasm and only seek to validate their belief. For those who are willing participants I think having a common language is a critical element.

I've enjoyed this hobby for a long time and unfortunately either directly or indirectly I've been responsible for some of the confusion in the hobby. (I won't elaborate)

The issue of common language is useless without common experience. Its truly the road to hell which is paved with good intentions. This gives rise to mass delusion. I'll give you a case in point.

Our beloved Steve Hoffman speaks of the "breath of life". Since coining the term I have read many reviewers and people on this forum use the term. I would submit however unless you were sitting next to Steve as he was demonstrating "breath of life" you havent a clue what he is really talking about.

High end audio is full of such nonsense so I would stay away from terminology and reduce the concept to its simpliest --- does A sound more live than B.

I've observed, audiophiles are poorer judges of systems than the general public so as you begin to bridge the subjective/objective worlds your "trials" should not not include anyone who would dare post on a forum about audio.

Remember unlike any other human pursuit, Edison's experiments excepted, audiophiles are judged by the number of expensive mistakes they make, with real expensive mistakes given greater credence. Why pollute your research with audiophiles...

 

[Fisherdude]

...I've observed, audiophiles are poorer judges of systems than the general public so as you begin to bridge the subjective/objective worlds your "trials" should not not include anyone who would dare post on a forum about audio...

You know, that's an intriguing idea. If I ever come up with something to test, I'll ask my audio philistine neighbors to come over and tell me which one they think sounds better.

It'll sure be an unvarnished, unbiased, no preconceived ideas, no-axes-to-grind opinion.:thmbsp:

 

[marqueemoon]

I've skimmed this thread, but I'm really glad the subject of language had come up. For me this is key. If there is an audible (if not measurable) difference in a double blind test between item A and item B can we agree on what we are perceiving? Is the phenomenon the same from person to person?

What we really want to know is WHY people prefer B over A (or the other way around), and to understand that we need a common language.

 

[bastek]

You know, that's an intriguing idea. If I ever come up with something to test, I'll ask my audio philistine neighbors to come over and tell me which one they think sounds better.

It'll sure be an unvarnished, unbiased, no preconceived ideas, no-axes-to-grind opinion.:thmbsp:

They woold probably tell you that the better system is the one with the highest highs and lowest lows, people tend to like impressive and colorful sound. It takes training to know how to listen..