Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Log on to just about any HiFi forum and you'll see different camps of audiophiles in endless "debates" about which product or technology is the most accurate or sounds the most like live music, etc… So are the planar guys right that the enemy of sound is monkey coffins (boxes)? Are the SET lovers right that it’s all about the 1st watt? Are the TT lovers right that it’s all about the vinyl? What about the measurement guys? The Megawatt SS fans? The high resolution digital fans? The mini-monitor lovers with their pinpoint imaging? The multi-drivers traditional tower speaker fans with their foundation shaking bass?

Clearly all these different camps can’t all be right, can they?

IMO, yes they can…

I believe that despite various objective tests and comparisons between live and recorded music that all those debates really just comes down to subjective preferences…

Simple example: Two audiophiles listen to a live event, then hear it played back on 2 different systems, both persons think a different system sounds more like the live event: Person 1 is very sensitive to timbre (so a piano should sound exactly like a piano) and hence picks system A (a SET/ HE Speaker combo) which he feels best captures the sound of the piano. Person 2 is not bothered if timbre is slightly off as he doesn’t notice that in his regular listening sessions, but he is very sensitive to variations in frequency response. So he picks system B (mega watt SS with multi-driver towers) which has a dead flat frequency response, rather than system A which had obvious peaks in the treble and suck outs in the mid-bass. Person 1 is not bothered by variations in frequency response and can easily listen around them as long as timbre is right. Person 2 can ignore timbre being slightly off as long as the frequency response is flat.

So which person picked the system that sounded more like the live performance? In typical audiophile manner they go onto a forum and quarrel endlessly about who buys based only on specs, who loves the sound of harmonic distortion, who is tone-deaf, etc, etc… And they both miss the point that this hobby really comes down to listening preferences (realism triggers as the absolute sound refers to it). We buy systems based on our budgets (meaning that we have to accept compromises in certain areas of the sonic performance). As a result we buy systems that compromise the least on the things that are most important to us. Whether that is dynamic range, imaging, single point source, PRAT, frequency response, lack of background noise, surface noise, soundstage, cohesion etc etc etc will determine what we think sounds best within our budget... It's the reason why with a $5K budget one person will buy a small monitor with a 5" woofer, while another will buy a large 4 way tower and yet another will buy a planar.

But what do you think? Is there a right technology and everyone else just needs to hear it to be converted?

It is all subjective. We hear things differently and have our own likes and dislikes. It's just like our taste buds. If we did not hear things differently or have different likes and dislilkes than there would only be a handful of audio companies. Thats why I never say to some one that you have to get this brand or type of speaker. I can make recommendations and give my opnion for what ever that is worth.

I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

from the end user/listener's point of view, it is almost all subjective including their goals; ie, not everyone would agree that the goal of hifi is to accurately reproduce a live performance, and for many the goal is not about certain aspects of signal reproduction, but the acquisition of hifi gear.

that said, the objective work is primary and needs to be done by the engineering, design and production folks (both in the factory and in the studio). without that we wouldnt have much to argue about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

---

For the most part, I think it is more indicative of musical preference than gear. Except of course for folks who talk about one brand in 90% of all their posts. :)

How do you get closer to reproducing your favorite musical genre(s)?

rw

I've gone about as far as I can go with the gear and room. I admit I want a pair of 120 Watt tube mono blocks. They will come in handy this winter.:D

I've decided to rely more on "chemical" help for the you are there or the they are here illusion.:crazy:

It's all about personal preference and interpretation, as stated. What makes the audiophile community even richer with character is that many of us don't settle on one preferred character of reproduction (I.E. the two most obvious of characters being SET driven vinyl vs. SS driven digital) but rather multiple styles. The warm, airy nature of my tube+vinyl 2-channel set makes me just as happy as my bassy, and slightly analytical nature of my Yamaha driven B&W 5.1. I find that it's important to establish multiple concepts of preferred sound to be able to appreciate different factors of sound rather than to simply understand and be able to differentiate them- liking different styles of sound for different reasons.

Not mainly a subjective preference.
But you know what, I have to agree with the other, it's somewhat personal preference. And I believe we are entitled to that, same with our opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

---

I suspect that if most audiophiles were willing and able to properly audition all the different types of technology, then they would find examples of other tech that they really like... In fact, they might even find a new favourite brand and/or tech.

Note: by properly audition I mean an extended (preferably in-home) audition in which all your biases are kept in check... So the aim is just to enjoy the music and see if it moves you, rather than to pick apart the tech and confirm your existing stance on what tech is best..

This above statement is so true. Each of my components were auditioned extensively before I purchased them. I just can't buy something based on what I read in a professional or consumer review. Murphy's law states that I will be thoroughly unimpressed with it unless I try it out before hand.

If there was an "overlord" audio retail store that sold for every audio manufacturer in existence today, I would be able to expand my frame of reference so far beyond what I already know about the brands I have experienced in person.

When I first got interested in hi-fi circa 1970 I assumed it was a about high fidelity, i.e. "accurate" reproduction of the recording. I heard little in the magazines or fellow enthusiasts at the time to contradict that impress.

My interest wained a bit in the late 80s and I didn't regain my full interest until till after 2000. Since that time I've become aware that audiophilia is, or has become, much more about subjective preference than accuracy (as defined above) -- this is apart from the fact that far too many people insist their particular subjective preference is "accurate" or truer to live preformance. Of course the fact is with such divergence of taste, not all can be accurate.

If I have an area of emphasis in my own subjective preference it is for high resolution combined with "air" (separation of instruments and voices), and with realistic extension of instrument timbres. Perhaps this is because of my interest in classical choral music in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texlle

If there was an "overlord" audio retail store that sold for every audio manufacturer in existence today, I would be able to expand my frame of reference so far beyond what I already know about the brands I have experienced in person.

---

I agree. Our selections are based on exposure, preferably long term and in our own environments, along with each of our unique personal preferences for what music is supposed to sound like. In the end it all gets reduced to what a person is finally gets the musical bang for the buck which meets their own criterion.

If quality could be measured there would be one knob on everything named "Good". It goes up to 12 and it's good-er the louder you make it. Obviously they put tone controls on most amps for a reason, and ones that don't can easily be adapted to use an eq to adjust tone where the gear comes up short. To each his own, AFAIK.

My opinion is that ears ar too inaccurate to perceive much differences. It is a matter of feelings, environonment and suggestion. If you find the right mix, then you will be satisfied. ;-)

Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Yes.


What's next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Yes.


What's next?

---

Picanha and a bottle of wine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

Picanha and a bottle of wine?

---

Good man. I'll have the Cain 5 Cab from Napa...make it the double magnum.

Greenies for you, my friend...:ihih:

It's all about big cars, pimpin ho's and fat wallets...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poppachubby

It's all about big cars, pimpin ho's and fat wallets...

---

Was it Thoreau or Balzac that said that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

Was it Thoreau or Balzac that said that?

---

Nah ***** that was Too Short...in yo mouth...

OK to show I am not a thread crapper, I will comment...

I agree that of course it's subjective, particularily when none of us can really hear what the other is hearing. However, I HATE when people use this subjective angle as a cop out. What I mean is some people refuse to admit or respect that there is indeed a ladder of improvement when it comes to fidelity. "My Technics receiver sounds better than Brand X mega buck amp, and I am right because this hobby is all subjective".

Ya sure it does, but you're deaf.

The forums at Audio Karma are full of these type of people, drive me nuts.

poppachubby

I agree 100% but the problem is once you open the door you get people like me.:ihih:

Seriously though - I suppose in a black and white view it is either all subjective or it is all objective. The former means that the Bose 901 and the $100 Sony speakers with the 12 inch woofer is just as good as a Dynaudio Temptation or Soundlab U-1, Revel Salon II because "it's all subjective."

Of course the notion is ridiculous.

However, if we now say wait a minute there is "objectivity" to it then we get into endless debates as to which is better than what at what price or technology and people blather about measurements and blind listening (myself included).

What I think would be beneficial is for people to have a general league table of what they think is the best at doing what and maybe why. The review press - even the guys at Stereophile don't really do a great job of this. That is why there are strongly held camps that seem to be polar opposite the other camp. No one gives any ground on their position.

The problem with ladders of improvement is that it generally only works within a brand line-up and less so across brands. Simply because most speaker lines have a house sound which often differs from another brand. If you prefer the House sound of one maker you may like their $7K speaker than the house sound of a competing speaker maker at $50k. This is because the $50K version is an extension, usually, of the house sound of lower priced models. In other words - simply making a bigger more powerful version of a speaker you don't really care for isn't going to change your view because it has a high price tag. But if you LOVE the sound of the lower model and you know it very well - you may hear the higher priced model and be able to really tell what it brings to the table. And the $50k price point might be justifiable. After all $50k to Bill Gates is like 50cents to you or me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poppachubby

OK to show I am not a thread crapper, I will comment...

I agree that of course it's subjective, particularily when none of us can really hear what the other is hearing. However, I HATE when people use this subjective angle as a cop out. What I mean is some people refuse to admit or respect that there is indeed a ladder of improvement when it comes to fidelity. "My Technics receiver sounds better than Brand X mega buck amp, and I am right because this hobby is all subjective".

Ya sure it does, but you're deaf.

The forums at Audio Karma are full of these type of people, drive me nuts.

---

Don't let the title of the thread fool you... I really should have titled it more like "Is HiFi mostly about subjective preference?" or something like that...

I think RGA's response best sums up my views on some of this: House sound plays a huge role... So if I love the sound of Jolida and hate the sound of Krell, then I'll probably claim that a $1K Jolida integrated sounds better than a $16K Krell... Which is why I don't think anything of claims in reviews (whether from pros or consumers) where a product is claimed to be better than competitors costing 3x as much...

The way I see it is that it really only makes sense comparing products that excel in the areas that you regard as sonic priorities.. What's the point of me ripping on a speaker that focuses on creating a huge soundstage, if I could care less about soundstage? Then I'm totally missing the point of that speaker...

So that funny part is that somebody could find that a cheapy Technics receiver does something (that is a priority to them) better than a megabucks amp... However, if they were to actually look for more expensive products that cater to their sonic priorities, they'd find a lot of better sounding products than the Technics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

---

Yes, I have heard the Gallo 3.5, the Audio Note, and the King II, but IMO, my 30 year old Fulton Js DESTROY them all. Micro and micro dynamics, detail, bass (NO COMPETITION here), correct timbre, and a killer midrange. Oh yes, and unlimited high end. Their only flaw is in the spacial reproduction, but they are only SLIGHTLY inferior to the best I have heard. BTW, I use the Gallo Strada speakers in my office system. It's good, but compared to my reference system (Fulton Js, Audio Research SP 8, Audio Research D-70, Fosgate phono, Auditorium 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3), it's crap!

Of course, IMO, you need to use blind testing to determine objective quality. Blind tests are quite easy, but the audio press has a vested interest in giving all reviewed products a positive review. just read any Stereophile. They like or LOVE every reviewed unit!