The placebo effect, poverty of the English language, subjective differences, emotional distortions.........

The English language is the richest of all. The problem - if problem it be - is in usage!

More to the point, I suspect, is that people occasionally employ hyperbole. Once this notion is understood, far more sense can be made of some posts.

ATB from George

I saw a magazine in the dentist wait room the other day. It was some lifestyle/food title but I noted the tag line with a grimace; 'The worlds most unique lifestyle magazine'.

If the editors of a regular publication cannot use the language with any intelligence then what hope do we have.....

Bruce. grumble, grumble.

By the way the placebo effect is of course fantastically subtle, and (crucially) real. Just because the benefit of a given intervention is thought to be due to the placebo effect this does not make the benefit less worthwhile or genuine. The word 'placebo' is often used to suggest an illusory 'con''. That is not the true meaning.

Wot George and Bruce said 

I was once asked where I was originally born.  G

Passion generates hyperbole.

There is a simple law of Hi-Fi upgrading. If one can afford it: it's good value - perhaps even an 'investment' - Ha!

If one cannot afford it, it's ridiculous and well into the realms of diminishing returns.

John.

My thread title captures the essence of so many proclamations of quality differences. I mean, I am aware of the law of diminishing returns but would also add that once one gets up to the audiophile level due to the expense, there is a skew in perception.

There is a simple law of Hi-Fi upgrading. If one can afford it: it's good value - perhaps even an 'investment' - Ha!

If one cannot afford it, it's ridiculous and well into the realms of diminishing returns.

Having made a massive upgrade to my system spending 10's of thousands of pounds in the last year I have to agree with Johns' comments. The difference in SQ between what I had and have now is very obvious and, being the wrong side of 55yrs and in a position to afford the type of system I have always aspired to, I am delighted with my decision to upgrade at this time. To me the money spent is irrelevant in comparison to the many years of pleasure I hope to have listening.

With regard to the comment regarding proclamations of quality differences and the comments from George about hyperbole, this is inevitable in a forum. It can be difficult to accurately describe something that is subjective trying keep a level of objectivity. And yes, there can be an emotive element which is natural in this game. Some of the differences I have heard have been subjectively very large, for example, I have been fortunate to have one of the new Z-Plugs. I could possibly be accused of using hyperbole and being emotive in my evaluation of the new plug verses the Airplug. But, my evaluative comments were echoed by every other person who also posted regarding the Z-Plug. Therefore I would suggest that the best way to use this forum is to look to see if there is some form of general consensus with a topic you are interested in. 

Our hearing varies enormously from person to person and also between the sexes. Our hearing deteriorates as we age and most of us in a position to buy this kit are in the in our latter years. Also' taking into account the way we each individually perceive sound, there is bound to be a range of opinions with regard to evaluation of music, systems and components. This is also compounded by environmental factors such as room acoustics. I personally feel that the Ovators, for example, are the worst speakers Naim have ever produced. However there are many who feel that they are the best speakers they have made. This is my perception based on my hearing etc. The most important factor I would always try to stress is to demo any equipment before purchase.

When the children were younger and my financial obligations were different I would talk myself out of some upgrades by telling myself that I was getting into 'the law of diminishing returns'. But now I can afford to buy those products I realise, in my case, that with Naim you do get what you pay for and, to me, there is no comparison between the SQ of my old and new system.

I'm afraid your language Jon, in the opening post, could come across as being a little condescending. Not everybody is as obviously eloquent as you are and this must also be taken into consideration when reading posts on this forum. Remember also that most of us are amateurs in the hi-fi game not professional hi-fi journalists. If you want 'graded' reviews I suggest you buy a Hi-Fi magazine.

Steve

As well they should.  Have you considered the wide range of ownership on this forum?   Differences become easier to hear as you move closer to a 500-series reference setup. 

If you pay as much attention to the context in which an opinion was formed, as you do to the opinion itself, you might find yourself slightly less astounded.  Your recent thread about adding an XPS2 to the DAC is a perfect example IMO.

As far as objectifying what gets posted on the Hi-Fi Forum...well, good luck.

Hook

Following on from the overblown and excessive reports of certain items, I am going to make a set earrings from 2 zfoil resistors and after 6 weeks "burn" in, enter brain of the century, sure to win . 

Who says so and can these differences be measured objectively?

It always amuses me when people talk about adding something to their system (a lead or a plug sometimes) and they talk about 'HUGE' differences and then they add something else and then something else and finally....something else and all these additions are 'HUGE' and I start to wonder what adding all these 'HUGE' differences together can possibly sound like - certainly it ought to represent far better sound than the original performance. 

JN raised a valid point about wealth and peoples' perception of value.

Jon also raises a point that languge doesn't always adequately convey a writer's perception of an improvement in SQ. Between brands it is important to describe "differences" is sound and words are important. Within a brand, it seems reasonable to expect that the more you pay, the better the SQ and a numerical score could be helpful in addition to the written description.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don, and Jon,

A numerical value cannot work in the bald way proposed, and even given a more sophisticated framework still cannot do more than order compared items in the opion of one person, not least because there is no unit that may be measured and repeated with accuracy ...

Firstly we all value different things in replay. Accuracy [or quality] of timbre, articulation, detail retrieval, musical balances, and so on.

Thus one person might a give a CDX player 6 out of ten for accuracy of timbre, 9 for articulation, 7 for detail retrieval, and 6 for musical balances. As there is no unit as such then each result is merely a subjective judgement. The same listener might rate a CDS 2 thus: 9, 8, 8, 7. But another listener might rate certain aspects of each player significantly differently according to their personal listening style!

Numbers can never do more than reflect subjective opinion, but unlike words cannot begin to explain why the subjective opinion is held.

If someone cannot make an elloquent description of how a particular replay device  pleases [or otherwise] them, then all that is left is to give a comparitive order of preference, which is all numbers can do in any case.

Sometimes people are up to the task of describing the effect of replay in words so precisely that one can well imagine the effect in one's mind's ear. It is merely another gift that some have and others do not. Nothing will ever alter that, and reviewing can never be a science, even when very well done ...

ATB from George

George

I disagree.

Was it Martin Collums (it was someone !) who used to write in one of the hifi rags and who gave numerical ratings for the equipment he reviewed. He was remarkably consistent and his his written reviews  plus his numerical scores were very helpful in guiding me towards more focused demonstartions.

Comparative numbers do help some of us.. Three pices scored 30/40/50 (out of 100) says something completely different to three scores of 10/40/80 (out of 100) even though the order of preference is the same.

cheers

Don

What if you. or me. or someone else happens to disagree with Mr Colloms? Does that make him correct and any of the rest of us who disagree, wrong?

I would think that such a disagreement is the first proof that even Mr Colloms is only another person holding subjective opinions, just like the rest of us.

Maybe a more interesting discussion might be what factors in replay - timbre, articulation, detail retrieval, lucid presentation of musical balances, macro dynamics, micro dynamics, etc.,- might be most useful in considering some attempt at objective analysis of our subjective opinions? Even then we will weight the results towards the aspect we as individuals find most important in our own styles of listening, which once again is a totally subjective aspect. It is impossible to make objective a personal opinion, though one may attempt to disguise this subjectivity with science-like use of numbers, though science would never call a number without a defining unit anything other than an abstract! Let alone a subjective [and certainly not objective] one!

ATB from George

Dear George,

Mr Colloms is a reasonable reviewer. Some of us can relate his reviews to our own experiences. His use of English is quite good and helpful. His numerical scoring system is remarkably consistent to my ears and thus very helpful.

It does take time to get used to the views expressed by others, no matter what medium they use to express those views (words or numbers)

If we didn't attampt to express our views, this forum would be largly pointless. The most irritating comment I find on this forum is the one that says "I won't describe my experience, you must arrange a home demonstration" - or words to that effect. This isn't very helpful (or interesting) even if the chap asking for advice lives in the middle of Leicester, never mind halfway between Vancouver and Edmonton.

I'm not (yet) propsing that ALL advice given on this forum should contain a numerical score............after all, we do still live in a democracy.

Cheers

Don

One of the music sites I look at regularly is Pitchforkmedia. Their reviews are often interesting, sometimes pretentious and occasionally completely wide of my own assessment, but I do return. They score albums out of 10 and it is amusing to think of the difference between an 8.7 and an 8.4!

In the end I quite like their score system, not because it represents any sort of absolute but because it does force the reviewer to some sort of concluding assessment and as such they do form part of the information (alongside the fairly long written segment they produce) that might lead me to investigate further, or not.

Curiously I find the Metacritic score etc less informative, and certainly less intresting. Something seems to be lost in the aggregation of reviews to my mind. Not quite sure why.

Bruce

Q1.

a) Beethoven was deaf, Mozart wasn't. Therefore Mozart's hearing was at least 80% better than Beethoven's.

b) Cochlear implant or hearing aid, what is the surgeon's opinion worth and how do you decide that?

In no less than 500 words discuss what the words subjective and objective mean and make reference to the examples given. Marks will of course be deducted for any improper use of the word evidence (scientific or legal).

53 marks

(Note to examiner- strict adherence to the marking guide may be necessary)

Further note to the examiner:

"Are you sure that you are sitting in the throne of objective truth before marking this work?"

If not then you can but come to a subjective judgement of its worth!

ATB from George

Not everything in life is measurable.

Dear James [WM],

I completely agree. Sometime opinion is the best we can hope for! But that is the reason for this thread, so I was trying to point out that all you can do is use language carefully to explain a given opinion, held by an individual. Trying to pin it down with a score in numbers cannot work when there is no unit to apply to the numbers. It is not like cricket where the score is given by a number of real runs against numbers of batsmen out, though sometimes whether a batsman is out remains a matter of opinion. In convention we tend to accept the Umpires' joint opinion!

ATB from George

Just because everything in life isn't measurable, doesn't mean that nothing is measureable.

And just because there is no absolute datum, doesn't mean that realative measurements are pointless.

Cheers

Don

We tend to accept time as being measurable, but it remains a fact that our units of time are a human construct, though a highly developed one. Physical measurements are equally developed, and just as much a human construct.

But there are many fields where humans have failed to provide a developed and repeatable measuring unit. This is without question because these aspects are either not considered important enough to measure, or are too complex for the human mind to find a way of measuring.

In these cases all that is left is for the individual to state his or her order of preference, and explain it with words. Simply stating the order of preference is without any value unless the individual is personally known to the recipient of the information. It means precisely nothing to almost anyone here to say that I prefer a Bentley Speed Six to a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, unless I explain in words what it is that I prefer about the Bentley!

ATB from George

Ouch! 

Q2. Theoretical scientists may employ dogma when attempting to disprove the unprovable.

Discuss any irony in this statement as might pertain to an examination of:-

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!

47marks

(Note to examiner- referencing Richard Dawkins in an appropriate manner should be awarded extra marks)