Well zoomer our discussion has already pointed out the subjective nature of SQ, if one says there is no difference, and another does then you probably have a subjective decision. As much as you make points (and darn good ones) you have to understand it proves nothing it is merely a theory (and there are good and bad theories out there (the bad theories involve snake oil)), in physics there are laws (some nut bag called Newton started it so don't blame me) and this area has not fallen into law. There are electrical theories but even most of them don't qualify as laws (I am not calling electricity subjective but there are areas where popular theory is disproven periodically).

My point is still not unmade no measurement will precisely predict the sound of the item under test (the starting point for the evaluator is the graph not the listening). Now the measurements will get you close but not so much that you can tell the difference between a stand-up and a grand piano graphically. Lets face it the differences between electrical devices are minimal (electrically and acoustically) yet some proclaim wild differences while others claim no sonic difference. Is the human ear inconsistent?

I think a lot of the truth is probably found in volumes if boring *** engineering papers routinely published for the Audio Engineering Society. There are probably even larger volumes at places like JBL and the Canadian testing group (National Research Counsel) that is working with Mirage, Energy, Paradigm, and PSB.

I am trying to not slide into 'that argument' as it is off topic but I AM GLAD someone besides me discusses the Bob Carver achievement (though it doesnt involve true ASTM like measurement as he used a null technique where he changed the output of one amp to match the output of another till they sounded about the same... they still didn't measure the same BTW).

 

BTW I don't argue much on line (I put little emotion into this stuff) but I will debate and disagree but I am more interested in making good valid points and hearing others valid points so that I may learn more. Since the topic here is a new one subjective reasoning vs objective reasoning I am using more philosophical arguments than scientific since that would be on topic.

Be careful zoomer as there is a difference between a trend, a theory, and a law. For instance you mentioned ABX testing and it is subjective testing (again proving the point SQ is subjective) not analytical testing and it identifies trends and implies truth. This trend is the smoke, smoke being an analogy for the subjective indication of a fire, that should lead you to a fire, whereas objective testing should lead you to the truth in this case a fire. If we were to use analytical/ objective testing, we would use the smoke to analyze the fire and predict the temperature of combustion and the path of combustion and even the fires fuel.

I would much prefer SQ to be fully analytical or objective so that it falls into predictability easing my general dislike of surprises.

 

Sorry to disagree with you again.. Snake oil does not involve theory or law.. just a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo aimed at convincing the layperson of a claim.
No such snake oil claims ever appear in peer review technical publications because they would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Please do not acuse me of confusing laws and theories. In most hard sciences such as physics that includes electronics, mechanics, acoustics etc. the term theory and law are usually interchangable. We have Newtons Law yet, it has been superseded by the theory of relativity, which has been around for about a hundred years and has not yet been disproven.. I doubt we will never call it *Einstein's law of relativity*
What the layperson confuses is *hypothesis* and *theory*: A hypothesis is a description of a observed behavior that, after much testing becomes an accepted theory. I do not believe that there have been any theories in the last hundred or so years that have actually been blessed by the lords of science into a law...
What snake oil people do is state a hypothesis, based on their own greed, that is refuted by science and never becomes a theory, yet they continue to make the claims.

Lets call this topic put to rest ok?

 

So the end result is that SQ is subjective, right?

 

^ hehehe beats me

 

I think it would be safe to assume that the number of people who know what measurements to take, how to take them and how to read and interpret them is very, very miniscule. That being said, it's something that if it has ever been done is probably so rare and difficult that they probably wouldn't want to do it again.

 

measurements are great and can be very precise, the problem is that there may be other nuances that aren't or can't be measured or determined at this point in our technology that causes the differences in what we percieve. We make live recordings of performaces all the time, but none have been the same as the actual performace, many things are missing. Likewise, one could take an off the shelf cd and copy it in wav format bit for bit..the cd is an exact mathematical duplicate, and in the same system would sound the same, but that's where it ends. As soon as you add speakers with different mechanical and phyical properties, and different obstacles in the soundwave's paths, different mounting locations, and materials mounted to, and sound deadeners, etc...you have just completely changed the perception of that cd...and hence the subjective SQ qualities.

 

what if the judge owns and runs his own recording studio. if he is the one setting up the music in the studio, i am sure he would know how close your car represents the studio.
stay home on weekends and tell your friends how great your car sounds.
playing pick up sports with buddies and joining a league to show your skills, big difference. when your ready to leave the driveway the sq crowd will still be here and no one we dont know is allowed to win.

tell john myers he wins on subjectivity. he wins in ontario and the world finals.
2 countries 2 different judges.

i can only speak from experiences of which others have none

 

I see what you're saying but I don't think you see what i'm saying. My only point is that without having a machine that measures SQ in any given vehicle, the accuracy of the reproduction of any given SQ system is left in the hands of a human being to determine so along with that come the biases and prejudices of that person be it the installer, the SQ judge, the end user or whomever. It really has nothing to do with competing, although that example can be used to further prove my point.

No need to tell John anything, i'm sure he's been in the game long enough to know that what i'm saying is true. I guarantee John has had his share of issues with how the competitions are judged over the years, this is not breaking news to him. I think he'd be more shocked if you told him the judging is not subjective at all, to be honest.

Lastly, you don't need to have competed in an SQ comp in order to form an opinion on whether or not they are judged subjectively or objectively. All you need to know is how they are judged, via machine like SPL or via a judge sitting in the driver seat playing a recording and grading the system based on what he hears.

 

I wholeheartedly believe that SQ competition is subjective, as already has been explained by many. I say this because the reference point is somebody's ear, not yours, but the SQ judges. Nobody knows how somebody else interprets what they hear. They can describe it, and you can interpret what they are saying and what you are hearing to agree or disagree but it's impossible to know. That is what makes SQ competition challenging and frustrating.

I think on a very broad overall view, people know 'good' sound collectively. Example: AM radio and it's muffled response does not sound as good as say most any CD recording in comparison. Pretty much anybody can determine that. Or perhaps playing an old cassette on a $49 ghetto blaster vs. a CD on a even a modest $500 home stereo. There are audible differences in the sound spectrum and that is what anybody can say good vs. bad.

Judges, especially high level ones that judge in one format like IASCA, are usually trained by the same people, to hear the same music, and to listen to the same things. This can try to bring some objectiveness to the table, when you are told what to listen for and how it 'should' sound. But 'should' is to whom? The trainer? The guy who recorded it? The guy who played it? On and on it goes.....