Originally Posted by bear123
The big issue here is this. The objectivists are saying that if you remove the underlying reasons for many of the subjective impressions we get, many of which are caused by sighted bias, failure to level match, differences in frequency response, etc, and not ACTUAL differences, that you will get to the TRUTH of whether we can hear a difference or not. Now comes the problem. The subjectivists ignore all this, and say things like...huh-uh...I did a sighted(biased), non level matched, non frequency matched comparisons, and the speakers I thought would sound better sounded better. It's a pointless discussion when the subjectivists aren't willing or capable of understanding what is being said along with the conditions that are responsible for subjective, biased, inaccurate impressions.
Since it is a known fact that bias is not avoidable, that the ears/brain are easily fooled into hearing things that are or are not there, and that removing this bias is the only way to accurately determine what can ACTUALLY be heard, those of us with reasonable cognitive abilities can understand that removing bias is necessary in order to separate what we BELIEVE we hear(and therefore actually do hear), and what we actually hear based on an actual, measurable difference.
On the other side of the coin, closed minded subjectivists will just keep saying nuh-uh, I changed cables and heard a difference etc etc. Or I brought the amp home and LISTENED to it, and I heard a difference. Objectivists can agree that they did indeed hear a difference(bias, failure to level match, different response, etc), but the closed minded subjectivist group is not willing to concede WHY they heard a difference, even when in fact their may not have been one.
There is no way to have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes cables and cable lifts affect sound quality, so save your breath. Just saying.
While I agree with much of your diatribe regarding true subjectivist audiophiles, I wonder why you are going on about cables and lifts. I don't recall anyone here staking out a claim in regards to cables.
And FTR, I'm not a "subjectivist" audiophile myself. I spend (too) much of my time actually battling in audiophile forums against the dubious side of high end audio - cables, tweaks etc - and constantly defend blind testing (which I've used myself with cables, DACs etc).
Given the context of the question I was pursuing, the claim "Scale cannot be designed into a loudspeaker
" was either patently false, or at best a misunderstanding. A recording contains sonic information about the stereo location, frequency response etc of the piano captured in the recording.
But we all know that choices in designing a speaker can and do affect the sonic presentation, and the choices will determine limits on to what degree a speaker system can reproduce that piano with a sense of realism which would included the impression of the size of the instrument.
No one, objectivist or otherwise, would deny that a grand piano recording played through a flagship JBL Everest DD66000 speaker will sound bigger and more realistic in size than if played through an iphone speaker. Or that this difference wouldn't be obvious in blind testing. That's obviously a real phenomenon, and not remotely in the realm of of differences between AC cables.
Given this is a real phenomenon, it's understandable to ask "What aspects, specifically, are responsible for producing the impression of scale/size fron a loudspeaker?"
Of course it's going to involve frequency response, dispersion etc. That's a given. But all sorts of different choices in speaker design - box size, baffle shape design, crossovers, use of particular drivers (re dispersion etc), driver motors, choices for narrow vs wide dispersion design, dipole, bipole and on and on.....we have a myriad of choices that affect the presentation of speaker. So I was wondering if there was some solid objective science on what precisely can be responsible for one speaker producing the sensation of "size, presence, weight, palpability" such that it would more convincingly reproduce the sensation of life-sized instruments vs speakers that could not do so. Yes, we are using subjective, descriptive words, but as I said we OFTEN start with those to describe a phenomenon we experience and want to investigate. And we already have good reasons - both in the fact we know an iphone's presentation would be distinguishably "smaller sounding" than a JBL Everest speaker even in blind tests, AND the fact all sorts of speaker design choices produce objectively verifiable and subjectively verifiable (blind tests) changes in presentation. This is not the stuff of "cable delusion."
I have gathered from Floyd Tool's response that, while plenty of bind testing has been done on identifying listener *preference* with speakers, the phenomenon I'm asking about has not been specifically studied (or not with much conclusiveness). Though there are plausible directions in which to inquire.