Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[j_j]

Yes.


I have a sense that in electronic engineering there are sometimes gaps in between people's specialities. Chip designers have probably been educated in pure digital electronics; they can understand and analyse a sigma delta building block and know how to implement it in a chip,...

Speaking as someone who started out as an analog circuit designer, I find that many people do not understand that they are eventually coming out with what is called an 'analog' signal, subject to distortion, etc, due to all sorts of well-researched, but often forgotten effects, both good and bad.

Speaking as an expert in hearing and psychoacoustics, I find that many people are rather unwilling to accept well-established results. This is not JUST the "subjectivist", I have had more than enough of SNR or its subsets (like THD) thrown at me without showing any kind of error spectrum, or with single tones as a circuit stimulus, and I've seen rather unwarranted dismissals of effects that are, after all, documented in the actual psychoacoustic literature. None of them, however, involve magic wires or teeny-tiny pyramids that affect bass response, unsurprisingly.

The real problem is that the stereo illusion is so far from the reality of a concert hall, real or synthesized, that people pick what they prefer. That's why there are so many speakers, for instance, because each one gives, in a person's listening room, a different direct/diffuse ratio (as a function of frequency), a different direct time response, etc, and all of these well supra-threshold effects affect preference. And, face it, what you prefer is what you prefer, it doesn't matter if it's the sound, the color of your rug, or the fact your wife will let you buy that set of speakers...

Preference is inviolate, but when you get around to doing science, you need to establish from what the preference arises. I've seen far too many people tell someone their preference was wrong. No, sorry, you don't get to do that. Preference is inviolate. Live with your own, m'kay, and don't tell somebody (for instance) that the rising distortion characteristics and differences in L+R vs. L-R frequency response and distortion in vinyl are bad IN TERMS OF PREFERENCE. There's even reasons people might like that, easily demonstrated by showing the effects of bandwidth on loudness (note, loudness is a purely perceptual phenomenon, it means the perceived intensity, not the SPL or acoustic intensity).

So leave people to their preferences, until they cross the bounds into making scientific claims. Then investigation is required. It does not mean that somebody is wrong because it turns out that their wire color is the cause of the preference. It is what it is, and leave it be.

 

[nirodha]

First I have to admit that I have not read the zillion of words above. Just want to say that I have never met an objective person in my life!. Even choosing for measurements as a sign for quality is a subjective choice

 

[j_j]

First I have to admit that I have not read the zillion of words above. Just want to say that I have never met an objective person in my life!. Even choosing for measurements as a sign for quality is a subjective choice

Perhaps you might research the terms "testable" and "verifiable".

After that, you can go one article before yours, and read the article you did a tl;dr to. If you're not willing to actually read a discussion, why are you throwing nonsense in its midst?

 

[nirodha]

Perhaps you might research the terms "testable" and "verifiable".

After that, you can go one article before yours, and read the article you did a tl;dr to. If you're not willing to actually read a discussion, why are you throwing nonsense in its midst?

Thank you for this subjective remark ;-)

 

[andromedaaudio]

Objectivists
I think it mostly comes down to someone having the ability to understand the technical side of things .
Audio reproduction is a technical thing and technical development improves with changing materials measurements different approaches
Look at cars computers motorcycles or any technical thing really.
The non technical group(audiofile group ) doesnt really understand the whole thing but also wants to have a stake in development and mostly resorts to tweaking.
However room tweaking and overall systerm matching will off course improve the overall soundquality so that might be a good area for subjectivists
making music is a whole different story thats where the subjectivists also shine ,another one is the commercial side of things
Basically the 2 dont really mix ,but do need each other

Off course this is put very black and white , there is a big grey area where the 2 mix

 

[cnpope]

It seems to me that some (I'm sure not all) in the "subjectivist" camp tend to paint themselves into a corner, by habitually exaggerating the scale of the differences that they claim to hear. If the claim is made that there is a "night and day" difference between system A and system B, then it is not very convincing if the person making the claim is subsequently incapable of discriminating between the two in blind listening tests. Blaming the tests as being flawed or even intrinsically worthless only adds to the impression of charlatanry, sounding as it does reminiscent of a psychic or a spoon-bender whose powers mysteriously disappear if a scientist attempts to measure them.

If the claim were expressed in more nuanced language, it would, I think, carry much more credibility. And especially, if it were accompanied by a recognition and acknowledgement of the fact that psychological factors and influences could be involved. I speak as a physicist, not an expert in pschoacoustical phenomena, but I know very well from my background in physics that it can be very, very difficult really to *know* something, even in the relatively secure field of a "hard science." Throw in the additional complications of dealing with the human brain and its perceptions, and you have a really tough field where you have to tread with extreme caution before making any kind of a dogmatic assertion.

So, if someone makes a firm assertion that system A and system B sound so different that it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have cloth ears, then I think it is "fair game" to ask him to prove it, by means of double-blind testing. If he fails the test, then the claim can be considered to be falsified. If, on the other hand, the claim is simply that "I prefer the sound of system A," then no one can argue with that, nor would they want to. It is just a statement of a personal preference, and it doesn't matter why that preference exists, whether it is based on concrete measurable factors or on aesthetics, and so on.

Another area where I think some (and again, by no means all) subjectivists get into trouble is if they invoke supposed "scientific explanations" that are in fact demonstrably bogus in order to back up their claims. For example, people who claim that replacing the short runs of external wire on a vacuum tube output transformer makes a huge difference to the sound, even though the identical and vastly greater lengths of wire inside the transformer are still left as standard stock magnet wire. There is someone on one of the other forums who seriously maintains that the key difference is that the wire inside the transformer is inside the magnetic field, and so somehow it is (mysteriously, and very conveniently!) exempt from the supposed deficiencies that matter in the external leads.

Some non-technical audiophiles seem to have an almost theological need to believe that the workings of amplifiers and other audio devices somehow lie outside the realm of scientific enquiry. And some of them, unfortunately, go even further and combine that with a sort of hokey misunderstanding of scientific principles, creating a grand mish-mash of confusion and obfuscuration.

I would agree with what I think andromedaaudio is saying; that some of the non-technical audiophiles seem to have mis-directed their attention onto exactly the wrong parts of the audio system. Instead of focusing on the parts where real differences could easily be achieved, such as loudspeaker choices, loudspeaker placement, room layout and so on, they have instead homed in on the most solid and least variable components in the system, such as the amplifier, not to mention ridiculous diversions such as bespoke power cables and the like.

Chris

 

[microstrip]

I feel differently. If you know the technicalities, and at some point understand that your knowledge of technicalities can not explain what you hear, you mainly have two possibilities - become an extreme objectivist (in the bad sense of the word ), consider that what others refer are ridiculous diversions, and that you know what real matters, or have an open mind and risk yourself in a grey area, where there is something more that black and white.

There is a third hypothesis, pursued by audio designers - dig deeper in the technicalities, master them and produce electronics that many people will love as they help creating systematically more enjoyable sound reproduction.

 

[FrantzM]

It seems to me that some (I'm sure not all) in the "subjectivist" camp tend to paint themselves into a corner, by habitually exaggerating the scale of the differences that they claim to hear. If the claim is made that there is a "night and day" difference between system A and system B, then it is not very convincing if the person making the claim is subsequently incapable of discriminating between the two in blind listening tests. Blaming the tests as being flawed or even intrinsically worthless only adds to the impression of charlatanry, sounding as it does reminiscent of a psychic or a spoon-bender whose powers mysteriously disappear if a scientist attempts to measure them.

If the claim were expressed in more nuanced language, it would, I think, carry much more credibility. And especially, if it were accompanied by a recognition and acknowledgement of the fact that psychological factors and influences could be involved. I speak as a physicist, not an expert in pschoacoustical phenomena, but I know very well from my background in physics that it can be very, very difficult really to *know* something, even in the relatively secure field of a "hard science." Throw in the additional complications of dealing with the human brain and its perceptions, and you have a really tough field where you have to tread with extreme caution before making any kind of a dogmatic assertion.

So, if someone makes a firm assertion that system A and system B sound so different that it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have cloth ears, then I think it is "fair game" to ask him to prove it, by means of double-blind testing. If he fails the test, then the claim can be considered to be falsified. If, on the other hand, the claim is simply that "I prefer the sound of system A," then no one can argue with that, nor would they want to. It is just a statement of a personal preference, and it doesn't matter why that preference exists, whether it is based on concrete measurable factors or on aesthetics, and so on.

Another area where I think some (and again, by no means all) subjectivists get into trouble is if they invoke supposed "scientific explanations" that are in fact demonstrably bogus in order to back up their claims. For example, people who claim that replacing the short runs of external wire on a vacuum tube output transformer makes a huge difference to the sound, even though the identical and vastly greater lengths of wire inside the transformer are still left as standard stock magnet wire. There is someone on one of the other forums who seriously maintains that the key difference is that the wire inside the transformer is inside the magnetic field, and so somehow it is (mysteriously, and very conveniently!) exempt from the supposed deficiencies that matter in the external leads.

Some non-technical audiophiles seem to have an almost theological need to believe that the workings of amplifiers and other audio devices somehow lie outside the realm of scientific enquiry. And some of them, unfortunately, go even further and combine that with a sort of hokey misunderstanding of scientific principles, creating a grand mish-mash of confusion and obfuscuration.

I would agree with what I think andromedaaudio is saying; that some of the non-technical audiophiles seem to have mis-directed their attention onto exactly the wrong parts of the audio system. Instead of focusing on the parts where real differences could easily be achieved, such as loudspeaker choices, loudspeaker placement, room layout and so on, they have instead homed in on the most solid and least variable components in the system, such as the amplifier, not to mention ridiculous diversions such as bespoke power cables and the like.

Chris

Excellent Posts. I agree, especially with the part I took the libety to highlight ... Chris! Do post more often

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It seems to me that some (I'm sure not all) in the "subjectivist" camp tend to paint themselves into a corner, by habitually exaggerating the scale of the differences that they claim to hear. If the claim is made that there is a "night and day" difference between system A and system B, then it is not very convincing if the person making the claim is subsequently incapable of discriminating between the two in blind listening tests. Blaming the tests as being flawed or even intrinsically worthless only adds to the impression of charlatanry, sounding as it does reminiscent of a psychic or a spoon-bender whose powers mysteriously disappear if a scientist attempts to measure them.

the problem with this perspective is that the subjectivist has zero interest in proving anything. they only want to share their enthusiasm. and 'night' and 'day' or however the opinion is offered is a 'fluid' position which might change over time. it's the objectivist's problem forcing his prism of interpretation into a subjective discussion. it's a hobby.

If the claim were expressed in more nuanced language, it would, I think, carry much more credibility. And especially, if it were accompanied by a recognition and acknowledgement of the fact that psychological factors and influences could be involved. I speak as a physicist, not an expert in pschoacoustical phenomena, but I know very well from my background in physics that it can be very, very difficult really to *know* something, even in the relatively secure field of a "hard science." Throw in the additional complications of dealing with the human brain and its perceptions, and you have a really tough field where you have to tread with extreme caution before making any kind of a dogmatic assertion.

I want to hear people's opinions of what they heard in specific listening situations. just like a review, i'll take it as my responsibility to judge the validity and weight of that poster based on what I know about their situation. I appreciate that they are sharing their experience. i'm more concerned that they had that actual experience. all listening opinions are valid. it's easy to ask for proof. it takes actual effort to listen and then share. what irritates me is the refuting without even investigating based on claimed superior knowledge. please, spare me.

in science I do understand that some sort of proof must be behind a claim. it's the claimant's problem to support the argument. to me in a hobby it's the other way around. it's the objectivists problem to investigate the claim before they question the credibility in a general sense.

So, if someone makes a firm assertion that system A and system B sound so different that it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have cloth ears, then I think it is "fair game" to ask him to prove it, by means of double-blind testing. If he fails the test, then the claim can be considered to be falsified. If, on the other hand, the claim is simply that "I prefer the sound of system A," then no one can argue with that, nor would they want to. It is just a statement of a personal preference, and it doesn't matter why that preference exists, whether it is based on concrete measurable factors or on aesthetics, and so on.

yawn. double yawn. eye roll.

Another area where I think some (and again, by no means all) subjectivists get into trouble is if they invoke supposed "scientific explanations" that are in fact demonstrably bogus in order to back up their claims. For example, people who claim that replacing the short runs of external wire on a vacuum tube output transformer makes a huge difference to the sound, even though the identical and vastly greater lengths of wire inside the transformer are still left as standard stock magnet wire. There is someone on one of the other forums who seriously maintains that the key difference is that the wire inside the transformer is inside the magnetic field, and so somehow it is (mysteriously, and very conveniently!) exempt from the supposed deficiencies that matter in the external leads.

I will agree that many times subjectivists get cause and effect wrong, me included. it's better to stick with subjective perceptions. but these rationalizations are part of the discussions. OTOH sometimes objectivists also get caught up in their incomplete knowledge and get their panties in a twist and later the true cause and effect claimed by the poster turned out to be correct.

Some non-technical audiophiles seem to have an almost theological need to believe that the workings of amplifiers and other audio devices somehow lie outside the realm of scientific enquiry. And some of them, unfortunately, go even further and combine that with a sort of hokey misunderstanding of scientific principles, creating a grand mish-mash of confusion and obfuscuration.

objectivists are waay more guilty of being theological than subjectivists. most subjectivists don't care so much for the 'why', more about the 'what'.

I would agree with what I think andromedaaudio is saying; that some of the non-technical audiophiles seem to have mis-directed their attention onto exactly the wrong parts of the audio system. Instead of focusing on the parts where real differences could easily be achieved, such as loudspeaker choices, loudspeaker placement, room layout and so on, they have instead homed in on the most solid and least variable components in the system, such as the amplifier, not to mention ridiculous diversions such as bespoke power cables and the like.

Chris

 

[Soundproof]

A conundrum:

HiFi 'subjectivists' are 'objectivists'.

How can that be?
Quite simply because of an irresolvable paradox between the state they claim to be in, and the effect they are evaluating. When judging the performance of a component, the HiFi-subjectivist ascribes the source of change to the capabilities of the component. HiFi-magazines and adepts then discuss what a component is capable of under the supposition that the effect, external and belonging to the component, is transferable to other enthusiasts, as described.

This makes nonsense of the 'subjectivist' and 'objectivist' distinctions, by focusing on the externalities, the technical and other characteristics of the component, and the effects it creates, and insisting that these are repeatable and transferable to other, similar setups - the HiFi-subjectivist actually turns himself into an 'objectivist,' while unaware that this is the case.

The best evidence of this state of affairs is found in the voluminous amounts of HiFi-writings, in enthusiast publications, where components are discussed as if able to deliver subject-independent effects, without regard for the many psychological interactions between component (object) and listener (subject).

And that makes reading threads such as this one a complete waste of time.

 

[Robh3606]

Well, yes. What was your point? A subjective test is a measurement, albeit a complex and somewhat tricky one.

But I also use standard kinds of measurement, just not anything as useless as THD or SNR.

Hello jj

I never thought of a subjective evaluation as a measurement. Actually when you think about it I can see what you are saying. For me at least that is a different mindset as I always looked at them as separate even though in actuality you combine them both. How much weight do you give to each or is it dependent on the circumstances and what exactly you are evaluating??

On another topic I saw you post a DIY speaker. I am a hobbyist and also DIY speakers. If you don't mind can you share what you do?? What measurements do you look at??

Rob

 

[j_j]

in science I do understand that some sort of proof must be behind a claim. it's the claimant's problem to support the argument. to me in a hobby it's the other way around. it's the objectivists problem to investigate the claim before they question the credibility in a general sense.

Did you read my comments about preference a few articles above?

Preference goes beyond preference when someone tries to make it go beyond their personal taste. Then some kind of testing is required before they can present it as fact, rather than their personal taste. If someone says "I like that", there is no arguing. If someone says "I like that and you should too", that's reaching a bit too far. If someone says "I like that and you're an idiot if you don't like that" they are right into the land of the subjectivist fringe.

 

[Ethan Winer]

If someone says "I like that", there is no arguing.

I don't disagree, but it's not unreasonable to ask a "pure subjectivist" to prove that they in fact "like" something. If you test someone over the course of a few days or weeks, and play them identical music through an identical system, I bet some days they'll like what they hear more than other days. And if you do change out the loudspeakers or whatever, they might like something one day that they hated another day. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

(...) If someone says "I like that and you're an idiot if you don't like that" they are right into the land of the subjectivist fringe.

Most of all they are into the land of rude, impolite people.

 

[microstrip]

A good point of being an objectivist (not in the sense used by JJ ... ) is that they do not justify their choices. They have or love amplifiers costing from around one USD per watt to almost an hundred USD per watt (power being the only significant difference for competently designed amplifiers) and do not feel compelled to justify why.

Perhaps because they are too busy looking for the many week points of audiophiles to have something new to post regularly.

 

[j_j]

I don't disagree, but it's not unreasonable to ask a "pure subjectivist" to prove that they in fact "like" something. If you test someone over the course of a few days or weeks, and play them identical music through an identical system, I bet some days they'll like what they hear more than other days. And if you do change out the loudspeakers or whatever, they might like something one day that they hated another day. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it.

--Ethan

It does not MATTER, Ethan. It's pure preference.

 

[j_j]

Most of all they are into the land of rude, impolite people.

Well, that's been my experience, as well, yeah.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Did you read my comments about preference a few articles above?

Preference goes beyond preference when someone tries to make it go beyond their personal taste. Then some kind of testing is required before they can present it as fact, rather than their personal taste. If someone says "I like that", there is no arguing. If someone says "I like that and you should too", that's reaching a bit too far. If someone says "I like that and you're an idiot if you don't like that" they are right into the land of the subjectivist fringe.

Preference goes beyond preference when, lacking the real data for a superior fidelity argument, subjectivists create pseudo-terms that are far from subjective. "It sounds more like real music." "It is closer to the original event," etc. Is anyone is fooled into believing these are subjective substitutes for "I prefer it?" I think we all know these are attempts at positioning the preferred sound as superior, beyond preference.

Tim

 

[mep]

Let's hope that we all prefer the sound we are achieving with our systems.

 

[microstrip]

Preference goes beyond preference when, lacking the real data for a superior fidelity argument, subjectivists create pseudo-terms that are far from subjective. "It sounds more like real music." "It is closer to the original event," etc. Is anyone is fooled into believing these are subjective substitutes for "I prefer it?" I think we all know these are attempts at positioning the preferred sound as superior, beyond preference.

Tim

Tim,

As already referred, when these sentences are expressed in conditions that allow minimization of biases and/or are complemented by adequate explanations and are statistically meaningful, they have a definitive meaning in audiophile sound quality rating.

Surely sentences like "It sounds more like real music." "It is closer to the original event," must be understood in their perceptual meaning, not just physical reproduction.