Agreed. No, they don't. They are still subjective perceptions. (Instead of "hard" facts I probably should have said objective facts.)
And you confuse the scientific process with subjective audio evaluation. Yet explaining the scientific process goes way beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll let it be.
They are fact for individual persons. These perceptions may or may not be shared by other persons. They are not hard, objective facts. That the sun rises every day is an objective fact.
Agreed, you are correct. In literal terms "subjective" refers to one's interpretations of sensory input. But when you refer to the scientific process you are limiting the scope of research.
As I understand it there are two types of research,
Quantitative; whereby "
objective" findings are evaluated statistically to determine facts, and
Qualitative; where "
human experience" is collected and evaluated to determine facts. My "subjective" findings fall into the later.
I am not claiming that digital sucks, only that analogue to vinyl sounds more real than digital to vinyl. This is based upon blind listening tests I conducted at my home. The blind listening test was set up to remove as many variables as possible, as follows:
Using the LP playback rig in my signature; I play one 33.3 RPM analogue source-to-LP (a lacquer by Supersense) of Marvin Gaye: "What's Going On", followed by the Mobile Fidelity 45 RPM DSD source One-Step Ultradisc vinyl of Marvin Gaye: "What's Going On" (or visa versa). The listeners are not told which is playing, just listen to the one track on one then listen to the same track on the other vinyl (volume adjusted to be a close as possible between the two). After listening, the listeners are asked which sounds more real, which do they prefer and why. I collate the information and reported the outcome. In every case but one, the preference (and most "real" award) went to the analogue to lacquer. I must declare that the outlier said before the blind listening test that he preferred the sound of digital over analogue. He was not asked which he preferred, nor was anyone else attending these listening tests, he just announced it.
If we accept that the outlier with a stated preference for the sound of digital over analogue was being honest throughout, and not trying to skew the results for whatever reasons, then we must conclude that people must hear sound differently so that what sounds unreal to some may sound the opposite to others.
My apologies for not clarifying that I was talking about Qualitative Research when speaking of "subjective" findings, thank you for putting me straight.
I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA. If you think I did, you are free to point us to a post where you think this was the case.
91: arguments in favour of vinyl aren't very good...among the very worst; the popularity of vinyl today-most of which is digitally sourced "for crying out loud".
238: Funny that it is mostly certain vinyl enthusiasts who want to impose their subjective perceptions and preferences onto others and show the superiority of their tastes that should be shared by everyone.
Getting something right is not the same as perfection. There is no perfection in high-end audio. For me personally, as well as many others, digital has gotten to a point where it can provide a highly engaging and enjoyable listening experience, which in terms of believability can compete with high-quality vinyl playback.
I agree.