Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[BoredErica]

Sorry man, I made a fat finger error. Don't know what happend but my respons wasn't aimed at you..

LOL okay, sorry for blasting you then. <3

 

[Geert]

So, here we are again, engaged in discourse with a new arrival who hasn’t taken any time to get familiar with some of the bedrock ideas and research that drive the majority on this site. It is a pattern that seems to repeat on a daily basis.

That's why I suggested to divert this part of the discussion to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...surements-everything-or-nothing.29062/page-23

 

[ahofer]

If fidelity can be verified by measurement, why would you need to have any sort of listening tests. Peter Walker said the ideal amplifier would act like a ‘slide wire with gain,‘ can’t disagree with that. Unfortunately even Peter Walker couldn’t quite get there. No amplifier ever made has!
If you are into HiFi or Home Cinema you are chasing an illusion. Stereo is a simulation of reality and Home Cinema sound is there to make you feel you are in the middle of the action, you are not. So all this guff about fidelity is dishonest, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

If we can’t agree on vocabulary and building blocks, there is no hope. You confuse part for the whole in this comment. I think you are trolling and will put you on mute.

 

[BoredErica]

When you look at how we actually buy equipment we are all subjectivists to some degree. If you don’t look, objectivist!

To be an objectivist, you have to be blind every time you listen to your speakers! Have your blindfold ready before you enter the room at all times.

 

[2ndHarm]

An interesting discussion might be the difference in fidelity between one speaker and the next when compared by different people.

As we get older, most of us suffer from a loss of high frequency sensitivity. Our ability to hear sounds above 10-12 KHz pretty much drops off as we enter our autumn years.

For those people - speakers and headphones with rising high ends may sound more natural since they compensate to some extent for the loss of hearing in those regions as we age.

Objectively, those speakers and headphones are less accurate than more neutral ones, but to people with such hearing, their built-in equalization (accidental or otherwise) compensates to some extent for their perception.

Bass varies considerably from room to room and is greatly influenced by personal likes/dislikes.

The bass in my listening area is reinforced by sympathetic vibrations in the wood floor, ceiling and walls. This adds realism to the sound (I can “feel” earthquakes and thunder in movie tracks for example) but I’m sure my bass is far from accurate when measured.

My son who loves the sound of the bass at my house had a lot of trouble duplicating the sound in his listening area since his floor is cement - and didn’t vibrate with low sounds. He added a subwoofer (now he has 2) to his setup and is satisfied with the sound. Again - not accurate I’m sure LOL.

It’s important to listen to sound systems that have been carefully tailored to be neutral and properly equalized in order to have a base from which to strike a balance between accuracy and personal likes.

Having equipment with inaudibly low distortion helps to eliminate other issues in the listening experience.

From there - we can tinker to our heart’s content to adjust the sound for maximum pleasure - but it’s important not to claim that our subjective equalization is in any way accurate beyond measurement.

 

[markus]

I'd say this all points to the essence of the internet and social networks. There are no editors, no one to point out "what you are saying has zero correspondence to what you think you are saying or reality. Re-write this using the facts or forget about being published."

Of course, as anyone who's seen "Citizen Kane" knows, having an editor doesn't guarantee the truth will out, and sometimes an editor can prevent the truth from ever seeing the light of day. But when fantasies are constantly stated as facts without any knowledge of the facts, people become inured to the pervasive BS, particularly as regards such things as audio. Needn't point out what also follows, in the very same way.

One would think this is why there are "mods", to moderate discussions. Highly problematic if they lack the expertise to identify misinformation from facts. Commonly all they (can) do is to act on a set of (self-made) rules they deem proper social behavior regardless of context.

 

[Newman]

For those people - speakers and headphones with rising high ends may sound more natural since they compensate to some extent for the loss of hearing in those regions as we age.

No, because “those people” still listen to voices and instruments in the real world (“live”), and the brain references that as baseline, and variations from that are heard as ‘wrong’.

cheers

 

[Robin L]

One would think this is why there are "mods", to moderate discussions. Highly problematic if they lack the expertise to identify misinformation from facts. Commonly all they (can) do is to act on a set of (self-made) rules they deem proper social behavior regardless of context.

The mods here tend to monitor folks going off the rails with disinformation.

 

[markus]

No, because “those people” still listen to voices and instruments in the real world (“live”), and the brain references that as baseline, and variations from that are heard as ‘wrong’.

cheers

Very true but once you objectively measure their hearing loss and compensate for it, they will indeed hear better.

 

[Newman]

Very true but once you objectively measure their hearing loss and compensate for it, they will indeed hear better.

But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.

 

[Robin L]

But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.

And some people can't compensate for hearing loss.

 

[Geert]

But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural,

This is something I've been wondering about for along time. Is there any research done on this topic?

 

[sergeauckland]

If fidelity can be verified by measurement, why would you need to have any sort of listening tests. Peter Walker said the ideal amplifier would act like a ‘slide wire with gain,‘ can’t disagree with that. Unfortunately even Peter Walker couldn’t quite get there. No amplifier ever made has!
If you are into HiFi or Home Cinema you are chasing an illusion. Stereo is a simulation of reality and Home Cinema sound is there to make you feel you are in the middle of the action, you are not. So all this guff about fidelity is dishonest, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I don't need listening tests, I use them as a reality check to make sure I haven't fooled myself with any measurements. Peter Walker did get there with the 303, which was transparent under any measure when used within its specification. He even chained together a large number of them, I don't remember how many, but lots, (50 seems to ring a bell) with an attenuator between each one, such that the overall gain was the same as just one. The results were still transparent with the exception of noise, which had built up in an entirely predictable manner given the number of amplifiers.

Stereo is indeed an illusion, but in the case of synthetically recorded pop/rock, is the art in itself. It falls down with acoustic music recorded in documentary fashion, and there have been several attempts, from Quadraphonics onwards, to redress that, but with limited success. Sound-Field Synthesis has got a long way there, but is impractical domestically as it needs hundreds of channels of DSP. I have no interest in home or any cinema as done these days.

S.

 

[markus]

But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.

Yes, adaption is key. Interestingly in binaural testing it has been found that some people could hear better with other people's (outer) ears.

 

[MattHooper]

You missed my point — that being both a subjectivist and objectivist makes the labels irrelevant. If my aim was to redefine subjectivist and objectivist — ie same as your aim — then I would have expanded on them. But I have no such aim in this thread.

Ok, then what you have are complaints but no solutions.

The fact is there are groups of people who share roughly similar viewpoints about how to approach evaluating audio equipment.

This website constantly complains about the number of audiophiles who have taken the "Golden Ears" approach to evaluating
audio gear. You know this. Therefore since there ARE some roughly similar methods or beliefs held by groups of people, it makes sense to be able to refer to such trends.

But if you simply reject any reference...what have you got in place? Having nothing actually doesn't solve the problem because the phenomenon exists whether you like it or not.

It's like refusing to call NBA players "basketball players" because you want to reject "labeling" anyone. Well..what other term shall we use to refer to all those people in specific team jerseys being paid to run around basketball courts, dribbling and shooting basketballs? Just ad hoc references to individuals doing so is going to be awkward, and miss that there's an actual phenomenon tying them all together, which one could discuss.

Not Wanting To Make Divisive Labels isn't actually helpful when there are group phenomena that actually exist to identify.

This is what I'm asking of anyone here: I'm not saying "Objectivist/Subjectivist" is the best possible reference for the difference many here hold vs the "golden ears" crowd. I'm just suggesting that IF one asks what they could mean, I'm trying to suggest what they can identify. But IF someone wants to reject those labels, fine...but what's the alternative? If you just refuse to have any reference then you make things just as awkward, and if you can't identify and refer to a trend in some people, then you miss the reality of that trend.

So, really, the solution, or lack of solution, is in people's hands. They can either complain about labels and not offer solutions...or we can try to converge on what we mean by terms to make conversation clear.

 

[pkane]

This is what I'm asking of anyone here: I'm not saying "Objectivist/Subjectivist" is the best possible reference for the difference many here hold vs the "golden ears" crowd. I'm just suggesting that IF one asks what they could mean, I'm trying to suggest what they can identify. But IF someone wants to reject those labels, fine...but what's the alternative? If you just refuse to have any reference then you make things just as awkward, and if you can't identify and refer to a trend in some people, then you miss the reality of that trend.

I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups, but to me, that's the largest distinction and the one that results in most other disagreements between the two groups.

 

[Timcognito]

Is SINAD 115 db worth an extra $100 ($200?) vs 96 db? Subjective judgment will always be there. I think the Golden Ears concept is what is polluting this hobby, but that said, some do hear better than others. Further, generally those who are designing and are employed in the audio equipment world probably do have keener sense of nuanced differences in how something sounds. Is it better, who knows. Things really run afoul when sales comes into the picture as the desire to stretch the truth is incentivized.

 

[Geert]

Ok, then what you have are complaints but no solutions.

My understanding is the complaint is the "-ist's", which makes it doctrines which refute the opposite principle.

 

[Geert]

I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups,

The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational."

 

[pkane]

I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups,

Uncontrolled. It's a perfectly cromulent word, and it is an accurate and concise description with no ambiguity.

The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational."