Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[Duke]

Yes, the idea is hypothetical and is pared down to an easy to pose question - maybe not easy to answer for some though.
This is for the sake of pondering the idea.
Maybe you are an outlier or whatever, in any case you are forced to choose between a genuine tested preference and genuine SOTA accuracy (but that you found in a test that for whatever reasons you enjoy said accuracy less.)

Imo your question is excellent for making me ponder the idea.

Roughly thirty-five years ago I ran up against almost exactly that situation as an amateur speaker builder. Having managed to borrow high quality test equipment from a technician for the weekend, I was fine-tuning a loudspeaker design in pursuit of what I KNEW was the ideal frequency response: Flat. The closer I got to "flat", the worse the speaker sounded, but I persevered faithfully because I KNEW that once I got to the "promised land" of flat frequency response, everything would snap together and sound magnificent

It took me all weekend but I finally had a speaker that measured plus or minus about 1.25 dB over the range where I thought I was getting valid data. And it was unlistenable. Absolutely dreadful.

Well obviously what I "KNEW" was incorrect. As a result I started spending evenings at the local university library reading relevant papers in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Acoustical Society of America, Wireless World, and whatever else seemed applicable. I won't bore you with the details, but briefly that's how I first learned that the off-axis response matters too.

Getting back to your hypothetical, IF I had good reason to believe that my own preference was anomalous AND I was making the selection primarily for the listening enjoyment of other people who would presumably prefer Set A, THEN I would buy Set A. Otherwise, I'd buy Set B.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Imo your question is excellent for making me ponder the idea.

Roughly thirty-five years ago I ran up against almost exactly that situation as an amateur speaker builder. Having managed to borrow high quality test equipment from a technician for the weekend, I was fine-tuning a loudspeaker design in pursuit of what I KNEW was the ideal frequency response: Flat. The closer I got to "flat", the worse the speaker sounded, but I persevered faithfully because I KNEW that once I got to the "promised land" of flat frequency response, everything would snap together and sound magnificent

It took me all weekend but I finally had a speaker that measured plus or minus about 1.25 dB over the range where I thought I was getting valid data. And it was unlistenable. Absolutely dreadful.

Well obviously what I "KNEW" was incorrect. As a result I started spending evenings at the local university library reading relevant papers in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Acoustical Society of America, Wireless World, and whatever else seemed applicable. I won't bore you with the details, but briefly that's how I first learned that the off-axis response matters too.

Getting back to your hypothetical, IF I had good reason to believe that my own preference was anomalous AND I was making the selection primarily for the listening enjoyment of other people who would presumably prefer Set A, THEN I would buy Set A. Otherwise, I'd buy Set B.

Great answer.
(also love how you mentioned others 1st. Seriously I bet you you are a cool dude. I'd deff buy the speaker my GF likes the sound of 1st and I have deff helped friends buy speakers and always based on their tastes - not mine)

 

[dshreter]

Thinking more about this, I think the underlying question is if you want to pursue an objective standard, or do you want to be guided by your own preferences by listening.

On one hand it’s reasonable to say “I want to aim for the Harman curve in my stereo, I think that will lead to long term satisfaction.” That is something you can easily pursue with measurements. For myself I bought neutral studio monitors and EQed them to a smooth tilt in response. I’m not going to do blind comparisons and I chose them based on objective criteria without trialing. It sounds great to me anyway. Listening is a trainable skill, so you can also learn to prefer neutrality if you find that comforting.

On the other you could say “I want the stereo that I prefer from my own blind trials of speakers” and wind up with something very different. You could also EQ the system by ear. Lots of novice listeners want thumping bass and might turn their subwoofer way up. Even experienced listeners might find they like something that isn’t harmanesque. Or you could easily like a harman response! It’s hard to argue with selecting what sounds best to you and that doesn’t make you an audiophool - it’s a question of whether you use listening to make these decisions or not.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I really don’t think this is right. The low p that Olive achieved says the odds are low that any one individual won’t conform with the measurement-based expectation.

My understanding is that there was a lot of variation especially in untrained listeners.

 

[Duke]

(... I bet you you are a cool dude...)

That's what my parole officer says too.

;^)

For the record, in the poll I voted "Equal". My initial speaker design work is almost entirely based on measurements, using blind listening tests where there's a "fork in the road" so to speak regarding a design choice which could go either way, and then I listen to see if anything sounds wrong. If so, I can usually find it in my measurements; and if not, then I make more measurements. Once I think the design is finished I ship the speakers off to my beta-testers, and in most cases I end up fine-tuning the crossover a little based on their feedback. One of my beta-testers is better with a soldering iron than I am so I can just have him do the crossover mod on one of the speakers and then conduct a blind test for the other listeners.

 

[DanielT]

I remember watching a YouTube video about a guy who spends an insane amount of time on building a huge and extremely detailed RC airplane. Then he takes it to the airfield and flies it for a bit, tries to land, hits the ground and pulverizes the whole thing. He admits that he's really bad at piloting and only does so because he feels compelled. Obviously it's the building part of the hobby that makes it fun for him.

I have a feeling that a lot of what creates a divide in audiophilia is not so much about what you believe, but more about what makes the hobby fun for you. Hobbies are ususally not driven by rationality. It's more about wasting time in a way that brings you joy. I imagine that many of the people who get labeled as "subjectivists" simply don't see any reason to question the things that constitute most of their enjoyment.

When people say that ASR is an angry and toxic place, it's probably because they feel that we are trying to rip someting wonderful away from them. We just hate all the fun, wants to destroy it and will replace it with nothing but a dark, cold void. The idea that you can be rational and have fun at the same time have somehow become stigmatized.

Can't you have fun and be objective at the same time? I can take boats, because I picked it up. At the boat club I have met all sorts of people. Total whirlpools, spongy old hippies, doctors, plumbers, women men and so on. The only thing that really binds them together is that they discuss how affordable and good (objectively) different accessories for boats are, different evaluations of boat engines (objective tests), affordable durable sails and so on. Some of them are the nicest, spontaneous and fun people I have ever met.

Objectivist when it comes to performance, but I'm a sucker for looks and branding. If it's ugly, It doesn't matter how amazing it sounds.

For example.It's one thing to come to the conclusion that five subwoofers would be the right thing to have in the combined listening/living room. Another thing to then really place five large ugly cubes in the same room.

Maybe hide Hifi?

Hide HiFi

Hide Hifi. Feel free to share your experiences and solutions around it. It can apply to anything in Hifi: Cables, subs, full-range speakers, amplifiers and so on. Do you throw the ugly power amplifier in a cupboard? Do you place a sub under the sofa? Curtains in front of the speakers? And so...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Newman]

My understanding is that there was a lot of variation especially in untrained listeners.

No. Dr Olive conducted a large study of trained vs untrained, and concluded, “In terms of rank order, the loudspeaker preferences of the untrained listeners (highlighted in red) are essentially the same as those of the trained listeners (highlighted in blue).”.

If you look at the graph, notice that the error bars (vertical lines through each dot) are approx the same size for trained and untrained listeners, so the variation is not bigger for untrained.

Toole is no experimental lightweight, and in his book comments on these tests of person-to-person consistency, so I am happy to reiterate his high-level points:

• The 13 speaker and 70 speaker test results are both "impressive" in their high correlations and high statistical significance
• They mean that, quote, listeners themselves are highly stable "measuring instruments"
• Quote, technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification
• Trained or untrained, interested or disinterested, humans with goodish hearing all tend to rank speakers in the same preference order, but training makes it faster
• It means that the ideas that we all hear differently and prefer differently, are myths.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

It means that the ideas that we all hear differently and prefer differently, are myths.

I've been hearing that claim for decades but IMO here's the deal with that.
No matter how differently a listener might score in a hearing test if,
Listener A went to a live, unamplified concert, (the gold standard for music reproduction it's claimed)
Then later went somewhere and listened to extremely accurate HiFi playing the same concert he would say
"it sounds just like the live event".
Now if Listeners B, C > X did the same thing, their experience would be the same.
No matter how bad or good their hearing is, their experience of the sound of "live" is the same.
Hope I'm saying this right. LOL

 

[Newman]

Thanks Sal. Just to clarify, I’m not saying that we all would score the same in an audiologist’s hearing test. That would be an absurd claim.
I am saying that we all tend to score speaker A higher than speaker B in a speaker rating test, even though we have different hearing test results, unless we enter the “significant hearing damage” territory.

Cheers

 

[DanielT]

Thanks Sal. Just to clarify, I’m not saying that we all would score the same in an audiologist’s hearing test. That would be an absurd claim.
I am saying that we all tend to score speaker A higher than speaker B in a speaker rating test, even though we have different hearing test results, unless we enter the “significant hearing damage” territory.

Cheers

It can also vary for one and the same person at different listening occasions.
Sometimes I press the lodeness button / function when listening at low volume. When I listen to rock music, then old recording can have poor bass so I turn up the bass. Sometimes a do that.

 

[escksu]

Of course music can be measured. Every recording in your collection... is a measurement, or a series of measurements.

OK, perhaps you can try measuring which music or which song sounds better.

 

[escksu]

I've been hearing that claim for decades but IMO here's the deal with that.
No matter how differently a listener might score in a hearing test if,
Listener A went to a live, unamplified concert, (the gold standard for music reproduction it's claimed)
Then later went somewhere and listened to extremely accurate HiFi playing the same concert he would say
"it sounds just like the live event".
Now if Listeners B, C > X did the same thing, their experience would be the same.
No matter how bad or good their hearing is, their experience of the sound of "live" is the same.
Hope I'm saying this right. LOL

It will be extremely difficult to find a live, unamplified concert (almost all concerts rely on mic and speakers). Even till, the person will have to be sitting at a good position and the hall's acoustic must be extremely good.....

 

[Killingbeans]

Frankly, I would prefer folks here to focus on being objective and talk less about others.... Talk about your common interest and your testing etc but leave others and other forums out of it. Look at the number of thread here that keep harping about others... audifools, subjectivists etc... Do they matter to you?

IMO, it's nearly impossible to be objective without having a deep interest in the mechanisms that make human beings do the things they do.

I don't care much for ridicule, but getting a feel for peoples motivations and belief systems holds enormous value.

You don't agree with them, they don't agree with you, so be it. Thats life.

True. What I really like about ASR, is that it has a lot of users who share my curiosity. Couldn't care less about labelling people or "winning" arguments.

But encouraging people to be sceptical about ill-founded claims doesn't hurt.

 

[escksu]

IMO, it's nearly impossible to be objective without having a deep interest in the mechanisms that make human beings do the things they do.

I don't care much for ridicule, but getting a feel for peoples motivations and belief systems holds enormous value.



True. What I really like about ASR, is that it has a lot of users who share my curiosity. Couldn't care less about labelling people or "winning" arguments.

But encouraging people to be sceptical about ill-founded claims doesn't hurt.

What I meant is deep interest into going further into objective testing etc... Less of bothering about what other foums or "audiopools" "audiofools" believe in. Also, less of objective vs subjective debates..... I am sure you are aware of spatial effects. Eg. the sound of an instrument playing appear to come from a region between the 2 speakers instead of from the cones (imaging). So, is there any measurement we can do to test which speakers are better or worse in this (other than listening)?

Do you personally think we have uncovered everything in audio? The meausrements performed can explain everything a person is hearing?? I doubt so. So, why not spend more time and effort in this area instead of commenting on other forums/users?

Btw, I have asked a question before due to live vs recorded debate. Many pple here keep talking about live unamplified sound being the golden standard without really understand what is live unamplified.....

Sure you attend a live, unamplified concert. Where should you be sitting to consider gold standard?? I can assure you that what you hear do vary with your sitting position. Btw, those subtle details you hear when a person playing guitar or cello etc... it can be heard in a recording beside the mic is placed right beside the instrument. In reality, nobody place their ears there when listening. So, at a distance, these subtle details actually isn't audible. Some halls has this ventilator fan noise.....lol....or even pple coughing...this is real live.....but is it what you want?

Another question: If you are listening to a live band without any mic and speakers, can you really hear the singer's voice or instruments playing would likely down out the vocals? Is this the gold unamplified standard you want?

 

[escksu]

Thinking more about this, I think the underlying question is if you want to pursue an objective standard, or do you want to be guided by your own preferences by listening.

On one hand it’s reasonable to say “I want to aim for the Harman curve in my stereo, I think that will lead to long term satisfaction.” That is something you can easily pursue with measurements. For myself I bought neutral studio monitors and EQed them to a smooth tilt in response. I’m not going to do blind comparisons and I chose them based on objective criteria without trialing. It sounds great to me anyway. Listening is a trainable skill, so you can also learn to prefer neutrality if you find that comforting.

On the other you could say “I want the stereo that I prefer from my own blind trials of speakers” and wind up with something very different. You could also EQ the system by ear. Lots of novice listeners want thumping bass and might turn their subwoofer way up. Even experienced listeners might find they like something that isn’t harmanesque. It’s hard to argue with selecting what sounds best to you and that doesn’t make you an audiophool.

Yes, fully agreed. What sound real and what sounds pleasant to your ears may be quite different. Its entirely up to individual. Not everyone likes neutral sound. And then, what is recorded may not be what you like. Thats why there is EQ and tone controls.

 

[Xombul]

If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Improve It.
Peter Drucker

 

[Blumlein 88]

What I meant is deep interest into going further into objective testing etc... Less of bothering about what other foums or "audiopools" "audiofools" believe in. Also, less of objective vs subjective debates..... I am sure you are aware of spatial effects. Eg. the sound of an instrument playing appear to come from a region between the 2 speakers instead of from the cones (imaging). So, is there any measurement we can do to test which speakers are better or worse in this (other than listening)?

Do you personally think we have uncovered everything in audio? The meausrements performed can explain everything a person is hearing?? I doubt so. So, why not spend more time and effort in this area instead of commenting on other forums/users?

snip........

LEDR imaging test.

Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test

Audio Test Tones : check your stereo system for correct imaging

www.audiocheck.net

A bit of an explanation of the test.

Take Me to Your LEDR!

"My system has great imaging!" "I can hear sound coming from beyond my speakers." "The depth image in my system goes back at least 20 feet." Yes, we audiophiles are proud of our imaging (footnote 1), and we've worked hard to get it. My back is still aching from the last time I tweaked my...

www.stereophile.com

Phantom Image

Other imaging test signals.

All do require the listener to listen to these and judge the result. Could it be done with a measure of some sort? Maybe, right off the top of my head I'd think maybe recording with 2 microphones 7.5 inches (19-20 cm) apart and see how the channels combine would could come up with a listener-less measure of the spatiality of speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Improve It.
Peter Drucker

Not true, but true enough. There is trial and error or evolution. Much slower, much lower rates of progress, and much less reliable. But you can end up with improvements anyway.

 

[escksu]

LEDR imaging test.

Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test

Audio Test Tones : check your stereo system for correct imaging

www.audiocheck.net

A bit of an explanation of the test.

Take Me to Your LEDR!

"My system has great imaging!" "I can hear sound coming from beyond my speakers." "The depth image in my system goes back at least 20 feet." Yes, we audiophiles are proud of our imaging (footnote 1), and we've worked hard to get it. My back is still aching from the last time I tweaked my...

www.stereophile.com

Phantom Image

Other imaging test signals.

All do require the listener to listen to these and judge the result. Could it be done with a measure of some sort? Maybe, right off the top of my head I'd think maybe recording with 2 microphones 7.5 inches (19-20 cm) apart and see how the channels combine would could come up with a listener-less measure of the spatiality of speakers.

Yes, maybe we could do it with 2 mics? This is the type of discussion I would like. A way to perfom this test without having a listener. And then, some speakers/gears are better in imaging than others. We could come up with a way to measure and rank them. It would be great fun!!

 

[Newman]

Yes, fully agreed. What sound real and what sounds pleasant to your ears may be quite different. Its entirely up to individual. Not everyone likes neutral sound.

Again, I think you are chasing this idea without having read Toole. It has been investigated and the result is not what you (repeatedly) say.