• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

How would you classify yourself?

  • Ultra Objectivist (ONLY care about measurements and what has been double-blind tested.)

    Votes: 21 4.9%
  • Hard Objectivist (Measurements are almost always the full story. Skeptical of most subjective claim)

    Votes: 123 28.9%
  • Objectivist (Measurements are very important but not everything.)

    Votes: 182 42.7%
  • Neutral/Equal

    Votes: 40 9.4%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Subjectivist (There's much measurements don't show. My hearing impressions are very important.)

    Votes: 25 5.9%
  • Hard Subjectivist (Might only use measurements on occasion but don't pay attention to them usually.)

    Votes: 5 1.2%
  • Ultra Subjectivist (Measurements are WORTHLESS, what I hear is all that matters.)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Other (Please explain!)

    Votes: 20 4.7%

  • Total voters
    426

SirMaster

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
33
Likes
31
I would have to say subjectivist.

Why should I care about the measurements over what personally sounds best to me?

At the end of the day I am the one listening to the sound for personal pleasure, so I will choose to use the device that creates the most personal sound pleasure no matter what the objective measurements say.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Acknowledging that there are more reliable methods of inquiry - e.g. a scientific approach to audio or to anything else - doesn't commit you to always using those methods. Most of our daily decision-making isn't made using scientific rigor. How could it? It would be completely unworkable (for a scientist as for anyone else).
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
Most of our daily decision-making isn't made using scientific rigor.
There's pretty strong psychology evidence that decision-making isn't a rational process. Decisions appear to be emotional acts, and all we can do is pre-commit to criteria and postpone the decision to let the research influence the emotions, until we can't any longer.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
There's pretty strong psychology evidence that decision-making isn't a rational process. Decisions appear to be emotional acts, and all we can do is pre-commit to criteria and postpone the decision to let the research influence the emotions, until we can't any longer.

Absolutely, but we should always be careful how far we take the inferences. We don't, for instance, point to the existence of optical illusions to say "therefore all sense experience is unreliable." (How would you explain that we successfully navigate through the world every day?). Likewise, that some irrationality or emotional component can be induced in experiments doesn't entail all decisions are illogical or not rational. If you asked the NASA engineers for all the reasons they had for making countless engineering choices to get a rover to mars - all the hypothesis testing, engineering experiments that led from inference to inference - it couldn't be explained by mere appeal to emotion or irrational choices.
 
OP
BoredErica

BoredErica

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
629
Likes
899
Location
USA
Why do you seem to feel so threatened?
I'm not. I responded to them in a fine, nice enough way. What's the problem?
I find that fairly strange.

On one hand you continually used "Subjectivist" and "Objectivist," even pointing out this forum is essentially a reaction against the "subjectivist" camp in audio.

And then say that if we should actually try to discuss or clarify what we MEAN by the terms you are using, doing so is "dirty worthless gossip?"

Can you clarify your point, as it seems to me at this point kind of incoherent. Thanks.


Are we getting totally different readings of what I meant with the line you bolded?
'Also I hardly find a deep semantic debate about what subjectivist or objectivist mean and how to categorize people by their belief or decision making systems to be dirty worthless gossip.'
I hardly find xxx to be xyz means I don't really find xxx to be xyz (IOW I don't find xxx to be xyz). If I had a big problem with semantic debates about meaning of subjectivist vs objectivist as terms I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.

Some people outside of ASR hate ASR. Some people in ASR hate people outside ASR. Par for the course. Not surprising and I don't think ASR is uniquely outward looking in is vitriol or anything like that.

Audiogon denizens do it it all the time, even accusing ASR of provoking suicide.
This is probably going to be another one of the times where subjectivists come in to try to poke holes, and when we respond to their points they just disappear. :|

For years we have been led to believe that in order to get better quality audio,
(a) you have to keep climbing the price ladder, and
(b) hi-fi components must be in a similar price range (e.g. the speakers, amp & source must all be in the $2,500 - $5,000 region).

ASR helps consumers (at least it has helped me) understand that performance does not necessarily have to come via climbing up to the next price bracket.

With excellent DAC offerings from Octo, Topping, Gustard, and SMSL all under $1,000, why would someone ever want to spend more? Only if you want more facilities / inputs but that is not performance related.

Similarly, with excellent amps based on Hypex and Purifi modules, why spend silly money on mega-buck amps?

You can save money with the above and spend it on better speakers and room treatment.

This is the value of ASR for me.
Absolutely. It was just 'spend more money' with money being the metric for how good a system is going to sound. I could spend some of the saved money on other things even. Food, friends, other hobbies, making speaker area look better with designer furniture, etc. If I'm spending extra I want to know I'm getting *something* beyond just brand. Reliability? Better specs even if inaudible? Features? Something.

I agree except, when you once again listen sighted you probably will again prefer the "wrong" speaker. And in real life you own and listen sighted.
Not really the way I look at things but I have no issue with that view either. If a person says 'x sounds better sonically blind but the experience of speaker y is such that I actually like the sound more', that seems perfectly valid to me.

I'm more curious about whether anyone disagreed with my original point about controlled testing or if actually some of the people I see as subjectivists have been agreeing with me with that point the whole time. That's not to say I wouldn't have very different ideas about what measurements actually mean for preference/etc down the line but perhaps there's more common ground than I give credit for sometimes. or not, who knows.
 
Last edited:

Aerith Gainsborough

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
853
Likes
1,280
Honestly it depends on the context.

Are we talking about electronic components, cables etc?
I would be an Ultra Objectivist then.

Are we talking about transducers?
I would be neutral on that one. Measurements can give great hints to narrow down the selection (if you know what you like and can read the graphs) as well as filter out the design duds but ultimately, transducer signatures are up to taste. Especially when the system is supposed to be DSP free (not sure why someone would want to tie their hands... but hey, whatever floats your boat!)

Are we talking about EQ settings / final touches?
There is very little we can objectively measure here, I find the ultra strict adherence to some standards (e.g.: Harman) to be somewhat misguided, though they can provide a good starting point. Ultimately, this is where we leave the realm of science and enter into the domain of art and personal taste. Here, it only matters that my ears like the result. If other humans scoff at my preferences, that's their prerogative.
 

MaxBuck

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,515
Likes
2,116
Location
SoCal, Baby!
Oh, I know, there is a 40-40-20 rule as well:
  • 40% of your budget on speakers
  • 40% on amplification
  • 20% on the source
Elsewhere, this has evolved into the the 50-30-20 rule. On some sites they say that systems < 5K are 'hi-fi' and that you need to spend over 5K to achieve 'hi-end'. No wonder consumers are disillusioned and confused.
Interesting. My system is 70% speakers, 10% source, 20% amplification (I've placed the DAC into the source category ...). And I wouldn't have wanted to spend any less on the speakers.

Seriously, the only way to improve on the system from my perspective would be better speakers.
 

Longshan

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
230
Likes
259
Interesting. My system is 70% speakers, 10% source, 20% amplification (I've placed the DAC into the source category ...). And I wouldn't have wanted to spend any less on the speakers.

Seriously, the only way to improve on the system from my perspective would be better speakers.

"Seriously, the only way to improve on the system from my perspective would be better speakers."

Room treatment?

Do 'audiophiles' not treat their rooms?
 
OP
BoredErica

BoredErica

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
629
Likes
899
Location
USA
I won't permit any of it! My audio stuff is in service to the room and my life, not the other way around. I have to like the way things look.
MAF: My Acceptance Factor :D
 

dadregga

Active Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
154
Likes
340
Guess my stance is more or less this:

Measurements can't tell you if something "sounds good", objectively. They can tell you why something "sounds good", for some subjective definition of "sounds good", and make it possible to consistently communicate with other beings that share your subjective definition of "sounds good".

If I know what "sounds good" subjectively to me, I can find the objective measurements that describe that subjective preference, and use those objective measurements to get a good idea of how close something is going to stick to my subjective preference, without spending incredible amounts of time and money subjectively experiencing everything to see how closely it hews to my preference.
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Are we getting totally different readings of what I meant with the line you bolded?

I hardly find xxx to be xyz means I don't really find xxx to be xyz (IOW I don't find xxx to be xyz). If I had a big problem with semantic debates about meaning of subjectivist vs objectivist as terms I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place.

Ah, very sorry, I had actually misread your statement thinking you WERE calling it gossip. I missed the "hardly."

Sorry about that :facepalm:
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
Absolutely, but we should always be careful how far we take the inferences. We don't, for instance, point to the existence of optical illusions to say "therefore all sense experience is unreliable." (How would you explain that we successfully navigate through the world every day?). Likewise, that some irrationality or emotional component can be induced in experiments doesn't entail all decisions are illogical or not rational. If you asked the NASA engineers for all the reasons they had for making countless engineering choices to get a rover to mars - all the hypothesis testing, engineering experiments that led from inference to inference - it couldn't be explained by mere appeal to emotion or irrational choices.
I'm not sure where you are going with this - emotional decision making is worse. "worse" does not mean "entirely wrong" or "fatally flawed", it just means "worse than the alternative". It could be faster and perfectly adequate, but still worse. We don't do a study to decide how to open a door, but there's some corner case where it would produce a better outcome.

This clarification reminds me of one of my favorite sayings about handling one's oppositions feelings about someone who generally makes bad decisions or espouses bad policies, or is a partisan of another tribe:

(edited because I got the saying wrong, duh)
 

Longshan

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
230
Likes
259
I won't permit any of it! My audio stuff is in service to the room and my life, not the other way around. I have to like the way things look.
Your room should be part of your audio stuff because physics.
 

Longshan

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
230
Likes
259
Guess my stance is more or less this:

Measurements can't tell you if something "sounds good". They can tell you why something "sounds good", for some subjective definition of "sounds good", and make it possible to consistently communicate with other beings that share your subjective definition of "sounds good".

If I know what "sounds good" subjectively to me, I can find the objective measurements that describe that subjective preference, and use those objective measurements to get a good idea of how close something is going to stick to my subjective preference, without spending incredible amounts of time and money subjectively experiencing everything to see how closely it hews to my preference.
You've contradicted yourself here.
 

Longshan

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
230
Likes
259
Elaborate? I might just be communicating poorly, wouldn't be the first time.
If you can find the "objective measurements that describe that subjective preference," then it follows that measurements can indeed tell you if something sounds good.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,750
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Oh, I know, there is a 40-40-20 rule as well:
  • 40% of your budget on speakers
  • 40% on amplification
  • 20% on the source
Elsewhere, this has evolved into the the 50-30-20 rule. On some sites they say that systems < 5K are 'hi-fi' and that you need to spend over 5K to achieve 'hi-end'. No wonder consumers are disillusioned and confused.
Last year, my friend and I tested comparing three different amplifiers. It was not a serious evaluation in itself, mostly a little fun when we met and drank some beer. He has amplifiers in the $ 800 class. I had brought an old amplifier, used for $ 70, a Technics SU V45 A. No hell we could hear such big differences. If even any differences at all. Then we also do not know if we imagined, if we heard any difference. Source streamed plus CD player.


His speakers:

The cabinets aren't all that large by the standards of $ 6000 / pair floorstanders, but they's solidly braced and beautifully made.


(Hans bought his Vienna used, much cheaper than $ 6000, but still).

Edit:
Possibly, if we had been completely sober, carried out the comparison more systematically and increased the volume and tested with the most dynamic music (high crest factor), we would have heard differences more clearly. Maybe... maybe not. :)
We plugged in a flea market subwoffer he had bought did not immediately facilitate the whole "test" (not his in the attached picture, that model). With beer in the body, we got a terribly bad match sub-vienna as well.Never mind, we had fun. That was the most important thing.:D
 

Attachments

  • 59661ae04aaceb79666f3dae.jpeg
    59661ae04aaceb79666f3dae.jpeg
    221.4 KB · Views: 51
Last edited:
Top Bottom