• 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

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,815
Likes
2,815
Location
Sydney
Spending more money does not greatly improve the first four stated characteristics. Returns are therefore inherently diminished. There are also numerous expensive speakers which neither reproduce lower bass frequencies nor reach significantly higher SPLs than their much cheaper counterparts and vice versa.
I'll admit I ignored ASR review of those Adam speakers because they don't appeal to my eye and cost less than dinner out. But curiosity after reading here led me there and to Kal Rubinson's review of a more domesticated ADAM (is it an acronym? yes apparently) floorstander, which his ears favoured. Based on that—and because I'm not much interested in speakers on a desk—I might peg the diminishing returns around $7K (give or take inflation since 2012). The three way (or 3.5 in fact) configuration using the pleated driver for the midrange as well is interesting but from their website it looks like they don't do speakers you can use with your eyes open anymore (otoh I may have missed something) and the good midrange is now a semi-dome, so I guess that's moot.

I've obviously added aesthetics to your four metrics vis-à-vis cost-effectiveness, but discarding that for now as non-sonic, I think your formulation may underplay how the sonic metrics inter-relate: enlarge the drivers and cabinet to get bass reach and inertness gets harder and costs more. Increase SPL and ditto (where $100 on a desk at < 1 metre doesn't translate to a medium size room at 3-4 metres etc). SPL and distortion are also linked. What are "reasonable levels" and so on. You know all this, obviously. But I think it does mean your first sentence (quoted) is merely technical: you can't posit diminishing returns without baseline minima, and a simple curve will not give you the answer across multiple parameters. And beyond that, the sweet spot (which may or may not coincide with the inflection point) on the various curves will depend on a number of technical and personal intrinsic and extrinsic criteria.

Edit: those little ADAMs were AUD$700-ish here, the usual Oz mark-up ripoff
 
Last edited:

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,815
Likes
2,815
Location
Sydney
Reminds of that "Oh! So its' not 100%" joke from Don't Look Up:
Great film.* Otoh, when global annihilation is a possible consequence of my stereo setup, I'll absolutely call on a team of engineers and simulations before adjusting toe-in. If not, I'll just use my ears.

*ok not Stalker great, but great fun
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,089
Likes
7,547
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
It'll definitely take a bit more SPL than a rock concert. Maybe if the residual noise makes your speakers hiss at the same volume as the Krakatoa eruption :D
 

Bleib

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
1,253
Likes
2,252
Location
Sweden
My mind says I'm an objectivist but my wallet says subjectivist.
What this means in reality is I would buy much bigger and more expensive speakers, measure the room treat it fully, buy more expensive headphones with lower distorsion levels etc..
Often there's more one can do but you'll also hit diminishing returns in the end.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,025
Likes
3,327
Location
bay area, ca
My mind says I'm an objectivist but my wallet says subjectivist.
I don't think the preference is wallet led. It's a fantastic time to be a budget audiophile.

Objectivism has zero to do with wallet depth these days, quite clearly. Nor has it anything to do with measurement fanaticism to the last 0.05%.
 

Bleib

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
1,253
Likes
2,252
Location
Sweden
I don't think the preference is wallet led. It's a fantastic time to be a budget audiophile.

Objectivism has zero to do with wallet depth these days, quite clearly. Nor has it anything to do with measurement fanaticism to the last 0.05%.
Well, I'm not saying you need to spend millions to get good audio (a lot of recordings are not even great either..), but you're unlikely to get good frequency response on a too limited budget either.
 

WickedInsignia

Active Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
184
Likes
408
Location
Australia
Objectivist. I would lean harder into it if there weren’t properties of audio we can’t really measure precisely yet, such as resolution and soundstage.
No-one’s testing method is fully comprehensive either. Rtings are the most thorough I know of, but their scores and impressions leave a lot to be desired (DT770 the best “audiophile closed-back”, anyone??!).
To be an objectivist buyer you need reviewers to be making fully comprehensive and unbiased objective measurements of gear. No-one is really doing that, so you need to accept a level of subjectivity just to properly navigate the market.

I respect Amir’s approach but there’s plenty he doesn’t measure, with an important omission being user-to-user consistency. Some headphones have vastly different effects on different users. His measurements are also disputed, since in some cases he really doesn’t seem to achieve a proper seal with some headphones.
FR is king but there’s plenty of important properties to a headphone that aren’t measurable (To loosely quote Crinacle: you could EQ an M50x to the same curve as an HD800, but the M50x will never have the vast and precise soundstage the HD800 has).

I respect measurements and the Harman Target due to the exhaustive research utilized to reach its conclusions, and the fact that I’ve experienced the value of the curve firsthand (preferring headphones that approximated it even when I was completely unfamiliar with them).
The headphone review environment is too subjectivist to be a hard objectivist though. It’s impractical and you need to give a little leeway (emphasis on little) to subjective impressions since it’s not a perfect science.
 

duckworp

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
6
I agree with this.


I don't think that "subjectivists" (audiophiles, antivaxxers, Tramp or Brexit supporters, etc.) are sensitive to reason and logic. Any evidence based argumentation is lost in them, they just go with their gut...
And when you attak their ideas they feel that they are themselves under attack.
That’s an interesting political analogy. I see it from the other pov though - it feels to me that it is the ultra-objectivists who are akin to the flaming passions and extreme positions of the Trump/Brexiteers/anti-vaxer believers. In my experience in any cable thread it is the objectivists who usually come on strongest and most single-mindedly with echoes of religious zealots, whereas the subjectivists are usually just saying “I like that cable, I heard a difference".
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
If only the ‘subjectivists’ would conduct the simplest unsighted comparison before gushing, but of course they never do which is a shame.
Keith
 

magicscreen

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
300
Likes
176
I am a believer in science!
Unfortunately this site is scientific only in its name.
Amir recommends amplifiers with plastic case. Atom and Geshelli etc. I was cheated out of $166.
An real engineer will never recommend a basically faulty device.
If you unlucky this will you get
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
I do not believe in the science. It's not a religion but a way to tell fact demonstrable : a tool to understand the world.
But I pray my hammer.
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,089
Likes
7,547
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
In my experience in any cable thread it is the objectivists who usually come on strongest and most single-mindedly with echoes of religious zealots, whereas the subjectivists are usually just saying “I like that cable, I heard a difference".

In my experience both parties of the debate are very passionate about their point of view. In any community you'll get strong reactions to opposition.

That being said, pointing out that the laws of physics can't be broken is not single-minded. Sometimes it might be beneficial to tolerate nonsense in the name of diplomacy, but it should never ever be respected.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
That’s an interesting political analogy. I see it from the other pov though - it feels to me that it is the ultra-objectivists who are akin to the flaming passions and extreme positions of the Trump/Brexiteers/anti-vaxer believers. In my experience in any cable thread it is the objectivists who usually come on strongest and most single-mindedly with echoes of religious zealots, whereas the subjectivists are usually just saying “I like that cable, I heard a difference".
A) Refusing to accept that something that is highly unlikely or even physically impossible actually happened when there is no evidence that it did.

B) Insisting that something highly unlikely or even impossible actually happened despite there being no evidence that it did.

Which of these is the position a 'religious zealot' is most likely to adopt?
 

egellings

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
4,005
Likes
3,245
Isn't there a laboratory dummy head with microphones in the 'ears' that can be used to verify headphone performance?
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
For me the objectivist assessment represents a heuristc for engineering diligence, best practices, etc. Rather than take the time to get to know the engineering team and their design objectives, I just look at the measurements as a starting point.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,590
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Isn't there a laboratory dummy head with microphones in the 'ears' that can be used to verify headphone performance?
There are test rigs, but they are not as reliable/predictable as speaker measurements, and Amir acknowledges that with every review he's made of headphones. On top of that, one would expect more person-to-person variation in subjectively evaluating headphones due to differences in the shape of ears. I would imagine this could result in some sort of adjustment akin to Dirac to compensate. But for the moment one needs to take headphone measurements with a few grains of salt.
 

FishInLA

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
28
Likes
22
I've been thinking about this, and I think I am an objectivist because I am also a subjectivist. By which I mean, there are things that are inherently subjective in nature - is this a good song, is this a good mix, does this album successfully convey its intended emotional response, do I like this movie? And in order to fairly evaluate those subjective questions, I need to know that my playback equipment is fairly approximating the artist's intent.

I ticked Objectivist instead of the harder two options mostly because I think aesthetic questions about gear are fair game - there are elements that affect my opinion of a system that cannot be measured (messy design, ugly speakers, unfortunate fit & finish, even things like the marketing behind a brand). It's a sort of weird placebo effect in the open - I know it's expectation bias that the prettier speaker also sounds better to me, but, well, there it is.
 

WickedInsignia

Active Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
184
Likes
408
Location
Australia
I know it's expectation bias that the prettier speaker also sounds better to me, but, well, there it is.
The psychological effect of a product is an important one that we tend to play down on ASR in favour of a purely objective analysis of enjoyment.
If you pay more for a piece of audio gear, and it’s aesthetically attractive and well-built, you may inevitably spend more time with it and use it more attentively. You want to get your money’s worth and soak in all the details.

I think that can lead to increased audio enjoyment, at least in the sense that you’re more “present” in the experience. An expensive pair of headphones aren’t something you will slap on at the gym and forget they are there. Similarly, you’re not going to sit down in your armchair with your cheap gym headphones and expect to drift away into audio bliss. The pricetag and beauty of a headphone encourages you to be more mentally involved. Even though they may not have anything special in terms of detail, tonality and soundstage, you are more willing to notice and appreciate what’s there.

This isn’t an argument for subjective attachment overriding objective quality, but it’s an interesting element of the market that certainly exists. The people enjoying headphones that measure badly are objectively enjoying them, regardless of whether they believe in the wonky graphs they produce.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
Generally Very much objectivist, speakers especially given room acoustics are much harder to define by measurements. Although Room correction software allowing for greater room integration, starts to change that equation.
 
Top Bottom