• 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

storing

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
226
Likes
220
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
Completely agree that the psychological effect is important; not totally convinced this gets played down here - at least I don't perceive it as such on average and also it's a well-known scientifically proven effect, playing that down would be very un-ASR-y not to say a bit dumb..

But there's more to it then looks and price: it can also work like that with measurements. If you know something measures objectively really well, and you care about that, then it's not unlikely that comparing an ugly set which you know measures good vs an aesthetic wonder of which you know it measures less good, you're still going to prefer the former - even if there's not actually an audible difference. Could even be so that you're going to turn into considering the well measuring set more aesthetically pleasing purely because you realize it's objectively better.
 

Cote Dazur

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
619
Likes
758
Location
Canada
Very interesting thread, are we differently subjectivist or objectivist about our home sound reproduction choices than we are generally on daily life?
To me, if there is enough scientific evidence about a subject, I follow the science. Unfortunately this is a rare occasion for many more complex situations.
For the subject at stake here, better a science that shed some light than total obscurity and fumbling in the dark. Unfortunately, the science we have available at this point in time, cannot not tell us what should be done, it guides us in the right direction, but we must also rely on what we ear to complete to process of choice.
Science is the more logical choice, but Science when blindly followed is no better than a religion.
Probably over optimistic on my side, but I can imagine a state of this hobby where science can dictate how apparatus should work to be of the highest standard.
In the meanwhile, I will keep enjoying earing what I end up with in my listening room, while also keeping an eye on what the status of the state of the art is at.
 

Ml2316

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
49
Likes
19
I think it's partly that it requires a lot of effort and time for any one person to learn how the objective measurements impact their subjective enjoyment of audio equipment. If I knew precisely how the measurements would predict my enjoyment, then of course i would be an objectivist, as would anyone.

The problem is that no one can accurately and precisely predict their enjoyment of equipment from looking at the measurements. At the end of the day objectivism and subjectivism are just two ends of the same spectrum.
 

duckworp

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
6
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?
But the evidence of something happening to the subjectivist is the evidence of their hearing. Put it this way: the subjectivist will use evidence (hearing) to support a view but won’t feel dogmatic. A pure objectivist, on the other hand, is defined by dogma. This is why in a cable thread on a non-partisan forum, the objectivists come over taking the more extreme positions which can give the impression of the aforementioned anti-vaxer, Brexiteers ‘religious zealot' etc. camps.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
But the evidence of something happening to the subjectivist is the evidence of their hearing. Put it this way: the subjectivist will use evidence (hearing) to support a view but won’t feel dogmatic. A pure objectivist, on the other hand, is defined by dogma. This is why in a cable thread on a non-partisan forum, the objectivists come over taking the more extreme positions which can give the impression of the aforementioned anti-vaxer, Brexiteers ‘religious zealot' etc. camps.
'Hearing' can only be accepted as evidence if it truly was hearing alone and not a combination of other factors. Sighted comparisons don't constitute evidence. Just knowing what equipment you are using will alter your perception of the sound.

That's not dogma, it's fact. That's why unlikely subjective claims tend to be dismissed, they don't take that fact into account.

A dogmatic position is one that ignores facts and evidence that do not support it. Anti-vax is a good example of a dogmatic position. Based on the facts and evidence, It's clearly irrational

Brexit is not a good example of a dogmatic position, since there are facts and evidence that support the proposition that it is a good thing, and facts and evidence that support the proposition that it is a bad thing. Therefore it is not possible to adopt an irrational position with regards to it.
 
Last edited:

duckworp

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
6
Dogma: ’a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.’ Objectivists believe certain measurements define what a piece of audio kit will deliver in terms of sound. They believe that to be incontrovertibly true.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
Dogma: ’a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.’ Objectivists believe certain measurements define what a piece of audio kit will deliver in terms of sound. They believe that to be incontrovertibly true.
Now you're constructing a straw-man argument.

An objective position is one based on facts and evidence. If new evidence comes to light the objective position will change. That does not happen with a dogmatic position which as you say, involves 'belief' - that is maintaining the position despite a lack of evidence and despite there being evidence to the contrary.

The problem (in relation to hi-fi) is that what subjectivists think is evidence is not actually evidence.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Dogma: ’a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.’ Objectivists believe certain measurements define what a piece of audio kit will deliver in terms of sound. They believe that to be incontrovertibly true.
That's not true for me, as a confirmed objectivist, and is therefore a false statement. Measurements define what a piece of audio kit does, not what it sounds like. 'Sounds like' is in the mind of the listener, and therefore has no objective reality, it's different for every listener.

That's why I am an objectivist, as I know that what I think I hear has nothing to do with the equipment, which ideally should be transparent, and for electronics is, but entirely made up in my mind.

S.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
But the evidence of something happening to the subjectivist is the evidence of their hearing. Put it this way: the subjectivist will use evidence (hearing) to support a view but won’t feel dogmatic. A pure objectivist, on the other hand, is defined by dogma. This is why in a cable thread on a non-partisan forum, the objectivists come over taking the more extreme positions which can give the impression of the aforementioned anti-vaxer, Brexiteers ‘religious zealot' etc. camps.

You have things completely backwards. (But then, so do most subjectivists in the usual debates).

We are talking about two epistemelogical positions.

The "Objectivist" position is that the most reliable route to knowledge about how audio equipment works is through engineering and scientific attitudes.

The position contains two inherent pillars that are by their very nature anti-dogmatic:

1. (Audio) Objectivism accepts the reality of human error as a linchpin. I may think I hear a difference between A and B...but I Could Be Wrong. The "I Could Be Wrong" aspect, the keeping an eye on our human fallibility, is what DRIVES the method in the first place, hence inherently anti-dogmatic. And on similar grounds the objectivist accepts that instruments can indeed surpass the ability, and reliability, of human hearing in vetting many claims.

2. It provided a METHOD for finding out that one is wrong. "I could be wrong that there is no audible difference between A and B...and HERE is how I can learn I am wrong" (or you can show me I'm wrong). E.g. If cable A can be shown to produce measurable differences in the audio signal, in the known audible range and/or blind tests controlling for human errors like biases can reliably replicate people identifying a sonic difference.

So the Audio Objectivist comes to these questions inherently admitting the unrealiability of his own subjective inferences AND with a method to find out he/she is correct...or incorrect.

IN CONTRAST:

The pure Audio Subjectivist - the Golden Ears - simply relies on his own subjective impression as THE final arbitor of reality. If he thinks he heard a difference, there WAS a real difference. If measurements, engineering theory, science or blind testing suggest otherwise...so much the worse for those methods. The subjectivist isn't wrong in What He Heard...those objective tests must be wrong.

This is why you see from subjectivists over and over "I don't give a damn about measurements or all that stuff (especially if they contradict my experience)...my senses are reliable, I go with what I hear, and I KNOW what I hear."

This is INHERENTLY a self-enclosing dogma that ON IT'S OWN TERMS does not contain a method of testing or disconfirmation. After all, if by precisely the same method someone else reports hearing no difference, the subjectivist can (and usually does) merely say "Well, too bad for you...must be your system or your ears can't resolve the difference. Mine can!" It ends in a "he said/she said" loop that can never be resolved.
And it is ALSO from this viewpoint that the rancor usually arises in cable threads and the like. Because the subjectivists rely on personal experience, they take challenges to their claims personally. And because they have no other way to demonstrate or vet their claims, they resort to ad hominem, inevitably blaming this on the objectivist! It's like clockwork...because it's inherent in that point of view.

I have been pointing this out on subjectivist forums for years. I have taken any number of debated subjects and said "I could be wrong, this is how I can find out I'm wrong." and If YOU, mr. Subjectivist, believe you heard a difference between those cables, HOW can you be shown to be wrong? What will show you are mistaken?

Not ONE has EVER been able to answer that question. Literally, not one. And a number have been explicit in answering: "Nothing." They have full confidence in their impressions. In fact they often even deride the objectivist for "not having the confidence in your own perception," as if acknowledging the possibility of error was a weakness!

You couldn't have a more pure expression of dogma.

Speaking of dogma: Some here may remember the infamous moment in the debate between remembers the infamous debate between science guy Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham, when they were each asked what would change their mind. Ken Ham, the creationist, said "Nothing." Which is what someone says in a system were the strength of one's "faith" is a virtue. Bill Nye's answer was: "evidence."
 
Last edited:

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,971
Likes
5,615
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Subjectively, the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and the Earth is flat. Objectively, I know the Earth is an oblate spheroid that rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun but still I use terms like sunrise and sunset. Hard to shake these things.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Subjectively, the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and the Earth is flat. Objectively, I know the Earth is an oblate spheroid that rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun but still I use terms like sunrise and sunset. Hard to shake these things.

Though your point is well taken, you also don't have to be too sheepish about using the terms sunrise and sunset. They are accurate in a very relevant sense: the sun does rise and set at angles relative to the horizon.

It's like the term "solid." There is a sense in which it is "wrong" or "an illusion" - a wall gives the impression of being fully contiguous matter, but it is not so - much of it is "empty space" at the atomic level. Yet a wall certainly is "solid" with respect to the important every day sense. You can't see or walk through it, as you could air. And you certainly want to know if the lake water is in "solid" form (ice) before you go skating on it during winter.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,971
Likes
5,615
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Though your point is well taken, you also don't have to be too sheepish about using the terms sunrise and sunset. They are accurate in a very relevant sense: the sun does rise and set at angles relative to the horizon.

It's like the term "solid." There is a sense in which it is "wrong" or "an illusion" - a wall gives the impression of being fully contiguous matter, but it is not so - much of it is "empty space" at the atomic level. Yet a wall certainly is "solid" with respect to the important every day sense. You can't see or walk through it, as you could air. And you certainly want to know if the lake water is in "solid" form (ice) before you go skating on it during winter.
Yes, that is true. Our senses lie to us about reality in order to be more useful to us.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Yes, that is true. Our senses lie to us about reality in order to be more useful to us.

My point was that I think it muddies things to say, in such examples, that our senses are "lying" to us. They could only be "useful" to us insofar as they are delivering some truth about the world, and in the case of "sunrise/sunset" and "solidity" they are telling some essential, useful truth.
Not the whole story, but not a lie.

(Whereas someone thinking she was cured by homeopathic remedies, or someone believing he heard a difference between the Nordost and Amazon basic USB cable as measured by Amirm, would truly be deceived by their subjective inference).
 

egellings

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
4,005
Likes
3,245
Colloquialisms might well be what words like rising & setting are.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Trigger Warning: Bunch of subjective descriptions ahead.

I was at a friend's house last week for dinner. The couple had recently bought a used pair of Kef LS50 speakers. I sat in the sweet spot and listened for a while, and the speakers played on during dinner. It was playing an eclectic station with lots of small acoustic music (folk, chamber, etc). When some well recorded vocals would come on and...I can't help myself sometimes...I would listen to the sound of the voice through the speakers and compare it to the sound of my friend's real voices. "What are the fundamental characteristics that seem to distinguish the real voices from the reproduced?." The conclusion I came to was essentially the same thing I usually hear: First there is a sort of electronic edged, hardened character - vocal sibilance having more the impression of "steely" hardness and sharpness or an electronic distortion, rather than the softer breathy quality of real human sibilance. The voice also lacked the density, the sense of "being solid, in the room, moving air with the acoustic power of a real human speaking." It sounded reductive, reduced, squeezed down from the real thing. The voice texture sounded artificial - it didn't have the sound of real organic materials, the "wet damped, fleshy" quality of the real human voice. And the reproduced sound overall, whether for vocals or instruments, had a sort of "canned" quality. A slightly hardened "electronic glaze" separated it from the real acoustic sounds in the room. Almost like all the instruments were encased in amber, lacking the "air" and presence of real sounds in the room. Subtle textures that tell you "this is real" had been glazed over, smoothed away.

As I'm fascinated by real vs reproduced sound, and these comparisons guide my own decisions on what I want from my audio system, I find doing these subjective comparisons fascinating. But, much of that will float like a led balloon in a forum like this. Unless I could talk in terms of scientific evidence for these impressions.

More subjective observations:

I was at a friend's house (audio reviewer) listening to some new equipment. We played a lot of stuff, including many familiar tracks. The sound coming through that system was almost astoundingly vivid, clear and detailed. A trumpet, sax, drum rim shot, etc had a "right there" immediacy and clarity, and the way it was effortless to "hear in to" any mix to exactly how an instrument or voice was processed or treated (reverbs etc) was really something. We also listened to jazz and orchestral pieces.

And yet, while all this was amazing, nothing to my ears sounded truly "right" or natural, as I hear those things in real life. Something was missing which I could only put as 'natural timbral colour.'

I'd liken the experience to seeing an Ansel Adams black and white photo of a symphony orchestra. The photo can be astonishingly detailed. So detailed that every instrument is sharply captured in the photo, allowing you to identify every instrument. Yet it doesn't make that leap to the instruments "looking as they do in real life" because it's all in black and white, missing the color information. It's all "wrong" in that respect. The sound from the system struck me in just the same way: astounding amounts of detail giving me insight in to the recordings, yet timbrally "black and white." When I close my eyes and listen to an acoustic guitar, trumpet or symphony orchestra my mind registers "tonal colors" that just didn't happen when closing my eyes listening to this system. My mind had to constantly work to "color correct" for this.

Whereas: When I came home an listened to many of the same tracks on my system it was like "aaah, yes!" While it didn't have the vividness and clarity of my friend's system, the colour came back on. Acoustic guitar had that recognizable "wooden body warmth" the strings that "rich harmonic sparkle" a trumpet that "brassy golden glow" tonality that the real thing produces in my impression. My brain doesn't have to do this extra work of "color correcting" - things just seem to "sound right."

This is exactly what I worked for in putting together my system and why I find it so satisfying. It's not that it is therefore "accurately reproducing the sound of the instruments as they sounded in front of the microphones" or "indistinguishable from the real thing. But rather, that it has some important characteristics of "timbral rightness" that is consonant with what I hear in the real life counterparts. And that is enough to help me enjoy it more "yes, that IS how a drum snare sounds - that sort of snappy, papery quality - that IS what I love about acoustic guitars coming through," etc.

On perhaps an even more controversial note: the reason that I have, through various trials, stuck with my current tube amplification is that it seems to me to, in my system, nudge the sound slightly more in the direction my brain accepts as "natural, related to real sounds." (All of this is always with the caveat of possible sighted bias/imagination).

Stereo is never truly going to sound real and totally natural. But one of the things I hear in reproduced sound is an artificial "reductive/tight/squeezed" quality. So if you take a typical studio recording of a small group - vocalist, several acoustic instruments (or even some electric),
on an accurate system I can hear the influence of the microphone/mixing/processing on each element. The voice or sax and it's surrounding acoustic has been sort of "formed and squeezed" by the mic pick up pattern and any subsequent processing. Aurally, it's like each element is under it's own different level of gravity deforming their size and the space around them, usually shrinking their presence too. This is one of the
things that cues my brain to how unnatural things sound. Squeezed, tight, hardened, artificially separated from the acoustic space of the room.

But when I use certain tube amplification and tubes, there seems to be a slight "relaxing" of these qualities. Perhaps a bit of defocusing - instrumental edges and their surrounding acoustic seem to enrich, bloom slightly, blur in to other boundaries. This I perceive as sounding less obviously artificial. So a trumpet, center stage, no longer sounds "artificially squeezed and hard" but relaxed, richer and rounder, and it's surrounding acoustic no longer sounds "squeezed hard around it" but it just blends softly in to the rest of the acoustic of the recorded space and that of my room. It now sounds that much more relaxed, like a trumpet just playing in "real space" in front of me. It's not perfectly realistic of course, but it's a significant-to-me step in the direction of sounding more natural and more pleasing in that respect. It reduces the sense of artificiality, of sound squeezed out of speakers vs just appearing in space around the speakers.

All these things seemed like the apparently differences I heard between the tracks on my system vs on my pal's astonishingly vivid but artificial sounding system. (Though this is subjective: I can easily see someone finding my pal's system as more realistic sounding).

As I've said before, as much as I appreciate this forum, this subjective aspect - "how things sound - talking about and describing the subjective impressions we have when listening to a system" - is an important part of the hobby for me (and many others). Similar to foodies discussing and describing the food they are eating (which I enjoy as well). Or how we often try to describe our experience in all human realms. Even if we could reliably correlate all our subjective impressions to objective data that is causing those impressions , there are still the actual subjective impressions to discuss and describe!

In this sense: Subjective impressions and descriptions of sound, as in much of life, aren't necessarily "Anti-scientific" - unless they make claims that contradict current science or engineering knowledge - but being informal they are "Un-scientific." And "un-scientific" inferences can be reasonable - we use them, often successfully, all day long. But that's still enough so that ASR members will have little interest or patience with "mere subjective descriptions." Which makes sense, given this is a forum where people come to discuss claims that, one hopes, have good objective evidence in order to understand audio gear.

But since in any practical sense we can't submit much of our everyday inferences and decisions to scientific controls, I'm fine with going along with and discussing audio in these subjective terms with other audiophiles. Scaling my confidence levels to the type of claim. It's a blast hanging out with my audio pals, discussing the sound we hear.

This is why, aside from enjoying what this forum has to offer, I also often have to turn to other audiophiles or certain subjective reviews to enjoy this aspect of the hobby. If I'm reading a subjective review I know it's not scientific...and in some respects the reviewer could be flat out incorrect in certain claims. But when I see someone who seems to be "hearing and caring about the things I hear and care about in reproduced sound" and putting them in to words - the type of stuff often frowned upon here - I at least have that connection to that audiophile or reviewer. And it has also led me down some very happy paths in terms of audio gear I've really loved.
 
Last edited:

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
But one of the things I hear in reproduced sound is an artificial "reductive/tight/squeezed" quality.
Absolutely. And more of a mystery than you would think. I was walking down Columbus Avenue on blocks full of small stores, hearing music playing from inside most of them, the ones falling behind me fading away, the ones ahead picking up, and I heard a faint jazz guitar number coming up in the distance, and knew instantly, immediately and with complete certainty that it was live, not recorded. Sure enough, on the corner a couple blocks ahead I came upon a busker with a battered Epiphone and a battery-powered Pignose at his feet.

So, not a natural acoustic instrument, and very limited power and dynamics from his amp. Yet unmistakably happening there and then, not recorded. Open air, not in a room, which makes a difference, but not all the difference, I think. Normally I would blame the miniaturized, compressed qualities recordings have, but the Pignose is a sad little device in itself. We may never figure it out, but I wish we could.

And without beating an expired equine, let's not apologize for accurate, perceptive subjective reports. Suppose recording had never been invented. Until today, when a designer had built a system, using every objective means at his disposal. Suppose he asked you, "What do you think of this?" Your type of report would be absolutely necessary, valuable, essential and useful - as it has been, in fact, in every step of every development. Objective and subjective are not opposites - they are equal and sequential parts of the process.
 

Vik

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2022
Messages
54
Likes
2
Neither of the reply options in the poll (except "Other") apply to me. If I buy equipment I shall use, me ears have always have the last word, and that would be true even if we had measurements that showed everything about a product. Measurements are still really interesting, of course, when used as suggestions for products to check out.
 

majingotan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,510
Likes
1,781
Location
Laguna, Philippines
Trigger Warning: Bunch of subjective descriptions ahead.

I was at a friend's house last week for dinner. The couple had recently bought a used pair of Kef LS50 speakers. I sat in the sweet spot and listened for a while, and the speakers played on during dinner. It was playing an eclectic station with lots of small acoustic music (folk, chamber, etc). When some well recorded vocals would come on and...I can't help myself sometimes...I would listen to the sound of the voice through the speakers and compare it to the sound of my friend's real voices. "What are the fundamental characteristics that seem to distinguish the real voices from the reproduced?." The conclusion I came to was essentially the same thing I usually hear: First there is a sort of electronic edged, hardened character - vocal sibilance having more the impression of "steely" hardness and sharpness or an electronic distortion, rather than the softer breathy quality of real human sibilance. The voice also lacked the density, the sense of "being solid, in the room, moving air with the acoustic power of a real human speaking." It sounded reductive, reduced, squeezed down from the real thing. The voice texture sounded artificial - it didn't have the sound of real organic materials, the "wet damped, fleshy" quality of the real human voice. And the reproduced sound overall, whether for vocals or instruments, had a sort of "canned" quality. A slightly hardened "electronic glaze" separated it from the real acoustic sounds in the room. Almost like all the instruments were encased in amber, lacking the "air" and presence of real sounds in the room. Subtle textures that tell you "this is real" had been glazed over, smoothed away.

As I'm fascinated by real vs reproduced sound, and these comparisons guide my own decisions on what I want from my audio system, I find doing these subjective comparisons fascinating. But, much of that will float like a led balloon in a forum like this. Unless I could talk in terms of scientific evidence for these impressions.

More subjective observations:

I was at a friend's house (audio reviewer) listening to some new equipment. We played a lot of stuff, including many familiar tracks. The sound coming through that system was almost astoundingly vivid, clear and detailed. A trumpet, sax, drum rim shot, etc had a "right there" immediacy and clarity, and the way it was effortless to "hear in to" any mix to exactly how an instrument or voice was processed or treated (reverbs etc) was really something. We also listened to jazz and orchestral pieces.

And yet, while all this was amazing, nothing to my ears sounded truly "right" or natural, as I hear those things in real life. Something was missing which I could only put as 'natural timbral colour.'

I'd liken the experience to seeing an Ansel Adams black and white photo of a symphony orchestra. The photo can be astonishingly detailed. So detailed that every instrument is sharply captured in the photo, allowing you to identify every instrument. Yet it doesn't make that leap to the instruments "looking as they do in real life" because it's all in black and white, missing the color information. It's all "wrong" in that respect. The sound from the system struck me in just the same way: astounding amounts of detail giving me insight in to the recordings, yet timbrally "black and white." When I close my eyes and listen to an acoustic guitar, trumpet or symphony orchestra my mind registers "tonal colors" that just didn't happen when closing my eyes listening to this system. My mind had to constantly work to "color correct" for this.

Whereas: When I came home an listened to many of the same tracks on my system it was like "aaah, yes!" While it didn't have the vividness and clarity of my friend's system, the colour came back on. Acoustic guitar had that recognizable "wooden body warmth" the strings that "rich harmonic sparkle" a trumpet that "brassy golden glow" tonality that the real thing produces in my impression. My brain doesn't have to do this extra work of "color correcting" - things just seem to "sound right."

This is exactly what I worked for in putting together my system and why I find it so satisfying. It's not that it is therefore "accurately reproducing the sound of the instruments as they sounded in front of the microphones" or "indistinguishable from the real thing. But rather, that it has some important characteristics of "timbral rightness" that is consonant with what I hear in the real life counterparts. And that is enough to help me enjoy it more "yes, that IS how a drum snare sounds - that sort of snappy, papery quality - that IS what I love about acoustic guitars coming through," etc.

On perhaps an even more controversial note: the reason that I have, through various trials, stuck with my current tube amplification is that it seems to me to, in my system, nudge the sound slightly more in the direction my brain accepts as "natural, related to real sounds." (All of this is always with the caveat of possible sighted bias/imagination).

Stereo is never truly going to sound real and totally natural. But one of the things I hear in reproduced sound is an artificial "reductive/tight/squeezed" quality. So if you take a typical studio recording of a small group - vocalist, several acoustic instruments (or even some electric),
on an accurate system I can hear the influence of the microphone/mixing/processing on each element. The voice or sax and it's surrounding acoustic has been sort of "formed and squeezed" by the mic pick up pattern and any subsequent processing. Aurally, it's like each element is under it's own different level of gravity deforming their size and the space around them, usually shrinking their presence too. This is one of the
things that cues my brain to how unnatural things sound. Squeezed, tight, hardened, artificially separated from the acoustic space of the room.

But when I use certain tube amplification and tubes, there seems to be a slight "relaxing" of these qualities. Perhaps a bit of defocusing - instrumental edges and their surrounding acoustic seem to enrich, bloom slightly, blur in to other boundaries. This I perceive as sounding less obviously artificial. So a trumpet, center stage, no longer sounds "artificially squeezed and hard" but relaxed, richer and rounder, and it's surrounding acoustic no longer sounds "squeezed hard around it" but it just blends softly in to the rest of the acoustic of the recorded space and that of my room. It now sounds that much more relaxed, like a trumpet just playing in "real space" in front of me. It's not perfectly realistic of course, but it's a significant-to-me step in the direction of sounding more natural and more pleasing in that respect. It reduces the sense of artificiality, of sound squeezed out of speakers vs just appearing in space around the speakers.

All these things seemed like the apparently differences I heard between the tracks on my system vs on my pal's astonishingly vivid but artificial sounding system. (Though this is subjective: I can easily see someone finding my pal's system as more realistic sounding).

As I've said before, as much as I appreciate this forum, this subjective aspect - "how things sound - talking about and describing the subjective impressions we have when listening to a system" - is an important part of the hobby for me (and many others). Similar to foodies discussing and describing the food they are eating (which I enjoy as well). Or how we often try to describe our experience in all human realms. Even if we could reliably correlate all our subjective impressions to objective data that is causing those impressions , there are still the actual subjective impressions to discuss and describe!

In this sense: Subjective impressions and descriptions of sound, as in much of life, aren't necessarily "Anti-scientific" - unless they make claims that contradict current science or engineering knowledge - but being informal they are "Un-scientific." And "un-scientific" inferences can be reasonable - we use them, often successfully, all day long. But that's still enough so that ASR members will have little interest or patience with "mere subjective descriptions." Which makes sense, given this is a forum where people come to discuss claims that, one hopes, have good objective evidence in order to understand audio gear.

But since in any practical sense we can't submit much of our everyday inferences and decisions to scientific controls, I'm fine with going along with and discussing audio in these subjective terms with other audiophiles. Scaling my confidence levels to the type of claim. It's a blast hanging out with my audio pals, discussing the sound we hear.

This is why, aside from enjoying what this forum has to offer, I also often have to turn to other audiophiles or certain subjective reviews to enjoy this aspect of the hobby. If I'm reading a subjective review I know it's not scientific...and in some respects the reviewer could be flat out incorrect in certain claims. But when I see someone who seems to be "hearing and caring about the things I hear and care about in reproduced sound" and putting them in to words - the type of stuff often frowned upon here - I at least have that connection to that audiophile or reviewer. And it has also led me down some very happy paths in terms of audio gear I've really loved.

IMHO, your friend's system neither added nor removed information from the actual source file. His/her system decoded and reproduced information as closest to the source file as possible regardless how good or bad subjectively (based on your subjective preferences). I bet if his/her system is fed with exemplary mastered file, it would've had the same emotional/illusionary realism that is heard in real life. Unfortunately, most music mastered today is far from being natural sounding (subjectively) especially through a transparent system. Vinyl currently fares much better in this regard than digital. This is where pairing a tube amp (with desired harmonic distortion characteristics) would take off the "digital/electronic glaze" to make a poor recording more tolerable sounding hence it triggers a listener's emotions as more engaging than a more transparent system.
 

egellings

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
4,005
Likes
3,245
How much of the sound quality is in the recording rather than the playback system?
 
Top Bottom