• 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!

Why haven't subjectivists and objectivists met to do a live ABX test?

Overseas

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
1,030
Likes
578
Pls bear with me.
Say a thousand reliable tests show that 'subjectivists' are right, they 'scientifically' prove there are differences.
What is the effect on the 'objectivists'?! What do you do, think, feel at that moment?
IMHO, 'objectivists' do not look for tests & research for truth, but to show the other camp is wrong. Very different things.
Then, why is an objectivist an objectivist?! Because measurements say so (and that could be right) OR cause they listened and draw this conclusion?

Ironically, John Yang never expressly endorsed the 'objectivist' statement that all DACs measuring the same sound the same.

Also, did you read the 'measuring & listening' clarifications on Benchmark site, that manufacture one of the best measuring amps? These highly competent people are not that drastic in their statements as you 'objectivists' here. Very strange.
 

SuicideSquid

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2022
Messages
699
Likes
1,647
Science is an absolute ideal.
'Objectivists' are prone to human error.
It is a good, safe thing that 'objectivists' are not threatened by any test. No claim, no error. Their only claim is the other side is in error. Seems to me we are on the philosophical and not scientific field.
Otherwise, I totally agree to blind tests.
I think you are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

Of course, people who believe in the usefulness of objective measurements and blind testing can make mistakes. That is the entire reason for relying on objective measurements and blind tests. The people who believe in the usefulness of these things are the people who recognize their own fallibility as well as the fallibility of others, and try to control for it.

The difference between an "objectivist" and a "subjectivist" is that the objectivist recognizes his/her own fallibility, while the "subjectivist" believes that he or she cannot be fooled, and that his or her own senses are the only final arbiter of truth.

Here's an example (this is a theoretical example, but there are DOZENS of actual test results that back this up):

Scenario 1: There is no measurable difference between gear. In a blind A/B test, a person who believes he will hear no difference based on the measurements is able to reliably hear a difference and consistently differentiate these two pieces of gear.

What does this tell that person? It tells him that his measurements were imprecise, or he was measuring the wrong thing, and there's clearly a difference, so he needs to make changes to his measurement methodology.

Scenario 2: There is no measurable difference between gear. In a blind A/B test, a person who asserts that he can hear the difference, does no better than random chance at differentiating between that gear.

What does this tell that person? To a subjectivist it tells him that obviously the measurements AND the blind test are wrong because he can hear a difference. That's bullshit. What it actually tells you is that this person is a pompous buffoon who cannot admit that he can be fooled by his own expectations.

A blind ABX test should be the perfect meeting ground of "objectivist" and "subjectivist" approaches. After all, what really matters is whether you hear a difference, but the only way to be sure you actually hear a difference is to account for your biases and subjective preferences and take steps to ensure you're not fooling yourself. Unfortunately, most of the "subjectivist" crowd doesn't see it that way and comes up with endless bullshit excuses for why blind testing isn't reliable. They're wrong, and it's an argument that's simply not worth having over and over. Anyone who isn't willing to admit they can be fooled and isn't willing to account for that when testing equipment isn't worth listening to, full stop.
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Pls bear with me.
Say a thousand reliable tests show that 'subjectivists' are right, they 'scientifically' prove there are differences.
What is the effect on the 'objectivists'?! What do you do, think, feel at that moment?
IMHO, 'objectivists' do not look for tests & research for truth, but to show the other camp is wrong. Very different things.
Then, why is an objectivist an objectivist?! Because measurements say so (and that could be right) OR cause they listened and draw this conclusion?

Ironically, John Yang never expressly endorsed the 'objectivist' statement that all DACs measuring the same sound the same.

Also, did you read the 'measuring & listening' clarifications on Benchmark site, that manufacture one of the best measuring amps? These highly competent people are not that drastic in their statements as you 'objectivists' here. Very strange.

I don't think you carefully read through the thread. If you did, you would see that many of us WANT the subjectivist claim to be true, because it would be more enjoyable for the hobby. More to explore, better quality sound to experience, new measurements to be found.

You would also see that many of us are arguing for fair and simple testing which gives the subject the greatest chance of succeeding.

I'd also like to point out that not everyone here falls into one camp or another. I personally want to see this happen because I'm not fully convinced one way or the other. Though I suspect the objectivists are correct.
 

SuicideSquid

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2022
Messages
699
Likes
1,647
Pls bear with me.
Say a thousand reliable tests show that 'subjectivists' are right, they 'scientifically' prove there are differences.
What is the effect on the 'objectivists'?! What do you do, think, feel at that moment?
IMHO, 'objectivists' do not look for tests & research for truth, but to show the other camp is wrong. Very different things.
Then, why is an objectivist an objectivist?! Because measurements say so (and that could be right) OR cause they listened and draw this conclusion?

Ironically, John Yang never expressly endorsed the 'objectivist' statement that all DACs measuring the same sound the same.

Also, did you read the 'measuring & listening' clarifications on Benchmark site, that manufacture one of the best measuring amps? These highly competent people are not that drastic in their statements as you 'objectivists' here. Very strange.
This is utter nonsense and ad hominem supported by literally no evidence.

If you can show me that you can perceive a difference that doesn't show up in measurements reliably in a controlled test, I will acknowledge that there is a real difference between the things you're comparing and agree that the measurement methodology was wrong. Any intellectually honest person will do the same. And any intellectually honest person who cannot tell the difference between two devices in a properly controlled test should likewise acknowledge that either there is no difference, or the difference is so slight as to not matter. Unfortunately, very few self-described "audiophiles" are intellectually honest.

Regarding Benchmark: Have you considered that these very competent engineers and marketing people are in the business of selling their product to audiophiles?
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,968
Likes
5,611
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Biases are one reason that test subjects are usually randomly selected from a general population.
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Biases are one reason that test subjects are usually randomly selected from a general population.

I think if you're giving a charitable interpretation, all this does is show these differences are not obvious.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,968
Likes
5,611
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I think if you're giving a charitable interpretation, all this does is show these differences are not obvious.
Not necessarily. It could be a "general population" of trained listeners expressing no strong opinions either way on objectivity or subjectivity. Alternatively, if the differences are obvious, even the subjectivist should be able to pick the correct result 9 times out of 10 (assuming the objectivists are lying to protect their ego).
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Not necessarily. It could be a "general population" of trained listeners expressing no strong opinions either way on objectivity or subjectivity. Alternatively, if the differences are obvious, even the subjectivist should be able to pick the correct result 9 times out of 10 (assuming the objectivists are lying to protect their ego).

I guess I don't understand why it matters. Why would a subjectivists bias help them in a blind test? I personally don't care how biased the test subject is, as long as they can prove their claims reliably.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,968
Likes
5,611
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I guess I don't understand why it matters. Why would a subjectivists bias help them in a blind test? I personally don't care how biased the test subject is, as long as they can prove their claims reliably.
It wouldn't. I think the objection was that objectivists would lie to save face.
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,088
Likes
7,544
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
Say a thousand reliable tests show that 'subjectivists' are right, they 'scientifically' prove there are differences.
What is the effect on the 'objectivists'?! What do you do, think, feel at that moment?

That we now have reference points that lets us do further testing to establish cause and effect relationships. In the end we gain better understanding of the physics behind audio reproduction, and we can start designing audio gear in ways that doesn't rely on trial and error to get a specific result. Everybody wins!
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
Pls bear with me.
Say a thousand reliable tests show that 'subjectivists' are right, they 'scientifically' prove there are differences.
What is the effect on the 'objectivists'?! What do you do, think, feel at that moment?
IMHO, 'objectivists' do not look for tests & research for truth, but to show the other camp is wrong. Very different things.
Then, why is an objectivist an objectivist?! Because measurements say so (and that could be right) OR cause they listened and draw this conclusion?

Ironically, John Yang never expressly endorsed the 'objectivist' statement that all DACs measuring the same sound the same.

Also, did you read the 'measuring & listening' clarifications on Benchmark site, that manufacture one of the best measuring amps? These highly competent people are not that drastic in their statements as you 'objectivists' here. Very strange.
Strawmen are always transparent. One always know their intentions and mindset to the last whim.

Apart from that, this statement appears to be a flailing rationalization for mood affiliation with subjectivists.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
That we now have reference points that lets us do further testing to establish cause and effect relationships. In the end we gain better understanding of the physics behind audio reproduction, and we can start designing audio gear in ways that doesn't rely on trial and error to get a specific result. Everybody wins!
Exactly. Cable, DAC, and Amp enthusiasts have the opportunity to scientifically advance the field of audio, and lower the cost of the best gear simply by supporting and replicating their claims. Huge win.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,555
If this live test took place, and one subjectivist was able to reliably tell the difference between these well measuring amps. Would that be enough to change your opinion on the matter?
One 'subjectivist' might be able to do this by chance. Not saying that they would game the system, but that they believe they hear differences and those differences match said amplifiers, purely by chance.

I think you'd need more than one person to verify that changes in such equipment was audible. If say 6 or 7 out of 10 participants could pick 3 or 4 amps out of 5, then there might be something worth talking about. Any number of correct answers would need to be better than chance alone to be significant.
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
One 'subjectivist' might be able to do this by chance. Not saying that they would game the system, but that they believe they hear differences and those differences match said amplifiers, purely by chance.

I think you'd need more than one person to verify that changes in such equipment was audible. If say 6 or 7 out of 10 participants could pick 3 or 4 amps out of 5, then there might be something worth talking about. Any number of correct answers would need to be better than chance alone to be significant.
Agreed. This is a significant start though. I would say if the same subject could repeat the test reliably, it is also an important milestone. You would establish that this is possible. Even if potentially only very few can do it. Then you can start to explore more with larger groups.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,555
Agreed. This is a significant start though. I would say if the same subject could repeat the test reliably, it is also an important milestone. You would establish that this is possible.
perhaps you establish that you've found one person with superhuman perception, and then the Men in Black break down the door and carry him away? :oops:
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
perhaps you just establish that you've found one person with superhuman perception?

Which is still important and notable. This still means something is missing in measurements, and it also means there is a market where these amp differences matter.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,555
Which is still important and notable. This still means something is missing in measurements, and it also means there is a market where these amp differences matter.
x-men audiophiles?
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
You probably think you know which camp I am, based on my post. Well, you cannot guess. Unless you really believe any non-technical person is a 'subjectivist'.
No I didn't jump to conclusions. The facepalm was because of the implication objectivists would fake not hearing differences and that such an approach would give them satisfaction. Many were once subjective in our audio evaluations and learned over time. I doubt many if any would fake not hearing a difference. Plus even if someone did, a good test would let others who heard the difference demonstrate they hear it beyond chance results. So even if someone were so motivated it would be a poor approach to win an argument.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
It wouldn't. I think the objection was that objectivists would lie to save face.
Then how about a 3-way test where one of the devices should be slightly distinguishable from one of the others?

The 'lying objectivist' would then be outed, and instead of saving face, will look like he has poor hearing or discernment.
 
OP
R

rsoffer

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
69
Likes
76
Then how about a 3-way test where one of the devices should be slightly distinguishable from one of the others?

The 'lying objectivist' would then be outed, and instead of saving face, will look like he has poor hearing or discernment.
Honest question, who cares what the objectivist hears? They aren't the ones claiming to hear the differences.
 
Top Bottom