Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

[audiofilet]

FLAC vs AAC
Lossless vs Lossy
Joshua vs Zeos
Current Science vs. Experience & Intuitive Perception
Hard testing vs. Acute Audiophile Senses

There are many topics that divide these two groups.

It is my understanding that at the core of it all, the issue lies with one group choosing to approach, interpret and assert claims about audio that the other considers unscientific.

I guess the real question is, how far should we allow graphs, measurements and hard science to dictate the listening experience and how much merit should be attributed to the subjective perception of the individual i.e audiophile?

 

[BDWoody]

It is my understanding that at the core of it all, the issue lies with one group choosing to approach, interpret and assert claims about audio that the other considers unscientific.

I wouldn't say unscientific, I'd say unsupported.

One side believes evidence is needed before meaningful discussion can take place. The other doesn't require evidence of any kind...any assertion has as much validity as any other, because evidence doesn't matter.

 

[Colin James Wonfor]

The man that is happy with his thoughts is right for him.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I prefer to use graphs and measurements to help inform my gear selection. My listening experience is no different from any other audiophiles...I just don't make imaginary claims about what I can and can't hear.

who is Joshua? Joshua Valour? If so, has he changed recently? I don't think he was very much an objectivist when I used to watch his vids...

 

[Frgirard]

I prefer to use graphs and measurements to inform my gear selection. My listening experience is no different from any other audiophiles...I just don't make imaginary claims about what I can and can't hear.

+11515646654654

 

[voodooless]

I guess the real question is, how far should we allow graphs, measurements and hard science to dictate the listening experience and how much merit should be attributed to the subjective perception of the individual i.e audiophile?

That depends on how much money you would like to be parted with...

In audiophilia, ignorance is literal biss.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Y'know...it's weird how this debate plays out. Threads like this make it seem like us objectivists have let measurements guide us into listening to a bunch of odd-ball bizarre gear that none of the golden-ears would ever recommend. In reality though, much of the stuff we end up listening to is stuff that's reasonably (or sometimes even VERY) well-reviewed by the general audiophile community. The only difference is that we've focused in on stuff that also measures well and left some other stuff that they love off to the side. It's not like we aren't getting good gear to listen to lol...

 

[JayGilb]

ASR promotes a scientific approach. We understand basic human physiology and know the limits of visual and auditory abilities in humans.
Any claims that fall outside those known parameters require additional data to prove, not the other way around.

Snake oil is rarely ever on sale or offered at a budget price, but a dac with a SINAD of 118 that only costs $299 is very real.
Unfortunately, it's hard to feel special or unique when almost everyone can afford it.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

In a fundamental sense, what "objectivism" is really all about is simply accepting the reality that there are limits to what we humans can accomplish with our natural accoutrements. I accept that there is nothing in audio that my ears can reliably delineate (certainly in the way the usual audiophile listening assessments are done for sure) that won't also show up quite obviously in basic measurements.

 

[Raindog123]

Plus, in subjective evaluation, the item price tends to influence [perceived] performance. While objective analysis treats the price as an independent parameter.

 

[ZolaIII]

You use with you got and carry on. For wonderer already gather data ain't the end of the story. Besides we all like to chit chat a bit call it being social or this place (as a forum) wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[PierreV]

Easy one:

objectivists are objectively right.
subjectivists are subjectively right.

Everyone is happy. Case settled.

 

[audio2design]

I wouldn't say unscientific, I'd say unsupported.

One side believes evidence is needed before meaningful discussion can take place. The other doesn't require evidence of any kind...any assertion has as much validity as any other, because evidence doesn't matter.

Any reply after this one above is redundant. Just close the thread now and stop wasting everyone's time as the basic premise of the thread has been beaten to death long ago and nothing new was brought to the table except a pretty graphic.

 

[Holmz]

In the pursuit of science, one develops hypothesis that can be tested and shown to comport with reality, or become disproven, or becomes an intermediate step towards advancing a particular field.

Someone who is purely a subjectivist sort, generally admits that they have no footing in science, nor a reason or desire to participate in science.

Therefore a place called Audio SCIENCE Review, should seem to be a somewhat dishonest name if a scientific approach was discarded in favour of legend, lore, mysticism or just plain ol BS.

In fact, that other forum recommended that I come here, if was more prone to be in favour of proof over subjectivism.

 

[audiofilet]

I wouldn't say unscientific, I'd say unsupported.

One side believes evidence is needed before meaningful discussion can take place. The other doesn't require evidence of any kind...any assertion has as much validity as any other, because evidence doesn't matter.

I wouldn't say that subjectivists don't have evidence of any kind, but rather that the kind of evidence they do offer is simply not accepted by objectivists, namely their own, personal interpretation based on years of experience.

Additionally, one could argue that most of the more reasonable claims, such as the ability to detect an audible difference between lossless and lossy or frequencies slightly below 20hz and above 20khz, are in fact observable, measurable and repeatable.
Simply, because these regular people do not have the time or resources to conduct proper scientific research, doesn't mean that their observations are invalid.

 

[Raindog123]

the basic premise of the thread has been beaten to death long ago and nothing new was brought to the table except a pretty graphic.

And more generally, “there is nothing new under the sun”.

 

[BDWoody]

I wouldn't say that subjectivists don't have evidence of any kind, but rather that the kind of evidence they do offer is simply not accepted by objectivists, namely their own, personal interpretation based on years of experience.

That's anecdote. Anecdote isn't evidence. Therein lies the rub.

I'm inclined to close this thread, as it is covered in about a zillion other threads, and is more or less troll-ish, whether intended that way or not. We'll see, but there's not much new under the sun here.

Edit: Raindog stole my line...

 

[audio2design]

I meant it when I said every post after the first reply was redundant. I wouldn't close the thread though. Fly paper has a purpose.

 

[killdozzer]

Any reply after this one above is redundant. Just close the thread now and stop wasting everyone's time as the basic premise of the thread has been beaten to death long ago and nothing new was brought to the table except a pretty graphic.

 

[mhardy6647]

I am an audio subjunctivist.
But then again, I would be.