Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

[JJB70]

I see no inherent contradiction. It is entirely possible to value both objective evaluation and recognize the importance of subjective preference for sound signature.
And many of the factors that are important to purchase decisions stem from non-SQ subjective preference (industrial design, ergonomics, brand name etc).

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

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.

Sure. And flat-earthers have "evidence" too.

 

[aac]

Lossless vs Lossy

Disk space is so cheap now, it's not even worthy debating.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Disk space is so cheap now, it's not even worthy debating.

Sure, but subscription services are a little less so...

 

[Raindog123]

Edit: Raindog stole my line...

Who stole from who… they call it “a sequence of events” for a reason! An objective, documented, time-stamped sequence of events.

 

[voodooless]

Sure, but subscription services are a little less so...

Both for Apple and Amazon you pay the same amount, others will follow soon.

 

[JSmith]

… shit, now there is an elephant in the room.



JSmith

 

[audiofilet]

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

Agreed, it's anecdotal evidence.

For example, an audio engineer with 40 years experience is convinced he can detect an audible difference between FLAC and AAC, yet is unable to reproduce or describe this feat scientifically.
Available tests neither confirm nor refute his claim.

How should a scientifically literate person weigh this?

 

[killdozzer]

How should a reasonable person approach this?

A reasonable person wold give this a thumb down.

 

[BDWoody]

This is how you described hi-res in a previous thread.

I'm truly mindblown. It's like the world had a big secret that I was finally allowed to learn. Like I've been squeezing oranges with my eye, and finally got a juicer.

Absolutely, unequivocally incredible.

Theren isn't just a difference, it's a different universe.

Now that you have gone through the effort to do some comparisons with tighter controls (different thread) do you feel the same? Was it what you expected?

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.

You are describing evidence, so that isn't going to be dismissed.

Will you be more skeptical of others who make what seem to be over the top claims about hi-res vs Redbook going forward after your recent exercise? Are you skeptical of any claims made about anything? Is there anything that makes you roll your eyes a bit?

 

[BDWoody]

How should a scientifically literate person weigh this?

He can't demonstrate his claims, so they can be dismissed until he can.

 

[MaxBuck]

From the perspective of information necessary to make a preliminary purchasing decision, objective evaluation is essential. But my final purchase decision for transducers (speakers) ultimately is based upon my subjective judgment.

I have no idea how one could make a purchase decision on amplifiers or DACs without the data. To the extent amplifiers sound "different," I think that's a function of their inability properly to drive the speakers.

 

[Martin]

Agreed, it's anecdotal evidence.

For example, an audio engineer with 40 years experience is convinced he can detect an audible difference between FLAC and AAC, yet is unable to reproduce or describe this feat scientifically.
Available tests neither confirm nor refute his claim.

How should a scientifically literate person weigh this?

The bolded text is contradictory. The available test refuted his claim. Just because he did not accept the result does not make it any less true.

 

[Raindog123]

For example, an audio engineer with 40 years experience is convinced he can detect an audible difference between FLAC and AAC, yet is unable to reproduce or describe this feat scientifically.
Available tests neither confirm nor refute his claim.

How should a scientifically literate person weigh this observation?

If by ”available tests” you mean a properly conducted blind test resulted in a 50% (ie random coin toss) success rate, then this is a solid proof of refuting the claim…. If you are saying he is too lazy to conduct such test (or even worse, has conducted it but is afraid to publish the results as they disprove the claim), then still it does not support the story.

If I claim that “I can blink from hear to there instantly, but only when no one is watching”, you can totally call me a liar or delusional!

 

[killdozzer]

I find I'm even far less inclined to let each have his own in these matters than the average member. Something like, you have a right to your opinion but no one has the right to his own facts. It may sound like live and let live, but it isn't. It is really saying your beliefs don't affect facts.

Although not all, there's a lot of cheating in subjectivists/audiophile circles. This alone should give some advantage to objective approach. Objective approach should enjoy all the credibility and reliability as it does in all other situations. Imagine a prosecutor saying; I don't know if its true, but I feel like he is the murderer.

Sure, it's a lucky circumstance that audio is far less serious than murder, but the difference between what can be proven and what feels true should still be obvious.

Even when a subjectivist buys a piece of gear he is satisified with, you can still ask a question how big of a portion of money was wasted bc he didn't do a proper research and informed himself and probably could've get the same result with a better deal.

So I wouldn't even say a subjectivist is subjectively right. I think even his own choices are simply a result of what he got a chance to hear and might've been completely different if only he went to another shop. While, if you follow what comes out in the market and how it measures and you run that by your wallet, your choice would only change with a truly better performing piece of gear or more money. I think that is huge argument on the side of being informed.

A subjectivist would have to work hard to explain to me what he thinks I'm missing on by not just going to a show or a shop, listening to some equipment and buying it?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Agreed, it's anecdotal evidence.

For example, an audio engineer with 40 years experience is convinced he can detect an audible difference between FLAC and AAC, yet is unable to reproduce or describe this feat scientifically.
Available tests neither confirm nor refute his claim.

How should a scientifically literate person weigh this?

ummm...huh? It sounds to me like "available tests" perfectly refuted the claim.

 

[DonH56]

Part of the problem is that controlled comparisons are almost impossible. When one compares vinyl to CD to high-res chances are good things like mastering changed the EQ and other parameters of the recording so you no longer have the same reference source. Yes, people can create their own references and such, but most audiophiles just listen to the same song in each medium to draw conclusions. Thus we get a current DSD or hi-res version compared to a 1990's CD version to a 1980's or whatever vinyl/tape version and of course there are profound differences. There are similar issues comparing different components and speakers using different equipment, rooms, etc.

Making controlled listening tests is hard to do. Making accurate measurements is hard to do. And naturally that makes it easy for either side to point to the other and say "you can't prove it".

Of course this has also been beat to death.

Me, I look at the specs, then buy and listen to what I like, often based more on features than specs.

Edit: My old take on this is https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-never-ending-debates-is-the-sun-warm.21012/ -- naturally, some took offense, but I left it up anyway.

 

[audiofilet]

This is how you described hi-res in a previous thread.


Now that you have gone through the effort to do some comparisons with tighter controls (different thread) do you feel the same? Was it what you expected?

I am actually a good example for this, haha.

To be perfectly honest, after performing countless ABX tests over a span of ~13 hours, I do believe that my original, untested observation, regarding the difference between lossless and compressed formats, may have been slightly exaggerated, yet not completely unfounded.

The results were pretty much consistent with that.

Ultimately, I still don't have a scientific explanation why under very specific circumstances I was in fact able to detect a slight difference, how ever slight it may have been. So, how do you weigh my claim and supporting evidence, which despite all those ABX tests, is still just anecdotal in nature.

Here's the thread for those who don't know what we're talking about.

Can YOU tell the difference between FLAC & MP3? - Part 2

Experiment: ABX Test to determine whether I can detect an audible difference between 192KHZ/24bit FLAC & 320kb/s MP3 Equipment: DAC: JDS Labs Atom DAC+ Amps: JDS Labs Atom Amp+, Monolith Liquid Spark (During testing the Liquid Spark unfortunately stopped working) Headphones: DT 990 Edition new...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

lol..."slightly exaggerated"

 

[BDWoody]

, I do believe that my original, untested observation, regarding the difference between lossless and compressed formats, may have been slightly exaggerated

With the mind-bending differences you described, you aren't surprised that out of 30+ tests, the best you got was 9/10...once?

Here's the thread for those interested.

Can YOU tell the difference between FLAC & MP3? - Part 2

Experiment: ABX Test to determine whether I can detect an audible difference between 192KHZ/24bit FLAC & 320kb/s MP3 Equipment: DAC: JDS Labs Atom DAC+ Amps: JDS Labs Atom Amp+, Monolith Liquid Spark (During testing the Liquid Spark unfortunately stopped working) Headphones: DT 990 Edition new...

www.audiosciencereview.com

These are humbling tests...at least they were to me when I went through the exercise with DAC's. No damn difference. Send back the $6k dollar one and bought 3xJBL 708P's, and 6x705P's (all on B-stock, so even money) for gear that actually improved my audio world more than any silly overpriced DAC.

By the way, I applaud you actually testing yourself! Most just cause trouble without actually doing anything but bitch and moan about how demanding and unfair 'we' are.