Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

[spiritofjerry]

What is a faff?

Trying to listen for the bad sound.

faff - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

 

[JJB70]

Subjective = Personal preference due to bias. The bias could be based on sight, reviews, cost, hearing ability, convinced by a friend, etc.

Objective = measured performance verified by independent measurements.

The real question in my mind is where better measurements make any difference to listening. I have a $200 piece of Schiit - Modius. Will spending 4 times the money on the better measuring Topping top of the line DAC make an audible difference? Chasing ultimate measured gear does make you somewhat of a gear-head.
One thing vinyl has going for it is improving the turntable-tonearm-cartridge-phono preamp chain does make a noticeable difference in playback. It may not be equal measurement wise to digital but at least if you are upgrading you can hear a difference. I suspect this is because the better vinyl playback approaches our hearing limits. Once you exceed that limit we are likely in Subjective territory where we convince ourselves of a difference.

I agree with most of this, however objective evaluation is not synonymous with measurement based evaluation in my opinion. A level matched double blind listening test such as ABX is also objective. This ties with the point you made about DACs, if you cannot discern a difference when listening then any measured difference is moot.

 

[Sal1950]

Do I care about it much if it sounds good to me, even if it measures like doo-doo? No. I just don't have the time on this earth to obsess over everything.

If you spent you money on what you believed was a world class sports car and got one that wallowed in the turns like a hog and wouldn't go over 40 mph, I wouldn't call it obsessing if you weren't happy with the product.

That's why I come here, takes the guesswork and faffing about out of the equation. Even then, I love some gear that I know measures poorly, and I still can't hear a difference.

No offense meant, but I still don't understand why you come here? If you don't care how it measures and can't hear the differences I just don't understand your interest in any topics discussed here? Just confused by your post really.

 

[Chrispy]

Trying to listen for the bad sound.

faff - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

I guess that's another mark against subjectivity

 

[spiritofjerry]

If you spent you money on what you believed was a world class sports car and got one that wallowed in the turns like a hog and wouldn't go over 40 mph, I wouldn't call it obsessing if you weren't happy with the product.

Thankfully, I'm not rich, and don't have the luxury to spend wads on gear. Considering I can buy a $40 DAC used that is audibly transparent, why should I?

No offense meant, but I still don't understand why you come here? If you don't care how it measures and can't hear the differences I just don't understand your interest in any topics discussed here? Just confused by your post really.

I don't care how gear measures if it sounds good, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the scientific study of audio. I didn't know that me enjoying listening to my $5 earbuds out of my Pixel 4 on my commute to the grocery store precludes my participation here. That seems unnecessarily elitist to suggest that I may enjoy listening to audio and also not want to understand more about it?

 

[Chrispy]

Agreed. Graphs and accurate measurements are superior when comparing or analyzing data, but what it ultimately comes down to in terms of the actual listening experience, is your personal preference and taste.

Personal is the point, so why listen to some reviewer who is basically still in their junior high creative writing class?

 

[spiritofjerry]

I guess that's another mark against subjectivity

I mean, if you spent your entire life listening for the flaws and not listening to the music, I guess I would happily take the subjectivist badge as a compliment. I can't imagine doing such a thing.

 

[Chrispy]

I mean, if you spent your entire life listening for the flaws and not listening to the music, I guess I would happily take the subjectivist badge as a compliment. I can't imagine doing such a thing.

I can't imagine not listening to the content as a primary goal rather than listening to the gear myself. I just found the faff thing a bit weird.

 

[spiritofjerry]

I can't imagine not listening to the content as a primary goal rather than listening to the gear myself. I just found the faff thing a bit weird.

Continued participation in this thread has become a faff.

 

[Sal1950]

Thankfully, I'm not rich, and don't have the luxury to spend wads on gear. Considering I can buy a $40 DAC used that is audibly transparent, why should I?

I don't care how gear measures if it sounds good, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the scientific study of audio. I didn't know that me enjoying listening to my $5 earbuds out of my Pixel 4 on my commute to the grocery store precludes my participation here. That seems unnecessarily elitist to suggest that I may enjoy listening to audio and also not want to understand more about it?

Didn't mean to offend, I just don't understand things sometimes.
This being a site dedicated to perfectionist audio and using the best science of the day to verify that the gear is providing the best performance level available.
Then I just have to shake my head when so many come here to say they're not interested in those points for their system?
I use a $40 SansaDisc mp3 player for my music on-the-go.

 

[Robin L]

If you're involved in pro audio [and intend to get paid], you come to the point where you have heard the recording you have been working on so many times, all you can hear is the difference tone---everything that's wrong. The meaning of "Faff", far as I can tell, to to dither, and I don't mean jiggling around the LSB. Audiophiles often dither, and wanting an audio system where there's no tweaking is usually the opposite of what a self-described audiophile is all about. In any case, many of the people on this forum are involved in pro audio and many are "Audiophiles", so spiritofjerry may have landed in the wrong place, seeing as the central issues of this place are of no importance to him.

 

[audio2design]

All that sounds like a faff, really. I don't have the time or patience to go about listening for microdetails to determine what's good. That's why I come here, takes the guesswork and faffing about out of the equation. Even then, I love some gear that I know measures poorly, and I still can't hear a difference.

I suggest learning how to measure room response.

Most of those anomalies I mention are in speaker response. Not "micro" details.

 

[audiofilet]

What is a faff?

Pretty sure it means "fart" in British English.

 

[Raindog123]

Considering I can buy a $40 DAC used that is audibly transparent, why should I?

Just curious, what is “audibly transparent” to you? How do you declare a DAC as being one?

 

[Sal1950]

I mean, if you spent your entire life listening for the flaws and not listening to the music,

Who would do such a thing? That would spoil the whole point of listening to music?
That's why we have friends like Amir to measure the gear and report it's performance.
What most of the subjective Hi Fi community thinks they hear and reports in web and print media, that's who's listening constantly for flaws.

 

[garbulky]

If we are asking who is right, shouldn't we get some subjectivist feedback as well?

 

[JSmith]

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?

Measurements don't dictate the listening experience... they dictate what products one should shortlist if looking to purchase. That's totally separate to actually listening to audio.

Do you believe if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, then it makes no sound?



JSmith

 

[JRS]

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

Perhaps, but the whole Hi-Rez bamboozle makes money off of underinformed consumers and does nothing to address the real problem which is sucking the life out of recordings. I would much rather have 2 48/24 cuts than some 384/32 version--one that has been shat on and intended for general consumption, and the other that resembles something that reflects just the slightest appreciation for dynamics, sound staging, artistic integrity and recording excellence generally.

If we had many more examples of really fine recordings done at the lower specs, I suspect the interest in the higher definitions would wane among the sane. But that we typically only see these types of good engineering at higher specs reinforces the belief that it is the sampling that makes the difference. If we really must use the space, let's do multichannel, like oh wait, wasn't DVD-A goinfg to be the medium of multichannel mezmorization.

(And I realize there are many outstanding recordings on Red Book--I own a few, and after blind testing between those and the SACD and DVD-A versions, never bought another of the "enhanced" variety.)

 

[Sal1950]

If we are asking who is right, shouldn't we get some subjectivist feedback as well?

Been listening to that drivel for more years than I wish to remember.
Came here to get away from the illusional - delusional. LOL

 

[Newman]

Easy one:

objectivists are objectively right.
subjectivists are subjectively right.

Everyone is happy. Case settled.

If only it were that simple (it isn’t).

Subjectivists tend to be subjectively wrong. Evidence: a DBT is actually a subjective test, but it just happens to be controlled, thus giving the subjective impressions about the actual sound waves. And yet the vast majority of subjectivists thoroughly reject and dispute what DBT tells them, because it often tells them that their sighted, uncontrolled subjective views on the sound waves are — wrong.

Then they are unhappy. Then they go on these long, ranting campaigns about how controlled listening tests are all flawed in at least one — or preferably many — ways.