Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[sergeauckland]

Never known an instrument buy anything. Whether you like it or not the the only ‘instrument’ that matters is the person buying what’s on offer. Certainly look at the test results, but they pale into insignificance compared to the look and price and that’s the problem. You get the answer to your sonic dreams home, plug it in quite often justify what you’ve bought until reality sets in some time later. Then it’s on EBAY and the search continue.

Not if what you've bought meets the spec under which you bought it. If the test results are correct, and one always has the option to measure them oneself, as I do, then why would anyone be dissatisfied? Decide on the facilities required, buy the right tool for the job.
It's not hard.

S

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Not if what you've bought meets the spec under which you bought it. If the test results are correct, and one always has the option to measure them oneself, as I do, then why would anyone be dissatisfied? Decide on the facilities required, buy the right tool for the job.
It's not hard.

S

As an example a few years ago thought of buying a McIntosh Amp, found one at a good price. Read a review in a German HiFi magazine, the reviewer said ‘Why would you want to pay serious money for an Amp with knobs that look like they should be on a 1960s transistor radio?’ At that point the measurements didn’t matter, perceived lack of quality mattered more.
Serge not arguing with your logic agree with what you say, unfortunately seems like most of us are searching for the Holy Grail. In my case the research is to read all I can before I buy.
Seemingly a stream of equipment why? The constant research, the listening sessions keep my mind active, so it’s the search that’s as important as the sound. All I do is limit my spending to what’s affordable.

 

[sergeauckland]

As an example a few years ago thought of buying a McIntosh Amp, found one at a good price. Read a review in a German HiFi magazine, the reviewer said ‘Why would you want to pay serious money for an Amp with knobs that look like they should be on a 1960s transistor radio?’ At that point the measurements didn’t matter, perceived lack of quality mattered more.

How the knobs affect the amplifier's desirability is beyond me, just change them if you don't like them. I tend to look much more at internal build (which the McIntosh does very well) and technical spec than trivial stuff like colour or shape of knob. It'll be screwed into my 19" rack in any event so won't see much of it.

S

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

How the knobs affect the amplifier's desirability is beyond me, just change them if you don't like them. I tend to look much more at internal build (which the McIntosh does very well) and technical spec than trivial stuff like colour or shape of knob. It'll be screwed into my 19" rack in any event so won't see much of it.

S

To you it doesn’t to me it does. Spent the money on an Esoteric Amp. lovely to look at and average to listen too. By the way the Esoteric measurements were exemplary! Replaced with a Denon PMA2500NE, filled both functions I value very well and cheaper.

 

[Killingbeans]

How the knobs affect the amplifier's desirability is beyond me, just change them if you don't like them. I tend to look much more at internal build (which the McIntosh does very well) and technical spec than trivial stuff like colour or shape of knob. It'll be screwed into my 19" rack in any event so won't see much of it.

S

I'm with @Suffolkhifinut on this one. I have a weakness for nice knobs.. maybe just because I'm a knob myself

 

[BoredErica]

I want my gear to be as technically perfect as possible, but also look cool. Where does that place me? I chose 'other.'

Somewhere in the first few options of my poll.

 

[flyzipper]

Other (Please explain!)...

I don't think pragmatist is represented in the options, and that's what the following buying considerations reveal about me...

• Can I buy it at the local store I've been going to for 30 years?
• How well does it integrate with what I already have?
• What's the warranty like?
• Where will I have to send it if service is required?
• Is there a well defined upgrade path?
• Is there a good user community for it?
• Does it feel like strong value for money?
• Is there a healthy aftermarket I can sell into in order to recoup costs?
• Where is it made?

Maybe I fall back to those things because I'm neutral on the survey options.

 

[BoredErica]

Other (Please explain!)...

I don't think pragmatist is represented in the options, and that's what the following buying considerations reveal about me...

• Can I buy it at the local store I've been going to for 30 years?
• How well does it integrate with what I already have?
• What's the warranty like?
• Where will I have to send it if service is required?
• Is there a well defined upgrade path?
• Is there a good user community for it?
• Does it feel like strong value for money?
• Is there a healthy aftermarket I can sell into in order to recoup costs?
• Where is it made?

Maybe I fall back to those things because I'm neutral on the survey options.

That's not what I meant with the original question. I was asking how important you think measurements and controlled testing are for assessing sound quality. For example a person might believe measurements and controlled testing are necessary for assessing sound quality, but they actually don't care at all about sound quality and speakers are just decoration pieces like furniture or art and buy based off of that. They'd still be in the first few options of the poll.

 

[flyzipper]

It may not be what you intended, but that's my answer -- neutral pragmatist

 

[ClicketEKlack]

I was an objectivist until this week, when a couple of impassioned (and oft-disparaged) web reviewers convinced me to drop $170 on an Xduoo MT-604 balanced tube amp. I plugged it into my Topping D90 and I haven't listened to my A90 since. I imagine it measures like a wet turd, but through Focal Utopias, it sounds like a slice of heaven. It's dirt cheap. And cute. Am I not supposed to like it? Or like it with an asterisk, knowing that there's some distortion somewhere? I'm enjoying my music so much more. Isn't that supposed to be the be-all-end-all endgame? Yes, this is science, but we're not trying to land a spacecraft or cure a disease. It's just tunes. The stakes are LOW in this inconsequential bloodbath of a debate.

 

[ahofer]

I was an objectivist until this week, when a couple of impassioned (and oft-disparaged) web reviewers convinced me to drop $170 on an Xduoo MT-604 balanced tube amp. I plugged it into my Topping D90 and I haven't listened to my A90 since. I imagine it measures like a wet turd, but through Focal Utopias, it sounds like a slice of heaven. It's dirt cheap. And cute. Am I not supposed to like it? Or like it with an asterisk, knowing that there's some distortion somewhere? I'm enjoying my music so much more. Isn't that supposed to be the be-all-end-all endgame? Yes, this is science, but we're not trying to land a spacecraft or cure a disease. It's just tunes. The stakes are LOW in this inconsequential bloodbath of a debate.

You can prefer an altered sound and remain an objectivist, I think. Do you think it does something unmeasurable?

 

[ClicketEKlack]

You can prefer an altered sound and remain an objectivist, I think. Do you think it does something unmeasurable?

That is fair. Perhaps I can. I don't disagree with the ASR premise that if high-roller audiophiles participated in blind A/B tests with their Chord DAVEs, they'd all probably end up with Topping D90se's. Fortunately for my wallet, all the four and five figure high-end audio gear I've tested subjectively sounds inferior to this $170 doohickey.

As for your question, I don't know what to think about the unmeasurable aspect of it all. My perception is that the soundstage feels larger and deeper. I feel more surrounded by the music than between it. Instruments sound more like themselves. Can this be measured? Maybe? Is it possible that there are limitations to current audio measurements? Or that there are things we aren't measuring that we should? For better or worse, we are our own uniquely idiosyncratic measuring devices. There may be neurological factors in auditory processing that unconsciously alter our perception of measurable sound waves.

Perhaps this amp does something unquantifiable or not readily understandable. Maybe the designer got lucky. Both reviewers used the word "magic," which, of course, is anathema to any objectivist. But the little bastard sounds magical.

 

[Jimbob54]

That is fair. Perhaps I can. I don't disagree with the ASR premise that if high-roller audiophiles participated in blind A/B tests with their Chord DAVEs, they'd all probably end up with Topping D90se's. Fortunately for my wallet, all the four and five figure high-end audio gear I've tested subjectively sounds inferior to this $170 doohickey.

As for your question, I don't know what to think about the unmeasurable aspect of it all. My perception is that the soundstage feels larger and deeper. I feel more surrounded by the music than between it. Instruments sound more like themselves. Can this be measured? Maybe? Is it possible that there are limitations to current audio measurements? Or that there are things we aren't measuring that we should? For better or worse, we are our own uniquely idiosyncratic measuring devices. There may be neurological factors in auditory processing that unconsciously alter our perception of measurable sound waves.

Perhaps this amp does something unquantifiable or not readily understandable. Maybe the designer got lucky. Both reviewers used the word "magic," which, of course, is anathema to any objectivist. But the little bastard sounds magical.

Or it has a distortion profile that is both audible and for whatever reason preferable.

Or you fell into the uncontrolled sighted listening trap.

Both of which are far more likely than that amp doing something as yet undiscovered "thing" to the sound that wouldnt be covered by the right measurements.

 

[ahofer]

That is fair. Perhaps I can. I don't disagree with the ASR premise that if high-roller audiophiles participated in blind A/B tests with their Chord DAVEs, they'd all probably end up with Topping D90se's. Fortunately for my wallet, all the four and five figure high-end audio gear I've tested subjectively sounds inferior to this $170 doohickey.

As for your question, I don't know what to think about the unmeasurable aspect of it all. My perception is that the soundstage feels larger and deeper. I feel more surrounded by the music than between it. Instruments sound more like themselves. Can this be measured? Maybe? Is it possible that there are limitations to current audio measurements? Or that there are things we aren't measuring that we should? For better or worse, we are our own uniquely idiosyncratic measuring devices. There may be neurological factors in auditory processing that unconsciously alter our perception of measurable sound waves.

Perhaps this amp does something unquantifiable or not readily understandable. Maybe the designer got lucky. Both reviewers used the word "magic," which, of course, is anathema to any objectivist. But the little bastard sounds magical.

There are many tests where people prefer 320k MP3 to hi-res audio. People love vinyl & tubes. It seems plausible to me that a bit of gauze over the signal (for lack of a better term), in the form of a noise floor or harmonic distortion may feel more “spacious” or comfortable to listeners.

Sometimes in a reverberant concert hall, I can see how it might even feel more realistic relative to a concert experience (If not a studio or small hall).

 

[egellings]

Nope! If I buy an amp and pay that kind of money for it, then I want the amp to deliver what is promised, dammit. If someone buys a 75wpc amp but only tinkles away at a watt or two in use, then I suppose that the Carver 275 would fit that bill. It's still a rip off, though. If all you want is a coupla watts, then it's best to get a nice 10wpc amp with four sweet little 6V6's in it. Those OPTs in the 275 would be just the right size then, if winding impedance is correct for the 6V6.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Never known an instrument buy anything. Whether you like it or not the the only ‘instrument’ that matters is the person buying what’s on offer. Certainly look at the test results, but they pale into insignificance compared to the look and price and that’s the problem. You get the answer to your sonic dreams home, plug it in quite often justify what you’ve bought until reality sets in some time later. Then it’s on EBAY and the search continue.

Now that is a funny post and VERY true!

 

[JJB70]

I think the discussion has morphed into a discussion of why people are interested in gear, which is separate and distinct from whether we are objectivist or subjectivist I think. People can be ultra-obvectivist and have very limited interest in gear once they identify something that measures well, similarly people may have limited interest in listening to music or measurements etc but have a love of equipment.

I think it's an interesting discussion. To be clear I don't for a moment think any inorganic object has a soul (though I admit as AI advances that may very well change), but what these objects can do is stir something in our soul. This is really where I now sit in audio. My honest opinion is that for listening to music you just need a decent (which can be inexpensive) speakers or headphones, including wireless, a smartphone or other device and whatever is needed to drive your speakers or headphones (assuming they're passive). DACs and amplifiers were commoditized years ago, and if you make the effort to set speakers up and consider room factors you really don't need to spend that much on speakers. I just don't think DACs and amplifiers matter unless spectacularly badly designed, broken or inappropriately specified for the load. So why have an interest in audio?

Because equipment does stir something in my soul. I am an engineer myself, and I think that as with any profession or vocation, for many engineers it enters the soul and becomes a large part of what we are as human beings. When I see pictures of HMS Queen Elizabeth (the RN aircraft carrier), CGI of the Type 26 Frigates, pictures of various cruise ships, container ships, gas carriers etc something inside me moves. Partly it is personal pride (though I'd emphasise my own contributions to the designs were minor indeed) but really it is because familiarity with the designs and everything behind them (the people, intellectual investment and human effort etc) moves me and I see them as something more than just thousands of tonnes of steel. So it is with audio. I value good build quality, ergonomics, durability, industrial design and other things, I'll say again my Sony ES gear does not have a soul and it would be absurd to claim otherwise but it most definitely stirs my soul and gives me a pleasure which may be silly to others but is very real for me. It's not just audio, I have a passion for the crafting and precision of old mechanical and electro-mechanical things. It'd be bonkers to try and argue film is better than digital for photography but I look at digital cameras and smartphones as appliances whereas I love the Olympus OM-3, Contax RTS series, Nikon F, FM family, Topcon RE Super/Super D, Pentax LX etc. Watches are another example, my daily wear Huawei GT2 is better than my mechanical watches but if push came to shove I'd keep the mechanical watches.

So I see nothing wrong with having an interest in equipment, and see no contradiction in saying it really doesn't matter at the same time as having a passion for it.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I think the discussion has morphed into a discussion of why people are interested in gear, which is separate and distinct from whether we are objectivist or subjectivist I think. People can be ultra-obvectivist and have very limited interest in gear once they identify something that measures well, similarly people may have limited interest in listening to music or measurements etc but have a love of equipment.

I think it's an interesting discussion. To be clear I don't for a moment think any inorganic object has a soul (though I admit as AI advances that may very well change), but what these objects can do is stir something in our soul. This is really where I now sit in audio. My honest opinion is that for listening to music you just need a decent (which can be inexpensive) speakers or headphones, including wireless, a smartphone or other device and whatever is needed to drive your speakers or headphones (assuming they're passive). DACs and amplifiers were commoditized years ago, and if you make the effort to set speakers up and consider room factors you really don't need to spend that much on speakers. I just don't think DACs and amplifiers matter unless spectacularly badly designed, broken or inappropriately specified for the load. So why have an interest in audio?

Because equipment does stir something in my soul. I am an engineer myself, and I think that as with any profession or vocation, for many engineers it enters the soul and becomes a large part of what we are as human beings. When I see pictures of HMS Queen Elizabeth (the RN aircraft carrier), CGI of the Type 26 Frigates, pictures of various cruise ships, container ships, gas carriers etc something inside me moves. Partly it is personal pride (though I'd emphasise my own contributions to the designs were minor indeed) but really it is because familiarity with the designs and everything behind them (the people, intellectual investment and human effort etc) moves me and I see them as something more than just thousands of tonnes of steel. So it is with audio. I value good build quality, ergonomics, durability, industrial design and other things, I'll say again my Sony ES gear does not have a soul and it would be absurd to claim otherwise but it most definitely stirs my soul and gives me a pleasure which may be silly to others but is very real for me. It's not just audio, I have a passion for the crafting and precision of old mechanical and electro-mechanical things. It'd be bonkers to try and argue film is better than digital for photography but I look at digital cameras and smartphones as appliances whereas I love the Olympus OM-3, Contax RTS series, Nikon F, FM family, Topcon RE Super/Super D, Pentax LX etc. Watches are another example, my daily wear Huawei GT2 is better than my mechanical watches but if push came to shove I'd keep the mechanical watches.

So I see nothing wrong with having an interest in equipment, and see no contradiction in saying it really doesn't matter at the same time as having a passion for it.

Pictures of Marilyn Monroe still do it for me, as they say “Different strokes for different Folks.”

 

[steve59]

So, when comparing the objectivist/honda owner to the subjectivist/harley owner we have a massive amount of riders that don't own either, these guys may not even know what they want yet they only know what they've tried that they don't want...I think on this forum I would be classed a princess!! 2016 ktm 1290 super duke. badass princess lol

 

[Frgirard]

So, when comparing the objectivist/honda owner to the subjectivist/harley owner we have a massive amount of riders that don't own either, these guys may not even know what they want yet they only know what they've tried that they don't want...I think on this forum I would be classed a princess!! 2016 ktm 1290 super duke. badass princess lol

The queen is the Peugeot 103sp.