Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

[Suffolkhifinut]

As consumers we generally buy the ‘best‘ we can afford. Is it better than a cheaper alternative, when you sit down and think about it maybe not. There is no hard and fast rule, sometimes self justification comes into play. At the other end of the consumerism spectrum are people consumed by envy and will try to say a $1 buy is better then a $100 buy.
Take DACs as an example, on this website we have many who say if they measure the same, they sound the same.

 

[rdenney]

Back to topic: I think a problem on the "subjectivist" side is recognizing the fact that these qualities do not even need to correlate.

Unlike with the Ferrari example above, where the Ferrari will be objectively less comfortable even if you do identical slow trips to the nearby supermarket, a 100x more expensive DAC will still reconstruct the same signal and with objective differences too small will sound the same - if you listen with your ears and not eyes that is. Its job is not to produce an audibly different signal.
(If it was then I'd call it an FX device... not that there's something wrong with having a subjective preference for that.)

But if one thinks that all subjective qualities have to be caused by or at least have to correlate with the objective qualities of the product, then different experiences can lead to the conclusion that there must be (magical) properties that escape measurements. As mentioned before, in extreme cases this leads to total rejection of measurements.


Regarding middle grounds: the middle ground between something that is true and something that is false is also false. See the middle ground fallacy.
So I don't see why people would need to find a middle ground, but maybe others would consider my position already being a middle ground between how they define the two opposing sides. Care needs to be taken as it's incredibly easy to strawman each other here.
That's also why I dislike the terms "objectivist" and even "subjectivist". Do you guys have useful definitions for those terms?

The middle ground is in deciding the weight we apply to tangible qualities like measured performance and features, versus intangible qualities like aesthetics, brand, and ownership experience. Even the “idea” of something.

(I once chased an old Arcam CD Player because it had a chipped version of the dcs RingDAC in it. I had zero expectation that such would be as good as let alone better than any good current DAC in a CD player, but the idea of it was interesting to me. Lots of audio stuff gets sold on the idea of it, even if that idea has no tangible merit.)

So, I might compromise on tangible qualities to get intangible qualities as long as the former fulfill my minimum requirements sufficiently. Another person might not.

No product may fulfill all our requirements, in which case we have to make a business decision or give up.

Rick “this isn’t about ‘truth’” Denney

 

[Ingenieur]

imho one brush does not paint all.
Things Ike amps, DACs, etc, for the most part can be defined and evaluated primarily by specs/measurements and features.

Speakers, headphones, cartridges, not so much. Perhaps the subjectives weighs a bit more with these. SQ Preference is a larger factor.

It appears to me the the demarcation is signal processing vs. elec <> mech transduction?

 

[goat76]

Let's say a person with a full understanding of measurements and an objective view is listening to two different pairs of speakers. He much prefers one pair of speakers over the others listening to music, but after he sees the measurements it's clear to him that the speakers he rejected are the ones that measure better.

If he still chooses to keep the speakers he subjectively preferred listening to music to, does that make him a subjectivist? Or did he just realize what the end goal is (musical enjoyment) and choose the middle ground, even though he fully understands he's not following his normal objective goals?

Amir's half-joke of a title for this thread is just about that, do we really need to be extreme "this" or "that", or is it a middle ground?

 

[Ilkless]

The middle ground is in deciding the weight we apply to tangible qualities like measured performance and features, versus intangible qualities like aesthetics, brand, and ownership experience.

I might compromise on tangible qualities to get intangible qualities as long as the former fulfill my minimum requirements sufficiently. Another person might not.

No product may fulfill all requirements, in which case we have to make a business decision or give up.

Rick “this isn’t about ‘truth’” Denney

I agree, as someone who has come very close to buying Jeff Rowland electronics used (insane 70+% depreciation locally for some weird reason, much higher the other big names like Pass, Levinson, Accuphase, McIntosh) just because of the metalwork. I know the amplifiers are likely marginal in performance. But I also know enough psychoacoustics to wager that any deviations should be relatively minute and unobjectionable under my listening conditions - and all that milled metalwork and Geneva striping just really excites me out of an appreciation for the manufacturing and haptics of it.

So I think the bigger issue is integrity rather than truth. It's fine to let intangible or non-auditory stimuli shape one's listening experience. And I think many users here do what I think is reasonable - acknowledge the intangibles, roll with them as part rather than conflate them with the acoustic properties of the product to the extent that it defies physics/the biology of our auditory system (which is not perfectly known but nonetheless things like thresholds are quite established). This hobby would be less fun if everything was Hypex/Topping/Purifi.

IMHO the middle ground is not so much people who weigh the intangibles vs the tangibles (because that requires awareness of what is auditory and what is really not). It's those guru types that purport themselves to be immune from these intangibles affecting their sighted evaluations, and do homebrew measurements/testing to validate their anecdotal experience. Think the SBAF/Crinacle types - this approach seems seductive and reasonable on the surface but is in fact completely incoherent.

 

[JohnVF]

Just to extend the car analogy, the annoying subjectivist is the guy who looks at your car and says “well, that’s not real driving”, or “you’d like my car better if you could afford it”, or “That’s a mid-performance car that doesn’t reproduce the air and timing of real driving. When you have more experience, you’ll know”.

In other words, they turn their subjectivism into a reference objective standard and self-immolate, snobbily.

I get the feeling here that you all have the opinion that the audio world is more full of these types than it is. Maybe they get the spotlight when you’re actively looking for them but most subjective-oriented people aren’t like this. I’ve seen them and can’t stand them, but it’s really not the norm.

 

[ahofer]

I get the feeling here that you all have the opinion that the audio world is more full of these types than it is. Maybe they get the spotlight when you’re actively looking for them but most subjective-oriented people aren’t like this. I’ve seen them and can’t stand them, but it’s really not the norm.

Fair. I had a bad experience shopping for speakers a few years ago and ran into a lot of them. Then I was on Audiogon for a while and found even more. Or perhaps they've just come to dominate there.

 

[xnor]

But the subjective response is not in itself “false”. There’s no need for a middle ground between two truths. The problem is simply one of understanding, isn’t it?

That depends on what "subjective response" means. If it is just personal preferences then I wouldn't even consider it as a matter of truth.
The clash happens when the subjective response is a claim that goes against something measurable, objectively verifiable, true.

 

[ahofer]

That depends on what "subjective response" means. If it is just personal preferences then I wouldn't even consider it as a matter of truth.
The clash happens when the subjective response is a claim that goes against something measurable, objectively verifiable, true.

I’m far less concerned with subjective opinions being “false”, or unverifiable per se. My problem is that they cannot be transferred or universalized, hence my rather harsh adjective “useless”.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I’m far less concerned with subjective opinions being “false”, or unverifiable per se. My problem is that they cannot be transferred or universalized, hence my rather harsh adjective “useless”.

I hate tomatoes Ann loves them, our tastes can’t be reconciled. Should I think her opinion is ‘useless?’ Subjective judgement varies from person to person doesn’t make it invalid. Diversity of opinion is healthy not useless!

 

[raistlin65]

Funny thing is that audio for the listener is ultimately subjective -- we have to enjoy what we'er listening to. The question is, How do we, as individual, get maximum enjoyment from our audio systems?

As for approach, the hardcore "subjectivist" denies that measurements are of any value in making his/her, (usually his), decisions. Typically this subjectivist say, "I believe my ears", although very often he apparently is believing his eye or wallet as much or more. Beautiful, expensive, exotic equipment seemingly contribute a great deal to his enjoyment, (but what the heck).

On the other hand, the hardcore "objectivist" relies entirely on measurements as well, usually, on other technical aspects of design & built in his decisions. Ironically, (as it seems to me), many such objectivists are also deniers in our ability to hear sound differences unless measurable difference are quite extreme, which make the quest for technical excellence rather moot.

I think the better distinction is to treat it as different epistemologies.

Objectivism in audio believes that human beings are often unreliable evaluators of audio due to perceptual biases. That audience science and objective data is more reliable than human perception.

Subjectivism in audio believes that human perception can be more reliable than audio science and objective data. They tend to minimize the impact of perceptual bias. Or believe that it does not affect them as an individual (blind spot bias/golden ear)

 

[JohnVF]

I think the better distinction is to treat it as different epistemologies.

Objectivism in audio believes that human beings are often unreliable evaluators of audio due to perceptual biases. That audience science and objective data is more reliable than human perception.

Subjectivism in audio believes that human perception can be more reliable than audio science and objective data. They tend to minimize the impact of perceptual bias. Or believe that it does not affect them as an individual (blind spot bias/golden ear)

What of those of us in between those two camps? Is there room for that?

 

[raistlin65]

What of those of us in between those two camps? Is there room for that?

How are you in between those two?

I would imagine you're misunderstanding audio science and the role of objective data if you think you're somewhere in between.

 

[pkane]

I hate tomatoes Ann loves them, our tastes can’t be reconciled. Should I think her opinion is ‘useless?’ Subjective judgement varies from person to person doesn’t make it invalid. Diversity of opinion is healthy not useless!

But what if one of you thinks that an apple is called a tomato and therefore bases their opinion on the wrong fruit? Would you still think both opinions are valuable?

That's what happens a lot in audio where people confuse what's real with what they perceive. The basic process of doing controlled listening is similar to the process you and Ann would need to go through to agree that you're both talking about the same thing. Once we agree that we are talking about the same fruit, we can then discuss preferences and tastes.

 

[antcollinet]

I hate tomatoes Ann loves them, our tastes can’t be reconciled. Should I think her opinion is ‘useless?’ Subjective judgement varies from person to person doesn’t make it invalid. Diversity of opinion is healthy not useless!

Her opinion is useless as far as using it to determine if you (or anyone else) will like tomatoes. It is only useful to you and her to help inform you what to put into your meals.

 

[ahofer]

But what if one of you thinks that an apple is called a tomato and therefore bases their opinion on the wrong fruit? Would you still think both opinions are valuable?

That's what happens a lot in audio where people confuse what's real with what they perceive. The basic process of doing controlled listening is similar to the process you and Ann would need to go through to agree that you're both talking about the same thing. Once we agree that we are talking about the same fruit, we can then discuss preferences and tastes.

I've been eating fruit for 50 years. Maybe your palate isn't refined enough to notice that it is, actually, a tomato, in way you can't measure with your crude and inadequate "color/texture/seeds" classification system.

 

[solderdude]

Subjectivism in audio believes that human perception can be more reliable

I think they think hearing is far more discriminate with music and that the things they think they hear can, or are, not measured.
The fact that they can't be proven in AB tests is brushed off by stating those tests are flawed because hearing is not 'designed' for AB but long term.

There are plenty of people looking at measurements but thinking they can't explain everything. In acoustic realm I tend to agree that (by lack of knowledge) I cannot predict exactly how a speakers will sound in my room(s) nor that I can fully predict all aspects of a headphone based on a set of measurements.
Just as I cannot predict how a power amplifier exactly reacts to some 'difficult' speakers. One may be able to predict it could struggle in certain conditions though.

 

[Ingenieur]

Is the system an instrument or a conduit for art? Both? I believe in accuracy,
output = input x gain
But there is always distortion, usually speaker/room contributes the most.

So some personal bias/preference must enter the selection process. I do believe all differences that can be heard can be measured. If you can hear it, and it can't be measured, it is not 'real' in a physical sense. But some of these things, especially the acoustic in nature, require instrumentation well beyond that used in this subject area. Not to mention the facilities, expertise, time and cost. Then there is the complexity of interpreting the results/data. Which unto itself may introduce bias, distortion, and skew results.

That is why, imho, at a certain point subjectivity comes into play. If a sample of speakers all ~ the same: f response, BW, distortion, impulse response, price, etc., how does one select?
By ear?
Opinions of others? Reviews?
Ease of acquisition?
Visual appearance?

I believe the technical data narrows the field, then it comes down to the individual.

This imo does not apply the amps, DACs, etc., here the specs are 90% of the answer.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

But what if one of you thinks that an apple is called a tomato and therefore bases their opinion on the wrong fruit? Would you still think both opinions are valuable?

That's what happens a lot in audio where people confuse what's real with what they perceive. The basic process of doing controlled listening is similar to the process you and Ann would need to go through to agree that you're both talking about the same thing. Once we agree that we are talking about the same fruit, we can then discuss preferences and tastes.

When it comes to audio know what I like. As an example when looking for speakers wouldn’t touch any with ABRs, all the ones I’ve heard have soggy bass. Don’t need to look up measurements, subjective measurements ( my ears) are good enough.

 

[ahofer]

... because hearing is not 'designed' for AB but long term.

Wouldn't it be nice if the opposite weren't true. Maybe not 'designed' but 'optimized'.