An alternative philosophical framing for audiophile subjectivism

[davmol]

Perception is reality, but in an ideal world we should regularly question, challenge and test our reality. I've lost count of the number of people who throw their toys out of the pram simply because I asked "did you level match before you compared the two DACs (or amps)". As for ASR, the clue is in the name, so people really shouldn't be surprised when asked for evidence to back up their claims.

It's not just in the audiophile world either, same thing happens with motorcycle helmets. Cheap helmets can be as safe (or safer) than expensive helmets, but there are plenty of helmet helmets out there that will argue until they're blue in the face that it's not true, despite plenty of independent safety testing to prove it.

 

[MattHooper]

That’s quite different from the perception of a lower noise floor due to some magic cable.

Yes, exactly. That’s why I mentioned that you don’t just accept every subjective account willy-nilly… It takes some sense and reason to navigate the obvious liabilities. That would include looking into the plausibility of various claims, not just accepting every anecdote as veridical.
“ extraordinary claims…” and all that.

 

[krabapple]

Instead, he concludes that vision strongly influences olfactory representation, that this influence operates below conscious awareness, and that the effect is a genuine perceptual illusion rather than dishonesty or incompetence. It is not, however, in any way, a direct measurement of chemical reality. The difference is ontological (reality), not phenomenological (sensory).

What a verbose way of noting the obvious: humans can be sincerely mistaken.

 

[MattHooper]

I am sympathetic though with the audiophiles without the cause. While I enjoy my system, I must admit it is not with passion. Once you put math at work, it tends to take out poetry.

100%

Or at least it makes it much harder... I call it the magic of being an audiophile. You have to allow yourself to suspend disbelief in audio as we do when we enjoy a sleight of hand magic show. You can get some of that original fun back, but without the vagaries of nonlinear analog audio, there is less magic to chase. Then again, my recent purchase of a pair of D&D 8c speakers has put a pretty big smile on my face as I listen to my favorite music. Not the least of which is the sighted bias of hearing such deep bass from such comparatively small boxes.

I certainly wouldn’t want to reinforce the cliché that “ measurements take the magic fun or pleasure out of audio” any more than
“ understanding something scientifically takes away the wonder.”

Ultimately the relationship of taking am more scientific or engineering approach and one’s experience of Magic enthusiasm or wonder, is going to be an individual thing.

Some people’s enthusiasm and wonder can be increased by “ knowing how the Magic is done” and some people can find that diminishes the impact.

It’s sort of like people who love the extras that would come with DVDs or Blu-ray with all the behind-the-scenes making of the movie. For them, it could enhance their app appreciation of the movie. For other people it could unravel some of the magic. (as somebody who is involved in the behind the scenes of making movies for a long time I eschewed behind the scenes stuff because I was trying to get back to seeing movies as a whole, and how they are supposed to be experienced rather than just extending my day job to viewing the deconstruction of how they are made. I wanted to just forget that and enjoy the movies.)

For instance, I can look up how tube amps work and explore all the technical ways (I’m limited there) in which they work. But sometimes it can just feel more engaging to get back in touch with that early wonder of
“ Wow those magic glowing tubes are making my music sound so wonderful!”

One thing I’ve noticed about ASR, the purely technical approach, and perhaps the type of members it attracts: a certain lack of enthusiasm.

By that I mean a particular type of enthusiasm. Clearly members here are very enthusiastic about the hobby. What I’m talking about is expressions of enthusiasm about the gear and the subjective experience of sound quality the gear produces.
There is a general reticence to, as
RexrothPigeon disparagingly put it “ wax rhapsodic” about one’s experience with a system or the sound.

Let’s keep things cool and technical. Expressions of personal enthusiasm about the sound can be suspect insofar as this can lead to dreaded subjective prose about which we are to remain suspicious. So it’s more of a “ just the facts ma’am” approach. (I’m talking in generalities here. There are of course exceptions.)

Perfectly fine for what it is and of course the site is extremely useful.

But this can for me feel a bit too arid, which is why I also visit the more subjective sites where people are more inclined to discuss in detail their subjective experience of their systems, and where there seems to be more overall enthusiasm in that direction.

(and when there is too much woo woo in those forums, ASR works as a nice antidote. I think ASR generally strikes a good balance between seeking objectivity and allowing for some level of informality.).

 

[Oddball]

I certainly wouldn’t want to reinforce the cliché that “ measurements take the magic fun or pleasure out of audio” any more than
“ understanding something scientifically takes away the wonder.”

Ultimately the relationship of taking am more scientific or engineering approach and one’s experience of Magic enthusiasm or wonder, is going to be an individual thing.

Some people’s enthusiasm and wonder can be increased by “ knowing how the Magic is done” and some people can find that diminishes the impact.

It’s sort of like people who love the extras that would come with DVDs or Blu-ray with all the behind-the-scenes making of the movie. For them, it could enhance their app appreciation of the movie. For other people it could unravel some of the magic. (as somebody who is involved in the behind the scenes of making movies for a long time I eschewed behind the scenes stuff because I was trying to get back to seeing movies as a whole, and how they are supposed to be experienced rather than just extending my day job to viewing the deconstruction of how they are made. I wanted to just forget that and enjoy the movies.)

For instance, I can look up how tube amps work and explore all the technical ways (I’m limited there) in which they work. But sometimes it can just feel more engaging to get back in touch with that early wonder of “ how do those magic glowing tubes produce this wonderful sound?”

One thing I’ve noticed about ASR, the purely technical approach, and perhaps the type of members it attracts: a certain lack of enthusiasm.

By that I mean a particular type of enthusiasm. Clearly members here are very enthusiastic about the hobby. What I’m talking about is expressions of enthusiasm about the gear and the subjective experience of sound quality the gear produces.
There is a general reticence to, as
RexrothPigeon disparagingly put it “ wax rhapsodic” about one’s experience with a system or the sound.

Let’s keep things cool and technical. Expressions of personal enthusiasm about the sound can be suspect insofar as this can lead to dreaded subjective prose about which we are to remain suspicious. So it’s more of a “ just the facts ma’am” approach. (I’m talking in generalities here. There are of course exceptions.)

Perfectly fine for what it is and of course the site is extremely useful.

But this can for me feel a bit too arid, which is why I also visit the more subjective sites where people are more inclined to discuss in detail their subjective experience of their systems, and where there seems to be more overall enthusiasm in that direction.

(and when there is too much woo woo in those forums, ASR works as a nice antidote. I think ASR generally strikes a good balance between seeking objectivity and allowing for some level of informality.).

Matt - it's realy digital nowadays IMO. I got used to it. Red of Blue pill and there you go. I if tried to comprehend the world in analogue, I'd be locked up in high security institution by now. Just too much data.

 

[pablolie]

I certainly wouldn’t want to reinforce the cliché that “ measurements take the magic fun or pleasure out of audio” any more than
“ understanding something scientifically takes away the wonder.”

Good, because both are indefensible and intellectually lazy platitudes. Measurements merely capture performance basics that subject matter experts use to quantify basic behavior. And understanding stuff just increases wonder, at least for me, because it's fascinating to unravel the basics of our "perception of truth".

Ultimately the relationship of taking am more scientific or engineering approach and one’s experience of Magic enthusiasm or wonder, is going to be an individual thing.

I think it takes a misunderstanding of either to be happy with that over-simplification of experience. Of course everybody has the right to remain a village fool that likes to keep "wondering" about "the magic" of it all. Must feel somewhat empty to not try to learn anything additional about "magic" when it's blantantly out there for others to make it explainable and repeatable.

 

[EERecordist]

Thanks for the topic. In addition to listening to a lot of classical and acoustic music live, I studied auditory psychology at an undergraduate level.

I think our auditory cortex is trained from infancy to a few years and that is overlaid by higher order auditory consciousness, ever plastic. I have not participated in the many ASR discussions of soundstage, envelopment and other similar topics, especially because I am not sure they can be measured. Some of our expert psychoacoustics ASR contributors would be more expert than me on that.

I posted https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-competing-voices-of-multiple-speakers.70213/ on a theory of the capability of the brain.

I am not good at following two simultaneous narratives, such as reading and trying to hear different stories. I wonder what would happen if babies were exposed to simultaneous multiple narratives? Or what if they were exposed to classical quartets, on to chamber music, on to symphonies with many parts. Or if they listened to classical music from a young age close to the stage to separate the parts using their two ears?

 

[Mr. Widget]

I appreciate what you are saying here, but I do think your comment mixes together the musical source and stereo listening experience on the one hand with the reproduction equipment on the other hand. In other words, I agree that without a suspension of disbelief whereby I (and my brain) imagine a soundstage, musical enjoyment would essentially disappear. But I don’t need “the vagaries of nonlinear analogue playback” for that. Acoustic transmission and room effects, yes of course. But not a subjective suspension of disbelief as to what the gear is or is not doing to the signal as it reproduces it.

My point about analog was that years ago as you were playing around in the analog audio domain there were numerous upgrade paths and the euphoric feeling you could get when you found an actual upgrade (read correction) that improved your system.

Today, at least at the level I can now afford to access, there is little chance of a real improvement. Basically it is now only about the music. The gear can be ignored... I still keep a few pieces of analog gear out of nostalgia and an appreciation of their physical beauty, but for reproduction, they are not practical.

 

[Oddball]

Good, because both are indefensible and intellectually lazy platitudes. Measurements merely capture performance basics that subject matter experts use to quantify basic behavior. And understanding stuff just increases wonder, at least for me, because it's fascinating to unravel the basics of our "perception of truth".



I think it takes a misunderstanding of either to be happy with that over-simplification of experience. Of course everybody has the right to remain a village fool that likes to keep "wondering" about "the magic" of it all. Must feel somewhat empty to not try to learn anything additional about "magic" when it's blantantly out there for others to make it explainable and repeatable.

Magic is just lack of science or awareness of it all. In human history it really died for the greater part with religion taking over - but we probably don't want to go in that direction.

 

[tmtomh]

My point about analog was that years ago as you were playing around in the analog audio domain there were numerous upgrade paths and the euphoric feeling you could get when you found an actual upgrade (read correction) that improved your system.

Today, at least at the level I can now afford to access, there is little chance of a real improvement. Basically it is now only about the music. The gear can be ignored... I still keep a few pieces of analog gear out of nostalgia and an appreciation of their physical beauty, but for reproduction, they are not practical.

I appreciate your elaboration/clarification of your point - for what it's worth, that's what I got from your prior post, so to me you were clear. I suspect you and I are actually agreeing here. I was young at the time, but I did also grow up and first enter my awareness of hi-fi (through my father) in the final years before CDs became widely available, so I understand what you mean about the greater incidence of actual, real improvements in the sound of gear - the differences among various LP and cassette playback components and chains, for example, can be orders of magnitude greater than any measurable differences among digital playback chains. So I do get it - my only point is that for me personally, I don't feel any loss of the "poetry" or joy for no longer having the possibility of that degree of clearly audible sonic improvement from the hardware. Not to mention, I do still feel that there are often huge gains to be made from upgrading speakers, experimenting with different placement, doing room correction, and so on - but for me those are chores rather than opportunities for joyful "eureka" moments. To each their own of course.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

While it is certainly no guarantee of accurate information, somebody who listens carefully and who can articulate their perception can be quite helpful in conveying some useful information about audio gear. It’s done very often in the audiophile world. It certainly does require a wise approach to navigating the obvious pitfalls, but the rewards can be both entertaining (it’s fun to share subjective impressions!) and helpful.

This may be true, there may be edge cases in which you can thread the needle to usefulness, but (A) I've never encountered one and (B) they are less than a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert of snake oil peddlers posing as "reviewers."

I’ve also noted that a variety of subjective reviews of the speaker brand I currently own converge very nicely on precisely the qualities I hear in my speakers, and I find the subjective descriptions even more informative - the perceptual benefits of the design when listening to music - than what I can personally pull out of simply the measurements.

Yes, you have noted this several times, but it is of no use to me as I have no way to assess its validity and no reason to want to do so anyway. That said, I guarantee that whatever adjectives you're referring to are also found in subjective reviews of other speakers that sound nothing like yours. Sometimes the stars may look like an archer, but his arrow will never take flight.

As I’ve pointed out before, I work in film sound POST PRODUCTION doing sound design. I don’t have the luxury of just throwing my hands up as if subjective description is mostly fruitless. If I could not usefully extrapolate my own subjective impressions of the work I am creating to what other people are like likely to experience, my job would be impossible (and my success would be inexplicable).

Yes, when we have no other option, we must resort to semaphore, gesticulation, and metaphor.

 

[MattHooper]

This may be true, there may be edge cases in which you can thread the needle to usefulness, but (A) I've never encountered one and (B) they are less than a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert of snake oil peddlers posing as "reviewers."

Looks like we’re going to disagree on that assessment.

Yes, you have noted this several times, but it is of no use to me as I have no way to assess its validity and no reason to want to do so anyway.

Yes. As I said a tool is only useful if you decide to use it.

You’ve decided it seems that exchange of subjective impressions is useless or not worth the hassle for you personally.
Which is of course perfectly fine.
I only object when it is implied to go beyond that, as if it were more like a feature of human beings that we can’t really fruitfully exchange information this way. That’s when it becomes obviously false.

That said, I guarantee that whatever adjectives you're referring to are also found in subjective reviews of other speakers that sound nothing like yours.

Sure, I wouldn’t expect the contrary. I don’t think there were too many new adjectives made up for the reviews I’m talking about.
But quite a number of the reviews depicted his speaker of exactly the characteristics I hear in the speaker, and making special mention of those certain characteristics.
Not all loudspeakers are described, precisely the same.

And as I’ve said I have described the sonic differences between certain loud speakers that others have found accurate and helpful when they were able to compare them.

Not that I’m expecting you to read it but HERE I wrote about the convergence of what others have described in speakers with my own experience

I once reviewed Shun Mook speakers because I first heard them in a store and found them intriguing. later on, I discovered that somebody at sound stage had reviewed them as well. The convergence of our descriptions was almost spot on, we were clearly hearing and describing the same speaker with the same characteristics.

Had a read the other guy’s review and sought the speakers out I would’ve heard pretty much exactly the speakers he described, and that I described.

Yes, when we have no other option, we must resort to semaphore, gesticulation, and metaphor.

I don’t think that characterization does justice to the actual functionality of such language in my industry.
In fact, a good subjective description can convey complex information more easily, and may convey ideas and information that would be hard to impossible to describe in any practical sense with measurements.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

You’ve decided it seems that exchange of subjective impressions is useless or not worth the hassle for you personally.

Not really: I've decided that determining whether it's useful or not is not worth the hassle for me personally. Which means the pragmatic choice is to ignore it in favor of input that I know is useful and whose usefulness I have already verified to my personal satisfaction. For instance, I've never read the ad-supported subjective gear review rags or watched the subjective gear review youtubers and it's not worth my time and effort to start doing so only to then also have to go listen to dozens? hundreds? of speakers, and those activities are necessary for me to make a determination about the reviewers' credibility.

I also already know that most of those reviewers have already publicly helped spread claims that we now know are demonstrably false (cables/dacs/amps, but of course also, and perhaps even more damning, they beat the drums for MQA, thereby carrying water for predatory industry practices).

You've mentioned a few times that Michael Fremer's subjective impressions appeal to you and resonate with your own, for example. Well, without needing to deny that claim, I have no qualms about categorizing Fremer as an unreliable source partly because he's on the record passing on untrammeled BS, anti-digital hysteria, MoFi lies, etc. but also because he's 79 years old and categorically has far, far greater hearing degradation than I do. This does not require any change in your opinion of him (obviously) but (hopefully) it makes clear that any attempt for me to try to read the tea leaves of his impressions would be a fool's errand.

can convey complex information more easily, and may convey ideas and information

can and may are too load-bearing here to really undermine my point. many things can and may happen. and when we have no alternative, it makes perfect sense for us to rely on methods whose effectiveness is conditional. my point is that when given a reliable, verifiable alternative, we should choose it without hesitation. As a musician, I'm sympathetic to the needs and practices of your field--my field too must rely very often on such figurativity.

But audio reproduction is an engineering problem, and I'm sure glad engineers have other, more reliable means of solving it. I want hifi equipment that is as close to solving that problem as possible so that does the best possible job of reproducing music, the sole reason I have the equipment in the first place. The existence in 2026 of hifi "journalists" and even hifi engineers/designers who bury their ostrich heads in the sand and insist on eschewing these demonstrably reliable means is more than a little discouraging. But I guess that's how it goes: there are still some horse-and-buggy truthers out there, after all.

 

[MattHooper]

Not really: I've decided that determining whether it's useful or not is not worth the hassle for me personally.

I get it and truly respect that view.

I also find much to agree with in the rest of what you wrote.

 

[Jaxx1138]

WOW, down the rabbit hole of conciousness and perception. What is reality? What do our metrics tell us about our reality. We still use our perception to make and read and\or discern those metrics. Then argue as to which measurent is showing us what we are hearing. We know what we like when we experience it. Then engineers and scientist run test in order to define what it is we like so we can replicate it. The privledge of first world problems.