Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[ZolaIII]

When you lack so much (methodology, precisely defined conditions, documentation... and scientific verification of all that) you naturally look from where you can borrow most of it with minimal need for adoption and verification.
What do you think about taking something like this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/noise8.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi0tsKasvD0AhVNyaQKHd5xBi4QFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Wp9UuJx8k75tHe1cPlPMN

I will take my time to study it and also a question what do you think would it be interesting to talk to specialists about it?

 

[MattHooper]

I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups, but to me, that's the largest distinction and the one that results in most other disagreements between the two groups.

I may have missed it but I only saw SIY use the term "uncontrolled." But what's the reference term? Do we say "people-who-believe-in-sighted listening" vs "people-who-believe-in-listening-controlling-for-sighted-bias? First...seems rather awkward to have to spell that out every time. But most of all, it doesn't seem sufficient to capture the range of the typical disagreements, and more important the REASON why those disagreements occur at all. For instance, it makes no mention of an attitude towards the use of measurements, which clearly is what divides this forum from many other audio forums.

This is why I think it is best identified as a difference in epistemology, not ONLY in method. I think someone can be..I'll use the term...an "objectivist" in believing the most reliable methods of evaluating audio gear involve measurements, correlated to listening, especially listening controlling for sighted biases. I don't think you have to be making audio equipment yourself, or even actively measure anything etc, so long as you would accede to the idea that IS the most reliable way to evaluate audio gear. Someone may merely avail himself of the work other people have done measuring and testing gear in this way, when buying gear.

So it seems to me that identifying the underlying approach, or attitude, upon which someone's method is BASED, is the best way to both EXPLAIN the divide we often see, as well as describe it. Whatever the terms turn out to be.

BTW, I 'd mentioned before, if we are a community trying to hash things out among us, it would seem best to avoid coming up with new terms that are simply derogatory of the other side. Those aren't likely to have any traction. It will be no better than calling the other side 'superstitious" and that side calling the other "Spocks" etc. Not if we really want to take this issue seriously. Hence...why I don't see SIY has offered a real alternative as of yet.

 

[pkane]

I may have missed it but I only saw SIY use the term "uncontrolled." But what's the reference term? Do we say "people-who-believe-in-sighted listening" vs "people-who-believe-in-listening-controlling-for-sighted-bias? First...seems rather awkward to have to spell that out every time. But most of all, it doesn't seem sufficient to capture the range of the typical disagreements, and more important the REASON why those disagreements occur at all. For instance, it makes no mention of an attitude towards the use of measurements, which clearly is what divides this forum from many other audio forums.

This is why I think it is best identified as a difference in epistemology, not ONLY in method. I think someone can be..I'll use the term...an "objectivist" in believing the most reliable methods of evaluating audio gear involve measurements, correlated to listening, especially listening controlling for sighted biases. I don't think you have to be making audio equipment yourself, or even actively measure anything etc, so long as you would accede to the idea that IS the most reliable way to evaluate audio gear. Someone may merely avail himself of the work other people have done measuring and testing gear in this way, when buying gear.

So it seems to me that identifying the underlying approach, or attitude, upon which someone's method is BASED, is the best way to both EXPLAIN the divide we often see, as well as describe it. Whatever the terms turn out to be.

Uncontrolled vs. controlled evaluation is the root of this epistemological divide, IMHO. All other disagreements stem from it. I don't care if you call the two groups objectivists/subjectivists or big endians vs. little endians (not the bit-order type, but the egg-breaking kind). The name doesn't change the root of the disagreement. Also, controlled evaluation is not limited to listening. It includes all controlled and repeatable evaluations. Example: measurements.

 

[Spkrdctr]

-Better specs even if they're not audible because they think it's cool
-More power for people who really need to blast themselves but their neighbors too
-Most people are not scientific minded and believe all kinds of woo woo, and they rely on their uncontrolled subjective experiences to aid in their purchase, leading them to think it sounds better. People tend to be overconfident in their abilities because (almost) everyone has a pair of ears and can hear and has experiences so they think it automatically makes them qualified in assessing audio quality
-Some people who make products believe in their own BS


Audio as a hobby is a notorious cesspool of antiscience. That's why I dislike being called an audiophile. I feel dirty being called that and some people will think I'm some kind of moron.

Well, I bolded the significant parts for me. I have said ad nauseum on this great site that to me "audibility" is everything. Chasing specs that are not and never will be audible is a waste of time in my opinion. On the flip side, people have an overwhelming ability to think they can hear things they can not hear. It happens daily. Another issue is people want to think a reviewer in a magazine or on YouTube can relay to them the way speakers sound. It is crazy. They can only relay what the speakers sound like in that room of the reviewer. It is an amazing waste of time and energy to listen to music from YouTube that was recorded in the reviewers room and then played back in your room on different speakers and expect to hear the difference in the reviewed speakers. It is just plain nuts. Of course, I know no one on this site would ever do that. I'm speaking to the great unwashed masses of audio purchasers.

The audio world is the most anti-science arena I can think of. So many BS theories made up while high on drugs or drunk are then manufactured and sold to a very gullible public. It is appalling, that is why I hang out here in ASR as I get so much less BS than at other sites. There is still a lot here but much, much less of it in total. Bored Erica, your post hit on my favorite hot buttons. Thanks for waking me up and getting my posting juices flowing!

 

[Kevinfc]

Let me offer a stripped down version of what I think is a, perhaps the, most relevant dissection of the discussion. The components which feed the speakers are best suited to evaluation by an objective standard.

Speakers on the other hand, should be more subjectively assessed. Variables, room shape, objects within the listening space, etc, are not easily measured within an objective standard, and therefore each speaker will preform differently within those constructs. I would also argue that a speakers measurements are less accurate because they are assessed by a means of measurement which is less precise than that of other components.

 

[MattHooper]

My understanding is the complaint is the "-ist's", which makes it doctrines which refute the opposite principle.

As I say, nothing is perfect, including practically any label we can think of "Democrat? Republican? Secular? Religious? Liberal? Conservative?"
and on and on. All labels fail to capture the full range of ideas, and yet there are trends that exist and need some form of reference.

So long as a label does in fact identify a real trend, that some significant number of people will essentially be described in that label, and if an opposing trend is identified in another group of people who fit that opposite label (e.g. Atheist/Theist), then even though plenty of people won't fit within it perfectly, it can act as a reference points along which one can place oneself.

You don't have to say you are either; you can explain in what way you are a mix of both (or if useful, come up with a different term). But insofar as the labels DO identify one vs another approach that people actually occupy, it seems they can be useful.

(And, btw, I generally don't like being labelled myself. But I'm also trying to face the facts that, inevitably, there are trends that exist, and that are going to be identified, and labels will arise...)

 

[BoredErica]

I think people who believe controlled testing is important or necessary information for sonic differences also tend to make purchases based on controlled testing/measurements/etc. But a person can believe it to be the case and say 'IDC if that's what's needed to really tell, I'm going to do whatever I want for myself. It's my money.' I think they can still be a perfectly good... objectivist? Controlled-test-believer? (Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like objectivist.) They aren't believing things on bad evidence.


I'm also fine with people who share their subjective uncontrolled experiences (IN THEORY) because humans like to share their experiences and I don't think we have 100% boiled all of speaker sound into measurements people can check and use correctly. The important thing for me is to always take experiences like these with huge grains of salt, including their own. Nobody is immune to cognitive biases like these. Be able and ready to admit perceived differences may not have anything to do with how it actually sounds. This is how I communicate with my friend when it comes to audio. We have a mutual understanding, so I know neither of us are crazy or will take what the other says and use it incorrectly.

otoh if you're trying to share with me how two dacs sound different when measurements show that shouldn't be possible, I'll give that subjective experience 0 weight and I think sharing those impressions only lead to bad things.

 

[pkane]

I think people who believe controlled testing is important or necessary information for sonic differences also tend to make purchases based on controlled testing/measurements/etc. But a person can believe it to be the case and say 'IDC if that's what's needed to really tell, I'm going to do whatever I want for myself. It's my money.' I think they can still be a perfectly good... objectivist? Controlled-test-believer? (Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like objectivist.) They aren't believing things on bad evidence.

What one buys is one's business and affects nobody but that person. I'm not about to second-guess why people buy things and I personally don't have the need to label them as anything.

 

[MattHooper]

Uncontrolled vs. controlled evaluation is the root of this epistemological divide, IMHO.

"Uncontrolled" testing and "controlled" testing aren't epistemologies, they are methods. They are an outcome of the epistemological divide. It's a method that arises from the epistemology, not the other way around. Therefore identifying the epistemology that LEADS one side to favor controlled vs uncontrolled seems more apt, and it also explains the wider attitude towards measurements. Identifying one's attitude towards the purely subjective evidence as a guide vs appeals to objective evidence seems the thing to identify, which explains the appeal to different methodologies. IMO.

And then...what is the reference anyway? "People who believe in uncontrolled testing" vs "People who believe in controlled testing?" Seems an awkward bunch of words, and you have to end up explaining it anyway. ("What is controlled testing, and why bother?" etc). And then people will still say "I don't fit neatly in to either of those descriptions!" (But some will!)

So I don't actually see this yet as moving anything forward.

 

[pkane]

"Uncontrolled" testing and "controlled" testing aren't epistemologies, they are methods. They are an outcome of the epistemological divide. It's a method that arises from the epistemology, not the other way around. Therefore identifying the epistemology that LEADS one side to favor controlled vs uncontrolled seems more apt, and it also explains the wider attitude towards measurements. Identifying one's attitude towards the purely subjective evidence as a guide vs appeals to objective evidence seems the thing to identify, which explains the appeal to different methodologies. IMO.

And then...what is the reference anyway? "People who believe in uncontrolled testing" vs "People who believe in controlled testing?" Seems an awkward bunch of words, and you have to end up explaining it anyway. ("What is controlled testing, and why bother?" etc). And then people will still say "I don't fit neatly in to either of those descriptions!" (But some will!)

So I don't actually see this yet as moving anything forward.

Are you interested in naming it or defining it? You seem to be interested in picking the "right" name, which to me, is unimportant. Given my definition I can quickly decide if one belongs in one camp or the other. Your definition is way too fuzzy to be useful. In fact, I can't even decide if I belong to one camp or the other myself, based on what you wrote:

OBJECTIVIST: believes informal subjective listening impressions in of themselves are neither reliable enough nor sensitive enough to understand how audio gear performs. Therefore the objectivist holds that we can only “KNOW” how equipment performs by appeal to objective measurements, and by correlating measurements to listening tests, especially listening tests using scientific controls for bias.

 

[Geert]

"Uncontrolled" testing and "controlled" testing aren't epistemologies, they are methods. They are an outcome of the epistemological divide

I believe subjectivism and objectivism are also an outcome, of feeling versus critical thinking.

 

[Firefly00]

A poll so you can tell us what you think. There is a thread dedicated to whether measurements tell us everything here. We probably shouldn't argue at length about subjectivism vs objectivism here and just state our opinions because there's a dedicated thread for debate. Keep in mind the question is only related to audio quality... Not about your thoughts on longevity of products, aesthetics, or even things like 'SINAD tunnel vision'.

---
My personal thoughts:

Personally I am a hard objectivist. Measurements to me tell me almost everything I care to know sonically. I leave some room for doubt depending on what it is we're talking about, but I take every single subjective claim with large chunks of salt, including my own. I met waaaay too many people who are so sure about their own senses crumble to pieces as soon as they are tested in a controlled environment. I'm glad the airplane I ride on was built with objective metrics and scientific thinking, and the medicine I take taken through randomized controlled trials rather than doled out to random people who showed up at the door who want to try the drug and give their impressions. Subjective opinions about how things sound are a dime a dozen and people tell me all kinds of stuff that are impossible.

Subjectivity is fine when it's tested in controlled circumstances. Controlled testing of many people have shown that people have certain preferences when it comes to sound. Those preferences can mostly be explained with measurements. Moreso with dacs/amps, a bit less so with speakers, and a bit less than that for headphones (which themselves can vary due to fit on the head). Even with headphones I value measurements highly. While not literally perfect, that are pretty darn good. I'd much rather navigate a foreign land with a compass and reading the stars in the sky versus stumbling around in the dark with no good info on where to go. I am skeptical of most subjective claims particularly when they contradict the best tools I have.

Again, I don't want people to be afraid of voting and stating their opinions so it'd be nice if we didn't get into hardcore debates in this thread.

Thanks

Neutral. What I hear at the end of the day is the most important thing. Measurements to ensure I get a high fidelity system that is giving me the most accurate reproduction possible.

 

[KellenVancouver]

For DACs/electronics there is a solid foundation for objectivity. On the other hand, in Amir's estimation 70% to 80% of speaker quality is based on measurement. Since the speaker is the final output from an audio system, as heard by our inherently subjective ears and brains, that leaves a significant portion of final audio experience subject to human interpretation, i.e., subjectivity. That seems to put the "hard" and "ultra" objectivist perspectives on less than solid ground.

 

[Robh3606]

I don't see how you can be one or the other. It makes no sense to me which is why I said both.

I am a DIY speaker builder so I have a couple of box programs and 2 measurement systems. I start with a concept, purchase the drivers, design the cabinets and then take measurements of the drivers mounted in the cabinets.

Then it's on to a crossover simulation program that uses the measurements to design a crossover. Build the crossover and then put it all together.

From there take a set of baseline measurements and compare them to the original design predictions. Once they are within an acceptable window call it done and then start listening evaluations.

I typically will design in attenuation for drivers to have some adjustability.

I set the attenuation based on my subjective impressions of how the completed speaker sounds in the room.

My point is I could not design a speaker without the measurement and simulation software which is obviously all based on Objective measurements and simulations.

When all of that is completed the speakers are ultimately voiced using subjective evaluations.

Can't complete this process unless you do both. I see this Objective vs Subjective as a dead end.

Rob

 

[ahofer]

Whether or not one is an objectivist can only be subjectively defined, I guess.

 

[Trell]

Are you interested in naming it or defining it? You seem to be interested in picking the "right" name, which to me, is unimportant. Given my definition I can quickly decide if one belongs in one camp or the other. Your definition is way too fuzzy to be useful. In fact, I can't even decide if I belong to one camp or the other myself, based on what you wrote:

Both the naming and the definition is important in order to have a useful discussion.

 

[BoredErica]

Whether or not one is an objectivist can only be subjectively defined, I guess.

Can you do a double blind test to prove that?

 

[pkane]

Both the naming and the definition is important in order to have a useful discussion.

Already solved the naming problem: Big Endian vs. Little Endian.

 

[gsp1971]

I am fascinated by the recurrence of this subject which comes back through the door, the window, the cellar or the roof.

Why ?

Because it sells.
As they say in the news business, if it bleeds it leads.

 

[tuga]

I enjoyed reading this attempt at bridging the gap by Brüel & Kjær's Henning Møller. The piece, called Multidimensional Audio, presented at the 59th AES Convention in 1978 (attached).

Møller is the man behind the research which led to the B&K target curve for speakers (also attached).