Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[Timcognito]

Sense. Audio is entirely subjective. To suggest its objective is nonsense.

Dude, you are in for a world of hurt at ASR.

 

[Purité Audio]

Which brings us again back to: "So what, why care what's on the record?"

In other words, what's the purpose of reproducing what's on the record? Are those seeking to accurately reproduce the signal on the record simply engaging in some sort of science experiment? (Presumably not, as that is the classic strawman often posed by "subjectivists.").

Or...is the underlying motivation to enjoy music playback on one's system? Or...?

That’s fine, then you can use the most distortion laden playback you can find which should be really a, inexpensive or b, hugely expensive Audio Note, Zu, SET amps etc, neither are high-fidelity though.
I became interested in this hobby because on good quality equipment I could simply hear more, I remain interested for exactly the same reason.
Keith

 

[SuicideSquid]

That would be an interesting research question: why does video quality not generate a similar divide? Is it because sound and music are more difficult to judge and stir emotions differently?

You can put two TVs side by side simultaneously, or flip between a "calibrated" and "uncalibrated" setting with the touch of a button. When comparing audio equipment, you can't listen to multiple sets of speakers (or anything else) simultaneously - you have to switch between them, which often takes time, so you can only compare what you're listening to to the memory of what you previously heard.

It's a lot harder to be bamboozled by your memory (or a snake oil salesman) when you're able to do a side-by-side comparison than when you have to compare one-at-a-time.

That being said, lots of people crank the contrast, colour, and sharpness on their sets to max and engage motion smoothing.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

I read all "those" Hi-Fi magazines.

I don't think we should shame that. I still subscribe to Stereophile and like to read many websites and blogs. They help inform my decision making, but they don't define my opinions. Plus they're fun!

 

[Count Arthur]

I don't think we should shame that. I still subscribe to Stereophile and like to read many websites and blogs. They help inform my decision making, but they don't define my opinions. Plus they're fun!

I still read some of them, but with a great deal more scepticism than I did in the past.

There is one particular web site, that I won't name, but they have a scoring system, that presumaby tops out at ten. If you look at the scores and the prices of the things they are reviewing, there's pretty much a direct correlation between them, the higher the price, the higher the score.

If you look at Amir's measurements and reviews, you'll see that there's often very little correlation between price and performance, sometimes almost comically so.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

I still read some of them, but with a great deal more scepticism than I did in the past.

There is one particular web site, that I won't name, but they have a scoring system, that presumaby tops out at ten. If you look at the scores and the prices of the things they are reviewing, there's pretty much a direct correlation between them, the higher the price, the higher the score.

If you look at Amir's measurements and reviews, you'll see that there's often very little correlation between price and performance, sometimes almost comically so.

Do you work at this website? Why not name them?

I do find a lot of websites tend to favor higher priced gear for no reason other than price. Part of me thinks it's just to appease the high buyers who also value brand/appearance or something else. Same reason my Macy's brand cashmere sweater costs a mere fraction of the same looking Versace one.

 

[Axo1989]

I don't read SBAF (I had a look once and it seemed to deal only with equipmet that is over my budget) but I seem to recall reading about a fallout between them and a few here. The title is more indicative of sorrow than an overt attack, wouldn't you say?

Looks like they closed that one almost immediately, I don't think a proliferation of anti-ASR threads is being encouraged.

 

[MattHooper]

That’s fine, then you can use the most distortion laden playback you can find which should be really a, inexpensive or b, hugely expensive Audio Note, Zu, SET amps etc, neither are high-fidelity though.
I became interested in this hobby because on good quality equipment I could simply hear more, I remain interested for exactly the same reason.
Keith

I wasn't asking for permission to use colorations, it was a deeper question for others like yourself.

But that's fine. Like I've said before, in no way would I want to impune your (or anyone else's) goals for your stereo. As a fellow enthusiast, I can't help being curious about underlying assumptions, implications and all that.

 

[MattHooper]

You can put two TVs side by side simultaneously, or flip between a "calibrated" and "uncalibrated" setting with the touch of a button. When comparing audio equipment, you can't listen to multiple sets of speakers (or anything else) simultaneously - you have to switch between them, which often takes time, so you can only compare what you're listening to to the memory of what you previously heard.

It's a lot harder to be bamboozled by your memory (or a snake oil salesman) when you're able to do a side-by-side comparison than when you have to compare one-at-a-time.

That being said, lots of people crank the contrast, colour, and sharpness on their sets to max and engage motion smoothing.

Back in the analog video cable days, in the videophile world it was, unfortunately, much like the audiophile world. Every high end cable company was getting in on the goods "Nordost S-Video or component cables" and the like, for big bucks. Video cables were reviewed like audio cables for their magical properties "X cable gave much richer black levels, better clarity, richer color" etc. The thing about video cables, though, is that even back then there was less wiggle room for this nonsense. If a cable actually produced a sharper image, it would show up objectively on a resolution pattern. You'd literally be able to see certain line/patterns resolved by "cable A" that were'nt resolved by "cable B" if it were true.

Similarly, there were plenty of people around doing calibrations - pros and enthusiasts - using sensors for color, contrast that were much more reliable and sensitive than the human eye (which is why they were used!). If you had your display calibrated professionally you'd be given a report, a graph showing the objective changes rendered in contrast and color accuracy. Yet no one ever, that I can recall, produced a single bit of objective evidence like this for the claims made about video cables. None of the cable companies, no users, zero professional calibrationists. Not surprisingly.

I remember how easy it was to feel like I was seeing differences between my regular cheap video cables and borrowed expensive cables (and ones I had made as well). Being very suspicious of this I did some blind tests and found out of course there was no reliable difference. I then organized a larger sort of blind test between a range of cables (all the way up to Nordost) with lots of AVS members and the results were predictably random.

Thankfully much of that nonsense went away once HDMI took over and it was hard to push the idea that an expensive HDMI cable could make an image "look better" than a properly functioning cheap cable. It's mostly gone, but there is of course still expensive HDMI cables out there for those with good imaginations. A fellow on another forum started a thread about how much better his TV image looked with his new $1,000 HDMI cable and no technical explanations I pointed to about why his claim is literally impossible would land. Even quotes from the technology representative of the HDMI consortium, about how any functioning HDMI cable produce, by the very nature of the technology, the same image, could budge this person's view.

Subjective experience is a mighty powerful thing.

 

[krabapple]

Deep down "objectivists" are just like "subjectivists", it's only their belief system that is different (they adore measurements and believe in objectivist messiahs).

OMG I feels SEEN

But interestingly "subjectivists" tend not to bash "objectivists"...

LOL. That's either a joke, cluelessness, or a lie.

Quite boringly, the objectivist-bashing often takes a form similar to your first sentence up there. Usually something about objectivists adoring measurements more than *listening*, the poor souls. Bonus: something about objectivists being motivated by jealousy of audiophiles who own expensive gear.

Can it be you've never read the pompous condescension along those lines in The Absolute Sound, or Stereophile....or any number of online analogs ..for decades now?

 

[tuga]

You can put two TVs side by side simultaneously, or flip between a "calibrated" and "uncalibrated" setting with the touch of a button. When comparing audio equipment, you can't listen to multiple sets of speakers (or anything else) simultaneously - you have to switch between them, which often takes time, so you can only compare what you're listening to to the memory of what you previously heard.

It's a lot harder to be bamboozled by your memory (or a snake oil salesman) when you're able to do a side-by-side comparison than when you have to compare one-at-a-time.

That being said, lots of people crank the contrast, colour, and sharpness on their sets to max and engage motion smoothing.

I didn't even know there was such a thing as "motion smoothing"... I usually just turn down sharpness and saturation in a very subjective manner, just as I tone down the treble in any car I drive. I don't care whether it is accurately reproducing the signal.

 

[tuga]

OMG I feels SEEN



LOL. That's either a joke, cluelessness, or a lie.

Quite boringly, the objectivist-bashing often takes a form similar to your first sentence up there. Usually something about objectivists adoring measurements more than *listening*, the poor souls. Bonus: something about objectivists being motivated by jealousy of audiophiles who own expensive gear.

Can it be you've never read the pompous condescension along those lines in The Absolute Sound, or Stereophile....or any number of online analogs ..for decades now?

You've mistaken me for someone else. surely. I am seen as an objectivist in other forums and have been subject to abuse more than a few times. It's still annoying to see all the "subjectivist" bashing here at ASR and your post is a case in point.

I have a very rational approach to audio and I don't read reviews (TAS, WHF, Amir, or anyone else's), but unlike many likeminded audiophiles I accept that other may prefer to practice the hobby in a different manner.

 

[krabapple]

I don't read SBAF (I had a look once and it seemed to deal only with equipmet that is over my budget) but I seem to recall reading about a fallout between them and a few here. The title is more indicative of sorrow than an overt attack, wouldn't you say?

Do you read an overt attack in the title of this thread?

 

[Geert]

Which brings us again back to: "So what, why care what's on the record?"

In other words, what's the purpose of reproducing what's on the record? Are those seeking to accurately reproduce the signal on the record simply engaging in some sort of science experiment? (Presumably not, as that is the classic strawman often posed by "subjectivists."). Or...is the underlying motivation to enjoy music playback on one's system? Or...?

Which brings us to the question: is optimal musical joy to be expected from a bad measuring system (uneven frequency respons, distortion, bad directivity, clipping, terrible room interaction... ), or can tuning such a system using objectives principles make it sound more to your liking?

Altough I'm a pro when it comes to sound, I have no problem to admit measurements and other objective data can help me a lot. Altough in my professional network I was already known for my excellent hearing, I was one of the first sound engineers to start using measuring equipment to tune PA systems. It made a hughe difference.

On the other side we have subjectivist with no formal training, believing they don't need blind listening or volume matching, claiming they can build the ultimate system by ear. I heard such systems

 

[Mart68]

I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. That their ignorance costs them money is entirely their problem.

What I do have a problem with is them encouraging others to follow in their footsteps, recommending they buy expensive tat and accessories that do nothing. I've seen plenty of people new to the hobby waste considerable amounts of money on rubbish because they believed that there was a consensus amongst the 'more experienced' that this stuff was not only worth having, but a basic requirement.

I was new once and back then there were no forums or internet, just dealers and magazines pushing the nonsense. It appeared that their was a consensus. As a result poor decisions were made. I had no chance of getting it right.

I think people who no nothing but want to learn and want to put together a top class replay system without spending more than is necessary deserve to receive correct advice, or at the very least to be exposed to the idea that there is not a consensus of 'Trust your ears.'

It's not subjectivists being 'bashed' it's the wrong ideas and concepts that they promote that are being bashed. And they need to be bashed, continually and comprehensively.

 

[tuga]

What I do have a problem with is them encouraging others to follow in their footsteps, recommending they buy expensive tat and accessories that do nothing. I've seen plenty of people new to the hobby waste considerable amounts of money on rubbish because they believed that there was a consensus amongst the 'more experienced' that this stuff was not only worth having, but a basic requirement.

I agree with this.

It's not subjectivists being 'bashed' it's the wrong ideas and concepts that they promote that are being bashed. And they need to be bashed, continually and comprehensively.

I don't think that "subjectivists" (audiophiles, antivaxxers, Tramp or Brexit supporters, etc.) are sensitive to reason and logic. Any evidence based argumentation is lost in them, they just go with their gut...
And when you attak their ideas they feel that they are themselves under attack.

 

[Geert]

I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. That their ignorance costs them money is entirely their problem.

Exactly. I see this being repeated on the forum almost on a daily base, but people insist to ignore it so they can attack a straw man.

What I do have a problem with is them encouraging others to follow in their footsteps, recommending they buy expensive tat and accessories that do nothing.

That was also my thinking, but I learned certain people enjoy being sold a dream.They don't like people popping the balloon. It's why objectivists get bashed (or contained in a separate section) at a lot of forums.

 

[Mart68]

I agree with this.


I don't think that "subjectivists" (audiophiles, antivaxxers, Tramp or Brexit supporters, etc.) are sensitive to reason and logic. Any evidence based argumentation is lost in them, they just go with their gut...

Yes, and it's pointless trying to reach them because the Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong, but with people new to the whole thing there is still a chance.

They should at least be made aware that there is an alternative approach and that they do not have to spend silly money to get a system that is going to give them the sort of quality replay they are aspiring to.

I wonder how many people are put off the idea of buying a proper hi-fi system altogether by the perceived price of entry? More than a few I suspect.

 

[tuga]

Yes, and it's pointless trying to reach them because the Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong, but with people new to the whole thing there is still a chance.

They should at least be made aware that there is an alternative approach and that they do not have to spend silly money to get a system that is going to give them the sort of quality replay they are aspiring to.

I wonder how many people are put off the idea of buying a proper hi-fi system altogether by the perceived price of entry? More than a few I suspect.

I think that we must first make a distinction between the general public and the audiophile consumer.
The former will probably own one or three systems in his lifetime, the latter takes pleasure in box-swapping. You can argue that digital EQ will in some ways produce the same effects but they'll rightly reply that there's no fun in that...

 

[Geert]

You can argue that digital EQ will in some ways produce the same effects but they'll rightly reply that there's no fun in that...

They argue EQ-ing is detrimental to sound quality. And that's a typical example of subjective statements that deserve to be challenged. Which has nothing to do with bashing.