Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[tuga]

Building a system (from a performance perspective) should always be based on objective principles. To try and build a system based on subjective views of how components "sound" and "synergies" is a shortcut to madness and bankruptcy.

Or a hobby. Audiophilia?

 

[Jimbob54]

Or a hobby. Audiophilia?

All hobbies are just the Devil's invention to bankrupt you. Or God's most joyous creation to justify time away from obligations and drudgery.

 

[Inner Space]

I'm goal-oriented, and my goal is accuracy - I want the compressions and rarefactions in the atmosphere near my ears to be prompted only by the bits in the incoming file, nothing else, with nothing taken away, and nothing added.

That's easy enough to achieve "in the box", from the file to the far end of my speaker cables, and is verified by measurement.

Then I depart a bit from majority ASR orthodoxy in that I want to continue the accuracy all the way through the speakers and through the air in my room, all the way to my ears. Many members here extol the appeal of a roomful of reverberation noise and spurious, amplitude-altered, time-delayed acoustic signals. They call it "envelopment" or "spaciousness", whereas I call it inaccuracy. Those additions were not in the incoming file.

Therefore I eliminate the room environment by physical means, and measure the end result. The closer I get - acoustically - to the signal measured at the end of the speaker cables, the happier I am. Whether that makes me an objectivist or just plain weird, I'm not sure.

 

[gmoney]

Kind of inbetween I guess. I have terribly tuned ears and can only discern the difference in presentation (imaging/depth, etc). I can't hear the 1-2db discrepancies in measurements between speakers or difference in Amps other than loudness.

This doesn't stop me from wanting the best performance though. I like knowing it's quality stuff even if I can't hear it. Call me crazy.

 

[tuga]

All hobbies are just the Devil's invention to bankrupt you. Or God's most joyous creation to justify time away from obligations and drudgery.

Perhaps a side-effect of post-industrialism called free-time. Then came consumerism and that's how we ended up with a moribund planet at the verge of nt being able to sustain human life for much longer...

 

[SIY]

From the Oxford Dic –> https://www.lexico.com/definition/subjective

subjective​

• Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
  Contrasted with objective
  
  ‘his views are highly subjective’
  
  
  
• Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
  
  ‘Things are even more difficult when probabilities are subjective and individual beliefs may differ.’
  

Exactly. It does not mean "evaluated without any controls."

 

[MattHooper]

I hope that one day I will live in a world where "subjective" means "subjective," and is not tortured to stand in for "uncontrolled."

Some people still wish "Gay" meant "carefree." ;-)

Once words become used in a certain way, that becomes their meaning.

But I think part of why your wish isn't going to be realistic is that you seem to be conflating the term "subjective" with "subjectiVIST."

And we have been discussing subjectiVISTS or subjectiVISM.

As soon as you add the suffix, it means something distinct.

Just like there is a difference denoted by the words "Empirical" and "Empiricist." Or "Rational" vs "Rationalist."

One word concerns a general phenomenon - e.g. experience or reason. Adding the suffix denotes an epistemological stance regarding those phenomena. The Empiricist holds that empirical experience is the chief source of knowledge, vs the Rationalist holding reason as being the chief source of knowledge.

All sides agree we experience audio subjectively, but the term "Subjectivist" has come to describe someone who has taken the epistemological stance that subjective impression is a reliable path to knowledge (e.g. "IF I perceive X to be different than Y, then it's true X is different than Y).

I really do think most of us understand that subjectivity is part of audio, and also that in the audiophile world "subjectivist" generally means those in the "Trust My Ears Above All Else" camp.

 

[Chr1]

I am beginning to think that I am best just going back to reading reviews and specific forum posts l useful information. These type of general philosophical discussions just make me think that we are a weird diverse bunch.
As a race and as hobbyists. WTF.

 

[tuga]

In my view a subjectvist assesment is taste-driven and an objectivist one is observation-driven.
The latter requires training and controlled conditions, and it's the only one which can be shared and meaninful to others.

 

[Chr1]

Sorry. Bad typing. Slightly intoxicated. Doh.

 

[Jimbob54]

I am beginning to think that I am best just going back to reading reviews and specific forum posts l useful information. These type of general philosophical discussions just make me think that we are a weird diverse bunch.
As a race and as hobbyists. WTF.

Welcome to interweb forii!

 

[Timcognito]

How it measures is one thing and how easy it is to setup and use is another. Both are part audio gear and the listening experience. There is no way around subjective judgement unless you just read about the measurements and even then that othen beckons debate (around here anyway) leaving some things undefined.

 

[Ataraxia]

The irony of 'subjectivism' is that it ignores the influence of the subject (i.e. the listener) on the perceived audio quality. Ears are not instruments.

Whoaa, this is so, "quantum."

 

[SIY]

Some people still wish "Gay" meant "carefree." ;-)

Once words become used in a certain way, that becomes their meaning.

It's only used this way in niche audio. And fuzzy thinking is then inevitable.

If you want usage eristics, "objectivism" means "a school of philosophy inspired by some poorly-edited sludgy writing in the 20th century."

 

[MattHooper]

In my view a subjectvist assesment is taste-driven and an objectivist one is observation-driven.
The latter requires training and controlled conditions, and it's the only one which can be shared and meaninful to others.

I can see why you could take that personal viewpoint.

But I would argue unless you see it as an epistemological - theory of knowledge - division, you won't really capture what's going on in the divide, and debates, between "subjectivists" and "objectivists."

Even when the "objectivist" points out that subjective experience is an essential part of audio, including research, it will remain the case that there is a divide in the epistemological role subjective experience plays in getting at what is true about audio gear.

 

[MattHooper]

It's only used this way in niche audio. And fuzzy thinking is then inevitable.

Agreed about the problem of fuzzy thinking.

This is why I sought to clear up the problem of conflating "subjective" with "subjectivism." That is between the use of the term "subjective" vs "subjectiVIST" as used in this thread, and how it is typically applied. That's an attempt at conceptual clarity.

Did you agree with my clarification? If not, I'm curious why not?

 

[Ataraxia]

What does everyone make of this letter from the Vice President of Benchmark? I found it while researching the AHB2. Peter is not me but someone from that thread.

Peter,

This is John Siau, VP of Benchmark.

Thanks for taking the time to document your experience with the Benchmark AHB2.

The AHB2 is well suited to use with high-efficiency speakers. The low noise allows noise-free operation with very high efficiency speakers.

Of equal importance, the AHB2 virtually eliminates the zero-crossing distortion that is normally produced conventional Class AB push-pull output stages. This is especially important for high efficiency speakers because the amplifier will spend so much time in low power region where crossover distortion can become most audible. The AHB2 behaves like a Class-A amplifier in that it is free from this very objectionable form of distortion.

But the AHB2 isn't for everyone. If you prefer an amplifier that enhances your listening experience then the AHB2 is not for you.

Your SET amplifier is specifically intended to add the euphonic qualities produced by the single-ended tube topology. This specific character is produced by the unique non-linearities that are characteristic of single-ended tube topology. The SET topology provides significant coloring of the music in a way that many people enjoy. If this is what you prefer, then you will be very unhappy with most other power amplifiers.

The AHB2 and SET amplifiers are on the very opposite end of the spectrum. You are completely correct when you say that the difference is dramatic.

The AHB2 is a much different listening experience. In contrast to an SET amplifier, the AHB2 is designed to be virtually distortion-free. The output of the AHB2 will sound exactly like the input. The AHB2 will not enhance or improve what goes in.

Please understand that this is a mater of taste. Many people enjoy the coloration produced by SET amplifiers.

Amplifiers can fall into three categories:

1) Amplifiers that add nothing to the audio
2) Amplifiers that add musically-disturbing distortion
3) Amplifiers that add musically pleasing coloration

The AHB2 falls into category 1, your SET amplifier falls into category 3.

Technically "coloration" is distortion but I think the word "distortion" gives a completely misleading description of something that may actually enhance the sound.

Again, it comes down to a matter of preference.

Here's the link if anyone is interested:

Audiogon Discussion Forum

My current amplifier, driven by Benchmark DAC3 HGC, is Rowland model 102. It is basically couple of Icepower 200ASC modules packed into resonance free ...

forum.audiogon.com

 

[Graph Feppar]

I am ultra hardcore 1337 xXx420megaObjectivist69xXx however, I do recognize measurements are in current stage of human technology, almost always flawed in many ways.

See, I do believe in measurements, but when I hear something measurements dont show, I start considering that maybe the measurement results were faulty. I strongly think the audiophile world is full of snake oil salesmen who spread lies so silly that they would be laughed at in any community that has deep knowledge on physics of sound, electronics and psychoacoustics such as electronic engineers, digital signal processing programmers or even physics and math teachers.

There are two kinds of people, the smart but greedy liars, and the dumb and naive consumers. There is so much untrue things believed in audiophile community that we are often seen as bunch of crazy fools who blow huge amounts of money chasing our next dose of placebo. Sadly, the term audiophool is often accurate description of audio technology ethusiast.

Expensive silver cables, audiophile USB cables, power filters, anything with word graphene, nano, quantum, femto or beryllium, R2R dacs, MQA, DSD, sampling rates above 48KHz, 99.999999999999999% pure copper cryo treated by Sub Zero from Mortal Combat, no reconstruction filters, minimum phase or slow roll off filters, all selectable filters on dac except linear phase brickwall, tubes, vinyl, "euphonic distortion", thin diaphragms on planars and stats and the list goes on...

Wise man once said.

 

[Robin L]

What does everyone make of this letter from the Vice President of Benchmark? I found it while researching the AHB2. Peter is not me but someone from that thread.

Peter,

This is John Siau, VP of Benchmark.

Thanks for taking the time to document your experience with the Benchmark AHB2.

The AHB2 is well suited to use with high-efficiency speakers. The low noise allows noise-free operation with very high efficiency speakers.

Of equal importance, the AHB2 virtually eliminates the zero-crossing distortion that is normally produced conventional Class AB push-pull output stages. This is especially important for high efficiency speakers because the amplifier will spend so much time in low power region where crossover distortion can become most audible. The AHB2 behaves like a Class-A amplifier in that it is free from this very objectionable form of distortion.

But the AHB2 isn't for everyone. If you prefer an amplifier that enhances your listening experience then the AHB2 is not for you.

Your SET amplifier is specifically intended to add the euphonic qualities produced by the single-ended tube topology. This specific character is produced by the unique non-linearities that are characteristic of single-ended tube topology. The SET topology provides significant coloring of the music in a way that many people enjoy. If this is what you prefer, then you will be very unhappy with most other power amplifiers.

The AHB2 and SET amplifiers are on the very opposite end of the spectrum. You are completely correct when you say that the difference is dramatic.

The AHB2 is a much different listening experience. In contrast to an SET amplifier, the AHB2 is designed to be virtually distortion-free. The output of the AHB2 will sound exactly like the input. The AHB2 will not enhance or improve what goes in.

Please understand that this is a mater of taste. Many people enjoy the coloration produced by SET amplifiers.

Amplifiers can fall into three categories:

1) Amplifiers that add nothing to the audio
2) Amplifiers that add musically-disturbing distortion
3) Amplifiers that add musically pleasing coloration

The AHB2 falls into category 1, your SET amplifier falls into category 3.

Technically "coloration" is distortion but I think the word "distortion" gives a completely misleading description of something that may actually enhance the sound.

Again, it comes down to a matter of preference.

Here's the link if anyone is interested:

Audiogon Discussion Forum

My current amplifier, driven by Benchmark DAC3 HGC, is Rowland model 102. It is basically couple of Icepower 200ASC modules packed into resonance free ...

forum.audiogon.com

Like the dude said in "Say Man":

"I do believe the man is RIGHT!"

I mean, you might not like the SET sound, but it sure is different.

 

[MattHooper]

There are two kinds of people, the smart but greedy liars, and the dumb and naive consumers. There is so much untrue things believed in audiophile community that we are often seen as bunch of crazy fools who blow huge amounts of money chasing our next dose of placebo. Sadly, the term audiophool is often accurate description of audio technology ethusiast.

Cynicism is understandable, but I'm sure there's some nuance in the spread of folks in to high end gear

It seems to me that audio gear (among audiophiles) excites the "shiny toy/gadget" part of the (mostly male) audiophile brain. GEAR! YAY!
But the fact is most audiophile consumers just don't have much real knowledge about engineering or electrical theory or about how audio gear (and perception) actually works. So they are susceptible to any intriguing technical story the manufacturer attaches to the gear, and unable to really assess the claims. And it's why you see in the more subjective-based forums (and reviews) lots of "folk style" "explanations" for why something may sound one way or another. Really just winging it without the knowledge. But...that's enough for many people.

I put myself sort of in that camp. Audio gear excites some nodule in my brain, and I still have a limited technical knowledge vs many here in terms of the engineering. I just try to keep myself mostly in check by looking at what people with more knowledge have to say on the subject.
(And also: not falling in to a rut of only thinking ONE person has the truth on it: even when it gets to the science/engineering part, knowledgeable people will still have disagreements).