-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?
- Thread starter BoredErica
- Start date
-
- Tags
- poll
symphara
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2021
- Messages
- 632
- Likes
- 592
I'm an objectivist but I'm not sure about two things:
(1) that everything that's relevant is being measured.
As in, if we had a discussion about kitchen tables - let's say mine is 250x110, and I measured it carefully - and then everyone else trusts this type of measurement, and agrees it's relevant, but some people think it's the only possible measurement we can make about the table, then I'm a bit lost. In this simple example, we have some obvious things we do not quantify (height, materials, feet, geometry) but in the audio domain there could be things we haven't even though about measuring. Bohr didn't know about electron spin and he was a genius.
(2) that we have a good enough grasp of the correlation between measurement and preference. As in, at which point a better measurement doesn't matter, and given a certain measurement, what's my predicted reaction to hearing the equipment in question. Will I like it, love it, hate it, meh?
As we go from electronics to speakers, my doubts increase.
(1) that everything that's relevant is being measured.
As in, if we had a discussion about kitchen tables - let's say mine is 250x110, and I measured it carefully - and then everyone else trusts this type of measurement, and agrees it's relevant, but some people think it's the only possible measurement we can make about the table, then I'm a bit lost. In this simple example, we have some obvious things we do not quantify (height, materials, feet, geometry) but in the audio domain there could be things we haven't even though about measuring. Bohr didn't know about electron spin and he was a genius.
(2) that we have a good enough grasp of the correlation between measurement and preference. As in, at which point a better measurement doesn't matter, and given a certain measurement, what's my predicted reaction to hearing the equipment in question. Will I like it, love it, hate it, meh?
As we go from electronics to speakers, my doubts increase.
DanielT
Major Contributor
It sounds good, what you say. Of course you should test. I think more people should do that. Experiment and find what fits. In addition, I now see in this thread that it is discussed whether it can possibly be nice with colored tube )I think it was meant to be) sound (deviation from straight frequency response, audible distortion ... possibly audible distortion). Same there, just test.
How do you know if a pair of electrostats, dipole speakers, panel speakers fit your sound ideal just by reading tests on such speakers? The same solution there, it's just to try.
However, power tube amplifiers and electrostatic speakers can be quite expensive, but apart from that. Try.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,365
- Likes
- 3,552
I'm mostly science-minded but allow for some sentimental silliness because for me this is a hobby, and not everything needs to make sense. Hence, tubes and vinyl may creep in sometimes. But even there, a bit of science can make for better sound. And happily, the scientific approach is often pretty economical too.
DanielT
Major Contributor
HAF?In essence, WAF is still something I deal with, except I am the WAF!
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,448
- Likes
- 4,813
100% objectivist, but with a couple of caveats
1) my objectivity includes an objective assessment of my sensory abilities which means that I don't give a damn about extreme objective performance.
2) I don't let my objectivity interfere with my subjective enjoyment.
Objectivity matters when it comes to bogus claims of magical performance or when the aim is to maximize the benefit/cost equation.
1) my objectivity includes an objective assessment of my sensory abilities which means that I don't give a damn about extreme objective performance.
2) I don't let my objectivity interfere with my subjective enjoyment.
Objectivity matters when it comes to bogus claims of magical performance or when the aim is to maximize the benefit/cost equation.
In the case of a table, the relevant measurements are of course width and length, but also height off the ground, and material for the top, as these determine the usefulness of the article as a table. Similarly, in the case of an amplifier, the relevant measurements are power output, frequency response, noise and distortion. These parameters determining its usefulness as an amplifier. In both the case of a table and an amplifier, there are other considerations, apart from the objective, functional aspects that will determine how desirable both the table and the amplifier will be, including but not limited to, looks, style of legs, style of control knobs, facilities (drawers, extending leaves, tone controls, headphone sockets) price, longevity in terms of materials used in the construction and design.
In other words, the functionality of an article, whatever it is, can be defined in objective terms, but the joy of ownership and desirability depend on additional subjective factors. Even the objective specification ends up with subjectivity insofar as perhaps not every ideal specification is met in an object, and some subjective judgement has to be exercised in what compromises one can make, is a slightly shorter table acceptable, especially if that shorter one is a bit wider, or just nicer to look at?
With anything except trivial purchases, I draw up a mental specification, and buy the closest I can get to that, but there's still a lot of subjectivity involved in deciding between alternatives.
S.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
It sounds good, what you say. Of course you should test. I think more people should do that. Experiment and find what fits. In addition, I now see in this thread that it is discussed whether it can possibly be nice with colored tube sound (deviation from straight frequency response, audible distortion ... possibly audible distortion). Same there, just test.
How do you know if a pair of electrostats, dipole speakers, panel speakers fit your sound ideal just by reading tests on such speakers? The same solution there, it's just to try.
However, power tube amplifiers and electrostatic speakers can be quite expensive, but apart from that. Try.
All sorts of things can sound "good." All sorts of colorations can sound "good." Nobody here is saying you shouldn't buy the gear you want to buy. Nobody is saying you shouldn't like having an amp that has all sorts of harmonic distortion if that's what you want. Go for it. But your personal predilections of tonality really have no bearing on mine. What you like isn't necessarily what I like. Your preferences are useless as far as all of us as a group discussing audio equipment. In fact, your preferences might very well be based more on cognitive bias than actual sound. The things you think you are hearing when you listen to that juicy tube amp might cease to exist if you did a blind comparison with a "neutral" (non-colored) amp and you might actually choose the neutral amp as sounding better. We don't know...that's the problem with individual subjective assessments. We are trying to establish useful baselines and objective means by which to assess equipment that are not "distorted" by the many things that play into our subjective impressions.
DanielT
Major Contributor
There is a lot of fun with sound and Hifi. Nostalgia is an aspect that can apply. By the way, I think there should be a Vintage section at ASR where, among other things, nostalgia can be addressed. Old memories from past times, adolescence and the past Hifi. Maybe it will be possible to request spare parts for Vintage?
I know some who do DIY. They combine. The modern (Hypex amplifier for example) in the main system and then the secondary Hifi system can be a turntable, tube amplifier and so on. By the way, they like this person's Youtube channel:
He has a decent lab.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 839
- Likes
- 641
You have to ensure that you are measuring all relevant quanta. Unfortunately I am not entirely convinced that this is always 100% the case here.
If so, pure objectivism and measurements all the way...(plus a bit of added purely subjective valve warmth for myself, thanks,)
If so, pure objectivism and measurements all the way...(plus a bit of added purely subjective valve warmth for myself, thanks,)
Loaded question
If you all think about it, then the subjective experience is all that matters. And to get the best experience, we must of course quantify the subjective side with proper experiments (science) and design 'experiences' with proper rigour (engineering).
That's all there is to it.
If you all think about it, then the subjective experience is all that matters. And to get the best experience, we must of course quantify the subjective side with proper experiments (science) and design 'experiences' with proper rigour (engineering).
That's all there is to it.
charleski
Major Contributor
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.
Vict0r
Addicted to Fun and Learning
It depends. For an amplifier, DAC or DSP solution I'd focus purely on measurements, but for a headphone or speaker the main thing is that my own ears enjoy them. Measurements may show bloated bass or peaky trebles, or horrible directivity or whatever, but if they sound great to my ears in my own environment, I don't mind the ugly measurement graphs at all.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,316
- Likes
- 12,265
I'm fascinated that anyone would ask that question.
The answer seems obvious. This whole web site is in effect a reaction against the prevalence and influence of purely subjective reviews, and the general trend of high end audio having been taken over by a purely subjective, even anti-scientific approach to the hobby. Amirm was clearly annoyed by the amount of anti scientific gobbleygook out there in audio, and aimed to offer an alternative. He's constantly talking about the difference in his approach and calling out the woo-woo part of high end audio, and rightly so.
That's why there was such a need for it. It's why so many people here are "former pure subjectivists" or those running from the world of purely subjective audio to a place where they can actually see data and discuss audio without woo-woo bullshit.
How in the world could someone expect the difference between this site's approach and much of high end audio to NOT be a common subject here?
Don't completely agree, UX-related things like 'jack too close to volume control' could be measured, in the same way we have preferred target curves after all; it's just that it is rather impractical to do so (line up a bunch of subjects, properly selected, have them use, fill in questionnaires like 'did your fingers get stuck when turning the volume knob?'). Some of that data is sort of available just not in a very controlled way: in large threads about devices where X users say they have the same certain UX problem (knowb too close to plug is super common btw) there might be some truth behind that.
I said “objectivist”, but I’m only with respect to transducers. For electronics, hard objectivist.
But perhaps less hard in the sense that I try hard to maintain belief, perhaps even a wish, that *someone* will prove me wrong with some convincing controlled listening tests. But for now, BayesIan reasoning makes me objectivist.
But perhaps less hard in the sense that I try hard to maintain belief, perhaps even a wish, that *someone* will prove me wrong with some convincing controlled listening tests. But for now, BayesIan reasoning makes me objectivist.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,316
- Likes
- 12,265
If I go by my reputation on the subjective forums, I'm a raving objectivist (always defending the relevance of science to high end audio, defending blind testing, casting skepticism on purely subjective inferences, on snake oil etc).
If I come here, apparently I'm a snake-in-the-grass subjectivist.
I find myself somewhat caught in a no-man's-land in this respect:
1. I am a nut about reason and consistency, with philosophical leanings, a heavy emphasis on empiricism, hence science. In fact I was just on another (small) podcast defending science as our best response to the most basic problems of epistemology. It is absurd to me to try to seal off my pet hobby, high end audio, as if everything we've learned about audio technology, human perception, and the influence of confounding variables somehow magically don't apply to audio. As if you can just pretend your subjective inference is the gold standard for knowing what is true. That to me is just nuts. And I see how it has led to an essentially religious-type dogmatism among the "purely subjective" folks in audio "if I hear it, it's true." It's a closed epistemic door, like faith. By carefully correlating measurements to perception, we can actually settle some questions, rather than be stuck in this subjective mud.
So I run to places like this where audio can be discussed without this purely subjective epistemology, without this constant layer of bullshit. It's like breathing fresh air.
On the other hand:
2. I'm much more comfortable with subjective talk about audio than many here. This is because ultimately everything comes to us via subjective experience so it makes sense to exchange notes on the nature of that subjective experience. Everything that comes through our sound system "sounds LIKE something." A measurement may tell us there is a sharp 4dB peak at 2K but insofar as it is audible it therefore SOUNDS like "something." After all, why would we care...if it didn't change the subjective character of the sound? So a significant peak in the frequency affecting vocal sibilance will "sound like something" different than a flat response, so we can endeavour to describe to one another it's subjective effects, e.g. "sibilance sounds artificially exaggerated, sharp, bright, piercing" or whatever in our grab bag of descriptors we can reach for. When listening to music through a sound system it's a subjective smorgasbord, there is so many different aspects of the sound one could seek to describe. And I love that aspect of subjective experience.
I'm a self admitted "foodie" and love, for instance, those long chef's menu experiences at a restaurant. The people I dine with are way in to it as well and we love to exchange our subjective impressions and descriptions of the food "wow, did you get this effect from that dish?" etc. I have tried dining this way with people who have zero interest in talking about the food, and for me it just sucked. Similarly, I need to be among people who really enjoy exchanging intersubjective notes about "how this SOUNDS."
So my problem is that, on web sites that tend strongly towards the "objective/measurements" side, it's not that people think "the subjective aspect doesn't matter." Clearly we all here think it does; we just note that it is much more reliable when correlated with measurements, along with subjective controls. Nonetheless, there is STILL a sort of allergy to subjective descriptions. It seems a mix among different people. Some just have no use for it "just gimme the measurements." But even those who allow in principle for subjective expression may only want to see it restricted to accompanying measurements, and even then there is a sort of sheepish limiting of subjective description. Nobody wants to feel like they are straying in to what everyone here decries as the subjective review morass.
So...there's just very limited exchange of subjective descriptions in a place like this. It feels a bit sterile to me in that way, given just how much there seems to be happening subjectively when I listen to a sound system. I need more.
If I want to be among those who are in to this, I have to go to the subjective-based forums. But of course, then I also have to wade through all the anti-science, subjectivist woo-woo stuff, and I then come running back here for a cold shower.
And so it goes...at least for me.
If I come here, apparently I'm a snake-in-the-grass subjectivist.
I find myself somewhat caught in a no-man's-land in this respect:
1. I am a nut about reason and consistency, with philosophical leanings, a heavy emphasis on empiricism, hence science. In fact I was just on another (small) podcast defending science as our best response to the most basic problems of epistemology. It is absurd to me to try to seal off my pet hobby, high end audio, as if everything we've learned about audio technology, human perception, and the influence of confounding variables somehow magically don't apply to audio. As if you can just pretend your subjective inference is the gold standard for knowing what is true. That to me is just nuts. And I see how it has led to an essentially religious-type dogmatism among the "purely subjective" folks in audio "if I hear it, it's true." It's a closed epistemic door, like faith. By carefully correlating measurements to perception, we can actually settle some questions, rather than be stuck in this subjective mud.
So I run to places like this where audio can be discussed without this purely subjective epistemology, without this constant layer of bullshit. It's like breathing fresh air.
On the other hand:
2. I'm much more comfortable with subjective talk about audio than many here. This is because ultimately everything comes to us via subjective experience so it makes sense to exchange notes on the nature of that subjective experience. Everything that comes through our sound system "sounds LIKE something." A measurement may tell us there is a sharp 4dB peak at 2K but insofar as it is audible it therefore SOUNDS like "something." After all, why would we care...if it didn't change the subjective character of the sound? So a significant peak in the frequency affecting vocal sibilance will "sound like something" different than a flat response, so we can endeavour to describe to one another it's subjective effects, e.g. "sibilance sounds artificially exaggerated, sharp, bright, piercing" or whatever in our grab bag of descriptors we can reach for. When listening to music through a sound system it's a subjective smorgasbord, there is so many different aspects of the sound one could seek to describe. And I love that aspect of subjective experience.
I'm a self admitted "foodie" and love, for instance, those long chef's menu experiences at a restaurant. The people I dine with are way in to it as well and we love to exchange our subjective impressions and descriptions of the food "wow, did you get this effect from that dish?" etc. I have tried dining this way with people who have zero interest in talking about the food, and for me it just sucked. Similarly, I need to be among people who really enjoy exchanging intersubjective notes about "how this SOUNDS."
So my problem is that, on web sites that tend strongly towards the "objective/measurements" side, it's not that people think "the subjective aspect doesn't matter." Clearly we all here think it does; we just note that it is much more reliable when correlated with measurements, along with subjective controls. Nonetheless, there is STILL a sort of allergy to subjective descriptions. It seems a mix among different people. Some just have no use for it "just gimme the measurements." But even those who allow in principle for subjective expression may only want to see it restricted to accompanying measurements, and even then there is a sort of sheepish limiting of subjective description. Nobody wants to feel like they are straying in to what everyone here decries as the subjective review morass.
So...there's just very limited exchange of subjective descriptions in a place like this. It feels a bit sterile to me in that way, given just how much there seems to be happening subjectively when I listen to a sound system. I need more.
If I want to be among those who are in to this, I have to go to the subjective-based forums. But of course, then I also have to wade through all the anti-science, subjectivist woo-woo stuff, and I then come running back here for a cold shower.
And so it goes...at least for me.
After +40 years i did measure my room acoustics for the first time. Conclusion/results was stagering an the bought measuring mic was the best audio investment i did in 43 years. So a HO.
