Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[Robin L]

I think audiophilia more as an affliction/disease....

A specific, and very expensive, neurosis. If it isn't already listed in the DSM - 5, it should be.

 

[rkbates]

So, being very much at the objectivist end of the scale, how do I choose my next set of speakers? The list is narrowed down based on measured performance and price (and, I'm forced to admit, looks and brand) but living in a regional town I have no opportunity to listen before I buy. And if I did it would be in showroom designed to make any speaker sound incredible. So ultimately my choice will be based on the subjective opinion of a trusted reviewer. And the reviewer has only made it to my trusted list because of a history of objectivism. And the circle continues.

 

[tuga]

I think audiophilia more as an affliction/disease....

True of many hobbies, particularly when you add mindless compulsive consumerism to the mix.
The internet has made this much worse, both with forums and online shopping...

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

As a subjectivist measurements are just a snap shot under strictly controlled condition.- I agree, this is pretty good definition of a measurement

Sort of like looking at cars in brochures, until you get in and drive them you just don’t know which one suits best.- No, this is not what a measurement is like if you understand them. Not at all

There’s a speaker thread at the moment how does a cabinet resonate over the full frequency and power range with different types of music? No test procedures can cover this, the only valid test is what you hear. I'm no expert but I am pretty sure someone competent could (and probably has) devise a test that would measure pretty much how a speaker would perform in these circumstances.

They regularly perform valid performance tests on speakers and all other audio components by listening to them. However even these tests aren’t 100% valid, especially on individual components. They don’t take into account the synergy when a component is inserted into a different system and environment. Had a wry smile when Devaliet stared matching on line their Amps to speakers. The same people who applauded this would likely sneer at the use graphic equalisers. Devaliet would have been better to have gone down the Dirac route for system matching. When it comes to testing the results are only as good as the person interpreting them. Quite often they are used to justify a long held opinion. Worked in the electronics industry for many years and have witnessed it many times.

 

[sergeauckland]

They regularly perform valid performance tests on speakers and all other audio components by listening to them. However even these tests aren’t 100% valid, especially on individual components. They don’t take into account the synergy when a component is inserted into a different system and environment. Had a wry smile when Devaliet stared matching on line their Amps to speakers. The same people who applauded this would likely sneer at the use graphic equalisers. Devaliet would have been better to have gone down the Dirac route for system matching. When it comes to testing the results are only as good as the person interpreting them. Quite often they are used to justify a long held opinion. Worked in the electronics industry for many years and have witnessed it many times.

Never understood the concept of synergy as applied to hifi. Seems like trying to correct one fault with another. Much better to avoid the fault in the first place by buying correctly through measurements.

S

 

[Chr1]

Never understood the concept of synergy as applied to hifi. Seems like trying to correct one fault with another. Much better to avoid the fault in the first place by buying correctly through measurements.

S

I think that this is an over simplistic perspective. Surely you would agree that not all components, particularly speakers sound and measure (FR particularly) the same. Sometimes, particularly if you don't EQ, matching components makes sense... Or no?

 

[Tks]

For things like DACs and AMPs (devices in the chain), I am an ultra objectivist when it comes to auditory concerns (fidelity concerns).

Once signal reaches it's end-point (headphones, IEM's, speakers) I'm 50/50 only because my ear shape (or HRTF) and/or my room for speakers, requires that I be a subjectivist.

For headphones and IEMs, especially have to be a subjectivist since I care more about comfort than sound (since sound is pretty good with most listening devices, and when it isn't EQ to the rescue). But I do lean ultra objectivist because I simply have to know if some headphone was constructed like some scam/POS. Can't stand seeing costly headphones with high THD, even if I can't hear it. Sorry but, don't wanna pay for such products.

 

[sergeauckland]

I think that this is an over simplistic perspective. Surely you would agree that not all components, particularly speakers sound and measure (FR particularly) the same. Sometimes, particularly if you don't EQ, matching components makes sense... Or no?

No. All loudspeakers have frequency response errors, which can be corrected by equalisers. That's what they're for, and should be part of every loudspeaker system that doesn't use DSP equalised active loudspeakers. Trying to correct a , say, bright speaker with a 'dull' amplifier is a nonsense, especially given that the 'dull' amplifier will be nothing of the sort as it'll almost certainly measure flat, and the dullness is just reputation, reinforced by repetition.

Buy accurate components, equalise any remaining errors at source. There's no excuse whatsoever for components to have anything other than minor frequency response errors, easily equalised.

S

 

[JJB70]

I think that this is an over simplistic perspective. Surely you would agree that not all components, particularly speakers sound and measure (FR particularly) the same. Sometimes, particularly if you don't EQ, matching components makes sense... Or no?

I think amplifiers have to be appropriately specified for the speakers, but that's not the same as synergy in this context. The way synergy is used by hifi enthusiasts tends to be a way to compensate for coloured sound in one part of the chain using hardwired compensation rather than either just not buying the offending gear or by using tone controls/EQ.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I think amplifiers have to be appropriately specified for the speakers, but that's not the same as synergy in this context. The way synergy is used by hifi enthusiasts tends to be a way to compensate for coloured sound in one part of the chain using hardwired compensation rather than either just not buying the offending gear or by using tone controls/EQ.

Think your first sentence defines synergy rather well.
Copland amp + either Kudos or Neat speakers good synergy, Naim amp + Kudos or Neat speakers = headache.
How would you define ‘coloured sound?’

 

[Newman]

Another way to put it:
SUBJECTIVIST: believes that informal subjective listening impressions are the most reliable guide to evaluating audio equipment. One can “know” how audio equipment performs simply by this method, and subjective impressions rendered this way are more reliable methods of insight than objective measurements, or scientifically designed listening tests.
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.
So: IF this doesn't essentially capture the essence of the two approaches audiophiles so often argue about...

Oh, it truly doesn’t.

what does?

Nothing. It’s an inherently oversimplified labelling system. Little more than an attempt at intellectualised name-calling. That is exactly how it has been used in the past, and this thread is no different.

The poll set it up. And I called it for what it is. Pages ago.

People who want to put flesh on it are revelling in the attempt to label, box, and categorise…..people.

Let it go. It is doomed, inadequate, and mean-spirited.

 

[sergeauckland]

I think amplifiers have to be appropriately specified for the speakers, but that's not the same as synergy in this context. The way synergy is used by hifi enthusiasts tends to be a way to compensate for coloured sound in one part of the chain using hardwired compensation rather than either just not buying the offending gear or by using tone controls/EQ.

Exactly, and this can be readily determined by the measurements. Loudspeaker sensitivity will determine power requirements, loudspeaker impedance characteristics determine amplifier load tolerance requirements. All easily found from measurement.

S.

 

[TrevorD]

I'm just a grumpy old bastard.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I'm just a grumpy old bastard.

Is that a subjective judgement?

 

[TrevorD]

I'm just a grumpy old bastard.

And the term 'Audiophillia' - are you all tone deaf? - sounds like Kiddy Fiddler. I prefer 'Audio Enthusiast' but I think the boats already left on that one.


BTW this is an attempt at humour.

 

[TrevorD]

Is that a subjective judgement?

I am willing to submit to any double blind test and am confident to get 10 out of 10 right!

 

[symphara]

No. All loudspeakers have frequency response errors, which can be corrected by equalisers. That's what they're for, and should be part of every loudspeaker system that doesn't use DSP equalised active loudspeakers. Trying to correct a , say, bright speaker with a 'dull' amplifier is a nonsense, especially given that the 'dull' amplifier will be nothing of the sort as it'll almost certainly measure flat, and the dullness is just reputation, reinforced by repetition.

Buy accurate components, equalise any remaining errors at source. There's no excuse whatsoever for components to have anything other than minor frequency response errors, easily equalised.

S

Sounds nice in principle, not so easy to do in practice.

EQ certainly cannot fix all the problems in most real-life rooms where we put our speakers. And good EQ is hard to come by since most amps/streamers/DACs don’t have it. At most you get Audyssey in an AV receiver, as a cost-effective option, and I don’t think that’s good enough for music unless you severely limit it at bass management only.

Good EQ is expensive. The only easy to use solutions are RoomPerfect and ARC, and they’re very expensive. The rest, on top of that, are hard to implement (Dirac - I get a headache just reading the miniDSP manuals, and I am a REW user) or very inconvenient (Roon, which requires at least one PC in your audio chain).

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Exactly, and this can be readily determined by the measurements. Loudspeaker sensitivity will determine power requirements, loudspeaker impedance characteristics determine amplifier load tolerance requirements. All easily found from measurement.

S.

Serge have you ever made a mistake buying kit after reading the measurement? Admittedly my quest for Audio Nirvana has been littered with mistakes. Sometimes feel like a HiFi junkie, same high after the fix and the cold turkey come down when I admit it sounds like s***. This time Iv’e got it right at least until January?

 

[mhardy6647]

for most of us... it's a freakin' hobby.

 

[pkane]

for most of us... it's a freakin' hobby.

I’m waiting for someone to jump in to tell us the proper definition of the term ‘hobby’. One that we can all agree on (Mr. @MattHooper ?) You know, to bridge the epistemological divide