• 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?

How would you classify yourself?

  • Ultra Objectivist (ONLY care about measurements and what has been double-blind tested.)

    Votes: 21 4.9%
  • Hard Objectivist (Measurements are almost always the full story. Skeptical of most subjective claim)

    Votes: 123 28.9%
  • Objectivist (Measurements are very important but not everything.)

    Votes: 182 42.7%
  • Neutral/Equal

    Votes: 40 9.4%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Subjectivist (There's much measurements don't show. My hearing impressions are very important.)

    Votes: 25 5.9%
  • Hard Subjectivist (Might only use measurements on occasion but don't pay attention to them usually.)

    Votes: 5 1.2%
  • Ultra Subjectivist (Measurements are WORTHLESS, what I hear is all that matters.)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Other (Please explain!)

    Votes: 20 4.7%

  • Total voters
    426

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
There's a whole thread here (can't find it - damn search) showing studios with B&W and other not-so-flat FR speakers.
Yes, and the whole sound engineering community that doesn't do classic music doesn't understand what these guys are doing with these speakers.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,217
Likes
24,183
For the record. I believe in the presence of the Almighty in all things culinary. Yes, I am a Frying Pantheist.
(with apologies to Red Dwarf)

:facepalm:
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
We have been over this concern of yours. Your comments imply that researchers were not aware that listening in mono would not be transferable to stereo, or that they were aware, but failed to check whether it would be transferable or not. However, you have no evidence of that is the case, and I don’t think they are a stupid as you are implying. Toole explains that listening in mono gave by far the most discerning ability to discriminate between the loudspeakers, and listening in stereo did not change the listener rankings of the loudspeakers at all, but greatly diminished the ability to distinguish between them and their performance.
I disagree with his interpretation of the data he collected.
Besides, you cannot get a stereo effect with a single speaker, so any preference comparison that does not include stereo is unfit for purpose.
Then there's optimal positioning, etc.
Mono for convenience but not for accuracy.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
While this is true, it seems to be nearly useless, right? Unless the studios are all using the same equipment, the effect of non-standard speakers is non-stationary. So we're back to reproducing whatever is on the recording as faithfully as possible and EQing to taste, rather than trying to build in some fixed adaptation through equipment. That appears to be what you suggest in the post above this remark, so perhaps we are in agreement.

Some audiophiles are happy EQ'ing with an equaliser, others prefer a trial-and-error approach by mixing and matching different "presentations". For many it's the journey not the destiny that matters. It's their money and their (past)time. And is there any difference betwen incessantly upgrading to the higest accuracy and swapping gear until you're happy?
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
Some audiophiles are happy EQ'ing with an equaliser, others prefer a trial-and-error approach by mixing and matching different "presentations". For many it's the journey not the destiny that matters. It's their money and their (past)time. And is there any difference betwen incessantly upgrading to the highest accuracy and swapping gear until you're happy?
Yes, the latter is a lot more expensive and indirect. I didn't render a judgement about others' pursuit of the hobby in my comments, I use more 'objective' means for myself, for my wallet and because I prefer to spend time listening to music than ceaselessly comparing equipment in an uncontrolled way.

Now when people doing the latter come over here spouting derision and claiming that they have found a higher road to 'the truth', well then they can bugger off. Short of that, whatever, live your life.
 

nurmdog

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
12
One other point several people brought up. The closer you get to the source of the sound the more important the gear. Source, the media, (phono, CD, stream, etc.) is the most impact to the quality. The preamp / receiver / DAC is next. Speakers last.

And then there is cables, my biggest question. Who knows what the impact of those are, I’ve seen few objective tests. Not sure if anyone here has tried proper tests of speaker cables or RCA / XLR . My guess is once you get to a decent quality and thickness of copper it makes little difference.
 

Momotaro

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
85
Likes
97
We have been over this concern of yours. Your comments imply that researchers were not aware that listening in mono would not be transferable to stereo, or that they were aware, but failed to check whether it would be transferable or not. However, you have no evidence of that is the case, and I don’t think they are a stupid as you are implying. Toole explains that listening in mono gave by far the most discerning ability to discriminate between the loudspeakers, and listening in stereo did not change the listener rankings of the loudspeakers at all, but greatly diminished the ability to distinguish between them and their performance.

We have been over this.
I didn't participate, but recalling the more recent exchanges on that subject here I think the efficacy of controlled subjective listening tests using a single speaker was successfully argued: efficient, repeatable, minimises variables, etc. But the observation that this favours wide dispersion speakers is inadequately addressed.

It's unlikely that the practitioners in question are stupid, but a conclusion that listening to a single Quad ESL in the centre of a room (an example from the often-referenced early test graphic) adequately characterises the relevant sonics (of a stereo pair in a normal room) would be. One interpretation of the directional but bass-shy Quad ranking poorly in mono but close to the other two in stereo (in that example) is that the methodology beneficially maximises discrimination. Another is that directional speakers are more effective in stereo, and are otherwise unduly handicapped.

I'd be interested if that work is further developed, with more detailed breakdown/exploration of sonic characteristics, etc. Government-funded research centres with wide remits have largely fallen prey to economic rationalism, so we may have to wait for the next golden age.
 

nurmdog

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
12
One other point several people brought up. The closer you get to the source of the sound the more important the gear. Source, the media, (phono, CD, stream, etc.) is the most impact to the quality. The preamp / receiver / DAC is next. Speakers last.

And then there is cables, my biggest question. Who knows what the impact of those are, I’ve seen few objective tests. Not sure if anyone here has tried proper tests of speaker cables or RCA / XLR . My guess is once you get to a decent quality and thickness of copper it makes little difference.

A good friend of mine of mine who is an “audiophile” too has a saying. Audiophiles will buy a $50,000 plus complete system. They claim if you touch tone, bass, or treble knobs it’s blasphemous. They are happy to try many $1000 cables and say which one is best. In reality they are using cables as equalizers to get the sound they want .
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
One other point several people brought up. The closer you get to the source of the sound the more important the gear. Source, the media, (phono, CD, stream, etc.) is the most impact to the quality. The preamp / receiver / DAC is next. Speakers last.

And then there is cables, my biggest question. Who knows what the impact of those are, I’ve seen few objective tests. Not sure if anyone here has tried proper tests of speaker cables or RCA / XLR . My guess is once you get to a decent quality and thickness of copper it makes little difference.

You are on to something with your last comment. The rest I'm not so sure you are going to get agreement on.

Welcome, have a look around, and make sure to read the threads on blind testing, measurements, and psychoacoustics. There are indeed many objective tests of cables, and your "guess" is correct, unambiguously.
 

Momotaro

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
85
Likes
97
Some audiophiles are happy EQ'ing with an equaliser, others prefer a trial-and-error approach by mixing and matching different "presentations". For many it's the journey not the destiny that matters. It's their money and their (past)time. And is there any difference betwen incessantly upgrading to the higest accuracy and swapping gear until you're happy?
While the free tier of the Topping-of-the-month service may only be open to people who up-front purchase a very expensive analyser and publish with a decent hit rate, the paid tier is less expensive than a single dCS DAC. Ultra objectivists come out ahead (on parsimony at least). Speakers are more complicated, but a Genelec stack handily undercuts a Chronosonic.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,217
I disagree with his interpretation of the data he collected.
Besides, you cannot get a stereo effect with a single speaker, so any preference comparison that does not include stereo is unfit for purpose.
Then there's optimal positioning, etc.
Mono for convenience but not for accuracy.
I’ll stick with the world-renowned expert’s interpretation of the data, especially since he has the raw data and knows every aspect of the experimental design.

Whereas you appear to be starting from your sighted listening impressions, and re-interpreting solid research to conform with them.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,627
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
One other point several people brought up. The closer you get to the source of the sound the more important the gear. Source, the media, (phono, CD, stream, etc.) is the most impact to the quality. The preamp / receiver / DAC is next. Speakers last.

I don't think I agree there...
Speakers would be #1 on any list for me. Aren't they the actual source of the sound? Before that, it's just an electrical signal.

Amp is going to be a matter of being appropriate for the speakers and room if they aren't already built into the speaker.

After that, the point of diminishing returns comes pretty quick imho.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,986
Location
Riverview FL
"Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?"

Subjectively, I'm Objectivist, but objectively, I'm probably Subjectivist, like many others.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,819
Curious, do you guys in the studio situation actually constantly change out hardware to see what "sounds best"? :)

When it comes to speakers, yes there can be some evaluation of different speakers when setting up a studio. (I've not been involved in that personally). Some involving sighted impressions, along with looking at the specs, and ultimately the studios are generally set up, pinked etc by professional acousticians. It all depends on the place and the people.

But if you are talking about cables and that kind of tweaky thing, no. Though there are *some* strains of auidophilia to be found among some mixers, engineers, people who work in studios etc. Often that will be more about what a mixer or engineer chooses to listen to at home (I've known a number who have audiophile type systems/tendencies, if not going full snake oil though). We used to do "lunch breaks" where we'd all go to the local High End audio store and audition stuff. Occasionally that finds it's way in to the studio (I remember one place for music production had a tube amp commissioned to be built by a local guy).

But for the most part, pros in the studios don't go in for the usual snake oil.

I had many of my cables for my own 2 channel home system, and first home theater, made by the same person who cables our studios.

I'm sure this answer will vary based on someone else's experience in the industry.
 
Last edited:

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
One other point several people brought up. The closer you get to the source of the sound the more important the gear. Source, the media, (phono, CD, stream, etc.) is the most impact to the quality. The preamp / receiver / DAC is next. Speakers last.
This is a myth with a truth inside. Back when I first got into hi-fi, we were largely using turntable based systems where altering source components and setup made clearly audible and large differences. Problems with turntables were and remain not just audible, but recognisable, so sometimes we could even trust our ears. And sure, the source remains important these days for the same reason - you can't get back lost or distorted information - but with digital, the problem is technically solved. If you don't use discs, it's actually trivial now. So I own an expensive SACD player, but I don't need to...

The real issues lie at the other end these days. The speaker/room interface and listening conditions are where complexities lie. Passive speaker designers have tended towards designs that put more strain on amplifiers, as well. So although the old truth about the signal still holds, it's become irrelevant in practice.
 

nurmdog

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
12
This is a myth with a truth inside. Back when I first got into hi-fi, we were largely using turntable based systems where altering source components and setup made clearly audible and large differences. Problems with turntables were and remain not just audible, but recognisable, so sometimes we could even trust our ears. And sure, the source remains important these days for the same reason - you can't get back lost or distorted information - but with digital, the problem is technically solved. If you don't use discs, it's actually trivial now. So I own an expensive SACD player, but I don't need to...

The real issues lie at the other end these days. The speaker/room interface and listening conditions are where complexities lie. Passive speaker designers have tended towards designs that put more strain on amplifiers, as well. So although the old truth about the signal still holds, it's become irrelevant in practice.
Thanks, after reading your response I realized that my thought process here came from someone teaching me this years ago. I’ve been thinking about this since others have posted similar responses. The one two things along the path, vastly different, is speakers, and the room as you said. Speakers are electro mechanical, so yes they are quite a bit different. I’m going to do some more reading and keep an open mind.
 
Last edited:

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Improve It.
Peter Drucker

I really don't understand whats with this comparison about subjective and objective. I never seen this used in other forums, not even other stuff. Only this place. To me, its never about subjective vs objective. They both complement each other because there are many aspects of things which cannot be measured, eps. when it comes to human preferences/feelings. Its just like UI/UX...


This is a very good example that subjective testing is extremely important and there is no objective test that can determine which is better/worse. Also, when it comes to user experiences, minute details are important. Even the dot patterns for the grips matters.

"And then came the user testing. The team invited players from different backgrounds and with varying abilities to test prototypes and pre-production units. There are very few products people hold steadily for hours at a time, so the team wanted to know which prototypes felt comfortable for an extended period and how the new design impacted performance. “We wanted to know things like how fingers slid on certain areas and how the matte finish felt with their grips,” Erika explains."
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Why not both?

Perhaps it irritates others and drives them away? ITs not interesting? I don't see other places talking about here (only once in a blue moon). Vast majority are just going about their own activities. There many be references to other forums but its more about certain tests etc, not about commenting on other forums.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Less of bothering about what other foums or "audiopools" "audiofools" believe in. Also, less of objective vs subjective debates...

I guess in the end measurements aren't that fun...

Also, "science" can be a belief system too: this SINAD and that Preference Rating will categorically give you the best sound and for pennies. Ultimately, for the not particularly knowledgeable insecure consumer-audiophile, it's no different than a star-rating system. And for the most part the end result is just as random...

Finally, learning is hard work. Why bother when you have pink panthers?
 
Top Bottom