• 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

Stereolab42

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
26
Location
NorCal
Here's my take. We hear with our minds. End of story. The space between our ears is the most important room. Many of use share a common purpose--to trick the mind into hearing excellent live music. We are attempting to create an illusion.

For me the issue at hand is if a person misattributes the cause of these perceptions. I believe people actual hear a difference between say 8ga and 10ga speaker wire when they say they do. But the fact of the matter is, it is only present in their minds. But here's the kicker: that's legit! (but only for them). One's audio reality isn't caused solely through their ears. I'd suggest objectivists and subjectivist legitimize the mind's ear as important and relevant to personal audio experience i.e, it is not wrong to only hear music in your mind; and subjectivists alone must better recognize when their experience is personal and not not universal.
I think this brings up a philosophical issue that is worthy of more discussion. If somebody listens to music through a $10 speaker cable then swaps it with a $10,000 speaker cable and suddenly claims it sounds better, are they really wrong? We know the science is clear that the signal reaching their speakers is identical enough that no biological organism can hear a difference. But if the cognitive bias of knowing it's more expensive and seeing that it's prettier makes them enjoy the music better than the $10 cable, then to what degree is that actually "bad"? The constant sight of the prettier cable has rewired their brain to some degree to make them like their music better!
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
I think this brings up a philosophical issue that is worthy of more discussion. If somebody listens to music through a $10 speaker cable then swaps it with a $10,000 speaker cable and suddenly claims it sounds better, are they really wrong? We know the science is clear that the signal reaching their speakers is identical enough that no biological organism can hear a difference. But if the cognitive bias of knowing it's more expensive and seeing that it's prettier makes them enjoy the music better than the $10 cable, then to what degree is that actually "bad"? The constant sight of the prettier cable has rewired their brain to some degree to make them like their music better!
Well because it isn’t real it doesn’t last. I believe this is (part) of why audiophiles get afflicted with upgradeitis chasing after an experience they remember having that is difficult to recreate.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,451
Likes
4,213
I think this brings up a philosophical issue that is worthy of more discussion. If somebody listens to music through a $10 speaker cable then swaps it with a $10,000 speaker cable and suddenly claims it sounds better, are they really wrong? We know the science is clear that the signal reaching their speakers is identical enough that no biological organism can hear a difference. But if the cognitive bias of knowing it's more expensive and seeing that it's prettier makes them enjoy the music better than the $10 cable, then to what degree is that actually "bad"? The constant sight of the prettier cable has rewired their brain to some degree to make them like their music better!
The bit where you say "we know" is not at all known to a lot of the people, and they actually do think the cable truly is changing the sound waves in audible ways.

That is why so many audiophiles dispute DBT outcomes so denialistically, claiming DBT are prone to artificial null outcomes, or they induce stress in participants which impedes their ability to discern audible changes, or they engage the analytical left brain whereas music appreciation is more right-brained and hence certain perceptions can't be accessed during DBT, or....you name it.

I have repeatedly supported your suggestion that it is no bad thing to purchase gear that just happens to turn on your non-sonic filters/biases and create a superior impression for oneself.

BUT if people truly believed that it was all in their head, then they wouldn't come onto every audio discussion or review space and attribute the superior qualities to the gear itself, would they? But that is exactly what they do.
 
Last edited:

rcarlbe

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
37
Likes
42
Well because it isn’t real it doesn’t last. I believe this is (part) of why audiophiles get afflicted with upgradeitis chasing after an experience they remember having that is difficult to recreate.
Related: A few folks on this forum have suggested that weed enhances ones musical perception. That buzz doesn't last. So they essentially upgrade their system that way. I don't deny that. Getting the same result through buying equipment is perhaps similar. They are both spending money to enhance the room between their ears. I totally agree upgradeitis is the result and drives the purchase of the next "hit". Again I think it should be not be stigmatized (we all alter our mind ear subtly all the time) and most importantly people should just admit that they may be under the "influence" of new equipment.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
I have repeatedly supported your suggestion that it is no bad thing to purchase gear that just happens to turn on your non-sonic filters/biases and create a superior impression for oneself.
I support your support. I think the key words are "non-sonic", in ways far broader than we currently contemplate. So much audiophile stuff is a desperate belief in perfectibility, and an illusion of control, amid otherwise drab and frustrating lives. It's a merry-go-round they need to be on. I'm sure some of them don't quite believe it all, but they love the community, and the sense of progress, and the reassuring belief in cause and effect.
 

Stereolab42

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
26
Location
NorCal
I have repeatedly supported your suggestion that it is no bad thing to purchase gear that just happens to turn on your non-sonic filters/biases and create a superior impression for oneself.

BUT if people truly believed that it was all in their head, then they wouldn't come onto every audio discussion or review space and attribute the superior qualities to the gear itself, would they? But that is exactly what they do.
Good point. It seems clear that if one knows the science, that the illusion will be popped somewhat. At least the part of the illusion that's propped-up by incorrect technical knowledge of the gear. The part of the illusion due to the gear simply looking better, or due to the feeling of superiority at being rich enough to afford more than somebody else -- may still be present, and is not something we can argue somebody out of.

I still have the nagging feeling though that maybe ignorance might after all be bliss. Might the "enjoyment ceiling" of a typical audiophool be higher than my own because he is using an incorrect technical understanding as additional fuel for his own enjoyment? But in the end I couldn't morally do such a thing to myself so it's a moot point. I've already swallowed the red pill. I'd have to hire a hypnotist to erase my memory and convince me that silver cables sound better, and moreover, to never to have a desire to investigate the subject more fully...
 

markus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
646
Likes
653
That's the main misconception. You hear plenty of reflections - the ones embedded in the recording, be they real from the performance space, or artificial from post-production. What you don't hear is the smearing, blurring overlay from your own room.
Sure you hear plenty of reflections from the recording but they all come from just two directions, the speakers, and not from other directions. While you do hear the recording much clearer the presentation is lacking spaciousness and envelopment which comes with "smearing, blurring". It's debatable whether making the playback room create these missing reflections is a good idea.
When listening (quasi-)anechoically to stereo everything sounds small to me, "looking" like a miniature. I perceive sounds as very close at times, even within the head, and front-back reversals.
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Anechoic chambers are awful things, I'll be happy never to spend time in one again. I used to do a lot of warship design work and part of it was attending and witnessing performance tests in anechoic chambers, I found them to induce a sort of vertigo type feeling.
 

gsp1971

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
471
Likes
821
Location
Europe
The constant sight of the prettier cable has rewired their brain to some degree to make them like their music better!
But this is an illusion, isn't it? What is the next step then? Get stoned or drunk and your hi-fi sounds much better? I thought we are promoting high fidelity not sustaining illusions. Merry Xmas.
 

Chr1

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
793
Likes
605
But this is an illusion, isn't it? What is the next step then? Get stoned or drunk and your hi-fi sounds much better? I thought we are promoting high fidelity not sustaining illusions. Merry Xmas.
Absolutely!
As long as you don't slur your words whilst promoting high fidelity and sustaining your illusions...
A very merry festive season to everyone!
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,387
Sure you hear plenty of reflections from the recording but they all come from just two directions, the speakers, and not from other directions. While you do hear the recording much clearer the presentation is lacking spaciousness and envelopment which comes with "smearing, blurring". It's debatable whether making the playback room create these missing reflections is a good idea.
When listening (quasi-)anechoically to stereo everything sounds small to me, "looking" like a miniature. I perceive sounds as very close at times, even within the head, and front-back reversals.
I have come to the same conclusion that the smearing, blurring, and even some bass resonances from my own listening environment are needed for more convincing music listening. It creates envelopment effects that I know aren't in the recorded material itself but without it, much of the musical illusion is reduced, and the fairly primitive stereo system reveals itself as a pretty flat and lifeless sound reproduction between two sound sources. This is something I noticed when I aimed for a flat response based on my room measurements, when the natural room "faults" were reduced to a minimum the music didn't sound very convincing anymore.

I want it all, strong dynamic sound with the accurate and clear (low distorted) direct sound from the loudspeakers that produce the depth and width of the recording itself with good separation of the individual sound objects in the recorded space, no matter if this is a real space or made up one by added artificial reverb. On top of all this, I have no problem at all if my own listening environment takes the illusion even further and adds some of the things where the recording and the stereo system fall short, like the illusion of envelopment. :)
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,027
Was given the ‘Million Dollar Quartet’ as a Christmas present. Playing it on a Project Xtension 10 / Shelter 301 / Primaire R15. Stereo gives an illusion of a live performance, at the moment it’s an illusion that’s pretty believable.

5B97F946-8EF6-45F2-86FD-7DB2EC237D44.jpeg
 

2ndHarm

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
43
Likes
39
Location
Canada
No, because “those people” still listen to voices and instruments in the real world (“live”), and the brain references that as baseline, and variations from that are heard as ‘wrong’.

cheers
That's very interesting. So, do people not notice that as they age (or that their hearing is slowing degraded by factory noises or loud music) their perception of the range of music becomes compromised? Would they not try to mitigate this to some extent - even unconsciously? I knew many older people who as the range of their hearing diminished, they boosted the treble - or eventually left the Loudness switch on permanently.
Young students in my classes who had "electronic deafness" regularly cranked up the treble to compensate for their loss in that range although they were aware of their loss.
What you say makes perfect sense. I don't know how to explain what I've witnessed in some people who have compromised hearing.
 

2ndHarm

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
43
Likes
39
Location
Canada
Is SINAD 115 db worth an extra $100 ($200?) vs 96 db? Subjective judgment will always be there. I think the Golden Ears concept is what is polluting this hobby, but that said, some do hear better than others. Further, generally those who are designing and are employed in the audio equipment world probably do have keener sense of nuanced differences in how something sounds. Is it better, who knows. Things really run afoul when sales comes into the picture as the desire to stretch the truth is incentivized.
Agreed. Engineers have great incentive to create equipment that has better SINAD than the competition - not because it's audible, but because it's a measurable improvement that can be exploited by marketing to justify price increases and/or greater sales. In that sense, you get what you pay for, but not necessarily what you hear for.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,200
Likes
11,816
That's very interesting. So, do people not notice that as they age (or that their hearing is slowing degraded by factory noises or loud music) their perception of the range of music becomes compromised? Would they not try to mitigate this to some extent - even unconsciously? I knew many older people who as the range of their hearing diminished, they boosted the treble - or eventually left the Loudness switch on permanently.
Young students in my classes who had "electronic deafness" regularly cranked up the treble to compensate for their loss in that range although they were aware of their loss.
What you say makes perfect sense. I don't know how to explain what I've witnessed in some people who have compromised hearing.

I'm one of those who is not seeking pure accuracy per se in my music system - though I do appreciate aspects of accuracy - but rather like to nudge my system in the direction I find both pleasing and also reminds me a bit more of how real voices and instruments sound. And in doing so I'm only trying to please myself. So I don't really need to do direct live vs reproduced comparisons (though I have done so in the past), I just need to satisfy the general impression I have of the nature of live sound sources, the one that I have taken from paying attention to live voices and instruments. In the end, it doesn't matter to me so much that my memory is perfectly accurate - I just need to to feel satisfied when listening that it's at least kind of matching the impression I have floating around in my head. Because, accurate or not, that's going to be be my reference anyhow.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Agreed. Engineers have great incentive to create equipment that has better SINAD than the competition - not because it's audible, but because it's a measurable improvement that can be exploited by marketing to justify price increases and/or greater sales. In that sense, you get what you pay for, but not necessarily what you hear for.
Hammer. Nail. Head.
 

Stereolab42

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
26
Location
NorCal
Agreed. Engineers have great incentive to create equipment that has better SINAD than the competition - not because it's audible, but because it's a measurable improvement that can be exploited by marketing to justify price increases and/or greater sales. In that sense, you get what you pay for, but not necessarily what you hear for.
I'm happy to pay for better SINAD to reward engineering excellence and as "technical insurance" against issues due to entropy/interference/whatever as long as I'm not paying an unreasonable amount. As long as the manufacturer is not claiming you can hear the difference under ordinary circumstances I see no professional or moral issue against it.
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
The repressed where Freud hiding behind SINAD. The SINAD of the room in the audiophile world is dark matter powered by dark energy at the border of the black hole.
 

2ndHarm

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
43
Likes
39
Location
Canada
I'm happy to pay for better SINAD to reward engineering excellence and as "technical insurance" against issues due to entropy/interference/whatever as long as I'm not paying an unreasonable amount. As long as the manufacturer is not claiming you can hear the difference under ordinary circumstances I see no professional or moral issue against it.
I agree - which is one of the reasons I buy Astell & Kern equipment. I've bought used for years because of the cost new and been very pleased with the neutral sound and dead quiet background.
There are manufacturers who make claims as we all know that aren't substantiated with measurable facts - only subjective ones like depth of sound stage and "air" - I gloss over those portions of their marketing information and head straight for the specifications page to make comparisons between equipment.
 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,018
Likes
727
There was a dude 10 years back, give or take, that bought himself a honda cb600r and he went on a campaign to convert harley owners because in every measurable category the honda was better. I was sad for the man as he clearly had no passion for the sport, didn't even know why he was doing it. I don't compare my hifi to owning a harley, just suggesting there is a different perspective from those that look at hifi products like appliances than those that are passionate about their systems. My friends and family members understand, but relatives and neighbors just think I have a loose screw.
 
Top Bottom