Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[Doodski]

Thank-you! I've been having a good time reading through many of the threads. I have already learned so much in my short time here.

It gets better. Some of the ideas and subjects are pretty intriguing.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

It gets better. Some of the ideas and subjects are pretty intriguing.

I agree. I've always been interested in how we perceive music and what makes it more or less pleasing. I also really enjoy hearing all of the perspecives of different people.

 

[Doodski]

I agree. I've always been interested in how we perceive music and what makes it more or less pleasing. I also really enjoy hearing all of the perspecives of different people.

Hang around and you'll fit right in from the sounds of things.

 

[Mart68]

(emphasis mine)

Exactly.



There is certainly truth to that. However, it also treads along a similar path of assuming one's own (or a group's value). The purpose of being interested in audio gear spans a large range among individuals. If it were "only about the music" then this forum would be empty, and we'd all be listening via our ear buds, laptops, smart speakers "average stereo systems" or however else non-audiophile/music lovers listen. Clearly there is a range between people for whom the gear may be largely a means to an end - "the music," but there are clearly many for whom the gear itself is a source of fascination - engineers, gear heads, hobbyists etc. If someone's bliss is found in their fascination with the gear more than another person, I don't see any reason to judge them as having "lost the path" or whatever. That would just be from my own criteria, not necessarily theirs. I mean, while I certainly contribute a lot of posts to the forum, there are many here who have put tons more time, energy and brain power in to understanding the technical "how things tick" side of the hobby, measuring things, building things, you name it. In no way would I say they have forgotten what it's "really all about" if that's what turns their crank.

(BTW, that isn't to say that there can't be instances of people getting mired in the technology in a negative way. That would depend on your own psychology, goals and attitude. IF your goal really is to forget about the technology and only be aware of the music, then you can cerrtainly go down a rabbit hole where have undermined your own goal - the forever tweaking or upgrade itches or constant comparisons of gear or whatever. I've been there before).

Okay so you are suggesting that my interpretation of what the hobby is, is in itself a value judgement?

I don't think it is, assuming we consider the hobby to be the pursuit of high fidelity. The term High fidelity has a definite meaning.

We don't use poor quality equipment to listen to music because that compromises the fidelity to the recording.

There was a time when this was the undisputed goal and even the magazines concentrated on the fidelity of the equipment based on measurements and blind testing. That died out over the course of the 1980s and was replaced by the wholly subjective review in which, like in English class where you had to write 2000 words about a poem, or a novel, there are no wrong answers.

I don't know what these 'subjectivists' with their 'great sounding amplifiers' are pursuing, but it isn't the hobby of high-fidelity.

Personally I will confess to being something of a gear fetishist, I have a houseful. I have bought equipment just because I like the look of it, or because I wanted it when I was young but could not afford it. But that's a different hobby too.

I have also been some way down the rabbit-hole of subjectivity and tweaking. IME as far as pursuing high fidelity goes, it's a hiding to nothing, and again, it's a different hobby.

A pursuit must necessarily be defined by its goal. Establish the goal and then there's no confusion as to what is being pursued, and how to pursue it.

 

[Andrew s]

I am firmly in the 44% (objectivist) camp but just as placebo, confirmation bias and the rest disrupt assesment of kit they can equally enhance ones enjoyment of music.

I had a totally competent power amp with UV meters but I found them distracting.
I now have a Benchmark AHB2 and love the looks and the specs.

I embrace my pride of ownership and the enhanced musical experience it brings.

Long live the placebo effect.

Regards Andrew

 

[MattHooper]

Okay so you are suggesting that my interpretation of what the hobby is, is in itself a value judgement?

Yes. You value neutrality and accuracy to the source. Not every audiophile has that value, strictly speaking.

I don't think it is, assuming we consider the hobby to be the pursuit of high fidelity. The term High fidelity has a definite meaning.

Whatever term you use, it's still defining a subjective goal that another audiophile might not completely share.

The origins of "High Fidelity" was the attempt at "fidelity to the sound of the real thing." Sonic realism.

Take the famous Avery Fisher. He was (per wikipedia) "a pioneer in the field of high fidelity sound reproduction, founder of the Philharmonic Radio Company and Fisher Electronics,"

What was his motivation in helping start the field of High Fidelity Sound? (Wikipedia):

"During this time, Fisher, an amateur violinist, began experimenting with audio design and acoustics. He wanted to make a radio that would sound like he was listening to a live orchestra — a radio that would achieve high fidelity reproduction of the original sound. "

This is also why "High Fidelity" was marketed in many advertisements (E.g. Magnavox, RCA Victor etc) as a closer approximation to The Real Thing, something that gave the listener the sensation of listening to the live event. (It's also why there were many demonstrations from early on through the history of loudspeaker design of "live vs reproduced" purporting to "fool" the audience).

So "the original sound" to which the early pioneers were aiming was the sound of the real thing, not the abstraction "accurately reproduce whatever the signal was encoded on the source." It's an important distinction: Yes..developing ways of lowering distortion of the signal was part of this project, but it was a means to an end, not the end itself. The end goal was sonic realism, sounding like the real thing.

Now some have certainly changed their understanding of High Fidelity to mean accurate reproduction of the recorded signal. Which is perfectly fine and reasonable. But that wasn't strictly the origin of the term, nor the original goal. (Hence in the sense you would use the term, if you had a truly terrible, artificial sounding recording, but reproduced with neutrality, that would count as "high fidelity" even though the sound quality was actually crap. Whereas the original goal wouldn't judge it "High Fidelity" since it sounds so unnatural. If someone wants to brag about their High Fidelity sound system and show anyone why it seems a worthwile persuit, do they play a super low sound quality recording? Why not? That's showing the system is High Fidelity too, right? No, most demonstrations seek to impress the listener with general "High Quality Sound" characteristics, e.g. clarity, impact, dynamics, spatial/imaging qualities, and if possible a higher sense of sonic realism.

There is still to some degree this divide among audiophiles. Some only seek "accurately reproducing the original signal" and some concentrate on what, at least to their ears, produces a sense of sonic realism "more like the real thing." (Original goal for the term). Naturally there are gradations spanning these approaches.

We don't use poor quality equipment to listen to music because that compromises the fidelity to the recording.

There was a time when this was the undisputed goal and even the magazines concentrated on the fidelity of the equipment based on measurements and blind testing. That died out over the course of the 1980s and was replaced by the wholly subjective review in which, like in English class where you had to write 2000 words about a poem, or a novel, there are no wrong answers.

Yes, a group deciding on a certain value, a certain goal absolutely makes sense. And just as you say, pledging allegiance to "High Fidelity" defined as accurate reproduction of the recorded signal makes for a great organizing goal - both in engineering terms and in the goal of the listener. It clears away a lot of the fudge, makes it easier to falsify claims, objectively support others etc. All great stuff.

But as I said, some audiophiles look to the sound of "real voices and instruments" as a general guide when looking for the qualities they want to hear in their system. Of course true sonic realism, indistinguishable from the real thing, is in most cases unobtainable. So they settle for seeking at least certain characteristics that remind them of the real thing (e.g. how voices really sound). The results can be very high quality sound, in the sense most of us would judge "high quality sound" (clarity, richness, able to achieve a certain implication of realism, etc)

I don't know what these 'subjectivists' with their 'great sounding amplifiers' are pursuing, but it isn't the hobby of high-fidelity.

They are doing what I described above. (Or simply preferring the colorations, even if for their own sake).

As a personal example, I have preferred tube amps in my system. Let's put aside for the moment the question of blind testing, whether any particular amp is in fact altering the sound, and assume my tube amps are coloring the sound, to make a point for the sake of this argument.
Why would any audiophile want to do that to the signal?

Because to me the subtle colorations work towards some goals I have in reproduced sound: I like the sound to feel 3 dimensional, but the images to have a sense of body and density as well. I also find much of recorded voices and instruments to have a sort of artificially hard, squeezed, thin sound with exaggerated transients, especially vocals. To my ears the tube amplification slightly "relaxes" the sound in that regard, making it smoother, to my ears more organic like real sounds, slightly more dimensional, yet corporeal.

At the same time this doesn't "cover up" the nature of recordings - all recordings sound extremely individual, all the artistic changes are easily heard (my system shows far more about the nature of each recording than the average non-audiophile system, which is one reason why musician friends like to listen to their own recordings on my system).

So while I do very much appreciate low distortion in certain parts of the chain - because lower distortion tends generally to allow for greater nuance in recordings and also aid realism when it is there - I find a slight bit of flavoring "sounds better" to my ears.

Note, btw, that even those who advocate accuracy to the source often also aren't against the judicious use of tone controls to make some recordings sound better. After all...generally speaking...is the point even of High Fidelity a mere scientific interest in decoding signal? Isn't the point to appreciate and enjoy music through our systems?

A pursuit must necessarily be defined by its goal. Establish the goal and then there's no confusion as to what is being pursued, and how to pursue it.

Agreed. I was just pointing out it's a value judgement, not some objective claim to "what THE goal is" (or even, what "High Fidelity" means, since that has changed, evolved and is approached differently among audiophiles).

Cheers.

 

[Purité Audio]

Fidelity, ‘the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.’
thats it.
Keith

 

[Killingbeans]

This thread maybe?

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion.

I'm tired of audiophile and high fidelity confusion. Hi-FI is the best possible reproduction of music. Possibly as similar as the sound perception in the recording studio. Nothing will simply beat, in that case, the exact equipment used in studio during the recording. Dot. Audiophile is a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MattHooper]

Fidelity, ‘the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.’
thats it.
Keith

Reproducing the signal? Or the original sound of that which is being reproduced by the signal (e.g. accurately reproducing the sound of a saxophone)?

See, that doesn't solve the ambiguities.

Especially "what do we mean by "high fidelity sound" and why?"

That's why you can see this tension even in attempts to identify what "high fidelity sound" means. For instance, Wikipedia:

High fidelity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1]

^^^ that is about as close to reasonable generalisation there is, in terms of what binds together people in this hobby, IMO.
The reason is that it's a reference to High Sound Quality, which most of us seek whether it's someone seeking this strictly via a neutral system
as possible, or through a system with some colorations.


It is important to audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]


^^^ As I wrote earlier, attempts to lower distortion and artifacts played a part even early on, but it was a means to an end, not the end itself.
The end was some form of High Sound Quality as identified by listeners, usually "sounding more like the real thing."


The reason you can't just ignore the relationship of High Sound Quality to this hobby is that things don't make total sense without it.
If the goal ONLY comprised "accurate reproduction of a signal" then we'd all be satisfied with "High Fidelity Reproduction" of absolutely crappy sound (e.g. fuzzy, distorted, indistinct, muffled...so long as it was in the recorded signal).

But clearly we don't just care about High Fidelity in THAT sense. We care about achieving High Sound Quality. And when you understand that, you can see why even those who aren't pursuing High Fidelity in the strictly technical sense, we are still united in the hobby in terms of caring about, as wikipedia put it "High Quality Reproduction Of Sound."


"High fidelity contrasts with the lower quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, AM radio, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s. In lo-fi music, such defects are themselves aspects of the music."

^^^ So again we can see here the relationship between "high fidelity" and "the quality of sound." High fidelity had generally meant "fidelity to the sound of the real thing" and recordings, say of symphonies, that were "poor in sound quality" containing poor clarity, dynamics, distortion etc were not considered "High Fidelity."

Again...what is the point of "High Fidelity" in the first place, for most people, if it isn't about High Sound Quality? Generally speaking you don't play the very worst sound quality recordings to remind yourself why it was worth spending the money on your pursuit, nor do you play the worst quality recordings if you are trying to demonstrate the benefits of a great system to a non-enthusiast. You play recordings of High Sound Quality - clarity, dynamics, richness, in certain cases 'more realistic sounding' and all sorts of characteristics we associate with High Quality Sound.

So it's not really that simple, IMO.

Anyone can make anything "simple" by...deciding on a simplistic approach or term. And, absolutely, you can gain precision by definining a goal in a particular way. Though, ignore the actual nuances or ambiguities, and anything can seem "simple."

 

[Frgirard]

Reproducing the signal? Or the original sound of that which is being reproduced by the signal (e.g. accurately reproducing the sound of a saxophone)?

See, that doesn't solve the ambiguities.

Especially "what do we mean by "high fidelity sound" and why?"

That's why you can see this tension even in attempts to identify what "high fidelity sound" means. For instance, Wikipedia:

High fidelity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1]

^^^ that is about as close to reasonable generalisation there is, in terms of what binds together people in this hobby, IMO.
The reason is that it's a reference to High Sound Quality, which most of us seek whether it's someone seeking this strictly via a neutral system
as possible, or through a system with some colorations.


It is important to audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]


^^^ As I wrote earlier, attempts to lower distortion and artifacts played a part even early on, but it was a means to an end, not the end itself.
The end was some form of High Sound Quality as identified by listeners, usually "sounding more like the real thing."


The reason you can't just ignore the relationship of High Sound Quality to this hobby is that things don't make total sense without it.
If the goal ONLY comprised "accurate reproduction of a signal" then we'd all be satisfied with "High Fidelity Reproduction" of absolutely crappy sound (e.g. fuzzy, distorted, indistinct, muffled...so long as it was in the recorded signal).

But clearly we don't just care about High Fidelity in THAT sense. We care about achieving High Sound Quality. And when you understand that, you can see why even those who aren't pursuing High Fidelity in the strictly technical sense, we are still united in the hobby in terms of caring about, as wikipedia put it "High Quality Reproduction Of Sound."


"High fidelity contrasts with the lower quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, AM radio, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s. In lo-fi music, such defects are themselves aspects of the music."

^^^ So again we can see here the relationship between "high fidelity" and "the quality of sound." High fidelity had generally meant "fidelity to the sound of the real thing" and recordings, say of symphonies, that were "poor in sound quality" containing poor clarity, dynamics, distortion etc were not considered "High Fidelity."

Again...what is the point of "High Fidelity" in the first place, for most people, if it isn't about High Sound Quality? Generally speaking you don't play the very worst sound quality recordings to remind yourself why it was worth spending the money on your pursuit, nor do you play the worst quality recordings if you are trying to demonstrate the benefits of a great system to a non-enthusiast. You play recordings of High Sound Quality - clarity, dynamics, richness, in certain cases 'more realistic sounding' and all sorts of characteristics we associate with High Quality Sound.

So it's not really that simple, IMO.

Anyone can make anything "simple" by...deciding on a simplistic approach or term. Ignore the actual nuances or ambiguities, and anything can seem "simple."

Reproducing the electrical signal lossless. In a living room is impossible.

 

[Raindog123]

To me, we need to clearly differentiate between ”the goal” and “the method [to get there]”. In my book, the former _never_ defines the objectivist-vs-subjectivist: One can have the goal of “most accurate [to the source] reproduction” or “the most [personally/subjectively] pleasant sound”, “uncolored/transparent” or “colored [whether by deviation from the Harman FR or by some ‘tube’ distortion]” — and either is equally “the objective“…

What determines the objectivist-vs-subjectivist to me is whether one acknowledges the presence of “[cognitive/perceptual] bias” that can affect the results (interpretation, analysis) or not. And if this one is able proactively and willingly work toward controlling and mitigating this bias, vs not.

Just like that, simple.

 

[Geert]

I had a totally competent power amp with UV meters but I found them distracting.

And they cause skin cancer!

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

To me, we need to clearly differentiate between ”the goal” and “the method [to get there]”. In my book, the former _never_ defines the objectivist-vs-subjectivist: One can have the goal of “most accurate [to the source] reproduction” or “the most [personally/subjectively] pleasant sound”, “uncolored/transparent” or “colored [whether by deviation from Harman FR or some ‘tube’ distortion]” — and either is equally “the objective“…

What determines the objectivist-vs-subjectivist to me is whether one acknowledges the presence of “[cognitive/perceptual] bias” that can affect the results (interpretation, analysis) or not. And if this one is able proactively and willingly work toward controlling and mitigating this bias, vs not.

Just like that, simple.

Why would anyone want to live in a totalitarian World were any variation from perceived perfection is the only goal. We are all biased and our views on truth / fidelity are subject to our bias. If this was a religious blog many on it would be classed as fundamentalists.

 

[sergeauckland]

Why would anyone want to live in a totalitarian World were any variation from perceived perfection is the only goal. We are all biased and our views on truth / fidelity are subject to our bias. If this was a religious blog many on it would be classed as fundamentalists.

I am unashamedly fundamentalist when it comes to audio reproduction. The HiFi system's job is to supply me with longitudinal vibrations in the air which are a close facsimile to the data on the CD or grooves on an LP. The closer the air vibrations get, the higher the fidelity. I care nothing for what came before the CD or LP, as I have no influence over that, so if a recording gives no pleasure, whether performance or recording quality, I don't play it. I do occasionally use tone controls in an attempt to get some pleasure from bad recordings of otherwise worth while music, if they can be corrected by tone controls, but if that fails, then they just don't get played. By 'Bad Recordings' I also mean bad performances and bad music i.e. music I don't like.

Where my fundamentalism operates most is that I'm not willing to choose equipment on the basis of 'what I like'. That doesn't matter, what matters is that the equipment should be transparent. That's what HiFi, High Fidelity, means to me, not 'what I like'

S.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I am unashamedly fundamentalist when it comes to audio reproduction. The HiFi system's job is to supply me with longitudinal vibrations in the air which are a close facsimile to the data on the CD or grooves on an LP. The closer the air vibrations get, the higher the fidelity. I care nothing for what came before the CD or LP, as I have no influence over that, so if a recording gives no pleasure, whether performance or recording quality, I don't play it. I do occasionally use tone controls in an attempt to get some pleasure from bad recordings of otherwise worth while music, if they can be corrected by tone controls, but if that fails, then they just don't get played. By 'Bad Recordings' I also mean bad performances and bad music i.e. music I don't like.

Where my fundamentalism operates most is that I'm not willing to choose equipment on the basis of 'what I like'. That doesn't matter, what matters is that the equipment should be transparent. That's what HiFi, High Fidelity, means to me, not 'what I like'

S.

Don’t think any of us play music we don’t like, when we play music we like it should sound the way we like it! How do you know it’s transparent? Were you there when the recording was made? If you went to another venue listened to the same musicians playing the same music would it sound the same? Transparency means nothing unless you’re listening to acoustic instruments, even then you’re listening to an electronic take on how they sound.

 

[Purité Audio]

Because we only have the record that is the only artefact, we can only aspire to reproducing that record as accurately as possible, it really is a very straightforward concept.
Keith

 

[Plcamp]

It’s interesting that to extract maximal subjective value from any system (all else being objectively equal) the better looking one with the famous nameplate generally wins (else the tests would need not be blind).

So that clearly separates subjective impressions from audio fidelity, as one example.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Because we only have the record that is the only artefact, we can only aspire to reproducing that record as accurately as possible, it really is a very straightforward concept.
Keith

Certainly is Keith you may have fidelity just don’t confuse it with truth. For that you must be there when the performance is made. Hope what you get is as near as possible?
Ron

 

[Inner Space]

I am unashamedly fundamentalist when it comes to audio reproduction. The HiFi system's job is to supply me with longitudinal vibrations in the air which are a close facsimile to the data on the CD or grooves on an LP. The closer the air vibrations get, the higher the fidelity. I care nothing for what came before the CD or LP, as I have no influence over that ...

I agree with this completely. Very well stated.

How do you know it’s transparent? Were you there when the recording was made?

This is an all-too-common misunderstanding. The better question is: do you have the supplied data file? Can you measure the degradation between it and the eventual vibrations in the air? The smaller the difference, the greater the fidelity. That's the ballgame, right there.

 

[Purité Audio]

Certainly is Keith you may have fidelity just don’t confuse it with truth. For that you must be there when the performance is made. Hope what you get is as near as possible?
Ron

Accurate reproduction is the ‘truth’ there is nothing else.
Keith