Thanks for your clarifications.
Just to finish with this…
Also, isn't it the case that the "remove the old product" was objective to solve a problem, but the choice of replacement involved subjective listening as a key element?
You seem to be making a distinction between subjective and objective that I don’t think is really the issue, at least in terms of what I’m trying to get at.
I may have a subjective preference for Rocky Road ice cream over plain Vanilla, but it’s nonetheless the objective differences in the composition of those ice creams that I am reacting to. And so I would be quite justified in concluding that I am having a subjective preference for “ real existing different traits” in Rocky Road ice cream versus vanilla.
It’s that type of justification I believe we’ve been trying to get at. Replacing my large speakers with smaller speakers started with a subjective goal, of wanting an easier passageway into the room (I could have decided I didn’t mind the problem enough). And then there were objective facts about the sizes of the loudspeakers that would or wouldn’t meet that goal.
Likewise , I have a preference for my tube amps over solid state apps that I have tried in my system - they seem to meet my goal of producing a more natural organic presentation. But am I reacting to real objective differences? And if so, am I actually describing those differences accurately?
It does feel that your justification is subjective. That's not an issue as you aren't asking us to accept it as objective fact for all.
Correct, and that I’m not asking anyone to accept my descriptions as objective fact. Because we all know the problems with sighted listening, and at least in the example of my tube amps and my vinyl, I can’t offer objective evidence. So it’s really about describing my own experience. (Though I have posted on the forum the results of my blind listening test between my tube preamp and my solid preamp, for anybody to take from that they will).
Here is my ideal: that I am apprehending the differences accurately, but then it comes to my own subjective assessment as to the relevance of those differences.
It’s like trying to assess the difference between a detailed, large gallery size photograph of a scene, and a painting of that scene. You might look at the two and say: the photograph is the most accurate, down to the most fine detail of the scene, and therefore it is the most REALISTIC depiction of the scene.
Whereas I might say “ I can see what you mean, but even though the painting is slightly less detailed and less accurate in every detail,
I actually find it more realistic. That’s because there is a level of texture and vividness and contrast in the painting that isn’t there in the photograph. The photograph just looks more flat and low contrast and… like a photograph . The vividness and dynamic contrast in the painting. actually help the painting look more real to me.
Ideally, we could both agree on the type of differences we are seeing in each. Even more ideally we could see that each has elements that are “ more like real life” and “ less like real life” and since both are a compromise, the individual chooses or picks up on the features that are most salient to him, in terms of the aspects of realism he cares about.
Likewise, ideally, I am hearing real sonic differences between solid-state amp and a tube amp and my system, and I could describe them accurately, such that when you did the comparison you would say “ yes, I’m hearing the same types of differences.”
But when it comes down to “ which sounds more real than the other” it would be like the photograph versus the painting in terms of what the solid state app excels at reproducing versus the tube amp. And since we bring our own preferences and experience, we could differ on “ which sounds more real” or simply on “ Which we prefer.”
Unlike many on this forum who want to bypass subjectivity for the precision and reliability of measurements (something. I also appreciate) I remain fascinated by the possibilities of intersubjective agreement on our experiences
as well.
It’s like when I go with my fellow foodie brother to a great restaurant. When we are tasting something unique, we try to describe it, and it is so fun and satisfying when one of us manages to put it into words and the other says “yes! Exactly! that’s exactly the impression I have too!” It’s a sort of melding of minds moment.
And that’s always intrigued me in the realm of audio gear. When I would write about my own audio gear auditions, mostly loudspeakers, and when I did speaker reviews for a short while, I wondered “ how close could I possibly get to being a virtual pair of ears for the reader?” My ideal was that my review would give such an accurate impression of the characteristics of the loudspeaker, that should the reader hear the speaker himself, he would agree “ yes that’s exactly what it sounds like” even if the reader didn’t care for the sound himself.
I have been fortunate to have received lots of feedback of that type over the years. Which I found, encouraging. And the fact that quite a number of subjective reviewers have been able to describe the characteristics of loudspeakers I know, in a way that really closely matches my own experience, is one reason why I still find value in the intersubjective project, rife as it is with disadvantages.
I think I've pushed this conversation far enough. Let's get back to vinyl...
Agreed! Back to the
warm sound of vinyl.
