Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[Killingbeans]

All right, I'm starting a new thread in responce to this post in the DX3 Pro+ thread:

Topping DX3 Pro+ Review (DAC & Headphone Amp)

There are differences between general purpose op-amps and those designed for audio. Some parameters are more important than others in those applications. But implementation is still king. A really good engineer will be able to design an audibly transparent circuit around a "low-tier" op-amp, and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I don't want to continue going off topic. Not sure whether it fits in this subforum, so any moderator feel free to move it if it doesn't. Also, if this turn into a dumpster fire really quickly, just do the merciful thing and close the thread.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what @conuss is trying to tell me, so sorry if it has nothing to do with the topic title. I'm going on a hunch. Might be waaaay off.

It is enough to grasp that feelings and ideas must be considered.

Considered with respect to what?

Only devices and robots can do without it.

Exactly. Op-amps are devices. They have no feelings. They might be used to evoke feelings in humans when listening to music, but in nearly all cases they will be implemented in ways that has practically zero audible influence. This means the only influence they have is via the preconceptions you get from reading impressive numbers in the datasheet or some marketing blurb using clever wording.

Is it a revelation to you that humans are a priori subjective about beauty in any expression?

Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether I'm aware that beauty is universal? I don't think I agree with that.

As far as I can tell 'a priori' is defined as knowledge that requires no experience. According to my reasoning subjectivity does not deal with knowledge, but only impressions. That leads me to the topic of this thread; Can knowledge really be gained via subjectivity?

(My personal answer is obviously: "No, not in any reliable way", but the discussion could be fun. If nothing else, this thread could be referred to when a new user makes the claim for the ump-teenth time)

Compare the number of discussions of audio and video perception, much will become clear.

Again. Not really sure what should become clear? The video communities has a much healthier relationship with objective data?

In short, if we do not recognize the market of sound operational amplifiers as fraudulent, we will have to refer it to the consumer market, which needs buyers, who should be understood and respected.

I have a hard time unwrapping that. As in: "The buyers need to be shown respect by not subjecting them to BS claims about op-amps coloring the sound of products"? If that's the case, then yes! We've been agreeing all along and there's just been a communication malfunction.

If not:

 

[Ron Texas]

Subjectivity has gone so far off the rails in audio that any review lacking measurements is worthless. Of course I have some $8,000 interconnects for sale used for only $5,000 if you want them.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Subjectivity has gone so far off the rails in audio that any review lacking measurements is worthless. Of course I have some $8,000 interconnects for sale used for only $5,000 if you want them.

STOP. It was off the rails in the 70's when there was little if any testing. Is now worse? I'd say no, but ... what was that guys name that said "There's a sucker born every minute".

 

[escksu]

Subjective knowledge is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT when it comes to living things (be it humans or animals). I am talking about subjective knowledge as a whole (more than just audio equipment).

Not everything can be measured. Aesthetics is one thing that never be measured objectively. ITs entirely based on an individual's perception. So, you need to know what are your targeted audience preferences when designing the looks of your gear.

Even the recording itself. You can talk about it being as close to reference as possible. However, you will also find many pple who hates it. Some may complain its too bright, some say it lacks bass etc etc... The sound engineer has to decide what kind of sound he wants and whether the audience will like it. If not, the album is not going to sell well...

Even the gear itself... You think as close to reference is the best and should be way? Well, I tell you no. Because there are also those who don't like the sound to be like reference. Thats why some gears have tone controls too. Some speakers have more bass, some less, some have more treble etc. etc... Its all about personal preferences.

Personal preferences can NEVER be measured objectively. Companies make products to sell and make $$$. You need to understand your customers and know what they want and make something that suit their needs.

Every product (not just audio gear) has both an objective and subjective part.

 

[pozz]

Can knowledge really be gained via subjectivity?

Yes. A lot of psychoacoustics is based on subject reports. Most of our most useful data finds its source there.

Plus, you have to learn a lot about acoustics, etc., to understand what you're hearing and the phenomena around you.

Like Krishnamurti said: "Clarity of perception is its own action."

 

[JJB70]

It's an interesting point, and if you accept that people have preferences for sound signature then there's a place for subjective views. The Harman work seems to have been largely about understanding and quantifying preferences and developing response curves matching this. Measurement is great but in audio it is most valuable if you understand what is audible to you and how your own preferences translate to frequency response. Ditto with things like ergonomics, there are lots of scientific papers and plenty of ideas derived from analysis, but understanding preference and behaviour underpins a lot of this. One of the great fallacies is that there is a great divide between the subjective and objective in fields like audio in my view.

 

[Chrispy]

Preferences or imagination when it comes to "sound signature"? Seems the latter with most audiophiles.

 

[Inner Space]

Every product (not just audio gear) has both an objective and subjective part.

True, and we'd see it more clearly if we paused a moment and remembered our etymology:

Because "objective" and "subjective" are so structurally similar, with the identical "jective" part, people automatically assume they're related words, in the sense of being opposites, or antonyms, like ying/yang, either/or, etc. But they didn't start out related. "Objective" came straight from the original Latin neuter noun "objectum", i.e. "object", and as part of an adjectival clause quickly came to mean "an accurate, repeatable and falsifiable description of an object."

Meanwhile the word "subjective" was hatched millennia after the Romans were gone, via Middle French and "Late" (i.e. made up) Latin, in a purely political context, to do with subjects of a ruler and their place in the hierarchy, etc. It stayed that way for hundreds of years.

Eventually "subjective" joined "objective" in the scientific, engineering and technical world either late in the 18th century, or early in the 19th. This was a time when design and marketing was beginning to matter. Accordingly, the meanings of the words were precise:

"Objective" meant "A description of the object."
"Subjective" meant "My perception of the object."

Both were vital, and far from being opposites were in fact sequential and complementary. (Although not considered equal - "subjective" was adopted via its old political context, to demonstrate perception's inferiority to hard science.) It was - and still is - part of good science and engineering to include opinion from trusted eyes and ears, in consumer-facing markets. (With rigorous controls, of course, yadda, yadda.)

So yes, useful knowledge has been gained for hundreds of years from asking people, "What do you think of this?"

And it takes a lot of annoyance out of situations if you mentally translate for yourself. There are no subjective reviews - merely people reporting their perceptions of an object. Which might be interesting, or not. Usually not.

 

[dshreter]

My own two cents is that subjective impressions based upon what someone has heard are nearly useless. There’s too much inconsistency in how people hear without even getting into the dramatic effect of how their room influences what they actually hear.

On the other hand there is room for subjective interpretation of measurable data. There’s no objectively perfect spinorama, there is the room for different perspectives on the ideal. There’s also room for interpretation of what any given measurements imply for the resulting listening experience.

But that interpretation should be first grounded in the data.

 

[Factolermentation]

My own two cents is that subjective impressions based upon what someone has heard are nearly useless. There’s too much inconsistency in how people hear without even getting into the dramatic effect of how their room influences what they actually hear.

On the other hand there is room for subjective interpretation of measurable data. There’s no objectively perfect spinorama, there is the room for different perspectives on the ideal. There’s also room for interpretation of what any given measurements imply for the resulting listening experience.

But that interpretation should be first grounded in the data.

I almost entirely agree with you, but think it's important to bring up a parable from food consumer sensory. There you pretty much have to start with subjective data, with a large sample size consumer likeness test. Then you try to drill down and see why one product is preferred over another. And even then you move to Descriptive Analysis which is pretty much all subjective impression albeit in a very controlled setting and eventually fit to a statistical model. (For example, if its hypothesized that a certain product is more well-liked because it has a higher level of a flavor compound that boosts the perception of the "umami" flavor, a DA panel would subjectively rank a number of samples with different levels of that compound against a reference standard for that and a number of other subjectively determined criteria).

I think subjective impressions are fine, and can/should even drive objective research (which can in turn incorporate even more subjective impressions). I think using subjective impressions to create a cottage industry for selling equipment that hasn't been subjected to even basic objective rigor is ignorant at best and predatory at worst.

 

[escksu]

My own two cents is that subjective impressions based upon what someone has heard are nearly useless. There’s too much inconsistency in how people hear without even getting into the dramatic effect of how their room influences what they actually hear.

On the other hand there is room for subjective interpretation of measurable data. There’s no objectively perfect spinorama, there is the room for different perspectives on the ideal. There’s also room for interpretation of what any given measurements imply for the resulting listening experience.

But that interpretation should be first grounded in the data.

Subjective impressions are extremely important and measurable data reinforces those impressions. They are related to one another.

 

[escksu]

True, and we'd see it more clearly if we paused a moment and remembered our etymology:

Because "objective" and "subjective" are so structurally similar, with the identical "jective" part, people automatically assume they're related words, in the sense of being opposites, or antonyms, like ying/yang, either/or, etc. But they didn't start out related. "Objective" came straight from the original Latin neuter noun "objectum", i.e. "object", and as part of an adjectival clause quickly came to mean "an accurate, repeatable and falsifiable description of an object."

Meanwhile the word "subjective" was hatched millennia after the Romans were gone, via Middle French and "Late" (i.e. made up) Latin, in a purely political context, to do with subjects of a ruler and their place in the hierarchy, etc. It stayed that way for hundreds of years.

Eventually "subjective" joined "objective" in the scientific, engineering and technical world either late in the 18th century, or early in the 19th. This was a time when design and marketing was beginning to matter. Accordingly, the meanings of the words were precise:

"Objective" meant "A description of the object."
"Subjective" meant "My perception of the object."

Both were vital, and far from being opposites were in fact sequential and complementary. (Although not considered equal - "subjective" was adopted via its old political context, to demonstrate perception's inferiority to hard science.) It was - and still is - part of good science and engineering to include opinion from trusted eyes and ears, in consumer-facing markets. (With rigorous controls, of course, yadda, yadda.)

So yes, useful knowledge has been gained for hundreds of years from asking people, "What do you think of this?"

And it takes a lot of annoyance out of situations if you mentally translate for yourself. There are no subjective reviews - merely people reporting their perceptions of an object. Which might be interesting, or not. Usually not.

Subjective does not necessary mean perception. A more accurate word to use would be observation, esp under the eyes of an expert/professional.

 

[Inner Space]

Subjective does not necessary mean perception. A more accurate word to use would be observation, esp under the eyes of an expert/professional.

You miss my point. Unless we want words to mean anything anyone wants them to mean, we should stick to the reason the word was first introduced to the technical arena, which was an individual's perception of a reality. So yes, it does necessarily mean that. If you want new words in the language, invent them yourself. Don't water down the few useful ones we have.

 

[escksu]

You miss my point. Unless we want words to mean anything anyone wants them to mean, we should stick to the reason the word was first introduced to the technical arena, which was an individual's perception of a reality. So yes, it does necessarily mean that. If you want new words in the language, invent them yourself. Don't water down the few useful ones we have.

Don't casually use the word 'WE'. What you think does not represent everyone. And no, I didn't miss your point. Thats what you think.

 

[Leporello]

Even the gear itself... You think as close to reference is the best and should be way? Well, I tell you no. Because there are also those who don't like the sound to be like reference. Thats why some gears have tone controls too. Some speakers have more bass, some less, some have more treble etc. etc... Its all about personal preferences.

It is all about personal preferences only if you decide it is all about personal preferences. But we are free to choose other criteria.

 

[escksu]

It is all about personal preferences only if you decide it is all about personal preferences. But we are free to choose other criteria.

Yes, agree whole heartedly. Its your money and your choice. You are free to choose what you want based on any crtieria you desire. However, there is an exception, your wife may limit your choices. She has more power than anyone on earth.

 

[Frgirard]

I have the impression that this subject has been discussed on this forum several times and always the same eloquence contests.

What's new since the last thread? Science must advance.

 

[escksu]

I have the impression that this subject has been discussed on this forum several times and always the same eloquence contests.

What's new since the last thread? Science must advance.

Yes, lost count of the number of times..... ITs always the same question and same answers. Woder why they don't get bored of it....

As for science, yes its advancing. Unfortunately, all these objective/subjective is not the main focus of Science. Researchers are more interested in practical uses of sound (Eg. Sonar, ultrasound etc...) instead of whethere these audio gear sound good or measure well....

Audio is an extremely niche market to begin with.

 

[Frgirard]

The root of audiophile myths (and how we fell for them)?

Hey all, I was wondering about how various myths began and became entrenched. Sheer placebo is not quite enough in some instances, it seems to me. Granted, I know that I, to admit my own failings, wanted to believe certain things 'made a difference' and was talked into some (thankfully...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[conuss]

Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether I'm aware that beauty is universal? I don't think I agree with that.

You have grasped the exact opposite of the simple idea that beauty is subjective, not objective. Unless, of course, we are not talking about the beauty of the night August starry sky. But, this is already too high-minded, but, apparently, YOU need it in the context of the role of sound operational amplifiers.