Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[Killingbeans]

You pointed out my #1 quirk that I often see posted. To me snake oil (as @Mulder pointed out) is the fraud in this industry. There is plenty and it needs to be called out.

Absolutely! But when is something just clever design and/or marketing, and when does it become snake-oil?

For instance, a manufacturer, who makes an amplifier in a particularly heavy enclosure, knows very well that the weight will give an impression of quality and sturdiness. There's a good chance that it will result in an increase of favorable reviews. It would be silly to classify that trick as snake-oil, but it's based on the same mechanisms.

To me, the only thing that puts something like this in snake-oil territory, is when ridiculous claims are being made. The mechanisms, that the real swindlers are exploiting, are however omnipresent and we are being subjected to them all the time.

And no, I'm not telling you to go paranoid and put on a tinfoil hat. But when hard evidence points to something as being too good to be true, at the very least it should warrant a healthy spoonful of scepticism.

(I understand why "flat earther" is being used indiscriminately as an insult by both sides in this debate... but lets not go there)

What grinds my gears, is when poster states that a moderate upgrade is chasing snake oil or that the listener has (magic ears).
Even from the likes of a company like Topping. If someone says that they are interested in say the D90, they will sometimes be accused of chasing snake oil by the folks who think the D10 is all you will ever need!

I don't think many of us would go as far as calling crazy high SINAD numbers "snake-oil". Personally I'd go for "overkill", or if I'm in a provocative mood: "wishful thinking"

There's no doubt that human hearing is a wonderful thing that can give many great experiences, but the idea of using "critical listening" as an accurate assessment tool seems deeply flawed to me.

 

[escksu]

Absolutely! But when is something just clever design and/or marketing, and when does it become snake-oil?

Ask you as question, who or what determines its snake-oil or not? If 55 out of 100 think its snake oil but remaining 45 think it isn't, is it snake-oil or not?

 

[Killingbeans]

My personal idea of snake-oil is when people sell BS well knowing that it's BS. By that definition real snake-oil might actually be a rarity in high-end audio, in the sense that most of the countless people who peddle nonsense products seem to believe their own BS 100%.

It doesn't make those products less silly though. But the mild impact of irrationality is, from what I can tell, a large part of what attracts people to this hobby. Anybody with a set of ears can call themselves experts. Don't think I've ever encountered another discipline within electrical engineering where a "stop and think for a moment!" prompts a "don't be a party pooper!" the way it often does when dealing with audio reproduction.

 

[Thunder22]

Ask you as question, who or what determines its snake-oil or not? If 55 out of 100 think its snake oil but remaining 45 think it isn't, is it snake-oil or not?

Amirm. And that's why I'm here.

 

[krabapple]

Except you didn't. You said that the product does nothing.

And you said 'knowledge of the product'. Which is something inside the user's head, not something the product 'did'. The product didn't insert knowledge into the user's head. If you believe sheer existence constitutes 'doing something', what can I say? It's tedious philosophico-wankery, even for this forum.

 

[Robin L]

And you said 'knowledge of the product'. Which is something inside the user's head, not something the product 'did'. The product didn't insert knowledge into the user's head. If you believe sheer existence constitutes 'doing something', what can I say? It's tedious philosophico-wankery, even for this forum.

Hold my beer:

 

[mdunjic]

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.

The system I owned in last 15 yrs (only preamps changed basically) starts strangely sounding differently BEFORE and AFTER a have two shots of tequila all of a sudden … lol

Should then impact of alcohol also be considered, as legitimate ’subjective’ parameter, to be considered by mainstream magazine reviewers advocating that their ‘golden ears’ matter lot more than basic math, sound engineering hygiene, science and proper measurements?

 

[pkane]

The system I owned in last 15 yrs (only preamps changed basically) starts strangely sounding differently BEFORE and AFTER a have two shots of tequila all of a sudden … lol

Should then impact of alcohol also be considered, as legitimate ’subjective’ parameter, to be considered by mainstream magazine reviewers advocating that their ‘golden ears’ matter lot more than basic math, sound engineering hygiene, science and proper measurements?

You’re missing a lot of the SQ improvement if you’re not drinking 99.99% pure alcohol Ok, I know that’s pretty much impossible, but the closer you get, the more veils lifted.

 

[Killingbeans]

Methanol is even better. It lets you focus 100% on the sound.

 

[Newman]

…that would be the sound of the Grim Reaper approaching.

 

[Blumlein 88]

…that would be the sound of the Grim Reaper approaching.

With a disclaimer should anyone somehow not know. Methanol is poisonous to humans (and animals too I'd think).

 

[Killingbeans]

Yes, and if you're "lucky" enough it won't kill you, but you'll become blind. Making moonshine can be lethal in many ways.

 

[mdunjic]

You’re missing a lot of the SQ improvement if you’re not drinking 99.99% pure alcohol Ok, I know that’s pretty much impossible, but the closer you get, the more veils lifted.

Makes sense … under the influence the distortions in the sound just get transformed into distortions in the brain … similar to energy conservation law

 

[Killingbeans]

Destructive interference

The buzz from the alcohol just needs to be 180 degrees out of phase with the veils.

 

[mdunjic]

Unfortunately, it sounds to me that the whole “objectivists vs. subjectivists” debate in audio, is as hopeless as “pro-vaxx vs. anti-vaxx” debate raging on other social media platforms and forums. Happy New Year everyone!

 

[keith_h]

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.

This is the truth of the matter. Well said.

There's a lot of products on the market vying for your dollars. The real difference is not the technology, sometimes not even the performance, its the marketing to convince you its your path to audio Nirvana. Thank goodness for the measurements that offer some insight into how these things perform technically compared to each other.

Buy what makes you happy. The rest is unimportant.

 

[rwortman]

As I mentioned on another thread, professional sound engineers and techs can hear frequency response variations and tune systems to rooms using nothing but reference recordings and their ears. Some measure first snd then tweak by ear, others use ears only. in fact, rooms sound different when they are full of people so ability to make final tweaks by ear is kind of necessary. Anyone that can hear pitch can learn to do this at least a little. There are ear training programs that will help. Subjective impressions are not completely reliable but they are not completely useless either. I’ve heard some pretty lousy sounding speakers in my life and I don’t think a blindfold would have helped them. It’s in finding the differences between devices that all sound pretty good that our senses fail us.

 

[MattHooper]

Subjective claims of audio difference, and even preference, if they are arrived at by purely sighted means, are inevitably open to influence by non-auditory inputs. And that leads to dubious causes being given for the perceived 'effect'.

That is what makes 'subjective' a pejorative.

What is so hard to understand about that?

I'm talking of the term "subjective" all by its lonesome, with meanings that do not attach themselves automatically to "sighted listening".
In this forum, attaching oneself to the term "subjective" is automatically considered some sort of social faux pas. But people's responses to sound, sighted or not, are crucial, are a necessary part of the process. To then say that the term only relates to the known problems of sighted listening is to erase all the other potential meanings and usages of the term, which are quite important as regards sound quality.

Says you.

Try submitting to a journal of audio science and see how that meaning of 'sound quality' works for you.

--me , posting on a forum called 'Audio Science Review'

Robin L was pointing out that you have narrowed down the notion of "subjective" to that which basically means "unreliable" (and hence not useful for gaining knowledge). It's true that when we want a scientific level of confidence, we are going to want to control for variables like bias effects in audio.

But remember, the subject of the thread is "Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

As Robin is suggesting (and I have argued), narrowly defining "subjective," EVEN to "uncontrolled subjective listening" in that manner, is STILL leaving off the table all the ways in which subjective - sighted, uncontrolled subjective! - information is acquired and exchanged, even in audio. And as Robin says, there really does seem to be a strain of belief here that either says explicitly, or at least implies "sighted listening/subjective" = "Totally Unreliable."

The vast majority of the music you listen to was constructed by the exchange of subjective listening impressions - everything from the choice of vocals, instruments, choice of timbre between one guitar or another, production techniques, the character of a reverb or processing, and on and on. Very rarely are measurements referenced. Neither the artists making these choices, nor the engineers and mixers, are using double-blind listening and submitting their work to a scientific journal. And yet...the knowledge they gain via purely "sighted" uncontrolled subjective listening and subjective descriptions, while not of scientific rigor, seems VERY USEFUL.

Especially given the theme of the thread: It's that baby that we don't want thrown out with the bathwater when people disparage sighted/uncontrolled listening as "unreliable" and audiophile descriptors as useless bullshit.

 

[rwortman]

“The vast majority of the music you listen to was constructed by the exchange of subjective listening impressions - everything from the choice of vocals, instruments, choice of timbre between one guitar or another, production techniques, the character of a reverb or processing, and on and on. Very rarely are measurements referenced. Neither the artists making these choices, nor the engineers and mixers, are using double-blind listening and submitting their work to a scientific journal. And yet...the knowledge they gain via purely "sighted" uncontrolled subjective listening and subjective descriptions, while not of scientific rigor, seems VERY USEFUL.”


Exactly. If the question is whether useful knowledge can be attained subjectively the answer is obviously yes. No one learns to conduct an orchestra with test equipment. It is even true evaluating audio equipment. Bias happens but it doesn’t overpower all other inputs. Speakers, phono cartridges, and microphones have audible differences. DAC’s and amplifiers, not so much.

i think most of what is reported in the audio press is imaginary. I also think someone ought to be able to say he thinks his new amp sounds better than his old one without people demanding a level matched ABX test. I accidently proved to myself.once that the warm sound of tubes comes partly from looking at the warm glow of the tubes while the music is playing. Psychoacoustics is science too. Even if a perceived sonic effect is being caused by a visual one, that doesn’t mean it isn’t real or worth seeking out.

 

[krabapple]

Others' purely "sighted" uncontrolled subjective listening and subjective descriptions of audio gear, are *at most* springboards for proper investigation of the claims embedded therein. Their mere existence isn't a reason enough to find them 'useful'. They have to be interesting first.

As for artists and producers in your off-the-mark analogy of music making the home audio
Subjective audio impressions of things that actually sound different -- that's one thing.
Subjective audio impressions of things that actually don't -- that's another.
Both happen in music production. Choices have to be made at every step. Most of them will actually make a true audible difference. In those cases, preference can still be tainted with bias. How much? Training can make a difference. Level of audible difference makes a huge difference.
If you're saying that artists 'beliefs' about audio are part of their process, fine. But that doesn't make them all true. We don't gotta 'believe' that the inaudible choices are what made the product sound like it did. Certainly none of their delusional choices are 'useful' to my own audio system choices.

tl;dr: Do you believe Neil Young's music sounding the way it does proves that what he says about audio is necessarily true, much less 'useful'* to your own search for home audio nirvana?



(*discounting the certain usefulness of a hearty laugh now and then)