Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[solderdude]

It seems this discussion started from @conuss question about audiophile opamps being a scam.

Confirm that you consider the audio op-amp market a cynical business, essentially a scam.

That question hasn't been answered.

I would say the audiophile op-amp market is rather a race for technical excellence in measured performance rather than 'trying to reach audiophile bliss in a small part'.
Only in instrumentation devices a higher performance is desirable.
Audiophools believe other things and they even hate opamps in general and prefer tubes or discrete parts.

Audio product manufacturers want 'best measurements' and like to use minimal part counts ans max. performance... a market section extra on the instrumentation market.
So ADCs, DACs, amps etc benefit in measured performance.
So not a scam but a race towards market share and creating parts (op-amps) with TOTL technical performance. On the spec sheet they can add the word 'audio' as they are well suited for this.

But.. the audio question is whether or not it has an audible impact and if it does under which conditions are they audible and to whom ?
That raises another question... can we rely on 'golden eared' folks that do not use scientific methods to find this out but rather pop one in and think they can detect it OR should this be tested under controlled conditions.

The audiophool market thrives on 'sighted listening'.
The audiophile market can be split in audiophool and audio measuring types and folks that sit between them.

Most audiophools are also audiophiles but not all audiophiles are audiophools.
On which side is the average audio consumer on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being 'ears only' and 10 being 'measurements only' ?

Therein lies the discussion.
How does one 'think' about electronics and listening.
What experiences does one have.
What level of electronics knowledge does one have.
What are real absolute audibility levels (so tested in lab conditions/rules and not in the home and sighted)

 

[Robin L]

I was completely absorbed into the "subjective" audiophile mindset---analog > digital, the effects of interconnects and speaker cables are audible, and bought all sorts of things that cost a lot of money but didn't really change anything. Above all, I thought the goal of audiophilia is a recreation of the original musical event that takes the auditor into the room with the musicians, and so on.

Working with microphones dispelled that notion. The microphones always stamped their sound signature on the music. What I have observed is that the kinds of audio colorations that many subjectively oriented audiophiles seek out serve to mask the colorations of the microphones with even more coloration and distortion. The less the audio gear gets in the way, the more the result sounds like a microphone feed, a patchwork quilt of different microphone sounds, many [if not all] compressed or otherwise electronically manipulated, panned within the "soundscape". This is accompanied by greater clarity of each individual voice in the mix. If the recording is a simple two-microphone recording, the "View-Master" illusion of three dimensions in two-channel stereo is enhanced, though one is still stuck with the coloration of the microphones and tied down to a "sweet spot" in the listening room.

I guess this is a subjective response. I guess subjective language is necessary, if only as feedback and as a shared [hopefully] language about sound.

However, there is a subset of "subjectivity", one found frequently in Stereophile, Darko, Absolute Sound, many other publications 'n' posts, where a piece of audio gear is touted to possess certain magical sonic qualities, too ineffable to measure. This subset of subjectivism is pure snake oil.

 

[Holmz]

…
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.
...

Since the quote is from @conuss it may be useful to PM that person.
Otherwise it could look like a personal attack.

What is your hunch though?

 

[antcollinet]

I think a common misunderstanding that people (especially those of a more subjective nature) make about ASR, is that ASR ONLY cares about measurements.

This is clearly not the case. Many of Amirm's reviews of gear that measures well also has a subjective "listening" part. There is a whole subforum devoted to psychoacoustics.

What IS different between here and less objective organisations, is that measurements are used to TEST subjective impressions:

If measurements show that there are audible differences between devices (eg speakers, or a speaker with/without EQ) then of course discussions about preference and other subjective issues are valid.

However if measurements show there is no audible difference (for example between most modern "transparent" measuring DACs) then someone claiming to hear a clear difference are likely to be told they are wrong, and are not actually hearing what they think they are, except in their head.

 

[JJB70]

I think there is another side to subjectivity. In audio it is a concept associated with golden eared enthusiasts of audio jewelry. I approach it from the other direction. If I cannot discern a difference between different pieces of equipment, digital codecs etc, or if the effort to discern differences gives me brain overload then as far as I am concerned they sound the same regardless of measured difference.

 

[antcollinet]

I think there is another side to subjectivity. In audio it is a concept associated with golden eared enthusiasts of audio jewelry. I approach it from the other direction. If I cannot discern a difference between different pieces of equipment, digital codecs etc, or if the effort to discern differences gives me brain overload then as far as I am concerned they sound the same regardless of measured difference.

Pretty much how I feel - hence my continued use of a relatively poor measuring soundblaster as DAC.

 

[solderdude]

if the effort to discern differences gives me brain overload then as far as I am concerned they sound the same regardless of measured difference.

I too have a similar experience/look at it (when comparing level matched/blind) and think I am DAC-deaf this way.
My ears are old though. I like looking at audio jewelry but will never buy it because of what it is and represents but heard and seen plenty.
Young ears might be able to discern slow- and fast roll-off filtering and when not realizing the filtering is the issue it would be easy to conclude DACs sound different to them but my old crappy hearing cannot AB them.

 

[Mulder]

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.

A forum like this contains a lot of information and discussions, but it is practically impossible for any individual member ta have knowledge about every topic being discussed in the past and where to find it. Knowledge, information or discussions contained in a forum like this are seldom accumulated in a fully rational and transparent manner. I do not think that an open forum like this is the best place if the purpose is to take science forward.

 

[EJ3]

IMHO: I objectively want my equipment transparent & the FR flat. So that I have an ability to swap a piece of equipment without altering the sound.
Then there is my room. Because I know that I have the objective truth, then the room can be EQed (DSP, using a mike or however I want to do it) to be flat or with the Harman curve or whatever curve I want.
Then there is the subjective of how I perceive the live music at venues that I go to.
So I have my objective of flat or my Harmen curve or however else I want it & I know that my system is transparent.
Now it's time to deal with my subjective self. It is time to add the salt, pepper & other spices to get it as close to what I perceive I hear at live music events, which is what I want.
My ears hear things differently than yours, due to the deficiencies caused to my ears by my activities, as well as natural changes to my ears.
So now is the time to adjust the EQ, tone controls or however I do it to get the sound to the subjective way I want to perceive it.
Once that is done, then I should be able to swap a piece of equipment or add a piece of equipment without altering the objective sound.
If this works as I believe it should, now I have appeased both my objective self and my subjective self as far as my hearing goes. & if I have chosen equipment that is objectively transparent and visually subjectively fits in my décor (according to the compromises made between my wife & myself), then all should be an objective/subjective synergy of perfection. That is what the purpose of it all is to me. It ends up being my audio/visual subjective perfection but needs to start wit objective perfection.

 

[escksu]

IMHO: I objectively want my equipment transparent & the FR flat. So that I have an ability to swap a piece of equipment without altering the sound.
Then there is my room. Because I know that I have the objective truth, then the room can be EQed (DSP, using a mike or however I want to do it) to be flat or with the Harman curve or whatever curve I want.
Then there is the subjective of how I perceive the live music at venues that I go to.
So I have my objective of flat or my Harmen curve or however else I want it & I know that my system is transparent.
Now it's time to deal with my subjective self. It is time to add the salt, pepper & other spices to get it as close to what I perceive I hear at live music events, which is what I want.
My ears hear things differently than yours, due to the deficiencies caused to my ears by my activities, as well as natural changes to my ears.
So now is the time to adjust the EQ, tone controls or however I do it to get the sound to the subjective way I want to perceive it.
Once that is done, then I should be able to swap a piece of equipment or add a piece of equipment without altering the objective sound.
If this works as I believe it should, now I have appeased both my objective self and my subjective self as far as my hearing goes. & if I have chosen equipment that is objectively transparent and visually subjectively fits in my décor (according to the compromises made between my wife & myself), then all should be an objective/subjective synergy of perfection. That is what the purpose of it all is to me. It ends up being my audio/visual subjective perfection but needs to start wit objective perfection.

English????

 

[escksu]

I think a common misunderstanding that people (especially those of a more subjective nature) make about ASR, is that ASR ONLY cares about measurements.

This is clearly not the case. Many of Amirm's reviews of gear that measures well also has a subjective "listening" part. There is a whole subforum devoted to psychoacoustics.

What IS different between here and less objective organisations, is that measurements are used to TEST subjective impressions:

If measurements show that there are audible differences between devices (eg speakers, or a speaker with/without EQ) then of course discussions about preference and other subjective issues are valid.

However if measurements show there is no audible difference (for example between most modern "transparent" measuring DACs) then someone claiming to hear a clear difference are likely to be told they are wrong, and are not actually hearing what they think they are, except in their head.

People in ASR ONLY cares about measurements..... ITs a KNOWN FACT. Thats why this place is so hostile and why many pple avoided this place (thats why online members are mostly less than 200 and its the few usual pple).

 

[Holmz]

People in ASR ONLY cares about measurements..... ITs a KNOWN FACT. Thats why this place is so hostile and why many pple avoided this place (thats why online members are mostly less than 200 and its the few usual pple).

“Known fact”? Or “alternative facts”?
It is also hostile on subjective ”uber allies” sites as well.

It is hard to be hostile towards data. I have seen it done, but it is somewhat like projection.

 

[solderdude]

People in ASR ONLY cares about measurements

I don't.... measurements are a useful tool.

ASR is not any more 'hostile' than other websites that have their core values (beliefs) questioned.

 

[Frgirard]

A forum like this contains a lot of information and discussions, but it is practically impossible for any individual member ta have knowledge about every topic being discussed in the past and where to find it. Knowledge, information or discussions contained in a forum like this are seldom accumulated in a fully rational and transparent manner. I do not think that an open forum like this is the best place if the purpose is to take science forward.

It's possible to create a centralized thread

 

[dougi]

Useful knowledge is certainly obtained all the time subjectively, including in audio and related matters. All of the studies to determine listening behaviour and psycho-acoustics are, in large part, done via well controlled subjective tests. All of the audio codec developments in the last 30 years could not have been done without it. In my opinion, where ASR and audio science falls down, is that there is still more work to do, in order to be confident what is generally audible and what is not, and consequently what objective measurement limits are appropriate. I think it is easier in the visual sense, as you can, literally, see the problems.

 

[escksu]

I don't.... measurements are a useful tool.

ASR is not any more 'hostile' than other websites that have their core values (beliefs) questioned.

If ok if you dont but doesnt change the status about this forum. I have been monitoring the traffic for quite some time and there are always around 200 members online....most of the accounts are "dead" accounts...

 

[Thunder22]

People in ASR ONLY cares about measurements..... ITs a KNOWN FACT. Thats why this place is so hostile and why many pple avoided this place (thats why online members are mostly less than 200 and its the few usual pple).

Everything will be okay. Take a deep breath. Collect your thoughts and write a sentence that makes sense. At the end of the day we are here to discuss audio. Isn't that supposed to be fun? Subjective/Objective thoughts have their place here.

For instance, your post is subjectively stating "known facts", and my perception of what is written would be "the poster included no facts, let alone known facts and comes off as a bit hostile and shouty". The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[escksu]

“Known fact”? Or “alternative facts”?
It is also hostile on subjective ”uber allies” sites as well.

It is hard to be hostile towards data. I have seen it done, but it is somewhat like projection.

Everything will be okay. Take a deep breath. Collect your thoughts and write a sentence that makes sense. At the end of the day we are here to discuss audio. Isn't that supposed to be fun? Subjective/Objective thoughts have their place here.

For instance, your post is subjectively stating "known facts", and my perception of what is written would be "the poster included no facts, let alone known facts and comes off as a bit hostile and shouty". The pot calling the kettle black.

I have come to learn that this is an extremely toxic place...its more of a cult populated by extremists..these folks have no interest to learn anything, they are only out to say i am right, you are wrong attitude...

Pple post answers like all capacitors are the same, all resistors are the same..lol..

 

[pkane]

I have come to learn that this is an extremely toxic place...its more of a cult populated by extremists..these folks have no interest to learn anything, they are only out to say i am right, you are wrong attitude...

Pple post answers like all capacitors are the same, all resistors are the same..lol..

Yeah, right? How dare they use actual knowledge instead of trying to listen to the capacitor or resistor like regular people do? Extremists, every one of them!

 

[ahofer]

I think of this in terms of the “Elephant and Rider“ metaphor of Jon Haidt (and Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi, I think). Basically, our rational functions reflexively serve to rationalize what we already wanted (the Elephant goes where it wants and the rider explains that’s what he intended, and why).

The sales process for luxury goods is first to viscerally impress you with something and create some desire in the Elephant. All the florid text and subjective stuff is there for the rider to make his irrelevant (irrelephant) excuses.

​