Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[richard12511]

Oh what fun! Another one of these threads. Confusion sets in.

I am informed with great regularity, that the majority of members here. Loath Subjective subject threads. With a vengeance. They normally create the highest amount of Reports and interaction problems. Yet look at the pages of replies? This activity is a good example of why we (the Moderation Team) tolerate them. So next time you wish a certain Subjective thread be shutdown, take measure of the Community engagement and ask your self “how did we get here?”. This is why in many cases we let the thread run their course of course.

I absolutely don't think threads like this should be shut down, so thanks for keeping them open. If we shut down any thread with talk of subjectivity, we'd be no better than those other forums that immediately shut down any thread that mentions measurements or blind tests.

 

[richard12511]

Thanks for the reply.... And NO, I am not even talking about "resistor sound".

I am talking about how properties like tolerance and temp. coefficient (Even inductance since normal wirewound resistors have inductance). Obviously, changes in resistance values will have an effect on the audio signals and hence the sound.

IF an equipment has symmetrical layout for both L/R channels, differences to high loose tolerance is going to have an effect as well.

For speakers (eg. tweeter resistor), changes in the resistance esp. due to temperature will affect the signal amplitude. This is not "resistor sound".

Btw, resistors have 'noise' as well. So, tell me, do you think all resistors are the same? Some folks here are so adamdant that they are all the same.....

Resistor Noise | Resistor Fundamentals | Resistor Guide

What is Resistor Noise? Noise is an unwanted phenomenon for resistors. For some applications the noise properties are important. Examples are high gain amplifiers, charge amplifiers, and low-level…

eepower.com

I've never seen anyone here say all resistors or capacitors are the same.

 

[Doodski]

I've never seen anyone here say all resistors or capacitors are the same.

In fairness I have said that caps make no difference if used for shunting unwanted energy to ground in amp circuits. And I stand my ground on OP amp rolling being silly in most cases. I might be one of the offenders. I am trying to be accepting and non confrontational about it though.

 

[antcollinet]

As my posting history indicates, I very much think psychoacoustics is a thing....

That is a little bit like saying "I very much think gravity is a thing"

 

[Holmz]

That is a little bit like saying "I very much think gravity is a thing"

In the context of post 92, 93 and 95, their comment, their comment makes sense though.

 

[antcollinet]

In the context of post 92, 93 and 95, their comment, their comment makes sense though.

Yeah - I know. Just having some of that fun I am now apparently addicted to.

 

[escksu]

That is a little bit like saying "I very much think gravity is a thing"

Haha, I rather not waste my time to reply him....

 

[escksu]

In fairness I have said that caps make no difference if used for shunting unwanted energy to ground in amp circuits. And I stand my ground on OP amp rolling being silly in most cases. I might be one of the offenders. I am trying to be accepting and non confrontational about it though.

You are not wrong to say that though. Those caps are not in the audio path.

 

[krabapple]

Haha, I rather not waste my time to reply him....

I think you owe ASR for a lot of wasted time.

 

[Mulder]

This discussion is strange. The answer to the question should be obvious. No objective knowledge can be reached via subjective methods. This is precisely why one distinguishes subjectively and objectively. The former constitute opinions, the latter form the basis for establishing facts.

 

[Robin L]

This discussion is strange. The answer to the question should be obvious. No objective knowledge can be reached via subjective methods. This is precisely why one distinguishes subjectively and objectively. The former constitute opinions, the latter form the basis for establishing facts.

Yeah.

But at the same time, there is the issue of predictable subjective responses. Because those results will vary from person to person---the frequency response of the human hearing apparatus is all over the place, varying from person to person. So there is not an up or down, true or false answer to the issue of listener preference.

Klipsch speakers and Grado Headphones have, objectively speaking, terrible frequency responses. They are also popular brands in their respective categories. One cannot say those who prefer these transducers are "wrong". These people have their preferences. The real issue is getting scientific about subjective response, try to determine what people will prefer. That sort of chart of subjective preferences will will not resut in a single, correct preference. It will be more like a tree, branching into different types of preferences. The sonic requirements of a Metalhead are not the same as an aficionado of Early Music, LS3/5 a's will not satisfy fans of Techno. People don't listen to music in the same way, one size does not fit all.

 

[Raindog123]

Klipsch speakers and Grado Headphones have, objectively speaking, terrible frequency responses

Yet, they have those “terrible” frequency responses only if compared to the purely _subjectively_ derived Harman curve. Go figure.

 

[Geert]

Yet, they have those “terrible” frequency responses only if compared to the purely _subjectively_ derived Harman curve. Go figure.

Put a speaker with a flat anechoic response in a normal room and it's measurement will resamble the Harman curve, with a bit if wiggle room in the low end to tune according to your preference and loudness. Is that so subjective?

Different post in this topic seem to insinuate it's OK for the frequency response to be all over the place. There's no study that supports that, on the contrary. It's also not my experience, from 30 years of tuning speaker systems.

 

[Robin L]

Put a speaker with a flat anechoic response in a normal room and it's measurement will resamble the Harman curve, with a bit if wiggle room in the low end to tune according to your preference and loudness. Is that so subjective?

Different post in this topic seem to insinuate it's OK for the frequency response to be all over the place. There's no study that supports that, on the contrary. It's also not my experience, from 30 years of tuning speaker systems.

But people buy them and like them.

Telling them that they are wrong will get you nowhere.

 

[Mulder]

Yeah.

But at the same time, there is the issue of predictable subjective responses. Because those results will vary from person to person---the frequency response of the human hearing apparatus is all over the place, varying from person to person. So there is not an up or down, true or false answer to the issue of listener preference.

Klipsch speakers and Grado Headphones have, objectively speaking, terrible frequency responses. They are also popular brands in their respective categories. One cannot say those who prefer these transducers are "wrong". These people have their preferences. The real issue is getting scientific about subjective response, try to determine what people will prefer. That sort of chart of subjective preferences will will not resut in a single, correct preference. It will be more like a tree, branching into different types of preferences. The sonic requirements of a Metalhead are not the same as an aficionado of Early Music, LS3/5 a's will not satisfy fans of Techno. People don't listen to music in the same way, one size does not fit all.

I think you miss my point. I did not question the existence of personal (subjective) preferences. I also did not question the possibility that these personal preferences may coincide with frequency responses whose measured values look "terrible". My point is that these are precisely personal subjective opinions and that they as such lack an objective foundation. It does not constitute objective knowledge, but subjective experiences. It's not the same thing.

 

[Robin L]

I think you miss my point. I did not question the existence of personal (subjective) preferences. I also did not question the possibility that these personal preferences may coincide with frequency responses whose measured values look "terrible". My point is that these are precisely personal subjective opinions and that they as such lack an objective foundation. It does not constitute objective knowledge, but subjective experiences. It's not the same thing.

And I'm saying that if the quality of audio reproduction is to advance further, there must be more detailed and systematic analysis of listener preference. It's useless to detect some deviation from claimed "correct" response and say "it's wrong" if enough people like it. What it is is a data point, something to take into consideration when trying to figure out what constitutes "good sound".

The word "subjective" appears to be pejorative around here.

 

[Geert]

But people buy them and like them. Telling them that they are wrong will get you nowhere.

There can be specific reasons why they like them, which means stating listening preference is wrong is also not OK. For example:
- Speakers placed close to a wall
- Mainly listening to very specific genres of music
- Inexpirience, explaining why entry level speakers with boomy bass and boosted highs sell well
- Preference for specific brands, buying into their marketing strategy
- ...

 

[Mulder]

Yet, they have those “terrible” frequency responses only if compared to the purely _subjectively_ derived Harman curve. Go figure.

Oh Really? I had the impression that the harman curve is based on research, where listening tests determine what a majority of listeners prefer in terms of frequency response.

 

[Geert]

It's useless to detect some deviation from claimed "correct" response and say "it's wrong" if enough people like it.

To me the statement that lots of people like specific deviations is also nothing more than an assumption. And my experience says otherwise. Which doesn't mean there shouldn't be a bit if wiggle room, which is what's supported by the Harman studies.

 

[Mulder]

And I'm saying that if the quality of audio reproduction is to advance further, there must be more detailed and systematic analysis of listener preference. It's useless to detect some deviation from claimed "correct" response and say "it's wrong" if enough people like it. What it is is a data point, something to take into consideration when trying to figure out what constitutes "good sound".

The word "subjective" appears to be pejorative around here.

Right or wrong?? A subjective experience becomes "wrong" only in the moment it is claimed to be objective. As long as it is strictly personal, the question of wrong or right is a wrongly asked question. Basically, you are saying that the industry should collect subjective listening impressions, evaluate them, and then create an objective basis for advancing sound technology. Well. That's probably how the serious part of the industry works.