Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[Raindog123]

the harman curve is based on research, where listening tests determine what a majority of listeners prefer

Because you’ve asked… In my book, (1) stating that something “is based on research” does not automatically make it “objective”. (2) “listeners prefer” is my very definition of “subjective” - ie “coming from a [human] subject of the experiment/test”.

…just to agree on terminology.

 

[Killingbeans]

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

Indeed. The biggest problem to me seems to be that there's many different definitions of the word floating around in the same space.

Sometimes people use the word to descibe two different things in the same discussion, and one or both parties end up getting offended even though there was never much disagreement to begin with.

 

[Geert]

“listeners prefer” is my very definition of “subjective” - ie “coming from a [human] subject of the experiment/test”.

If it's the preference of one listener it's subjective. If it's a study that analysis listening preference for lots of people using statistics than it's no longer a purely subjective believe. Especially not if a follow-up study confirms the previous findings.

 

[Mulder]

Because you’ve asked… In my book, (1) stating that something “is based on research” does not automatically make it “objective”. (2) “listeners prefer” is my very definition of “subjective” - ie “coming from a [human] subject of the experiment/test”.

…just to agree on terminology.

That something is objectively true, an objective truth, by definition means that it is true regardless of subjectivity. Research is about applying methods that make it possible to establish an objective truth. The subjective is by definition the opposite of objective. Subjective experiences, experiences or perceptions are individual and can never be true in an objective sense. That people share subjective preferences is another matter and should not be confused with objectivity.

 

[Raindog123]

If it's a study that analysis listening preference for lots of people using statistics than it's no longer a purely subjective believe.

Sure. Though where I come from, when they conduct a statistical analysis, they do not just plot a single-line graph, but rather indicate the data-set dispersion (eg, through a standard deviation). This way one can see what the “typical” [FR] preference is, and how big of a deviation from it is reasonable to expect…

Understand me correctly, I am all for the Harman Curve. And it’s a great tool… for manufacturers, as it points at what the maximum preference would be. But again, (1) it’s roots are in the subjective analysis and (2) it is silly to expect that everyone adheres to this single curve (especially when plotted without the dispersion [variation/margin] that was initially measured).

 

[Newman]

Because you’ve asked… In my book, (1) stating that something “is based on research” does not automatically make it “objective”. (2) “listeners prefer” is my very definition of “subjective” - ie “coming from a [human] subject of the experiment/test”.

…just to agree on terminology.

That happens because “S’s with standards” keep getting labeled as “O’s” by S’s without standards.

 

[Geert]

Understand me correctly, I am all for the Harman Curve. And it’s a great tool… for manufacturers, as it points at what the maximum preference would be. But again, (1) it’s roots are in the subjective analysis and (2) it is silly to expect that everyone adheres to this single curve (especially when plotted without the dispersion [variation/margin] that was initially measured).

Scientific research is full of subjectivity and experiments. Application of the scientific method provides verification and turns it in assumed knowledge, which we need as a base from which to advance. But we probably agree on that.

In my experience preference is closer to the single curve than some people seem to think. Close, but not spot on of course. And there will always be exceptions, from which I also happen to know an extreme example. He uses a vintage amplifier because it still has a 2 band EQ so he can turn the highs completely down.

 

[Mulder]

If it's the preference of one listener it's subjective. If it's a study that analysis listening preference for lots of people using statistics than it's no longer a purely subjective believe. Especially not if a follow-up study confirms the previous findings.

This is not correct. The only thing that is found to be a fact in such a statistical analysis is the covariation between individuals with subjective perceptions. However, the perceptions themselves are still subjective. As such, they do not become more objective just because many have the same opinion. It is almost as if one were to claim that the music that sells best or is mostley streamed, also becomes objectively best just because it is commercially successful.

 

[Robin L]

This is not correct. The only thing that is found to be a fact in such a statistical analysis is the covariation between individuals with subjective perceptions. However, the perceptions themselves are still subjective. As such, they do not become more objective just because many have the same opinion. It is almost as if one were to claim that the music that sells best or is mostley streamed, also becomes objectively best just because it is commercially successful.

Well, if I was a CEO that's what I'd say.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

I think you've missed the issue under discussion. You seem to be using "subjective" as essentially meaning "opinion" but that is not, as I take it, what the OP was referring to. He was referring to essentially how reliable our subjective perception is, in gaining information, in particular as it relates to audio gear.

First: virtually all empirical knowledge comes to us via our subjectivity. (That's pretty much what "empirical" means - based on observation/experience). So you don't ever actually get subjectivity out of the picture. What you can do, is find ways of getting more reliable, predictable subjective experience ;-)

That aside, the OP asked:

"Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?"

I think it's pretty clear the reference to "subjective" in this case speaks to using just our perception in order to gain understanding or facts about audio gear, without appeal to objective measurements (and possibly without appeal to controls in listening tests). Basically it speaks to the "subjective" "objective" debate in audio, where the "subjectivists" trust their perception to yield information about audio gear, and "objectivists" will see this as unreliable and desire to see objective measurements to correlate to subjective impressions.

So I believe the question has to do with whether knowledge can be gained by purely "subjective impressions" of audio gear can - what we think it sounds like - in the absence of objective measurements.

So it's a totally coherent question.

I've given my reasons why I think subjective perception can still be useful and a way of exchanging knowledge. I've pointed out that broadly the intersubjective method of obtaining and communicating empirical knowledge both works, and is indispensable in much of our daily life. We gain empirical knowledge all day long without requiring some apparatus to measure our experience. The question is, at what point does it become unreliable, what is the cut off point?

If I listen to some full frequency EDM on a Revel Salon 2 with subwoofers, and next the same track on a small Amazon Echo speaker, when I perceive and report the Revel set up as having significantly deeper and more impactful bass, in all likelihood this isn't merely "opinion" in the sense of "I like vanilla but not chocolate." I'm apprehending facts about how those speakers differ.

The question is at what point this becomes an unreliable method of gaining information about the characteristics of gear.

 

[Raindog123]

It is almost as if one were to claim that the music that sells best or is mostley streamed, also becomes objectively best just because it is commercially successful.

Well, it _is_ “objectively best… seller”.

 

[Raindog123]

First: virtually all empirical knowledge comes to us via our subjectivity. (That's pretty much what "empirical" means - based on observation/experience). So you don't ever actually get subjectivity out of the picture.

I would disagree. In science “empirical“ means “experiment based”. As the opposite to “logical” deduction, conclusion, or transformation. Measuring the time for a stone (vs feather) to fall from a height - to deduce the gravity law - is purely empirical and is purely objective. Despite [tend-to-be-subjective] humans using their brains to run the experiment and interpret it.

 

[Killingbeans]

Subjective info that IS useful: "We had 136 people in here yesterday to listen to this system, and over 100 thought the treble was shrill."

But then you find out that 89 of the people had read a review in a magazine, that concluded one of the components in the system was shrill... And 30 of them didn't like the look of blue LEDs on some of the gear making them think it was shrill. And one of your dumb interns asked 58 of them questions that suggested that the system was shrill. And then you're back to square one

But yeah, I get what you are saying. The key to getting something with low margin of error from subjective impressions is taking the precautions and using the methods that lets you approximate objectivity.

 

[audio2design]

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.

So many quote the "Harmon curve" without knowing how many people and how many acoustic spaces and how many different types of music were used to evaluate and build a preference curve for speakers.

For headphones, the experiment was extensive. For speakers, in my mind, almost non existent.

 

[MattHooper]

I would disagree. In science “empirical“ means “experiment based”. As the opposite to “logical” deduction, conclusion, or transformation. Measuring the time for a stone (vs feather) to fall from a height - to deduce the gravity law - is purely empirical and is purely objective. Despite [tend-to-be-subjective] humans using their brains to run the experiment and interpret it.

I was referring to the basic philosophical meaning of 'empirical' in regards to the epistemological stance of "Empiricism" (as against, for instance, rationalism).

Empiricism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Science is an outgrowth of basic Empiricism. And as I said, empiricism doesn't escape the subjective, since all empirical experience is subjective, including your experience looking at a measuring device. We can use the hypothesis that there is a "real world of facts" out there that we are discovering, but like I said, at it's base we have to satisfy ourselves with more predictable subjective experience, because that's our only way of experiencing.

 

[audio2design]

First: virtually all empirical knowledge comes to us via our subjectivity. (That's pretty much what "empirical" means - based on observation/experience). So you don't ever actually get subjectivity out of the picture. What you can do, is find ways of getting more reliable, predictable subjective experience ;-)

Was going to reply, but @Raindog123 already did.

Subjective evaluation is a suitable form of evaluation and has scientific validity IF you control for variables. As we all know in audio, one of the largest variables is bias.

Controlling variables is what turns subjective evaluation from adhoc reporting to empirical evidence.

 

[Killingbeans]

We can use the hypothesis that there is a "real world of facts" out there that we are discovering, but like I said, at it's base we have to satisfy ourselves with more predictable subjective experience, because that's our only way of experiencing.

As long as nobody goes full on solipsism, I'm happy

 

[AdamG]

^^^had to look that one up!^^^

 

[MattHooper]

But then you find out that 89 of the people had read a review in a magazine, that concluded one of the components in the system was shrill... And 30 of them didn't like the look of blue LEDs on some of the gear making them think it was shrill. And one of your dumb interns asked 58 of them questions that suggested that the system was shrill. And then you're back to square one

But yeah, I get what you are saying. The key to getting something with low margin of error from subjective impressions is taking the precautions and using the methods that lets you approximate objectivity.

Given this thread has some philosophical implications...

As I mentioned before, I come at these questions from a history of debating subjectivity-based belief systems (e.g. religions, New Age beliefs, superstition, etc), as well as pseudo-science proposals like Intelligent Design etc. The problem with these belief systems isn't just fallacies like special pleading (and question-begging), and all the inconsistencies of thought that are required to prop them up. They are all examples of what happens when you are operating outside of the mainstream scientific method.*

But you only really can discover where they go wrong by tracing out implications of a position as far as it can go and back again. E.g. when someone uses "Faith" as virtue, and it seems to work A-Ok in their community, you can draw this out and ask for instance if they would be ok in being convicted of a crime on someone else's "faith" that they did it. Surely not. So the person proposing "Faith" as a virtue ought to be able to explain when it isn't a virtue and why. And once they do that, how does it reflect on their own use of Faith, even in their personal context?

That goes with any claim someone would make - whether it's one we feel we agree with or not.

By the same token, when someone dismisses purely subjective perception of audio gear as pure "fantasy" or "unreliable," I immediately think of the implications - how far can this be taken? How consistent is someone being in dismissing subjective reports?

It has nothing to do with denying the facts of whatever scientific research we have on the matter (e.g. bias effects on our perception of sound). Rather it has to do with the INFERENCES we are making from that research, and where we can draw a reasonable pragmatic line in allowing, tentatively, the exchange of information via subjective perception (without having to measure or test scientifically). We all believe it is reasonable to accept "facts" (even if provisionally) based on purely subjective perception - e.g. if I tell my wife over the phone that our garbage can has been tipped over outside with garbage everywhere (likely a racoon again!), it's reasonable for her to accept this as reporting a fact, not just "my opinion," without a measuring device or the scientific method being involved.

The same would go for a "sound-based" perception. If I told my wife my mother just called me on the phone, it's reasonable to accept I am likely reporting a fact, based on my perception of the sound of my mom's voice.

That's why I bring up questions like: "Is it reasonable to have a discussion about how different mastering jobs on records sound? Or production or mixing choices? Or any number of similar discussions that can not be practically vetted scientifically?



*(My argument against the heavily subjective-based belief systems is generally an appeal to the scientific method. It took a long time to finally hit upon the method and for good reason: it helps ween out the biases that are so seductive to all of us and which lead us to error. It's hard enough to gain reliable information scientifically, but once you step outside the "honesty-tests" of science you can end up believing virtually anything. We are so easily seduced by our own explanations for phenomena, and when they aren't put through the crucible of rigorous testing, we keep them as live options. It takes only a minor act of bias error to grease the slope down any rabbit hole. That's why even brilliant scientists who've done great science have, to the shock of many, gone on later to adopt strange non-scientific beliefs. Doesn't matter who you are, once you drop the rigor and double-checking methods, you are prone to error as anyone else. Which is why a fundamental premise of science is taking human error seriously in it's method).

 

[MattHooper]

As long as nobody goes full on solipsism, I'm happy

Eh. Solipsism is fairly easy to dismiss IMO. At least the naive Hard Solipsism version. The proposition that I am the only mind that exists is compatible with my experience. But so what? The problem is: Nothing suggests it.