Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[MattHooper]

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.

Yes, that's what I meant: science is a way for predicting our experience. By testing predictions and weeding out variables. (And at bottom, all experience is subjective - we are inferring phenomena from our subjective experience and trying to explain it, and help predict it as well).

But also: the question remains: when can purely subjective evaluation be acceptable? Because at some point it clearly is (and must be!) acceptable in every other area of our life.

 

[Newman]

Pure straw man to suggest people are claiming we can’t individually act on our own subjective impressions to buy and use whatever we want. Of course we can.

Try to stick to the actual issue: using one’s personal subjective impressions from uncontrolled listening to tell others about the sound waves. When is THAT acceptable.

 

[billyjoebob]

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.

Boy thats alot of hypothesizing!!

 

[Raindog123]

science is a way for predicting our experience.

Only from the anthropocentric point of view. To me, science is a way for predicting ”things [that happen with or without us]”, not “our experience”.
[I am not trying to be a hard-arc, just tend to disagree with this “experience“ part. But can live with it. ]

And at bottom, all experience is subjective - we are inferring phenomena from our subjective experience and trying to explain it.

We really need to agree on terminology. Maybe you explaining what is it subjective about “one measuring the time for a rock to fall“ (or “frequency response of an audio device”) could help?

 

[MattHooper]

Pure straw man to suggest people are claiming we can’t individually act on our own subjective impressions to buy and use whatever we want. Of course we can.

If you are referring to my posts, the above is in fact the strawman. You will not find that argument anywhere, even hinted at, in what I wrote.
But maybe you might want to be clear if you were dressing someone else?

Try to stick to the actual issue: using one’s personal subjective impressions from uncontrolled listening to tell others about the sound waves. When is THAT acceptable.

That is precisely the issue I keep raising.

But, again, since none of this addresses what I've written, it would be better to address your posts directly to whomever you had in mind.

 

[Newman]

Good try LOL

 

[Newman]

when can purely subjective evaluation be acceptable? Because at some point it clearly is (and must be!) acceptable

Why ask this question, if you reckon nobody has ever challenged it? Why say “it must be acceptable”, if you reckon nobody has said otherwise?

Come on.

 

[MattHooper]

Only from the anthropocentric point of view. To me, science is a way for predicting ”things [that happen with or without us]”, not “our experience”.
[I am not trying to be a hard-arc, just tend to disagree with this “experience“ part. But can live with it. ]




We really need to agree on terminology. Maybe you explaining what is it subjective about “one measuring the time for a rock to fall“ could help?

First, sorry, I'm being a bit geeky on this. I'm just pointing out that on empiricism (essentially) all knowledge comes through experience, and experience is inherently subjective: that is we are all subjects, experiencing. And we are trying to explain and predict our experience.
It's a comment about the basic underlying phenemenon of explaining "experience" from which science arises.

We are basically bombarded by different experiences and we use logic and pragmatic heuristics to remove inconsistencies in our thinking and arrive at coherent explanations for those experiences.

So if you have a working theory for why rocks "fall" that you are testing, that's still a phenomenon - rocks falling - that comes to you through experience, and any tests you perform are also another form of experience. You use reason to make them fit together. But the source material is subjective experience of the world.

If you have a theory about why whales seem to share traits with mammals, that theory will reference an evolutionary history that you weren't around to 'experience,' but it remains the case that you are trying to come up with a theory to explain a phenomenon of your experience - e.g. seeing the particular characteristics of modern whales. And if it's fruitful it will make further predictions about phenomena you will experience.

Essentially, in science, as in any other attempts to exchange and build knowledge, we are involved in the project of coming up with theories that make our intersubjective experience coherent. "You see that big illuminated thing in the sky above us at night? So do I. Let's try to explain it! To ask "what is it and how did it get there" is another way of explaining the experience of it "seeming to be a part of our shared experience."

And within THAT context, we can posit there is an objective world of facts we are discovering.* And we can have a sense of "subjective" which is narrowed to "matters of taste or opinion or beliefs" vs "objective facts" which are considered "true" independent of anyone's opinion or even anyone's belief. And I believe that is the level you are speaking on. I was speaking about the more fundamental philosophical level "below" that.


*(though even in the philosophy of science there are the debates over scientific realism, and whether science is even is in the business of presuming an external objective, or even needs to...)

 

[MattHooper]

Why ask this question, if you reckon nobody has ever challenged it? Why say “it must be acceptable”, if you reckon nobody has said otherwise?

Come on.

Because.

In the context of talking about audio on this site:

1. Purely subjective perception (without appeal to measurements) has often been dismissed as unreliable (in all sorts of examples, including sighted speaker reports). There are CLEARLY good (scientifically based) reasons behind the skepticism of sighted, uncontrolled listening unaccompanied by objective measurements. (Read that again, if you need to, before you continue).

But also:

2. We all would agree that it's reasonable to rely on, and accept, some reliability of our perception, and that of other people. We use it all day successfully to navigate the world and exchange information. If I reported to my wife that her father phoned today, I can reasonably believe I accurately perceived his voice, and she can reasonably believe my "subjective report" I heard her father on the phone, without us doing a scientifically controlled experiment on my claim.

So even in the realm of "what we think we perceive through our hearing" we all think there are acceptable instances all day long, of gaining and exchanging information, without resort to measurements or double-blind experiments.

When you put THOSE two things together - that in some cases it's unreasonable to accept our, or other people's perception is accurate enough - while in plenty of other scenarios we accept perception as accurate enough - it invites the question: AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE OUR PERCEPTION, OR TO ACCEPT SOMEONE ELSE'S SUBJECTIVE REPORT? AND WHY?

I have pointed out why the line doesn't seem so easy to draw.

You can always draw a line just when thinking about audio - e.g. "I will only accept information that is based on, or correlated to measurements and scientifically controlled listening tests."

That's fine as far as it goes.

But it will still have a level of arbitrariness, in the sense that you will nonetheless think it reasonable to accept your perception, and other people's perceptual reports, all day long in other areas.

This is why I have invoked the heuristic of Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. I'd like to see how someone gets out of the slippery slope of skepticism about our perception, in a pragmatic way, without some form of similar heuristic.

 

[richard12511]

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.

You're just saying that to trick me into thinking you're real.

 

[Geert]

it invites the question: AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE OUR PERCEPTION, OR TO ACCEPT SOMEONE ELSE'S SUBJECTIVE REPORT? AND WHY?

There's a famous book that's very relevant: "Thinking Fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman. It only confirms controls are needed when the matter at hand becomes a bit more complex.

 

[antcollinet]

Pure straw man to suggest people are claiming we can’t individually act on our own subjective impressions to buy and use whatever we want. Of course we can.

Try to stick to the actual issue: using one’s personal subjective impressions from uncontrolled listening to tell others about the sound waves. When is THAT acceptable.

OK

I can hear mains hum coming from your speakers - there most likely is a ground loop.

I can hear crackling and dropouts on music streamed by USB - sounds like there's data errors.

There's buzzing coming from your bass driver - sounds like the cone mounting is damaged.

There's no bass from your speaker - have you removed the bi-wire links?

These are all subjective uncontrolled impressions of sound waves. Do I need to measure them first (edit - or blind ABX my impressions) before taking steps to identify and solve the problem?


Subjective impressions of soundwaves only need controlled validation when they are difficult to hear - or possibly - to get around audiophiles "it's like night and day" - when other people find them difficult to hear.

 

[Galliardist]

Pure straw man to suggest people are claiming we can’t individually act on our own subjective impressions to buy and use whatever we want. Of course we can.

Try to stick to the actual issue: using one’s personal subjective impressions from uncontrolled listening to tell others about the sound waves. When is THAT acceptable.

May I...
There is some knowledge to be gained sometimes.
1) the experience always applies for that listener, that system, that context. What I heard, I heard. The problem is generalising that experience to, say, all experiences of product X. You can't have a subjective experience without subjective interpretation...
... but you asked about the soundwaves, not the subjective experience of them. So

2) The listener may be describing a known fault such as clipping, one speaker wired out of phase, or similar. Ir we can reach that point with a subjective impression, we can ask questions and check objective measurements published elsewhere, to confirm the fault. This is sometimes missed here, where people will sometimes ask for level matched testing to confirm what is clearly the observation of a fault.
If the fault is due to system matching, then it will be repeatable. Of course, system matching faults should have an objective cause that can be found, so although the fault may be discovered subjectively, the objective cause is the thing that matters.

3) The listener may be describing an effect that isn't a "fault" but may be explicable through the deviation from accurate/transparent of a component, say. In this case, even though the difference may be explicable, I'd say we still can't generalise it. We can't be sure that the audibility of a difference that's not a clear fault. If it's worth it, the difference could be investigated further to find out if it is audible by controlled testing. In practice, the circumstances where it's worth the bother won't come up that often. For me, take the setup you prefer and get back to listening to music.

In a way, the question is the wrong way round. What we need to do is ensure that we check objective facts before starting on subjective impressions. That way we protect ourselves from snake oil. That doesn't mean that I say we should all just buy exemplary, accurate products, but they are the place to start.

 

[krabapple]

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

Again, what other metric would you suggest?

It's not like the Harman curve is randomly derived and unmoored from objective measures. It's what you predictably get when a loudspeaker with a flat FR is played in a room with good acoustic properties. And lo and behold, it turns out the be the preferred curve for many listeners.

 

[krabapple]

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.

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?

 

[krabapple]

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.

Listeners prefer *in a controlled experiment*. Big difference. Subjective reports are not all equally meaningful.

 

[Robin L]

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?

That's an incredibly narrow definition of the word "subjective". You turned it into a pejorative. Most definitions of the term do not match yours.

 

[Raindog123]

Again, what other metric would you suggest?

I am cool. I love the Harman curve, and everything Harman [Kardon]... And other nice curves too, especially the “hourglass“.

[EDIT: I love everything Harman Kardon except this. Well, if we trust @amirm's numbers. ]

Listeners prefer *in a controlled experiment*. Big difference. Subjective reports are not all equally meaningful.

Agreed. Now, why are you telling me that, CAPT Obvio…?

 

[Newman]

That's an incredibly narrow definition of the word "subjective". You turned it into a pejorative. Most definitions of the term do not match yours.

He isn’t defining the word that way. He is saying subjective listening can be sighted (open to non-sonic influence) or controlled (not open to non-sonic factors influencing our perception of sound). Then he discusses what goes wrong with sighted subjective listening.

Also, sighted subjective listening it is not “incredibly narrow”: it is general practice to listen that way.

 

[Robin L]

He isn’t defining the word that way. He is saying subjective listening can be sighted (open to non-sonic influence) or controlled (not open to non-sonic factors influencing our perception of sound). Then he discusses what goes wrong with sighted subjective listening.

Also, sighted subjective listening it is not “incredibly narrow”: it is general practice to listen that way.

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.