• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Card carrying objectivists

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
...The oft repeated story you mention does not agree with my experience.

I've no issue with your reported experience. Ancecdotal experiences certainly vary, partly, as a good number of system variables are involved. My experience, unfortunately for me, was quite the opposite of yours. Which prompts me to elaborate on that experience just a bit.

Warning: what follows necessarily uses subjective language. With CD, the subjective performance aspect I immediately noticed was the lack of vinyl's groove noise. Most tracks were eerily quiet with CD. The next aspect I noticed was an very 'up front' sort of character to the presentation. At first, I attributed this to low distortion amd high dynamic range, and, perhaps, it was. But later I noticed that the up front character remained homogeneously consistent across many recordings. Now, CD's specs. would dictate that this was the more accurate presentation. Perhaps so, but homogeneity often signals some sort of perceptual coloration.

The unforgivable sin of early CD, to my ears, was that despite it's low noise, or high dynamic range, or low distortion, or flat and wide frequency response, the music reproduction was too often boring, and worse, fatiguing upon longer listening. This simply never occured with my objectively much inferior perfoming vinyl set1up. Today, audio engineers have determined many/most of the objective reasons for that. Those just weren't being effectively identified via the traditional, analog audio based, specifications initially.
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
You are going to have to be more exact and provide some supporting evidence for this assumption youv made here.

You maybe right you may not but with no hard facts established we will never know.

The ‘ I reckon this ‘ ‘ I reckon that ‘ dynamic is not of intrest to us in the main .
Thomas, perhaps, I should clarify. I'm not making any absolute declarations about the mechanisms involved. Such declarations would, indeed, require rigorously researched and validated hard facts to count as scientific proof. However, I do recall the old truism that, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In the meanwhile, I've simply been intending to offer something for friendly consideration and discussion based on my own, admittedly, anecdotal observations, and deductive reasoning. Nothing more than that.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Frankly, I'm really not concerned over whether you are sold or not at this stage of our interactions. You usually seem unnecessarily salty, looking to ridicule thinking which differs from you own. I've frequently encountered this attitude from, so called, objectivists over at diyaudio too.
When claims of audible situations are met with requests for supporting evidence, and none is ever supplied. the most usual response is for people to run out of patience at some point. Thinking is good, illusion and delusion posted as fact gets very tiresome.
Please, tell me that you are not suggesting something as suspect as stating that subjective assessment cannot ever serve a legitimate role in the system performance evaluation process.
Of course it can, when supported under bias controlled blind listening, not just "I think I heard"
By the way, if you do believe that, then you necessarily must have an audio system based around some mass market receiver, and the least expensive CD playback source you could find.
OH NO, that same old subjective listeners lame excuse, the objective community doesn't use gear of sufficient resolution. You forget the other half, our hearing in substandard to yours. "Ears or Gears, they must be lacking".
I'm not making any absolute declarations about the mechanisms involved. Such declarations would, indeed, require rigorously researched and validated hard facts to count as scientific proof.
But you are, the same ole way I've heard ten thousand times, "I heard it, so it is real". But after the ten thousand requests for evidence, nothing of worth ever materializes
absence of proof is not proof of absence
Then we end up with some statement like that as the final subjectives response.
Sorry but what else is then left but ridicule?
Ken, there is no Santa Claus, or a Tooth Fairy, and David Copperfield didn't really make that 747 disappear off the runway, and the box of dirt you hooked a ground wire to is worthless.
They are all illusion, delusion, or marketing scams.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Thomas, perhaps, I should clarify. I'm not making any absolute declarations about the mechanisms involved. Such declarations would, indeed, require rigorously researched and validated hard facts to count as scientific proof. However, I do recall the old truism that, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In the meanwhile, I've simply been intending to offer something for friendly consideration and discussion based on my own, admittedly, anecdotal observations, and deductive reasoning. Nothing more than that.

@Ken Newton

I appreciate all that but in the absence of any effort to support our musings when those musing might clash with another’s we end up with a load of unsubstantiated ‘ imaginings’ . I know generally that’s precisely what Audio forum interactions are, but we don’t work like that.

The reason we don’t work like that is the members here like to aspire to some kind of conclusion to their arguments/discussions , have a ‘aim’ beyond ones own indulgence. They are mostly here to share understanding, develop knowledge etc and rely on a amount of rigor thats necessary for those aspirations to bare fruit.

It’s not a subjective vs objectivist issue , it’s a value issue that gets wrapped up in the polar nature of argument buts not really about that. Some here might label you as subjective and ‘ the enemy ‘ but really they are defending valued reasoning and purposeful debate just being human we tend to simplify dissonance by creating groups to rally against.

Thinking is fine , we have members here who almost exclusively interact though ‘ thought excise’ but your drifting off relying on conjecture as the basis of your assertions and that won’t sit well with the membership unless you attempt to substantiate those.

Carry on ‘thinking’ ‘ reasoning ‘ but if your challenged you must bring more to the table, it can be ‘hard’ but I consider it necessary and part of respecting our space here. The old philosophical cop-outs we defend ourselves with won’t suffice.

That’s the way it is here, I know that’s diffrent from elsewhere and while some find it liberating some find it constraining but that’s why there are so many diffrent places to discuss Audio on the Internet. Please respect our difference in future postings.

Cheers

Ps this is the way it is as far as this space goes and how we work, it’s not something to be argued against as it’s a ‘fully formed’ decision, one either accepts it or one walks on down the road. Yes there’s all sorts of reasons why that’s unfortunate but it’s the way it is.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Today, audio engineers have determined many/most of the objective reasons for that. Those just weren't being effectively identified via the traditional, analog audio based, specifications initially.
Intriguing.
I haven't heard anything about this, and I have been an enthusiast for 50 years who used to work in the business (turntables though).
What are the objective reasons which have been determined?
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4,339
Likes
7,739
I do not believe that the divide is a clear as some of us would like to think ... More of a spectrum with most is us oscillating . THe mean of our choices may be more objective than others but at the end , subjectivity does play a role.
This said, i believe that some of us are committing a sin similar to that of golden eared (most of the time over 60 who can't hear a thing over 12 Khz) subctivists. What some call the "Flat-Earth" theory. For my part, I don't believe that a few sets of mostly static measurements will exhaustively describe sonic reproduction. Truth to be told a 3% THD amplifier is a distortion machine whatever its price (Wavac anyone?? :rolleyes:) and it is not High Fi ... below what we consider to be the threshold there is a spectrum and confronted with real-world loads, read loudspeakers, amplifers would behave differently... perhaps the difference may not be as great in preamps or DACs but ... the analysis of the transitory response of audio system should be taken into account .. for the most part I don't believe or see it often ... to not say ever...
OTOH the "vast" difference so willingly believed and extolled by our more subjectivist-leaning friends should be taken with a grain of salt. Everything makes a difference that they perceive... including Ethernet cables (!!!!!) .
Now the job of our audio system is to bring us joy ... It would be nice for the system to deliver the message in the medium as untouched as possible .. You don;t need the Post Office editing your letter whatever the content ... THat metaphor to me is what an Audio system should do: Just the message!! ... Some may find solace in a different direction .. They may need the editorializing of their audio system for enjoyment .. and it is all good .. Only it is not High Fidelity .. whatever it costs. That someone thinks he/she perceives anything doesn't mean that he/she did or that the physical phenomenon even exists ... To ascertain, you need science and so far Science is proving that they can't hear most of these. As a matter of facts before Science, Logic would tell many that they can't hear some of what they are claiming they do ...
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
There’s nothing to say a subjective listener can never be right , it’s just very un-reliable .

A single listener? Doesn´t depend on training experience and so on?
Or speaking about listeners who you do´t know anything about?

As such it’s near Impossible to build meaningful discussion around those kind of experiences so we don’t bother .

If "meaningful" is surely another topic, but most of "you" don´t bother to accept subjective/sighted listening provided the results are compatible with "your" prior beliefs.

Otoh there is ofter "pray" for controlled "blind" listening experiments although not control trials were used, no training was given and "you" most often does not know anything about the listeners participating.
And often group results (and conclusions) were confused with conclusins to individual abilities.

As a general rule, reliability isn´t per se better due to the "blind" property of an experiment. Data confirming that was given quite often in other threads in the past.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany

I´m sorry, but that is still a misleading example. Not only that there is evidence that people can learn to negate this effect, but even if it wouldn´be possible the example confuses different virtues/properties. Following that you could argue that controlled "blind" listening experiments don´t work either, as listeners still perceiving a sound source in between the loudspeakers although it doesn´t exist.
Only the small percentage of humans who do not experience summing localisation is perceiving it correctly as two distinct sound sources located at angles in front of them.

Considering the high proportion of wrong answers in controlled "blind" listening experiments where people should be able to give the correct answer, it´s safe to conclude that you never can trust somebody else ears per se, despite any sighted/blind considerations.
It takes some effort to do experiments that are objective, valid and reliable. :)
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
When claims of audible situations are met with requests for supporting evidence, and none is ever supplied. the most usual response is for people to run out of patience at some point. Thinking is good, illusion and delusion posted as fact gets very tiresome.

Run out of patience? I must of misssed the long heated back-and-forth that had been taking place in this thread between Blumlien and I up until his 'not sold' comment. Your own comment about making 'delusional' claims is similarly salty to his. Now, I too have become salty over this rather high-handed hostility.

I did not claim anything I reported as fact. I reported my subjective anecdotal listening observations, followed by some deductive reasoning for those observations. I made no claims of their being scientifically valid. If you believe that you heard me claim something else, then perhaps, it is you who are delusional.

Of course it can, when supported under bias controlled blind listening, not just "I think I heard"

Obviously, which was my point.

OH NO, that same old subjective listeners lame excuse, the objective community doesn't use gear of sufficient resolution. You forget the other half, our hearing in substandard to yours. "Ears or Gears, they must be lacking".

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. In fact, in one of my comments I clearly stated that I don't believe the objective metrics are lacking in either accuracy or resolution. If objectivists believe that published specs. tell everything there is to know about the resultant subjective sound, however,mthen they should all own a system based some mass market receiver or integrated amp, and the absolute least expensive digital source they can find, shouldn't they? If they do not, why not?

But you are, the same ole way I've heard ten thousand times, "I heard it, so it is real". But after the ten thousand requests for evidence, nothing of worth ever materializes

More reactive reading comprehension issues [sigh]. I made no such statement. You seem to be conflating the claims of others with my anecdotal observations. By the way, a corrollary to your, "I heard it, so it is real" criticism of subjectivists (which, I don't view myself as. I see myself as an objectivists whose mind isn't rigidly closed.) is that, as an strict objectivist, you necessarily must also believe that, "If you heard it, it may not be real". Makes me wonder how you trust your ears enough to allow you to safely cross the street.

Then we end up with some statement like that as the final subjectives response.
Sorry but what else is then left but ridicule?
Ken, there is no Santa Claus, or a Tooth Fairy, and David Copperfield didn't really make that 747 disappear off the runway, and the box of dirt you hooked a ground wire to is worthless.
They are all illusion, delusion, or marketing scams.

Sal, being subjected to your evident hostility is bad enough, please do not patronize me as well.
 

Ken Newton

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
190
Likes
47
@Ken Newton

I appreciate all that but in the absence of any effort to support our musings when those musing might clash with another’s we end up with a load of unsubstantiated ‘ imaginings’ . I know generally that’s precisely what Audio forum interactions are, but we don’t work like that.

The reason we don’t work like that is the members here like to aspire to some kind of conclusion to their arguments/discussions , have a ‘aim’ beyond ones own indulgence. They are mostly here to share understanding, develop knowledge etc and rely on a amount of rigor thats necessary for those aspirations to bare fruit.

It’s not a subjective vs objectivist issue , it’s a value issue that gets wrapped up in the polar nature of argument buts not really about that. Some here might label you as subjective and ‘ the enemy ‘ but really they are defending valued reasoning and purposeful debate just being human we tend to simplify dissonance by creating groups to rally against.

Thinking is fine , we have members here who almost exclusively interact though ‘ thought excise’ but your drifting off relying on conjecture as the basis of your assertions and that won’t sit well with the membership unless you attempt to substantiate those.

Carry on ‘thinking’ ‘ reasoning ‘ but if your challenged you must bring more to the table, it can be ‘hard’ but I consider it necessary and part of respecting our space here. The old philosophical cop-outs we defend ourselves with won’t suffice.

That’s the way it is here, I know that’s diffrent from elsewhere and while some find it liberating some find it constraining but that’s why there are so many diffrent places to discuss Audio on the Internet. Please respect our difference in future postings.

Cheers

Ps this is the way it is as far as this space goes and how we work, it’s not something to be argued against as it’s a ‘fully formed’ decision, one either accepts it or one walks on down the road. Yes there’s all sorts of reasons why that’s unfortunate but it’s the way it is.

Hi, Thomas,

Fair enough. I won't pursue the argument further.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
«Sit closer»...

I liked that one.

Nearfields for everyone!?

;)
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
A single listener? Doesn´t depend on training experience and so on?
Or speaking about listeners who you do´t know anything about?



If "meaningful" is surely another topic, but most of "you" don´t bother to accept subjective/sighted listening provided the results are compatible with "your" prior beliefs.

Otoh there is ofter "pray" for controlled "blind" listening experiments although not control trials were used, no training was given and "you" most often does not know anything about the listeners participating.
And often group results (and conclusions) were confused with conclusins to individual abilities.

As a general rule, reliability isn´t per se better due to the "blind" property of an experiment. Data confirming that was given quite often in other threads in the past.
Fabulous, I marked out the position of the forum and no one here’s intrested in endlessly debating it.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Run out of patience? I must of misssed the long heated back-and-forth that had been taking place in this thread between Blumlien and I up until his 'not sold' comment. Your own comment about making 'delusional' claims is similarly salty to his
Been having this same discussion with folks such as yourself for decades, only the name on the post changes.
I did not claim anything I reported as fact. I reported my subjective anecdotal listening observations,
You heard it, so it is real, that's your position. No interest in scientific investigation of what you think you heard.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. In fact, in one of my comments I clearly stated that I don't believe the objective metrics are lacking in either accuracy or resolution. If objectivists believe that published specs. tell everything there is to know about the resultant subjective sound,
Again, a regurgitation of positions not made, to confuse the fact that comprehensive measurement like Amir publishes here are revealing of audible issues.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
See above.
Sal, being subjected to your evident hostility is bad enough, please do not patronize me as well.
Sorry but there remains little left.
Closed.
 
Last edited:

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Isn't one of the logical conclusions of your argument that, all of our audio systems should be centered around nothing more capable than a mass market (read as: inexpensive) A/V reciever, or an integrated amplifier? Aren't the published technical specs. of such gear uniformly unimpeachable, or at the least, certainly well beyond the limits of human hearing acuity? Further, that CD has, indeed, been perfect sound forever, because it's published specs. are also beyond the limits of human hearing acuity. Or, rather, do our ears inform tell us that the essentially perfect specs. of modern gear and formats are not yet serving as an reliable enough predictor of the subjective performance?

I find that card-carrying objectivists typically assume that a set of good objective specs. dictates a good subjective sound, while subjectivists typically feel that is inverted logic. Some subjectivists believe, all that matters is the experienced sound, and the specs. may only be incidental to achieving that. I believe something between those two positions. I believe that when the subjective perfomance runs counter to the objctive specs., it indicates that the objective specs. are insufficient in some manner. The objective specs. SHOULD, and, I believe, eventually WILL reliably predict the subjective performance (after all, we're talking about physical systems which must obey physical laws), but aren't yet sufficiently reliable predictors. I suspect that much of what is lacking has to do with the context and the presentation of the specs., not with their accuracy or resolution. THD specification is a familiar example of that.

Specifications can present an especially troublesome issue for consumers, as they desire published specs. for a given product which reliably predict the subjective performance they will then obtain, as later judged by their own ears. In fact, most of the non-audiophile audio system consumers I personally know don't want to have to trust their ears, they want to simply see an easy to understand set of specs. and confidently make a purchase based primarily on that, after price of course.

It’s generally a good idea to buy on specs. If the producer has a good name, I don’t see what could go wrong.

The problem with specs is the lack of standards. So we need more specs and better standards on how to present measurements.
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,935
Location
Oslo, Norway
Good idea, @Thomas savage ! But I suggest you start with post 342 and the following discussion, otherwise it becomes difficult to understand the context of the new thread. EDIT: And perhaps rename it "Small room acoustics, speaker directivity, dynamics", as that's what the discussion is about (so far at least).
 
Last edited:

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Good idea, @Thomas savage ! But I suggest you start with post 342 and the following discussion, otherwise it becomes difficult to understand the context of the new thread. EDIT: And perhaps rename it "Small room acoustics, speaker directivity, dynamics", as that's what the discussion is about (so far at least).
I think I got them all.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
SUBJECTIVISM IS KEY!

Let me explain...

When psychoacoustics entered audio science, subjectivism was set on par with objectivism. If we didn’t have psychoacoustics, objectivists could argue that a flat curve is the target. Fact is, a smooth curve is objectively better in people’s ears than a bumpy curve and a somewhat declining curve as oppposed to the flat curve is preferred by most people.

In other words: Objectivism is of little value without our understanding of subjectivism, i.e. the subjects’ preferences.
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
SUBJECTIVISM IS KEY!

Let me explain...

When psychoacoustics entered audio science, subjectivism was set on par with objectivism. If we didn’t have psychoacoustics, objectivists could argue that a flat curve is the target. Fact is, a smooth curve is objectively better in people’s ears than a bumpy curve and a somewhat declining curve as oppposed to the flat curve is preferred by most people.

In other words: Objectivism is of little value without our understanding of subjectivism, i.e. the subjects’ preferences.
Actually a flat curve is preferred. The sloping target curves are an artefact of measurement limitations.
 
Top Bottom