• 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!

Ex-subjectivists on ASR

Are you a former subjectivist? What are you now? (See post for explanations)

  • Yes

    Votes: 84 35.4%
  • No

    Votes: 80 33.8%
  • Subjectivist

    Votes: 5 2.1%
  • Soft / moderate objectivist

    Votes: 84 35.4%
  • Objectivist

    Votes: 115 48.5%

  • Total voters
    237

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,113
Likes
593
Formerly a "soft" subjectivist, now a soft objectivist.

Why was I a soft subjectivist? Initially it was my ears, (i.e. ear/brain), that told me that such things as cable had no discernable effect on the sound of my syst. Hence it wasn't to hard to convince me to tend to objectivism.

Why not a "hard" objectivist today? So essentially I'm any objectivist but in the ASR context I still have a couple of issues:
  1. Despite the great and ever improving efforts of Amir and other reviews, testing could still be a bit more extensive, e.g. measuring distortion at various frequencies, power levels, and speaker loads.
  2. The environment here has too many hard objectivists who -- as it seems to me -- refuse to believe that any but gross measurement differences could be audible, and basically consider that questions of audibility are "settled science". (Real scientists, (vs. know-it-all engineers), know that science is never settled.)
I don't often agree with other posts/posters.
But yours is quite a miracle: agree with pretty much every letter :)
 

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,113
Likes
593
This board is full of know-it-all-engineers. I was one (still am but not for audio) and this board opened up my eyes into how repulsive that hard line approach can be
this one rings quite a few bells too!

I remember when reading audiogon, audiophilestyle, head-fi and such .. I developed quite an aversion to subjectivism (particularly the kind used to promote and sell useless stuff). And those so called "audiophiles"... grrr.
I was so dreaming about an "audio science forum".. and was actually googling that. May have been one of the first people who landed on ASR, I remember there were just a bunch of DAC tests. Such a breath of fresh air. Made an account much later.

But nowadays, I find myself more and more annoyed by that "repulsive/hard-line" side, the "know-it-all-engineers" and their "perfect classD amps"/"all amps sound the same"/"amplification is solved"... that's waaay too much for my "soft" side
 

holdingpants01

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
687
Likes
1,086
But nowadays, I find myself more and more annoyed by that "repulsive/hard-line" side, the "know-it-all-engineers" and their "perfect classD amps"/"all amps sound the same"/"amplification is solved"... that's waaay too much for my "soft" side
Kind of the same here! I use Genelec 8351B + W371A for stereo (plus a few 8330 for atmos) in my studio work, arguably the most neutral full range standalone set that can be bought and I love it for what it is. But as that ick is already scratched and after reading a lot of reviews here, I kind of want to buy something like LS3/5A with a tube amp for music and sonos arc with era300 for atmos, as my recreational home setup. If that makes me ex-objectivist so be it
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,380
Likes
12,831
Location
London
Kind of the same here! I use Genelec 8351B + W371A for stereo (plus a few 8330 for atmos) in my studio work, arguably the most neutral full range standalone set that can be bought and I love it for what it is. But as that ick is already scratched and after reading a lot of reviews here, I kind of want to buy something like LS3/5A with a tube amp for music and sonos arc with era300 for atmos, as my recreational home setup. If that makes me ex-objectivist so be it
Just get a record player.
Keith
 

Anton D

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
978
Likes
1,142
I'm an objectivist for electronics and a subjectivist for listening to speakers. (I will vary from this for playing around with tubes and things - I know the measurement fall short but these are toys, not armaments.)

There is no perfect objective speaker, so I relax and listen to what appears in my path and decide what I like. I allow for a wide taste spectrum.

I like playing records, too, so a mix of objective and subjective.

Listen to what pleases you, life is too short for fundanmentalist audio!
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,247
Location
Northern Virginia, USA

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,380
Likes
12,831
Location
London
Please don’t use the v****s word we have an elderly objective membership who are already on the edge.
Keith
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,247
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Please don’t use the v****s word we have an elderly objective membership who are already on the edge.
Keith
I had to take extra heart medicine!
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,374
Likes
7,825
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I bought into all of the subjectivist myths - tubes, cables, analog, you name it, I believed it. I had to work as a recording engineer to get over my subjectivist Pov, as it didn't help in the slightest.
 

holdingpants01

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
687
Likes
1,086
I bought into all of the subjectivist myths - tubes, cables, analog, you name it, I believed it. I had to work as a recording engineer to get over my subjectivist Pov, as it didn't help in the slightest.
In my experience there are almost as many myths in the pro audio as there are in the hifi world, from the overblown differences between microphone preamplifiers, digital EQs, converters, word clocks, analog summing, prices for the vintage gear, through monitor companies that sell a "story" and don't show any measurements, studio headphones, room treatment that either don't work or make things worse, to file formats like DSD, PC software sounding different than hardware unit with the same software but in a box, non volume matched comparisons, exotic microphone companies, audiophile (in the essence) gear modifications and mastering voodoo like audibility of dithering algorithms, 0.02dB changes at the 20Hz with EQ, "boxtone" etc. I can't count how many times I heard that one digital EQ sounds completely different than the other just because their Q factors use is different or GUI is brighter, or that null test can't show you everything, or that blind test is not objective, or that ears are more precise than any measurement method, or that summing in one DAW make it sound different than the other (not counting oddballs like Harrison DAW), or finally yes, that cables makes the difference, there are pro audio cable manufacturers that claim their balanced cables or digital ones are sounding better, like Vovox
 
Last edited:

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,374
Likes
7,825
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
In my experience there are almost as many myths in the pro audio as there are in the hifi world, from the overblown differences between microphone preamplifiers, digital EQs, converters, word clocks, analog summing, prices for the vintage gear, through monitor companies that sell a "story" and don't show any measurements, studio headphones, room treatment that either don't work or make things worse, to file formats like DSD, PC software sounding different than hardware unit with the same software but in a box, non volume matched comparisons, exotic microphone companies, audiophile (in the essence) gear modifications and mastering voodoo like audibility of dithering algorithms, 0.02dB changes at the 20Hz with EQ, "boxtone" etc. I can't count how many times I heard that one digital EQ sounds completely different than the other just because their Q factors use is different or GUI is brighter, or that null test can't show you everything, or that blind test is not objective, or that ears are more precise than any measurement method, or that summing in one DAW make it sound different than the other (not counting oddballs like Harrison DAW), or finally yes, that cables makes the difference, there are pro audio cable manufacturers that claim their balanced cables or digital ones are sounding better, like Vovox
My experience was different in that the people who collaborated with me on recording projects were practical and sensible, and the sorts of recording projects I had were entirely of acoustic music recorded in venues that usually had audiences. So it was easy to tell the difference between a microphone feed and the sound in the room or the microphone feed and the digitized version of the same. I found that the sorts of audio voodoo I believed in didn't have the differences claimed and after a while I simply focused on getting the job done. Again, I was fortunate in having practical people with plenty of experience to guide me.
 
Last edited:

NoteMakoti

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2021
Messages
55
Likes
146
Soft objectivist, in that my ears still have the last say at the end of the day. I don't care how well something measures if it doesn't sound good, and I don't care how badly something measures if it still sounds great. There are a bunch of headphones with weird frequency responses that I love (HD800s, u12ts, etc.), or tube amps that I've demoed and enjoyed (although none I've enjoyed enough to buy just yet.) I think if you asked most people they'd say the same thing.
 

Mikig

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
453
Likes
518
Location
Italia
I don't like staying within an objective limit of a category. So neither one nor the other, or, if you like it better, unconsciously both.
Life or rather the boring and bureaucratic part of it forces you to stay in a category, in a limit, in an area...
no! for beautiful things no party! Thank you! only love, instinctive emotion and passionate research, but one that must not become suffocating, like school homework!!
in one word passion!!!
 

ahofer

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
5,101
Likes
9,286
Location
New York City
“Trusting your ears”, to be a little picky, would mean avoiding the potentially conflicting inputs from other senses. That’s generally not what people mean when they say it, though. One could say they prioritize all their senses combined-as they would take in music normally.
 

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,145
Likes
1,477
I don't like staying within an objective limit of a category. So neither one nor the other, or, if you like it better, unconsciously both.
Life or rather the boring and bureaucratic part of it forces you to stay in a category, in a limit, in an area...
no! for beautiful things no party! Thank you! only love, instinctive emotion and passionate research, but one that must not become suffocating, like school homework!!
in one word passion!!!
We have plenty of examples of indulgent instincts that are neither insightful nor honest. That is the problem with audiophilia: undisciplined passion.
 

Balle Clorin

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2017
Messages
1,395
Likes
1,264
Visually I am a Subjectivist.
Audibly and mentally I am Objectivist.

So I buy stuff that measure well and look good. Sometimes I buy stuff that look very good and measure bad because I want it= Vinyl stuff. But I do not claim it sounds better than anything , but it is fun to tweak it for best possible performance.
 
Top Bottom