Ex-subjectivists on ASR

[kemmler3D]

I know they have terrible directivity and a very uneven Frequency Response. But I love them still.

This right here is how you do "objectivism" in audio. If, for example, the GR research guy could just have the self-respect and honesty to say "yes, my speakers measure "badly," but I and many others love the sound, and that's what matters", I think we could all respect that. Instead he simply insists the measurements are wrong.

 

[JeremyFife]

Always considered myself 'evidence based' - I just didn't have the tools or knowledge to understand that hi-fi reviews were so flawed and lacking any evidence. (Also, too lazy to really research!)
I have more knowledge now, so that helps.
Absolutely still have subjective tendencies... why else would I want to upgrade my amp and DAC when, objectively, I know there won't be audible benefits

 

[fpitas]

You don’t need one. Personal preference reigns supreme. As long as you know it’s your personal preference and may not, and probably does not apply to most others.

I love my ML ESL-X’s. To me they are the best sounding speakers I have ever heard that I could afford. Do they measure well. Nope they measure terribly and they are very room dependent and imho you must have separate powered subs. I don’t try to tell anyone that they are the best blah blah blah. I know they have terrible directivity and a very uneven Frequency Response. But I love them still.

As the owner of Alien Robot speakers, I cast no stones

 

[AdamG]

This right here is how you do "objectivism" in audio. If, for example, the GR research guy could just have the self-respect and honesty to say "yes, my speakers measure "badly," but I and many others love the sound, and that's what matters", I think we could all respect that. Instead he simply insists the measurements are wrong.

When researching and demonstrating speakers to upgrade. I had a light bulb moment. It became obvious to me why I tended to prefer more reflective sound than direct sound. For over 30+ years I lived, worked, slept and recreated in the bowels of Ships. They are noisy and incredibly reflective environments. Apparently my brain had adjusted to develop a preference for reflective sound. I know this sounds weird and maybe difficult to understand. It’s only my hypothesis. But it makes sense to me. I become agitated and uncomfortable when a room or place is too quiet to me. As a Ship’s Engineer “Silence” was very bad and meant that the Propulsion Plant had tripped off line and we were having a casualty in one of the Main Propulsion/Machinery Plants. Dead/Dark Ship. It meant all Engineers lay to Main Engineering on the double. It was never a good thing when the ship went black and silent. To this day I have to have a large Pedestal Fan (the noiser the better) running in my bedroom or I can’t sleep. When we lose power at the house the sudden silence jolts me out of bed.

 

[Mart68]

I had no idea the whole objectivist/subjectivist thing existed until I discovered there was such a thing as audio forums on the internet. That was in 2009.

I only knew what I had read in the magazines. I am sceptical by nature and education but I took most of it for granted although I still had serious doubts about some of the tweaks and accessories they promoted. But I happily accepted the premise that electronics and cables all had a different 'sonic character' and of course I heard it too.

I had a friend who was an accomplished musician and he would tell me that it was mostly nonsense. Since this contradicted what I thought I knew I did not put much credence in what he said. Although his hi-fi system was very inexpensive it did sound a lot better than mine, that really should have been a clue.

Instead it was not until 2012 when a psychologist friend suggested that I try blind-testing 16/44 vs 24/192 (I was pretty confident I could tell the difference) that I had to accept that the obvious differences I thought I heard did not, in fact, exist.

With that revelation I realised what my musician friend had been telling me 20 years previously was correct, and I started the process of gaining some real knowledge.

 

[Petevid]

I never believed in magic cables either but I did think spending more got you better sound quality although I noticed that swapping out cd players and amps didn’t seem to give me the incremental improvement or change in sound quality I was hoping for.

So starting to read Hi-Fi forums in the early noughties I became aware of the notion that all correctly designed amps, dacs and cd players sounded very similar if not the same. The scientific rationale explaining why rang true as I have a (long forgotten) university degree in electronics, I’d studied digital signal processing , binary maths, nyquist theorem, frequency analysis, Reed Solomon error correction , computer architecture etc etc so the explanations made sense.

I like to think that anyone who has a STEM background would also have an objective view on audio technology.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I like to think that anyone who has a STEM background would also have an objective view on audio technology.

Let's agree to disagree.

I always end up using my ears when it comes to judging sound quality.

 

[mhardy6647]

Has that been proven in a double-blind test?

/

Poor guy/person (@Plcamp, that is) -- he/she/they could be DBT'd out of existence.

Like that old joke:

René Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender asked "Would you like a drink?" Descartes answered "I think not" -- and disappeared.

 

[fpitas]

Poor guy/person (@Plcamp, that is) -- he/she/they could be DBT'd out of existence.

Like that old joke:

When philosophers become dads, they make that joke

 

[mhardy6647]

Parenting and philosophizing are highly correlated.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I envy you that you can make such nice jokes!
(Unfortunately, my language skills are not good enough for that. )

 

[Jeromeof]

I always thought of myself as an objectivitst but 25 years ago when I first built a system I could not find measurements or the science to back up them, since browsing ASR the past few years it has been obvious to me that I was ”infected” with some subjective BS!

The knowledge and learning I have gained from some of the threads here makes me feel “inoculated”

 

[thegeton]

With respect to speakers, I'm both an Objectivist and a Subjectivist. The way speakers sound to me are as important as the measurements. I have made choices in both directions. I own a pair of B&W CM5s that measure ok-ish, are bright, and can sometimes fatigue me, but I really like them none the less. They aren't in any of my systems, but I just can't let go of them. Sometimes they are what I need.

I have other speakers in between, Revel M16s, KEF Q150s, and a pair of Tekton Lore Reference. Some of which measure well and the others haven't been officially measured but make pleasing noises to my ears. I'm keeping them as well.

On the other end of that spectrum, my main listening system has KEF R3 Metas which I'm sure will measure just fine. I love them. They amaze me and I feel like they might be the end state for that system.

I'm an EE, and with respect to electronics, measurements pretty much rule. I'm a diehard Objectivist and I consider myself to be a person of science. Show me the numbers first and then I can evaluate the usability and aesthetics myself.

Only objective decisions can be made in my work life. Oddly, this can still result in what appears to be a subjective result if one takes into account the influence of Sales & Marketing.

 

[kemmler3D]

Let's agree to disagree.

I always end up using my ears when it comes to judging sound quality.

I think the audio-objectivist philosophy is not that sound quality ought to be judged solely with measurements, but that:

1) Measurements can (in theory) quantify anything we hear coming out of speakers or headphones
2) Measurements are the most useful tool for comparing gear

However, at the end of the day, all this measuring and comparing is in service of our subjective experiences. Measurements can inform our pursuit of gear that conforms to our preferences better, but they can't quantify our preferences (well, we can run measurements to do this ourselves if we choose to) or tell us what our preferences should be.

I think what often gets lost about the Olive / Harman preference work... the results there are mostly a useful guide for manufacturers to produce speakers that are likely to sound good to the average listener. They do not create an obligation on anyone's part to adopt the average preference as their own.

 

[mhardy6647]

I envy you that you can make such nice jokes!
(Unfortunately, my language skills are not good enough for that. )

Not my joke

 

[Muddywaters]

Yes/Soft

I used to read the sage internet audio commentary and rags skeptically and unfortunately/fortunately never had the jaw dropping moments described but couldn’t entirely drop my A’phile cred so kept a few cables around until now (everything wiped out in Hurricane Ian).

So I…

Joined ASR

Oops sorry for the crummy link

 

[Mnyb]

I took the question in the spirit it was asked but I also think subjectivist/objectivists labels are a bit daft and misleading .

So yes I have been believing in all kinds of nonsense in the past and owned magical cables that I ofcourse could differentiate etc.

Now I believe in science and it’s derivative engineering.

But there is still work do to do in transducers and psychoacoustics , there are unknowns but they are not esoteric and mysterious, it’s just that no one bothered to figure it out yet or shared in a scientific way to be explored by others.
I do think Kef and Revel , Genelec et al are on to something they only tells us part of the story? Audi science is currently a bit like alchemy was in the past , no one is sharing knowledge and everything is protected as a trade secret.

An notable exception is dr Tooles body of work , some of it was done by financial support Canada but also when he worked for Harman results where shared and every one benefited from it . I’m sure there are more people to thank for this but I don’t know names . So directivity is now a thing that many speaker manufacturers explore for example .
There is probably more like this worked out by some

Electronics I believe is done practically for our hearing abilities . Designing nice products is an ever changing competitive thing even if the sound part is solved.

 

[Mnyb]

I like to think that anyone who has a STEM background would also have an objective view on audio technology.

You would think so but irrational thoughts can be had by anyone. i’m an engineer and still fell in the trap when I was young . It took decades to get out .

Aren’t there currently some physics professor that slanders his own cred by spreading some FUD about magical audio ?

I think clever guys can build quite intricate delusions to trap themselves in

 

[Timcognito]

Formerly a "soft" subjectivist, now a soft objectivist.

As Gorgonzola you have no choice. Maybe if frozen?

 

[ahofer]

I think if one believes there is no existent test to determine everything you need to know (about two pairs of speakers, in your example) nor could such a test ever be constructed, but that nevertheless there's still a difference the ears/brain could detect, that would put one in the subjectivist camp. That, to me, is what makes someone a subjectivist - that there's some "magic" in the speakers/vinyl/cable etc which cannot be detected with a measuring device - in exactly the same way that you can see a vampire, just not their reflection in a mirror.

But that isn’t what I said, in particular the part about “never be constructed”. There are plenty of things that can be measured that aren’t in a common suite of measurements.