Ex-subjectivists on ASR

[BDWoody]

In other words, there are properties to objects that aren't covered by measuring the resulting changes in sound, that cause us to "hear" a difference or no difference.

This isn't why this thread was created. There are better places to have the 'we're still missing something' discussion.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Unobjective crying duly noted

Trolling duly reported.

 

[dasdoing]

I didn't begin measuring and EQing things until 13 years ago. Does this categorize me as an ex-subjectivist? lol

 

[JeffS7444]

I voted for "Former Subjectivist" and "Soft / Moderate Objectivist".

As a kid, I actually started off reading the product specifications and bench test reviews even if I didn't fully understand them, because in the 1970s, specs were still king.

But once I could afford to buy stuff, I had no idea that a person's aural memory was so brief, or that precise level-matching could be so critical when comparing electronics, so of course I felt confident that "everything makes a difference". It seemed logical to me that if I could "hear" differences which were not reflected in the product's technical specifications, then simply listening to stuff must be my best bet.

I don't remember where I first learned of level-matched ABX, but at some point, I was in an ideal situation to try it. Huh, that's interesting, I thought, as apparent differences between electronics simply disappeared, even in my non-blinded test. For me, it was kind of refreshing, because I took it as an opportunity to "reboot" my hobby.

Nevertheless, I chose Soft / Moderate Objectivist to describe my current beliefs. Because I think that once noise+distortion are inaudible, SINAD-chasing can become it's own form of madness. And because it's my hobby, and I allow for nonsensical things, like tube amps and back-loaded horns.

 

[Purité Audio]

I used to believe what was written in audio magazines, sad right, my only excuse was that when I started to become interested in audio, magazine such as Hi-Fi News had very little subjective content in their reviews, but how quickly that changed.

Keith

 

[ClassicalDJ]

I'm a former subjectivist regarding hi res and DSD - got my start in the audio hobby collecting classical SACDs and fell for the pure DSD silliness, to the point that I would seek out performances recorded in DSD format - it was never because I knew I heard a definitive difference, I just wanted the "best" quality in case I ever had a system where I could. I did convince myself I heard a difference between 24 bit, CD, and mp3 that was probably not really there (though I'll still go for 24 bit streaming or downloads when available).

Nowadays I am struggling to discern the benefits of multichannel vs stereo recordings, besides the higher-pre-distortion SPL.

 

[CapMan]

It's not only subjectivists that spend more, and you need to define zero gain. If my partner can operate a more expensive device more easily, and I buy it, is that zero gain?

Is ease of use an objective measure ?

 

[Spocko]

In another thread, @MattHooper mentioned that many in ASR are former subjectivists. I am one of them.

Unfortunately ASR does not allow posting of multiple polls within the same thread, so I had to merge two questions into one. Here is an explanation of the poll options:

The first two options are:

- Yes. You started off as a subjectivist and you are now an objectivist, or you are still transitioning (see second part)
- No. You started off as an objectivist.

- I am a subjectivist. Measurements have no correlation with audibility. You are still buying audiophile cables, fuses, and tweaks.
- I am a soft / moderate objectivist. You pay attention to measurements, you might even do them, but ultimately all your decisions are made on subjective grounds. You might own high end amps and DAC's that you bought because you think they sound nice.
- I am an objectivist. You believe that anything that can not be measured is not audible, and that claims of audibility are due to placebo. You are a purist who believes that fidelity to the recording is all that matters.

I have been in this hobby for 30 years, and have only started looking at the objective side of things in the past 10. I still have my speaker cables and interconnect to prove it. Transitioning has been both difficult and rewarding. Rewarding, because I get much better sound. Difficult, because of the learning curve. I don't mind learning curves, but what was even more difficult were my friends, who thought that I was crazy for (1) selling my turntable, (2) going all digital, and worse still, (3) manipulating the signal with DSP.

I think that former subjectivists think differently to objectivists. I am still a "listen first" guy. If I think I hear something, I try to correlate it with something measurable. This is a useful exercise for confirming what I heard, and also for suggesting a strategy to improve / remove whatever I think I heard or what I think is missing. I know what kind of sound that I want, and it is not necessarily what many on ASR seem to want, which is to hear the recording as the producers intended it.

So my vote: former subjectivist / currently a soft objectivist.

Without seeing your vote first, coincidentally, mine matches yours exactly! I can never get away from subjectivist tendencies that require "variety" and design. I understand and appreciate objectively accurate frequency curves that have perfect dispersion characteristics, however, I also can't stop myself from being drawn to interesting speakers that are more than just instruments of sound reproduction! It's like buying clothes that require dry cleaning but they look and feel so good - the journey of discovery is what makes life interesting for me, and speakers are no different. It's why I have many different guitars and shoes.

 

[Spocko]

I voted for "Former Subjectivist" and "Soft / Moderate Objectivist".

As a kid, I actually started off reading the product specifications and bench test reviews even if I didn't fully understand them, because in the 1970s, specs were still king.

But once I could afford to buy stuff, I had no idea that a person's aural memory was so brief, or that precise level-matching could be so critical when comparing electronics, so of course I felt confident that "everything makes a difference". It seemed logical to me that if I could "hear" differences which were not reflected in the product's technical specifications, then simply listening to stuff must be my best bet.

I don't remember where I first learned of level-matched ABX, but at some point, I was in an ideal situation to try it. Huh, that's interesting, I thought, as apparent differences between electronics simply disappeared, even in my non-blinded test. For me, it was kind of refreshing, because I took it as an opportunity to "reboot" my hobby.

Nevertheless, I chose Soft / Moderate Objectivist to describe my current beliefs. Because I think that once noise+distortion are inaudible, SINAD-chasing can become it's own form of madness. And because it's my hobby, and I allow for nonsensical things, like tube amps and back-loaded horns.

After enough ABX testing of speakers and regular non-blinded comparisons where I attempt to be objective, my conclusions have been consistent - they all sound different but I don't necessarily prefer one over the other (on some tracks one sounds better but not always) so at the end of the day, I realized that I could happily live with any of them but knowing myself, I'd get bored and replace them regardless of how well they did. Others look for "end game" speakers that they won't ever replace whereas I now understand myself better - no such speakers exist for me.

As tools of the trade, yes, speakers like Genelec or Neumann are my preference but for home enjoyment? It's whatever looks interesting and sound good enough but layers something new I haven't experienced before like ribbon or electrostatic or horn or whatever!

 

[JeffS7444]

I'll say this about audio writers such as the late Edward Tatnall Canby (Audio, Etc columnist in Audio circa 1980s) and Art Dudley (Listener Magazine): They sure knew how to write! Imagine what the world might be like if more scientists and engineers had persuasive skills on par with sales and marketing types.

 

[Spocko]

I'll say this about audio writers such as the late Edward Tatnall Canby (Audio, Etc columnist in Audio circa 1980s) and Art Dudley (Listener Magazine): They sure knew how to write! Imagine what the world might be like if more scientists and engineers had persuasive skills on par with sales and marketing types.

I realized that colorful descriptions of audio is not limited to audiophile reviews. I was deciding between 2 types of electric guitar strings this morning, one was described as "bright" while othe other is "crispy"... WHAT THE HELL IS CRISPY??

 

[computer-audiophile]

Others look for "end game" speakers that they won't ever replace whereas I now understand myself better - no such speakers exist for me.

I have my fun with different speakers that do different things well. I also use modern studio monitors, but not alone. Endgame speakers? No way - I'm still alive, and the world keeps turning.

 

[JeffS7444]

I realized that colorful descriptions of audio is not limited to audiophile reviews. I was deciding between 2 types of electric guitar strings this morning, one was described as "bright" while othe other is "crispy"... WHAT THE HELL IS CRISPY??

More importantly, did it get you to purchase the product?

 

[Spocko]

More importantly, did it get you to purchase the product?

LOL i ended up buying both - maybe that was their plan? dammit, I fell for it because I didn't want to miss out on crispy

 

[symphara]

I realized that colorful descriptions of audio is not limited to audiophile reviews. I was deciding between 2 types of electric guitar strings this morning, one was described as "bright" while othe other is "crispy"... WHAT THE HELL IS CRISPY??

10 minutes at 180degC in the air fryer, I guess?

 

[krabapple]

Is it though? To me, there's more. For example, something that's plausible (not necessarily true) e.g. all things being equal, a DAC equipped with an AKM chip will sound different from an ESS vs something that's not even plausible, e.g. putting cables on raisers will affect sound quality. It's strange putting both positions in the "subjectivist" camp.

Then, of course, there's the crowd that thinks "we can measure everything, all the conclusions we draw are correct and relevant, we have basically perfect prediction power" vs the crowd that says "not really, there's much we still don't know". Some of the former call themselves "objectivists" as if designing a perfect chair was actually possible.

What a bunch of straw man nonsense.

 

[kemmler3D]

"we can measure everything, all the conclusions we draw are correct and relevant, we have basically perfect prediction power" vs the crowd that says "not really, there's much we still don't know". Some of the former call themselves "objectivists" as if designing a perfect chair was actually possible.

I think we can measure everything that even remotely matters for audio. I agree with your chair analogy. The perfect chair depends on the sitter. However, anything you might want to measure relevant to chair design is measurable.

People who would claim there's some kind of magic in the interaction between springs and foam cushioning would be the chair subjectivists. They would know about this magic this because they've sat on quite a few chairs in their day. If you disagree it's because your butt isn't resolving enough.

 

[krabapple]

Plausible isn't evidence. Evidence for SQ would be a listening test, subjective evaluation.

Yes, we get it, any test involving the senses relies on subjective responses.

But you know and I know and Floyd Toole knows that that 's not what 'subjectivism' in audio comparison means. It means *trusting* that what you hear reflects reality. If you hear a difference between A and B, it's because A and B sound different. The possibility of being wrong about that is not entertained.

Similarly 'objectivism' in audio isn't beholden to Ayn Rand nonsense , just because she grandiosely took it for the name of her libertarian cult. Plenty of thinkers accept an objective reality without being 'Objectivists' (capital O). Audio objectivists always entertain the possibility that we 'heard wrong'.

 

[pablolie]

To a certain degree, I think Objectivism in audio (I'd rather leave philosophy out of it, or move that to another topic) is the acknowledgement that if we purely rely on our senses, there are a hundred factors that may mislead us when it comes to drawing qualitative conclusions. Hence, we use scientific methodology (i.e. measurements) to help us out and gain some quantitative insights.

Ultimately though, I doubt anyone buys their audio equipment solely and exclusively based on measurements alone. At least for me, I fully admit that things like design, usability, reputation... etc etc... are major considerations, too.

Nor do I think that better measurements always correlate with a superior level of SQ I'll immediately appreciate. Anyone that thinks they can hear the difference between a DAC with a SINAD of 125 vs 120 is just as irrational as a pure subjectivist that sprinkles magic dust all over their system.

I started reading audio mags while I lived in Germany, and they *always* included measurements, so I always checked out the specs. It allows me to establish if something is competently engineered, or whether a design is "artisanal" and addresses a market niche I don't think I fall into.

 

[Ron Texas]

Most of us old timers started out as subjectivists because there wasn't much objective information available. Before digital audio we had nothing but phono cartridges with wild frequency response and the best we could do was find loudspeakers which had opposite flaws. Test gear was rudimentary. Today with reasonably priced transparent electronics, REW and the work of Toole and Olive available, it's a lot easier to be objective.