Let's say a person with a full understanding of measurements and an objective view is listening to two different pairs of speakers. He much prefers one pair of speakers over the others listening to music, but after he sees the measurements it's clear to him that the speakers he rejected are the ones that measure better.
If he still chooses to keep the speakers he subjectively preferred listening to music to, does that make him a subjectivist? Or did he just realize what the end goal is (musical enjoyment) and choose the middle ground, even though he fully understands he's not following his normal objective goals?
Amir's half-joke of a title for this thread is just about that, do we really need to be extreme "this" or "that", or is it a middle ground?
Very good way of putting it. I've brought up just the same issues where I have found I occasionally preferred a speaker that measures more "poorly" relative to the HK curve. So after auditioning some Revel speakers and some worse measuring speakers, I found myself much more engaged by the "worse" speakers. That could have been because I truly enjoyed the sound of the less neutral speakers more, or because of some sort of bias, sighted or otherwise, that was skewing my perception, or some mix in between. However, if contemplating a purchase I would be asking myself which criteria do I want to follow? Do I want to purchase the speakers that measure "better" and that I'd be more likely to pick in blind testing? Or do I want to pick the speakers that seem to reliably engage me more in the context I'd actually be using them, sighted listening? I'm inclined towards the latter. But making that choice doesn't for a moment deny or challenge "the science" behind loudspeaker design. It recognizes that bias may well be playing a part...but being comfortable enough with that, since it seems to be a pretty reliable
factor in my enjoyment. (Same, for instance, is possible in my choice of tube amps).
Whereas I can see the rational many use here where they'd say "I want the speaker that measures well in terms of the Floyd Toole research, both because it is neutral and I want low coloration of the source, and because it's more likely to sound good to me." Makes perfect sense too.
On my view both choices are compatible with the "Objectivist" point of view, because "Objective knowledge" doesn't ignore the existence of preference and bias. It's more about understanding what role they play, chasing down variables to get more reliable knowledge as to what characteristics are audible, why, and what causes them. Recognizing the realities of human bias, and when we want reliable knowledge, controlling for them and seeking objective measurable verification.
Being an "objectivist" in this sense doesn't mean you personally HAVE to engage in all the controlled testing and designing and measuring yourself. But you will at least be on board with the justifications that underly that program and will try to scale your confidence levels to the evidence.
Basically it's about not bullshitting ourselves. (And...at the very least...admitting when we are allowing ourselves to be bullshitted, e.g. indulging in a bias that causes a perception we know is likely not 'real').
