Reason and logic are so passé in the 21st century...
-
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!
Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
BoredErica
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Following is my recent comment on same subject posted on Head-Fi.org forum and I recap it here as believe its relevant ..
//I'm sure the name "Douglas Self" would sound familiar to many of you on this forum. He's kinda guru in electroacoustic and have written many books, one of which is the "Audio Power Amplifier Design". The one I have is the 6th edition 2013 print version. In its chapter 1, he's written at length on "misinformation in audio" and "science and subjectivism" and it seems that as early as 60's and 70's last century, this phenomena existed already. Interestingly many of the myths, false claims and cults that we're seeing TODAY on FB groups, and other forums were indeed same / similar "claims" made by the then-audiophiles when listening to / reviewing amplifiers. Some examples are (1) there's the mystical aspect of sound / audio that can't be measured (2) subjective review is the way to go (3) sound effects claimed but can't be measured or no measurements provided (4) “Objective measurements are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests” (5) “Degradation effects exist that are unknown to orthodox engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual objective tests” ... and the list goes on!
The single most common fallacy I found is that ppl (out of whatever reasons) just don't bother to differentiate personal experience / perception with a claim of a purported "fact". When queried, you soon would be detoured to some other things!!
I have zero motivation to ruin someone's joy in this hobby, but just can't stand still when something is clearly wrong or someone clearly deserves better should they know the facts and figures correctly. I too am learning all these daily and I sometime struggle to "un-do" some of my "beliefs"! Anyway happy listening and all the best!!!//
And over the years of participating various online audio / HiFi forums, I've come to realize the wisdom of Arthur Schopenhauer is very pertinent to such participations, as quoted below:
//As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views.
But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the others, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is not to dispute with with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintances of whom you know that they they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him.
From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for everyone is at liberty to be a fool. Remember what Voltaire says: “La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite”. Remember also an Arab proverb which tells us that “on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace”. //
Have a nice weekend!
//I'm sure the name "Douglas Self" would sound familiar to many of you on this forum. He's kinda guru in electroacoustic and have written many books, one of which is the "Audio Power Amplifier Design". The one I have is the 6th edition 2013 print version. In its chapter 1, he's written at length on "misinformation in audio" and "science and subjectivism" and it seems that as early as 60's and 70's last century, this phenomena existed already. Interestingly many of the myths, false claims and cults that we're seeing TODAY on FB groups, and other forums were indeed same / similar "claims" made by the then-audiophiles when listening to / reviewing amplifiers. Some examples are (1) there's the mystical aspect of sound / audio that can't be measured (2) subjective review is the way to go (3) sound effects claimed but can't be measured or no measurements provided (4) “Objective measurements are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests” (5) “Degradation effects exist that are unknown to orthodox engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual objective tests” ... and the list goes on!
The single most common fallacy I found is that ppl (out of whatever reasons) just don't bother to differentiate personal experience / perception with a claim of a purported "fact". When queried, you soon would be detoured to some other things!!
I have zero motivation to ruin someone's joy in this hobby, but just can't stand still when something is clearly wrong or someone clearly deserves better should they know the facts and figures correctly. I too am learning all these daily and I sometime struggle to "un-do" some of my "beliefs"! Anyway happy listening and all the best!!!//
And over the years of participating various online audio / HiFi forums, I've come to realize the wisdom of Arthur Schopenhauer is very pertinent to such participations, as quoted below:
//As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views.
But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the others, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is not to dispute with with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintances of whom you know that they they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him.
From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for everyone is at liberty to be a fool. Remember what Voltaire says: “La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite”. Remember also an Arab proverb which tells us that “on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace”. //
Have a nice weekend!
D
Deleted member 21219
Guest
Cynicism is a philosophy. It's a form of asceticism. It has nothing to do whatsoever with objectivity or subjectivity.
And let us not forget:
"There is one word of caution, however, to be given to those who renounce inquiry; it is that they cannot retain the right to condemn inquirers."(Benjamin Jowett, 1817-1893)
Jim
And let us not forget:
"There is one word of caution, however, to be given to those who renounce inquiry; it is that they cannot retain the right to condemn inquirers."(Benjamin Jowett, 1817-1893)
Jim
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Hardly. No matter what your dream is, understanding the relative objective measurements and data will tell you a lot about how to go about achieving it.
We need though to be careful about this. Objective and subjective are approaches to reaching a goal. The goal is important. To be crude, a subjectivist can hate someone, but it takes objectivism to build a successful repressive system of government.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
I see that one aspect of this debate that often gets overlooked is how often self ascribed "objectivists" don't actually, really, understand what they are looking at in the data and don't have a reasonably accurate way of talking about it.
Having the data is amazing, yet how that data is interpreted and handled is often a very, very subjective process. That happens here on this forum and nearly everywhere else.
So not only is the data interpretation very much influenced by the specific person doing it, often that person is not yet well informed.
We all stared out at some point new to data collection/interpretation, audio sciences, psychoacoustics, the Bias Codex and all the myriad goodies that make up the bulk of the objectivity we wish to see represented and respected in HiFi and beyond.
Of course we have ALL mishandled information, in the natural course of learning folks are consistently going to be tempted to claim awareness's and knowledge they don't yet have a great grasp of (and in some cases may never have).
There is a lot of human nature involved in that type of behavior and I understand why it happens.
Focusing on my experiences after reading Toole's book, I really was able to sit back and both appreciate the vast knowledge some folks in this forum and other places are sharing. At the same moment I was able to see how many times Toole and others like him are over simplified, miss quoted, miss understood and frankly miss appropriated.
Not to mention the folks who are not yet trying to understand the information with any level of depth at all, yet are really happy to have a team and be "anti-subjectivist".
It is not unusual for some of these cats to be really tough on others, over definitive where not appropriate and generally fighting to win rather than to engage and to learn more.
Again a lot of human nature at play and especially in a subject where the participants are heavily weighted toward the male gender.
I understand it may come with the territory and yet it certainly ends up with a big number of folks getting a bad look when they peer in.
Having the data is amazing, yet how that data is interpreted and handled is often a very, very subjective process. That happens here on this forum and nearly everywhere else.
So not only is the data interpretation very much influenced by the specific person doing it, often that person is not yet well informed.
We all stared out at some point new to data collection/interpretation, audio sciences, psychoacoustics, the Bias Codex and all the myriad goodies that make up the bulk of the objectivity we wish to see represented and respected in HiFi and beyond.
Of course we have ALL mishandled information, in the natural course of learning folks are consistently going to be tempted to claim awareness's and knowledge they don't yet have a great grasp of (and in some cases may never have).
There is a lot of human nature involved in that type of behavior and I understand why it happens.
Focusing on my experiences after reading Toole's book, I really was able to sit back and both appreciate the vast knowledge some folks in this forum and other places are sharing. At the same moment I was able to see how many times Toole and others like him are over simplified, miss quoted, miss understood and frankly miss appropriated.
Not to mention the folks who are not yet trying to understand the information with any level of depth at all, yet are really happy to have a team and be "anti-subjectivist".
It is not unusual for some of these cats to be really tough on others, over definitive where not appropriate and generally fighting to win rather than to engage and to learn more.
Again a lot of human nature at play and especially in a subject where the participants are heavily weighted toward the male gender.
I understand it may come with the territory and yet it certainly ends up with a big number of folks getting a bad look when they peer in.
Have examples of wrong interpretation of data and people not being called out in it here in the forum?
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Howdy. 1st I didn't say, wrong. I said things like, not reasonably accurate, not yet well informed, mishandled.
So in a way your post is actually one type of example.
I'm serious here as I am not saying there is a correct way (or wrong way)to interpret the data, I am saying the interpretation of the data is ultimately subjective and as such, subject to the skill level of the interpreter. Imagine Floyd Toole discussing a particular Klipple data set vs a guy who recently discovered ASR. Just because someone has objectivist aspirations doesn't mean they understand enough to skillfully handle the task.
I know as a hobbyiest I have been guilty of making poor assessments myself. I also continue to learn.
Beyond myself, for examples I think we could look at just about any review thread and find a mixed range of skillful thru unskilled voices. I am not saying this is actually bad, it is what it is.
And, yes it is in fact often called out and challenged and/or forms a topic of discussion which can very often be helpful.
The point I am making though is that whether directly called out or not, many if not most people out there in the world who are attracted to and would like to represent evidence based Hifi, still have much to learn before really being able to both skillfully understand the subject and communicate that understanding well to others.
Just look at the last speaker review, (technics sb-c700). There is a bit of everything I am talking about there.
Anyway check out this post the OP is addressing some interesting stuff
Thread 'Audio foolery 2.0 - The rise and fall of objectivism' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...y-2-0-the-rise-and-fall-of-objectivism.22794/
So in a way your post is actually one type of example.
I'm serious here as I am not saying there is a correct way (or wrong way)to interpret the data, I am saying the interpretation of the data is ultimately subjective and as such, subject to the skill level of the interpreter. Imagine Floyd Toole discussing a particular Klipple data set vs a guy who recently discovered ASR. Just because someone has objectivist aspirations doesn't mean they understand enough to skillfully handle the task.
I know as a hobbyiest I have been guilty of making poor assessments myself. I also continue to learn.
Beyond myself, for examples I think we could look at just about any review thread and find a mixed range of skillful thru unskilled voices. I am not saying this is actually bad, it is what it is.
And, yes it is in fact often called out and challenged and/or forms a topic of discussion which can very often be helpful.
The point I am making though is that whether directly called out or not, many if not most people out there in the world who are attracted to and would like to represent evidence based Hifi, still have much to learn before really being able to both skillfully understand the subject and communicate that understanding well to others.
Just look at the last speaker review, (technics sb-c700). There is a bit of everything I am talking about there.
Anyway check out this post the OP is addressing some interesting stuff
Thread 'Audio foolery 2.0 - The rise and fall of objectivism' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...y-2-0-the-rise-and-fall-of-objectivism.22794/
Last edited:
Any of these translate into "wrong", don't they?
Is it?
But thanks for proving my point... You just called me out. And that is exactly what this community is about: we can discuss our subjective interpretations of objective data, and come to better and new conclusions or enforce existing ones. People are asked to explain and provide evidence to support their claims, and then we can discuss those. Sure, errors are made.. so what? That is hardly an argument against being objective (or rather, trying to be).
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
No, absolutely, resolutely not. And yet for you they do and it is not wrong that they do. See what I am seeing?
I personally would not translate "not reasonably accurate", directly into wrong but you could if you wanted.
I was thinking more like partial credit but not enough partial credit to really feel good about it.
Like back in school when math problems became very complicated and and maybe one question could earn twenty points made up of various components of the process. (showing your work, having a good thought process, getting the right answer)
So sometimes you got 5/20 even if your final answer was correct, and other times you received 15/20 even if the ultimate solution was off.
Another example if I take "mishandled", what if my GF's son spills his soda, what if he forgets his homework at school, or I drop my phone. Was that behavior all wrong? For myself no, not wrong. I was trying to indicate a sort of understandable carelessness, roughness or even non attention.
The other day a friend linked a video that I found interesting in some ways but did not really like. When she asked me what I thought I only said, it was interesting. She replied, I am glad you liked it! Oops.
I am not against objectivism or trying to be objective. Nor am I arguing, as for me there is no argument. I am pointing out what most people actually know and often forget. Nearly everyone filters what they encounter thru their own translater. That includes everything from my posts to what Toole said to what the data packages represent.
I think this has a place in any typical conversation about objectivity and subjectivity.
I imagine Toole, might call it part of the circle of confusion when dealing with and discussing objectivity and subjectivity.
The other part of my point was that essentially something like, a 1st semester, 1st year psychology student is usually not yet qualified to be a pyscologist. Not simply because they haven't taken the required coursework but rather because they don't yet have the actual skill set. Even a graduate student is still typically not yet qualified to handle being a psychologist.
Going further many paid, full time psychologists are still not really qualified and woes to their clients.
Studying objectivity and subjectivity is even more complex than psychology in my humble opinion.
The wisest thing nearly everyone could do IMHO is respect that. So yah mearly re-pointing out that most folks are not experts in this topic.
To address what seems really important to you. To be clear I agree that folks often get called out and the conversation frequently develops in a helpful and mature way. I never said nor meant to imply that that did not happen here. This is a great forum. I have much respect for the knowldebase here. Mad skills abound. My posts were not about a failing in that regard.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 43441
Guest
The topic of subjectivity vs objectivity in audio seems to constantly come up in various threads or dedicated threads of the same. So we thought it is best to have one master thread for it so interested people can participate here, and others not seeing it spread everywhere. If you do post about the topic elsewhere, don't be surprised if it either gets moved here or deleted for being out of place.
Note that the use of the term "subjectivism" is as used in audio food fights. It is NOT the proper term in audio research which is controlled listening tests. That topic can be discussed elsewhere.
Happy arguing.
Why no popcorn emoji?
Lol!
xnor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
- Messages
- 193
- Likes
- 207
What are they about? That humans are not perfect?
no
It just means you are too polite
All of that probably still translates still “wrong”. But sure, some of it is open to interpretation or context. That's where the discussion part comes in.
xnor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
- Messages
- 193
- Likes
- 207
I just saw someone reinforcing his purchase decision by reading a positive subjective review, but the review just contained the typical vapid terms like "warmth" and "resolution" that are so common in those circles.
This made me remember the following point: if we stacked the increases of "warmth", "resolution" and "spaciousness" that such reviewers claim to hear from one device to the next on top of each other then by now black metal should sound like rolls of thunder, needles that were dropped in another country during the recording session should be audible and dry, computer-generated mono sounds should sound like they were coming from an orchestra in a large concert hall recorded in 7.1.
This made me remember the following point: if we stacked the increases of "warmth", "resolution" and "spaciousness" that such reviewers claim to hear from one device to the next on top of each other then by now black metal should sound like rolls of thunder, needles that were dropped in another country during the recording session should be audible and dry, computer-generated mono sounds should sound like they were coming from an orchestra in a large concert hall recorded in 7.1.
Last edited:
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Exactly :
www.audiosciencereview.com
:
Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.
Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Your take on the cave analogy has more truth than than the original post’s implied intent. But nobody takes Plato seriously anymore. Not lost on me that the analogy of an authoritarian is applied to bolster that side of the argument.Were you trying to say this ... in the cave the people envision sine waves, multitone grass silhouettes and other figurative graphs while the outside world is full of color, truer sensations, clearer sounds etc. that captivate the senses
I take you point. Made me think about the proper words to use to describe the sensation of sound in a musical performance - pleasurable or otherwise, live or recorded. What are the proper words to use? We use other familiar sensations (warmth), physical analogies (spaciousness) or just plain made up words (resolution) and emotional references to describe these sensations. I'd bet we'd do better with an agreed upon vocabulary - odd that one seems not have developed on its own.
xnor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
- Messages
- 193
- Likes
- 207
Because for that you'd need actual audible differences and not just imagined qualities and sensations that are largely the result of biases. You'd need something you can put a finger on and only then you can come up with useful terminology (which does exist btw).
But that doesn't seem to be the case for such subjective reviews.
Viewed from the other side, terminology like "a boost in bass" can be objectively verified. The "problem" is that if you say there's a bass boost then this creates some kind of accountability because we can check and figure out whether that claim is true or not.
And that's why subjectivists evade into ambiguous terminology. "Warmth", "resolution", "spaciousness" as used in most reviews are completely meaningless. If we're honest then those terms translate into nothing more than "I cannot hear any obvious flaws".
The irony is that these terms have also been used in reviews on gear with abysmal fidelity, which goes to show how bad human hearing is or how strongly mone... eh.. biases can influence perception.
xnor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
- Messages
- 193
- Likes
- 207
That realization when you read thousand-word reviews and after filtering out all the noise you're left with only a handful of words and numbers that provide actual info, most of which is from the spec sheet....
Either these articles are nothing more than "hidden" ads that entire audiophile circles fall for or their authors are so deluded that they truly believe they've done some good. Don't know which is sadder.
Either these articles are nothing more than "hidden" ads that entire audiophile circles fall for or their authors are so deluded that they truly believe they've done some good. Don't know which is sadder.
..or they are there to advertise and affirm the feelings of/confer some status upon dumping ridiculous amounts of money into the hobby in order to keep people dumping absurd amounts of money into the hobby and its publishing hanger-ons.
