Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

[dlaloum]

Not following, typo?



Yes, that's catechism, but if I can't DBT that as a level difference, how does it work?

Yes my typo - corrected .... at 0.2db difference I could not differentiate with DBT, at 0.5db I could differentiate with DBT

I would not be surprised if 0.3db would still be differentiable - although I could not confirm it from my own experience.

And my comparisons were of identical tracks with F/R differences - and how close the EQ needed to be before the differences were no longer discernible

I wasn't focusing on overall average amplitude (although that too needed to be matched very closely) - but on slight differences in Frequency Response.

 

[krabapple]

You are missing the point. For a single pure tone, it takes about 1dB difference.

First you were emphasizing *broad band*. Now you are talking about a 'pure tone' (single frequency).

Frankly I have no idea what your point is supposed to be . Certainly differences of 0.5dB can be perceptible in DBT dependent on circumstances of signal, etc. It is routinely the recommended level of difference within which A and B should be match (at one of more frequencies) if one is trying to DBT a difference that is NOT attributable to simple level difference.

First you are talking about a discernible difference in amplitude.

Small differences are not discernible as differences in amplitude

You may not *recognize them* as such...but they differences in level.

(and I wasn't talking about a broad band difference, but a difference in frequency response in a narrow band of frequencies, by 0.5db and less)

You *aren't* talking about level differences but you are talking about frequency response difference? What do you think frequency response actually measures? (It was fpitas who brought up 'broadband' )

They are discernible in differences in "detail", or soundstaging, they are discernible as very subtle differences... and in by BT (not DBT) 0.2db was not discernible - but 0.5db was definitely discernible.... just to reiterate - the 0.5db was in a narrow band - from memory up around 2kHz to 8kHz somewhere in that range - and it manifested subtly and absolutely NOT as an amplitude difference.

Those 'details' you are hearing are differences in level at certain frequencies.

Whatever it is you are trying to say, it appears we are in violent agreement now. Yes, difference of 0.5dB can be heard. This is why level matching for DBTs is typically recommended to be within 0.5 dB. As you go <0.5dB it of course gets extremely harder, if not impossible, to perceive a difference.

 

[fpitas]

First you were emphasizing *broad band*. Now you are talking about a 'pure tone' (single frequency).

Frankly I have no idea what your point is supposed to be . Certainly differences of 0.5dB can be perceptible in DBT dependent on circumstances of signal, etc. It is routinely the recommended level of difference to which A and B should be matched (at one of more frequencies) if one is trying to DBT a difference that is NOT attributable to simple level difference.



You may not *recognize them* as such...but they are.



This is really getting incoherent. You *aren't* talking about level differences but you are talking about frequency response difference? What do you think frequency response actually measures? (It was fpitas who brought up 'broadband' )



Those 'details' you are hearing are differences in level at certain frequencies.

Whatever it is you are trying to say, it appears we are in violent agreement now. Yes, difference of 0.5dB can be heard. This is why level matching for DBTs is typically recommended to be within 0.5 dB. As you go <0.5dB it of course gets extremely harder, if not impossible, to perceive a difference.

Violent agreement lol. Well, it's a start. But I still claim that raising the driver level in the crossover (say, the midrange drivers) by 0.25dB is audible. And that's because there is a whole band of frequencies being raised, not just one tone. It is music dependent. Obviously some music could have a solitary tone in that midband range.

 

[krabapple]

Violent agreement lol. Well, it's a start. But I still claim that raising the driver level in the crossover (say, the midrange drivers) by 0.25dB is audible. And that's because there is a whole band of frequencies being raised, not just one tone. It is music dependent. Obviously some music could have a solitary tone in that midband range.

I never said it had to be 'one tone'.

Again: the ear is most sensitive to the 2-5kHz range of frequencies. If you can hear a sonic difference at all (in a DBT) when you make a very small 'overall' level change from A to B , it is likely due to the component of the sound that lies within that frequency range.

And even with that a 0.25db level difference is not likely to be 'quite audible' in average situations. The frequency content matters, as we have noted. The overall SPL matters too. The time between A and B presentation matters too as does the length of the signal.

Fastl and Zwicker cover all this and more in chapter 7 of their text.

For example, pure tone vs 'broadband' content , JND as a function of SPL
(from the Chapter 7, 'Just Noticeable Sound Changes' subhead 7.1 'Just Noticeable Changes in Amplitude'):

JND (just noticeable difference, in dB) where content = 'pure tone', SPL varies

JND where content = white noise(WN) or white noise lowpassed at 1kHz (LPN), SPL varies

 

[fpitas]

I never said it had to be 'one tone'.

Again: the ear is most sensitive to the 2-5kHz range of frequencies. If you can hear a sonic difference when you make a very small 'overall' level change from A to B , it is likely due to the component of the sound that lies within that frequency range.

Since you mention it. The horn level, 800Hz - 20kHz, is the most obvious.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes my typo - corrected .... at 0.2db difference I could not differentiate with DBT, at 0.5db I could differentiate with DBT

I would not be surprised if 0.3db would still be differentiable - although I could not confirm it from my own experience.

And my comparisons were of identical tracks with F/R differences - and how close the EQ needed to be before the differences were no longer discernible

I wasn't focusing on overall average amplitude (although that too needed to be matched very closely) - but on slight differences in Frequency Response.

Got it.

I can imagine both timing envelope and frequency amplitude differences (with small deltas) may influence stereo image and timbral presentation. There are other factors too of course.

The graphs of just-noticeable changes in @krabapple 's post are sensible. I can do better on audiocheck's test if I turn it up. Interesting that we may differentiate white noise a bit more easily at lower levels, at least until the curve plateaus.

 

[steve59]

I know when cd came out I was looking for speakers that would add some, something to the music to make the other 71 of my 80 cd's listenable. Digital has gotten better and flat speakers are much less painful to listen to than back then, however all things being equal I will pick the speaker with more bass every time.

 

[dlaloum]

I know when cd came out I was looking for speakers that would add some, something to the music to make the other 71 of my 80 cd's listenable. Digital has gotten better and flat speakers are much less painful to listen to than back then, however all things being equal I will pick the speaker with more bass every time.

Me I fell in love with the microdetail that an electrostatic could expose even at low SPL's... I enjoyed the bass of many speakers, but the midrange and detail of the ESL's always ended up swinging things as the higher priority.

I did try several times to match subs with the ESL's but never managed to get it sounding right.... on the other hand, that was before DSP's and digital crossovers - might be easier today.

 

[rockrolla]

That's interesting, let me put it on a newbie "Wana be a audiophile" perspective , this will be a long topic so forgive me if there's some errors since English isn't my native language and some technical errors because I'm just learning

1-Music source : you can have a lot of music formats but you easily find FLAC is the way to go but you have different kinds of compression and you can have the same music recorded with different resolution and quality so not easy and them you put the MP3 Vs FLAC and you can't hear a single difference maybe just because the FLAC isn't recorded properly or the original recording isn't basically good enough

2- Audio source : that's the easy part , mostly computer , phone , portable player , cd or cassete tape , didn't know people are still using cassete tapes and seams it's actually a good source for HR recordings but that's not certainly the majority

3- Software : lots of software with filters , EQ , different tricks and adjustments , super confusing

4- Analog or Bluetooth: there's no mistake here , analog is the way but apple products are an exception of audio excellence even though they are BT devices and only support AAC , when LDAC it's the audiophile minimum requirement

5-Dac : lot of setups , different devices , different signatures , different powers , portable , not portable , with or without BT ,with and withou EQ with a clear interference how the sound will be presented on the headphone

6-Amplifier : different powers, you can have a super powerful device but you can't use it with a super sensitive IEM and a amplifier with different power can boost or ruin the sound of your headphone

7-Headphone : so consider the previous factors the same headphone is going to sound different for everyone depending the music quality, the DAC, amplifier , software , EQ and them you have the headphones specs , signature , closed , semi open , open , tuned for a particular kind of music or not and finally you get to the most complex device that's the human ear and on this matter you can find a review saying this headphone is horrible and some other guy saying it's the best headphone he heard , so I had many hobbies on my life but this one is certainly the most subjective and sometimes I think people are talking about things no one can hear and it's just a market thing, sorry if I'm wrong , just a newbie pragmatic perspective

 

[Keith_W]

By my estimate (though not on this forum), more than 75% of audiophiles are subjectivists because that's the way they were introduced into the hobby. I started off by wanting to listen to music, not by any interest in electronics or engineering per se. The people who introduced me to audio and influenced my early years were all subjectivists. It is much easier to be a subjectivist - just listen and ask if you like the sound. To be an objectivist requires much more learning - how to interpret graphs and data, what they tell you and do not tell you, and in some cases requires you to purchase measurement equipment yourself and learn how to use it.

I am still a subjectivist, although I use objective methods to get there. Ultimately I decide if I like the sound from my system, and if I don't ... well I have DSP and a microphone, and I do what I can (within my limited knowledge) to get closer to what I want. This may involve changing target curves to something many of you would not consider ideal, but it is quite deliberate. For example the profile I have for home theatre has an insane amount of bass, which works for certain types of movies.

I have no way to measure my headphones, so any DSP to my headphones is strictly by ear and to taste. I have never heard a difference in cables, which is an observation that fits with the data - so I only buy cables that are "good enough" (sturdy construction with good connectors).

I think this is a middle ground between subjectivism and objectivism. Although I suspect that most of ASR are similar to me in that you are limited by what you are able to measure and rely on third parties to do your measurements for you.

 

[ahofer]

This may involve changing target curves to something many of you would not consider ideal

Based on another thread here, target curves seem pretty bespoke.

 

[egellings]

I do not do drugs.
Perhaps you should quit. Lol

Then you'll stop hearing things not in the signal. After all, that is what we are discussing, the electrical music signal content and it being transducer.
Not mental illness or drug abuse.


But even those can be measured: brain activity can be converted to an electrical signal.

So when high, time slows down.
Does the time on your watch (and everyone else's in town)?

Relativity
Put your hand on a hot stove for a second, seems like an eternity

Talk to a pretty girl for hours, seems like seconds.

Invariant real time and psy-time, which speeds up or slows down depending on mood are different.

 

[fpitas]

Based on another thread here, target curves seem pretty bespoke.

Yes. I miss tone controls. I've seen some silly arguments against them, but seems like they have disappeared so equipment manufacturers can save a buck.

 

[Goodman]

Peter Aczel said soundstage and depth are the province of the speakers and the listening room. In my own experience, such as it is, I always thought he was right.

We need another Peter Aczel !

 

[Goodman]

The more resolving my system got, the less I could tolerate modern recordings Instruments/vocals recorded individually and mixed down into a 'performance'.
Sounds contrived and artificial.
Some music works with that method: Yes, Traffic, Fleetwood Mac. Perhaps because I like it so much tolerate the SQ.

A good recording, late 50's, early 60's jazz. recoded live, as a group, one take, well mic'ed, will give a good impression of space, location, the room.

To each there own. I listen to the music, in a live performance we have visuals, not with hifi, a large part of the presentation is missing. So I don't analyze system accuracy, that was all done before hand, when planning, purchasing, setting up the system. After that, it is about feeling the music. imo beyond a certain point the system is no longer a factor, the individual decides that. For me, light years before $10k power cables that bear no fruit.

I agree, accuracy, contrary to most members belief, the search for accuracy is important, but not the only parameter used to judge a hifi system, It is over emphasized and oversold. This the root of this silly debate of objectivist vs subjectivists..

 

[fpitas]

light years before $10k power cables that bear no fruit.

No fruit? Snake oil salesmen have yacht payments. Never forget.

 

[Goodman]

Yes. I miss tone controls. I've seen some silly arguments against them, but seems like they have disappeared so equipment manufacturers can save a buck.

John Bongiornno, a highly acclaimed Audio engineer, said in an interview that he would not buy a preamp without tone controls.

 

[fpitas]

John Bongiornno, a highly acclaimed Audio engineer, said in an interview that he would not buy a preamp without tone controls.

Toole has also come out for tone controls. The truth is, recordings vary widely depending on the caprice of the mixing and mastering.

 

[pkane]

I agree, accuracy, contrary to most members belief, the search for accuracy is important, but not the only parameter used to judge a hifi system, It is over emphasized and oversold. This the root of this silly debate of objectivist vs subjectivists..

The root is not that, it’s the unshakable belief in imaginary, almost magical qualities of audio equipment vs. the desire to understand what’s real and what’s not.

 

[Goodman]

The root is not that, it’s the unshakable belief in imaginary, almost magical qualities of audio equipment vs. the desire to understand what’s real and what’s not.

Sad state of affairs.