- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 2,402
- Likes
- 4,145
It is hard to pick up a fight with you.
-
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
You guys really just need to agree to agree.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 2,402
- Likes
- 4,145
I beg to concur.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
I disagree!
Agree, objective and subjective are somewhat widely misunderstood. My rule-of-thumb is that objective pertains to characteristics of the object, subjective to perception by the subject (I wouldn't have said 'description' but you've qualified the term quite adequately).
The other thing people often stumble over with respect to these evaluations is the concept of value judgement, which is often confused with cost-effectiveness based on a particular value set.
Albiepalbie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2022
- Messages
- 28
- Likes
- 16
Rembrandt used to photograph all his paintings so they would look more realistic
Great Artist!
Well I decided to throw in my ha'porth worth.
I won't say is there a middle ground. I think there has to be.
The issue is one of what constitutes objectivism anyway when it comes to sound? We know we don't all see exactly the same thing (colour gamut), Smell the same way, hear the same way, taste the same way, feel pain the same way (women apparently don't experience the same sort of pain we do). With a pure digital source we can record the bits being measured on the source material being used for playback. No two people will hear those bits the same way. With an analogue source we wont actually get the same recording on two pressings. Even if your entire playback chain, pre speakers or headphones is solid state and can be proven not to be affected by temperature, humidity, dewpoint, pressure, windchill etc. you wont get the same experience on any single day. You sit in a chair which you move minutely in front of speakers simply by the act of sitting. Your ehadphone placement wasn't determined by a set of guiding grooves cut into your head so it varies. There are just too many factors. The whole thing becomes a set of averaging compromises essentially in the real world.
That means that in fact all you can really do is try to ensure that the solid state/or valve based devices pre the analogue (speaker/headphone piece) reproduce the signal that was recorded with minimised margin of error on repeated measurements. The rest of the chain can only be measured under equivelant conditions to be strictly accurate. On average hopefull at your target location for speakers you're getting closish to the source signal. For headphones hopefull for the appropriate placement you're on average getting closish to the original recorded signal. Stick a human ear on it and it wont even be heard the same way by the same person on two consecutive hearing sessions. We know this. Harmann or other curves are all very well but as ones ears aren't identical it has issues for some which is why other curves exists also. The fact that most (but not all) like the Harmann curve already tells one that there is room for subjectivism because the liking is dependent on the subject.
Then try and add in human nature. even with a double blind tests You bring prejudice to the table. I would wager that almost all audiophiles be they subjectivists or objectivists (prob well beyond the 80%) will come to any audition with a ton of prejudice attached. They have read a ton of reviews, they have their own ideas about aesthetics, quality, product reputation, desire, the fact that their coffee in the morning wasn't quite right. They feel that someone is sneering at them. There'll be a huge amount of baggage there and being enthusiasts a desire to improve. Many will also suffer from ego issues (my hearing is better than you claimed - I'm not going deaf). Very few will purely buy based on a measurement.
I can see that a headphone that tolerates eq'ing is better than one that doesn't but the reality is that I suspect that their isn't a headphone that Amir hasnt tweaked in some way at which point unless a headhone can't take eq'ing to any great extent why mark it down?
Ultimately I think most (not all) people buy an experience which is an inherently subjective thing) and whilst aspects of their decision may come down to hard facts and measurements there will be a fair amount of subjective thinking in the decision (including I love the 25 foot high speakers that sound like a concert hall and required a second mortgage but I'll lose them in the subsequent divorce that arises because I live in a 3 bedroom semi in sarf London). I know in my heart of hearts that item x may not be as good technically as item y but the other factors like looks/feel/weight/reviews read will sway me to an extent and give me the feel good (especially when it comes to headphones and speakers).
Also how many of us get to try these things in perfect lab condiitons with blind tests? It's all very well to say well order item x and send it back. Thats a hassle and whilst returs are possibly easier in the US or Canada they're not so easy elsewhere.
Ultimately this means that inherently the whole thing becomes subjective by definition.
I could also point out that if we were all truly objective. then there would be no need for ranking charts. Amir would be bale to simply list a dac/amp/ single headphone and say buy that you won't get better. He can't. He can point to a group of things and make recs that are all good but none are definitively better in reality. Ultimately I'd lob myself into the camp of realistic objectivists. I don't want to swallow snake oil.
When I make my decision on what to buy I want:
1) my sources DAC and AMP as far as possible to be audibly transparent. Give me that source signal as it was recorded. I am even prepared to say ok I cant hear differences between 120 and 123 db sinad so that wont concern me too much. I will no longer buy some big name DAC or AMP because of its name (Its NAIM - it must be good)! Nope produce an appropriate electronic design. Give me that clean and accurate signal. By all means stick it in a nice box and charge more but if you cant match or ideally beat the signal reproduction Aune/Topping/Sabaj/SMSL/Gustard box at 1/6th the price I'm not buying from you.
2) I buy sensibly prices cables now which have decent connectors and low microphonics. I no longer look at things like power supplies.
3) I want to like what I'm buying aesthetically. I want it to feel like a quality bit of gear and know that it has a good chance of working in say 5 years. I'm sorry but the Focals may be inferior to the Koss Porta Pro's but I hate the aesthetic of the Koss Porta Pro (though they're fine headphones). Frankly the Focal clipping issue I havent heard - I've never turned up volumes that high as I want to avoid going deaf. Given the number of times that Amir plays music at volumes that can cause hearing damage I am surprised that he hasn't destroyed his hearing by now.
4) I want to feel I'm getting some improvement even if I cant hear it. That improvement may come from the aesthetics but it will be an improvement in some way. I'm human. I'm not perfect and I accept that.
5) I wont buy a DAC/AMP which doesn't fall into the top 10 on this site. I will buy a DAC which does without hearing it first. I haven't regretted that. I may not be able to hear differences between the Topping E50/l50 and the Topping E70/L70 but oh boy I like that blue display. I can feel a purchase coming on.
6) I may buy headphones which dont get Amir's rec. I haven't yet (I currently have the DCA Aeon 2 Noires). I tried the Stealths which I felt were better but not massively so. At the time I felt the price wasnt justifiable but honestly the look and feel of the Stealths over the Aeon 2 Noires means I still have a hankering for them. I can see myself shifting. I'd love to try the Expanse (they look awesome) but I need closed backs. I'd also like to try the Focal Stellias and some of the other outrageous closed backs. I can honestly say I enjoyed listening to the Sennheiser HD820. I didn't find the base lacking at all or muddy though there was some sibilance but then it was on an inadequate headphone amp in a high street shop - not a fair test.
Ultimately I choose to take the recs from this site as a set of good well designed solid choices. I accept that there's more variability in headphones and speakers.
I'd like also to say that I applaud this website an Amir's idea. Cutting the cr@p out of hifi is long overdue and as long as one avoids becoming an extremist in the advice one gives and the tone of the site I think its awesome. Thank you Amir and the other contributors like Solderdude and others
I won't say is there a middle ground. I think there has to be.
The issue is one of what constitutes objectivism anyway when it comes to sound? We know we don't all see exactly the same thing (colour gamut), Smell the same way, hear the same way, taste the same way, feel pain the same way (women apparently don't experience the same sort of pain we do). With a pure digital source we can record the bits being measured on the source material being used for playback. No two people will hear those bits the same way. With an analogue source we wont actually get the same recording on two pressings. Even if your entire playback chain, pre speakers or headphones is solid state and can be proven not to be affected by temperature, humidity, dewpoint, pressure, windchill etc. you wont get the same experience on any single day. You sit in a chair which you move minutely in front of speakers simply by the act of sitting. Your ehadphone placement wasn't determined by a set of guiding grooves cut into your head so it varies. There are just too many factors. The whole thing becomes a set of averaging compromises essentially in the real world.
That means that in fact all you can really do is try to ensure that the solid state/or valve based devices pre the analogue (speaker/headphone piece) reproduce the signal that was recorded with minimised margin of error on repeated measurements. The rest of the chain can only be measured under equivelant conditions to be strictly accurate. On average hopefull at your target location for speakers you're getting closish to the source signal. For headphones hopefull for the appropriate placement you're on average getting closish to the original recorded signal. Stick a human ear on it and it wont even be heard the same way by the same person on two consecutive hearing sessions. We know this. Harmann or other curves are all very well but as ones ears aren't identical it has issues for some which is why other curves exists also. The fact that most (but not all) like the Harmann curve already tells one that there is room for subjectivism because the liking is dependent on the subject.
Then try and add in human nature. even with a double blind tests You bring prejudice to the table. I would wager that almost all audiophiles be they subjectivists or objectivists (prob well beyond the 80%) will come to any audition with a ton of prejudice attached. They have read a ton of reviews, they have their own ideas about aesthetics, quality, product reputation, desire, the fact that their coffee in the morning wasn't quite right. They feel that someone is sneering at them. There'll be a huge amount of baggage there and being enthusiasts a desire to improve. Many will also suffer from ego issues (my hearing is better than you claimed - I'm not going deaf). Very few will purely buy based on a measurement.
I can see that a headphone that tolerates eq'ing is better than one that doesn't but the reality is that I suspect that their isn't a headphone that Amir hasnt tweaked in some way at which point unless a headhone can't take eq'ing to any great extent why mark it down?
Ultimately I think most (not all) people buy an experience which is an inherently subjective thing) and whilst aspects of their decision may come down to hard facts and measurements there will be a fair amount of subjective thinking in the decision (including I love the 25 foot high speakers that sound like a concert hall and required a second mortgage but I'll lose them in the subsequent divorce that arises because I live in a 3 bedroom semi in sarf London). I know in my heart of hearts that item x may not be as good technically as item y but the other factors like looks/feel/weight/reviews read will sway me to an extent and give me the feel good (especially when it comes to headphones and speakers).
Also how many of us get to try these things in perfect lab condiitons with blind tests? It's all very well to say well order item x and send it back. Thats a hassle and whilst returs are possibly easier in the US or Canada they're not so easy elsewhere.
Ultimately this means that inherently the whole thing becomes subjective by definition.
I could also point out that if we were all truly objective. then there would be no need for ranking charts. Amir would be bale to simply list a dac/amp/ single headphone and say buy that you won't get better. He can't. He can point to a group of things and make recs that are all good but none are definitively better in reality. Ultimately I'd lob myself into the camp of realistic objectivists. I don't want to swallow snake oil.
When I make my decision on what to buy I want:
1) my sources DAC and AMP as far as possible to be audibly transparent. Give me that source signal as it was recorded. I am even prepared to say ok I cant hear differences between 120 and 123 db sinad so that wont concern me too much. I will no longer buy some big name DAC or AMP because of its name (Its NAIM - it must be good)! Nope produce an appropriate electronic design. Give me that clean and accurate signal. By all means stick it in a nice box and charge more but if you cant match or ideally beat the signal reproduction Aune/Topping/Sabaj/SMSL/Gustard box at 1/6th the price I'm not buying from you.
2) I buy sensibly prices cables now which have decent connectors and low microphonics. I no longer look at things like power supplies.
3) I want to like what I'm buying aesthetically. I want it to feel like a quality bit of gear and know that it has a good chance of working in say 5 years. I'm sorry but the Focals may be inferior to the Koss Porta Pro's but I hate the aesthetic of the Koss Porta Pro (though they're fine headphones). Frankly the Focal clipping issue I havent heard - I've never turned up volumes that high as I want to avoid going deaf. Given the number of times that Amir plays music at volumes that can cause hearing damage I am surprised that he hasn't destroyed his hearing by now.
4) I want to feel I'm getting some improvement even if I cant hear it. That improvement may come from the aesthetics but it will be an improvement in some way. I'm human. I'm not perfect and I accept that.
5) I wont buy a DAC/AMP which doesn't fall into the top 10 on this site. I will buy a DAC which does without hearing it first. I haven't regretted that. I may not be able to hear differences between the Topping E50/l50 and the Topping E70/L70 but oh boy I like that blue display. I can feel a purchase coming on.
6) I may buy headphones which dont get Amir's rec. I haven't yet (I currently have the DCA Aeon 2 Noires). I tried the Stealths which I felt were better but not massively so. At the time I felt the price wasnt justifiable but honestly the look and feel of the Stealths over the Aeon 2 Noires means I still have a hankering for them. I can see myself shifting. I'd love to try the Expanse (they look awesome) but I need closed backs. I'd also like to try the Focal Stellias and some of the other outrageous closed backs. I can honestly say I enjoyed listening to the Sennheiser HD820. I didn't find the base lacking at all or muddy though there was some sibilance but then it was on an inadequate headphone amp in a high street shop - not a fair test.
Ultimately I choose to take the recs from this site as a set of good well designed solid choices. I accept that there's more variability in headphones and speakers.
I'd like also to say that I applaud this website an Amir's idea. Cutting the cr@p out of hifi is long overdue and as long as one avoids becoming an extremist in the advice one gives and the tone of the site I think its awesome. Thank you Amir and the other contributors like Solderdude and others
mdunjic
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2021
- Messages
- 173
- Likes
- 168
As a graduate of university Electrical Engineering program with masters in comp. science, I laughed my rear off, while reading many posts from 'subjectivist' crowd ... the funniest thread on hi-fi I have ever read ... thanks Amir for unleashing the storm !
Arguably there are very few true objectivists on this site. If there were the only products that would be talked about would be those that measure at the pinnacle at each price point for each use case. 2nd best means you’re already accepting a compromise. Clearly other criteria come into the decision such as aesthetics/prejudice against a brand and the fact that the buyer simply feels that the products have “thing” - that essential element that makes you want to drop the cash on them.
Headphones are slightly harder as Amir points out and you do need to listen to them. I consider myself to be largely objective but am prepared to sacrifice absolute perfection for other criteria that I feel contribute to my experience. I won’t spend lots of money to buy something that measures badly just because everyone says how sublime it is as clearly it’s cr@p in a nice dress.
frabor
Active Member
Objectively we choose and use the best gear that fits the budget within the requirements for the task at hand and within such envelope we use the gear for as long as it provides it stated purpose, with the acceptance that technological and manufacturing progress may redefine the requirements of the task thus forcing to reevaluate the former decisions.
"Money is not a issue" approach could lead to a 100 per cent pure objective experience: when gear is chosen just based on pure performance and swapped the day something else gets better, optimally with a team of acoustical and electrical engineers to make sure you are getting full performance of your gear and room acoustics, regardless if it is a stereo DAC or a 48 channel home theater system ( probably such objectivist will have at least one home theater and a stereo listening room).
"Money is not a issue" approach could lead to a 100 per cent pure objective experience: when gear is chosen just based on pure performance and swapped the day something else gets better, optimally with a team of acoustical and electrical engineers to make sure you are getting full performance of your gear and room acoustics, regardless if it is a stereo DAC or a 48 channel home theater system ( probably such objectivist will have at least one home theater and a stereo listening room).
Last edited:
Wrong. Measurement are not infinitely correlated with sonic improvement. So even if your paradigm existed, your 'true' objectivists would only talk about products that measure 'well enough'. Beyond that would purely be a matter of non-audible tastes. And it would apply less to transducers, which are not a 'solved' technology.
But in reality sound is one factor among several that , quite legitimately, drive a purchase.
So by definition nobody can be a true objectivist because at some point we all compromise on the holy grail criteria and bring other elements into the decision. Your last statement justifies my position.
My feeling is I’m an objectivist to the point where things become good enough. I also do t take myself too seriously on objectivism.
I say this because I know damned well I’m going to upgrade at some point from my e50:l50 combo even though I’m fairly certain I’m not capable of hearing any improvements but there’s just the tiniest chance I might and we’ll that new kit is sexy and and and … I’ll be that much more certain that I’m not missing anything. You gotta laugh.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
The middle ground between objectivist (looks at measurement values only and disregards all non ABX level matched blind tests) and subjectivist (does not understand measurements and disregards them because of that) should probably be an objectivist that understands all aspects of audibility aspects ?
Coining the term 'realist'
Coining the term 'realist'
Last edited:
Oh boy, yet another private definition of a misused term!
I don’t think I was misusing the term. My point is that whilst I fully understand that an objectivist uses hard facts. In reality there is likely to be a compromise rendering true objectivity moot. Can an objectivist always put aside all the psychological aspects that try to sway us from the path of righteousness. So you’ve go the good enough item (e.g. you can’t tell the difference in a blind ab test but new equipment envy comes along and you start to hear flaws or convince yourself that you absolutely need the newer item because.
In that case subjectivity has driven perhaps a justification for a new objective decision so what are you?
I think as solderdude has just defined a realist. This site has ensured that no more will I spend thousands on cables and magic psi’s plugs and stands and other snake oil plus I enjoy reading the posts and finding out new stuff and discovering new music posted. I think I’m a non fanatical objectivist. That new topping e70pro is drawing me which is stupid considering I’ve got the good enough e50/l50 combo and prob can’t hear the differences even if the e70pro is much better. It does look nice though and just think of the comfort it might give me if it is substantially better that if I did have a golden bear I might be able to justify it. I’m happy topping is happy and so should everyone else be.
Lots of people say that. And yet they do.
Yea they do. Going off the hard facts to put together a short list and the selecting for your use case ultimately makes you a hard objectivist if not other factors come into it other than those provable measurable factors which contribute to an objective optimal fit for your use case. Most normal people got somewhere in the middle. I am definitely into finding a set of well designed products (which this site helps with). I then let other factors dictate my choice from that short list. I don’t claim to be a hard objectivist. I don’t see that I am misusing the term.
Most don't. You're far from the only one.
I'd say it has more to do with using reality as your guide. It doesn't require you to pick any particular item, it just requires understanding.
I'm not sure what Jack Nicklaus has to do with it (
) but I'd suggest you spend more time on the understanding part.
