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

[Newman]

Im terribly sorry if this sounds like its going in a circle but wouldnt that mean that the audible attributes are irrelevant if we are unable to reliably hear or distinguish them?

You are able to hear and distinguish them, in controlled listening tests.

If the context is the main thing that affects what I perceive then the context is all I should have to worry about right?

That is your choice. While you are at it, you can cancel your ASR account, because the science of sound reproduction is irrelevant to you.

Just be aware that the sighted listening approach exposes you to being led by the nose into accepting sound waves that you actually don't prefer, when given a chance to assess them purely as sound. Most people resent the idea that they are being manipulated into liking worse sound waves more than superior sound waves. You don't get to control your biases consciously; they are imprinted upon you with no act of will on your part. Often being imprinted by the audiophile media, audio friends, showroom staff, and the manufacturers' own websites explaining the specialness of their gear and its attributes. Plus more.

A large cohort of people on ASR, including myself, aim for the best of both worlds: use audio science to whittle down our gear choices to a shortlist of gear that we know represent audio excellence, then let our contextual biases have a say in choosing from the shortlist.

cheers

 

[Jimster480]

I understand you but that was not my point, when you say that the measurements correlate to what you would hear then you are closer to what I believe. All Im saying is that if you tell anyone by default what they conclude from hearing test is completely imaginary then there isnt much point in having equipment that measures well. Because if you treat subjective judgment as complete ramdomness then it makes no difference really what you buy in the first place and in that case - the measurements no matter if good or bad - would not correlate at all to what you listen to like you are saying. They would be just a nice thing to have that hit a randomiser.

The easy quick summary of what Im saying is if you think you're deaf and dumb and unable to hear shit, why would you even bother gettinh good stuff and measure every component , you would t hear it anyway and it'd all be a waste.

I understand your point, obviously subjective hearing isn't 100% random but it is called subjective for a reason. A person who has no experience in high quality audio will think that something which objectively doesn't sound so great "sounds amazing". Just like how someone can own a cheap TV and then go look at a higher end Mini-LED TV and think it is beyond Amazing.... yet they have never even discovered OLED. There are many variations in the quality of panels, so it all depends on what people are "used to".
So many people in the audio world have only listened to cheap drivers and poorly tuned audio hardware; so they can think that things which still rank poorly here "sound great" especially if they are marketed in a way where the consumer is thinking they are getting top quality audio experiences.
This is the whole problem with subjectiveism, I was also a part of this before I found true Hi-Fi and later on this forum. My "subjective" opinion now is quite good at picking out sound quality which matches graphs here on this forum (despite some people here thinking its near impossible).
However I now have 9 years of Hi-Fi audio experiences and 6+ years of listening to an Aeon Flow Closed, Oppo PM-2 and other highly resolving headphones and IEM's.

So this is why subjectivity cannot be rated the same as objectivity. If you are highly experienced with true Hi-Fi experiences from many years, then you have a good chance of "trusting your ears" over someone who doesn't. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Geert]

You should be able to hear things, too and if not , then I think there is no point in measuring on a level that is way deeper than your ability to hear it either.

Except for the entertainment value, what’s the value of a subjective observation if you can’t determine if the difference in sound results from a real difference in the performance of the audio equipment, an unreliable test protocol or a adrenalin rush?

That question gains importance when observations challenge the scientific consensus (like associated audibility thresholds). For a forum that values the scientific approach, I think it’s normal to check the testing protocol and to ask for evidence at that point.

 

[rdenney]

The question isn't whether excellent systems produce a better listening experience in total than merely good systems, it's whether this particular good item is better than that particular good item (whatever the item is--hardware, integration, adjustment, positioning, etc.). People argue endlessly and use all manner of myth and lore to make the case that one good item is "better" than another good using definitions of "better" that don't stand up to controlled comparison (either subjective or objective), either to justify the choices they have made, to sound smart to like-minded folk who they are trying to impress, or to sell stuff.

The phrase "xxx measurement shows good engineering, but of course won't have an audible effect" or some variation thereof appears in Amir's reviews frequently, or in the comments following the review (usually both). So, what advice does that give to those building a system and making choices? Buy objectively competent electronic devices in the playback chain for their control features, brand, aesthetics, and overall capability (i.e., having sufficient power output), not for their specifications beyond basic thresholds. And then spend the time dealing with the transducers, including speakers and, if they for whatever reason use analog sources, the analog transducer on the source end (such as, for example, a turntable and cartridge or a tape machine). That time will usually require time spent with, say, the room acoustics to a greater extent than with magazine ads for such as amplifiers or DACs.

There is still plenty of room for subjective observation of transducers, because their interactions with the physical playback situation vary so much. And there is still room for subjective comparisons of systems, but without controls they provide no instruction or insight for others.

Rick "checks prospective purchases against reviews with measurements to ensure competence" Denney

 

[RDoc]

<snip>

Lets say for example that you plan to buy a car and the things that are most important to you are fast acceleration and yet decent gas mileage.

Test driving or looking at the cars might give you a feeling of what is faster or more efficient, but you are better off trusting measured facts from a spec sheet.

<snip>

Nice analogy. The thing about a vehicle's acceleration is how is it achieved, through power or torque. Does it grunt or sing? A high revving, narrow power band engine may objectively give a lower quarter mile time compared to one with lots of low end torque, but the later car or motorcycle will be more fun for many people.

In audio, the preference many people have for tube amplifiers could be considered an analogous effect. Technically, a modern solid state amplifier is far superior for noise, frequency response and distortion. However, the kind of distortion tubes introduce is very appealing to many people and out ranks the other characteristics.

My point is that it's necessary to be careful about what objective specifications actually measure and how relevant they are to people's enjoyment. For some people, fast acceleration isn't always quarter mile time and good sound isn't always low distortion.

 

[Miguelón]

My point is that it's necessary to be careful about what objective specifications actually measure and how relevant they are to people's enjoyment. For some people, fast acceleration isn't always quarter mile time and good sound isn't always low distortion.

I respect your point, but in practice audiophile market is full of overpriced material that pretends to be “premium” quality and cost a lot of money wasted in unjustified beliefs. Vacuum tubes is inferior in the purpose of an amplifier which is simply to amplify a signal.

At least if a brand offer a sub pair piece of gear, can offer a complete set of measurements giving you the opportunity to decide.

Until the level of room interaction (which is the key point of difference), audio transparency is a trivial question.

 

[Holmz]

I respect your point, but in practice audiophile market is full of overpriced material that pretends to be “premium” quality and cost a lot of money wasted in unjustified beliefs. Vacuum tubes is inferior in the purpose of an amplifier which is simply to amplify a signal.

In the voice of Yoda… “The dogma is strong in this one”

Vacuum tubes are great for a lot of things, like a lot of RF amplification.

At least if a brand offer a sub pair piece of gear, can offer a complete set of measurements giving you the opportunity to decide.

Which measurements.

Until the level of room interaction (which is the key point of difference), audio transparency is a trivial question.

The room, and the speakers, totally dwarf almost all distortions in 1.2 way decent tube gear.

 

[Purité Audio]

Audibly transparent valve designs just like audibly transparent solid state, I don’t really see the point of valves in this day and age.
Keith

 

[Holmz]

Audibly transparent valve designs just like audibly transparent solid state, I don’t really see the point of valves in this day and age.
Keith

Correct - both can be well done.
And both can be sub-par.

 

[rdenney]

Audibly transparent valve designs just like audibly transparent solid state, I don’t really see the point of valves in this day and age.
Keith

Vacuum tubes for RF use have an advantage--high power per dollar and flexible loading. A loading error will overheat the plates on a tube in a minute or so, but will vaporize a solid-state final in milliseconds. Given the variable loading offered by antennas (as opposed to the predictable loading offered by speakers), that space to get the antenna system tuned up is important.

But mostly the reason vacuum tubes get used for RF is that they are cheaper. That makes their reputation in audio all the more ironic.

Rick "who uses a Class AB 600-watt RF amplifier for HF radio that uses three 811A triodes" Denney

 

[Keith_W]

Vacuum tubes for RF use have an advantage--high power per dollar and flexible loading. A loading error will overheat the plates on a tube in a minute or so, but will vaporize a solid-state final in milliseconds.

Not to mention, if the tube is vaporized, it's a matter of removing it from the socket and replacing it. As opposed to replacing a whole circuit board if a transistor goes.

 

[RDoc]

In the voice of Yoda… “The dogma is strong in this one”

Vacuum tubes are great for a lot of things, like a lot of RF amplification.
<snip>

(Checks name of this site: Audio Science Review) - Um, RF is about radio which generally is well above audio frequencies so I don't see what the relevance to this site is.

Yoda had pretty large ears which wouldn't be optimized for such high frequencies, but then, he wasn't human either.

 

[Miguelón]

In the voice of Yoda… “The dogma is strong in this one”

Vacuum tubes are great for a lot of things, like a lot of RF amplification.


Which measurements.


The room, and the speakers, totally dwarf almost all distortions in 1.2 way decent tube gear.

That’s true, but no reason to pay astronomical amounts for vacuum tube amps that can be difficulty transparent. I was thinking more on extra costly amps for headphones based on vintage mode.

In the case of speakers, I don’t know any reason to don’t use transistors in amplifying, you can tell me perhaps any practical motivation to build them with tubes.

Measurements as THD, noise, and of course the amplification power will provide enough data for choosing or not an amplifier, perhaps durability of components can make me decide to one model instead of another but I don’t know it tubes last for longer… at least one can replace them, that’s true.

 

[Holmz]

(Checks name of this site: Audio Science Review) - Um, RF is about radio which generally is well above audio frequencies so I don't see what the relevance to this site is.

Yoda had pretty large ears which wouldn't be optimized for such high frequencies, but then, he wasn't human either.

It was more like the mantra on ASR is, “Everything with tubes=bad”.
Which is not the case.

They certainly predated solid state.

That’s true, but no reason to pay astronomical amounts for vacuum tube amps that can be difficulty transparent. I was thinking more on extra costly amps for headphones based on vintage mode.

Correct.

In the case of speakers, I don’t know any reason to don’t use transistors in amplifying, you can tell me perhaps any practical motivation to build them with tubes.

Agree.

Measurements as THD, noise, and of course the amplification power will provide enough data for choosing or not an amplifier, perhaps durability of components can make me decide to one model instead of another but I don’t know it tubes last for longer… at least one can replace them, that’s true.

That is where things get a bit tricky.
The HD profile may be better with tubes. But THD is a bit of a rabbit hole.
I am not sure whether noise is better or worse with tubes. And the noise is not measured separate from THD.
It is certainly can be a bit more complicated than just a single SINAD number.
But the plots allow one to see “into it”.

IMO they (tubes) have a place in preamps in my system. However I have moved away from them for power amps.

 

[boxerfan88]

It was more like the mantra on ASR is, “Everything with tubes=bad”.
Which is not the case.

Agree. My observation too…

 

[amano]

• Audio gear performance is objective because it is a product of engineering.
• Audio gear design is subjective because it depends on human perception.
• Perception of audio is subjective.
• Audio gear marketing is subjective and emotional. A mediocre audio gear can sell a lot if it is sold by good marketers.

 

[rdenney]

You are forgetting that, usual labels notwithstanding, the debate is not subjective vs. objective, but uncontrolled vs. controlled.

The reason engineers can objectively design and measure is because those subjective perceptions can be evaluated and quantified by controlled subjective testing. Despite the large body of such research that has been performed, this is the testing that so-called subjectivists eschew, claiming for themselves hearing abilities they cannot repeatably demonstrate without prior knowledge of what’s being tested. And then using their special hearing (as they imagine) to denigrate those who (having tested it for themselves) can’t hear those differences.

Rick “people defend their fantasies” Denney

 

[Keith_W]

You are forgetting that, usual labels notwithstanding, the debate is not subjective vs. objective, but uncontrolled vs. controlled.

I was asked my view of Alternative Medicine. I told him there is no such thing as "alternative" vs. "conventional" medicine, there is only "evidence based" and "non evidence based" medicine. If we found evidence that acupuncture cures cancer, then I would be prescribing it.

Quite often, an intervention makes a measurable difference even if the patient does not feel better. For example, lowering a patient's blood pressure or cholesterol won't make them feel any different. However, what does make them feel better is if I listen to them and take their concerns seriously, even if I can't do anything about it. I kid you not, this effect is very real and it is very strong. I could give them placebo and their blood pressure would still go down if I was convincing enough.

It's the same with audio. We can measure differences, but we may not hear them. And despite being an objectivist, I sometimes hear things that are not there. Or I might convince myself that I can hear something because I can measure it. These are all pitfalls to avoid!

 

[artismo]

Hot take: I listen to so much clinical and transparent gear so often that I use tubes and poorly measured devices as palette cleansers

 

[ahofer]

pitfalls to avoid!

Or not, if you could just reproduce them reliably. As it stands, the introduction of wine or cannabis seems a more reliable way to improve sound perceptions.