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

[Grumpish]

It seems like you are saying that people hear differently to each other, which seems either unprovable, or supposition, but largely untrue.

Very provably true - ask any audiologist. And that is at simple physical level, let alone before you take into account the different ways that different people process what they hear, autistic people for example are often very sensitive to loud sounds.

 

[Holmz]

Well, our perception of sound clearly differs. For example rock music may be an energising exciting experience for one person but unbearable racket for another. Or classical an uplifting transformational roller-coaster of emotions for one, and dull as dishwater for the next.

Why would that be if the way our brains process sound is all identical.

Obviously things like stereo soundstage imaging are more difficult to demonstrate differences in perception, but it is a reasonable supposition given that some people claim depth and height are audible, where others can listen to the same, and struggle to detect anything.

The point is a lot of what we detect and perceive in audio is processed in the brain, not the ears. This is *always* susceptible to how we feel, the environment, how we are listening, confirmation bias etc etc. And is why perceived differences between components which measure transparent are generally unlikely to be due to technical differences in the way the components perform.

No dispute with ^that^. But it is like how do dolphins hear?
They obviously hear similarly as they are able to hunt in packs, and the same for killer whales.

There was recently a juvenile blue whale that was devoured by a pack of ~70 killer whales, and it was either that event, or a similar one where they recorded that the animals were sending (vocalising) their images so that the pack as a whole could get a bigger picture.

So our brains are processing the sounds, but in the end, it gets associated with meaning, emotion, contact, memory. Etc… It is not like the ears themselves like or dislike the sound. The ears are not a separate sentient thing.

And I particularly enjoy the lyrics of a song, whereas others maybe more drawn to the harmony.
Those that don’t pay attention to the lyrics are still hearing them, but they do not have a focus on that aspect. Whereas I focus less on the harmony.

Of course dancing McIntosh meters, and glowing tubes can subjectively change one’s opinion of the sound.

Very provably true - ask any audiologist. And that is at simple physical level, let alone before you take into account the different ways that different people process what they hear, autistic people for example are often very sensitive to loud sounds.

Well it is much like an engine revving. The Mrs does not like that sound, and it puts her on edge… but emotionally I don’t mind it.

And in movies when the loud sounds appear, everyone in the theatre jumps in unison… They may all experience slightly differing emotions, but they all know that they are hearing something happen, and that it is a bad thing.
A vet with PTSD may not find it emotionally enjoyable.

if you have a link to the audiologists stuff it would be interesting to see/hear.

 

[sq225917]

If you want a bit of stunt height recording, try the Trinity Sessions by the cowboy junkies, listen for the hvac rumbling and The chime of a city clock, by nick drake on bryter layter.

 

[JJB70]

This is one of those debates which will never end, and despite some faux outrage that the questions should even be asked it's one of those debates that many enjoy (even if they don't like admitting it). Certainly it's always an entertaining topic and can elicit some very thoughtful and interesting comments and views.
I think I've said before that extremes of anything are rarely good and that ultimately hardcore objectivists and subjectivists have more in common than either group would like to recognise. One of the biggest mistakes is seeing it as a binary division, for many people the whole concept of dividing people into camps is silly and rather objectionable, and even if you do want to assign people into some sort of categorization system then it is a spectrum rather than a binary arrangement. Even most hardcore subjectivists understand the value of some measurements and metrics, while even most hardcore objectivists look at more than a spreadsheet of measured values when choosing what to buy.
My own experiences have followed a classic pendulum swing. In my youth I bought into all the hi-fi magazine spin and hype and wasted £££££££s buying overpriced stuff that really wasn't especially good before ending up with a Sony ES system that is still with me (in today's parlance, I reached my "end game") when I realised the big Japanese outfits made gear which was better designed, better built, better value for money and just an all around more sensible buy than the darlings of the hi-fi press. Then years later when I took an interest in audio gear again I was a bit of a measurement is all type and quite dismissive of many things. Now I've moved again and think that in the greater scheme of things audio gear doesn't matter. Audio has been commoditised and has never been so accessible for so little. The main market decided a while ago that wireless IEMs/headphones and speakers were the way to go and although audiophiles may disagree in this case I think the mainstream is right (just as I think there is a good reason very few buy cameras now when smartphone cameras are so good). That doesn't mean I've lost interest in audio, but I love classic Japanese audio gear as a hobby interest, and I get why people chase metrics or just follow their subjectivist dreams. However for me a smartphone and IEMs are perfect for enjoying music. Just buy what you like and like what you buy, but be honest about it.

 

[Weeb Labs]

Can they see emotion? Sound is there to be heard, for that ears are needed. People who judge audio without listening are like blind people relying on someone else to describe colours.

Video is also there to be seen but that doesn't mean I will hide my scopes the next time that I grade footage and hope for perfect skintones and white balance. We know the human visual system doesn't work that way.

Likewise, I don't need to look at a monitor that I know has been calibrated to sRGB with a white point of 6500K and a ΔE of 0.2 to know that it will appear perfectly accurate.

Don't you find it to be interesting that devices based upon such a vastly more complex phenomenon as electromagnetic radiation aren't subject to the same "picture quality can't be properly measured" arguments as audio?

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Video is also there to be seen but that doesn't mean I will hide my scopes the next time that I grade footage and hope for perfect skintones and white balance. We know the human visual system doesn't work that way.

Likewise, I don't need to look at a monitor that I know has been calibrated to sRGB with a white point of 6500K and a ΔE of 0.2 to know that it will appear perfectly accurate.

Old enough to remember when Technicolor came out, over rich colours, realistic definitely not yet we all loved it. Many different takes on visual and audio inputs to our brains. Accuracy can be measured yet is it what we want?

 

[antennaguru]

If you want a bit of stunt height recording, try the Trinity Sessions by the cowboy junkies, listen for the hvac rumbling and The chime of a city clock, by nick drake on bryter layter.

Those are both great recordings!

I have been to Carnegie Hall in NYC numerous times, and have personally heard the faint rumbling of the nearby subway(s) during performances, so it doesn't surprise me that a number of the "Live at Carnegie Hall" recordings I own also capture those sounds of the subway(s).

 

[Weeb Labs]

Old enough to remember when Technicolor came out, over rich colours, realistic definitely not yet we all loved it. Many different takes on visual and audio inputs to our brains. Accuracy can be measured yet is it what we want?

Listener preference is a highly researched field but you appear to have missed the point of my post. The above was in response to your assertion that audio can not be meaningfully evaluated on the basis of measurements and preference data.

 

[Koeitje]

Old enough to remember when Technicolor came out, over rich colours, realistic definitely not yet we all loved it. Many different takes on visual and audio inputs to our brains. Accuracy can be measured yet is it what we want?

The colour grading determines how the director and the dp want the film to look. If you want to replicate how the creators intended the film to be experienced then you need a display that is as accurate as possible. If you then want to change it to look like a cartoon then you can do that. But you aren't going to start with a tv that displays completely random colours.

In audio its a bit more complex than that, because we do not know what they creators were hearing when the created it. Because in terms of colour grading we know they used a colour accurate monitor and even though some streaming or Blu-ray releases are graded differently, overall we have a good understanding what people were looking at when they were mastering the content. Even for streaming or Blu-ray releases that are graded differently from the original, the one doing the changed release was still looking at a calibrated display.

But for audio we don't know what they were hearing because of different speakers, rooms, treatments etc. Its a circle of confusion. So your best bet in audio is just to remove all the factors on your end and focus on a setup that reproduces what is on your playback medium accurately, and thus assume what is on the medium is how they intended for people to hear it. After that you can use a DSP to fix some things here and there.

 

[antennaguru]

Now that I understand that there has been some moving around of posts to establish one "master" thread for subjectivism (pure listening) and objectivism (pure measurements), I think there is certainly middle ground - which I would think is the goal. Measurements are very important as they tell us about linearity, distortion levels, power level capability, and frequency response. OTOH, there are a few things that are important to some listeners that cannot be measured with test equipment as we know it today, such as spatial imaging - which I have been mentioning already in my posts.

I am finding that there is less correlation than I hoped for between "good measuring" and "good imaging" in amplifiers - which in theory should be simple gain devices that do little else to the signal other than amplifiy. Back in the day John Linsley Hood and Matti Otala spoke about "a straight wire with gain" as the goal. At Electrocompaniet Matti Otala named an early amplifier the "Ampliwire", and there was also the accompanying "Preampliwire", based on this goal.

The only process I know of to assess "good imaging" is listening to several recordings that are each known to exhibit specific detailed imaging cues. In order to keep it real a number of listeners need to hear this and these comments should be assembled to arrive at a common conclusion for each amplifier. Applying controls to the listening to maintain a fair comparison, such as level matching. Clearing the room and having one person that stayed behind changing the wires between amplifiers and then placing a black cloth over all of the amplifiers in a line on the floor helps too, as long as that person leaves the room before the listeners return without giving comments or cues to the listeners as they return to the room. The system itself needs to be of high quality in a good room with excellent loudspeakers well placed in that room.

There are also times when these controls cannot be implemented and then I think there may be some personal value in uncontrolled listening as long as the listener(s) can define/state imaging depth of specific instruments/singers/effects in feet/meters, as well as imaging height, for each amplifier before moving on to the next amplifier. Measurement quantification should be a part of all imaging analysis to reach reasonable conclusions. In controlled listening a question can be asked about a specific measurement and each listener can write down their estimation of the measurement on a slip of paper that is then folded and placed in a jar for that question as a ballot, versus discussion amongst the listeners.

I also think people that are interested in stereo imaging should participate in their own tests, and reach there own conclusions, as from what I have seen here at ASR every listening test that is shared (controlled or uncontrolled) is then immediately discredited by certain members for one reason or another. My conclusion is that there is no value to post listening test results here at ASR. Accordingly, I will not provide any results of what I have witnessed, other than to say that my own personal conclusion is that for some unexplained reason(s) the best measuring amplifiers are not necessarily the best imaging amplifiers, and often average measuring amplifiers are better at imaging than better measuring amplifiers. From what I have witnessed, poor measuring amplifiers are also not the best imaging amplifiers either. In conclusion, if imaging is something you care about then you should be a part of reaching your own assessment before making the purchase.

Maybe someday there will be measurements designed for assessing imaging capability with a panel of graphs or readouts, and this will become a lot easier than listening for yourself. In the absence of this capability in test equipment it might be useful to develop an extensive thread that names specific recordings and shares the imaging specifics that this recording reveals, so that a common set of listening tools can be shared amongst listeners. OTOH, maybe this sort of thread belongs on another less measurement oriented site instead.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Listener preference is a highly researched field but you appear to have missed the point of my post. The above was in response to your assertion that audio can not be meaningfully evaluated on the basis of measurements and preference data.

Think you missed the point of my post? Audio performance can be measured but how relevant is to to what we want to hear? Look at the measured performance before I buy and dismiss some of them as irrelevant. For example measured distortion is so low on modern amps comparisons are irrelevant. Looking at speaker measurements first thing I look for is matching, seen some of them differing for up to 6db. Stereo is an illusion but not when speakers pairs are so mismatched count me out, it is disillusion. So are measurements useful of course they are, what they won’t tell me is if I will like the sound.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now that I understand that there has been some moving around of posts to establish one "master" thread for subjectivism (pure listening) and objectivism (pure measurements), I think there is certainly middle ground - which I would think is the goal. Measurements are very important as they tell us about linearity, distortion levels, power level capability, and frequency response. OTOH, there are a few things that are important to some listeners that cannot be measured with test equipment as we know it today, such as spatial imaging - which I have been mentioning already in my posts.

I am finding that there is less correlation than I hoped for between "good measuring" and "good imaging" in amplifiers - which in theory should be simple gain devices that do little else to the signal other than amplifiy. Back in the day John Linsley Hood and Matti Otala spoke about "a straight wire with gain" as the goal. At Electrocompaniet Matti Otala named an early amplifier the "Ampliwire", and there was also the accompanying "Preampliwire", based on this goal.

The only process I know of to assess "good imaging" is listening to several recordings that are each known to exhibit specific detailed imaging cues. In order to keep it real a number of listeners need to hear this and these comments should be assembled to arrive at a common conclusion for each amplifier. Applying controls to the listening to maintain a fair comparison, such as level matching. Clearing the room and having one person that stayed behind changing the wires between amplifiers and then placing a black cloth over all of the amplifiers in a line on the floor helps too, as long as that person leaves the room before the listeners return without giving comments or cues to the listeners as they return to the room. The system itself needs to be of high quality in a good room with excellent loudspeakers well placed in that room.

There are also times when these controls cannot be implemented and then I think there may be some personal value in uncontrolled listening as long as the listener(s) can define/state imaging depth of specific instruments/singers/effects in feet/meters, as well as imaging height, for each amplifier before moving on to the next amplifier. Measurement quantification should be a part of all imaging analysis to reach reasonable conclusions. In controlled listening a question can be asked about a specific measurement and each listener can write down their estimation of the measurement on a slip of paper that is then folded and placed in a jar for that question as a ballot, versus discussion amongst the listeners.

I also think people that are interested in stereo imaging should participate in their own tests, and reach there own conclusions, as from what I have seen here at ASR every listening test that is shared (controlled or uncontrolled) is then immediately discredited by certain members for one reason or another. My conclusion is that there is no value to post listening test results here at ASR. Accordingly, I will not provide any results of what I have witnessed, other than to say that my own personal conclusion is that for some unexplained reason(s) the best measuring amplifiers are not necessarily the best imaging amplifiers, and often average measuring amplifiers are better at imaging than better measuring amplifiers. From what I have witnessed, poor measuring amplifiers are also not the best imaging amplifiers either. In conclusion, if imaging is something you care about then you should be a part of reaching your own assessment before making the purchase.

Maybe someday there will be measurements designed for assessing imaging capability with a panel of graphs or readouts, and this will become a lot easier than listening for yourself. In the absence of this capability in test equipment it might be useful to develop an extensive thread that names specific recordings and shares the imaging specifics that this recording reveals, so that a common set of listening tools can be shared amongst listeners. OTOH, maybe this sort of thread belongs on another less measurement oriented site instead.

Amplifiers that come close enough to straight wire with gain must by definition all image the same. Unless some unknown factor is being over-looked and I'll be darned if I have an idea of what it might be.

However, I do seem to perceive some amps that image differently and for other reasons I'm pretty sure those that image differently do so due to infidelity. And that whatever improved imaging one thinks they perceive is a coloration on the source signal. For that reason I don't think you'll get anywhere in trying to get better imaging from amplifiers as such 'better' imaging is an artifact. You'll compromise some other aspect of fidelity in order to get your 'enhanced' imaging.

Also in terms of depth, testing done a couple or three generations ago indicated left to right imaging was best achieved with crossed figure 8's if you also positioned your speakers at an angle of 90 degrees from your LP vs the more common 45-60 degrees. This also provided the best depth, but even then depth was very much foreshortened and not accurate to the original positioning. It took a third channel and third microphone feed to achieve very much depth of any accuracy. You really are asking stereo to do something it cannot when looking for abundant and accurate depth. So any depth you do achieve is going to be something of an artifact rather than genuine accuracy.

 

[ahofer]

I also think people that are interested in stereo imaging should participate in their own tests, and reach there own conclusions, as from what I have seen here at ASR every listening test that is shared (controlled or uncontrolled) is then immediately discredited by certain members for one reason or another. My conclusion is that there is no value to post listening test results here at ASR. Accordingly, I will not provide any results of what I have witnessed

I can understand this is frustrating. Unfortunately, there are no examples of controlled and documented experiments achieving what you have claimed, so many of us treat it like claims of cold fusion or psychic abilities - they require documentation and replication before we will accept them. In documented tests, people have a hell of a time telling amplifiers apart at all, let alone cohering around a mental construct like 'soundstage' or imaging. It's unduly credulous to assign even a 5% probability that it happened.

I have created a thread of blind tests here, as well as a thread seeking disconfirming research. If you are aware of documented tests or research that might cause me/us to alter our Bayesian priors, I would certainly welcome that contribution.

 

[Weeb Labs]

Think you missed the point of my post? Audio performance can be measured but how relevant is to to what we want to hear?

Not at all. As I said, there exists a vast body of research regarding listener preference and measurements can be used to predict it very effectively.

 

[pozz]

I'll just say this: read books to understand your experience better.

 

[AdamG]

Dear mods: Can we please ask people in these threads not to use people of religious faith as (invariably negative) examples of whatever point they are trying to make?

Okay, to the topic.

When people perceive something, there are several necessary questions. We are used to the first one: is the perception reliable in the absence of prior knowledge about the devices under test?

But there are other biases. If a group of people have experience listening to big bands, and in a recording of same note that the trumpets seem elevated, it could be an artifact of their shared experience. In most big bands, the trumpet players stand behind the seated trombone and saxophone players and so we remember them being higher. Or, an orchestral patron looking down on a orchestra from the mezzanine will see the back row “above” the front row when projected onto two dimensions, and trumpets are usually on the back row. These shared memories don’t have to have much influence to bias perceptions. I don’t recall that those sorts of biases were explored by Harman—as I recall they looked at age, sex, experience and role within the audio biz.

The tweeter being higher than the mids and woofers seems obvious, but nobody ever talks about it—it must be too obvious.

One reviewer described his first experience with the height effect on listening to a recording of a rocket launch. He was amazed to note the impression of rising sound. Amazed? Where else would a rocket go? Can that expectation be so easily ignored?

There are all sorts of subtle cues we hear to create spatial awareness, and to my thinking the better the system puts those subtleties into my ears, the more I’m going to perceive. Those subtleties are all covered in timbre and reverberation effects, it seems to me, and are imminently measurable. Recordings that add reverb electronically and separately for each track will not contain all those recording-space acoustic interactions, it seems to me. Effort put into microphone placement is not wasted.

This does not challenge measurements. My current system, playing the Chesky demo CD, does everything the announcer tells me I should hear, and that’s true no matter what CD player or DAC I’m using. I suspect that the speakers, room, EQ, and recorded content account for about 99.9% of that, at least the part that isn’t simply biased by the power of suggestion.

My listening position is slightly off-center. I use my EQ to delay the closer speaker by a fraction of a millisecond to account for the 8” shorter path. That moved the phantom image back to the middle and away from the closer speaker. A level change wasn’t required. I do not perceive sound coming from the speakers at all. This is not magic, though magic is just technology we don’t understand.

Now, to the topic of subjectivist’s objectives. Story time: I own a lovely Ebel Sport Classic Chronograph wristwatch just like the one Frank Dernie received as a gift from “one of his drivers”. That watch company has been a special research project of mine, and that watch was the must-have watch of the 80’s. It was cooler (and pricier) than the Rolex Daytona, and fit perfectly the product placement advertising that Ebel bought when they put the same watch on Sonny Crockett’s wrist in Miami Vice.

Needless to say, I do not resemble Don Johnson in any dimension and have nothing like the incredible experiences and back story for my watch that Frank has for his. But when I wear it, I can, for a fleeting moment, live the fantasy.

That’s what Fremer is pitching—fantasy. He may even believe it himself (and I have no reason to think he doesn’t). The Placebo Effect is still an effect, even if its cause is misattributed.

Rick “fantasies are fine, but not necessarily transportable” Denney

Just use the Report function. There is no way in hell I’m reading through this heap of $#!^ thread to find them…

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not totally sure. What do you want to hear? Do you want to hear the most accurate playback of what's on the recording, warts and all? Or do you want a system that sounds "attractive", no matter how bad (or good) the recording happens to be? Jim

Got some Nimbus direct cut vinyl from the ‘70s and the performances can be warts and all. So not some recording studios’ idea of what sounds best, very enjoyable though. What do I want to hear, good question and I don’t have an answer. Depends on my mood, time of day etc. Do I want it to sound attractive? Sure!
Got a good CD collection and the reproduction quality goes between brilliant too crap. So many mastered to sound good on a car stereo, compressed to back and beyond. Of all the digital disc formats the only one I can point to as always being brilliant is Pacific Microsonics HDCD and we all know what happened to them.
So are objective or subjective judgements the best? If the input is crap, it’s crap in = crap out.
Ron

 

[DSJR]

Some Nimbus vinyl masterings can be eq'd a little up top, but I suppose it depends who did the cut in the first place. HiFi for Pleasure mag did some Nimbus cuts of one or two albums and I have to say they sound spectacular on a good vinyl rig, almost as good as the CD's of these albums...

I bought the CD box of the original Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy mastered by Nimbus and there's too much top, which could be glassy on 80's systems. How do I know this - 'cos I heard the actual master tapes of two episodes which sounded rather dry and dull if anything in comparison...

...I'll get me coat...

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Some Nimbus vinyl masterings can be eq'd a little up top, but I suppose it depends who did the cut in the first place. HiFi for Pleasure mag did some Nimbus cuts of one or two albums and I have to say they sound spectacular on a good vinyl rig, almost as good as the CD's of these albums...

I bought the CD box of the original Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy mastered by Nimbus and there's too much top, which could be glassy on 80's systems. How do I know this - 'cos I heard the actual master tapes of two episodes which sounded rather dry and dull if anything in comparison...

...I'll get me coat...

A bit contentious CDs sounding better than vinyl? Think Nimbus reopened much later to produce CDs. Beethoven’s piano sonatas by Bernard Roberts are a particular favourite. Again with how mood can affect listening never play them in the morning but at night wonderful.

 

[DSJR]

A bit contentious CDs sounding better than vinyl? Think Nimbus reopened much later to produce CDs. Beethoven’s piano sonatas by Bernard Roberts are a particular favourite. Again with how mood can affect listening never play them in the morning but at night wonderful.

When you've heard the master tape, had the same tape cut to acetate, played the acetate back in comparison and then heard in comparison a vinyl 12" 45 and then a 33rpm LP cut from this tape at an earlier time, you'd never EVER say that CD vs LP is contentious as long as the mastering engineer hasn't effed it up of course I have a Tangerine Dream box (70 - 80) cut and well pressed by Nimbus and again, the upper kHz region's been spiced up just a little compared to numerous CD issues and original dull sounding vinyls I have of these wonderful old albums. Whatever, the Vaughan Williams 6 plus Lark Ascending disc they made sounds sublime for vinyl (Boult conducting I believe) and the tape hiss/venue atmosphere is actually just audible over the vinyl noise floor..