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

[xnor]

But Ingenieur, you're talking about subjective preference that you can put on anything. So by that logic nothing can be objective, which is in line with the denial of objective reality that I have mentioned before.
Engine noise or how quiet the cabin is can be measured. We can even look at the noise spectrum and approximately say how loud it will be perceived. Those are significant, real, measurable, objective differences.

So you can determine e.g. which car is quieter under the same conditions. But "subjective preferences" can be seemingly arbitrary due to cognitive bias and can therefore be on the side of the louder car (even if quieter is considered better). This might simply be due to disliking the other car's manufacturer. Even if there are no real differences, there can still be a clear subjective preference (that would vanish in a blind test btw).

Subjective preference cannot reliably tell you anything about actual performance, just like opinions do not reliably tell you about what is true and what isn't. No matter how strong people agree with an opinion, form groups that share common opinions, fall prey to groupthink, peer pressure ... it still can be completely wrong.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Just to extend the car analogy, the annoying subjectivist is the guy who looks at your car and says “well, that’s not real driving”, or “you’d like my car better if you could afford it”, or “That’s a mid-performance car that doesn’t reproduce the air and timing of real driving. When you have more experience, you’ll know”.

In other words, they turn their subjectivism into a reference objective standard and self-immolate, snobbily.

Bet you’re green with envy? Subjectivism rules OK!
LOL

 

[Ingenieur]

But Ingenieur, you're talking about subjective preference that you can put on anything. So by that logic nothing can be objective, which is in line with the denial of objective reality that I have mentioned before.
Engine noise or how quiet the cabin is can be measured. We can even look at the noise spectrum and approximately say how loud it will be perceived. Those are significant, real, measurable, objective differences.

So you can determine e.g. which car is quieter under the same conditions. But "subjective preferences" can be seemingly arbitrary due to cognitive bias and can therefore be on the side of the louder car (even if quieter is considered better). This might simply be due to disliking the other car's manufacturer. Even if there are no real differences, there can still be a clear subjective preference (that would vanish in a blind test btw).

Subjective preference cannot reliably tell you anything about actual performance, just like opinions do not reliably tell you about what is true and what isn't. No matter how strong people agree with an opinion, form groups that share common opinions, fall prey to groupthink, peer pressure ... it still can be completely wrong.

I disagree.
I don't like green food.
Green is objective
Taste is subjective
You can have both apply.

I'm not getting into philosophy or the existence of reality, lol.

Food is not a machine.
Hifi and cars are 'machines'.

Although there are many analogies, cars vs hifi is one of the valid ones.

If Jackie Stewart observes subjectively that a car performs well I'll tend to believe him. I may not prefer it handling characteristics or traits but his observations are still valid.

 

[Ingenieur]

Just to extend the car analogy, the annoying subjectivist is the guy who looks at your car and says “well, that’s not real driving”, or “you’d like my car better if you could afford it”, or “That’s a mid-performance car that doesn’t reproduce the air and timing of real driving. When you have more experience, you’ll know”.

In other words, they turn their subjectivism into a reference objective standard and self-immolate, snobbily.

Yep, snobbery or elitism is rife in both.

I like subtle but beastly...objectively lol

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Yep, snobbery or elitism is rife in both.

I like subtle but beastly...objectively lol
View attachment 181948

WOW! Looks like ‘See you and raise you by *********
Best Wishes
Ron

 

[Ingenieur]

WOW! Looks like ‘See you and raise you by *********
Best Wishes
Ron

6+ years old, first car I've bought new.
Usually got CPO'ed cars.
Thanks to working from home most of the time low mileage.

My previous ride, the lemon (although actually reliable)
Yes, I like cars
Had a few BMW's too, I'd call it a draw.
imo, better engineering and quality >> MB or Audi
No bad hand,

We have an advantage in the US, cheap gas, allows us to over indulge, not sure that is a good thing though.

 

[rdenney]

…

If Jackie Stewart observes subjectively that a car performs well I'll tend to believe him. I may not prefer it handling characteristics or traits but his observations are still valid.

Unfortunately, people like Jackie Stewart don’t make such observations, and if they did, the objective they are trying to attain may be different from mine.

The problem is that most reviewers only think they are like Jackie Stewart. Being like Jackie Stewart requires extended specific training plus a boatload of natural ability.

No amount of training would help me hear artifacts that require hearing ability above about 12 KHz, for example. But I can hear slight pitch variances between instruments because I’ve been trained to recognize the beats. I’m less good with wow-type pitch variation, as long as everyone does it together.

Rick “knowing that a car that performs well on the track may be undriveable on the street” Denney

 

[Ingenieur]

Unfortunately, people like Jackie Stewart don’t make such observations, and if they did, the objective they are trying to attain may be different from mine.

The problem is that most reviewers only think they are like Jackie Stewart. Being like Jackie Stewart requires extended specific training plus a boatload of natural ability.

No amount of training would help me hear artifacts that require hearing ability above about 12 KHz, for example. But I can hear slight pitch variances between instruments because I’ve been trained to recognize the beats. I’m less good with wow-type pitch variation, as long as everyone does it together.

Rick “knowing that a car that performs well on the track may be undriveable on the street” Denney

Guys like Stewart and Paul Frere have evaluated and opined on cars.

I'm not sure what your point is. Never place weight on anyone's subjective opinion?
I see no reason to not include it if you consider the source credible. The weighting is up to you, lightly in my book, and must be corroborated by others.
I try not to dismiss things out of hand.
A speaker subjective opinion, considered.
One on a $5000 power cord? Not

 

[xnor]

I disagree.
I don't like green food.
Green is objective
Taste is subjective
You can have both apply.

I'm not getting into philosophy or the existence of reality, lol.

Disagree with what exactly? The way you disagreed with pjug sounded to me like you were saying these measurable things are not objective because they are the result of subjective preferences. But that's not what you intended to say and we're actually in agreement.

Although there are many analogies, cars vs hifi is one of the valid ones.

What do you gain by using cars as an analogy?
First, we have to establish that there are actual differences that are large enough to be audible if we're talking about performance of audio gear. Then we can talk about their effects on sound quality.

Subjective preference is a completely different thing altogether. You may, for example, really enjoy listening to the kitchen radio (that objectively has very poor sound quality) in your parent's house because you connect it with positive childhood memories.
And this is completely fine. The only problem I see is when subjective preference is used to make (false) objective claims.

If Jackie Stewart observes subjectively that a car performs well I'll tend to believe him. I may not prefer it handling characteristics or traits but his observations are still valid.

Sure, it's fine to believe experts (with an objectively verifiable track record) more than random people.
But in audio you'll see a lot of self-proclaimed experts and people that have fooled themselves (or their "customers") into thinking that they are experts. For example, doing ads while calling them reviews for decades maybe makes them an expert in selling things but not in sound quality, but that doesn't stop them from making fantastical claims about sound quality.

 

[Ingenieur]

Disagree with what exactly? The way you disagreed with pjug sounded to me like you were saying these measurable things are not objective because they are the result of subjective preferences. But that's not what you intended to say and we're actually in agreement.


What do you gain by using cars as an analogy?
First, we have to establish that there are actual differences that are large enough to be audible if we're talking about performance of audio gear. Then we can talk about their effects on sound quality.

Subjective preference is a completely different thing altogether. You may, for example, really enjoy listening to the kitchen radio (that objectively has very poor sound quality) in your parent's house because you connect it with positive childhood memories.
And this is completely fine. The only problem I see is when subjective preference is used to make (false) objective claims.


Sure, it's fine to believe experts (with an objectively verifiable track record) more than random people.
But in audio you'll see a lot of self-proclaimed experts and people that have fooled themselves (or their "customers") into thinking that they are experts. For example, doing ads while calling them reviews for decades maybe makes them an expert in selling things but not in sound quality, but that doesn't stop them from making fantastical claims about sound quality.

So, I don't know what I am saying but you do? And ergo, I agree with you.
Do you comprehend the pompousness of that logic? imho probably not.
It is more flawed, but equally pompous.
I do not agree with you.

I disagree with your premise or position that cars vs hifi are not a valid analogy, it is. But you are entitled to it.

Not looking to 'gain' anything, I simply expressed an opinion you voraciously disagree with. I don't care if you you disagree, it is your right, but all the words you pontificate will not sway my opinion, which I have a right to.
Especially an advantage over you, lol.

You are way over thinking this in an attempt to prove some sort of intellectual superiority. Tossed word salad.
Verbose.

Why does the kitchen radio have objectively bad sound? It may objectively have great sound for its class.
Sweeping generalities are not good.
A $1 million system sounds better than me singing in the shower....objectively? Or subjectively?

 

[xnor]

So, I don't know what I am saying but you do? And ergo, I agree with you.
Do ou comprehend the pompousness of that logic probably not.
It is more flawed, but equally pompous.

No, no, that was not my intention at all. The way you put it sounded like you were saying something else, but you clarified it in your reply to me and I agreed! Am I not allowed to agree with your clarification?
Hence I was a bit surprised by you saying that you disagree, as I'm not sure what you disagree with.

Your whole premise or position that cars vs hifi are not a valid analogy, it is.

No, I said comparisons with cars never made sense to me for the reasons I've explained.

If your whole argument is that subjectively people can prefer things then you can also use anything as an analogy, including cars. Sure. But in my book that's not a good analogy.

Not looking to 'gain' anything.
Especially an advantage over you, lol.

Eh, what? Why so snarky? My question was more along the line of why one would use car analogies in the first place if they don't add anything... except the potential of adding confusion or making invalid comparisons.

And again, if the whole point of the analogy is to point out that there's subjective preference for things then this is fine if everyone understands that.

You are way over thinking this in an attempt to prove some sort of intellectual superiority.
Verbose.

Why does the kitchen radio have objectively bad sound? It may objectively have great sound for its class.
Sweeping generalities are not good.

It was an example. You're way overthinking this, and I'm also not trying to prove anything.

The kitchen radio in my example has objectively bad sound quality because, for example, it has low SPL capabilities, high distortion, no bass etc.
If you think that my point was to generalize that all kitchen radios have bad sound quality then all I can say is lol.

A $1 million system sounds better than me singing in the shower....objectively? Or subjectively?

If we're speaking about audio reproduction then without knowing you, even if you were a good singer, I'm fairly certain that you could not reproduce records at the same fidelity as even a much cheaper system, objectively.
Subjectively, all I can say is that I don't like your tone.

 

[rdenney]

Guys like Stewart and Paul Frere have evaluated and opined on cars.

I'm not sure what your point is. Never place weight on anyone's subjective opinion?
I see no reason to not include it if you consider the source credible. The weighting is up to you, lightly in my book, and must be corroborated by others.
I try not to dismiss things out of hand.
A speaker subjective opinion, considered.
One on a $5000 power cord? Not

My point is that those who we think are experts, whose subjective opinion we think we are expected to follow, 1.) may not be an expert in things that are important to us, 2.) may have very little natural talent or training, and 3.) may not even care about what is important to us. And the experts who make things may be unable to express themselves in ways that will inspire non-experts and still remain technically robust. The question is considering the source credible. That credibility is bolstered by the ability to write well and inspire the reader. The burden is still on us as readers and consumers to be discerning, and that takes education. I know you agree with that. But this is a larger thread and people come into it at the end; sometimes things need to be restated.

On the subject of driving, I have a buddy who owns a Ferrari, which he bought to replace a Porsche, which he bought to replace a Maserati. He describes the Porsche as the most comfortable, but the least fun, and the Ferrari as the most fun, but the least comfortable.

Also, I myself was involved in racing cars in my misspent youth. I drove what became my race car on the street for a while during its extended transition. At some point, I had to acknowledge that I just couldn't any longer think of a car that can be raced competently as a car that can be enjoyed for recreational driving. Maybe it was the uncomfortable seat, maybe it was the climbing into it, maybe it was the 1.5" ground clearance, maybe it was the extreme roll stiffness--I don't recall. This is the same conclusion my friend came to with his Ferrari--it's just too uncompromising to enjoy for pleasure driving, even spirited pleasure driving, despite its track performance. The idea of it has more value than the actual experience.

A lot of audio equipment gets sold on the basis of the idea of it, and this forum is focused on the actuality. Generally, I think people have to find their own middle ground.

Rick "pulling it back to the larger thread topic" Denney

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

My point is that those who we think are experts, whose subjective opinion we think we are expected to follow, 1.) may not be an expert in things that are important to us, 2.) may have very little natural talent or training, and 3.) may not even care about what is important to us. And the experts who make things may be unable to express themselves in ways that will inspire non-experts and still remain technically robust. The question is considering the source credible. That credibility is bolstered by the ability to write well and inspire the reader. The burden is still on us as readers and consumers to be discerning, and that takes education. I know you agree with that. But this is a larger thread and people come into it at the end; sometimes things need to be restated.

On the subject of driving, I have a buddy who owns a Ferrari, which he bought to replace a Porsche, which he bought to replace a Maserati. He describes the Porsche as the most comfortable, but the least fun, and the Ferrari as the most fun, but the least comfortable.

Also, I myself was involved in racing cars in my misspent youth. I drove what became my race car on the street for a while during its extended transition. At some point, I had to acknowledge that I just couldn't any longer think of a car that can be raced competently as a car that can be enjoyed for recreational driving. Maybe it was the uncomfortable seat, maybe it was the climbing into it, maybe it was the 1.5" ground clearance, maybe it was the extreme roll stiffness--I don't recall. This is the same conclusion my friend came to with his Ferrari--it's just too uncompromising to enjoy for pleasure driving, even spirited pleasure driving, despite its track performance. The idea of it has more value than the actual experience.

A lot of audio equipment gets sold on the basis of the idea of it, and this forum is focused on the actuality. Generally, I think people have to find their own middle ground.

Rick "pulling it back to the larger thread topic" Denney

As a young man bought a low slung sports car, an Austin Healey Sprite. Drove away and stopped for fuel and didn’t know how to get out, ended up getting out hands first.
Thought of it the other day when trying to Dirac my new amp. Never had it before and it seemed to focus the sound on a set position, Ann sits a distance away (nothing personal), it seemed a bit selfish as she enjoys the HiFi as much as me. Mind you being honest it was to save embarrassment.

 

[Ingenieur]

My point is that those who we think are experts, whose subjective opinion we think we are expected to follow, 1.) may not be an expert in things that are important to us, 2.) may have very little natural talent or training, and 3.) may not even care about what is important to us. And the experts who make things may be unable to express themselves in ways that will inspire non-experts and still remain technically robust. The question is considering the source credible. That credibility is bolstered by the ability to write well and inspire the reader. The burden is still on us as readers and consumers to be discerning, and that takes education. I know you agree with that. But this is a larger thread and people come into it at the end; sometimes things need to be restated.

On the subject of driving, I have a buddy who owns a Ferrari, which he bought to replace a Porsche, which he bought to replace a Maserati. He describes the Porsche as the most comfortable, but the least fun, and the Ferrari as the most fun, but the least comfortable.

Also, I myself was involved in racing cars in my misspent youth. I drove what became my race car on the street for a while during its extended transition. At some point, I had to acknowledge that I just couldn't any longer think of a car that can be raced competently as a car that can be enjoyed for recreational driving. Maybe it was the uncomfortable seat, maybe it was the climbing into it, maybe it was the 1.5" ground clearance, maybe it was the extreme roll stiffness--I don't recall. This is the same conclusion my friend came to with his Ferrari--it's just too uncompromising to enjoy for pleasure driving, even spirited pleasure driving, despite its track performance. The idea of it has more value than the actual experience.

A lot of audio equipment gets sold on the basis of the idea of it, and this forum is focused on the actuality. Generally, I think people have to find their own middle ground.

Rick "pulling it back to the larger thread topic" Denney

I am not 'following' anyone. I consider their opinion. I weight that opinion based on their credentials, experience, motivation for bias, my personal bias, etc.
And consensus of others.
I do not assume their expertise.
But overall, this is a small factor in the decision process.

I KNOW there are others that know more than I. Whether by exposure, training, etc.

Most think Porsche 911's have a large fun factor. They can serve as a daily driver or with a tire and pad change, track duty.
I'm not talking about 'racing', but exploring limits in a safe environment.

Objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive. They can overlap and that ratio is up to the guy making the decision.
It really is none of my business. I won't judge him or demean him. If a non-technical person choose to weigh subjectivity greater, ok by me.

 

[Ingenieur]

No, no, that was not my intention at all. The way you put it sounded like you were saying something else, but you clarified it in your reply to me and I agreed! Am I not allowed to agree with your clarification?
Hence I was a bit surprised by you saying that you disagree, as I'm not sure what you disagree with.


No, I said comparisons with cars never made sense to me for the reasons I've explained.

If your whole argument is that subjectively people can prefer things then you can also use anything as an analogy, including cars. Sure. But in my book that's not a good analogy.


Eh, what? Why so snarky? My question was more along the line of why one would use car analogies in the first place if they don't add anything... except the potential of adding confusion or making invalid comparisons.

And again, if the whole point of the analogy is to point out that there's subjective preference for things then this is fine if everyone understands that.


It was an example. You're way overthinking this, and I'm also not trying to prove anything.

The kitchen radio in my example has objectively bad sound quality because, for example, it has low SPL capabilities, high distortion, no bass etc.
If you think that my point was to generalize that all kitchen radios have bad sound quality then all I can say is lol.



If we're speaking about audio reproduction then without knowing you, even if you were a good singer, I'm fairly certain that you could not reproduce records at the same fidelity as even a much cheaper system, objectively.
Subjectively, all I can say is that I don't like your tone.

Snark? You telling me I don't understand what I am saying and take it upon yourself to interpret it for me, eg, "I agree with you", , when it was clear I don't, is the epitome of snark or arrogance. 'tone' lol
I do not care.

This all comes down to:
Cars vs hifi analogy
Both are hobbies in general for the aficionado
Bring enjoyment
Both are complicated man made devices
Can involve significant funds
Possess objective and subjective qualities

But you spent a lot of time, words and power to correct me. About an opinion you do not share.

It is that simple.
Agree to disagree and move one.
Do not lecture or wax philosophical

 

[xnor]

Snark? You telling me I don't understand what I am saying and take it upon yourself to interpret it for me, eg, "I agree with you", , when it was clear I don't, is the epitome of snark or arrogance.

Ok, so let me clarify a second time:
You made a couple of points like how quiet the cabin is and the subjective preference for it. Pjug asked why the things that can be measured cannot be objective. (They can and are.) You then effectively replied that they can't because your subjective preference for those things may be different from his. That lead me to believe that you're saying these things cannot be objective. Hence my reply in #223.

Evidently that was a big misunderstanding, and you clarified in #225 and I agree with what you said there, but you also started out with "I disagree with you". I wasn't sure what about, so I asked.
About the premise you alleged that I don't actually hold? Or do you disagree with what doesn't make sense to me? Wouldn't that mean you are interpreting things for me?!

Also, did you intend to say that measurable things cannot be objective? No? Then my statement was correct.
I am not interpreting things for you, but maybe I have expressed myself poorly as a non-native speaker.

'tone' lol

At least you recognize my comedic abilities.

Regarding commonalities between hobbies, there are many hobbies with many commonalities. Still don't see how this makes car analogies useful.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Do not lecture or wax philosophical

You just smacked most of our members! LOL

 

[xnor]

Possess objective and subjective qualities

Back to topic: I think a problem on the "subjectivist" side is recognizing the fact that these qualities do not even need to correlate.

Unlike with the Ferrari example above, where the Ferrari will be objectively less comfortable even if you do identical slow trips to the nearby supermarket, a 100x more expensive DAC will still reconstruct the same signal and with objective differences too small will sound the same - if you listen with your ears and not eyes that is. Its job is not to produce an audibly different signal.
(If it was then I'd call it an FX device... not that there's something wrong with having a subjective preference for that.)

But if one thinks that all subjective qualities have to be caused by or at least have to correlate with the objective qualities of the product, then different experiences can lead to the conclusion that there must be (magical) properties that escape measurements. As mentioned before, in extreme cases this leads to total rejection of measurements.


Regarding middle grounds: the middle ground between something that is true and something that is false is also false. See the middle ground fallacy.
So I don't see why people would need to find a middle ground, but maybe others would consider my position already being a middle ground between how they define the two opposing sides. Care needs to be taken as it's incredibly easy to strawman each other here.
That's also why I dislike the terms "objectivist" and even "subjectivist". Do you guys have useful definitions for those terms?

 

[Galliardist]

Back to topic: I think a problem on the "subjectivist" side is recognizing the fact that these qualities do not even need to correlate.

Unlike with the Ferrari example above, where the Ferrari will be objectively less comfortable even if you do identical slow trips to the nearby supermarket, a 100x more expensive DAC will still reconstruct the same signal and with objective differences too small will sound the same - if you listen with your ears and not eyes that is. Its job is not to produce an audibly different signal.
(If it was then I'd call it an FX device... not that there's something wrong with having a subjective preference for that.)

But if one thinks that all subjective qualities have to be caused by or at least have to correlate with the objective qualities of the product, then different experiences can lead to the conclusion that there must be (magical) properties that escape measurements. As mentioned before, in extreme cases this leads to total rejection of measurements.


Regarding middle grounds: the middle ground between something that is true and something that is false is also false. See the middle ground fallacy.
So I don't see why people would need to find a middle ground, but maybe others would consider my position already being a middle ground between how they define the two opposing sides. Care needs to be taken as it's incredibly easy to strawman each other here.
That's also why I dislike the terms "objectivist" and even "subjectivist". Do you guys have useful definitions for those terms?

But the subjective response is not in itself “false”. There’s no need for a middle ground between two truths. The problem is simply one of understanding, isn’t it?

 

[Gorgonzola]

Funny thing is that audio for the listener is ultimately subjective -- we have to enjoy what we'er listening to. The question is, How do we, as individual, get maximum enjoyment from our audio systems?

As for approach, the hardcore "subjectivist" denies that measurements are of any value in making his/her, (usually his), decisions. Typically this subjectivist say, "I believe my ears", although very often he apparently is believing his eye or wallet as much or more. Beautiful, expensive, exotic equipment seemingly contribute a great deal to his enjoyment, (but what the heck).

On the other hand, the hardcore "objectivist" relies entirely on measurements as well, usually, on other technical aspects of design & built in his decisions. Ironically, (as it seems to me), many such objectivists are also deniers in our ability to hear sound differences unless measurable difference are quite extreme, which make the quest for technical excellence rather moot.