• 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?

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Interesting topic .:).

After 40 years of listening to hifi and enjoying real concerts I believe and have come to the conlusion that there is a never ending debate between objectivism and subjectivity regarding high fidelity, mainly because of two things :

1. The stereo system is seriously flawed in 2 channel playback . There is no real photo-print of the real, recorded event. Its only an illusion you listen to . Knowing this - my goal is now to maximise the illusion.

2. The music appears in the brain of the listener. How this is done, noone has been able to objectivily measure, but the perceived pitch of tones, rythm and timbres in the music can make you cry, laugh or dance . This is all subjective, except most people can hear the difference between a C flat or a C minor chord.

The conclusion ?
For me , there is no clear answer between objektivism or subjectivity because there has not been any real measurement answers how the magic of music can move the emotions of a human . So the discussion will go on.

Measurements of a loudspeaker can show you some interesting things about a product and the results can be said to be fairly objective.
But if you listen to two different loudspeakers that measures pretty alike , but one of them seems more ” fun” to listen to with the music - how does one measure the perceived emotionally movement by the music ?
Its impossible.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
Of course it's impossible! Emotion and emotional connections are in the mind, and in the mind only.
Some nice deep probes through @Tangband ’s skull might do the trick, LOL!

If he is asking how we can measure, in the sound waves from music being played, what emotions will ensue, that is completely illogical. Some people will start crying with joy, some will go into a rage and wish that gun laws were repealed, and some will sit there blankly with not a hint of emotion. From the same music! So like you say, nothing to measure in the music in terms of emotions.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
Some changes or effects in the neurology could be measured, as emotional response occurs...but I can't imagine correlation or predictive models...[as per^^ individual responses]. Individual responses and levels of neurological changes also varied with individual subjects' state/condition. [?] I suppose in some group contexts, like group of people participating in singing and playing music, there can be some prediction of common emotional responses, but only to some extent - some might be moved to tears and horripilation or something :) but there could be others who are unmoved because they are distracted by some individual situation. [Is there any point in any of that?] :)

some will go into a rage and wish that gun laws were repealed
:) Ambiguous. ...It has come to mind lately...
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,027
Of course it's impossible! Emotion and emotional connections are in the mind, and in the mind only. You don't need music to evoke an emotional reaction to, say, a memory of a beautiful woman. Yes, the music may do that, but it's not necessary. A picture will do it, or a keepsake you carry. Or the memory, by itself, may evoke strong emotions.

The fact that stereo is flawed has absolutely nothing to do with it. When I was young, my parents had a 78 of Grieg's "Concerto in A minor". I loved it, and it was my favorite piece. When I was older, I found myself in a little place called Southeast Asia. One fellow at the end of the barracks had a shortwave radio, and amidst the whistles and whoops, he'd dial in music from around the world. Some of it was barely listenable.
One night he ran across a transmission of Grieg's Concerto. I asked him to stop, and I listened. In my mind, I was home again, and the emotion overcame me.

No stereo. No high fidelity. Instead, massive flaws, noise and drift.
You don't need good equipment for the music to move you. You just need memories.

Jim
Thanks Jim! Sums up how we should feel about music perfectly, as a kid on Sunday used to sit glued to the spot hoping Ella Fitzgerald would be played on the radio. Music that took me away from pretty awful circumstances at the time.
 

tiramisu

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2022
Messages
97
Likes
101
It is funny that objectivism in audio is obsessed with measurements outside of the human hearing range while subjectivism is obsessed with hearing things that don't exist.
There isn't a lot of focus on listening or love of audio in either camp.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
I have a question about the perception of sound of different dacs.
i use an ADI-2 Pro fs with Audeze headphones and noticed that although the ADI-2 sounds much cleaner, the Headphone output of my Macbook sounds more pleasant at the low frequencies, at least to my ears.
Probably it is because of distortion or the DAC filter.
I also tried to switch between different filters on the ADI-2 and found that the filter of the Cirrus Logic chip in my Macbook sounds different and none of the AK4493 Filters can match. I think it is something between the SD Sharp and Low Dispersion Filter.
Does anyone have any idea why my MacBook output sounds more pleasant to me?
Usually that can be attributed to the recording itself. Some recordings are too brutally revealing, or they may in fact be deliberately exaggerated by the recording and/or production engineer (to account for the fact that most listeners are using cheap OEM earbuds). So an audio playback system that is not so revealing may in fact sound better than one that is more accurate depending on the quality and accuracy of the recording.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
It is funny that objectivism in audio is obsessed with measurements outside of the human hearing range while subjectivism is obsessed with hearing things that don't exist.
There isn't a lot of focus on listening or love of audio in either camp.

I must be an atypical objectivist then.
I am not obsessed with measurements at all, and most certainly not outside of human hearing range.
My focus is on listening, good (enough) sound quality and listening to music.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
In theory, all differences in audio equipment "should" be able to be measured. In practice, there are too many possible tests that can be performed, and substantial subjective judgement has to be made as to which tests are the most important to human hearing and the enjoyment of recorded music.

Even when a test is generally considered to be universally important, those tests are almost always performed at a single frequency and power output at one moment in time, when music is the result of many complex frequencies and volumes all playing at the same time. The number of different permutations that could be tested are probably greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

Subjectivity gets more important when we realize that not everyone hears the same, and the hearing of each of us changes during our lifetime, so determining which tests are the most important is even more complex and more subjective. Also humans hear differently from other species, and human hearing (like everything else) is subject to evolution and natural selection. So the idea of total objectivity is based on the assumption that the human ear and brain are more objective than other species, even though we know that some animals have much better hearing than humans.
 

Jomungur

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
92
Likes
591
Interesting discussion.

I wonder why this debate gets so heated in audio in particular? In contrast, take food and the sense of taste. You can do all sorts of objective measurements of the chemical composition of food preparations, and indeed this is done a lot. Soft drink companies A/B testing variations, blind taste tests of food varieties, etc. Yet I rarely meet a "food objectivist"; almost everyone is a subjectivist on this topic. They just eat the foods they find pleasing to them, and while they might argue about why a certain dish is better than another, or a certain cuisine is better than another, they rarely care about any objective measurements. It's taken for granted that different people like different kinds of foods. You definitely don't get into arguments at the dinner table (much less online forums) asserting that someone is not tasting what they claim to be tasting, or that it's placebo.

So why the difference in audio? Is the notion (or fiction) that there is an ideal speaker system that should be better than anything else? Is it because, unlike people are never satisfied in audio; that the brain tricks you into thinking there's always a better possibility with sound? In comparison, if you eat a great dessert, you don't usually feel the need to wonder whether it could have been even better; there's a sense of completion and satiety that seems to lacking in audio experiences. Or perhaps because in audio the real thing is actually live performance involving all of the senses, while listening to reproduced sound is always going to feel on some level like a counterfeit to that?
 
Last edited:

Plcamp

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
860
Likes
1,315
Location
Ottawa
Is it as simple as the fact that subjectivism evaluates individual preference, while objectivism targets accuracy?

If you don’t seek the same answer, but are lured into thinking that you do…conflict is both inevitable and permanent.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
Interesting discussion.

I wonder why this debate gets so heated in audio in particular? In contrast, take food and the sense of taste. You can do all sorts of objective measurements of the chemical composition of food preparations, and indeed this is done a lot. Soft drink companies A/B testing variations, blind taste tests of food varieties, etc. Yet I rarely meet a "food objectivist"; almost everyone is a subjectivist on this topic. They just eat the foods they find pleasing to them, and while they might argue about why a certain dish is better than another, or a certain cuisine is better than other, they rarely care about any objective measurements. It's taken for granted that different people like different kinds of foods. You definitely don't get into arguments at the dinner table (much less online forums) that amount to asserting that someone is not tasting what they claim to be tasting, or that it's placebo.

So why the difference in audio? Is the notion (or fiction) that there is an ideal speaker system that should be better than anything possible? Is it because, unlike having a phenomenal dessert where you simply feel satisfied and complete people are never satisfied in audio, the brain tricks you into thinking there's always a better possibility with sound? Which makes us insecure about our own perceptions, since there's a nagging doubt about whether you could have an even better experience (with the dessert example, I rarely after eating a good dessert think about how it could be better)?
Not to mention the fact that a lot of things people like to eat or drink are "acquired" tastes, and obviously different cultures like different things even though biologically the people may be the same.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
Is it as simple as the fact that subjectivism evaluates individual preference, while objectivism targets accuracy?

If you don’t seek the same answer, but are lured into thinking that you do…conflict is both inevitable and permanent.
How do you determine which tests are the most relevant, and which are not important. Is there an objective evaluation that applies equally to all people to determine that?

Our senses (including hearing) are not the same for each person, not to mention that humans are not the only beings in the universe that have auditory perceptions. So there is always going to be some level of subjectivity, even when using scientific measurements to evaluate music reproduction equipment.
 

Plcamp

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
860
Likes
1,315
Location
Ottawa
How do you determine which tests are the most relevant, and which are not important. Is there an objective evaluation that applies equally to all people to determine that?
My opinion on that is “no”, there is however objective science that tells us preferences on average.

Tests that are relevant are simply tests that, without which, you would lose fundamental (laws of physics) knowledge of what is happening. The best tests are the minimal set that does that.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
Why? Because the taste of food is ENTIRELY subjective. It's internal. Audio has a cornerstone, and that cornerstone is accuracy. That's external. The taste of food doesn't have that.

Audio reproduction that strives for accuracy cannot ever achieve absolute perfection. I know that, you know that, and I think anyone with any sense knows that. But the process of trying to achieve it is what results in improvement. Audio reproduction that deliberately does NOT strive for accuracy is like drowning a dish in sugar; some people may like it, at least temporarily, but it turns cloying and hides the true taste of the ingredients.

These two camps account for most of the discord in audio. Why people adhere to one camp rather than the other, I don't know. Jim
The problem is that audio recording and studio post-production (mixing/frequency adjustments, etc) itself is usually designed to sound accurate on cheap IE headphones attached to a smartphone. So the whole idea of the accuracy of the original performance is elusive to those using the best quality equipment.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
Why? Because the taste of food is ENTIRELY subjective. It's internal. Audio has a cornerstone, and that cornerstone is accuracy. That's external. The taste of food doesn't have that.
Scientists can determine the chemical makeup of foods and why they taste sweet, sour, bitter, etc, as well as various textures. So I am not convinced that auditory senses are more objective than taste. The reason why different cultures prefer different kinds of food is the same reason why they prefer different kinds of music. Preferences of specific sensory perceptions are often an acquired "taste."

I think we can say that it is easier to measure audio equipment than measure the taste of foods, but not necessarily that the tests are more objective in terms of personal preference.

But I don't want to give any legitimacy to those who claim outrageously expensive cables make a difference, unless they can show a statistically significant ability to actually hear the differences in a blind listening test. That is a completely different subject.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Why? Because the taste of food is ENTIRELY subjective. It's internal. Audio has a cornerstone, and that cornerstone is accuracy. That's external. The taste of food doesn't have that.

Audio reproduction that strives for accuracy cannot ever achieve absolute perfection. I know that, you know that, and I think anyone with any sense knows that. But the process of trying to achieve it is what results in improvement. Audio reproduction that deliberately does NOT strive for accuracy is like drowning a dish in sugar; some people may like it, at least temporarily, but it turns cloying and hides the true taste of the ingredients.

These two camps account for most of the discord in audio. Why people adhere to one camp rather than the other, I don't know. Jim
There is no real accuracy in 2 channel recordings . Its all an illusion you hear because the stereosystem is so flawed .
I advice you to do your own recordings .

The taste of food and the musical experience is all in the human brain .
It cant be measured .

But you use good food to both eat and enjoy the sensation of good taste at the same time . You dont use it to measure it .
Why should you ?

And you use good recorded music to listen to and enjoy it , you dont measure it . Why should you ?
Because it cant be done.

When measurements are done, its always with signals thats not the same as music .
A sinesweep can tell you something , but nothing how the music appears infront of the listener .

If you know what to measure , you can draw some conclusion , but only if you know how to read the measurements .

As John Atkinsson from stereophile says :
”All measurements tell lies. ”
 
Last edited:

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
Did you mean the "original performance" or the "original recording?" The idea of accuracy of the original performance is a canard. It doesn't exist. We might (or maybe might not) approach it with the accuracy of the original recording, which is an entirely different matter. Jim
The recording engineer and post-production engineer may manipulate the recording so that it sounds more like the original live performance, depending on what listening equipment they think will be used by the listener. For example, if they suspect that the vast majority of listeners will be using IE headphones or small speakers that are not capable of realistic reproduction of the bass response of the live performance, they will have to boost the bass equalization in the recording.

In other cases, the recording may be manipulated to sound substantially different than the live performance.

So it is possible that those with high-end audio equipment may sometimes prefer speakers (or whatever) that are less than accurate compared to more accurate speakers (and tests as less than accurate). So in that case, which one is better?
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
There is no real accuracy in 2 channel recordings . Its all an illusion you hear because the stereosystem is so flawed .
I advice you to do your own recordings .

The taste of food and the musical experience is all in the human brain .
It cant be measured .

But you use good food to both eat and enjoy the sensation of good taste at the same time . You dont use it to measure it .
Why should you ?

And you use good recorded music to listen to and enjoy it , you dont measure it . Why should you ?
I have seen food tasting contests where the judges did the tasting with blindfolds, so there was less chance that their evaluations would be biased by knowing who cooked what.
 

dc655321

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,235
If your engaged in objective comparisons, the one which most closely accurately approaches the recording is better. If you're engaged in subjective comparisons, there is no "better". There is only which one you happen to like more. That's why there is so much rancor in audio; influencers telling other people this-or-that is "better" because it's more "realistic", or more "musical", or because it has more "bite" (what the hell is "bite"? Don't mosquitos bite?) or has more "fluidity". Horsehockey! It's not better, it's just that you like it more ..... at least, right now. :D

Jim

Horsehockey?
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
26
If your engaged in objective comparisons, the one which most closely accurately approaches the recording is better. If you're engaged in subjective comparisons, there is no "better". There is only which one you happen to like more. That's why there is so much rancor in audio; influencers telling other people this-or-that is "better" because it's more "realistic", or more "musical", or because it has more "bite" (what the hell is "bite"? Don't mosquitos bite?) or has more "fluidity". Horsehockey! It's not better, it's just that you like it more ..... at least, right now. :D

Jim
If the recording is bad (or purposely "enhanced" during recording post-production), then I might always like a less accurate system for that particular recording. But generally I like more accurate equipment and just don't listen to poor recordings.
 
Top Bottom