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

[Plcamp]

Horsehockey?

My Dad told me that in 1920’s Ontario, nobody had a hockey puck…so horse turds dominated the sport.

 

[ahofer]

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 can see what you mean with pursuing very high SINAD levels, on the other hand, many of the standard objectivist assertions (you can't tell the difference between most DACs from listening alone, for example) are clearly grounded in the limitations of human hearing with respect to frequency response.

 

[RichB]

If your engaged in objective comparisons, the one which most closely and 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.

Jim

An objective comparison must then be something like SINAD where data is obtained using the same methodology and then compared numerically.
The objectivist, then, reads and evaluates available specification and measurements and attempt to normalize the data.

A subjective comparison could have the goal of evaluating toward the goal of closest to the recording, it is just not very good at it.
For usability, subjective reviews are useful. If a product measures well, then I the consult the subjective reviews and forum posts.

- Rich

 

[spartaman64]

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

food science is a field and i can probably make a dish that is too salty for 90% of people who dont have damaged tastebuds. so it seems pretty similar to me as audio with both objective and subjective aspects

 

[Newman]

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.

I know enough recording engineers to know that is simply not true. However, there is (and has been since maybe the 60s/70s) sometimes a cross-check done on cheap gear to make sure pop/rock recordings are not too horrendous. A bit of skill makes the two goals not mutually exclusive.

 

[Newman]

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.

Your first sentence is funny and perceptive.
Your last sentence I disagree: we are all here with a focus and love of listening to great audio.

 

[Mark_A]

I think the real problem these days in high-end audio is not whether testing via instruments is objective. The real problem is that some people make claims about the superiority of this or that cable, ethernet switch, etc without any blind testing supervised by an independent person. So the subjective tests are not objectively accurate.

When it comes to components like speakers, there generally are often differences that can be perceived, and choices are often just based on personal preference and the nature of the listening room, and also based on the listener's own hearing ability (and other factors as well).

Even with so-called objective tests, there are many measurement differences between products, that cannot be consistently perceived by most humans most of the time, when listening to music.

 

[Newman]

I think the real problem these days in high-end audio is not whether testing via instruments is objective. The real problem is that some people make claims about the superiority of this or that cable, ethernet switch, etc without any blind testing supervised by an independent person. So the subjective tests are not objectively accurate.

Quite so. That is a real problem.

When it comes to components like speakers, there generally are often differences that can be perceived, and choices are often just based on personal preference and the nature of the listening room, and also based on the listener's own hearing ability (and other factors as well).

I think you fell off the wagon a bit here, where you assume, just because speakers do have detectable differences in the sound waves they produce, then suddenly we are not imagining anything any more in sighted listening to them.

The problem you highlighted about cables not being blind tested is true for speakers too: without blind testing we imagine differences in the incoming sound waves that are not there. In fact, the imagined differences from speaker sighted listening routinely overwhelm the actual differences that speaker blind tests reveal.

So the real, real problem in high-end audio is the use of sighted subjective reviewing, combined with general reader ignorance about the failings of that method of reviewing. For all types of gear.

cheers

 

[Mark_A]

I think you fell off the wagon a bit here, where you assume, just because speakers do have detectable differences in the sound waves they produce, then suddenly we are not imagining anything any more in sighted listening to them.

The problem you highlighted about cables not being blind tested is true for speakers too: without blind testing we imagine differences in the incoming sound waves that are not there. In fact, the imagined differences from speaker sighted listening routinely overwhelm the actual differences that speaker blind tests reveal.

So the real, real problem in high-end audio is the use of sighted subjective reviewing, combined with general reader ignorance about the failings of that method of reviewing. For all types of gear.

cheers

I didn't understand your first sentence.

However, just to clarify my remarks, I did not mean to suggest that one should not do blind testing with speakers. I only meant to suggest that many times (but not always) people will be able to hear the differences and consistently identify which speaker they are listening to in a blind test (not by brand/model, but by speaker A or B) with statistically significant results (using he the mathematics of statistical sampling). The number of times that could be done with cable swaps is probably close to zero (assuming both cables are at least minimal quality and are not defective).

 

[dlaloum]

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?

It is because audio as we know it is all about reproducing something that has been recorded.

Outside of a recipe, there is no equivalent in food. And a recipe's audio equivalent is not a recording, but sheet music.

The food analogy works perfectly with music as performed... Come over to my place and lets Jam = Come over to my place and lets cook dinner together

Because it is the art of reproducing a recording - turning the recording into soundwaves hitting ears.... the debate kicks off... if it was sheet music, like a recipe, the end result is interpretive.... being a recording, the end result is "reproducive".

Subjectivists like to turn it into an individual performance.... they are not playing "money for nothing" - they are playing their personal interpretation of "money for nothing"

Objectivists try to reproduce the "original" recording and artists intent.... however imperfectly - and work to identify and remedy all deviations from the original.

 

[Jomungur]

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

Huh? There are many objective measurements of taste; I can safely predict that 90%+ of people in a random group will accurately identify sugar as sweet and salt as salty in a blind taste test. Similarly, if I know which form of the PTC gene you have, I can predict with high accuracy whether you will taste PTC as bitter or not.

"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."

This itself is a subjective claim. Consider that many people report that, after taking psychedelics, the music sounds better than ever, and they hear new dimensions to songs they've heard many times previously. That's been my own experience as well. But I wouldn't think the drugs are enhancing the accuracy of the recording, under your view they would be distorting it, no? Similar to people who like tube amps which add distortion to the sound.

 

[cyborg72]

Hello, I am from Poland, and I am a former audiophiloholic. I shuddered after some text, link below, which refutes the whole discussion about the blind test. Efect halo:

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[AbidingDude]

I'm just a dumb guy, but I think the argument boils down to what your goal is. Do you want gear that accurately presents stored information (in this case an audible waveform) or do you want something that conjures up a feeling when you listen to it?

Psychoacoustics is largely the study of sound and its effect on the human observer. So, for the latter, that seems like a good starting point, but there's still so much about the quiddity of humanity/our own nature that we don't understand. Computing and the science of objective measurement is really only just now beginning to be able to objectively describe what causes those subjective reations/feelings. See the related fields of neuroscience, biology, psychiatry, etc.

But, I would say that ASR's goal is really just to provide objective measurements that give the reader a clue as to what gear has the highest chance (I say chance because there are extenuating factors and circumstances that can affect performance) of accurately and faithfully reproducing a given wave-form or signal. That's really all you can do objectively. Because there are points of reference, it's measurable, you can largely account for variances in experimentation by examining known variables. Like, here's this weird permutation in the signal, but it looks like it's at 60hz, so it must be the EMF created by the power transformer imparting its influence onto the wave, or something. Like I said, I'm kinda dumb, it's just a stupid example.

I think you can in a round-a-bout way describe people's preferences in a general sense objectively, though. Like, you can say that there are a class of people that enjoy the distortive effects or "personality" an analog tube pre-amplifier or amplifier imparts on a given waveform that it's reproducing. You can also say that there are people that want something that is in itself an analytical tool, they want to hear the actual recording, the wave form, as close to its original form as possible. Furthermore, you can say that there are people that take it a step further, not only do they want as transparent a reproduction of the recorded wave form, they want the recorded waveform to represent what was actually occurring at the time the original waveform was recorded, and having that "clinical" analytical tool allows them to analyze that recording. Why does someone want that? Everyone listens to music for different reasons.

I, personally, would want a critical, clinically accurate system if I were teaching or coaching musicians, especially for an orchestra or something. But, if I were a DJ I might want recordings that are heavy in certain parts of the frequency spectrum, depending on who my audience is, even if that is artificially added (either through my reproduction equipment or through mastering). JSB's music is emotional and moving, but he ain't why people pay the cover to a dancehall. I'm definitely expecting to hear Barrington Levy or Tiesto or something at a club. Ironically enough, because of the socioeconomics of the time most recordings of Barrington Levy sound like they were recorded in a public restroom. I still enjoy the music.

What I think has created this whole seemingly false-dichotomy in the audio world is that there's no real, clear method of objectively conveying a subjective experience when listening to a recording through a piece of gear or multiple pieces of gear. And this is that grey, unexplored, ambiguous area where a lot of marketing and snake oil happens. There is, however, an objective way to reference a recording, and see if when you pump that signal through a series of gear, the result is anything like what you started with. I think that focusing on objectivity gives us a good starting point though, for evaluating something as snake oil or not. For example, if there's a particular piece of gear that doesn't measure well, but a lot of people seem to enjoy listening to it, that gives us an important data point. Equally, evaluation of pieces of gear in an objective manner, with the expertise of engineers, can give us laymen a good indication for evaluating hardware as worthwhile or junk. Like, learning about SINAD and WHY it's measured really made a difference in my understanding of the function of power amplifiers as someone who isn't an electrical engineer.

Having said all that, I like gear that measures well, because I think if I want to add distortion or effects to what I am listening to, that should happen at the time the recording is made or mastered. Because, mastering and recording techniques vary, but generally, audio reproduction equipment will always impart its own "signature" without prejudice, so it may indeed impart a quality that makes one recording better to my ears, but then it will impart that same quality to another recording that I know I like, but make me not enjoy it. Does that make me an objectivist?

I acknowledge that there are measurable distortions or inaccuracies that can increase the listener's subjective experience, but again, it's not what I have set out to do when piecing together a listening system. I try to go by what fits in my budget and measures well, but ultimately, I listen to whatever I can before I buy it. So, in my own system, I have gear that didn't measure well here, objectively, but sounded pretty good when I listened to it using recordings I am familiar with and it fit my budget. But, I always use the reviews and information I gather here as a starting point.

As an aside, there may be limiting factors in someone's decisions, too. Like, I bought my wife this portable JBL Bluetooth boombox, she likes listening to my stereo at home a lot, but she uses the JBL all the time, when we take our son to the park, in the shower. To her, it sounds good, I asked her what she likes about it, she said it's cause she can still hear the bass (the bass she's referring to is pretty much all just distortion, but hey, she likes it). It's not like I can bring my turntable and floor standing speakers and class A/B solid state amp and pre-amp with me everywhere, especially not wet locations, so this little boombox has to do. Plus, I can use it at the beach or at pool parties and if it gets wet it's no big deal. I definitely would understand why someone would choose it over a full McIntosh system, aside from just the cost.

Anyway, that's my dumb guy layman's unified field theory of audio.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I'm just a dumb guy, but I think the argument boils down to what your goal is. Do you want gear that accurately presents stored information (in this case an audible waveform) or do you want something that conjures up a feeling when you listen to it?

Psychoacoustics is largely the study of sound and its effect on the human observer. So, for the latter, that seems like a good starting point, but there's still so much about the quiddity of humanity/our own nature that we don't understand. Computing and the science of objective measurement is really only just now beginning to be able to objectively describe what causes those subjective reations/feelings. See the related fields of neuroscience, biology, psychiatry, etc.

But, I would say that ASR's goal is really just to provide objective measurements that give the reader a clue as to what gear has the highest chance (I say chance because there are extenuating factors and circumstances that can affect performance) of accurately and faithfully reproducing a given wave-form or signal. That's really all you can do objectively. Because there are points of reference, it's measurable, you can largely account for variances in experimentation by examining known variables. Like, here's this weird permutation in the signal, but it looks like it's at 60hz, so it must be the EMF created by the power transformer imparting its influence onto the wave, or something. Like I said, I'm kinda dumb, it's just a stupid example.

I think you can in a round-a-bout way describe people's preferences in a general sense objectively, though. Like, you can say that there are a class of people that enjoy the distortive effects or "personality" an analog tube pre-amplifier or amplifier imparts on a given waveform that it's reproducing. You can also say that there are people that want something that is in itself an analytical tool, they want to hear the actual recording, the wave form, as close to its original form as possible. Furthermore, you can say that there are people that take it a step further, not only do they want as transparent a reproduction of the recorded wave form, they want the recorded waveform to represent what was actually occurring at the time the original waveform was recorded, and having that "clinical" analytical tool allows them to analyze that recording. Why does someone want that? Everyone listens to music for different reasons.

I, personally, would want a critical, clinically accurate system if I were teaching or coaching musicians, especially for an orchestra or something. But, if I were a DJ I might want recordings that are heavy in certain parts of the frequency spectrum, depending on who my audience is, even if that is artificially added (either through my reproduction equipment or through mastering). JSB's music is emotional and moving, but he ain't why people pay the cover to a dancehall. I'm definitely expecting to hear Barrington Levy or Tiesto or something at a club. Ironically enough, because of the socioeconomics of the time most recordings of Barrington Levy sound like they were recorded in a public restroom. I still enjoy the music.

What I think has created this whole seemingly false-dichotomy in the audio world is that there's no real, clear method of objectively conveying a subjective experience when listening to a recording through a piece of gear or multiple pieces of gear. And this is that grey, unexplored, ambiguous area where a lot of marketing and snake oil happens. There is, however, an objective way to reference a recording, and see if when you pump that signal through a series of gear, the result is anything like what you started with. I think that focusing on objectivity gives us a good starting point though, for evaluating something as snake oil or not. For example, if there's a particular piece of gear that doesn't measure well, but a lot of people seem to enjoy listening to it, that gives us an important data point. Equally, evaluation of pieces of gear in an objective manner, with the expertise of engineers, can give us laymen a good indication for evaluating hardware as worthwhile or junk. Like, learning about SINAD and WHY it's measured really made a difference in my understanding of the function of power amplifiers as someone who isn't an electrical engineer.

Having said all that, I like gear that measures well, because I think if I want to add distortion or effects to what I am listening to, that should happen at the time the recording is made or mastered. Because, mastering and recording techniques vary, but generally, audio reproduction equipment will always impart its own "signature" without prejudice, so it may indeed impart a quality that makes one recording better to my ears, but then it will impart that same quality to another recording that I know I like, but make me not enjoy it. Does that make me an objectivist?

I acknowledge that there are measurable distortions or inaccuracies that can increase the listener's subjective experience, but again, it's not what I have set out to do when piecing together a listening system. I try to go by what fits in my budget and measures well, but ultimately, I listen to whatever I can before I buy it. So, in my own system, I have gear that didn't measure well here, objectively, but sounded pretty good when I listened to it using recordings I am familiar with and it fit my budget. But, I always use the reviews and information I gather here as a starting point.

As an aside, there may be limiting factors in someone's decisions, too. Like, I bought my wife this portable JBL Bluetooth boombox, she likes listening to my stereo at home a lot, but she uses the JBL all the time, when we take our son to the park, in the shower. To her, it sounds good, I asked her what she likes about it, she said it's cause she can still hear the bass (the bass she's referring to is pretty much all just distortion, but hey, she likes it). It's not like I can bring my turntable and floor standing speakers and class A/B solid state amp and pre-amp with me everywhere, especially not wet locations, so this little boombox has to do. Plus, I can use it at the beach or at pool parties and if it gets wet it's no big deal. I definitely would understand why someone would choose it over a full McIntosh system, aside from just the cost.

Anyway, that's my dumb guy layman's unified field theory of audio.

Can I ask how long it has taken you to write the above, cliff face of text please?

 

[AbidingDude]

Can I ask how long it has taken you to write the above, cliff face of text please?

Not that long. I was using it as a creative writing exercise when I was working on writing a proposal for something else and had writer's block.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Not that long. I was using it as a creative writing exercise when I was working on writing a proposal for something else and had writer's block.

Interesting, do you have voice dictation to your machine, or are you a demon typist?

 

[AbidingDude]

Interesting, do you have voice dictation to your machine, or are you a demon typist?

Considering that I grew up with computers and my entire working life has been spent using computers, probably the latter.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Considering that I grew up with computers and my entire working life has been spent using computers, probably the latter.

Smashing. Now if you can just precify it, I will actually get your drift!

 

[fpitas]

*Bizarre rant on* Something to think about, on the subject of objectivism vs subjectivism. Almost any decent speaker has been "voiced" by the designer. This usually is done by getting things pretty close to flat by measurement, +/-1dB if possible, then tweaking to taste. I know in my case those little 0.25 and 0.5dB tweaks can make the difference between simply being listenable, and wanting to listen more. *Bizarre rant off*

 

[RichB]

IMO an audio system should target as accurate a reproduction.
The system can then be adjusted to desired taste. There is plenty of DSP power capable of tuning systems and multiple subwoofers to improve bass uniformity.

Distortions and inaccuracy cannot be dialed out.

- Rich