• Welcome to ASR. 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!

Objectively Good Subjective Descriptions (Of Objectively Good Systems)

It strikes me that the people who view the project of translating one person’s subjective experience to another as almost insurmountable are perhaps those who don’t do it very often, or who are not confronted with this task as part of their job.

When I’m creating sound effects for a movie or TV show all day long I’m making judgements as to how the sound will be perceived by the audience. And of course I’m using my own subjective impressions to predict the impressions of others as I tweak the sound.

This is largely successful because if it didn’t work - if people’s impressions were so wildly out of sync with mine or with one another - my job wouldn’t be possible.

That carries over to the other part of the job where we have to work together to decide on how we want things to sound, where we are constantly using subjective descriptions to communicate what something seems to sound like to us, what we think it should sound like, and then agreeing that we met the goal in terms of “ how that sounds.”

So my daily experience successfully using just the type of tools and communication that many ASR members deem so unreliable I guess gives me something of a different perspective or view on these questions.
Yes, I still don't understand why this argument is so rarely taken seriously
 
When talking about musical instruments, including the effects, amps and cabs of electric instruments, it's obviously useful to have a vocabulary for talking about the sounds they make.

But with Hi-Fi, if your goal is transparency or neutrality then it's a bit different. A vocabulary for the sound of defects is clearly useful. Perhaps also for the sound of compromises we may need to consider, especially in loudspeakers (bass extension, SPL, distortion).
 
Back
Top Bottom