Objectivism vs subjectivism and misinformation spreading?

[Drone/doom]

It's also equally futile to try to convince those who want to believe the bullshit that it is bullshit.

There no point defending yourself on the subreddit, I've been flamed 4 times by users who think anyone cares about there £1000 headphones. Not to mention people bashing gear they never tried like ER4S or Grado.

 

[watchnerd]

There no point defending yourself on the subreddit, I've been flamed 4 times by users who think anyone cares about there £1000 headphones. Not to mention people bashing gear they never tried like ER4S or Grado.

To be fair, debating transducers (speakers, headphones, cartridges), unless obviously badly engineered, is usually pointless because they're all flawed and thus it comes down to what particular set of compromises suit your subjective tastes.

Electronics are a different matter because they're mostly a solved problem and many errors lie below audible thresholds.

 

[JJB70]

At the risk of sounding like one of the cult now, I don't think anyone needs to defend their choices in audio gear really. Buying something because, well you just like it, is a perfectly valid choice. There is a lot to be said for the old adage of buy what you like and like what you buy. The problem isn't subjectivism per se, at a certain level I think we all include subjective preferences in our buying decisions, the problem is conflating personal preference and psycoacoustic tricks with performance and fidelity. If people are honest that they buy expensive cables because they like the look of them I would say fair enough. Not my thing but there are worse things people could be interested in. However, it is attempting to pretend that these preferences are based on accessing superior SQ and using a lot of florid language to hide from objective analysis which I object to.

 

[watchnerd]

At the risk of sounding like one of the cult now, I don't think anyone needs to defend their choices in audio gear really. Buying something because, well you just like it, is a perfectly valid choice. There is a lot to be said for the old adage of buy what you like and like what you buy. The problem isn't subjectivism per se, at a certain level I think we all include subjective preferences in our buying decisions, the problem is conflating personal preference and psycoacoustic tricks with performance and fidelity. If people are honest that they buy expensive cables because they like the look of them I would say fair enough. Not my thing but there are worse things people could be interested in. However, it is attempting to pretend that these preferences are based on accessing superior SQ and using a lot of florid language to hide from objective analysis which I object to.

I'll take it a step further:

Sometimes it's just fun to play around, even if it doesn't actually improve fidelity, as long as one is honest about what is happening.

Example: I'm dicking around with a tube phono stage that I know, objectively, is lower fidelity than my DSP-based RIAA.

But it's fun to hear how it makes familiar recordings sound different.

I don't feel at all conflicted about this because it's not like a given recording accurately represents a live musical event and there are vast artistic decisions made in different masterings, anyway.

It's all just entertainment.

And to keep my perspectives about cost vs fidelity in check, I go to the symphony about once a month; this Sunday is Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition". I don't plan to compare my recordings of the same work to the live event because it's a pointless exercise -- they're different art forms.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

It would be a fascinating study to understand how some High End audio reputation are built. That of the TotalDac is an exemple among many. Put simply, it is an underperforming DAC, easily bested by a $9 dongle... a 900 pennies dongle!! ... It is important to note that the TotalDac cost 1 5 0 0 times more than that dongle. One thousand five hundred times MORE!!! How in the world, people come to hear all these positive attributes from such a crappy piece of engineering?
There are other exemples..

 

[watchnerd]

Hi

It would be a fascinating study to understand how some High End audio reputation are built. That of the TotalDac is an exemple among many. Put simply, it is an underperforming DAC, easily bested by a $9 dongle... a 900 pennies dongle!! ... It is important to note that the TotalDac cost 1 5 0 0 times more than that dongle. One thousand five hundred times MORE!!! How in the world, people come to hear all these positive attributes from such a crappy piece of engineering?
There are other exemples..

Marketing is very powerful.

Humans are not as logical as we think.

See tobacco industry.

 

[MattHooper]

At the risk of sounding like one of the cult now, I don't think anyone needs to defend their choices in audio gear really. Buying something because, well you just like it, is a perfectly valid choice. There is a lot to be said for the old adage of buy what you like and like what you buy. The problem isn't subjectivism per se, at a certain level I think we all include subjective preferences in our buying decisions, the problem is conflating personal preference and psycoacoustic tricks with performance and fidelity. If people are honest that they buy expensive cables because they like the look of them I would say fair enough. Not my thing but there are worse things people could be interested in. However, it is attempting to pretend that these preferences are based on accessing superior SQ and using a lot of florid language to hide from objective analysis which I object to.

Agreed.

I can be frustrated with both "sides" of the debate. The mushy thinking of the pure subectivist who takes his subjective experience as inviolable and who doesn't care about any evidence to the contrary. But also sometimes the objectivist who leaps from his own objectives and criteria - e.g. as strict accuracy to the signal as possible - to declarations like "there are no good reasons why anyone should be making tube amps, or turntables any more." (Which I've seen numerous times).

It's just a failure to consider other people's interests as valid.

I'll take it a step further:

Sometimes it's just fun to play around, even if it doesn't actually improve fidelity, as long as one is honest about what is happening.

Example: I'm dicking around with a tube phono stage that I know, objectively, is lower fidelity than my DSP-based RIAA.

But it's fun to hear how it makes familiar recordings sound different.

I don't feel at all conflicted about this because it's not like a given recording accurately represents a live musical event and there are vast artistic decisions made in different masterings, anyway.

It's all just entertainment.

I fully endorse the project of increasing accuracy and reducing distortion in audio components.

But given that there will always be compromises in putting together an audio system, I'm fine with the particular compromises I make. The whole point for me is that I enjoy music through my system (otherwise...what would be the point? That I engage in some cold, unmoved scientific analysis of the sound?) Whatever gets me there, gets me there.

I like the idea of accuracy and would, even if intellectually, like a very accurate system that I love to listen to. But IF there are innacuracies in a speaker or system, what I care about is the effect they have on MY listening experience. That is whether the coloration detracts from my enjoyment, is neutral to it such that it doesn't distract me, or if perhaps it enhances my enjoyment.

As I've written before here, I'm not worried by claims that because I use and enjoy some old tube amplification that my system is no longer about "accuracy." Accuracy to what? Slavish attention to the minutia in the measurements of an audio signal? To what end? Accuracy to the actual audio/musical content of the signal? Well in that latter sense, I have plenty of accuracy. The type of deviations my tube amps may be introducing are in the grand scheme extremely subtle and are completely swamped by the content-specific information heard between different recordings. That's why every record sounds vastly different on my system, as with any other decent audio system - I hear all the same musical content and production/mixing choices anyone else does and that's the main "message" contained in the recordings. To my ear every single system, even the most "accurate," produces a homogonized sound to some degree. So I have no qualms about gently nudging the sound of my system in a way that increases my enjoyment in listening. The colorations I have enjoyed in various systems in no way mask the gross musical and sonic content of the source.

 

[KozmoNaut]

But given that there will always be compromises in putting together an audio system, I'm fine with the particular compromises I make. The whole point for me is that I enjoy music through my system (otherwise...what would be the point? That I engage in some cold, unmoved scientific analysis of the sound?) Whatever gets me there, gets me there.

(Hi, new here, semi-exiled from HA)

To put a spin on it, it's a matter of whether you use your gear to listen to music, or use music to listen to your gear.

I'm firmly in the first camp. I can listen to good music on most systems, whether they're earphones and my phone playing 96kbps Opus files, a Bluetooth speaker, good headphones on a good amp/DAC playing lossless files, ok-ish headphones on my work laptop, or for that matter a YouTube video or an LP on my turntable, on the AV setup in my living room.

Sure, if a system has some glaring faults, like a complete canyon in the frequency response between 80-200Hz or something, that needs to be remedied, but otherwise if the music sounds decent, I'm fine.

I'm in the camp of science and measurements, but I think the strictness needs to be tempered by a realistic approach, in regards to real-world rooms and budgets. My own main setup (stereo speakers, dual subs, AVR, TV, HTPC, chromecast, turntable etc.) was less than $750 in total, all second hand. It sounds great and is fun for music and movies. Is it perfect? Hell no! I've even kept the original cartridge on my late-70s JVC turntable and only put a new stylus on it. I don't care that a newer cartridge might be objectively better, that's not why I like it.

But I enjoy my entire setup very much, and I've gone to some effort in the setup to get the most of it in my living room.

According to some hardcore objectivists, my setup is trash ("an AVR?! How horrible!"), and I'm sure most subjectivists would recoil in horror ("DSP processing! The horror!"). It's fine for me, though.

"Good enough" is good enough

 

[JJB70]

If you like it then enjoy it!

I just bought a lifestyle all in one system. I liked the Technics SB C700 speakers and a shop offered me a great deal on them. The shop also had an obsolete stock Technics 550 system which apparently was meant to go with the speakers and offered a great package price (the combined price was less than the SRP of the speakers. I've no idea how it measures, and I know these lifestyle systems are not what audiophiles approve of, but my wife actually wanted it as she liked it, and to be honest the CD player and digital amp playing tracks via WiFi seems transparent enough to me and the speakers are very good. For the price, and for not only WAF but positive partner endorsement it ticks the boxes for me. Beautifully made (on the outside at least) too, with a lovely tactile feel. And it allows me to get on with having my old Sony ES gear overhauled and made ready for another 28 years of use.......

Would I start waxing lyrical about Technics lifestyle systems and become evangelic on them? No, but it works, looks nice, has a lovely feel and I have no complaints at all about the sound (in fact, the speakers are superb), i.e. it does what I want it to do. Whether or not reviewers or audiophiles would approve of it is irrelevant.

 

[watchnerd]

Yeah, lifestyle products can be cool.

Can I get a shout out for Bose?

 

[BDWoody]

(Hi, new here, semi-exiled from HA)

To put a spin on it, it's a matter of whether you use your gear to listen to music, or use music to listen to your gear.

I'm firmly in the first camp. I can listen to good music on most systems, whether they're earphones and my phone playing 96kbps Opus files, a Bluetooth speaker, good headphones on a good amp/DAC playing lossless files, ok-ish headphones on my work laptop, or for that matter a YouTube video or an LP on my turntable, on the AV setup in my living room.

Sure, if a system has some glaring faults, like a complete canyon in the frequency response between 80-200Hz or something, that needs to be remedied, but otherwise if the music sounds decent, I'm fine.

I'm in the camp of science and measurements, but I think the strictness needs to be tempered by a realistic approach, in regards to real-world rooms and budgets. My own main setup (stereo speakers, dual subs, AVR, TV, HTPC, chromecast, turntable etc.) was less than $750 in total, all second hand. It sounds great and is fun for music and movies. Is it perfect? Hell no! I've even kept the original cartridge on my late-70s JVC turntable and only put a new stylus on it. I don't care that a newer cartridge might be objectively better, that's not why I like it.

But I enjoy my entire setup very much, and I've gone to some effort in the setup to get the most of it in my living room.

According to some hardcore objectivists, my setup is trash ("an AVR?! How horrible!"), and I'm sure most subjectivists would recoil in horror ("DSP processing! The horror!"). It's fine for me, though.

"Good enough" is good enough

My old Denon receivers still do solid work with scattered speakers collected over the decades. No need to ever apologize for your system(s). They all generate music...how magical is that?!

 

[BDWoody]

Yeah, lifestyle products can be cool.

Can I get a shout out for Bose?

I actually have one of their old smaller table radio's...it's not horrible as an alarm clock. They brought music to people who may not have otherwise bothered. That's not a bad thing to me.

 

[watchnerd]

I actually have one of their old smaller table radio's...it's not horrible as an alarm clock. They brought music to people who may not have otherwise bothered. That's not a bad thing to me.

My parents have their Wave Radio.

As you said, it gets them to listen to music.

Anything more complicated is a non-starter at their advanced age.

 

[RayDunzl]

Can I get a shout out for Bose?

I bought one of their satellite/sub combos on a Saturday in 1992 or so, as something with which to restart - having been "on the road" for quite a while (no home at all).

I took it back on Tuesday (the store was closed on Monday).

 

[Mtbf]

That is because opinion is like an asshole - everybody has it. Only few however understand what they are talking about.

Ah... Dirty Harry

 

[Eirikur]

MQA vs regular lossless

Is this debate?
Objectively, MQA is lossy and (purposely) technically flawed; on the whole a uselessly complicated lock-in scheme.

Subjectively it may sound fine in most situations (like MP3), but nobody needs this "solution" to a non-existing problem.

 

[watchnerd]

Is this debate?

No, it's not the debate.

The assertion was not that MQA is lossless.

 

[Eirikur]

No, it's not the debate.

The assertion was not that MQA is lossless.

You imply that by writing regular lossless - but let's not debate that here
MQA pisses me off just enough to insert a snake-oil warning whenever possible.

 

[watchnerd]

You imply that by writing regular lossless - but let's not debate that here
MQA pisses me off just enough to insert a snake-oil warning whenever possible.

MQA vs regular lossless (i.e. FLAC, etc.).

 

[gene_stl]

One of the things that attracted me to this group was @Sal1950 no MQA logo. I will never ever buy anything that has paid a licensing fee to MQA.

I have a new local audio pal. I am fond of him as he is a very nice person and a committed audiophile and also not new at it. I am driving him crazy because he wants to bring some high end cables over to my house so I can hear the difference. (He has a pair of JBL 4367s and a lot of expensive electronics.) I keep telling him biamping his 4367s will make more improvement than cables. Since my system is a four way quad amp it is inconceivable that you could hear a cable difference. As opposed to whether you might be able to operating full range.