-
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!
Objectivism vs. Subjectivism of Audiophiles in 7 Minutes
- Thread starter LDKTA
- Start date
I'm an expert.
I like the way they challenge with: "how do you know if you have not tried it?"
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,329
- Likes
- 12,286
Oh man, given I have again been challenging some subjectivist tropes on "another forum" that video hits too close to home.
The irony never ceases to amaze me:
Skeptic: You may be hearing some change in the sound of the new fuse/AC cable (whatever) but it's a technically suspect claim and since we can all be fooled by our biases, it would be good to at least have some measurements suggesting something objective is happening, and/or try listening tests in way that tries to reduce the influence of those biases - blind testing.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Nonsense! The only way to determine these things is by listening!
Skeptic: Well, as I said, I'm not completely ruling out your findings, but we can all be misled by sighted bias. So, yes, let's listen, but it's good to reduce the influence of sighted knowledge in the tests.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Science hasn't discovered everything you know!
Skeptic: No, of course not. But that isn't a reason to believe everything that's claimed, or everything we think we hear.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Look, you weren't there! You can't tell me what I hear or not. The only way to decide is for me to listen, and my ears aren't wrong!"
Skeptic: But we know our subjective impressions are prone to error, so it makes sense to look at ways of reducing the influence of those errors.
I know I'm certainly fallible and I have had some eye-opening experience blind testing equipment I thought sounded obviously different. I'm just saying that personally I'm not convinced of the phenomenon under discussion, but I'm certainly open to good evidence. It's just that pure anecdote isn't a terribly reliable form of evidence, especially in regards to controversial claims.
Subjectivist Audiophile: You people are such DOGMATISTS! Why won't you just accept that I HEAR WHAT I HEAR, I CAN'T BE WRONG, and THAT'S THAT!
The irony never ceases to amaze me:
Skeptic: You may be hearing some change in the sound of the new fuse/AC cable (whatever) but it's a technically suspect claim and since we can all be fooled by our biases, it would be good to at least have some measurements suggesting something objective is happening, and/or try listening tests in way that tries to reduce the influence of those biases - blind testing.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Nonsense! The only way to determine these things is by listening!
Skeptic: Well, as I said, I'm not completely ruling out your findings, but we can all be misled by sighted bias. So, yes, let's listen, but it's good to reduce the influence of sighted knowledge in the tests.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Science hasn't discovered everything you know!
Skeptic: No, of course not. But that isn't a reason to believe everything that's claimed, or everything we think we hear.
Subjectivist Audiophile: Look, you weren't there! You can't tell me what I hear or not. The only way to decide is for me to listen, and my ears aren't wrong!"
Skeptic: But we know our subjective impressions are prone to error, so it makes sense to look at ways of reducing the influence of those errors.
I know I'm certainly fallible and I have had some eye-opening experience blind testing equipment I thought sounded obviously different. I'm just saying that personally I'm not convinced of the phenomenon under discussion, but I'm certainly open to good evidence. It's just that pure anecdote isn't a terribly reliable form of evidence, especially in regards to controversial claims.
Subjectivist Audiophile: You people are such DOGMATISTS! Why won't you just accept that I HEAR WHAT I HEAR, I CAN'T BE WRONG, and THAT'S THAT!
That is hilarious!
...and painful.
...and painful.
LOL, we have probably all been in meetings with people who are so thick and clueless that it simply dumbfounds you. You realize that any rationale response would be as if you were speaking in an alien language to them. I've felt like that guy before 
AndrewDavis
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 220
- Likes
- 431
I feel this way every time I turn on the news.
See Solipsism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism and Subjective Idealism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
Then see Oozlum Bird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oozlum_bird
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2019
- Messages
- 143
- Likes
- 45
The video sadly is unrelated to the topic of audio, and neither can it be some how inserted as some sub meaning as tabled as objectivism vs subjectivism to be penned as related to audio.
However it's one merit, is it shows to me the very thing that is missing at ASR and many other audio related forums, which is the explanation of circuitry. Very few if any forums take the next step again which is putting forward brave hypothesis explaining how one circuit form benefits our audio experience, vs another much less so.
We find ourselves in a sea of intangibles as a result of avoiding the correlation of circuitry to audio experience. If this can be improved upon and implemented ASR would move streaks ahead of every other forum.
However it's one merit, is it shows to me the very thing that is missing at ASR and many other audio related forums, which is the explanation of circuitry. Very few if any forums take the next step again which is putting forward brave hypothesis explaining how one circuit form benefits our audio experience, vs another much less so.
We find ourselves in a sea of intangibles as a result of avoiding the correlation of circuitry to audio experience. If this can be improved upon and implemented ASR would move streaks ahead of every other forum.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,329
- Likes
- 12,286
It's being used as an analogy. The fact many here recognize the point of the analogy means it works.
Can you explain what you mean? I admit I haven't a clue. Thanks.
We already have some of these ideas here where Amir have his own subjective impressions aside from objective facts with various types of circuitry. Look at Schiit Lyr 2's review where he noted that the tube stage is both subjectively and objectively inferior to the solid state stage. Or how discrete stage implementation of Schiit Magni 3+ made zero sound difference with the op-amp gain stage Magni Heresy. Also, in the DACs, we have seen Amir's PS Audio's Direct Stream subjective listening and conclude that the DAC sounds terrible due to extremely high distortion. Schiit Yggdrasil with its non-audio DAC implementation and discrete output stage sounds no better than any well engineered DAC.
All that fancy DAC and Amp circuitry just makes sound subjectively different (inferior for some or superior for others) rather than objectively true to the source. Moreover, it's sighted listening which would obviously cause our brain to be biased. In my case, I also have a fancy DAC that measures horrible but on a careful volume matched sighted A/B with a well engineered DAC there is no audible difference to my ears. Once everything is volume matched and DBT test are performed our biases towards fancy circuitry sounding better disappears. Then again, for a marketing standpoint, having this mindset will just kill one's view of spending $$$ on fancy DACs or amps with fancy/discrete output stage unless they can actually measure at least 120 dB of transparency per https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dynamic-range-how-quiet-is-quiet.14/
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2019
- Messages
- 143
- Likes
- 45
That's great and is heading in the right direction. A review here done by the absolute sound - Nowhere near the completeness of Amir's wonderful reviews, but gives helpful insight into the circuitry https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/harman-kardon-citation-ii-power-amplifier/ which helps I think to be able to look back and say, that worked , as example:
" Stu Hegeman’s circuits produced a sound that had a life and a breadth and image depth that were stunning. They were the ultimate in soundstaging and sense of immersion. The Citation II’s circuit was most elaborate, the thinking behind it exceptionally advanced, the sound spectacular! It consisted of a pentode input stage, followed by a pair of 12BY7 video pentodes as a differential phase splitter (the video pentode supplied a bandwidth of well over a megahertz in the input stage). The video pentodes drove the grids of the output tubes to full power. This had never been done before, and it resulted in a wide power response that was second to none. The output stage utilized a pair of KT88s for each channel, each valve having its own bias control as well as an AC balance control. (A small meter at the chassis rear measured bias and AC balance.) Three feedback loops provided 32dB of overall feedback with unconditional stability. The output transformers were superb, built by the Freed company in New York. Huge, well-potted units, they boasted extremely wide response thanks to the ultra-low leakage inductance. Only the highest-grade core materials were used, which lowered the effect of core distortion to a region well below the limit of human hearing. With feedback, the Citation II transformers were capable of high-frequency response up to 270kHz, a response that most designers of the time thought could not be achieved.
Could we say for 10 good ways of doing circuitry there are 90 poor ways. maybe over time if we make effort to talk about circuitry the 10 would be commonplace, and the 90 much less so, here is hoping so.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
You can show me 2 identical schematics of say a DAC or amplifier and yet when measured there could be considerable measurable differences due to the selected parts and above all PCB design, wiring etc.
So... schematics don't say it all.
The flowery speak of amps isn't something that easily translates in explanations based on schematics and how a PCB looks. It has little place here.
As a consumer I think how a product delivers performance is less important than the actual delivered/available performance.
If circuit topology was included in reviews it would be meaningless to many and I suspect manufacturers might see another easy marketing hook (in the style of multi-driver IEMs, planar magnetic, silly sample rates and bit depth, name check components etc) to sell to the I'll informed. In most things in life implementation/execution are critical.
If circuit topology was included in reviews it would be meaningless to many and I suspect manufacturers might see another easy marketing hook (in the style of multi-driver IEMs, planar magnetic, silly sample rates and bit depth, name check components etc) to sell to the I'll informed. In most things in life implementation/execution are critical.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
I agree. Implementation is key. Typologies tells you someting about the potential for good things, but nothing about the actual quality. It's interesting from a technical point of view, and is essentials knowledge for a designer/engineer, but useless information for a consumer.
speaking of Amir's wonderful reviews when do we get to read his review of your kit?
This has been around a while (and I have seen it a number of times).
One of my bosses was very found of "we don't know it can't be done" as an argument to take some research project. Every now and then it snared us, like the time it required breaking the speed of light, or when a voltage regulator circuit needed to generate more power than it could take in, or the time a noise spec for an ADC/DAC DRFM (digital RF memory) path was unrealizable using only a 50 ohm resistor in an RF system. The program manager for the latter actually had me working up what it would take to switch the RF path to 25 ohms; that failed when I noted it would roughly double the power of the chain since we needed to keep the voltage swing the same and the layout area of all the traces in a phased-array design. For a 10 kW Tx/RX array in a radar nose cone of a fighter jet. The RF guys backed me up on that one...
One of my bosses was very found of "we don't know it can't be done" as an argument to take some research project. Every now and then it snared us, like the time it required breaking the speed of light, or when a voltage regulator circuit needed to generate more power than it could take in, or the time a noise spec for an ADC/DAC DRFM (digital RF memory) path was unrealizable using only a 50 ohm resistor in an RF system. The program manager for the latter actually had me working up what it would take to switch the RF path to 25 ohms; that failed when I noted it would roughly double the power of the chain since we needed to keep the voltage swing the same and the layout area of all the traces in a phased-array design. For a 10 kW Tx/RX array in a radar nose cone of a fighter jet. The RF guys backed me up on that one...
