• 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!

Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,211
Location
Algol Perseus
Pretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
Nope;
INFORMAL•BRITISH
verb
spend time in ineffectual activity.
"we can't faff around forever"
noun
a great deal of ineffectual activity.
"there was the usual faff of getting back to the plane"
:D



JSmith
 

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
This being a site dedicated to perfectionist audio and using the best science of the day to verify that the gear is providing the best performance level available.
I see this site as a learning experience and a buyer's guide for new gear based on a variety of criteria OTHER than just measurements, but I don't think it means I have to own only gear that measures 100% perfect, nor do I have to love only that gear. Obviously, you agree with me in everything I've said thus far because:
I use a $40 SansaDisc mp3 player for my music on-the-go.

Just curious, what is “audibly transparent” to you? How do you declare a DAC as being one?
I don't "declare" anything, I listen to it. If I can't tell the difference, well then... you've got your answer.
 

Aerith Gainsborough

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
853
Likes
1,280
My mantra: if it sounds good to me, I enjoy it. I don't need graphs or measurements OR some snake oil to inform what sounds good to me -- I was born with two ears, imperfect instruments in their own right. Do I like buying gear that measures well? Yes. Do I care about it much if it sounds good to me, even if it measures like doo-doo? No. I just don't have the time on this earth to obsess over everything. Either it sounds good, or it doesn't. Fortunately, most gear I've listened to sounds good (and some of that gear I've found later on measures poorly, but I don't care).
Well, one needs to put the "measures poorly" into proper context.

Most devices that are measured by Amir are still audibly transparent in everyday use cases but might not be in some more extreme ones. If the extreme ones never happen in your life -> device is good enough.

AVRs would be a good example of this. 85dB SINAD is more than enough for pretty much any domestic application.

The beauty of measurements is: if you already know that your use will entail the rather extreme requirements, measurements exclude the device before having to try it.
 

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
I suggest learning how to measure room response.

Most of those anomalies I mention are in speaker response. Not "micro" details.
Fair enough. Speakers do sound different. DACs (and many amps), by and large, do not. That said, I'm also not constantly buying and upgrading speakers and other equipment because: 1. can't afford to, 2. not worth the faff.
 
Last edited:

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
The beauty of measurements is: if you already know that your use will entail the rather extreme requirements, measurements exclude the device before having to try it.
The reverse of this is also true: if you know your device measures well within the range you intend to use it, no need to worry. Or hell, if you didn't read the measurements and you own gear that falls within the turd category, no need to worry anyway unless you hear real awful consequences at normal volumes: clipping, distortion (and not the pleasant kind), thermal noise, etc.

This discussion brings me back to people who buy amplifiers, crank the volume, and then put their ear up to the tweeter to see if they can hear any "hiss." I call them the "tweeter whisperers," and it amuses me to no end that their obsessive compulsiveness for absolute silence comes at the real hearing loss gamble they're taking if their source isn't properly attenuated. It's amusing, and honestly, depressing.
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
It's true, my original expectation was blown out of proportion, but I was able to prove that specific EQ profiles, at least in this case, were able to improve my ability to pick correctly.

Then again, after having just completed another set of ABX runs with AAC, I'm more inclined to suggest that this gradually increasing success rate was probably just a result of familiarity over time.

It's extremely difficult to perform these tests in a controlled environment.
B-I-N-G-O was his name-o. You need a partner in crime that can switch it. And to make sure that's random, she should flip a coin to determine whether it's A or B. Straight preference. on your part. Well really, that's not entirely fair--what if it sounds better on some material and not others? You should unequivocally state which it is. I mean you'll know right?
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
Thank you, I tried my best. I originally just wanted to do 1-2 tests, but ended up doing 40+ to be absolutely sure. Everybody gets attached to ideas, it's just important to stay honest with yourself.

I was convinced that the difference was astronomical in the beginning, but had to accept that wasn't the case after I had completed the tests. However, I did score alright in certain scenarios.

Currently testing 44.1/16bit vs. 192/24bit
So far it's mostly 4-5/10, regardless of EQ, but I'm guessing most of the time. Nothing clearly distinguishable tbh.
I don't see it, but then again my equipment is mid-level at best.
NO, NO, NO. Now you're really in free fall down the rabbit hole--i.e. if I can't hear something that I assume must exist because ...reasons (others say so, etc) then it's my equipment that is at fault--it simply doesn't have the resolving power to appreciate the difference, thus I must upgrade.

Oh now I can hear it, let me run the tests..... The smart conclusion supported by most rational audio dudes is: if there is a difference it is small, if I can't reliably hear the small difference, than I likely have average hearing and therefore anything that measures reasonably well is just plain good enough. Think of the $$ you can save now save toward buying some really good speakers in the future. Every time you settle for Redbook or less, throw a ten into your piggy bank. When you finally spend say 2000 for those speakers, you will definitely hear the difference.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
Perhaps a poor translation for an idiomatic expression that would best be rendered in English as "pissing into the wind" or something? Since there is the idiom "making water" for urinating, who knows? LOL

Alrighty then, but what's the 'wind' I'm purported to be pissing against (and 'planning to do so for a long time')?

Now *faff*, there's a great word. Faffing about = wasting time with pointless and ineffective activity

That's golden ear audiophilia in a nutshell.

Could also describe arguing on the Internet. ;)
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
The objectivist is interested in provable measurements, the subjectivist in the totality of their personal experience.

Pretty sure objectivists can be interested in the totality of their personal experience too. The utility of measurements and the fallibility of sighted judgement of audio is part of that totality.

Neither is more correct than the other.

the problems arise when a subjectivist thinks their opinion is fact, and the objectivist thinks that measurements correlate to a subjectivists impression of better.

You're claiming they don't, ever?
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
I have a theory that subjectivists in audio are constantly striving for the feeling that they got with that first hit - the sound they heard on their first proper hifi system with decent speakers. The jump forward in quality from whatever midi system, etc they listened to music on previously. But the problem is they were much younger - it's impossible to get that same sound again due to natural age related hearing loss.
Chasing the Dragon. But I disagree re the hearing--subjectively it's just as much fun, its just more expensive. A lot more. My Ar-5's + Marantz 1200 int amp + Dual TT/Shure cartridge =776.00 in 1972 Last expensive outlay Infinity IRS Gamma + 2 Classe 500w monoblocks + VPI TT + Zeta tone arm + Koetsu Cartridge + Audio Research tubed preamp 1993 = something I don't want to add up. Thankfully, got off that wheel of addiction. Now the speakers are homebrewed, the amps are used and off ebay, and sourced off a PC to a 2002 DEQX. And I'm pretty damn happy most days.
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
If you're involved in pro audio [and intend to get paid], you come to the point where you have heard the recording you have been working on so many times, all you can hear is the difference tone---everything that's wrong. The meaning of "Faff", far as I can tell, to to dither, and I don't mean jiggling around the LSB. Audiophiles often dither, and wanting an audio system where there's no tweaking is usually the opposite of what a self-described audiophile is all about. In any case, many of the people on this forum are involved in pro audio and many are "Audiophiles", so spiritofjerry may have landed in the wrong place, seeing as the central issues of this place are of no importance to him.
I believe you hit the old nail smack center. Using the drug analogy someone else mentioned upthread, it's the fiddlin and diddlin and arming up the amps, cleaning the stylus, pouring the single malt, double checking the cables aren't touching the ground, magic brick is exactly where the tape marks indicate, .... There's a well known finding that you can take a drug addict, put him in a brain scanner and even seeing the dope of choice makes the machine go clickety clack, just as if he were actually using the drug.

It's pure ritual, and only the Golden Eared can do the anointing. Two dollar edible would likely make a much greater impact on the enjoyment than the last $10k spent in upgrades.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
If only it were that simple (it isn’t).

Subjectivists tend to be subjectively wrong. Evidence: a DBT is actually a subjective test, but it just happens to be controlled, thus giving the subjective impressions about the actual sound waves. And yet the vast majority of subjectivists thoroughly reject and dispute what DBT tells them, because it often tells them that their sighted, uncontrolled subjective views on the sound waves are — wrong.

Then they are unhappy. Then they go on these long, ranting campaigns about how controlled listening tests are all flawed in at least one — or preferably many — ways.

Agreed.

It can't be that their hearing or perception is fallible. It must be the tests are wrong!

Sometimes I ask them if they dispute their audiograms with the audiologists if they've ever had their hearing tested. Which after all is a listening test that controls for sighted bias (no other indications when a tone is or isn't playing, so you can't 'cheat.').

" I know you are trying to tell me I have hearing loss at 6k doc, but I'm telling you I can hear those frequencies perfectly, on my stereo, even if I didn't ace this damned test of yours!" ;-)
 
Last edited:

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
Just curious, what is “audibly transparent” to you? How do you declare a DAC as being one?
I don't "declare" anything, I listen to it. If I can't tell the difference, well then... you've got your answer.

@spiritofjerry I did not mean to offend... I am genuinely trying to understand what do you listen for to call a DAC “audibly transparent” (your own words)? The difference between what and what?
 

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
@spiritofjerry I did not mean to offend... I am genuinely trying to understand what do you listen for to call a DAC “audibly transparent” (your own words)? The difference between what and what?
To distinguish it between any other DAC. I haven't heard a difference in any of them that I can reliably tell (except one, but I'm to believe it was probably defective).
 

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
To distinguish it between any other DAC. I haven't heard a difference in any of them that I can reliably tell (except one, but I'm to believe it was probably defective).

Sorry, mate. I do not see how failing to hear a difference between DACs leads to their “transparency” conclusion. For all we know, they all can be identically crappy thus indistinguishable. But that would not make them transparent a single bit.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,064
Likes
14,694
Pretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
A "faff" in English is an activity that is an annoyance /hindrance /of little consequence.

"I spent the morning faffing around" - little was achieved

"faffing around the edges" - working on something without getting to the core of the job.
 

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
Sorry, mate. I do not see how failing to hear a difference between DACs leads to their “transparency” conclusion. For all we know, they all can be identically crappy thus indistinguishable. But that would not make them transparent a single bit.
That's a fair assumption, and as such, I think you can say there is no such thing as transparency, or isn't that what you were setting me up for all along? I didn't know this was going to take a philosophical turn, but alas...

Also, I'd like to mention if every DAC I have listened to cannot be transparent because we cannot know it by listening, then it wouldn't matter anyway because they all sound good to me, and I wouldn't even need to define transparent to be happy with audio. Obviously, I find it far-fetched that there would be some one DAC that I have not listened to yet that somehow is more revealing in some way. That's why it doesn't matter I suppose.
 
Last edited:

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
That's a fair assumption, and as such, I think you can say there is no such thing as transparency, or isn't that what you were setting me up for all along? I didn't know this was going to take a philosophical turn, but alas...

Wow. All I was hoping to “set you up for” is to realize that the “transparency” (that you started talking about, not me) is not that easily defined through “I just listen and it comes to me…” As the transparency implies unchanged before-vs-after signal. That is relatively easy to “objectively“ measure by recording low level of the [original signal] distortion… yet is rather difficult to “subjectively“ hear - as the latter requires either absolute perfect pitch and musical memory or rather elaborate listening setup with the “golden reference” to the original.

But now ask me how much do I care about this transparency. :)
 
Last edited:

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
ask me if I care about this transparency. :)
Shoot, I don't even care about it, I was just answering your repeated questions, obviously falling into a lecture trap. I don't care if it's "transparent" or not because I can't reliably hear a difference. If I did, then I might care. We done now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom