Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

[Bob from Florida]

Subjective = Personal preference due to bias. The bias could be based on sight, reviews, cost, hearing ability, convinced by a friend, etc.

Objective = measured performance verified by independent measurements.

The real question in my mind is where better measurements make any difference to listening. I have a $200 piece of Schiit - Modius. Will spending 4 times the money on the better measuring Topping top of the line DAC make an audible difference? Chasing ultimate measured gear does make you somewhat of a gear-head.
One thing vinyl has going for it is improving the turntable-tonearm-cartridge-phono preamp chain does make a noticeable difference in playback. It may not be equal measurement wise to digital but at least if you are upgrading you can hear a difference. I suspect this is because the better vinyl playback approaches our hearing limits. Once you exceed that limit we are likely in Subjective territory where we convince ourselves of a difference.

 

[audiofilet]

@audiofilet truly deserves our respect and consideration I think.

He first told us how impressed he was with some Hi-Res downloads.
Then, facing some opposition, he did his best to test his initial impression extensively.

I find this admirable.

How many of us simply have strong opinions they have never tested and will hold on to them like it was some kind of holy truth?

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.

 

[killdozzer]

Subjectivists are never satisfied though ... that is why they are always buying tweaks. If you don't address fundamentals you are doomed to tweaks

It is a random choice with them. You go out and listen to only what is available. But if you want to make the best choice for yourself you should hear it all. Especially if you believe all products sound different. It's stabbing in the dark. Why would anyone recommend this?

OTOH, my choice would've been the same if I had to make it all over again. At that point in time and with that budget and with what is available and considering what I look for in gear, I'd buy all my equipment again. It changed today, sure, new models are out and I'm weighing the cost/benefit.

Furthermore, I do go to audio shops, audio fairs and other people's listening rooms when ever I get the chance. I only don't make decisions based on that. I understand what I hear is a specific once in a time occurrence. It is those speakers, in that room, with that source material and setup. I can't just transplant it to my home if I like it, which means you can't sell it to me through mere listening sessions. Some guarantees have to be there. So, I don't miss on an experience of listening to all sorts of products, but what you hear is not what you get.

Not to mention that overpriced snake-oil resides in subjectivist area completely. If you base your decision on tested/proven/measured, you're not buying Nordost.

 

[Gorgonzola]

A little, but not entirely unexpected;

MP3: Concept

JSmith

In my personal experience it can be very hard to hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless, but it does depend on the recording, the volume, and -- of course -- the resolution of one's system. Generally 128kbps is pretty obvious.

 

[killdozzer]

HydrogenAudio is different... They don't allow measurements (as "proof of sound quality") but they require scientific-blind listening tests (if you are making a claim about sound quality) and they "discourage" nonsense terminology.

Interesting twist.

 

[killdozzer]

Who was really surprised that MP3 was preferred over lossless?

I would like to suggest that MP3 and tubes are both preferred because they "deburr" the sound -- they take off the sharp edges so to speak,.

the resolution of one's system.

These statements sound wrong. When was mp3 preferred over lossless? Are you referring to a specific data, is it available?

mp3 was mostly accused of (in my experience exclusively) for being to harsh and sharp, much the same way CD was when compared to records.

the resolution of the system, if at all satisfying, won't show the difference between mp3 and lossless.

 

[NiagaraPete]

These statements sound wrong. When was mp3 preferred over lossless? Are you referring to a specific data, is it available?

mp3 was mostly accused of (in my experience exclusively) for being to harsh and sharp, much the same way CD was when compared to records.

the resolution of the system, if at all satisfying, won't show the difference between mp3 and lossless.

Lets not forget listening fatigue. Low quality streaming gets very tiring to listen to in a relatively short period of time.

 

[Killingbeans]

When was mp3 preferred over lossless? Are you referring to a specific data, is it available?

High Bitrate MP3 Internet Blind Test: Part 2 - RESULTS

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[Frgirard]

Objectivist and subjectivists come together in the fact of how to listen and what is good or bad for you.

 

[KSTR]

Subjective = Personal preference due to bias. The bias could be based on sight, reviews, cost, hearing ability, convinced by a friend, etc.

Objective = measured performance verified by independent measurements.

Hhm, I'd rather extend that to:

Subjective = Any kind of assessments made without any controls so that any kind of bias can compromise the result. Doesn't matter if it's about interpretation of measurements or judging listening impressions, mind you.

Objective = Assessments made with controls and preferably repeated elsewhere. Again, doesn't matter if it's about measurements or listening impressions.

It's all about the method. Objective means "hard data", that's it.

 

[Sal1950]

Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?​

We are of course, was there ever any doubt???

 

[Killingbeans]

Subjective = Personal preference due to bias. The bias could be based on sight, reviews, cost, hearing ability, convinced by a friend, etc.

I wouldn't go that far

more like: Subjective = Impressions has high risk of being colored by bias and personal preference.

To me personal preference is a thing that stands on its own and isn't really defined by 'subjective vs. objective'.

I have a $200 piece of Schiit - Modius. Will spending 4 times the money on the better measuring Topping top of the line DAC make an audible difference?

Not very likely. Not unless you count the bias that the measurements put in your head.

 

[krabapple]

FLAC vs AAC

Silly. One is lossless, the other lossy. But done right, very few would hear a difference.

Lossless vs Lossy

see above

Joshua vs Zeos

All hail Zeus! O wait... I don't know what you're talking about (and don't care)

Current Science vs. Experience & Intuitive Perception

yawn , is that you guys are calling it now?

Hard testing vs. Acute Audiophile Senses

or is it this?


To answer your thread title question: *I* am. And as such, I suggest you sit back and read more before posting threads about tired zombie topic like this.

But do tell us one thing, what other audio forums have you participated in, before dropping into ASR a month ago?

 

[Killingbeans]

We are of course, was there ever any doubt???

I'm not sure. My dad was never much of a fighter. He might not be able to beat up a subjectivist dad... especially now that he's been dead and cremated for nearly 20 years

 

[Jimbob54]

Build your system objectively, listen to music subjectively.

 

[krabapple]

Part of the problem is that controlled comparisons are almost impossible. When one compares vinyl to CD to high-res chances are good things like mastering changed the EQ and other parameters of the recording so you no longer have the same reference source. Yes, people can create their own references and such, but most audiophiles just listen to the same song in each medium to draw conclusions. Thus we get a current DSD or hi-res version compared to a 1990's CD version to a 1980's or whatever vinyl/tape version and of course there are profound differences.

Yes, but any knowledgeable person knows that if one is trying to 'hear' difference between formats, such comparisons are useless.

Un-knowledgeable persons need not be taken seriously on the matter. It doesn't matter if they call themselves 'audiophiles', they're simply ignorant.

 

[eddantes]

Objective data provides the stage on which subjective evaluation happens. Without the former the later is pointless as it cannot have any permanence. Objective data is largely portable from person to person, whereas subjective data is not.

 

[Gorgonzola]

These statements sound wrong. When was mp3 preferred over lossless? Are you referring to a specific data, is it available?

mp3 was mostly accused of (in my experience exclusively) for being to harsh and sharp, much the same way CD was when compared to records.

the resolution of the system, if at all satisfying, won't show the difference between mp3 and lossless.

Well I can't say I agree.

I have a few 256 and 320kpbs MP3's and I find them OK, not harsh or sharp. (I always obtain versions lossless if I can, so I don't have a big selection of MP3).

Especially fine recordings, (mainly Classical music in my experience), have a lot of fined detail contributing to resolution and sense of ambience, ("air"). These recordings, (within my collection anyway), are the exception. Their quality can be appreciated best (or at all), only with very low distortion speakers, amps, and upstream components. Perhaps I'll try down-converting a few of these to MP3 and reconsider my conclusion.

 

[krabapple]

A little, but not entirely unexpected;

MP3: Concept

JSmith

Leveraging the psychoacoustic fact of auditory masking doesn't portend that listeners will prefer mp3.

Removing masked content isn't intended to *enhance* (nor degrade, if done right) perceived sound. It's simply meant to reduce file size.

 

[velasfloyd]

What I have observed is that subjectivists do tend to take headphone measurements into account. In fact, many self-professed subjectivists take these measurements themselves. Therefore, I wonder how no one has come up with the following test:

Measure the frequency response of a headphone with a certain dac / amp ... then measure it with another dac / amp that sounds completely different to you ... look at the frequency response ... it would be a checkmate, right?