our focus of audio: a poll.

[Jim Taylor]

At ASR, we generally debunk people who, as we say, "listen to the gear". These people's contribution is usually marked by a search for the "synergistic sound" of different pieces of audio gear. Their standard seems to be "musicality", and the doorway to get there is subjective listening. I could describe them as gearheads, but I would use the phrase, "subjectivist gearheads", if that makes any sense.
But we also have a number of people here who are, for lack of a better word, "objectivist gearheads". They chase the latest, greatest and so-called "best" equipment for their systems. Their standard is neutrality, and the doorway to get there is science-based tests and measurements.

I think I represent a third type of person who spends time here. I live for the music. Although I strongly advocate tests and measurements, I have also said that I would rather listen to music I love on a table radio than music I dislike on the best audio system that the market has to offer.

So we have three general types of people here:

1) subjectivist gearheads
2) Objectivist gearheads
3) People for whom the music is more important than the gear.

Which kind are you?

 

[Mort]

Por qué no los dos? Can I be #2 aaaaand #3?

I love the gear, but it would all be pointless without music. So if we can't be both, I'm #3 with a lot of gear.

 

[Crook]

All of it works together I think, but the music comes first, it's the basis. I'll happily sit in the sweet spot, or listen to the radio on Alexa, or walk the dog with IEMs. I enjoy all of it. The objectivist part here I think has been critical to for me to identify well engineered products and in particular, excellent products within my price range. Finally, the subjective element is where the real pleasure is. Radio on Alexa is fine, but subjectively sitting in that sweet spot, with your eyes closed, when you can place individual instruments and people in different places in space, coming together as a coherent whole, is a really wonderful thing.

 

[Mart68]

Por qué no los dos? Can I be #2 aaaaand #3?

I love the gear, but it would all be pointless without music. So if we can't be both, I'm #3 with a lot of gear.

This.

I can listen to music out of the speaker on a PC tower and enjoy it but you'd have to prize my stupidly over the top hi-fi system out of my cold, dead hands.

And I'm both objective and subjective.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I mean, I still use my kitchen radio fed by my old Clip+ a fair bit, too - even if I wouldn't bother with Mahler symphonies and the like on that setup... (That thing has proven harder to replace than one might assume. It gets moved around a fair bit, doesn't take up too much real estate on my small kitchen table, and I'm actually listening to FM radio on a regular basis, too.)

If in doubt, give me good audio wherever I go, rather than a single over the top perfect setup. Some basic Panasonic SB-PM01 4" bookshelves on desk stands beaten into shape with measurement and EQ are like 90% fine for me in nearfield (and most of the rest is lacking low bass, with a bit of treble purity on account of woofer breakup). I've always been a "midrange first" kinda guy.

 

[Waxx]

I did and do spend way more money on my music (vinyl, concerts, legal downloads, cd's, ...) than on gear. The gear is there only to support the music. But i'm a nerd so...

 

[dominikz]

At ASR, we generally debunk people who, as we say, "listen to the gear". These people's contribution is usually marked by a search for the "synergistic sound" of different pieces of audio gear. Their standard seems to be "musicality", and the doorway to get there is subjective listening. I could describe them as gearheads, but I would use the phrase, "subjectivist gearheads", if that makes any sense.
But we also have a number of people here who are, for lack of a better word, "objectivist gearheads". They chase the latest, greatest and so-called "best" equipment for their systems. Their standard is neutrality, and the doorway to get there is science-based tests and measurements.

I think I represent a third type of person who spends time here. I live for the music. Although I strongly advocate tests and measurements, I have also said that I would rather listen to music I love on a table radio than music I dislike on the best audio system that the market has to offer.

So we have three general types of people here:

1) subjectivist gearheads
2) Objectivist gearheads
3) People for whom the music is more important than the gear.

Which kind are you?

I guess I'd be somewhere on the spectrum between 3) and 2), but leaning to 3).

On one hand I'm perfectly satisfied with my audio system(s) and don't really expect that my enjoyment of music could be meaningfully improved by buying better-measuring gear. In general I find I can absolutely enjoy good music on most audio systems - sometimes even when they have clearly audible issues. For this reason, and a few others, I've largely abandoned the concept of "gear upgrades" in audio.

On the other hand I truly enjoy audio-related science and technology, and I absolutely love to experiment with audio measurements and controlled listening tests - I consider that one of my hobbies. I simply play around with audio gear to gain a better understanding of the physics of sound and the psychology of sound perception - that is all. But I guess it does make me a kind of objectivist gearhead.

 

[SIY]

Is this the usual mis-definition of subjective and objective?

 

[Jim Taylor]

Is this the usual mis-definition of subjective and objective?

Yes, it is. I suspect it's the one most commonly used by members here.

 

[xanalog]

The following is a not a 'strawman" comment

*I love traveling at speed in a competent vehicle.
Also:
*I love music from quality equipment.

But I have never been able achieve both at the same time.

 

[Oddball]

I know that I can't be objective. And while love content, also love the big boxes and want them to perform first at reference, but then my preference.

 

[Audiofire]

I am somewhere between option 2 and 3. There was this other poll about whether one is an audiophile or not. If this word is defined as someone who loves hi-fi, I think this other poll is perfectly defined.

Do you refer to yourself as an 'audiophile'?

I'm curious. As most of us here are here for enlightenment and actual real world science and substance to decide what is potentially a good investment or not I find it really rather strange that a large number of people still refer to themselves in such a way. The term 'audiophile' to me is...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MattHooper]

I consider myself fundamentally an objectivist. But I suppose under the OP’s definition I might be a subjectivist insofar as ultimately my goal is sound that pleases me. But that doesn’t require buying into every bit of woo-woo typically associated with the subjectivist crowd.

And yes, I have bought enough gear in my life to qualify as a gearhead

 

[Robin L]

Absolutely #3. Though I appreciate good sound and consider objective measurements more than enough to get there, I happily listen to lo-fi recordings. 1930s classical and Jazz, for example.

 

[Laika2]

Two step process for me. First, objective, how does it measure. Second, subjective. How does it sound. If it does not sound good to my ears what's the point. But the starting point is always objective. A quick way cutting out the garbage and narrowing what to demo.

 

[Audiofire]

I happily listen to lo-fi recordings

I definitely do so too, but the poll is about my own equipment as far as I can see.

 

[Robin L]

I definitely do so too, but the poll is about my own equipment as far as I can see.

" . . . I would rather listen to music I love on a table radio than music I dislike on the best audio system that the market has to offer. . . "

Which is true in my case as well. I have a good audio system; I also have a nice table radio (Boston Acoustic) that I hook up to a DAP or smartphone. The signal's too weak to use the radio, but ALEC files and streams sound good enough to enjoy the music.

 

[egellings]

At ASR, we generally debunk people who, as we say, "listen to the gear". These people's contribution is usually marked by a search for the "synergistic sound" of different pieces of audio gear. Their standard seems to be "musicality", and the doorway to get there is subjective listening. I could describe them as gearheads, but I would use the phrase, "subjectivist gearheads", if that makes any sense.
But we also have a number of people here who are, for lack of a better word, "objectivist gearheads". They chase the latest, greatest and so-called "best" equipment for their systems. Their standard is neutrality, and the doorway to get there is science-based tests and measurements.

I think I represent a third type of person who spends time here. I live for the music. Although I strongly advocate tests and measurements, I have also said that I would rather listen to music I love on a table radio than music I dislike on the best audio system that the market has to offer.

So we have three general types of people here:

1) subjectivist gearheads
2) Objectivist gearheads
3) People for whom the music is more important than the gear.

Which kind are you?

For me it's a combination. I like music, and the gear presents that to me. I need to like the music, and its presentation to me through the gear.