Reframing Objective / Subjective Debate

[LeftCoastTim]

I mean, it’s very unlikely the following will change anything, but alas...

Audio products are not like art. They can have art like qualities, but they also by their nature must be engineered electro-mechanically.

The measurements are for the engineering aspect of audio products. Is the SINAD good? Is the FR response flat? Is directivity smooth? Are there large distortions in the system?

I think calling the engineering measurements “science” often gets people riled up, unnecessarily. But if ASR just called them engineering measurements maybe there can be less emotional reaction? Especially now that Amir is measuring speakers, and there really is not an obvious objective criteria for them.

If a DAC has an SINAD <-85dB, that’s great! If it has SINAD of 50, well there it is. It doesn’t matter if some people love or hate that product.

If a studio monitor has a 1kHz hump, there it is. Some people want that hump there and Yamaha is not going to remove it.

These measurements are the engineering outcomes (hopefully intended) of products.

I personally think that providing a neutral, engineering measurements is the best possible step forward to address subjective view points rather than waving the objectivist flag. Don’t get me wrong, flag waving is a lot of fun. And sparks discussion. But I wish for more and better measurements in the world (outside of ASR too), so calling things engineering measurements and leaving at that might get others (magazines) involved in a positive way.

 

[Berwhale]

Use of the word 'engineering' may be contentious https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...an-electrical-engineer-not-an-engineer.10333/

 

[BDWoody]

Audio products are not like art. They can have art like qualities, but they also by their nature must be engineered electro-mechanically.
.

The music is the art...
These devices are simply tools...to me, they shouldn't effectively be the missing instrument I didn't know I needed (more cowbell!?)...they should simply disappear into the background, leaving whatever I am trying to listen to the hell alone...

 

[A800]

The music is the art...
These devices are simply tools...to me, they shouldn't effectively be the missing instrument I didn't know I needed (more cowbell!?)...they should simply disappear into the background, leaving whatever I am trying to listen to the hell alone...

I thought the same.
Until I connected a subharmonic synthesizer.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm pretty sure use of the word "measurements" is contentious too...

 

[BDWoody]

I thought the same.
Until I connected a subharmonic synthesizer.

I'm all for separate fuzz boxes of any and all kinds...they are a ton of fun to mess around with...but do you want someone else to build their version of what fuzz sounds good to them into a DAC, or an Amp, or anything? I want to control my effects...then to be able to turn them off when I want them off. When it's built in...everything gets that baked in 'goodness.'

 

[Koloth]

I think calling the engineering measurements “science” often gets people riled up, unnecessarily. But if ASR just called them engineering measurements maybe there can be less emotional reaction?

In your desire to open ASR up to people who are anything but open you areconfusing terms: It's the "measurement" part, not the "engineering" part, that is called "scientific". That there are all kinds of engineering that do not proceed in a scientific fashion, is proven daily around here.

("Scientific" btw. taken to indicatd a process of generating descriptive statements that are intersubjectively invariant: in our case because they are derived from a standardized, even robotized process of measurement.)

 

[Wombat]

Engineering is the practical manifestation/application of validated scientific discoveries. Both streams are intrinsically linked. Intensive formal training in the specialised 'arts' is a usual pre-requisite for both. The fundamental underpinning of both professions is disciplined rational thinking re mathematics and physics..

This thinking style is often a stumbling block to emotive thinkers.

Serendipitous moments re practically inspired intuition occur at times but can lack deeper understanding and thus can be initially limited until further investigated by more knowledgeable practitioners - there are outstanding self educated and practised individuals who succeed of course. I admire their abilities but they are outliers.

Measurement is a confirmation tool, i.e., something meets specification - or not.

Professional Engineering follows science/physics fundamentals. The prospect of professional negligence is not something the reputable PE or organisation can afford financially or reputationally.

The interesting thing about quality assurance is that a low level performance product that meets the low level design spec. is conforming with requirement. The specs and valid test results need to be available to potential customers as verification.

 

[RayDunzl]

www.AudioScientificMethodReview.com

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Hmm.

I hypothesize that we need more hypotheses to be legit.

 

[solderdude]

Most engineers use measurements to verify proper engineering.

There are electronic components, mechanical components, schematic designs, mechanical designs.
These need to be engineered properly.
One can use top notch or poor components and then botch it up in the engineering part (PCB design, choice of parts, schematic errors, material usage, shape and or acoustic problems.

To me up till the final product exists (and during modifications or repair) the measurements I see as scientific measurements for verification of proper operation and or to measure certain aspects of performance.

Deliberate changes that can (but don't need to be) made to any product that also can be measured I see as 'voicing (hate that word) or 'seasoning' which is done in the design stage or modification stage. Measurements can be used for verification of its proper operation and are scientific.

What ASR attempts (IMPOV) is independently verify proper operation of certain aspects. Now also with speakers which is much much more complex and difficult to 'explain' to folks with no technical background / understanding.

Measurements are scientific, can be correct, partly correct or plain incorrect and/or incomplete.
Due to the lack of time Amir can spend on devices I would call the electrical measurements incomplete (as in not published/measured) rather than incorrect.

Audio Science can encompass electronics, mechanical and acoustics and consists of measurements and or controlled listening.
This is what bothers people who do not care about measurements (lack of understanding) and test rigor (sighted uncontrolled listening) and trusting a quite flawed personal measurement device (ears and brain).

The science part is what I am here for because electronics and acoustics is science and both are essential for audio reproduction.That's where one can gain fidelity and sound quality.

'Seasoning' sound can be done scientific or subjective (to personal taste) and is another matter.
Those crapping on ASR either want seasoning, trust flawed methods, or don't understand measurements and/or perception (limits).

 

[beefkabob]

I thought the same.
Until I connected a subharmonic synthesizer.

As long as it's not engineered into the rest of the hardware, why not?

Those are mainly for vinyl, where you can't go low or the record skips. Or for crap mastering where they just took the vinyl version and put it onto CD.

 

[Mnyb]

Eh you can't really have debate if one side is wrong . One have to find ways to tell them they are misslead in some way that don't hurt the ego to much . and try to be civil . The other q is why this hobby atracts people with a fananatical and ocd streak in thier personality why audio instead of 82 bar of soap in your bathroom ( se the movie "as good as it gets" the main character played by Jack Nicholson has some mental healt issuses and Thiel speakers in his living room )

This fallacy is popular in other debates , you try to find middle ground but sometimes it cant work .
Example flat earth vs globe is the compromise a sligthly concave dome shape . ?

We all have to learn that you simply can be wrong , very unpopular these days with alternative facts and personal internetbubbles to live in.

 

[A800]

I'm all for separate fuzz boxes of any and all kinds...they are a ton of fun to mess around with...but do you want someone else to build their version of what fuzz sounds good to them into a DAC, or an Amp, or anything? I want to control my effects...then to be able to turn them off when I want them off. When it's built in...everything gets that baked in 'goodness.'

Certainly not.
Devices should be neutral unless called "effect".

 

[Mnyb]

It's also a forgotten historical context . This hobby was once a decent and respectable passtime that begun to go off the rails in the late 70's ? probabably coincindetal when electronics begun to get near practicall transperency .
And now the majority of alla information sources magazines and forums are complete nonsense ? this migth be one almost unbelivable fact that is hard to learn nowadays if you not watched the process geting here.

 

[Grumple]

Just adding my 2c. I would consider myself an informed subjectivist of sorts. That is to say I get a lot of subjective enjoyment from the processes involved in analogue recording and playback. I would never claim analogue to be objectively better than digital, it demonstrably isn't, but for me it is, as often as not, subjectively more enjoyable.

I don't see and I don't think there needs to be any contradiction in this process. I can use objective information to make a subjective choice. The problem surely comes from spurious information touted as fact to suggest one or other objectively inferior or completely useless device ("hi-end" cables, rca dust caps with diamonds in them) 'sounds better'. In other words, trying to force subjectivity into objectivity. This is, ideally, a phenomena to be expunged from the hobby forevermore.

However, in much the same way that musical taste is a subjective preference so it the playback medium. And as with any subjective process there may be many and varied, completely bonkers and yet equally valid, preferences. Personally, making recordings on cassette or R2R for playback is a meditative process and part of the ritual of playback I sometimes like to indulge in. The inherent irrationality of this is precisely what gives it a ritualistic element. (I also like pretty spinning things and VU meters).

I wouldn't suggest it for anyone else necessarily. But I still want my objectively inferior mediums to be objectively as good as possible (affordable) to facillitate my subjective enjoyment.

If only the 'subjectivists' could admit to themselves why they might prefer their favourite medium we could forge a more peaceful conversation!