• 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!

Repentant subjectivist

Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
74
Hello everyone. I got into the audiophile hobby in early 2017.

I am a former subjectivist that staunchly argued about how blind testing "couldn't be trusted". I was convinced that the more money I threw at the gear, the better it would sound. I was convinced that some dac, amp and headphone combinations would create unique, magical results where the personality trait of each component had to be matched delicately to get the best results.

I became obsessed, going from focusing on the next headphone, to "upgrading" every part of my chain - from a pair of 200$ hi-fi earbuds to a rig consisting of Stax SR-007 via a SRM-727II amp, Gustard x20 Pro DAC, schiit eitr converter, usb jitterbug. I paid for Tidal Hi-Fi via ROON bitperfect streaming, and made sure all my cables were audioquest.

I had some "close calls" where I was very close to knowing the truth. Alas, it wasn't until 2019 I understood how wrong I was. Here are some of those close calls:

- Once when I was talking to an engineer that sold homemade headphone amplifiers, and I asked him about pairing with my current headphones, whether they would sound "dark" or "bright" or something like that. He gave me an answer that sounded something like this: "Well, I cannot comment on the sound. What I will say is that it will amplify the signal of any headphone on the market today through its 4 gain stages. The headphones in question can easily be driven by this amplifier. This amp has a low noise floor etc etc". I thought it was strange how he gave me that sort of answer, without "bragging" more about what his product could do. I figured he just didn't understand anything about audiophile listening.

- I switched my rig from my living room with a laptop to my desktop solution in my office, and I remember noticing that the sound was clearly better on my desktop. But I couldn't understand why - I mean, everything was identical, from the software to the hardware components except the laptop vs desktop, and I saw no reason why that would play a difference. I was likely responding to the more engaging seating position, or the large wide screen monitor vs the small laptop monitor or something similar. At the time, I just put it down to one of audios many unsolved mysteries

- When I got heavy into Stax equipment, I got to know of some "legendary" amplifiers that were supposed to completely change the sound signature of the headphones - namely the Mjolnir Carbon amplifier and/or the Blue Hawaii Special Edition. Evidently, the headphones I owned didn't really "shine" until they were matched with this specific equipment, costing around 6,000$ USD. I asked around with someone more technically inclined which said that my amp should be able to drive my headphones - and I thought it sounded amazing. Further, I was confused on how the amplifier could literally change the entire character of the headphone. I mean, I could at the time definitely believed that the "bass became fuller, the soundstage wider and the imaging more precise", however the owners of said amps said that the headphone basically went from being a bit dark sounding to essentially perfectly neutral and perfect in all ways. Beyond that, there was an even more expensive and legendary amplifier from Stax called the T2 which nobody could get their hands on except a DIY model, costing well over 10,000$. And guess what - the owners of that amp said it sounded EVEN BETTER.

One day, I decided to sell my 007. While shopping for a replacment, I realized that I actually prefered the sound of a cheaper electrostat, the SR-L500. I was shocked, because I was sure that when I got the 007, it was at least 10 times as good as anything I had ever heard before, yet here I was downgrading to a way cheaper model, and I couldn't say one was objectively better than the other. From there, I decided to stop rationalizing and accept a more scientific approach. Of course, the entire hobby I had known was shattered - most of what was being talked about on Head-Fi and SBAF were results of psychological effects that had nothing to do with actual sound.

Nowadays, I find it extremely creepy to browse head-fi and SBAF - it is as if there are huge amount of people being put under a spell. I always figured I was rational and wouldn't be fooled, but I was completely wrong. And I was so convinced too, I would probably go on live television defending the honor of audiophiles if I was asked to. I am embarassed, however I find it cathartic to read about sane people dismantling audiophile bullshit. So I decided to make a user on these forums, which seems to be more... enlightened.

I hope this thread isn't posted in the wrong sub-forum. I also hope that any other reformed subjectivists could share their story of how they were once fooled into believing that what was only psychological effects was legitimate differences in audio fidelity.
 

Vict0r

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
647
Likes
1,581
Location
The Netherlands
Good for you, man. Just beware you don't end up in yet another cult. The Enlightened Objectivists are pretty creepy in their own right. :p
 

suttondesign

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
732
Likes
1,310
Location
Bellingham, WA
I've been a rationalist/objectivist since I started out in audio in 1978. Not sure why. I stuck with Shure cartridges, for example. Anyhoo, when I began dealing in objectively good electronics a few years ago, I began getting queries from potential customers about whether something I sell will improve on something the customer already owns. In essence, customers are begging for subjectivist validation (aka word stew). Well, I sell as a hobby on the side, so I don't need to hustle anyone. I either deflect the question in just the way Repentant got from the headphone amp maker, or else I just tell people, straight out, I don't believe there are audible differences among measurably transparent devices, but you're welcome to judge for yourself. I describe the different features of things, which is really the differentiator, and then usually refer them to ASR.

Most of these customers never reach out to me again, but a few either continue on undeterred by my own bias (which, good for them and happy trails) or else find redemption through cheaper, measurably-better equipment. I mean, the Topping DX7, right?
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
Funny how these things sound like an AA meeting.. not that I know, other than what one sees in movies ;) .

It only took you two years, that’s quite impressive! And now several years “clean” :cool:

There must be a badge for that ;)
 
OP
R
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
74
Thank you for all the friendly comments everyone!

Funny how these things sound like an AA meeting.. not that I know, other than what one sees in movies ;) .

It only took you two years, that’s quite impressive! And now several years “clean” :cool:

There must be a badge for that ;)

Hehe, indeed! As I said, I really find it creepy. I can imagine this is what a former scientologist feels like.

I consider myself lucky to somewhat randomly "stumble" into a situation that spurred me to just be honest with myself. I could just as well have ended up rationalizing further - I came up with (to me at least) quite convicing arguments for why my subjectivist approach was correct. I also think my highly addictive personality forced me to hit "rock bottom" as an audiophile (i.e the rig taking up my entire desk and costing a literal fortune) faster than most, which in turn made quick progress of the "upgraditis" by simply leaving me nowhere to go but down again - and that experience essentially ensured that I had to be honest to myself.
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,699
Location
Chicago
Hello everyone. I got into the audiophile hobby in early 2017.

I am a former subjectivist that staunchly argued about how blind testing "couldn't be trusted". I was convinced that the more money I threw at the gear, the better it would sound. I was convinced that some dac, amp and headphone combinations would create unique, magical results where the personality trait of each component had to be matched delicately to get the best results.

I became obsessed, going from focusing on the next headphone, to "upgrading" every part of my chain - from a pair of 200$ hi-fi earbuds to a rig consisting of Stax SR-007 via a SRM-727II amp, Gustard x20 Pro DAC, schiit eitr converter, usb jitterbug. I paid for Tidal Hi-Fi via ROON bitperfect streaming, and made sure all my cables were audioquest.

I had some "close calls" where I was very close to knowing the truth. Alas, it wasn't until 2019 I understood how wrong I was. Here are some of those close calls:

- Once when I was talking to an engineer that sold homemade headphone amplifiers, and I asked him about pairing with my current headphones, whether they would sound "dark" or "bright" or something like that. He gave me an answer that sounded something like this: "Well, I cannot comment on the sound. What I will say is that it will amplify the signal of any headphone on the market today through its 4 gain stages. The headphones in question can easily be driven by this amplifier. This amp has a low noise floor etc etc". I thought it was strange how he gave me that sort of answer, without "bragging" more about what his product could do. I figured he just didn't understand anything about audiophile listening.

- I switched my rig from my living room with a laptop to my desktop solution in my office, and I remember noticing that the sound was clearly better on my desktop. But I couldn't understand why - I mean, everything was identical, from the software to the hardware components except the laptop vs desktop, and I saw no reason why that would play a difference. I was likely responding to the more engaging seating position, or the large wide screen monitor vs the small laptop monitor or something similar. At the time, I just put it down to one of audios many unsolved mysteries

- When I got heavy into Stax equipment, I got to know of some "legendary" amplifiers that were supposed to completely change the sound signature of the headphones - namely the Mjolnir Carbon amplifier and/or the Blue Hawaii Special Edition. Evidently, the headphones I owned didn't really "shine" until they were matched with this specific equipment, costing around 6,000$ USD. I asked around with someone more technically inclined which said that my amp should be able to drive my headphones - and I thought it sounded amazing. Further, I was confused on how the amplifier could literally change the entire character of the headphone. I mean, I could at the time definitely believed that the "bass became fuller, the soundstage wider and the imaging more precise", however the owners of said amps said that the headphone basically went from being a bit dark sounding to essentially perfectly neutral and perfect in all ways. Beyond that, there was an even more expensive and legendary amplifier from Stax called the T2 which nobody could get their hands on except a DIY model, costing well over 10,000$. And guess what - the owners of that amp said it sounded EVEN BETTER.

One day, I decided to sell my 007. While shopping for a replacment, I realized that I actually prefered the sound of a cheaper electrostat, the SR-L500. I was shocked, because I was sure that when I got the 007, it was at least 10 times as good as anything I had ever heard before, yet here I was downgrading to a way cheaper model, and I couldn't say one was objectively better than the other. From there, I decided to stop rationalizing and accept a more scientific approach. Of course, the entire hobby I had known was shattered - most of what was being talked about on Head-Fi and SBAF were results of psychological effects that had nothing to do with actual sound.

Nowadays, I find it extremely creepy to browse head-fi and SBAF - it is as if there are huge amount of people being put under a spell. I always figured I was rational and wouldn't be fooled, but I was completely wrong. And I was so convinced too, I would probably go on live television defending the honor of audiophiles if I was asked to. I am embarassed, however I find it cathartic to read about sane people dismantling audiophile bullshit. So I decided to make a user on these forums, which seems to be more... enlightened.

I hope this thread isn't posted in the wrong sub-forum. I also hope that any other reformed subjectivists could share their story of how they were once fooled into believing that what was only psychological effects was legitimate differences in audio fidelity.
This is the way.
 

Maki

Active Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
478
I was a subjectivist when I first started out in audio for a very brief period of time, before I did any research. I think I had a DT880 and a schiit stack at the time. I went through an upgrade or two and noticed almost no difference, unlike the the exaggerated crap online reviewers rave about when comparing dacs and amps. I've always known about the ridiculousness of audiophile cables so that naturally lead to questioning all electronics. After I bought some LCDs and got into headphones for real, I did my research and came to the conclusions that most here share. The idea that there's some kind of magic in an electronic device - that doesn't fly with me. If there's a real effect, it's in the signal coming out and we can quantify that. Ironically this has led to me appreciating all sorts of amps and dacs because of all the interesting designs out there.

Also: the 007MK2.9 is fantastic with some EQ. It may be worth revisiting if you ever get into software EQ. My opinions of headphones before and after EQ almost always change.
 

bryanl9581

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
14
Likes
19
I think the biggest issue here might be the availability of the objectivists' point of view. I have only been messing around with this hobby off and on for a few years now, so I have been mostly doing research and following the more reputable (in YouTube land) reviewers on YouTube. Until recently, the only exposure I had to the objectivist point of view was from the perspective of subjectivists who mostly belittle the objectivists ("They don't listen"). Therefore, I came in with a negative view of objectivists. Interestingly, the way I heard about this site was through GR Research's forum and comments on his videos. I like his approach of measuring and upgrading speakers that don't measure well, and I am getting more into DIY audio. After I looked around on ASR I realized I found an untapped (to me) well of knowledge and a viewpoint based on science and data, which naturally appeals to me. I really think that more people would leave the subjectivist camp if they were aware of ASR, and it looks like that is changing.

Another reason why I think people want to cling to subjectivism is that many audiophiles are also gearheads. If you are a gearhead, you love the potential for getting that better amp or DAC or streamer, but objectivists feel that speakers, the room, and DSP are the most important considerations. This leaves the gearheads with many fewer categories of gear to obsess over.
 

devopsprodude

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
332
Likes
324
Location
Beaverton, OR
I think the biggest issue here might be the availability of the objectivists' point of view. I have only been messing around with this hobby off and on for a few years now, so I have been mostly doing research and following the more reputable (in YouTube land) reviewers on YouTube. Until recently, the only exposure I had to the objectivist point of view was from the perspective of subjectivists who mostly belittle the objectivists ("They don't listen"). Therefore, I came in with a negative view of objectivists. Interestingly, the way I heard about this site was through GR Research's forum and comments on his videos. I like his approach of measuring and upgrading speakers that don't measure well, and I am getting more into DIY audio. After I looked around on ASR I realized I found an untapped (to me) well of knowledge and a viewpoint based on science and data, which naturally appeals to me. I really think that more people would leave the subjectivist camp if they were aware of ASR, and it looks like that is changing.

Another reason why I think people want to cling to subjectivism is that many audiophiles are also gearheads. If you are a gearhead, you love the potential for getting that better amp or DAC or streamer, but objectivists feel that speakers, the room, and DSP are the most important considerations. This leaves the gearheads with many fewer categories of gear to obsess over.
I'm an objectivist and a gearhead. I have no problems rationalizing purchase of more expensive stuff. "Just for the hell of it." "I want to try it out." etc... :D
 
OP
R
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
74
I was a subjectivist when I first started out in audio for a very brief period of time, before I did any research. I think I had a DT880 and a schiit stack at the time. I went through an upgrade or two and noticed almost no difference, unlike the the exaggerated crap online reviewers rave about when comparing dacs and amps. I've always known about the ridiculousness of audiophile cables so that naturally lead to questioning all electronics. After I bought some LCDs and got into headphones for real, I did my research and came to the conclusions that most here share. The idea that there's some kind of magic in an electronic device - that doesn't fly with me. If there's a real effect, it's in the signal coming out and we can quantify that. Ironically this has led to me appreciating all sorts of amps and dacs because of all the interesting designs out there.

Also: the 007MK2.9 is fantastic with some EQ. It may be worth revisiting if you ever get into software EQ. My opinions of headphones before and after EQ almost always change.

I had many chances to do my research, however there were always some convenient rationalization for why I didn't need to actually do any research - mostly that obviously we cannot possibly understand everything that goes into how everything from the pads of the headphones, how they are shaped, the distance from element to ear, whatever was going on inside the element, how the implementation of burrito filters would affect the cold analytic qualities of a solid state amplifier and so on. As you can see, a lack of any technical knowledge became my downfall. Some things in life are black and white, like math and physics, while others are up for interpretation, like politics and law. I think I mistook audio for the latter, somehow.

As for the 007, I think they are fantastic headphones. My subjective impression from memory is that it was very "resolving" and I enjoyed it and could be happy with it, had it not been for the fact that I prefer a bit brighter presentation, which the L500 provides. As for EQ, I don't dare to EQ simply because I have no idea what I'm doing. I remember back in my subjectivist days, I would shy away from any and all EQ for a different reason - I thought the engineers behind the headphones, the dacs and the amplifiers were to be trusted - my job was just to blend them together in a way that sounded great. Any EQ would screw up the magic that the engineers had created. Of course knowing that the L500 sounds different to me than someone else depending on loads of factors, this belief doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think the biggest issue here might be the availability of the objectivists' point of view. I have only been messing around with this hobby off and on for a few years now, so I have been mostly doing research and following the more reputable (in YouTube land) reviewers on YouTube. Until recently, the only exposure I had to the objectivist point of view was from the perspective of subjectivists who mostly belittle the objectivists ("They don't listen"). Therefore, I came in with a negative view of objectivists. Interestingly, the way I heard about this site was through GR Research's forum and comments on his videos. I like his approach of measuring and upgrading speakers that don't measure well, and I am getting more into DIY audio. After I looked around on ASR I realized I found an untapped (to me) well of knowledge and a viewpoint based on science and data, which naturally appeals to me. I really think that more people would leave the subjectivist camp if they were aware of ASR, and it looks like that is changing.

Another reason why I think people want to cling to subjectivism is that many audiophiles are also gearheads. If you are a gearhead, you love the potential for getting that better amp or DAC or streamer, but objectivists feel that speakers, the room, and DSP are the most important considerations. This leaves the gearheads with many fewer categories of gear to obsess over.

True. However, in my case, I remember visiting this site back when I was a subjectivist, believe it or not. I will try to explain my attitude at the time:

Users on this site (and other objectivists) are simply salty because they can't afford or aren't willing to prioritize the money to squeeze out every last bit of audio enjoyment. In my eyes, objectivists were people who weren't willing to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks on their rigs (typically a schiit stack + HD650s), and just tried to rationalize their stance via cherry picking available science so that they could live on happily believing that their gear was as good as it gets.

While me and the subjectivists were the true audiophiles that actually had a burning passion for listening to high fidelity playback - we were willing to spend thousands of dollars if it meant a bit more precise imaging, a bit more "slam" and "dynamic presentation", or perhaps a more "liquid" sound. And the objectivists just weren't hardcore enough, and hadn't heard it with their own eyes. If I could just take an objectivist and put my gear on his head, he'd understand.

Its so embarrasing to type out, but that is literally what I thought. I even got banned from the headphones subreddit because I kept insisting on some ridiculous subjective claim I made to be the objective truth.
 

Maki

Active Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
478
I had many chances to do my research, however there were always some convenient rationalization for why I didn't need to actually do any research - mostly that obviously we cannot possibly understand everything that goes into how everything from the pads of the headphones, how they are shaped, the distance from element to ear, whatever was going on inside the element, how the implementation of burrito filters would affect the cold analytic qualities of a solid state amplifier and so on. As you can see, a lack of any technical knowledge became my downfall. Some things in life are black and white, like math and physics, while others are up for interpretation, like politics and law. I think I mistook audio for the latter, somehow.

As for the 007, I think they are fantastic headphones. My subjective impression from memory is that it was very "resolving" and I enjoyed it and could be happy with it, had it not been for the fact that I prefer a bit brighter presentation, which the L500 provides. As for EQ, I don't dare to EQ simply because I have no idea what I'm doing. I remember back in my subjectivist days, I would shy away from any and all EQ for a different reason - I thought the engineers behind the headphones, the dacs and the amplifiers were to be trusted - my job was just to blend them together in a way that sounded great. Any EQ would screw up the magic that the engineers had created. Of course knowing that the L500 sounds different to me than someone else depending on loads of factors, this belief doesn't make a lot of sense.
You should at least give it a try, oratory1990s presets are a good starting point even if you're not the biggest fan of the Harman target (I'm not, personally). If you don't like it you can always uninstall the program - it's free after all. You know all those things people say about amplifier upgrades? "Better bass, more present mids, perfectly neutral, etc"? That's actually achievable with EQ and good transducers like the L500. The hard part is understanding your preferences and how certain sounds correlate with certain frequency ranges and how to adjust the preset to match what you want. Learning to do this also helps with reading and understanding measurement graphs. Though I have to say, if you're already super satisfied with what you have, playing with EQ might just introduce more audiophile neuroticism. There's always the tendency to go and tweak things and the thought that "it's not perfect yet I can still improve it".
 
OP
R
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
74
You should at least give it a try, oratory1990s presets are a good starting point even if you're not the biggest fan of the Harman target (I'm not, personally). If you don't like it you can always uninstall the program - it's free after all. You know all those things people say about amplifier upgrades? "Better bass, more present mids, perfectly neutral, etc"? That's actually achievable with EQ and good transducers like the L500. The hard part is understanding your preferences and how certain sounds correlate with certain frequency ranges and how to adjust the preset to match what you want. Learning to do this also helps with reading and understanding measurement graphs. Though I have to say, if you're already super satisfied with what you have, playing with EQ might just introduce more audiophile neuroticism. There's always the tendency to go and tweak things and the thought that "it's not perfect yet I can still improve it".

I think that theres a high chance that I would be too affected by some strange subjective believes I might have about the results of the EQ; for instance, maybe I decrease treble, and I get the sense that I am missing detail, and then I do really feel as if I am missing detail, for instance. I am very happy with how they sound, so thats probably the main reason why I haven't bothered getting into EQing. That might change as time goes on, however I haven't felt the need to do so yet.

Its funny how you say "it's not perfect yet I can still improve it", because that reminds me of something else about my subjectivist past - something which I only fully realized once I understood how wrong I had been;

I often imagined up errors with my headphones. I've owned a lot of headphones; HD650, LCD 2, TH 900, HPDX 1000, Z7R, until I got into Stax, where this problem subsided to a certain degree.

For instance, I could be listening to the LCD 2 and read some old thread about them on head-fi where users would say "wow!! these are amazing! I think I prefer them to my <insert old unobtanium headphone I thought was TOTL>" - incredible! My LCD 2's sound so fantastic, wow listen to this part of the track, so dynamic, so liquid, so amazing! Then the next day I could read some other impressions of someone prefering lets say the HD800. All of a sudden, I would be thinking "damn, yeah these LCD 2s are alright but imagine the soundstaging and detail retrieval of a HD800...." Hell, even without comparisons I could often just imagine what the more expensive headphones probably would sound like. I imagined every listening session with a pair of say Utopias or 009 to be literally orgasmic, I mean it was heads and shoulders above the LCD 2s obviously, which only cost a fraction of what the TOTL models.

I remember thinking I needed to own one pair of Audio Technica W5000s for its "amazing midrange sound", one pair of TH 900s for its heavy bass, one pair of HD800 for its soundstage, one pair of ... etc etc, literally swapping headphones for each category of music I was to ever listen to. Because headphones were like pokemon, with completely different sounds that had their own sort of amazing magic, and I could just keep imaging what a certain headphone might sound like based on the impressions of someone online, spurring me to purchase those headphones.

On of the most shocking effects were when I started frequenting SBAF. The users there were particularly elitist, something I fell for hook line and sinker. So when the users started talking about how "multibit" was the true window into a nice sound without all that delta sigma glare, preferably through a schiit eitr, I was sold.

At the time I received the modi multibit and schiit eitr, I think it was probably the most impactful upgrade I had ever made to my system - and only for a couple of hundred bucks!!! Incredible! I think I described it as a much more spacious sound, with zero treble fatigue and more punch. I had imagined that this was probably what it would sound like, and it delivered. It held so much weight because I thought the SBAF users were the true heroes of the hobby, with little to no bias. LOL
 

LightninBoy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
712
Likes
1,458
Location
St. Paul, MN
Users on this site (and other objectivists) are simply salty because they can't afford or aren't willing to prioritize the money to squeeze out every last bit of audio enjoyment. In my eyes, objectivists were people who weren't willing to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks on their rigs (typically a schiit stack + HD650s), and just tried to rationalize their stance via cherry picking available science so that they could live on happily believing that their gear was as good as it gets.

While me and the subjectivists were the true audiophiles that actually had a burning passion for listening to high fidelity playback - we were willing to spend thousands of dollars if it meant a bit more precise imaging, a bit more "slam" and "dynamic presentation", or perhaps a more "liquid" sound. And the objectivists just weren't hardcore enough, and hadn't heard it with their own eyes. If I could just take an objectivist and put my gear on his head, he'd understand.

To be fair, the fact that I'm cheap probably has more to do with me choosing the objectivist path than any superior technical knowledge or wisdom. So, I empathize with the subjectivist plight, and know that there, but for the grace of being a miserly bastard, go I.
 
Top Bottom