• 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!

Singular Objectivity

KellenVancouver

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,332
Likes
10,744
This forum is focused on technical reviews of audio (and related) equipment with its goal being impartial objectivity. To my way of thinking, objectivity and reality are synonyms. We can distort reality through subjectivity, but objective reality persists. Period. And this forum is where the veils of subjectivity get peeled away to expose the accuracy of objective reality, as evidenced by measurable outcomes. This is far and away the primary reason I'm attracted to audiosciencereview, and individually benefits me so that I may focus on purchasing the BEST audio equipment in any given audio category. I suspect that attraction is likewise shared by many other participants here.

But it occurs to me that objectivity should result in a singular answer to a question, not multiple variants. For example, 2+2=4 achieves objectivity. There is only one answer to 2+2, not multiple variants. When a question elicits multiple variants, then that seems to imply elements of subjectivity. Variant answers indicate feelings, biases, or beliefs are distorting objectivity. Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? An objective answer to a question should be singular, not plural.

If the above perspectives about objectivity are true (and they are only perspectives being shared; I am not presuming "ultimate" truth), then the logical consequence of that line of reasoning leads to an interesting outcome. If the question is which item of equipment in each audio category is objectively the BEST for us to invest in, then that question should be answerable objectively with only one result. So there should be a BEST turntable, a BEST amplifier, a BEST speaker, a BEST streamer, a BEST dac, etc. For you long-standing participants in this forum, can you objectively answer those questions?

I suspect not.

I suspect answers to BEST in each category would diverge wildly. Despite everyone's professed adherence to objectivity in this forum, I highly doubt even ten audiosciencereview members could agree on BEST in any one category, much less 20,000+ members. Perhaps the only way to achieve singular objectivity in the audio world is to reduce down to tiny little questions, such as distortion, or SINAD, or similar, but that scarcely serves to answer which is the BEST piece of equipment in a given category that deserves our money. Which seems to imply that, for that ultimate decision about where to invest our money, objectivity in the world of audio science has either not been achieved, or is unobtainable, and what unfortunately remains is the dominance of subjectivity.
 
Rating something like speakers or headphones for yourself is like rating a pair of shoes.

For Speakers, the room must fit, the style of music needs to fit, the source quality must fit ...
For Headphones, the physical head shape of the listener must fit [...]

Otherwise, you can have really poor experience even with the best measured equipment.
Humans are imperfect, complicated beings.
 
[EDIT: The rise of "the new physics" in the second half of the 19th Century, and] Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [in particular] kind of threw the Newtonian notion of a single, absolute objective reality out into the alley.
 
This forum is focused on technical reviews of audio (and related) equipment with its goal being impartial objectivity. To my way of thinking, objectivity and reality are synonyms. We can distort reality through subjectivity, but objective reality persists. Period. And this forum is where the veils of subjectivity get peeled away to expose the accuracy of objective reality, as evidenced by measurable outcomes. This is far and away the primary reason I'm attracted to audiosciencereview, and individually benefits me so that I may focus on purchasing the BEST audio equipment in any given audio category. I suspect that attraction is likewise shared by many other participants here.

But it occurs to me that objectivity should result in a singular answer to a question, not multiple variants. For example, 2+2=4 achieves objectivity. There is only one answer to 2+2, not multiple variants. When a question elicits multiple variants, then that seems to imply elements of subjectivity. Variant answers indicate feelings, biases, or beliefs are distorting objectivity. Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? An objective answer to a question should be singular, not plural.

If the above perspectives about objectivity are true (and they are only perspectives being shared; I am not presuming "ultimate" truth), then the logical consequence of that line of reasoning leads to an interesting outcome. If the question is which item of equipment in each audio category is objectively the BEST for us to invest in, then that question should be answerable objectively with only one result. So there should be a BEST turntable, a BEST amplifier, a BEST speaker, a BEST streamer, a BEST dac, etc. For you long-standing participants in this forum, can you objectively answer those questions?

I suspect not.

I suspect answers to BEST in each category would diverge wildly. Despite everyone's professed adherence to objectivity in this forum, I highly doubt even ten audiosciencereview members could agree on BEST in any one category, much less 20,000+ members. Perhaps the only way to achieve singular objectivity in the audio world is to reduce down to tiny little questions, such as distortion, or SINAD, or similar, but that scarcely serves to answer which is the BEST piece of equipment in a given category that deserves our money. Which seems to imply that, for that ultimate decision about where to invest our money, objectivity in the world of audio science has either not been achieved, or is unobtainable, and what unfortunately remains is the dominance of subjectivity.
Most of us have quality gear that probably measure quite flat in a reasonable acoustic listening room. To be objective i guess it is more a question of reasonable placement speakers an who has a listening room with quality acoustics and or how can you improve that acoustics (treatment, DSP a combination!) than who has the best/expensive gear to form a opinion ( subjective or objectively).

Still room acoustics does not has the attention it deserve imo.
 
Last edited:
The objective side of ASR: using quantitative measurements to evaluate gear, and prioritizing scientific research on hearing and listener preference when applicable.

"Best" is an inherently subjective concept. And ultimately all this gear serves a subjective listening experience.

An objective approach to audio can't replace the subjective part of being a music listener or audiophile. As others have mentioned, "best" always depends on your personal preferences, budget, and environment. This is true in audio, clothing, food, or anything else you might buy based on preference.

What it does (and what ASR) does is put objective information in its proper place - subjective reviewers use subjective experiences to characterize things that can actually (and should) be quantified. Amir and Erin and objectvist reviewers in general strive to give you the facts so you can form your own opinions.

The other guys just give you their opinions, in case you want to borrow one instead of forming one.

That's the real difference here I think.
 
Perhaps the only way to achieve singular objectivity in the audio world is to reduce down to tiny little questions, such as distortion, or SINAD, or similar, but that scarcely serves to answer which is the BEST piece of equipment in a given category that deserves our money
You name it. Simple one-dimensional answers are only possible for simple one-dimensional questions. Test one very specific characteristic at at time and rate it.

However, any piece of audio equipment is characterized by literally hundreds of such simple question. Which of those, with whatever weighting, are important to whom and under what conditions is pretty much arbitrary, also because even the experts in their respective fields don't always have a consensus.

Therefore, the idea of finding a simple answer to what's best does not work out, never did and never will. This has nothing to do with objectivity.
 
[EDIT: The rise of "the new physics" in the second half of the 19th Century, and] Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [in particular] kind of threw the Newtonian notion of a single, absolute objective reality out into the alley.
The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle explains Reality when the Wave function collaps or so called determinisme. So if you See (determine) one duck an See (determine) a second duck the Wave function collaps an you See an determine 2 ducks over an over again quite predictable a third duck wil not appear. Same with acousticly measured rooms an gear that are not altered. So i trust my ears till they are disfunctionele:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
For electronics, this site uses the term transparent.

There are lots of transparent devices, but price and features differ. For a streaming device, I want it capable of lots of services and have a good control app. Some people will pay extra for styling.

Speakers that measure flat might have unpleasant room interactions, or might require awkward placement.

What can be said is that beyond a certain point, money doesn’t buy better sound.
 
At its best:

ASR provides objective information to help inform you how to reach your personal, subjective goals.

(EG a goal of seeking high Fidelity equipment, balanced against any other considerations or compromises you are satisfied with).
 
I would caution that one be careful with both context and assumptions in discussions like this. E.g., even that simple mathematical statement, 2+2=4 is true only for bases > 4. Out of habit, most of here assume base 10, while dinosaurs, like me, remember counting all the way of up to F on a regular basis. ;)
 
[EDIT: The rise of "the new physics" in the second half of the 19th Century, and] Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [in particular] kind of threw the Newtonian notion of a single, absolute objective reality out into the alley.

2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?

In the News [ 60 ]
|
Contributors [ 177 ] | View All Responses [ 184 ]
kai_krause's picture
Kai Krause
Software Pioneer; Philosopher; Author, A Realtime Literature Explorer

The Uncertainty Principle
It was born out of a mistranslation and has been misused ever since....but let us do a little thought experiment first:
Let's say you are a scientist and you noticed a phenomenon you would like to tell the world about. "The brain...", you say, "... can listen to a conversation and make sense of the frequencies, decode them into symbols and meaning... but when it is confronted with two such conversations simultaneously, it cannot deal with both threads in parallel. At best it can try to switch back and forth quickly, trying to keep up with the information."

So much for your theory—you formulate your findings and share it with colleagues, it gets argued and debated, just as it should be.

But now something odd happens: while all your discussions were in English, and you wrote it in English, and despite the fact that a large percentage of the leading scientists and Nobel Laureates are English speaking...somehow the prevailing language for publication is....Mongolian! There is a group in Ulaan Baatar, merrily taking your findings with great interest and your whole theory shows up all over the place...in Mongolian.

But here is the catch: you wrote that it is not possible to listen to two conversations at the same time, and thus their meaning to you is, well, undefined, until you decide to follow one of them properly.

However, as it turns out, Mongolian has no such word—"undefined"! Instead it got translated with an entirely different term: "uncertain", and the general interpretation of your theory has suddenly mutated from "one or the other of two conversations will be unknown to you" to the rather distinctly altered interpretation "you can listen to one, but the other will be.....entirely meaningless".

Saying that I am "unable to understand" both of them properly is one thing, but... my inability to perceive it does not render each of the conversations suddenly "meaningless", does it?

All of this is of course just an analogy. But it is pretty close to exactly what did happen—just the other way round: the scientist was Werner Heisenberg.
His observation was not about listening to simultaneous conversations but measuring the exact position and momentum of a physical system, which he described as impossible to determine at the same time. And although he discussed this with numerous colleagues in German (Einstein, Pauli, Schrödinger, Bohr, Lorentz, Born, Planck just to name some of the Solvay Conference group of 1927) the big step came in the dissemination in English, and there is the Mongolian in our analogy!

Heisenberg’s idea had quickly been dubbed Unschärferelation, which transliterates to “unsharpness relationship,” but as there is really no such term in English ('blurred', 'fuzzy', 'vague' or 'ambiguous' have all been tried), the translation ended up as "the Uncertainty Principle"—when he had not used either term at all (some point to Eddington). And what followed is really quite close to the analogy as well: rather than stating that either position or momentum are "as yet undetermined", it became common usage and popular wisdom to jump to the conclusion that there is complete "uncertainty" at the fundamental level of physics, and nature, even free will and the universe as such. Laplace's Demon killed as collateral damage (obviously his days were numbered anyway....)

Einstein remained skeptical his entire life: to him the "Unbestimmtheit" (Indeterminacy) was on the part of the observer: not realizing certain aspects of nature at this stage in our knowledge—rather than proof that nature itself is fundamentally undetermined and uncertain. In particular implications like the "Fernwirkung" (action at a distance) appeared to him "spukhaft" (spooky, eerie). But even in the days of quantum computing, qbits and tunnelling effects, I still would not want to bet against Albert ;) His intuitive grasp of nature survived so many critics and waves of counter-proof ended up counter-counter-proved.

And while there is plenty of reason to defend Heisenbergs findings, it is sad to see such a profound meme in popular science, which is merely based on a loose attitude towards translation ( and there are many other such cases...). I would love to encourage writers in French or Swedish or Arabic to point out the idiosyncracies and unique value of those languages—not for semantic pedantry but the benefit of alternate approaches.

German is not just good for Fahrvergnügen, Weltanschauung & Zeitgeist, there are many wonderful subtle shades of meaning. It is like a different tool to apply to thinking—and that's a good thing: a great hammer is a terrible saw.
 
Einstein never accepted the notion of quantum mechanics.
 
Anything judged by our senses of smell, taste or hearing will ultimately be subjective regardless of the objective arguments. We're only human...
 
If the question is which item of equipment in each audio category is objectively the BEST for us to invest in, then that question should be answerable objectively with only one result
Apart from the nuances laid out by others wrt preference, which is imo the most important reason your post is skewed wrt logic, I'd just want to say that this reasoning isn't very sound. Pun sort of intended. As in: suppose 2 brands produce 2 amplifiers with completely different topology (or DACs or..) which measure equally, then are those only 'one result', or rather two? Are they one result because the measurements aren't adequate to distinguish them? Or are they distinct results even though all objective measurements tell they're equal? Could more accurate measurements make one better than the other even though what one measurement measures is provably as inaudible as what the 'lesser' measurement measures? Etc. I.e., what is 'best'?
 
Last edited:
If the question is which item of equipment in each audio category is objectively the BEST for us to invest in, then that question should be answerable objectively with only one result. So there should be a BEST turntable, a BEST amplifier, a BEST speaker, a BEST streamer, a BEST dac, etc. For you long-standing participants in this forum, can you objectively answer those questions?

There's no "best" anything in my experience.
 
There's no "best" anything in my experience.

Agreed. At least from my perspective I can’t think of a piece of equipment I’ve ever owned that was “ the best.” Every piece has its compromises. For instance, even my Benchmark LA4 preamp, while having some of the best measurements you can find, still has, for me, homely aesthetics and unimpressive haptics.
 
I have a Physics degree. Audio is not a quantum phenomenon as for the electronics involved we are interested in current not the behaviour of individual electrons. Sound waves are similarly classical. It a distraction to bring quantum theory into audio discussions.



As for the uncertainty principle we have to remember that we cannot measure quantum particles with absolute precision, so there is a fundamental blur to any value we might calculate. It is only philosophical to say that if we know position exactly we know nothing about momentum, since we cannot know either property with zero uncertainty.



Einstein is like a band that put out two albums that changed the way music was appreciated but then regurgitated the same thing forever while telling everyone who was still innovating that their work has no substance. Neils Bohr demolished Einstein's objections to QM one by one in front of the world in 1927 at the Solvay conference.



It's also worth remembering that "using quantum mechanics" involves writing the appropriate equation and correctly employing the correct math, and calculating the probability density distribution of the quantum property ( e.g. energy) in question.



Is there an objective reality independent of attempts to measure it? Probably. (pun intended).



The measurement of audio electronics can discover if a device works as it should or not. That's all. What makes you buy a specific product is about you, your wants and preferences, not the product.
 
Which seems to imply that, for that ultimate decision about where to invest our money, objectivity in the world of audio science has either not been achieved, or is unobtainable, and what unfortunately remains is the dominance of subjectivity
A is best, it is cheapest (in my economic zone)
B is best, it has the lowest distortion
C is best, it goes up to 11

This is an optimisation problem, for which the parameters are potentially objective but also personal. There might be a global optimum in some categories but certainly not all. In particular, speakers are full of compromises.

Think Top Trumps, but with lots of question marks in the categories.
 
Imo the question really isn't as simple as "what's best". The question is more like, "what's best in such-and-such use case, given such-and-such priorities, and such-and-such constraints."

And if we are going to leave room for innovation, the question becomes even more complicated: "What's best among the options currently in existence and adequately evaluated given such-and-such use case... "

The immense and unique value of ASR is that it teaches us HOW to fish, rather than necessarily telling us which fish is "the best".

In my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom