Subjectivists EVERYWHERE!!!!

[dtaylo1066]

Some may want to exercise a bit more tolerance.

 

[MattHooper]

I really do wish we could dispense with the "subjective" vs. "objective" terminology. I know I hope in vain. But the problem isn't subjective evaluation, it's uncontrolled subjective impressions masquerading as controlled subjective testing.

That sentiment has been expressed here before and I certainly understand the motivation behind it.

However, my issue is: what do we have to replace the terms with?

Short hand terms are often not only convenient but necessary. If you take one away, it will likely need to be replaced if language isn't to become too unweildy.

I think at least around here the term "subjectivist" and "objectivist" is used advisedly. We all know that, for instance, measuring audio equipment doesn't mean the subjective doesn't matter. The whole point of measuring audio equipment is relevant to what is ultimate a subjective listening impression.

When I use the terms I usually mention that I'm using "subjectivist" and "objectivist" to denote essentially a difference in epistemic attitudes.
That is what they will rely on to "know" something about audio gear.

"Subjectivists" are those who put the lions share of their confidence on (uncontrolled-for-bias) subjective impressions as telling them truths about audio gear. "If I perceived it, it's true. My ears don't lie."

This subjective epistemology has the liability of not being able to winnow imagination from real sonic phenomenon, making this cohort especially susceptible to believing in much of the audiophile shibboleths like "everything changes the sound" and belief in dubious "snake oil" tweaks etc.

The "Objectivist" does not place all his confidence in unadulterated subjectivity, but acknowledges his limitations both in what he can hear (vs what can be measured), and in what he can trust about his subjectivity (e.g. acknowledges his subjective inferences can be wrong, mislead by bias). Hence the epistemology of the Objectivist recognizes the relevance of objective measurements and more scientific listening tests, controlling for sighted biases.

So, to me the terms "Subjectivist" and "Objectivist" work just fine for denoting this general epistemic divide that really does seem to be the meat of the conflict.

Since it's an epistemic distinction, it doesn't mean that an Objectivist IS or HAS TO always be measuring everything, or putting all his subjective listening to controlled double blind tests. That is impractical, and most don't want to even bother. But the Objecitivist will RECOGNIZE his limitations under which he's making any inference or any claim, and understand at least that, yes, if I want to really have higher confidence levels, measurements will play a part, especially correlated to perception, and at it's best, controlling for sighted bias.

So my question is, if the above doesn't really get to the nature of the divide we see when people around here complain about those audiophiles confidently going in for "snake oil" stuff, or for those same audiophiles complaining about ASR types being too beholden to measurements, what does?

Basically, what other term can you or anyone else give us to replace those terms. If we are going to refer to groups of people, or an attitude/belief among groups of people that we want to address, what is it going to be? I'm all ears.

Cheers.

 

[Wes]

I'm confused. Is the subjectivist audio consumer in this analogy a poodle or a poodle owner? Is it a digital or analog poodle? Is distortion like rabies or worse?

It's whatever you want based on your subjective preferences!

 

[DWI]

@Inner Space,

All valid points. We do tend to be harsh and in some respect hypocritical. I make no arguments to the contrary. We are as a group too fast to tag a new member as a troll or something similar. But at the end of the day. This is a science centric forum and science deniers are not going to get many passes from the core membership. We can’t convert everyone and some will ultimately find their way to the Exit. It’s a daily dance as the reports roll in. Most are here because they are tired of reading subjective make believe narratives and watching the crowd cheer. This is a very unique Forum. Trying to find the proper balance is challenging and I expect it to become more so as our numbers grow.

I tend to agree with you, but I don't accept that the "subjectivists" are science deniers. "Science", or natural philosophy, has mostly been a matter of making observations and developing theories to explain those observations, that ultimately make observations predicable. I doubt many, if any "subjectivists" deny reported measurements, they just don't consider they tell the whole story about sonic performance.

I've just spent a lot of money on my audio system - building a new music room - without buying any new hifi components. When you play the same system in a bare room and the same room acoustically treated, it makes the differences between most components seem largely inconsequential. None of the acoustic treatment is visible, in fact you'd never know there was an audio system in the room.

 

[Wes]

Science is not natural philosophy, and while it does involve making observations and developing theories to explain those observations, that is not the crux of the biscuit.

 

[JohnBooty]

I'm a strong believer in the objective truths established by the research published by Olive, Tool, etc.

I don't find it contradictory to point out that the correlations established by that research are not absolute. The models, while accurate, explicitly leave some room for individual preference and hearing differences. They also (for practical reasons) don't consider every single possible objectively measurable variable.

I believe that the objectively accurate reproduction of sharp dynamic peaks is pretty key to listener enjoyment, a relatively difficult feat for speakers+amplifiers to do well, and is something that most if not all of the commonly-cited research tends to ignore.

At times this has gotten me branded a subjectivist. Which I find odd. I believe in the objective measurements and research surrounding them; I just don't think our work is finished yet. I wonder if astronomers get branded "subjectivists" for suggesting that there's much we haven't discovered yet...

 

[Spkrdctr]

OK, I didn't get my intent for my post across in the OP. The thread is looking at subjectivists vs Objectivists. I meant I have seen a LOT of people masquerading as loyal objectivists who either do not realize or intentionally give creedence to subjectivists clap trap junk science (or no science). They are posting as if they are objectivists, but I keep pointing out that they open the door to non-scientific, nonsense that is not audible, no way, no how.
This is what I mean by many here "seem" to have serious leanings toward subjectivism even when the science is mostly settled, if not settled. I don't know what it is but AdamG247 seems to understand my piss poor writing here on this forum. I hope it is not because he has lots of experience with toddlers!

Now looking at this thread in this new way, who else is surprised by what a lot of people post who believe they are strongly in the objectivists camp, but wander onto subjectivism on a regular basis? I'm talking about assigning "mystical" properties to equipment with the old camel nose under the tent statements, like "sure that signal my be 300db down but if you have great speakers and equipment and listen closely, you might be be able to hear it", when we all know it will never be heard. Now, I just made up this example just to try and get the "idea" of what I'm talking about across.
What say our loyal readers?

 

[DWI]

That sentiment has been expressed here before and I certainly understand the motivation behind it.

However, my issue is: what do we have to replace the terms with?

Short hand terms are often not only convenient but necessary. If you take one away, it will likely need to be replaced if language isn't to become too unweildy.

I think at least around here the term "subjectivist" and "objectivist" is used advisedly. We all know that, for instance, measuring audio equipment doesn't mean the subjective doesn't matter. The whole point of measuring audio equipment is relevant to what is ultimate a subjective listening impression.

When I use the terms I usually mention that I'm using "subjectivist" and "objectivist" to denote essentially a difference in epistemic attitudes.
That is what they will rely on to "know" something about audio gear.

"Subjectivists" are those who put the lions share of their confidence on (uncontrolled-for-bias) subjective impressions as telling them truths about audio gear. "If I perceived it, it's true. My ears don't lie."

This subjective epistemology has the liability of not being able to winnow imagination from real sonic phenomenon, making this cohort especially susceptible to believing in much of the audiophile shibboleths like "everything changes the sound" and belief in dubious "snake oil" tweaks etc.

The "Objectivist" does not place all his confidence in unadulterated subjectivity, but acknowledges his limitations both in what he can hear (vs what can be measured), and in what he can trust about his subjectivity (e.g. acknowledges his subjective inferences can be wrong, mislead by bias). Hence the epistemology of the Objectivist recognizes the relevance of objective measurements and more scientific listening tests, controlling for sighted biases.

So, to me the terms "Subjectivist" and "Objectivist" work just fine for denoting this general epistemic divide that really does seem to be the meat of the conflict.

Since it's an epistemic distinction, it doesn't mean that an Objectivist IS or HAS TO always be measuring everything, or putting all his subjective listening to controlled double blind tests. That is impractical, and most don't want to even bother. But the Objecitivist will RECOGNIZE his limitations under which he's making any inference or any claim, and understand at least that, yes, if I want to really have higher confidence levels, measurements will play a part, especially correlated to perception, and at it's best, controlling for sighted bias.

So my question is, if the above doesn't really get to the nature of the divide we see when people around here complain about those audiophiles confidently going in for "snake oil" stuff, or for those same audiophiles complaining about ASR types being too beholden to measurements, what does?

Basically, what other term can you or anyone else give us to replace those terms. If we are going to refer to groups of people, or an attitude/belief among groups of people that we want to address, what is it going to be? I'm all ears.

Cheers.

The problem is that most ASR "objectivists" don't recognise the limitations of the measurmentalist approach.

One problem with the objectivist approach is that it can only measure components, not complete systems, but people often buy complete systems. I get invited to listen to systems, usually made up of components with which I am unfamiliar and have no preconceived notions. Complete systems can sound obviously and radically different. Possibly the most expensive one I heard, well in excess of $500,000, was to me unbearable and I had to leave the room after a few minutes.

Another slightly cheaper system was so enjoyable I would have bought the whole thing without any enquiry of individual components. A couple of years later my wife chose speakers from the same brand and we are delighted with them. No amount of dispersion plots and SINAD measurements would have persuaded me that I as wrong in enjoying that particular system.

I have also heard systems that I have not enjoyed, but completely understand why other people like them.

I believe that the objectively accurate reproduction of sharp dynamic peaks is pretty key to listener enjoyment, a relatively difficult feat for speakers+amplifiers to do well, and is something that most if not all of the commonly-cited research tends to ignore.

I agree entirely and is a primary reason for the purchase of my amplifier 5 years ago, which I have never regretted. It is not just about enjoyment, it makes acoustic music sound that much more real.

 

[MattHooper]

I still get some value from some subjective reviewing. And from trading impressions of gear with other audiophiles.

At the same time, I think ASR (and the ASR youtube channel) is one of the most important audio web sites at this time. Anything that educates and exposes B.S. is a good thing in the audio world.

But there is a tough tightrope to walk.

I doubt anyone wants this simply to be a repeat of Hydrogenaudio.

But for those of us who came from, or who still sometimes inhabit, the typical audiophile forums, rife with all their dubious claims and (frankly, often, ignorance), a site like ASR can be like finding an oasis. And frankly it can feel good, even necessary, to just be able to VENT about what we have seen as nonsense, and have other like-minded people understanding and agreeing. That in of itself feels kind of valuable. And I've indulged in it myself.

At the same time, even in this thread we can see terms like "audiophool" applied to products or the people who buy them. So a problem there is:

1. It's hard to entice people in to consider your view if you start out by calling them "fools" and disparaging them.

2. It can be emblematic of a blind spot, where we are simply assuming our own goals to disparage anything that departs from the goal. Without stepping back and recognizing other people may have other goals, that make their choices reasonable. So for instance, not every amp or speaker manufacturer is shooting for neutrality, or the type of performance numbers many here are looking for. And some portion of audiophiles aren't either, and so a speaker/amp that may not measure "well" by ASR standards isn't automatically due to incompetence, or an attempt to "dupe" customers, or the customer is a hapless dupe. It may simply be that manufacturer has their own goals, and there is a niche of audiophiles whose criteria it serves.

So there's a sort of tension between this place being where we can let it all hang out in our frustration with some faction of audiophiles and manufacturers, while also wanting to hopefully welcome as many of those as possible in to recognizing the relevance of measurements etc.

And then there is another "tension" that can come from more "subjectivists" showing up. On one hand, again, good to gain more people to educate. On another, they really are coming from a place that served a real desire lots of us have: that is to talk about how things SOUND to us.
To exchange subjective notes "I heard X speaker and didn't like it for these reasons..." A place that bans that talk (e.g. hydrogenaudio) can come off as just too arid and not meeting that need as well.

But then if you start saying "all subjective reports welcome!" then the place can start looking like just the audiophile forums it was supposed to be the antidote for!

So...there's some not so obviously easy lines to tread, it seems to me.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OK, I didn't get my intent for my post across in the OP. The thread is looking at subjectivists vs Objectivists. I meant I have seen a LOT of people masquerading as loyal objectivists who either do not realize or intentionally give creedence to subjectivists clap trap junk science (or no science). They are posting as if they are objectivists, but I keep pointing out that they open the door to non-scientific, nonsense that is not audible, no way, no how.
This is what I mean by many here "seem" to have serious leanings toward subjectivism even when the science is mostly settled, if not settled. I don't know what it is but AdamG247 seems to understand my piss poor writing here on this forum. I hope it is not because he has lots of experience with toddlers!

Now looking at this thread in this new way, who else is surprised by what a lot of people post who believe they are strongly in the objectivists camp, but wander onto subjectivism on a regular basis? I'm talking about assigning "mystical" properties to equipment with the old camel nose under the tent statements, like "sure that signal my be 300db down but if you have great speakers and equipment and listen closely, you might be be able to hear it", when we all know it will never be heard. Now, I just made up this example just to try and get the "idea" of what I'm talking about across.
What say our loyal readers?

Going back to your original post I agree that we seem to have an influx of subjectivists or those who are maybe still in both camps in recent weeks. The forum is much larger than a couple years ago. So it maybe I'm just clicking on those outlier topics while many more that fit the ethos of this forum I am not reading. The truth is the growth has been large enough there are more of any and every type of post going on versus prior times on ASR.

 

[Doodski]

I meant I have seen a LOT of people masquerading as loyal objectivists who either do not realize or intentionally give creedence to subjectivists clap trap junk science (or no science). They are posting as if they are objectivists, but I keep pointing out that they open the door to non-scientific, nonsense that is not audible, no way, no how.

That's exactly how I've experienced it too. Debates with peeps as if they are objectivists when they just babble about subjectivist rubbish. We need a flow chart for picking out and posting for subjectivists when they pretend they are objectivists.

 

[Doodski]

One problem with the objectivist approach is that it can only measure components, not complete systems, but people often buy complete systems.

Is this the old excuse of "synergy" term used for audio gear?

 

[Wes]

OK, I didn't get my intent for my post across in the OP. The thread is looking at subjectivists vs Objectivists. I meant I have seen a LOT of people masquerading as loyal objectivists who either do not realize or intentionally give creedence to subjectivists clap trap junk science (or no science). They are posting as if they are objectivists, but I keep pointing out that they open the door to non-scientific, nonsense that is not audible, no way, no how.
This is what I mean by many here "seem" to have serious leanings toward subjectivism even when the science is mostly settled, if not settled. I don't know what it is but AdamG247 seems to understand my piss poor writing here on this forum. I hope it is not because he has lots of experience with toddlers!

Now looking at this thread in this new way, who else is surprised by what a lot of people post who believe they are strongly in the objectivists camp, but wander onto subjectivism on a regular basis? I'm talking about assigning "mystical" properties to equipment with the old camel nose under the tent statements, like "sure that signal my be 300db down but if you have great speakers and equipment and listen closely, you might be be able to hear it", when we all know it will never be heard. Now, I just made up this example just to try and get the "idea" of what I'm talking about across.
What say our loyal readers?

This is nearly meaningless as written. Give specific examples, without making one up or indulging in overly general rants. In other words, be objective.

 

[blueone]

And, of course, appropriate for this thread, vultures everywhere...

Edit: A bit of trivia... next year will be the 80th anniversary of the release of Casablanca.

 

[rdenney]

That sentiment has been expressed here before and I certainly understand the motivation behind it.

However, my issue is: what do we have to replace the terms with?

Short hand terms are often not only convenient but necessary. If you take one away, it will likely need to be replaced if language isn't to become too unweildy.

I think at least around here the term "subjectivist" and "objectivist" is used advisedly. We all know that, for instance, measuring audio equipment doesn't mean the subjective doesn't matter. The whole point of measuring audio equipment is relevant to what is ultimate a subjective listening impression.

When I use the terms I usually mention that I'm using "subjectivist" and "objectivist" to denote essentially a difference in epistemic attitudes.
That is what they will rely on to "know" something about audio gear.

"Subjectivists" are those who put the lions share of their confidence on (uncontrolled-for-bias) subjective impressions as telling them truths about audio gear. "If I perceived it, it's true. My ears don't lie."

This subjective epistemology has the liability of not being able to winnow imagination from real sonic phenomenon, making this cohort especially susceptible to believing in much of the audiophile shibboleths like "everything changes the sound" and belief in dubious "snake oil" tweaks etc.

The "Objectivist" does not place all his confidence in unadulterated subjectivity, but acknowledges his limitations both in what he can hear (vs what can be measured), and in what he can trust about his subjectivity (e.g. acknowledges his subjective inferences can be wrong, mislead by bias). Hence the epistemology of the Objectivist recognizes the relevance of objective measurements and more scientific listening tests, controlling for sighted biases.

So, to me the terms "Subjectivist" and "Objectivist" work just fine for denoting this general epistemic divide that really does seem to be the meat of the conflict.

Since it's an epistemic distinction, it doesn't mean that an Objectivist IS or HAS TO always be measuring everything, or putting all his subjective listening to controlled double blind tests. That is impractical, and most don't want to even bother. But the Objecitivist will RECOGNIZE his limitations under which he's making any inference or any claim, and understand at least that, yes, if I want to really have higher confidence levels, measurements will play a part, especially correlated to perception, and at it's best, controlling for sighted bias.

So my question is, if the above doesn't really get to the nature of the divide we see when people around here complain about those audiophiles confidently going in for "snake oil" stuff, or for those same audiophiles complaining about ASR types being too beholden to measurements, what does?

Basically, what other term can you or anyone else give us to replace those terms. If we are going to refer to groups of people, or an attitude/belief among groups of people that we want to address, what is it going to be? I'm all ears.

Cheers.

Matt—too much!

Data-driven versus feeling-driven.

The problem with the usual terms is that it’s bringing the wrong argument and drawing tribal boundaries in the wrong place. And it’s unscientific. Any word that ends in “-ist” becomes a label of belief rather than principle and a tool of pontification and tribalism.

If people want to be driven by feelings, that’s fine. If they claim their feelings are supported, bring the data and show it. If they don’t make that claim, then we have no issue. If they claim the data isn’t good enough to explain their feelings, well, duh. It moves the boundary where it really is, and makes it about motivation rather than belief.

Rick “enough tribes these days” Denney

 

[Spkrdctr]

Going back to your original post I agree that we seem to have an influx of subjectivists or those who are maybe still in both camps in recent weeks. The forum is much larger than a couple years ago. So it maybe I'm just clicking on those outlier topics while many more that fit the ethos of this forum I am not reading. The truth is the growth has been large enough there are more of any and every type of post going on versus prior times on ASR.

That is most likely true and probably the real answer! New people come in "thinking" they are objectivists and do not realize (innocently) how much marketing subjectivism has colored their thinking. So, without realizing it, they buy into false theories or ideas of what may or may not be audible. I see and firmly believe that the single biggest issue in audio is "What is audible in a normal quiet residential home setting while listening to real music at normal (65 to 90db) levels? That is the big elephant in the room. If a tweak, or a DAC, or an Amp or a wire or really anything can't be heard in a realistic situation, does it matter? Of course my version of a realistic situation is quite broad to encompass most, if not all of normal everyday listening. Many, many audio enthusiasts waste time and money on stuff that will not effect their listening at all. Wires? Nope. Interconnects? Nope. Amp? Nope, Power cord? Nope. Cable lifters? Nope. Anti-vibration isolators? Nope. But tell them to setup their speakers some with location, toe in and ear to tweeter height, along with some EQ to balance out some of the large in room peaks and they walk away as it is too much work, but spending 10,000.00++ on useless stuff is easy....... Easier to read audiophile stuff and believe, than to actually take action and set up a system as best you can on whatever budget you have. That is the real money trick right there. I could be rich if I got a nickel for every photo of a $20,000 system with zero setup I have seen over the years. It is unbelievable. I call them high dollar screech makers!

 

[Jim Matthews]

Now, I just made up this example just to try and get the "idea" of what I'm talking about across.
What say our loyal readers?

Don't make things up, invent Strawmen or commit logical fallacies here.

That's a start.

 

[MattHooper]

Matt—too much!

Data-driven versus feeling-driven.

The problem with the usual terms is that it’s bringing the wrong argument and drawing tribal boundaries in the wrong place. And it’s unscientific. Any word that ends in “-ist” becomes a label of belief rather than principle and a tool of pontification and tribalism.

If people want to be driven by feelings, that’s fine. If they claim their feelings are supported, bring the data and show it. If they don’t make that claim, then we have no issue. If they claim the data isn’t good enough to explain their feelings, well, duh. It moves the boundary where it really is, and makes it about motivation rather than belief.

Rick “enough tribes these days” Denney

Sure...but that is a problem with virtually ANY term used to describe a group.

But, groups there are.

I mean, it would perhaps be good if the world weren't divided so much in to different religious groups. But the fact is that they are, and we need handy terms to describe which groups of people we may be talking about - e.g. Christian/Protestant/Catholic/Hindu/Muslim. Wishing is one thing, having to describe the world is another.

We can talk about what to believe and how.

But we also have the phenomenon of people who believe things, and why.

How then do you propose we refer to the cohort of audiophiles who do not share the view that is generally espoused by Amir and many at ASR?
I mean, are there not groups of audiophiles who denigrate the worth of measurements, or who take their subjectivity to be central in vetting gear?
And who believe in stuff like audiophile fuses, AC cables etc? Yes, there are.

If we want to refer to those audiophiles in a way that acknowledges the difference from what you or I may believe, do you have a term that does the job so we know who we are talking about?

That's what was left out from your reply.

Like I said I'm all ears for an alternative solution to the problem.
Cheers.

 

[rdenney]

Sure...but that is a problem with virtually ANY term used to describe a group.

But, groups there are.

I mean, it would perhaps be good if the world weren't divided so much in to different religious groups. But the fact is that they are, and we need handy terms to describe which groups of people we may be talking about - e.g. Christian/Protestant/Catholic/Hindu/Muslim. Wishing is one thing, having to describe the world is another.

We can talk about what to believe and how.

But we also have the phenomenon of people who believe things, and why.

How then do you propose we refer to the cohort of audiophiles who do not share the view that is generally espoused by Amir and many at ASR?
I mean, are there not groups of audiophiles who denigrate the worth of measurements, or who take their subjectivity to be central in vetting gear?
And who believe in stuff like audiophile fuses, AC cables etc? Yes, there are.

If we want to refer to those audiophiles in a way that acknowledges the difference from what you or I may believe, do you have a term that does the job so we know who we are talking about?

That's what was left out from your reply.

Like I said I'm all ears for an alternative solution to the problem.
Cheers.

Yes, if they can't explain the mechanism analytically, or show empirical results, they are driven by feelings--their impressions. If the differences are real, they can at least demonstrate that their impressions are repeatable and don't depend on prior knowledge of the device they are hearing.

They say, "I can hear the difference!" Okay, so show me. If they can hear the difference in a controlled listening test, then measurers will be challenged to figure out how to measure it. But they can't do that (because they are deluding themselves or attempting to delude others), or they won't do that (because their beliefs and associations are more important to them than facts), and the only conclusion is that they are feelings-driven, not data-driven.

(There is nothing wrong with feelings, or even being feelings-driven. Just don't state a feelings-based conclusion as if it is authoritative data. That's the key issue for most of us.)

I do not live by the assumption that we can measure everything that is important. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. As SIY once said, much arm-waving (feelings) to avoid conducting a controlled listening test (data). That statement of SIY's never escapes the subjective regime.

Rick "we can be data-driven and never leave subjective evaluation" Denney

 

[MaxBuck]

@Inner Space,

All valid points. We do tend to be harsh and in some respect hypocritical. I make no arguments to the contrary. We are as a group too fast to tag a new member as a troll or something similar. But at the end of the day. This is a science centric forum and science deniers are not going to get many passes from the core membership. We can’t convert everyone and some will ultimately find their way to the Exit. It’s a daily dance as the reports roll in. Most are here because they are tired of reading subjective make believe narratives and watching the crowd cheer. This is a very unique Forum. Trying to find the proper balance is challenging and I expect it to become more so as our numbers grow.

I completely agree we're a science-centric forum. But occasionally posters are excoriated for "subjectivism" inappropriately.

It's not "subjective" to suggest that measurement technology may be neither quite so settled science nor so complete in explaining sonic phenomena as some here might posit. Questioning one's own experimental methods and designs on an ongoing basis is a characteristic of really good scientists -- and engineers. Not sure I see enough of that from some of the technically astute here.