Subjectivists EVERYWHERE!!!!

[Pennyless Audiophile]

Graphics designers rarely claim that visual illusions they employ are a major discovery that is unexplained by known science. Audiophile products and their supporters make this claim many times a day.

Because they are.

If I gave you all the info about my hearing, my psychological status, the equipment, my room, and the recording I am listening, would you be capable of telling me the impressions and sensations I am going to have?
The graphic designers can with very good approximation. In audio the approximation is much much worse.

After all, if you think that the whole of the transfer function of a piece of equipment can be given by the frequency response, no wonder you can't. Not that it is not true, it is just not enough to answer the question above.

 

[eddantes]

As a physicist I would caution objectivists who just focus on numbers that it is the psychoacoustic theory that is the important component of being objective.

While some elements of psychoacoustics are well supported others are not.

Take this often used diagram from F Toole's book. 11 subjects is hardly statistically sound.
View attachment 145724

Regards Andrew

That's a good point. I thought @Sean Olive had done more work on this and validated this finding elsewhere, but I can't find the source at the moment. Or perhaps @Floyd Toole can point us?

 

[pkane]

Because they are.

If I gave you all the info about my hearing, my psychological status, the equipment, my room, and the recording I am listening, would you be capable of telling me the impressions and sensations I am going to have?
The graphic designers can with very good approximation. In audio the approximation is much much worse.

After all, if you think that the whole of the transfer function of a piece of equipment can be given by the frequency response, no wonder you can't. Not that it is not true, it is just not enough to answer the question above.

Transfer function of a piece of equipment is defined by the frequency/phase response. No magic or illusion needed to explain it. What you hear in your room with your equipment, your music, your ears, your brain that's your business. I have no way of experiencing the same, without some telepathy or brain-to-brain interface. It's subjective. To an extent that there are some common properties of our subjective perception, these can be studied and measured, as was done by Toole and Olive, for example. Again, no magic.

 

[thefsb]

Is it just me, or is the number of forum posters taken a fairly hard turn to the subjectivists? ... What do you think?

I think that we are all subjectivists, really.

Science and engineering can and obviously do play a useful part in building music recording and playback equipment. But there is no scientifically coherent ultimate purpose for music. We can reasonably talk about artistic and aesthetic truths but not using the scientific method. Bridging the space between these domains of thought isn't something that hasn't been accomplished yet, I don't believe it's possible. I explained how I personally reconcile the science and engineering with my aesthetic purposes pragmatically in this post.

I was able to assemble this pragmatic argument only after spending time on ASR, learning about the measurements, how they relate to objective (statistical) measures of subjective psychoacoustics, and so on, and discussing the matter with other members. I'm especially in debt to @Blumlein 88 for helping me make an important step in that thinking.

I'm quite comfortable with the role science can play in my experience of recorded music. The objective work Amir and others do for us valuable, well worth pursuing and it informs my consumer choices. But it's not so simple and the subjective is inescapable and I've no problem being labeled subjectivist. Just don't call me audiophile!

 

[rdenney]

Understandable. I like gear. But why are they buying the gear?

Because that is the hobby.

Or, because owning certain brands and products allows one to join a club in which they want to be a member.

Or any of the many reasons why we buy stuff we don't functionally need.

Rick "exclusive club membership is a powerful motivator" Denney

 

[thefsb]

As a physicist I would caution objectivists who just focus on numbers that it is the psychoacoustic theory that is the important component of being objective.

What information does a mean opinion score really contain? That information is useful (i.e. has truth) in engineering things to be used by many people, e.g. an audio codec, an iPhone, or a cinema. In that work you want a panel of people statistically representative of market/audience. You can therefore argue the relevance of descriptive statistics of the panel's members' opinions.

But if you are building a custom installation for yourself or some other individual, should you prefer the mean opinion of the panel used by a manufacturer of generic products over that of the person the system is customized for? Maybe you should but I can't think of a scientific reason to do so. Hence I'm not sure there's anything objective in ignoring your own opinion in building your own custom system just because engineering firms have acquired statistics relevant to their commercial purposes. Your purposes are categorically different.

 

[DSJR]

I'm regarded as an arch objectivist on certain subjectivist based audio sites in the UK and an arch subjectivist on other sites and maybe here as well...

The subjectivist argument put forcibly to me is - "What do we buy this gear for? We buy it to listen to music! You can't measure or enjoy music with test gear so why bother about measurements if a piece of audio equipment brings so much emotional pleasure both doing its job and to look at and operate! ALWAYS trust your ears (and feelings) as that's all you've got" - I think that's the gist of it.

I've had to become more objective in my feelings about audio gear because my ears are now not good at all and change almost daily. I have times when they're so bad I can't enjoyably listen to any music at all, but other days when the Rhinitis ain't so bad when it's ok. Having said that, I nearly wrote a later version of my current main speakers off because they were used with an amp I liked but which I discovered had such a high output impedance it acted as a graphic equaliser 'playing' the roller-coaster impedance curve of said speakers (well over 30 ohms in upper mid and dips to below 6 ohms in various places elsewhere). Wasn't until hearing it with more 'universal' amps with recommended power output that I heard how said improved speaker model should sound all along.. Not long after at home, I tried a couple of simple relatively unsighted A-B tests and proved to myself that in the pair, a very slightly louder one always sounded 'clearer,' my confusion setting in when I forgot which was which and messed up trying to match levels between them - I'd fail a comparison miserably under proper blind level matched conditions I now know for certain!

So folks, I'd ask that you remember WHY 'we here' usually buy this stuff (as tools to listen to the music through rather than using music to listen to the gear?), but to not forget that a well balanced in measurement product should by all accounts let themusic through without corrupting it. I'd also perhaps be a bit more forceful about distortion thresholds for the average person to hear - I mean, many valve amps as tested in Stereophile have copious second and third harmonic distortion I think, yet how much odd order distortion can we take (including crossover artefacts which may not apply today) in comparison? Does a slightly higher noise floor as well as reduced separation at high frequencies make an amp 'sound' a little better possibly, even if it's masking distortion? Just thoughts and hope they make sense.

 

[audio2design]

Because they are.

If I gave you all the info about my hearing, my psychological status, the equipment, my room, and the recording I am listening, would you be capable of telling me the impressions and sensations I am going to have?
The graphic designers can with very good approximation. In audio the approximation is much much worse.

After all, if you think that the whole of the transfer function of a piece of equipment can be given by the frequency response, no wonder you can't. Not that it is not true, it is just not enough to answer the question above.

Except it has been shown that preference is relatively consistent from person to person. Perhaps not perfect preference but pretty good. I would say the consistency is as good as with graphic design.

 

[Andrew s]

What information does a mean opinion score really contain? That information is useful (i.e. has truth) in engineering things to be used by many people, e.g. an audio codec, an iPhone, or a cinema. In that work you want a panel of people statistically representative of market/audience. You can therefore argue the relevance of descriptive statistics of the panel's members' opinions.

But if you are building a custom installation for yourself or some other individual, should you prefer the mean opinion of the panel used by a manufacturer of generic products over that of the person the system is customized for? Maybe you should but I can't think of a scientific reason to do so. Hence I'm not sure there's anything objective in ignoring your own opinion in building your own custom system just because engineering firms have acquired statistics relevant to their commercial purposes. Your purposes are categorically different.

I agree with you but your custom system will be subjectively determined by their preference. Nothing wrong with that.

This though was not really the point I was trying to make. What I was saying was that a statement of the type "both DAC x and y are audibly identical because they measure p and q" relies on an underlying theory in psychoacoustic which might either not have a firm foundation or apply to your individual who may differ significantly from the norm.

It may of course be totally valid but it would be good to have a definitive set of reference material that is well validated. Maybe there is one if so I would love a link to it.

Regards Andrew

 

[audio2design]

It may of course be totally valid but it would be good to have a definitive set of reference material that is well validated. Maybe there is one if so I would love a link to it.

Regards Andrew

1 reference? No, but there is vast material of quietest sounds that can be heard, frequency response of hearing, THD that is audible, audibility in the presence of masking, etc. There is unfortunately insufficient data on blind testing, but where proper blind tests are done, with modern DACs (targeted towards accuracy and not playing around with filters), there is little evidence to support claimed audible differences.

 

[MaxBuck]

Because that is the hobby.

Or, because owning certain brands and products allows one to join a club in which they want to be a member.

Or any of the many reasons why we buy stuff we don't functionally need.

Rick "exclusive club membership is a powerful motivator" Denney

Really insightful, Rick.

As a subsidiary remark, why do objectivists here have their shorts in a twist because subjectivists exist and buy stuff we "disapprove of?" It's their money; they should spend it however they like. Wasting it on stuff that has no effect other than psychological is pretty much the foundation of consumerism.

 

[abdo123]

If I gave you all the info about my hearing, my psychological status, the equipment, my room, and the recording I am listening, would you be capable of telling me the impressions and sensations I am going to have?
The graphic designers can with very good approximation. In audio the approximation is much much worse.

Ofcourse you can, it will just take a longer time.

what is difficult to 'approximate' is how much your brain is 'filtering out'

for example, record anything, your voice, music, doesn't really matter.

when you play it in the room it was recorded it in, it will sound great.

play it anywhere else and your brain can't filter out the 'room' because it can no longer sees the room.

Our brain is the issue here, not physics.

 

[Andrew s]

1 reference? No, but there is vast material of quietest sounds that can be heard, frequency response of hearing, THD that is audible, audibility in the presence of masking, etc. There is unfortunately insufficient data on blind testing, but where proper blind tests are done, with modern DACs (targeted towards accuracy and not playing around with filters), there is little evidence to support claimed audible differences.

Maybe a good project for asr to pull it together or extend it where lacking?
Regards Andrew

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

Ofcourse you can, it will just take a longer time.

what is difficult to 'approximate' is how much your brain is 'filtering out'

for example, record anything, your voice, music, doesn't really matter.

when you play it in the room it was recorded it in, it will sound great.

play it anywhere else and your brain can't filter out the 'room' because it can no longer sees the room.

Our brain is the issue here, not physics.

This is exactly what I am advocating, there is very little knowledge of this psychological response, other than intuitive conclusions.
I care up to a point about the outcome of a blind test, because my listening conditions will always be different. And I am not happy to be told "that's up to you, that's your brain", we should be able to understand that as well. Psychology can be a quantitative science, why can't we use those methodologies?

Why can't I have a set of tests and, after those, I have a guidance on the room, the room treatment, the equipment size, the color, the controls of the equipment that are going to give me the maximum emotional response? Why we focus on what is easy to measure but probably it influences the least the feelings that I am going to have?

 

[abdo123]

This is exactly what I am advocating, there is very little knowledge of this psychological response, other than intuitive conclusions.
I care up to a point about the outcome of a blind test, because my listening conditions will always be different. And I am not happy to be told "that's up to you, that's your brain", we should be able to understand that as well. Psychology can be a quantitative science, why can't we use those methodologies?

Why can't I have a set of tests and, after those, I have a guidance on the room, the room treatment, the equipment size, the color, the controls of the equipment that are going to give me the maximum emotional response? Why we focus on what is easy to measure but probably it influences the least the feelings that I am going to have?

this has nothing to do with what this thread is about though?

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

Transfer function of a piece of equipment is defined by the frequency/phase response. No magic or illusion needed to explain it. What you hear in your room with your equipment, your music, your ears, your brain that's your business. I have no way of experiencing the same, without some telepathy or brain-to-brain interface. It's subjective. To an extent that there are some common properties of our subjective perception, these can be studied and measured, as was done by Toole and Olive, for example. Again, no magic.

You are basically telling me, since the electrical properties of the equipment we can measure and we know very well how they work, we just deal with those and screw everything else that concurs to give you the reproduced musical experience? That doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Let me use a metaphor. I can relatively easily learn anything I need about a metal alloy. That's your equipment measurement. And it is all valid, correct and useful.
Yet, if I need to build a structure with it, knowing those properties won't be enough. I will probably need a finite element model if it is somewhat unusual, and also I will have to add strange considerations like that idiot of the welder who was the only one authorized to work with the alloy who broke a leg and is off work for 3 months. That is my experience in my environment with my music and my equipment.

I need to know the material, but for characterizing my experience, I need much more.

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

this has nothing to do with what this thread is about though?

I admit, I am probably off topic...

 

[audio2design]

Really insightful, Rick.

As a subsidiary remark, why do objectivists here have their shorts in a twist because subjectivists exist and buy stuff we "disapprove of?" It's their money; they should spend it however they like. Wasting it on stuff that has no effect other than psychological is pretty much the foundation of consumerism.

Because it essentially survives based on fraudulent or borderline fraudulent activity.

It's akin to the cigarette companies telling smokers there is no danger from smoking when they knew without a doubt there was.

I don't think any of us have an issue with the consumerism, just the lies.

 

[ahofer]

Really insightful, Rick.

As a subsidiary remark, why do objectivists here have their shorts in a twist because subjectivists exist and buy stuff we "disapprove of?" It's their money; they should spend it however they like. Wasting it on stuff that has no effect other than psychological is pretty much the foundation of consumerism.

i don’t see people here upset about purchasing, I see them upset about nonsense claims *in this forum*, fraudulent sales practices, and casting aspersions on science-based evaluation of audio gear generally.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

This forum may have subjectivists but at least they're somewhat reasonable here and they're kept in check by the rest of us.
On other forums it's la-la land. Endless discussions about the sound of wires. Cable elevators. Preamp sound quality ( IMO preamps do not, in general,
have "sound quality"). Sound quality of CD players (again IMO cdp's do not, in general, have "sound quality"). And wait till you see what happens if you challenge them.

Have you done any blind testing on preamps?