- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,449
- Likes
- 4,819
I am not. I've had pro classical musicians school me on the benefits of cables, be suprised by spectra and, when explained what spectras were, focus on the "beautiful moving colors". They usually have, at least compared to me, very precise clocks in their guts and tuning forks in their ears... that's it for the objective part. All the rest is in subjective territory and, to be honest, I believe it is a good thing. You only have to look at Glenn Gould and his two wildly different interpretation of the same piece. What would music be if all pianists decided to play a piece as closely as possible to the statistical model that most people seem to prefer according to "science" ?I'm surprised that anyone making musical instruments would trust any subjective review instead of buying pro monitors as used in recording studios.
Those people are very well aware of their own subjectivity and are focused on developing it because it is what makes them who their are. They are therefore primed to value subjectivity in other related fields. "A talented speaker designer working by ear" seems very natural to them.
Don't get me wrong here, I am in the camp that believes that machines that render the artist subjectivity should be as objective and accurate as possible but that is a completely different aspect imho.
Edit: don't forget we have thousands of years of instrument design and manufacture by ear. Science and measurements are now used to replicate the results of those early golden eared designers.