Pointed to elsewhere ...
http://www.audiostream.com/content/subjectivistobjectivist-synthesis-jason-stoddard
http://www.audiostream.com/content/subjectivistobjectivist-synthesis-jason-stoddard
-
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!
The Subjectivist/Objectivist Synthesis
- Thread starter fas42
- Start date
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
"because, let’s face it, the best mod that improves musical enjoyment is probably alcohol…it will almost certainly beat the pants off of any car-priced DAC"
Thanks Frank. It is a decent read but flawed. For him to put a lens on each camp, he needs to have more first hand experience than he is demonstrating. As it is, it reads like justification for the business they have created (lower cost, high-end gear).
For example, he brings no first hand experience of testing himself/subjects to see how far they go wrong in their appraisals. He talks about "bias" but if he had only experienced testing audiophiles on one thing to another to see them fail over and over again, he would put less trust in their method as he does. It is not like subjectivists get it 50% right. They are lucky if they get 1% of it right! I have tested them and it is so disappointing. Even things that we can show can theoretically be audible, is well below their detection thresholds.
Same for what audio science says and engineers in it. He says every engineer he knows thinks gear sounds different. Well, he must only know the engineers in the high-end and naturally that is what they say or believe. Step into AES and ASA world and the verdict is unanimous in dismissing subjective sighted testing. And differences claimed in equipment. Again, it is not even close.
He says subjectivists have open mind. They don't have open minds or they would listen to the other camp. They have totally closed mind. What they are is 100% believability in any and all things that make sense to one's gut. That is not open mindedness. If someone took any and all supplements on the Internet thinking and believing they do good, do we call them open minded? I don't think so.
On the objectivists the biggest issue I find is what I call "forum objectivists" who have decided to make a name for themselves online by constantly arguing the mainline points without themselves ever reading or understanding what they shove under the nose of the other side. Many are mean spirited SOBs (just as there are in subjectivists camp) and give the science and engineer a bad name. Erase them and the discussions become far more constructive and informative.
Net, net, I consider his compliments to objectivists as back-handed. Ultimately he is a less hardcore subjectivists. He has a long way to go to actually understand what true audio science/engineering is.
For example, he brings no first hand experience of testing himself/subjects to see how far they go wrong in their appraisals. He talks about "bias" but if he had only experienced testing audiophiles on one thing to another to see them fail over and over again, he would put less trust in their method as he does. It is not like subjectivists get it 50% right. They are lucky if they get 1% of it right! I have tested them and it is so disappointing. Even things that we can show can theoretically be audible, is well below their detection thresholds.
Same for what audio science says and engineers in it. He says every engineer he knows thinks gear sounds different. Well, he must only know the engineers in the high-end and naturally that is what they say or believe. Step into AES and ASA world and the verdict is unanimous in dismissing subjective sighted testing. And differences claimed in equipment. Again, it is not even close.
He says subjectivists have open mind. They don't have open minds or they would listen to the other camp. They have totally closed mind. What they are is 100% believability in any and all things that make sense to one's gut. That is not open mindedness. If someone took any and all supplements on the Internet thinking and believing they do good, do we call them open minded? I don't think so.
On the objectivists the biggest issue I find is what I call "forum objectivists" who have decided to make a name for themselves online by constantly arguing the mainline points without themselves ever reading or understanding what they shove under the nose of the other side. Many are mean spirited SOBs (just as there are in subjectivists camp) and give the science and engineer a bad name. Erase them and the discussions become far more constructive and informative.
Net, net, I consider his compliments to objectivists as back-handed. Ultimately he is a less hardcore subjectivists. He has a long way to go to actually understand what true audio science/engineering is.
- Thread Starter
- #4
I see him saying subjectivists "are open to new ideas". Which is not the same thing as being "open to what the other camp is saying".
Which is to say they are not open minded at all. After all, how can you have an open mind when you only believe what is in your own camp and hence already believed?
dallasjustice
Major Contributor
Subjectivist are only "open" to their own unique infallibility.
Personally I think dual narratives like this are a a consequence of forum/online interactions, or at least their proliferation is. While seductive , they call out to our most basic selfs and inhibit free independent thought.
These absurd polar divides are manifesting themselves (or being reinforced in a unhelpful way) in other more important areas of society than our relatively frivolous realm and are really damaging.
The divide in home audio is guys who want pleasing sound and guys who need to know how things work, unfortunately a lot of the guys who want pleasing sound think things work in which ever way their imagination wishes. They are in a way creative in the listening process and don't question the validity of their own influence on what they expirence when listening to a system.
Generally, when a person chooses what to eat, drink, touch, smell , listen too etc etc it's done out of a responses to their senses or mood. Unless knowing or feeling the need to know how things work is vitally important to us, we don't bother.
If you need to categorise yourself as this or that, if it makes you feel you belong , more secure, affirmed etc knock yourself out, personally I think it's rather sad.
This forum is a place for those who want to know how things work and believe in the merits of formal knowledge as a means to gaining understanding.
These absurd polar divides are manifesting themselves (or being reinforced in a unhelpful way) in other more important areas of society than our relatively frivolous realm and are really damaging.
The divide in home audio is guys who want pleasing sound and guys who need to know how things work, unfortunately a lot of the guys who want pleasing sound think things work in which ever way their imagination wishes. They are in a way creative in the listening process and don't question the validity of their own influence on what they expirence when listening to a system.
Generally, when a person chooses what to eat, drink, touch, smell , listen too etc etc it's done out of a responses to their senses or mood. Unless knowing or feeling the need to know how things work is vitally important to us, we don't bother.
If you need to categorise yourself as this or that, if it makes you feel you belong , more secure, affirmed etc knock yourself out, personally I think it's rather sad.
This forum is a place for those who want to know how things work and believe in the merits of formal knowledge as a means to gaining understanding.
blackmetalboon
Active Member
I'm not a regular box swapper so when I make a purchase it generally is for the long term. But narrowing down the search can be pretty time consuming, even with my self imposed limitations.
I don't have the tools to perform measurements, I'm still looking up technical meanings and learning what these measurements mean in the real world, but objectivist's (thanks to sites like this) have probably saved me a small fortune. I picked my speakers out from a shortlist by sound, aesthetics and what would work in my room. The amplification came down to pure specifications and aesthetics. Sources are a different "kettle of fish"!!! I guess you could say I picked my speakers "subjectively" and amplification "objectively", to me that made sense.
Does science and measurements tell us everything we need to know about audio reproduction? I have no idea, that is way beyond my technical expertise, but I don't live in "cloud fucking cuckoo land" like so many subjectivists. I hate the pretentious waffle that emanates from so many so called "audiophiles" across the forums, I have a basic knowledge of Ohms Law but even I can see how much bullshit is taken as gospel by the gullible. How can a receptacle cover plate have any influence on your hifi system?
A recent discussion on WBF on which Amir gave good sensible advice (although he did proceed to continue to wave the red flag to the bull) turned into a character assassination from the subjectivists. I cannot tell you how angry I got reading it (I could but it would probably break your AUP), the blind ignorance was astounding. While objectivists can be stubborn in their ways, their advice has generally (in my experience) been helpful, while subjectivists opinions have been a complete waste. It seems that to subjectivists that the more expensive/exclusive an item is the better it is! To give some context to this I'll happily admit my hifi/av rack cost over £1,000. I chose it due to its modular nature and its weight capability, not its sound signature! I have a full Nordost loom on my 2 channel set up (no mains cables) but it cost less than 2% of my system cost. I own an "audiophile" mains block purely because it was less hassle and cheaper than adding additional sockets for my system, not because it improved the sound.
As a side note, I do find it funny that pretty much every "tweak" is something that the average person can do them self, rather than being fitted/tweaked by a professional!
I could go on but my whiskey intake will prohibit me!
I don't have the tools to perform measurements, I'm still looking up technical meanings and learning what these measurements mean in the real world, but objectivist's (thanks to sites like this) have probably saved me a small fortune. I picked my speakers out from a shortlist by sound, aesthetics and what would work in my room. The amplification came down to pure specifications and aesthetics. Sources are a different "kettle of fish"!!! I guess you could say I picked my speakers "subjectively" and amplification "objectively", to me that made sense.
Does science and measurements tell us everything we need to know about audio reproduction? I have no idea, that is way beyond my technical expertise, but I don't live in "cloud fucking cuckoo land" like so many subjectivists. I hate the pretentious waffle that emanates from so many so called "audiophiles" across the forums, I have a basic knowledge of Ohms Law but even I can see how much bullshit is taken as gospel by the gullible. How can a receptacle cover plate have any influence on your hifi system?
A recent discussion on WBF on which Amir gave good sensible advice (although he did proceed to continue to wave the red flag to the bull) turned into a character assassination from the subjectivists. I cannot tell you how angry I got reading it (I could but it would probably break your AUP), the blind ignorance was astounding. While objectivists can be stubborn in their ways, their advice has generally (in my experience) been helpful, while subjectivists opinions have been a complete waste. It seems that to subjectivists that the more expensive/exclusive an item is the better it is! To give some context to this I'll happily admit my hifi/av rack cost over £1,000. I chose it due to its modular nature and its weight capability, not its sound signature! I have a full Nordost loom on my 2 channel set up (no mains cables) but it cost less than 2% of my system cost. I own an "audiophile" mains block purely because it was less hassle and cheaper than adding additional sockets for my system, not because it improved the sound.
As a side note, I do find it funny that pretty much every "tweak" is something that the average person can do them self, rather than being fitted/tweaked by a professional!
I could go on but my whiskey intake will prohibit me!
Last edited by a moderator:
blackmetalboon
Active Member
It appears to many "f" word upsets the moderators here! They must be believers in the wonders of receptical covers!!!
Well, he has significant experience in outlet wiring. This is the shot I took of him when I was at his house last:
Seriously, there can be consequences with search engines if they confuse the curse words with actual action. What is going on is fine right now but we just need to be mindful of it not going overboard. I know an audio site that actually had to go back and delete a bunch of stuff because of Google flagging it such (in their case was posting of female pictures but still).
Objective as I may try to be about the reproduction, I still like to think I listen to music very subjectively, with the most critical eye first pointing at the composition, then the execution, and lastly, the sound.
