Why haven't subjectivists and objectivists met to do a live ABX test?

[MrSoul4470]

So let's agree that objectivists are the predators and subjectivists are the baby zebras (like me).

Just joking. You are right.

 

[Duckeenie]

The "problem" with objectivity is soon or later you're going to prove yourself wrong.

 

[solderdude]

The "problem" with objectivity is soon or later you're going to prove yourself wrong.

That is less likely to happen to subjectivists.

 

[cinemakinoeye]

The "problem" with objectivity is soon or later you're going to prove yourself wrong.

And the joy of debating with “objectivists” is they pay attention to data and facts and are open to having their conjectures refuted by a good, well reasoned argument backed with evidence; on the other hand; “subjectivists” are trapped in a narrative universe with verisimilitude as the criteria for reality.

 

[DonR]

Absolutely nothing would excite me more than for the current science of audio measurement to be proven wrong. What a world of opportunity that would open up! Unfortunately, the science in this field is fairly mature and high-fidelity audio reproduction SOTA has audibly advanced very little since the late 1960s and even more so since the late 1980s.

 

[Shadrach]

It has been done, or as near as one is likely to get.

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

The problem is always likely to be getting high profile so called experts gathered from the internet to do such a test.
In the test linked to above these were ordinary enthusiasts with an interest in learning. The impression I get from many of the so called experts is they're not interested in learning, just slagging off the other lot with a constant eye on ratings and revenue.

 

[dshreter]

I actually think both camps have it wrong, if you can even call them that as I know there’s lots of diversity of perspective.

Listening to music for pleasure, the objective function is PLEASURE. And objectives and subjectives alike know that there is more that influences the perception and pleasure of sound than the vibrations entering our ears.

Pleasure is difficult to measure though, and I don’t think anyone is signing up for real-time dopamine level measurement when they listen to music.

Expectation bias when you look at pleasure as the objective function isn’t insidious, it’s just an influence. The other thing that’s interesting to me is that the function is extremely path dependent. If you spent your life listening to your car radio, your mind is blown the first time you walk into a hifi shop for a demo. In that moment, there’s no question any system will “sound” better than an 8361 with w371 will to a grizzled hifi veteran.

 

[rsoffer]

I actually think both camps have it wrong, if you can even call them that as I know there’s lots of diversity of perspective.

Listening to music for pleasure, the objective function is PLEASURE. And objectives and subjectives alike know that there is more that influences the perception and pleasure of sound than the vibrations entering our ears.

Pleasure is difficult to measure though, and I don’t think anyone is signing up for real-time dopamine level measurement when they listen to music.

Expectation bias when you look at pleasure as the objective function isn’t insidious, it’s just an influence. The other thing that’s interesting to me is that the function is extremely path dependent. If you spent your life listening to your car radio, your mind is blown the first time you walk into a hifi shop for a demo. In that moment, there’s no question any system will “sound” better than an 8361 with w371 will to a grizzled hifi veteran.

Except what's being sold isn't expectation bias. It is performance.

That's why it matters.

 

[ahofer]

Except what's being sold isn't expectation bias. It is performance.

That's why it matters.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Our experience is triggered by a measurable aural stimulus (equipment/room 'performance'). What happens next belongs to another branch of science, and appears to be unstable and unpredictable.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Having just listened to 10 seconds of music it seems like it may be long enough to decide which is preferable, but probably won't allow for a detailed exposition on the differences. Are these tests usually just 'which do you prefer' or do they expect finer detail?


There's a first time for everything!

Not which do you prefer, it is "Is there ANY difference"? What you prefer is a waste of time as many people will prefer different sounds at different times. You can come up with general sound curves that most people will like, but even that will change if you do multiple tests over a month or so. The brain in the end will fool you.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Before you can have a preference you must detect a difference.

Bingo! That is a real test. Not a preference test. Two different tests for two different uses.

 

[dshreter]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Our experience is triggered by a measurable aural stimulus (equipment/room 'performance'). What happens next belongs to another branch of science, and appears to be unstable and unpredictable.

I actually think in reality what is being sold does include expectation bias. The way a speaker looks literally influences how a speaker sounds in the brain unless you listen to your system blindfolded in the dark. It’s inextricably linked.

Choosing to ignore that is misguided.

 

[ahofer]

The way a speaker looks literally influences how a speaker sounds in the brain

But you miss my point. Is that effect stable, reliable and reproducible? I think a lot of that changes, especially as the novelty wears off, or you've stubbed your toe on it, or your wife rails at it, or...you just get inured to the things you see all the time. Then you are off on the upgrade trail to have the veils lifted again.

I say those non-aural effects are ephemeral and non-stationary. Good equipment, however, will make the same sound each time.

"Misguided" might be a bit much for our differences here. It is possible that seeking consistently great sound is a foolish mission, given all the interference, but I would like to at least recognize one axis of influence that we can reliably optimize.

added, full disclosure: I have come to resent the attempts to lure me with the outrageous price tag, weight, metallic angles, or phallic brutalism of audiophile gear that does nothing special.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I imagine there are some people who wouldn't notice stuff that is very out of whack, then there is maybe 1 in 1000 who have superhuman ability to tell the difference between things that are supposed to be inaudible to the other 999.

It is probably more like a sliding scale, than a hard limit at x point.

No, please no. You are explaining my "God hearing" that I trot out periodically on ASR. We have NOT got the hearing of God. Human hearing is low to mid level in the hearing of all animals. We just are not that awesome in our hearing. If in doubt ask your cat or dog. Both will say our human hearing is lousy.

 

[Killingbeans]

Choosing to ignore that is misguided.

No need to ignore it. Awareness of it and its ability to give wrong conclusions is perfectly sufficient.

 

[rsoffer]

I actually think I’m reality what is being sold does include expectation bias. The way a speaker looks literally influences how a speaker sounds in the brain unless you listen to your system blindfolded in the dark. It’s inextricably linked.

Choosing to ignore that is misguided.

I've never seen marketing materials that read "these amps look so beautiful they'll make your music sound richer!" - it's always this class A topology, linear power supply, etc etc. In other words, performance related to tech under the hood.

There's no doubt that the entire package deal influences our enjoyment of the gear. We know when we're paying for build quality, aesthetics, form factor, user interface, etc. Many are even happy to pay more for something made in the USA. All of this is already priced into what we consider value.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone who goes shopping with expectation bias in mind.

 

[JustJones]

On the other hand, I don't know anyone who goes shopping with expectation bias in mind

I don't know anyone who goes shopping without expectation bias, some simply know it's there lurking.

 

[dshreter]

But you miss my point. Is that effect stable, reliable and reproducible? I think a lot of that changes, especially as the novelty wears off, or you've stubbed your toe on it, or your wife rails at it, or...you just get inured to the things you see all the time. Then you are off on the upgrade trail to have the veils lifted again.

I say those non-aural effects are ephemeral and non-stationary. Good equipment, however, will make the same sound each time.

"Misguided" might be a bit much for our differences here. It is possible that seeking consistently great sound is a foolish mission, given all the interference, but I would like to at least recognize one axis of influence that we can reliably optimize.

added, full disclosure: I have come to resent the attempts to lure me with the outrageous price tag, weight, metallic angles, or phallic brutalism of audiophile gear that does nothing special.

Misguided is not directed at you specifically, and I also strongly agree that non-aural effects are more likely to be ephemeral. I also think that the products you are likely referencing "with the outrageous price tag, weight, metallic angles, or phallic brutalism" especially seem anachronistic and silly today.

That said... I still think for personal listening there is an overemphasis on the objective measures that loses sight of the fact that these things are meant for enjoyment. It's not my preferred price-point, but I think Bang and Olufsen is a really good example of designing hifi products with a 360 degree viewpoint in mind. Aesthetics, ergonomics, usability, interoperability, these are all aspects of design that deserve more attention alongside objective performance.

 

[DonR]

Misguided is not directed at you specifically, and I also strongly agree that non-aural effects are more likely to be ephemeral. I also think that the products you are likely referencing "with the outrageous price tag, weight, metallic angles, or phallic brutalism" especially seem anachronistic and silly today.

That said... I still think for personal listening there is an overemphasis on the objective measures that loses sight of the fact that these things are meant for enjoyment. It's not my preferred price-point, but I think Bang and Olufsen is a really good example of designing hifi products with a 360 degree viewpoint in mind. Aesthetics, ergonomics, usability, interoperability, these are all aspects of design that deserve more attention alongside objective performance.

Until you need to repair one and realize the engineer who designed it was actually insane.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I also think that the products you are likely referencing "with the outrageous price tag, weight, metallic angles, or phallic brutalism" especially seem anachronistic and silly today.

That term sounds scary, like it might require a visit to the ER!