What is truly subjective is that very few people have enough facts about the recordings themselves, so we are trying to interpret what we believe is accurate, or objective. However, some things in this world and in audio are simply better than others, and true objectivists should not be afraid to say so. 2 speakers that sound very different from each other both can't be correct. One is , simply better, more accurate, more truthful to the source than the other one. You may like the inferior one, but that doesn't make it better. True high end should be about truthfulness and faithfulness to the source - not some glamorous, artificially sweetened version that many may prefer. That is the trouble I would have with subjectivism. If you don't want true faithfulness to the source, than all you will ever have when discussing audio is arguments, because in that line of thinking there is no right and no wrong - which is ok (ultimately you need to simply enjoy what you bought), but don't confuse that with the literal truth.
Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Brillliantly stated, Keith!
Here's a famous quote from F. Scott :
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Trponhunter, I like much of what you say, but ultimately people are seeking different experiences. Since gear sounds differently, what may be better for you is different than what it is for a reviewer pushing a speaker to sell a magazine and different than it is for some one who loves a very boomy bass or an extra lush midrange. The beauty of life is to explore and to find out what gives you that pleasure and craving for the music experience.
Agreed completely. Now all we have to do is agree that what's "good" in audio is simply what you like. It is not better, more natural, resolving, musical, life-like, real, or authentic; it's not closer to the original event...(this goes on)...it has nothing to do with the amount of money you've spent, how many systems you've heard, how many times you've upgraded, whether you have any idea at all what actual instruments sound like, or how much you know about the technology behind audio recording and reproduction. It is simply your preference, and if we need to rate systems, components and media on a scale of anything more specific than personal tastes, we'll have to rely on the measurements.
We good? Shut down all the audiophile boards. We'll have to talk about music now.
Tim
Can what I like have a description? Can it be present in different degrees? Can different listenres have different levels of perception?
Can a more expereinced person help us sift through all that is avaliable?
I think we are right back where we started
Can a more expereinced person help us sift through all that is avaliable?
I think we are right back where we started
Agreed 100 percent.
I absolutely trust my ears, and I'm sure I never said otherwise. Now, at my age I don't trust myself to hear changes above 14 KHz or so, but for assessing basic quality I have a high level of confidence. Of course, there are some changes that are too small for anyone to hear, such as the difference between 0.01 and 0.02 percent distortion or a 0.1 dB response change. The real issue is as Tom suggested - people believing they hear changes that can't possibly exist, such as fuse direction. If more people understood masking and other hearing limitations, there would be fewer forum arguments.
--Ethan
Related, I recently had an extended discussion on Facebook with a subjectivist who insists he can hear when a CD has been "demagnetized." This fellow lives near me, so I offered to visit him in person to witness him picking out the demagnetized CD blind. He gave every excuse in the book for why he would not submit to such a test! This tells me that, deep down, a lot of people are less sure of their hearing than they want us to believe. These people should either prove they can hear it, or stop claiming they can. And the common "I don't need to prove this to anyone" is no answer either. Hey, if you want your claims to be taken seriously by others, you do in fact need to prove it.
--Ethan
--Ethan
You had me for a minute, Greg. Of course it can have a description, you can even give it a name (Think I'll call mine Clarissa). Can what you like be present in different degrees? Of course! But that get's us nowhere closer to "better," it only gets you more of what you like. Can different listeners have different levels of perception? Perception of what? What you like? I don't think so. I think your level of perception of what you like is the only level that matters. Can a more experienced person help you sift through what you like? No. No one can have more experience of what you like than you can.
Right back where we started? Evidently. Looks like we're already looking for ways to put pseudo-objectivity on our personal tastes (ie: I have a higher level of perception, more experience, therefore what I like is more valid). Same as it ever was....
Tim
Hey, just came across this video from the CTO of ESS technology & it's a refreshing insight into an engineer who actually listens to audio & explains what's wrong with sigma-delta modulators. I know he's also interested in pushing ESS Hyperstream tech but what he says confirms a lot of what I have heard from others & thought of myself. Have a good listen to it well worth the effort.
For those of us with a simplistic view of measurements, think about the detail in this presentation & why a sophisticated approach to measurement & always, always, use your ears!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
For those of us with a simplistic view of measurements, think about the detail in this presentation & why a sophisticated approach to measurement & always, always, use your ears!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
As I posted somewhere lately "my weaknesses are stronger than me!.."
I am keen to my biases and can´t deny it... include me in your fools list What is it that I like? Deep bass. Can we descirbe that?Can we measure that? Liquid modrange? Can we describe that? Can we measure that? Smooth extended highs. Can we describe that? Can we measure that? Is there a standard or absolute for that . So we are back to arguing about how those things are measured and described. We also continue to argue if there is a standrd or absolute and what they are.
I think "deep bass" is description enough, and the bass capability of every component in your system, including your room, can be measured by methods and to standards that are broady accepted, even in the high end. No need to be ambiguous here.
Nope. One man's liquid could be another's smeared. That one's going to be useless outside of Greg's world, but here's the good news -- what is liquid is just your opinion, so no one can tell you their liquid is runnier than yours!
Smooth extended highs. Can we describe that?
Extended, yes. Smooth, no. See deep and liquid above.
Only if you want to be. If we can agree that deep and extended = frequency response +/- X db (and surely we can agree on that), and that it is measurable, and that the measurements, not someone's subjective impression, determine depth and extension, we have nothing to argue about. If we can agree that smooth and liquid are an individual's descriptions of a purely subjective impression and that his smooth is not superior to the next guy's liquid, that it is all a matter of opinion, we have nothing to argue about there either.
Someone will, no doubt, come along and try to say his boomy lower mids are actually deeper bass than your sub woofer, but he's just going to end up looking foolish. And all of us with a modicum of reason can ignore him.
Tim
Anything can be ignored, but sticking your head in the sand usually leaves your butt in the air where it can easily be kicked or bitten.
I could pin you down but your continued argument just proves the point. Noithing is settled.
I could pin you down but your continued argument just proves the point. Noithing is settled.
I spoke recently to a converter designer and asked him what is his listening room is like? He gave me a blank stare. He is a musician, but he designs them on a workbench. He doesn't listen to them, relying only on what other people say about their sound. Go figure....?? He's a diehard objectivist....
I'd love to see you actually pin down a point, and evidently my butt is already in the air. Take a shot, counselor.
I liked the bit in the video I posted that these ESS engineers actually seem to listen to their DAC designs or get audiophiles in to listen
And his firm statement, as an engineer, that these guys can pick the differences that apparently are below the FFT measurement would indicate is possible. He hints at the potential problem with FFTs & also shows that the problem with standard Sigma Delta DACs is noise modulation which doesn't show up in the standard measurements!!Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Ron Resnick
- Manni
- Moladiego
- td19
- holeout
- bouncing_noobs
- Wjhen
- Magnuska
- Johan K
- cjfrbw
- Armsan
- andromedaaudio
- COF
- sapirg
- rocco1113
- spanosgeorge
- Azh123
- lkohn4
- Audiocrack
- Nemal1
- 2ndLiner
- digit_linn
- nirodha
- astrotoy
- AudioLibertarian
- Klonk
- Sablon Audio
- R S
- Zdude
- PYP
- bonzo75
- StereoLogic
- Jazzman53
- Opabin
- pjwd
- adrianywu
- Kyle1
- Mr P
- gionaz
- treitz3
- MarkusBarkus
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |