Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

Gregadd said:

Do I rememeber correctly or have you still not taken an ABX test yourself ?

Click to expand...

I've blind-tested myself, but I don't have formal ABX software which would be double-blind. But why should I take that test? I'm not the one making the claims, others are. I know what I can and cannot hear based on more than 40 years experience. What I can hear is not the issue. It's what others claim they can hear. This is very simple logic.

--Ethan

Phelonious Ponk said:

I'd love to see you actually pin down a point, and evidently my butt is already in the air. Take a shot, counselor.

Click to expand...

I was speaking in general. So relax. It was you who mentioned ignoring something. [all of us with a modicum of reason can ignore him.]

I don't get it Tim. If it's all relvant, a matter of preference or opinion, why are you here? The way you weave between demands for standards and proof and then follow it with the above argument baffles me. We don't agree. Others have expressed this to me via pm. I think there is an absolute sound worthy of pursuit. For those who don't there exists many alternate routes. Take one and get on with your life.

Gregadd said:

I was speaking in general. So relax. It was you who mentioned ignoring something. [all of us with a modicum of reason can ignore him.]

I don't get it Tim. If it's all relvant, a matter of preference or opinion, why are you here? The way you weave between demands for standards and proof and then follow it with the above argument baffles me. We don't agree. Others have expressed this to me via pm. I think there is an absolute sound worthy of pursuit. For those who don't there exists many alternate routes. Take one and get on with your life.

Click to expand...

You're not getting it, Greg. I don't believe it's all a matter of preference. And I'm not demanding standards. I'm fine with the ones we've got. But many Audiophiles deny all the standards that do exist, propose no standards of their own, and yet repeatedly and consistently imply the objective superiority of their unsupported subjective choices. They can't have it both ways. Either there are no standards and it's all a matter of opinion, or there are standards upon which they're basing the claims that X is more natural, musical, real...better than someone else's choice. They're dismissing the established standards and implying new ones that they refuse to define or be held to!

Face with such illogic, sometimes I can't resist the urge to see how far we can go down either dark road before they get caught up in their own shoelaces. Subjective? Or better? Better? What's better mean again? It sounds better to you? Isn't that just subjective again...?

It doesn't usually take long, but it goes on forever.

Tim

Tim, Greg
As in all these discussions, people adopt dialectical stances & seem to argue the all or nothing for their position.
If you look at the video I just posted you will see examples of an CTO engineer admitting that his measurements do no show what some audiophiles can hear. He also goes into explaining some issues which are not revealed by the standard measurements done on DACs. So in this case, telling the audiophile that he cannot possibly hear it is wrong, as the measurements don't show it, right?

So can we just accept that blind testing is necessary to overcome human biases & listening is required to overcome measurement biases?

Phelonious Ponk said:

You're not getting it, Greg. I don't believe it's all a matter of preference. And I'm not demanding standards. I'm fine with the ones we've got. But many Audiophiles deny all the standards that do exist, propose no standards of their own, and yet repeatedly and consistently imply the objective superiority of their unsupported subjective choices. They can't have it both ways. Either there are no standards and it's all a matter of opinion, or there are standards upon which they're basing the claims that X is more natural, musical, real...better than someone else's choice. They're dismissing the established standards and implying new ones that they refuse to define or be held to!

Face with such illogic, sometimes I can't resist the urge to see how far we can go down either dark road before they get caught up in their own shoelaces. Subjective? Or better? Better? What's better mean again? It sounds better to you? Isn't that just subjective again...?

It doesn't usually take long, but it goes on forever.

Tim

Click to expand...

It appears to me that I don't get it. I probably never will. It would not only be impolite but counterproductive to cite all the times you have made the arguments you now deny.

To me the ears are not a metric. They are to me the final arbiter. By nature they cannot be wrong. If they heard soemthing wrong it is the stimulus that must be altered not the ears perception.
All this arguing and name calling(subjectivist vs.objectivist) makes for spirited dialogue but serves no real purpose. Unless of course this is your livelihood. To me if the music is wrong I don't need a blindfold, the engineer needs to go back to the drawing board.
I have posed this question before: Do we ignore what we hear in favor of what we maeasure or Do we ignore what we measure in favor of what we hear?
In an ideal world there would be no contradiction.

Did anyone actually read her article?

Objectivists believe in a dictatorial unyielding totalitarianism of science over human interaction with music.

Subjectivists believe in total freedom to enjoy music however one chooses, without any scientific validation.

Click to expand...

What's the problem?

Gregadd said:

Did anyone actually read her article?

Click to expand...

Never do.

Kal Rubinson said:

Never do.

Click to expand...

Not even as a professional courtesy?

Professional what?

Tim

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk
You're not getting it, Greg. I don't believe it's all a matter of preference. And I'm not demanding standards. I'm fine with the ones we've got. But many Audiophiles deny all the standards that do exist, propose no standards of their own, and yet repeatedly and consistently imply the objective superiority of their unsupported subjective choices. They can't have it both ways. Either there are no standards and it's all a matter of opinion, or there are standards upon which they're basing the claims that X is more natural, musical, real...better than someone else's choice. They're dismissing the established standards and implying new ones that they refuse to define or be held to!

Face with such illogic, sometimes I can't resist the urge to see how far we can go down either dark road before they get caught up in their own shoelaces. Subjective? Or better? Better? What's better mean again? It sounds better to you? Isn't that just subjective again...?

It doesn't usually take long, but it goes on forever.

Tim

Click to expand...

It appears to me that I don't get it. I probably never will. It would not only be impolite but counterproductive to cite all the times you have made the arguments you now deny.

Click to expand...

Now you're just making stuff up. There are two things here that could be considered a "denial" -- "I don't believe it's all a matter of preference" and "And I'm not demanding standards. I'm fine with the ones we've got." Surely you don't believe I think it's all a matter of preference? I'm the "objectivist" here. I'm just trying to get a few people to admit that what they're talking about is preference. And you think I'm demanding standards? No, I'm demanding a position Greg: Is it subjective or are your choices superior (not you personally)? And if you think they are superior, by what standards do you make that judgement?

Let's step back from the objectivist/subjectivist, analog/digital divide for a moment and bring this thing closer to home. For a moment, we're not a digital guy and a vinyl guy talking, with the vinyl guy saying that his medium of choice sounds more like real music than digital ever does. Instead, we're a guy who loves electrostats and guy who loves horns. The horn guy says "Stats are fatiguing and they don't sound like music. I can't listen to them for more than a half hour. Horns are much more musical, more natural, they bring you closer to the original event."

And that's not just his opinion. He won't let it go, in spite of the fact that you can clearly show that your stats have quicker response, wider, more even FR, lower distortion, better dynamic range (we're being hypothetical here), etc. he insists his horns are superior. Your stats sound like souless hifi. His horns sound like music. All of the objective evidence is in your corner; every measurement, every blind listening test, every objective piece of data to be found. He has absolutely nothing to back up his claims yet it is not his opinion, it is the reality that you can't hear. You don't have the experience. You haven't heard good horns. Your system is not resolving enough to reveal the difference. You're wrong. He's right. The facts be damned.

That's what the digital side of this hobby faces every day, and you guys wonder why I won't let go?

Tim

Jeff Fritz said:

In my world there is no controversy to using listening tests and measurements. There are problems with using one or the other. I simply fail to see the issue. As I said in my article . . .

Click to expand...

Of course.

Tim

jkeny said:

So can we just accept that blind testing is necessary to overcome human biases & listening is required to overcome measurement biases?

Click to expand...

Blind testing does not overcome biases. There are some which can not be overcome by blind testing - e.g. that all amps sound the same. If you subject 1,000 people with this belief to a blind test, your result will be: all amps sound the same.

Keith_W said:

Blind testing does not overcome biases. There are some which can not be overcome by blind testing - e.g. that all amps sound the same. If you subject 1,000 people with this belief to a blind test, your result will be: all amps sound the same.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, the negative bias is a trump card that no amount of blind, double blind or any form of controlled testing will overcome. Funny how this becomes the default opinion for a lot of objectivists - it can't be disproved so it's a safe haven.

I really was talking about tests that are for our own personal verification i.e when we are unsure if something really does sound different. Of course if you suffer from the self-deluded negative bias then you are wasting your time with any testing, I guess.

jkeny said:

Yes, you are right, the negative bias is a trump card that no amount of blind, double blind or any form of controlled testing will overcome. Funny how this becomes the default opinion for a lot of objectivists - it can't be disproved so it's a safe haven.

I really was talking about tests that are for our own personal verification i.e when we are unsure if something really does sound different. Of course if you suffer from the self-deluded negative bias then you are wasting your time with any testing, I guess.

Click to expand...

Of course it can be overcome. All it takes is sound testing methodology. Two very simple ways to overcome the bias you're talking about are to screen the participants, and to not tell them what they're listening for. Give them a simple AB/X, with no more information. Problem solved. That doesn't mean another one won't appear, of course, but most of them can be pretty effectively addressed.
Tim

Sorry. The above is an answer to Keith, not John.

Tim

There was a recent thread on the Gon that addressed a few of these issues: accurate to what? We listen to recorded music over our systems. Either it is studio recorded (with all the artificiality that involves) or a recording of a live event (which, as you pointed out in an earlier thread, Tim, may also involve some sonic manipulation, perhaps less so). None of us (or few of us) have had the opportunity to hear the studio performances as they took place (if they even took place in the same place at the same time). And, for 'live' recordings, unless you were at the event, and have not only a good memory of the sound, but can also take account of where you were sitting (since that's going to make a difference too), we are all shooting in the dark a bit on whether a hi-fi system replicates with verisimilitude (love that word) the original performance.

With respect to just measuring the playback equipment itself for 'accuracy,' i think even the objectivists agree that the measurements only tell us part of the picture, and also don't take account of real 'room' conditions in playback, as well as 'synergies' among components, including cable, as part of a 'system.'
So, what's the basis for evaluation? For me, it's knowing what a real trombone or cello sounds like. Not the cello on that recording (although i may be able to distinguish that one, from experience, from a different cello played on a different recording and might have even heard that particular cello, played by that cellist in a live performance at some point, but look at all those variables, even with the same instrument and artist). Does the playback have (enough of) the sonic attributes of a real instrument playing so that I can achieve the illusion of a real performance in my room? (Obviously, a noisy recording or a bad one will make it harder to suspend disbelief, but using the best possible source material, does it sound like a real instrument or voice, recognizing that there's no way my A x B x C listening room is going to approximate the sound of a big hall?). Yes, it is subjective, but I don't think its entirely dependent on 'what i like is right.' One way to tell- and this was part of that thread I mentioned elsewhere- is that different records are going to sound different; they are not all going to be colored in the same way because the system is tilted a certain way, sonically. I can't take credit for the last observation, but it all fits. And, i do think, in this context, there is a role for 'experienced ears,' someone who has been to a lot of performances, knows what live music sounds like and can make judgments based on that experience.

Keith_W said:

Blind testing does not overcome biases. There are some which can not be overcome by blind testing - e.g. that all amps sound the same. If you subject 1,000 people with this belief to a blind test, your result will be: all amps sound the same.

Click to expand...

Hey Keith, coincidentally I started a thread on your old stomping ground about this very question

Gregadd said:

Not even as a professional courtesy?

Click to expand...

Nope. I read only what I find entertaining or informative or necessary.

Slightly OT

The more I look how prevalent the notion of preferences is in the High End Audio the more I wonder what we mean by SOTA products for any components. Attempts by a company, Harman to come up with a way to find what makes some audio components traits desirable is opposed with an almost inhuman vehemence by a good number of subjectivists.. So there is no better products in the end... There are products we do or don't like... There are no products that the vast majority of Audiophiles would find superior, regardless of their personal biases? Or their favorite sound/brand?
I for one don't like Wilson Audio products in general but I don't see how after an audition of the X-2 anyone who claims to be an audiophile would not find this speaker superior...
So there are commonalities in what we, audiophiles, seek, we may perceive differently but in the end we hear the same physical construct regardless how much we would like to be different...