Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[opus111]

Well what if D,E and F are not audible or because A,B or C is so good that D, E and F are simply no longer important. If my subjective opinion is based on A,B and C where's the issue??

If you're basing your assessment on your subjective opinion, there's no issue that I can see. I was only taking issue with people claiming some sort of objectivity

 

[Soundminded]

There's no problem with the physics. The part where the science is still weak is in the understanding of perception and cognition. Most objectivists are still leaning on studies decades old. Mention the fact that even something as basic as Fletcher-Munson has gone through numerous revisions and they freak. Some are so steadfast that they insist ABX is more reliable than neural scans! Gimme a break!

Actually there is a problem with these two sciences that's at the root of the problem. There are missing dimensions in the physics of sound that the acoustician fails to measure and the psychoacoustician fails to take into consideration in the perception of sound. It's as though someone who was a film chemist protested that two colors that have the same shade of gray when seen in a black and white photo measure the same and so his film is good enough, just about perfect. Just as surprising is the subjectivist who says he can't tell the difference between the recording and the real thing. Then if they ever stop arguing, the one thing they agree on is "it can't be done, the perfect replica can't be made." That's why I sit on the sidelines and laugh at both of them. But there is a difference. While both expect to be taken seriously, the scientist/objectivist has the training where he might be. Of course when his product that measures perfectly doesn't do what he promised, he loses all credibility with me.

 

[NorthStar]

---Would you guys say that 'our discussions' are a mix of concrete science and philosophical ideas?
...Proven and unproven.

Of course it is.

 

[opus111]

....still the subjectivists seem to use variants of these core technologies, while 'objecting' to the methods that created them.

Quick show of hands here amongst the subjectivists - who objects to objectivists using their claimed objective methods to create gadgets that we use? I know I don't but I'm curious to see if I'm alone here.

 

[Gregadd]

Perception is reality, the subjectivist accepts this.



How does the 'objectivist' select particular technical points A, B and C rather than say technical drawbacks D,E, and F? Answer - he's at the mercy of his (subjective) perception of what technical points make for a 'good' piece of kit. Neither the subjectivist nor the objectivist gets to bypass perception, its all we have to go on. Of course the objectivist will object (he is an objectivist after all) to this characterization of his means of choice of parameters as being so subjective, but his protestations do nothing to invalidate the truth.

Agreed.
By anology. We build superhighways that take us to the city from the subuurbs. No matter how fast we travel ,we all come to a screeching halt at a bottleneck when we reach the city. It all comes down to listening.

 

[microstrip]

(...) But if you're concerned that I'm leaping to conclusions based on a short quotation, there is a very simple solution to that -- use longer quotations. You know we don't need the whole text, but we do need enough context to understand what Toole was talking about instead of relying on a short snippet followed by your interpretation of what Toole was talking about.

Tim

Tim,

As long as they are my posts, it will be my interpretations you get. For copyright reasons, I am not able to post more than a few lines - I think fair use does have limitations. But any one can read a little bit more than what I transcribe using google books. Anyway, you can buy the book - it will cost you around usd 40.00 - not a fortune.

I can not understand how the many supporters of speakers based on Toole studies and findings spend hours in this forum debating radiation patterns of the speakers and are not curious about his methodologies and research. If it is your allergy to psychoacoustics that keeps you away from it, get the first edition - then is was simply called "Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" not "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms".

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

 

[Groucho]

---science alone is not the final and absolute solution/verdict.
There is also the 'spiritual/emotional' level, gravitational variation from the impact's insurgence (on the soul's chords).
And that, you cannot control.

But do you mean that the appearance of the amplifier, or the finish of the speakers is a valid part of the performance of the equipment? I imagine that if I am presented with a huge amplifier made of platinum and marble that costs $1 million, it will affect me at a "spiritual/emotional" level even if, unbeknownst to me, inside it is a mid-fi Japanese circuit board. The objectivist would, at least, attempt to eliminate the peripheral aspects from his assessment of the performance. The subjectivist would not.

The subjectivists appear to be telling us that they embrace the emotional impact of price and appearance; they are all aspects of the perceived performance of the amplifier. I suspect that many objectivists don't realise this, and dismiss the views of subjectivists as being those of people who don't realise they are prey to expectation bias when, all along, the subjectivists are actually embracing the expectation bias.

 

[microstrip]

There's no problem with the physics. The part where the science is still weak is in the understanding of perception and cognition. Most objectivists are still leaning on studies decades old. Mention the fact that even something as basic as Fletcher-Munson has gone through numerous revisions and they freak. Some are so steadfast that they insist ABX is more reliable than neural scans! Gimme a break!

Great summary Jack!

 

[Gregadd]

Quick show of hands here amongst the subjectivists - who objects to objectivists using their claimed objective methods to create gadgets that we use? I know I don't but I'm curious to see if I'm alone here.

I don't think of myself as neither subjectivist nor objectivist. I see myself as a pragmatist. Whatever works.

subjectivists are open-minded and accept as true experiences what anyone else hears, even if they don't hear it themselves. Teresa Goodwin

 

[opus111]

The objectivist would, at least, attempt to eliminate the peripheral aspects from his assessment of the performance. The subjectivist would not.

How would the objectivist hope to achieve this superhuman feat though - can you give us subjectivists (and pragmatists) any clues as presumably you are one yourself or you know people who are? Its one thing to attempt to achieve something, another entirely to successfully accomplish it.

 

[Groucho]

Of course when his product that measures perfectly doesn't do what he promised, he loses all credibility with me.

But is it just your "perception" that tells you the product has failed? Was the marketing defective? Was the amp the wrong colour, or the typeface a bit cheesy? Maybe it did exactly what it was supposed to, but everyone's perception was coloured by its appearance.

 

[NorthStar]

But do you mean that the appearance of the amplifier, or the finish of the speakers is a valid part of the performance of the equipment? I imagine that if I am presented with a huge amplifier made of platinum and marble that costs $1 million, it will affect me at a "spiritual/emotional" level even if, unbeknownst to me, inside it is a mid-fi Japanese circuit board. The objectivist would, at least, attempt to eliminate the peripheral aspects from his assessment of the performance. The subjectivist would not.

The subjectivists appear to be telling us that they embrace the emotional impact of price and appearance; they are all aspects of the perceived performance of the amplifier. I suspect that many objectivists don't realise this, and dismiss the views of subjectivists as being those of people who don't realise they are prey to expectation bias when, all along, the subjectivists are actually embracing the expectation bias.

-----I wasn't referring to that aspect but you got a got point there.

For some the 'external' appearance is of primordial importance.
For others, if it doesn't contribute anything substancial to the sound reproduction quality, it simply doesn't come into equation regarding the true reality of what a veritable 'audiophile' is.

Personally, I am not researching the two camps, I am already in the camp I believe in. ...Which is?
The appreciative camp; the balanced one, that includes real progressive science, and philosophical force of nature.

 

[Gregadd]

when Ethan set up some listening experiements, none of the subjectivists wanted to play, the objectivists (primarily) played

Tom

You and Opus111 got it right. He is a subjectivist. No need to continue.
Greg.

 

[Soundminded]

But is it just your "perception" that tells you the product has failed? Was the marketing defective? Was the amp the wrong colour, or the typeface a bit cheesy? Maybe it did exactly what it was supposed to, but everyone's perception was coloured by its appearance.

As someone once told me; "They all look the same....with the lights off."

 

[NorthStar]

---A strong enclosure/body (amps, preamps, sources, loudspeakers, wires) contributes to the overall performance. ...Colors affect our senses, emotions...
...Material, composition, purity of those compositions, all have an effect.

Life is very simple in its complexity.

 

[Robh3606]

If you're basing your assessment on your subjective opinion, there's no issue that I can see. I was only taking issue with people claiming some sort of objectivity

Hello Opus 111

Well I am using both the objective measurements in combination with my own preferences and subjective impressions. Why do we always argue the extreme positions?? Clearly the measurements may not be complete but they are certainly not useless. Same with our subjective impressions they may be tainted with bias but the long and the short of it is that is all we have at the moment.

I use measurements and my subjective opinion to guide me on my own road in this hobby. I am very happy with the results.

Rob

 

[opus111]

Well I am using both the objective measurements in combination with my own preferences and subjective impressions.

But how do you come to select which objective measurements? And how do objective measurements become standardized so that they get to be in widespread use? The answer to both of these is in my estimation by a subjective process.

Why do we always argue the extreme positions?? Clearly the measurements may not be complete but they are certainly not useless.

Some are close to useless - for example power amplifier slew rate. Damping factor. THD at full power into a resistive load. But some are more useful - frequency response for example. But you'll use your subjective impressions to select the measurements which mean the most to you, will you not?

I use measurements and my subjective opinion to guide me on my own road in this hobby. I am very happy with the results.

I'm gratified that you're happy Individual, personal and totally subjective happiness is what its all about.

 

[NorthStar]

-----

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Actually there is a problem with these two sciences that's at the root of the problem. There are missing dimensions in the physics of sound that the acoustician fails to measure and the psychoacoustician fails to take into consideration in the perception of sound. It's as though someone who was a film chemist protested that two colors that have the same shade of gray when seen in a black and white photo measure the same and so his film is good enough, just about perfect. Just as surprising is the subjectivist who says he can't tell the difference between the recording and the real thing. Then if they ever stop arguing, the one thing they agree on is "it can't be done, the perfect replica can't be made." That's why I sit on the sidelines and laugh at both of them. But there is a difference. While both expect to be taken seriously, the scientist/objectivist has the training where he might be. Of course when his product that measures perfectly doesn't do what he promised, he loses all credibility with me.

Where have you ever heard/read an audio scientist or engineer promise that his device's "perfect" measurements translate into perfect reproduction? Not saying it has never happened, but most of them I've talked to and/or corresponded with seem to completely understand that they measure "shades of gray" that will not translate into accurate reproduction in color. I do sometime hear them say that the component that measures perfectly will reproduce better than the component that measures relatively poorly. But that's a completely different argument.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

If we measure perfect and we know all there is to be measured our results should be perfect. Perfect in. Perfect out.