Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Duke LeJeune]

Imo the serious objectivist studies psychoacoustics so that he knows where the goal posts are, and can focus on those issues that really matter.

Imo the serious subjectivist studies psychoacoustics so that he understands why this amp sounds better than that amp, or why this speaker sounds better than that speaker, and can extrapolate and make educated guesses about equipment that he hasn't yet heard.

So imo there is a common ground, but only the more serious and open-minded students of either school are likely to go there.

In the world of loudspeakers, an excellent text in my opinion is "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", by Dr. Floyd Toole, a world leader in objectively investigating subjective preference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

As already referred, when these sentences are expressed in conditions that allow minimization of biases and/or are complemented by adequate explanations and are statistically meaningful, they have a definitive meaning in audiophile sound quality rating.

Surely sentences like "It sounds more like real music." "It is closer to the original event," must be understood in their perceptual meaning, not just physical reproduction.

When have these phrases ever been expressed under conditions of minimum bias or related to data that is statistically meaningful?

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Let's hope that we all prefer the sound we are achieving with our systems.

Hello Mep

I am certainly happy with mine. Can't imagine ending up with something you don't like. That would take all the fun out of it.

Rob

 

[j_j]

Preference goes beyond preference when, lacking the real data for a superior fidelity argument, subjectivists create pseudo-terms that are far from subjective. "It sounds more like real music." "It is closer to the original event," etc. Is anyone is fooled into believing these are subjective substitutes for "I prefer it?" I think we all know these are attempts at positioning the preferred sound as superior, beyond preference.

Tim

In other words, when the claim goes beyond the individual's experience. I think I said that, yes?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Did you read my comments about preference a few articles above?

Preference goes beyond preference when someone tries to make it go beyond their personal taste. Then some kind of testing is required before they can present it as fact, rather than their personal taste. If someone says "I like that", there is no arguing. If someone says "I like that and you should too", that's reaching a bit too far. If someone says "I like that and you're an idiot if you don't like that" they are right into the land of the subjectivist fringe.

well........if a subjectivist infers someone is an idiot if they don't agree then that is not defensible. but suggesting that others might likely agree with a subjective viewpoint were they to experience the same thing is not a perspective that needs to be proven. it's only an opinion.

"I think that anyone who hears what I am hearing would likely agree with me" is different than saying "what I am hearing proves blah, blah, blah".

objectivists will continue to ask for proof of opinions, subjectivists will continue to ignore those requests and wonder why anyone might care about the objectivist's needs. if proof is important then investigate it for yourself.

if some subjectivists are having a discussion about what they are hearing, objectivists will fairly frequently intrude and request proof or express doubts. if objectivists are discussing proof or measurements rarely will a subjectivist give a whit about it.

 

[FrantzM]

well........if a subjectivist infers someone is an idiot if they don't agree then that is not defensible. but suggesting that others might likely agree with a subjective viewpoint were they to experience the same thing is not a perspective that needs to be proven. it's only an opinion.

"I think that anyone who hears what I am hearing would likely agree with me" is different than saying "what I am hearing proves blah, blah, blah".

objectivists will continue to ask for proof of opinions, subjectivists will continue to ignore those requests and wonder why anyone might care about the objectivist's needs. if proof is important then investigate it for yourself.

if some subjectivists are having a discussion about what they are hearing, objectivists will fairly frequently intrude and request proof or express doubts. if objectivists are discussing proof or measurements rarely will a subjectivist give a whit about it.

It cannot be that anything goes. Some claims are to be challenged. That is part of the notion of discussions.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It cannot be that anything goes. Some claims are to be challenged. That is part of the notion of discussions.

i'm not expecting that claims won't be challenged. i'm simply relating my view of listening perception challenges. I mostly ignore those requests for proof. if i thought i needed to prove my listening opinions i would never post them. it's comical how many times people ask me to do some sort of objective testing when it matters little to me. they are free to acquire the gear themselves if they want and knock themselves out with testing. but no, they simply want me to jump thru hoops for them.

when i get new stuff i enjoy sharing what i hear.....on my terms.

when you get new gear please share your perceptions on your terms.

 

[NorthStar]

A conundrum:

HiFi 'subjectivists' are 'objectivists'.

How can that be?
Quite simply because of an irresolvable paradox between the state they claim to be in, and the effect they are evaluating. When judging the performance of a component, the HiFi-subjectivist ascribes the source of change to the capabilities of the component. HiFi-magazines and adepts then discuss what a component is capable of under the supposition that the effect, external and belonging to the component, is transferable to other enthusiasts, as described.

This makes nonsense of the 'subjectivist' and 'objectivist' distinctions, by focusing on the externalities, the technical and other characteristics of the component, and the effects it creates, and insisting that these are repeatable and transferable to other, similar setups - the HiFi-subjectivist actually turns himself into an 'objectivist,' while unaware that this is the case.

The best evidence of this state of affairs is found in the voluminous amounts of HiFi-writings, in enthusiast publications, where components are discussed as if able to deliver subject-independent effects, without regard for the many psychological interactions between component (object) and listener (subject).

And that makes reading threads such as this one a complete waste of time.

And still I'm reading it (not all but a big part of it), and somehow I don't feel more advanced in my learning from reading it.

Imo the serious objectivist studies psychoacoustics so that he knows where the goal posts are, and can focus on those issues that really matter.

Imo the serious subjectivist studies psychoacoustics so that he understands why this amp sounds better than that amp, or why this speaker sounds better than that speaker, and can extrapolate and make educated guesses about equipment that he hasn't yet heard.

So imo there is a common ground, but only the more serious and open-minded students of either school are likely to go there.

In the world of loudspeakers, an excellent text in my opinion is "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms",
by Dr. Floyd Toole, a world leader in objectively investigating subjective preference.

Ha! :b

 

[NorthStar]

i'm not expecting that claims won't be challenged. i'm simply relating my view of listening perception challenges. I mostly ignore those requests for proof. if i thought i needed to prove my listening opinions i would never post them. it's comical how many times people ask me to do some sort of objective testing when it matters little to me. they are free to acquire the gear themselves if they want and knock themselves out with testing. but no, they simply want me to jump thru hoops for them.

when i get new stuff i enjoy sharing what i hear.....on my terms.

when you get new gear please share your perceptions on your terms.

Amen!

 

[Soundproof]

1. I placed component X in setup Y, and this happened.

2. If you place component X in in a setup comparable to Y, this will happen.

3. In other words, the listener is effectively taken out of the equation in 'subjectivist' HiFi.

 

[JackD201]

What happened?

 

[j_j]

1. I placed component X in setup Y, and this happened.

2. If you place component X in in a setup comparable to Y, this will happen.

3. In other words, the listener is effectively taken out of the equation in 'subjectivist' HiFi.

Um, the listener is determining what "this" is. What's your point?

 

[Soundproof]

1. I placed component X in setup Y, and this happened.

2. If you place component X in in a setup comparable to Y, this will happen.

3. In other words, the listener is effectively taken out of the equation in 'subjectivist' HiFi.

Um, the listener is determining what "this" is. What's your point?

The point is (3). Quite obvious.

This is the 'subjectivist' HiFi quandary in practice. The hobby lauds component effects that are external to the listener, as they are supposed to be the same (indicated by this) in comparable setups. Thus, in 'subjectivist' HiFi, the listener interaction with the component is actually taken out of the equation. The effect is objectified in the component and external to a listener.

Topsy-turvy. It' why these objectivist/subjectivist quarrels are so non-conclusive and confusing. The terms are applied erroneously, and the discussions that result are nebulous.

In HiFi, the premise is 'subjectivism good, objectivism bad.'
Whereas, in actual fact, HiFi enthusiasts are lauding the non-subjectivist capabilities of the components in question. That's the only conclusion possible, since the effects are transferable and listener-independent. If not, then the HiFi press can close down tomorrow.

 

[JackD201]

My head hurts.

 

[microstrip]

When have these phrases ever been expressed under conditions of minimum bias or related to data that is statistically meaningful?

Tim

My original sentence was

As already referred, when these sentences are expressed in conditions that allow minimization of biases and/or are complemented by adequate explanations and are statistically meaningful, they have a definitive meaning in audiophile sound quality rating.

Please do not change its meaning manipulating it to formulate a question.

As long as two opinions are independent and there is some correlation between them when it is analyzed it starts having some statistical value for me. I accept that now-a-days, due to the fast spread of information through the net, it is more difficult to get independent opinions. But if you look at reviews carried in different countries by reviewers who did not know each other at the same time, and find they have common traits you can learn something. This was true and happened systematically in the 80's and 90's - at that time I read portuguese, spanish, french, UK and USA magazines - what I could buy at the airport magazine shop and understand the language. They were nice to fill the boring flight time. Do you believe there was an international network conspiration - probably fax or phone driven - lead by manufacturers and the magazines?

As a rule I avoid emitting opinions when I invite my non audiophile victims to comparisons - and as I know the risks of group listening I avoid such sessions for comparisons.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Maybe time to put one some music

My head hurts.

 

[microstrip]

(...) if some subjectivists are having a discussion about what they are hearing, objectivists will fairly frequently intrude and request proof or express doubts. if objectivists are discussing proof or measurements rarely will a subjectivist give a whit about it.

Mike,

Objectivists (in the bad sense of the word you are using) systematically do not ask or answer questions about audibility when debating between themselves. Some of them understand only very simple measurements, and love to praise them. Curiously most of them also hate quantifying measurements - their posts focus mainly on the principles but not the implementations.

 

[JackD201]

Maybe time to put one some music

Good idea

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My original sentence was

As already referred, when these sentences are expressed in conditions that allow minimization of biases and/or are complemented by adequate explanations and are statistically meaningful, they have a definitive meaning in audiophile sound quality rating.

Please do not change its meaning manipulating it to formulate a question.

As long as two opinions are independent and there is some correlation between them when it is analyzed it starts having some statistical value for me. I accept that now-a-days, due to the fast spread of information through the net, it is more difficult to get independent opinions. But if you look at reviews carried in different countries by reviewers who did not know each other at the same time, and find they have common traits you can learn something. This was true and happened systematically in the 80's and 90's - at that time I read portuguese, spanish, french, UK and USA magazines - what I could buy at the airport magazine shop and understand the language. They were nice to fill the boring flight time. Do you believe there was an international network conspiration - probably fax or phone driven - lead by manufacturers and the magazines?

As a rule I avoid emitting opinions when I invite my non audiophile victims to comparisons - and as I know the risks of group listening I avoid such sessions for comparisons.

I'm not trying to twist your words micro, but I guess I'm struggling with what you're saying. You're using words like "statistical value" and "minimizing bias" where they really don't apply. A half dozen reviewers independently coming to very similar conclusions, while a step in the right direction, has no real statistical value. Unless, of course, they're coming to the same similar conclusions that seem to characterize all positive opinions of high-end audio -- musical, bigger sound stage, more life-like, closer to real music, etc. In that case, it's not even a step in the right direction. It is just a shared, and hopelessly vague, vocabulary.

And I'm still not at all sure what you mean by minimizing bias in this context. Not telling your visitors what to hear before you play the system? This might help to avoid deliberately leading them to a specific response, it will do little to avoid bias.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I'm not trying to twist your words micro, but I guess I'm struggling with what you're saying. You're using words like "statistical value" and "minimizing bias" where they really don't apply. A half dozen reviewers independently coming to very similar conclusions, while a step in the right direction, has no real statistical value. Unless, of course, they're coming to the same similar conclusions that seem to characterize all positive opinions of high-end audio -- musical, bigger sound stage, more life-like, closer to real music, etc. In that case, it's not even a step in the right direction. It is just a shared, and hopelessly vague, vocabulary.

And I'm still not at all sure what you mean by minimizing bias in this context. Not telling your visitors what to hear before you play the system? This might help to avoid deliberately leading them to a specific response, it will do little to avoid bias.

Tim

Apologies if you do not understand - IMHO the words are clear to any one having gone through statistics. I hope someone else understands. And as you systematically object trying to move the debate to your usual anti-audiophile themes it becomes tiring and boring for me. Sorry.