What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[Keith_W]

OK I realize I am going to open a big can of worms here.

I have to confess that I am some weird Frankenstein who is half objectivist and half subjectivist I believe in my ears, cables, valve amps, and the like. But I also believe in measurements and engineering. Over the years I have visited a large number of systems put together by people from both camps. One thing I have observed is - the bass tends to be better in systems tuned by objectivists, and the systems tuned by the subjectivists tend to sound better in the midrange and top end.

Objectivists tend to focus on bass because it is relatively easy to get the midrange and top end flat, and aligned in time and phase. It is bass which is tricky. In contrast, subjectivists tend to place less weight on the importance of subwoofer setup and concern themselves more with tone, imaging, dynamics, PRAT, etc. (you know, the things that make music sound nice). As a result - most objectivists have linear but boring sounding systems. Subjectivists have engaging but flawed sounding systems.

My theory is - objectivists have forgotten how to listen, and subjectivists have ignored the importance of measurements.

First, I will begin by panning objectivists

I said that objectivists have forgotten how to listen. If I am in "objectivist" mode, I will scan for any obvious frequency response aberrations, any ringing, dynamics, any phase issues, and so on. If I am in "subjectivist" mode, I listen for tone, rhythm, soundstage, musicality, and so on. Many objectivists do not even acknowledge the existence of musicality or "soul" (see the other thread). Rhythm and soundstage can not be measured, but all of us know that it is there. And as for tone? They call it "distortion".

This denial goes further - many objectivists at the fringes think all CD players, amps, and cables sound the same. And some even think that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD. Nearly all claim that CD is superior to vinyl. I have heard valve amps described as "distortion generating effects devices".

If you start off by failing to acknowledge the important attributes that make a hifi system sound engaging, what hope do you have of producing a beautiful sounding system? Many systems I have heard which have been put together by objectivists hit the nail on the head when it comes to accuracy, flatness, and precision. But somehow they all sound robotic, mechanical, lifeless, dull, and unengaging. Put together a system based on an MP3 player and your system will sound like a giant iPod. Unfortunately, many objectivist systems sound exactly like this.

Now for subjectivists.

Subjectivists need to take more of an interest in the role of measurements with equipment setup. I said earlier that good bass tends to be missing from most subjectivist systems. The reason for this is that there is no standard formula for good bass. Good bass needs to be engineered for your equipment and your room. For those of us with subwoofers, we have to effectively design our own crossover (itself a bit of an arcane art) to meld the sound of both speakers into one.

Looking at graphs and sweeps will tell you all sorts of things about your system that you didn't know before. As your knowledge grows (and mine is still at a fairly rudimentary level) - you start seeing things that you didn't realize before.

I have heard many systems that have been put together by ear, and I have heard all sorts of horrible things. Many subjectivists have forgotten that what measured flat in the factory will not measure flat when you take it home. Many seem to take a leap of faith that by experimenting with different pieces of equipment they can cure problems in their systems. I once came across a 2 way speaker with a 6" woofer which had no bass. I tried to persuade him to try a subwoofer, but he would have none of it. He thought he could cure his bass problem with another brand of speaker cable.

Because subjectivists are so focused on "nebulous" unmeasurable qualities such as musicality, soul, and tone, many experienced subjectivists have beautiful sounding systems with many fine attributes ... BUT with many serious flaws which they probably never realized because they never looked.

If I know objectivists and subjectivists, I can predict the response. Subjectivists will probably say "yes we should look more at measurements". Objectivists will respond with a big harumph and continue to deny there is any problem with their approach. Just my observation.

 

[Steve Williams]

Interesting topic Keith

 

[RogerD]

Interesting topic Keith

It is but I have a feeling everybody has everybody on ignore.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

It is but I have a feeling everybody has everybody on ignore.

Where do you find that button?

 

[mep]

This denial goes further - many objectivists at the fringes think all CD players, amps, and cables sound the same. And some even think that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD. Nearly all claim that CD is superior to vinyl. I have heard valve amps described as "distortion generating effects devices".

I’m not so sure this thought process only happens at the “fringes.” If so, we have a lot of fringe thinking objectivists on WBF.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Hoo boy, now you did it Keith. But I'm going to jump in anyway because I think (hope) I can clear up a lot.

Objectivists tend to focus on bass because it is relatively easy to get the midrange and top end flat, and aligned in time and phase. It is bass which is tricky.

A knowledgeable objectivist is concerned with all aspects of the system including room acoustics.

My theory is - objectivists have forgotten how to listen, and subjectivists have ignored the importance of measurements.

That surely doesn't apply to this objectivist. I'm a professional composer, musician, and recording engineer. If you think I "forgot" how to listen you are very mistaken. I listen critically - both for music quality and audio quality - every single day. You do not want to sit next to me while American Idol is on.

Many objectivists do not even acknowledge the existence of musicality or "soul" (see the other thread). Rhythm and soundstage can not be measured, but all of us know that it is there. And as for tone? They call it "distortion".

"Musicality" is a subjective assessment of enjoyment, not a matter of fidelity which can be easily defined and assessed. Rhythm is a musical concept, and has nothing whatsoever to do with audio fidelity or gear. Sound stage is entirely psychoacoustic, but it has two components: One is how instruments are panned (artificially or naturally) in the recording, along with the left-right difference in reverb and ambience (artificial or natural). The other component is the accuracy and symmetry of the listening room, and that can be assessed using room measuring software.

"Soul" is a religious concept that has no place in a discussion of fidelity. And the common definition of tone is not distortion, but rather frequency response. Of course distortion affects "tone," but so does everything else.

many objectivists at the fringes think all CD players, amps, and cables sound the same. And some even think that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD. Nearly all claim that CD is superior to vinyl. I have heard valve amps described as "distortion generating effects devices".

Oh man, this is getting worse and worse.

Seriously, most CD players and amps do indeed sound the same, and proper blind listening tests have proven this again and again. But subjectivists hate that, so they wrongly accuse blind tests of somehow being flawed. Hey, if you can't tell which wire is which blindfolded when I switch them, then you can't tell at all. As for cables, they do all sound the same unless they're broken, and again this is easily proven with a blind test. For assessing raw fidelity only, CDs are better than LPs, and most SS amps have higher fidelity than most tube amps. SS amps also control loudspeaker resonance better. This is easily proven using the standard measurements, which you say you accept. Now, some people prefer the lower fidelity of LPs and tube amps, and that's fine. Small amounts of added distortion can be pleasing on some types of music, which is why some people prefer LPs and tubes. But to say that LPs have higher fidelity than CDs is easily disproved, even if one prefers the audible degradation of LPs.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Infamous WBF objectivist here. "Harumpf!" Just kidding. A few observations on your observations, though...

Over the years I have visited a large number of systems put together by people from both camps.

Me too.

One thing I have observed is - the bass tends to be better in systems tuned by objectivists, and the systems tuned by the subjectivists tend to sound better in the midrange and top end.

Haven't really noticed that. I've heard some subjectivists' systems with pretty awesome bass, though subjectivists almost exclusively go for "full range" speakers, and combining full range speakers with subs can be a bigger challenge than combining them with speakers that don't get into the subs' range at all.

Objectivists tend to focus on bass because it is relatively easy to get the midrange and top end flat, and aligned in time and phase. It is bass which is tricky. In contrast, subjectivists tend to place less weight on the importance of subwoofer setup and concern themselves more with tone, imaging, dynamics, PRAT, etc. (you know, the things that make music sound nice). As a result - most objectivists have linear but boring sounding systems. Subjectivists have engaging but flawed sounding systems.

There's an awful lot here that doesn't sync with my experience. I've never known an audiophile of any type that didn't focus on imaging and dynamics. I personally border on the obsessive when it comes to imaging. It is almost the only reason I own speakers. If I didn't care about imaging I'd just listen to great headphones. I can buy the best in the world for less than most audiophile DACs.

Regarding the bass vs mid/treble thing; objectivists, in my experience, focus on system accuracy. It isn't about any frequency range it's about accurately reproducing the recording. I think most of us understand that this is an attainable goal when it comes to system electronics, but an illusive one when it comes to rooms and speakers. I think some of us even understand that if we could get perfectly flat frequency response in-room, that we would not like to listen to it.

That is, at least, my experience. Even the most accurate systems need some room gain and reverb to sound "right." So, while I believe I can mercifully bi-pass all the fuss subjectivists go through trying to achieve balance and synergy in electronics by more objectively choosing my electronics, I understand that when it comes to transducers (headphones, speakers), even I become a subjectivist and must choose my color.

My theory is - objectivists have forgotten how to listen, and subjectivists have ignored the importance of measurements.

See above. The fact that we don't share your preferences doesn't mean we aren't listening. It simply means that we hear something else that we like better. I know it's really hard for some people to accept, but here it is -- there is a sound, I will not describe it any more judgementally than that, that is shared by analog sources and valves and is emulated in many SS audiophile components. This sound, this magical midrange that so many love so much, is not loved by everyone. Those of us who disagree with the magic midrange crowd, we listened. We made a different choice. Accepting that instead of injecting every one of these kinds of threads with the thinly-veiled argument that we can't possibly have heard what you hear and not agree will take us a long way toward peace. Just sayin'...

And I don't think subjectivists are ignoring measurements, I think what they're seeking is a sound that makes them happy, regardless of measurements. So, of course, are objectivists. We - or I, anyway - simply believe that a bit of objective analysis can eliminate much of the fuss through the signal chain and concentrate the "synergizing" at the intersection of speakers, room and ears. And no, that does not mean all amplifiers sound alike. What it does mean, however, is that when they are designed for low noise, low distorition and linear response and they are up to the challenge of the transducers they'll be driving....well, they're going to sound an awful lot alike.

Tim

 

[flez007]

The only measurements that are relevant for me are those to system compatibility, such as speaker sensitivity or power amp input voltage, the rest is meaningless to predict any experience regarding music reproduction quality IMO.... Thanks Keith!, I will have less friends now!

 

[RogerD]

It is hard for me to accept components sounding the same. Those different components may measure the same and I doubt that, there has to be some difference. I have four different electronics and they all sound different,being very similiar in their musicality,but each one has it's own signature. These electronics are preamps,one tube,two solid state and one nuvistor. I like them all and I am really not interested in their measurements. Does that make me a subjectivist? Maybe,but I don't listen with a HP distortion analyser,god gave me a nice pair of ears and they have served me well.

I do believe speaker measurements carry more weight with me. Cables are another matter,but I think the lower the capacitance the better.

I agree that most prefer some coloration in their systems whether they realise it or not. After all the original recording is not ruler flat to begin with anyway.

I have always been on the better image and soundstage side,just because I think lower distortion has a direct relationship to how well a system images and throws a soundstage. So in that regard both objectivist and subjectivism go hand in hand.

 

[Keith_W]

I never said that LP had higher fidelity than CD (in fact I didn't mention LP at all). But since you bring it up - LP actually does sound nicer than CD. If objectivists have some kind of mental block accepting this because their judgement is clouded by preconceptions about CD's superiority, that only goes to prove my point. If you assemble a system with no consideration for components that sound nice, you will have a boring sounding system. I think Phelonius hit it on the head with this:

I think what they're seeking is a sound that makes them happy, regardless of measurements.

This is all so predictable. I even said so in the last sentence of my post!

 

[Ethan Winer]

I never said that LP had higher fidelity than CD (in fact I didn't mention LP at all).

I was going by this from your first post:

Nearly all claim that CD is superior to vinyl.

I might be wrong, but other than 45s I consider "vinyl" and "LP" the same.

But since you bring it up - LP actually does sound nicer than CD.

The problem is "sounds nicer" is a subjective opinion for which there is no right or wrong. What sounds nicer to you may or may not sound nicer to me. But it's important not to dismiss the goal of high fidelity as defined by the standard metrics. Recording and mastering engineers typically spend a lot of time honing the sound of a recording. So for a distribution medium, my preference is to not change the sound further by passing it through amplifiers that have audible distortion, or through vinyl records which add distortion and harm sound stage due to their limited channel separation.

There's no point in discussing subjective preference because it can't be defined and it varies from one person to another. However, "better," or "superior" to use your word, can be defined, at least as long as we're talking about high fidelity which by definition is faithfulness to the source.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

The fact that we don't share your preferences doesn't mean we aren't listening. It simply means that we hear something else that we like better ... This sound, this magical midrange that so many love so much, is not loved by everyone. Those of us who disagree with the magic midrange crowd, we listened. We made a different choice. Accepting that instead of injecting every one of these kinds of threads with the thinly-veiled argument that we can't possibly have heard what you hear and not agree will take us a long way toward peace.

Beautifully put, Tim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I never said that LP had higher fidelity than CD (in fact I didn't mention LP at all). But since you bring it up - LP actually does sound nicer than CD. If objectivists have some kind of mental block accepting this because their judgement is clouded by preconceptions about CD's superiority, that only goes to prove my point. If you assemble a system with no consideration for components that sound nice, you will have a boring sounding system. I think Phelonius hit it on the head with this:

I think what they're seeking is a sound that makes them happy, regardless of measurements.

This is all so predictable. I even said so in the last sentence of my post!

Glad you found some value in something I said, Keith, but you still missed the broader point. Objectivists, while using an expanded methodology that includes data, are ulitimately seeking a sound that makes them happy as well, and, ultimately using our ears, we have concluded that LPs don't sound "nicer" than CDs and that our systems are not boring.

We don't have a mental block against your preference, Keith. We prefer something else. What is it about that which you don't understand?

Tim

 

[Keith_W]

We don't have a mental block against your preference, Keith. We prefer something else. What is it about that which you don't understand?

That's fine, I can respect that. Blind tests also tell us that low end receivers are indistinguishable from Krells and Gryphons; that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD; and that CD is indistinguishable from SACD. But I find it very hard to get excited about the sound of MP3's played through a Yamaha receiver.

 

[microstrip]

That's fine, I can respect that. Blind tests also tell us that low end receivers are indistinguishable from Krells and Gryphons; that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD; and that CD is indistinguishable from SACD. But I find it very hard to get excited about the sound of MP3's played through a Yamaha receiver.

Keith,

I doubt that the provocative sentences you used to start this thread will lead in anything new. The words subjective and objective are now associated to groups of people (subjectivists and objectivists) and IMHO no debate can be carried unless they are properly defined - something that can not be done in a single post.

At the risk of being misinterpreted by those who will read only the few lines out of the full text I quote a few lines from "Sound Reproduction" of F. Toole.

The origin of emotion in a listener is the art itself—the music or movie—and not the audio hardware. It is inconceivable that a consumer could feel an emotional attachment to a midrange loudspeaker driver, yet without good ones, listening experiences will be diminished. Since the true nature of the original sound cannot be known to listeners, one cannot say “it sounds as it should.” But listeners routinely volunteer opinions on scales that are variations of like-dislike, which frequently have a component of emotion. Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity.

And it is one the reasons why many tens of pages are needed to address the subject you raise in your thread.

BTW, the full subtitle of my current reprinted version is The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms. Old versions was only Loudspeakers and Rooms. A good sign?

 

[FrantzM]

That's fine, I can respect that. Blind tests also tell us that low end receivers are indistinguishable from Krells and Gryphons; that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD; and that CD is indistinguishable from SACD. But I find it very hard to get excited about the sound of MP3's played through a Yamaha receiver.

Hi Keith

I am not sure about your conclusions. The differences may not be as large as many would like to think but they are real and perceivable. This may take a little bit of training to improve accuracy but the differences are real and repeatable ...
As for the excitation coming from mp3 and a Yamaha receiver .. What about if you don't know it is mp3 and a Yamaha receiver ..

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's fine, I can respect that. Blind tests also tell us that low end receivers are indistinguishable from Krells and Gryphons; that high bitrate MP3 is indistinguishable from CD; and that CD is indistinguishable from SACD. But I find it very hard to get excited about the sound of MP3's played through a Yamaha receiver.

Did I say anything about blind tests? Can't say I've ever seen a blind test of a low-end receiver against Krells and Gryphons, but I have, personally, blind (and sighted) tested high bitrate MP3s against lossless files, hi-res files against 16/44 and pretty high-end headphone amps against really modest headphone "outputs," and I can tell you that all the criticisms of blind testing methodology sound like thin excuses when its your ears.

Was there a difference? Maybe. But it was mostly in the "I think I hear...." realm, where the differences do tend to disappear once you take sight out of the equation. If you don't want your assumptions shaken, my advice is don't ever submit yourself to blind listening comparisons of the really close stuff like hi bitrate MP3s and CDs or good, powerful midfi amps and high-end SS. Stick with the broad gaps - compare SET to solid state, vinyl to CDs. Or better yet, leave your eyes open and your assumptions intact. But don't tell me that's "trusting your ears." Close your eyes and tell me what you hear. That's trusting your ears.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

It is but I have a feeling everybody has everybody on ignore.

Is that 'objectivist' or the other one Roger?

 

[NorthStar]

... You do not want to sit next to me while American Idol is on.

--Ethan

OK Ethan. :b

 

[Gregadd]

My theory is - objectivists have forgotten how to listen, and subjectivists have ignored the importance of measurements.

I would go a little further. Objectivist would disbeleive anyhting they hear that contradicts measurements. Subjectivist would ignore any measurements that contradict what they hear.