Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[Decadent_Spectre]

View attachment 66080

This is a very accurate depiction of objectivists. They are highly intolerant of anyone liking equipment/having beliefs they perceive as "bad". This can be seen on the internet by visiting various websites where they post, even in this thread one can observe such behavior.

For anyone reading along and on the fence, please listen to equipment and then make your own informed decisions. Measurements can not tell you how a speaker will sound beyond some generic idea.

 

[Enkay78]

@Enkay78
You are back after "ending" the discussion

No one here claimed ultrasonic waves contribute to sonic quality. In fact many of us here don't believe in such or similar myths.
On your claim that 50+ year old men suffer from hearing loss. Yes it's true. I am one of them.
When I plug in my hearing aids that are calibrated to enhance my lossy ears some components sound harsh.
They measure extremely well, but sound unbearable. Should I buy and listen to them or look elsewhere for a different component?
Or should I take a perfectly measuring SOTA component that "accurately" reproduces sound and add tweaks to it to make it inaccurate?

A large majority of us in this hobby are not binary.
Measurements are relevant, but not the last word.
Subjective listening and opinions are also relevant, again not the last word.
A hobbyist takes both in some ratio and bases his/her decision whether a particular component is a good fit for enjoying music.

If you feel, measurements are the only right way, good for you.
Just don't insist that this method must be followed by everyone else.

And going off tangent, bringing in money/ego/what-not serves no purpose.
People (even hardliners from both camps) will buy what they want as per their budget and preference. I respect that.
People (even hardliners from both camps) may even claim that theirs is the best ever they've heard. I respect that.

Everything in an audio chain can be measured to a reasonable accuracy, even the room.
Even when perfect as per science, our dirty little brains trick us and say "No I don't like this"
Hearing is a sensory perception. Perception being the operative word.

Cheers,
Raghu

I am also hitting 50. So I don’t trust my ears to make any generalised recommendation. Some days my same speakers sound so sweet and musical (I am getting hang of these audiophile terms ), the soundstage forward and laid back……especially in night with lights off at low volume. But in morning and sometimes late afternoon, and more so when I am in an off mood, the same speakers playing the same songs at same volume sounds shitty, bright and irritating. (Oh yes same dac, same amp and same flac)

My contention for audiophiles are a general observation I have noticed after going through forums like audiogon, headhifi etc. There do exist a snobbish and elitist culture amongst audiophiles. And yes there are bragging so of their setups. And when commented against some of their habits, one can notice the hurt egos etc. Even in HFV , there are members (apology if I hurt anyone…..but it’s a clinical observation. Nothing personal or so). This is first forum in which I have used the ignore feature for toxic members (I never could imagine doing this in the past)

My comments are not per se to this forums members. It’s rather few observations in general.

I know psychoacoustics is a complex issue. But it still baffles my mind when we interchangingly mix the separate issues of music creation(art and leisure) with audio reproduction (science and electronics).

For me measurements are a must and fundamental parameters for audio reproduction be it DACs/amps/speakers/source. They are irrelevant for me to enjoy Pink Floyd/Deep purple/Iron Maiden/Black Sabbath/Rainbows/Fleetwood Mac/Abba/Carpenters/Jagjit/Maroon 5 songs. And based on the measurements I then decide how I can tune the music to my liking.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

The accurate that the recording engineer heard at his monitor. That’s what is in the recording. That doesn’t have to be accurate tone of the instrument but how the engineer wants it to be in his recording. That’s the only thing I want to hear at home, doesn’t have to be the accurate tone of an instrument

This says it all.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

This is a very accurate depiction of objectivists. They are highly intolerant of anyone liking equipment/having beliefs they perceive as "bad". This can be seen on the internet by visiting various websites where they post, even in this thread one can observe such behavior.

For anyone reading along and on the fence, please listen to equipment and then make your own informed decisions. Measurements can not tell you how a speaker will sound beyond some generic idea.

It’s a meme which fits for hardcore subjectivists too. Even the slightest hint of objectivity will trigger them too.

This says it all.

That’s how you flex the words. Nice job.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

There do exist a snobbish and elitist culture amongst objectivists.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Enkay78]

Just my point. There is no universally "accurate". It can only be accurate to "you" .

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

That’s how you flex the words. Nice job.

I simply quoted what you said with bold emphasis. The entire post is quoted, no context is lost.

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

Correct. Harman/Toole/Olive's research is of no value. Zero. It is a marketing ploy to sell speakers, this should be obvious to anyone.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

Toole& Olive are not Gods on earth..
The research done for so many years has value to those who know how to use it. So they certainly are valuable, as all research is
But most of their studies are based on control groups of limited sizes.
All the objective conclusions they arrived at are statistical. Not universal.
When one goes deeper into the statistics part of it, one can identify the flaws. This is applicable to all kinds of research where statistical conclusions are arrived at. "Universally" humans don't have a "single" preference. It varies based on a lot of factors.
While their research can give guidelines, there are no "absolutes" in terms of conclusions that can be drawn.
As I had suggested in some previous posts in this forum, if you are interested in learning more about "some" flaws in their research, I would recommend you to read Kimmosto's fights with Amir on ASR and his other posts in general..
(Kimmo Saunisto is among the few speaker designers who knows what he is doing).
Most of the more commonly used metrics for speakers like frequency response etc tell completely about the "technical aspects" of system behavior when they are Linear Time Invariant Systems. All speaker are not such systems. Nor do these metrics completely tell about the "phsyco-acoustic" aspects. Therefore our measurement systems as they stand capture only a limited part of the whole knowledge needed. More research is needed to find out what is/are better metrics and how can we arrive at accurate classifications about "what in speakers do people really like" based on technical aspects and preferences of people.

 

[Enkay78]

Toole& Olive are not Gods on earth..
The research done for so many years has value to those who know how to use it. So they certainly are valuable, as all research is
But most of their studies are based on control groups of limited sizes.
All the objective conclusions they arrived at are statistical. Not universal.
When one goes deeper into the statistics part of it, one can identify the flaws. This is applicable to all kinds of research where statistical conclusions are arrived at. "Universally" humans don't have a "single" preference. It varies based on a lot of factors.
While their research can give guidelines, there are no "absolutes" in terms of conclusions that can be drawn.
As I had suggested in some previous posts in this forum, if you are interested in learning more about "some" flaws in their research, I would recommend you to read Kimmosto's fights with Amir on ASR and his other posts in general..
(Kimmo Saunisto is among the few speaker designers who knows what he is doing).
Most of the more commonly used metrics for speakers like frequency response etc tell completely about the "technical aspects" of system behavior when they are Linear Time Invariant Systems. All speaker are not such systems. Nor do these metrics completely tell about the "phsyco-acoustic" aspects. Therefore our measurement systems as they stand capture only a limited part of the whole knowledge needed. More research is needed to find out what is/are better metrics and how can we arrive at accurate classifications about "what in speakers do people really like" based on technical aspects and preferences of people.

I wish I could agree with you.

But statistics as maths and science is proven useful for population and large numbers sampling.

Many of the hypothesis in science has come from the statistical significance .....and probability. Standard deviations and probability factor are established concepts in science.

If we go by subjectivism, religion is the epitome of our human endeavour.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

I wish I could agree with you.

But statistics as maths and science is proven useful for population and large numbers sampling.

Many of the hypothesis in science has come from the statistical significance .....and probability. Standard deviations and probability factor are established concepts in science.

If we go by subjectivism, religion is the epitome of our human endeavour.

First of all, there is no need for you to agree with me. It is your preference.
I just told what i know from my limited knowledge. It just reflects my own current understanding of the subject.

I have worked in probability theory all the 6 years i had to slog to get a PhD, in addition to the years i spent studying it before in my graduate and undergraduate courses. So I have a fair understanding of its utility. Again just my perspective.

I never told told you to go only by subjectivism. I only said it is also important. To what extent you want to use it is your preference.

 

[Analogous]

I said the exact same thing here: one of my previous replies. It wasn’t quoted for you so you might have missed it

So we are arguing that everyone is right. That’s a happy ending

 

[arj]

When someone claim that ultrasonic waves spectrum contribute to sonic quality, how do you assess the truth of his statement, when humans can hear only 20hz to 20kz at their peak of listening power around youngish age of 20years?

Not really as humans also have tactile perception at all ages.

1. On high frequency you hear not just via your ears but also via the cranial bones. this is bone conduction and this is how Beethoven heard his music despite being deaf via a metal rod. The Aftershokz "ear"phones are also based on this principle . I believe our hearing can go to the ~30khz range via this. this apparently includes the effect of "Airiness".

2. For below 20 khz, we feel this via the skin and via the diaphragm . thats the reason the kick of a drum give you that physical effect. Tigers are known to go as low as 12Hz and thats the reason we feel the fear when we hear that sound. Of course frequencies below that are not heard or felt by us but earthquakes which are in the single digit frequencies are "heard" by some animals.

On the question of musical content available at that range is a different problem. maybe its the harmonic and subharmonic content exists but not researched it much.

Personally I have found 1. as harsh and gave me a headache with many recordings ( via a supertweeter). Subwoofers on the other hand have inly enhanced the experience if set up well.

 

[Analogous]

Here is an example of a speaker that John Atkinson (well known measurements guru of Stereophile ) says was designed primarily by ear, rather than with the help of test equipment, because its faults tend to be euphonic with many kinds of music.

Orpheus 808 loudspeaker

www.stereophile.com

 

[Enkay78]

Not really as humans also have tactile perception at all ages.

1. On high frequency you hear not just via your ears but also via the cranial bones. this is bone conduction and this is how Beethoven heard his music despite being deaf via a metal rod. The Aftershokz "ear"phones are also based on this principle . I believe our hearing can go to the ~30khz range via this. this apparently includes the effect of "Airiness".

2. For below 20 khz, we feel this via the skin and via the diaphragm . thats the reason the kick of a drum give you that physical effect. Tigers are known to go as low as 12Hz and thats the reason we feel the fear when we hear that sound. Of course frequencies below that are not heard or felt by us but earthquakes which are in the single digit frequencies are "heard" by some animals.

On the question of musical content available at that range is a different problem. maybe its the harmonic and subharmonic content exists but not researched it much.

Personally I have found 1. as harsh and gave me a headache with many recordings ( via a supertweeter). Subwoofers on the other hand have inly enhanced the experience if set up well.

I don't want to prove what you say as wrong.


However our physiology....especially about our hearing apparatus and brain limits what is possible to hear (as impulse generation in the hearing apparatus) and what can be interpreted by our neurons and synapses in the brain.

Our hearing as a sense are given less priority when multiple stimuli are present. The brain prioritise which stimuli are important to understand.

 

[Analogous]

The human perception of sound at frequencies below 200 Hz is reviewed. Knowledge about our perception of this frequency range is important, since much of the sound we are exposed to in our everyday environment contains significant energy in this range. Sound at 20-200 Hz is called low-frequency sound, while for sound below 20 Hz the term infrasound is used.

The hearing becomes gradually less sensitive for decreasing frequency, but despite the general understanding that infrasound is inaudible, humans can perceive infrasound, if the level is sufficiently high. The ear is the primary organ for sensing infrasound, but at levels somewhat above the hearing threshold it is possible to feel vibrations in various parts of the body.

The threshold of hearing is standardized for frequencies down to 20 Hz, but there is a reasonably good agreement between investigations below this frequency. It is not only the sensitivity but also the perceived character of a sound that changes with decreasing frequency. Pure tones become gradually less continuous, the tonal sensation ceases around 20 Hz, and below 10 Hz it is possible to perceive the single cycles of the sound. A sensation of pressure at the eardrums also occurs.

The dynamic range of the auditory system decreases with decreasing frequency. This compression can be seen in the equal-loudness-level contours, and it implies that a slight increase in level can change the perceived loudness from barely audible to loud.

Combined with the natural spread in thresholds, it may have the effect that a sound, which is inaudible to some people, may be loud to others. Some investigations give evidence of persons with an extraordinary sensitivity in the low and infrasonic frequency range, but further research is needed in order to confirm and explain this phenomenon.

Hearing at low and infrasonic frequencies - PubMed

The human perception of sound at frequencies below 200 Hz is reviewed. Knowledge about our perception of this frequency range is important, since much of the sound we are exposed to in our everyday environment contains significant energy in this range. Sound at 20-200 Hz is called low-frequency...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Enkay78]

Some investigations give evidence of persons with an extraordinary sensitivity in the low and infrasonic frequency range, but further research is needed in order to confirm and explain this phenomenon.

Hearing at low and infrasonic frequencies - PubMed

The human perception of sound at frequencies below 200 Hz is reviewed. Knowledge about our perception of this frequency range is important, since much of the sound we are exposed to in our everyday environment contains significant energy in this range. Sound at 20-200 Hz is called low-frequency...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Scientific studies have levels of evidence. When the evidence reaches the level of 1, it is taken as undisputed fact.

In audio there are many level 1 evidences. At the same also much new research and hypothesis are going on and being studied.

The issue is when new interpretation or subjective parameters are being floated without the necessary evidential data to back the claims…….and most being contesting the years of data with level 1 evidence.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

The issue perhaps is not that subjectivity or objectivity or both are important but that some people try very hard to push their opinions as facts. Particularly objectivists.

I say that audio/video is a subjective medium, where human beings perceive both sight and sound (as well as touch,smell and taste) subjectively, rather than graphs or binary input. Hence humans are subjective creatures. Any opinion to the contrary is obviously too far biased to hold any rational discussion on the subject and may be ignored IMO.

Logic follows that if we are subjective creatures then the equipment should be judged on its subjective merits as it applies to us.

Where does science come in? Science is only there to help us understand how things work, we may use it to make equipment. However this does not mean we should use these "good" measurements as the basis for what sounds good, as it is important to understand what we as humans prefer subjectively and THEN use the science to make products which appeal to us subjectively rather than using some arbitrary (and sometimes commercially driven) reference standard based on measurements of frequency response,impulse,phase,distortion, noise and so on. Many manufacturers do indeed do this to some degree by tailoring their products for preferences. It bears repeating that many companies can make products that measure well but they do not because that is not what we subjectively prefer. Why is it that objectivists have largely invaded the audio/video equipment sphere yet things like food,clothing,perfume,shoes even choosing life partners are left at subjective preference? How long before they try to choose these things for us?

Science is a means to an end. Not the end itself. We would do well to remember that.

If we give up our preferences in favor of science we may as well give up our humanity.

 

[Analogous]

Scientific studies have levels of evidence. When the evidence reaches the level of 1, it is taken as undisputed fact.

In audio there are many level 1 evidences. At the same also much new research and hypothesis are going on and being studied.

The issue is when new interpretation or subjective parameters are being floated without the necessary evidential data to back the claims…….and most being contesting the years of data with level 1 evidence.

Fair enough. This is not a peer reviewed paper (to my knowledge) So not robust in terms of evidentiary value.
Good to keep in mind throughout human history every new discovery or invention was viewed with scepticism at first. Galileo was burnt at the stake for calculating and stating that the earth was not the centre of the universe and intact revolved around the sun. Keeping an open mind maybe good?

Here is some more:
Measurements for hearing thresholds have been made for frequencies of 4 Hz in an acoustic chamber (Watanabe and Møller, 1990) and even for frequencies down to 1.5 Hz with earphone listening (Yeowart et al., 1967; Yeowart, 1976). Much higher stimulus levels, however, are needed below 20 Hz in order to provoke an auditory sensation.

Music and Noise: Same or Different? What Our Body Tells Us

In this article, we consider music and noise in terms of vibrational and transferable energy as well as from the evolutionary significance of the hearing system of Homo sapiens. Music and sound impinge upon our body and our mind and we can react to both either positively or negatively. Much...

www.frontiersin.org

Then there is speculation the the so called Havana syndrome could be due to weaponising sound. There is no evidence for this currently. But sonic weapons and stun grenades have been used for crowd control by a few governments I think.

What is Havana Syndrome, the strange illness affecting US agents? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Commentators have blamed everything from noisy insects to sonic weapons, but the condition could be psychological in nature.

www.sciencefocus.com

But I digress…subjectively

 

[raghupb]

<snip>

I know psychoacoustics is a complex issue. But it still baffles my mind when we interchangingly mix the separate issues of music creation(art and leisure) with audio reproduction (science and electronics).

For me measurements are a must and fundamental parameters for audio reproduction be it DACs/amps/speakers/source. They are irrelevant for me to enjoy Pink Floyd/Deep purple/Iron Maiden/Black Sabbath/Rainbows/Fleetwood Mac/Abba/Carpenters/Jagjit/Maroon 5 songs. And based on the measurements I then decide how I can tune the music to my liking.

This is exactly what most of us in the discussion are saying.
Measurements are relevant alongside subjective experience.
One may agree or disagree with a particular magazine/online subjective reviewer.
One may also agree or disagree with a particular magazine/online measurement based reviewer.

In the process, you forgot one important element.
Creation (art + science) --> Audio reproduction (design based on science with tweaking) --> Musical experience (individual preference)

Snobbery is there when a group of people interact. It is just natural human behavior.
More so on forums because of anonymity. One can get away with all kinds of stuff that is not possible in a face to face situation.
By steadfastly limiting oneself to only measurements/subjective or expensive/cheap or DIY or topology/technology or <xxx> based criteria, the fun in this hobby is lost.

In your own words above, after setting up a well measured rig and tweaking it to your liking, how would you describe it to others?
1. My favorite band sounded alive, more rhythmic, some flowery language
2. My favorite band sounded great because of "this" value of SINAD and x% louder in this frequency band and y% wider and z% less noise
Which of the above would resonate with a wider group of people?

Have fun. Enjoy music and movies. Chase good content. They'll sound or look good even on a mediocre device.
Experience as many devices and components. It's a hobby.

Cheers,
Raghu

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Here is a recent chatter about the same topic

 

[Hari Iyer]

I have recently upgraded my phono Preamplifier with thin film resistors and for most of this 2 months I kept believing that the preamplifier needs breakin and gave 2 months but the compressed low-end would not improve.

Today morning I replaced the opamp from AD827 to LM4562 with some less compression but not great. I then went back to measuring the output of the phono Preamplifier. I fed a 3.5mV pink noise at the input and measured the output on a spectrum analyser. The response was no way near to the theorotical RIAA curve.

I went to calculate the time constant of 75usec, 318uscec and 3180usec and noticed that the filters needs tweaking to achieve this. I did this filter tweaks and got the perfect RIAA response. I later played a record - WOW .NOTHING LIKE I HEARD BEFORE.

So in this case I have first analyzed the issue with subjetive listening and then did measurements to find out the problem, then calculated correct parameters required in the filters, implemented them, measured again and then finally listened again.

So anyone claim that objective measurements are useless are the one who never ever have measured. Also after measurements doing nothing about the problem is again waste of your time.

My 2 paise.