Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[Decadent_Spectre]

Creation (art + science) --> Audio reproduction (design based on science with tweaking) --> Musical experience (individual preference)


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.

Hi Raghu, I'd like to note that creation is all art, it is only recording the creation that is art + science.

Also I feel that the hobby is about enjoying the content your way, whatever that may be, so limiting on any given criteria will serve the hobbyist better once they identify it as a detriment to their enjoyment and remove it.

 

[prateekatasniya]

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



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.

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.

You are right..
Both go hand in hand for those who have knowledge about it..

 

[arj]

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

I would like to add to that our subjective experiences remain mostly the same overall although they might improve continue to evolve individually. ie even for the next generation the overall subjective experience limit will not change much . It will of course be limited by or change due to our own evolution as humans.

Objective measurements will mostly only continue to improve which is the very nature of science ie we will get better and better every-time we find something new and at some point, in the future, be able to measure everything about something but not everything about everything since that is absolute knowledge..and a philosophical debate !

As an example in audio itself , audiophiles had been for a long time been talking of differences in digital outputs and then only later we were able to measure jitter and explain it,. Today jitter is an absolutely measurable standard and can be take as one basis where unless you are good at hearing , your ears may mislead you to choose a cable which sounds good but may be distorting in a good way.

Similarly we do not really have all the reasons for the same for a speaker/amp etc. Maybe some day in the future but not today. but our measurements will only continue to get better untill we will.

Personally believe that the moment we end us saying that we know everything and can measure it all science will stop ! hence by nature of science there is always something more to measure and ergo we cannot measure everything, But again what we can measure we will use.

Science is to prove better to us what we experience with facts and experimentation.,.saying we can prove everything today can only be arrogance and is actually anti science !

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.

i would love to be shown anything wrong in my perception since that only contributes to my learning !

Just to clarify what I was saying is that there is musical content above and below the normal human listening range which cannot be heard by the ear but can be felt by the body. I am aware of some aspects of psychoacoustic perceptions like how our brain can reject audio and visual signals which we have evolved over the years due to so many reasons including but not limited to our survival especially around imaging and rejection of signals.

All of us can feel the effect of bass below 20..we all do at some level on a daily basis at some time,.

not all of us may hear the above 20khz sicne perhaps those signals itself are rare but it is a measurable phenomenon and may have been studied and measured in various ways ( perhaps for tinnitus, not again not sure of this area..) i have heard it what i think is that , by a simple on and off of a supertweeter, personally not a fan but yes you can discern it ergo it exists

 

[prateekatasniya]

I would like to add to that our subjective experiences remain mostly the same overall although they might improve continue to evolve individually. ie even for the next generation the overall subjective experience limit will not change much . It will of course be limited by or change due to our own evolution as humans.

Objective measurements will mostly only continue to improve which is the very nature of science ie we will get better and better every-time we find something new and at some point, in the future, be able to measure everything about something but not everything about everything since that is absolute knowledge..and a philosophical debate !

As an example in audio itself , audiophiles had been for a long time been talking of differences in digital outputs and then only later we were able to measure jitter and explain it,. Today jitter is an absolutely measurable standard and can be take as one basis where unless you are good at hearing , your ears may mislead you to choose a cable which sounds good but may be distorting in a good way.

Similarly we do not really have all the reasons for the same for a speaker/amp etc. Maybe some day in the future but not today. but our measurements will only continue to get better untill we will.

Personally believe that the moment we end us saying that we know everything and can measure it all science will stop ! hence but nature of science there is always something more to measure and ergo we cannot measure everything, But again what we can measure we will use.

Science is to prove better to us what we experience with facts and experimentation.,.saying we can prove everything today can only be arrogance and is actually anti science !


i would love to be shown anything wrong in my perception since that only contributes to my learning !

Just to clarify what I was saying is that there is musical content above and below the normal human listening range which cannot be heard by the ear but can be felt by the body. I am aware of some aspects of psychoacoustic perceptions like how our brain can reject audio and visual signals which we have evolved over the years due to so many reasons including but not limited to our survival especially around imaging and rejection of signals.

All of us can feel the effect of bass below 20..we all do at some level on a daily basis at some time,.

not all of us may hear the above 20khz sicne perhaps those signals itself are rare but it is a measurable phenomenon and may have been studied and measured in various ways ( perhaps for tinnitus, not again not sure of this area.. i have heard it what i think is that ( by a simple on and off of a supertweeter) personally not a fan but yes you can discern it,

Frequencies above 20khz may not be audible directly but as per the studies of psychoacoustics they excite human hearing when two of such tones ( not same frequency) reach the ears simultaneously.
I will try to find the chapter in which i read it and update.

 

[arj]

Frequencies above 20khz may not be audible directly but as per the studies of psychoacoustics they excite human hearing when two of such tones ( not same frequency) reach the ears simultaneously.
I will try to find the chapter in which i read it and update.

thanks, I dont know the details since I did not pursue this further, but am interested in what you find out about this.

 

[lowpoweraudio]

The Objectivist Audiophile Screenplay:

ACT 1

Friend:
"Hey, where did your speakers go?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"I sold them!"

Friend:
Sold them?! Why?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah... Well, (fiddles with db meter) since I've documented that everything measures correctly I can finally stop listening. So I sold them."

Friend:
(Turns head towards large stack of uber expensive Hifi gear with no speakers ) What about the rest of your equipment?

Objectivist Audiophile:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it, it's perfect."

Friend:
Have you ever considered a different hobby?

Objectivist Audiophile:
No. Why?

End ACT 1

--

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

The Objectivist Audiophile Screenplay:

ACT 1

Friend:
"Hey, where did your speakers go?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"I sold them!"

Friend:
Sold them?! Why?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah... Well, (fiddles with db meter) since I've documented that everything measures correctly I can finally stop listening. So I sold them."

Friend:
(Turns head towards large stack of uber expensive Hifi gear with no speakers ) What about the rest of your equipment?

Objectivist Audiophile:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it, it's perfect."

Friend:
Have you ever considered a different hobby?

Objectivist Audiophile:
No. Why?

End ACT 1

--

Your writing skills are quite good. Can you write a subjectivist version?

 

[Analogous]

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.

Glad these tweaks worked well for you with a happy outcome in your system, Hari.
I can not imagine doing the tweaks you mentioned as I don’t have the knowledge, skill or means to do this.
I think this may be the case with most of us.
To my recollection no one on this thread has stated measurements are useless.
Your process and experience does illustrate that there are different ways to discover and seek better sound. These involve measurements (by the designer/reviewer/user - if skilled) and subjective insights (by everyone who listens).
It’s not black and white, maybe more like Yin-Yang

 

[mbhangui]

Here is a recent chatter about the same topic

Kind of validates that subjectivists hear music more with their eyes rather than their ears and also research shows that people prefer neutral sound in blind tests.

 

[DB1989]

Kind of validates that subjectivists hear music more with their eyes rather than their ears and also research shows that people prefer neutral sound in blind tests.

It's not as simple as that. At least not in my experience. More often than not, People tend to prefer what sounds natural to them. And natural and neutral are not one and the same thing.

Coming to gear, what measures well in an anechoic chamber may not be relevant in the real world. Hifi manufacturers keep in mind the rooms or situations in which those loudspeakers/amplifiers will be used as well as the gear they are likely to be paired with. I suppose it's upon the user to try and home demo the product to see if it works well in their room.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Kind of validates that subjectivists hear music more with their eyes rather than their ears and also research shows that people prefer neutral sound in blind tests.

Yes. That conclusion is valid within the limitations of that experiment. Again, these are statistics-based conclusions and therefore have its own scope. Therefore we shouldn't over interpret it. What all senses people employ in enjoying music is there own choice. Eyes, ears, whatever else.
And then there are a lot of biases for the audio system to keep up with, and that too based on the time of the day. For example, here is an opinion from Kimmosto who has been doing measurement - based speaker design for the last 30+ years: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ngful-speaker-measurements.29768/post-1042968

In my personal case, if i just want to buy the most neutral, best measuring (so far) speaker, i can go out and buy the Genelec 8361A with its optional bass module. That will meet all the techinical specifications i can think of for now. But i will never buy it in its current version just because i hate the way it looks. I just can't stand its looks.. Does that mean i should always close my eyes and enjoy music. Well i wont..
Other people have different opinions about the matter. So all i am saying is while it is good to have all the objective knowledge we want to have, we shouldn't be limited by its current state and say that all who do not agree to our way of thinking are not right. Maybe tomorrow another research about an objective paramater will come out with better/different conclusions and we will miss out on it.

 

[lowpoweraudio]

Your writing skills are quite good. Can you write a subjectivist version?

Let me work on that...

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

That conclusion is valid within the limitations of that experiment. conclusions and we will miss out on it.

I guess it’s not possible conclude anything if we think the conclusion from an experiments confirms to that experiment and not true in real world. Everything like crash tests, medical studies are all not useful if the results were true only to the experiment and not useful in real world.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

I guess it’s not possible conclude anything if we think the conclusion from an experiments confirms to that experiment and not true in real world. Everything like crash tests, medical studies are all not useful if the results were true only to the experiment and not useful in real world.

I think I have said all that i wanted to say about this subject of objectivity and subjectivity in my posts in this thread. It is just my viewpoint from my personal experience and what i have learnt from the experience of others who have been working in this field since before i was born. You can choose to take it or leave it and move on based on your preferences.

I have nothing more useful to say in this matter and far better things to do in life than trying to convince some else about my thought process.

I'm done with this thread. Good luck.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

I would like to add to that our subjective experiences remain mostly the same overall although they might improve continue to evolve individually. ie even for the next generation the overall subjective experience limit will not change much . It will of course be limited by or change due to our own evolution as humans.


not all of us may hear the above 20khz sicne perhaps those signals itself are rare but it is a measurable phenomenon and may have been studied and measured in various ways ( perhaps for tinnitus, not again not sure of this area..) i have heard it what i think is that , by a simple on and off of a supertweeter, personally not a fan but yes you can discern it ergo it exists

Could you elaborate on the bold part? Not sure I understood this.

I have used equipment that is specced to be flat out past 20KHz vs equipment specced at 20Khz or thereabouts. I have observed differences, subjectively, in how it sounds, that extra "air" or "shimmer', it has a different sound/feel. I have also measured the response with the same system in the same exact position with the mic in the same exact position with 2 different amps and the response was near identical, there was a slight deviation around 2-4KHz but otherwise near identical, the amp specced past 20KHz had all the extra air etc, it sounded completely different. The deviation at 2-4Khz was very small, I forget the exact frequency,bandwidth and level though.

It also seems that many speakers often have a roll off above 10-12KHz, in room when we hear them, especially when we toe them in we are likely loosing even more HF and we seem to prefer that. I think the extra HF some people prefer is in the same 10-12KHz area.

 

[jls001]

Raghu,
Are you gently reminding me this horse is dead and just to enjoy the music?

This horse is so dead due to constant flogging Since this forum can't seem to agree on anything, it's best we let this "sleeping dog" lie.

You asked earlier in the thread how to learn to tell good sound. There's only one way, namely, to hear as many setups as one can possibly hear. It comes with its bonuses - you'll make new friends, and you'll most definitely widen your musical horizon. And you'll form a definite idea of what sounds good to you. The "you" is important because you will come across very good and refined setups that don't tug at your heartstrings, yet the rational you can't deny that it sounds good in its own way. So plurality is yet another bonus you'll develop. Enough rambling

 

[sidvee]

This whole argument is getting so old. In a few months/years this thread will be forgotten, someone else will start another one, as new members realize they love this hobby - maybe in this forum or another one, and the arguments will ensue forth. Trust me, I have been through 3 decades of these types of arguments in various fora from the dawn of the internet age. The answer - What you enjoy and hear is right - everyone else is wrong - Period.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[arj]

Could you elaborate on the bold part? Not sure I understood this

What I was trying to say was the experience for what can be heard from music is a constant ( not at an individual level though)
Eg the experience of listening to a jagjit Singh recording is constant. Each of us may have reached some level in that state individually are/maybe in the path to improve that by Improving ourselves. But the total experience from that cd/vinyl is fixed..

Now that I write it it sounds weird to me

 

[Bloom@83]

There are two Jagjit Chitra records - Unforgettables & Milestones , on which the recording quality is such a high level , that on a fairly resolving chain the sound envelops almost the entire area from beside the left ear to the right, with subtle instrument sounds coming from different corners of the room far away from the speakers.
Just mentioning cause it took time for me , personally , to reach that experience. Time to listen to other higher end setups , understanding what is needed in mine, all by the ear.

 

[Analogous]

Just to liven things up (or another attempt to resuscitate the dead horse)…