it was not about music..it was an auditory/hearing study..and now i need to find that again
Objectivity vs Subjectivity
- Thread starter Passive_audio_enthusiast
- Start date
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Similar thoughts here. How will an objectivist do this ? Blowing one's mind is a completely emotional phenomenon!This blew my mind…
I am an objectivist, I like sunny weather
Nice and clear, I like it a lot.
............why does the weather never change
I am a subjectivist, I like sunny weather.
Maybe just add some drizzle. How about heavy downpour now...
Too wet, lets go back to drizzle. Add some breeze. Wow, its perfect now.
Got bored of this weather, lets start with snowfall this time......
Nice and clear, I like it a lot.
............why does the weather never change
I am a subjectivist, I like sunny weather.
Maybe just add some drizzle. How about heavy downpour now...
Too wet, lets go back to drizzle. Add some breeze. Wow, its perfect now.
Got bored of this weather, lets start with snowfall this time......
Yes it was, hence my comment that it is a quantification of subjective preferences.
Most so-called objective design parameters are pretty much determined by summarising subjective preferences - the one exception is the flat frequency response goal (or the “wire with gain” target for amplifiers), where there is a very clear and objective design principle.
Last edited:
Err, wut?
Let me clarify in more detail.
The Harman curve (and a few other similar attempts) have been used to set the design goals of several transducers.
It shouldn’t be a radical shock to anyone that companies are in the business of selling products - and understanding customer preferences is very much a marketing function.
Not sure what makes this a “conspiracy theory”.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Sorry there was a typo! But what I meant is, a person who appreciates objectively engineered stuff knows that it’s more true to the source than a device which has its own sound added to the recording.This blew my mind…
square_wave
Well-Known Member
How will this person know this ? Specifically the question .. " knows that it’s more true to the source " .. I am curious! A person who appreciates objectively engineered stuff can be any random dude who just loves such stuff. Active listening is a learned thing. If one is not in the industry, it needs opportunity - > exposure to wide range of gear and study of sound especially unamplified music ! And of course, active involvement and interest as well. Does he have all that as an additional skill ?
Theoretically, a device that adds its own color will be less true. I agree to that statement. But given a device, how does an untrained person know that ? Most of the time I have seen objectivists on the internet, just referring to some measurements and then blindly painting something black.
Most industry people ( musicians, recording artists, sound engineers, installers ) who are also audiophiles do not listen to flat measuring studio type speakers at their homes. They are associated with the industry and can get great deals but they still buy other gear. And believe me, they know infinitely more about sound than many of us do.
Last edited:
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Blue: You seem to be putting subjectivists on some sort of pedestal. Do these guys also wear halo's in this rarified and elitist environment they live in?
Purple: I agree. But why is this not applicable for "random dude" objectivists? Because no halo's?
Misplaced sarcasm.Blue: You seem to be putting subjectivists on some sort of pedestal. Do these guys also wear halo's in this rarified and elitist environment they live in?
Purple: I agree. But why is this not applicable for "random dude" objectivists? Because no halo's?
‘Listening true to source ‘ - is a claim made by objectivist camp , not the other one.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Blue - Nope. I am not putting anyone on a pedestal. And these are not subjectivists that I refer to. The OP's post clearly states that an objectivist " knows that it’s more true to the source " . Knowing that actually requires skill and learning because it is a brain and emotion thing. You hear and then you state your opinion. All musicians and sound engineers go through that training. Normal people can also go through that training themselves if they desire so. I am just asking if they also have that skill apart from being an objectivist? Otherwise, how will they or anyone know? Consider this as a knowledge and application question. No halo, objectivists or subjectivists need to come to any harm during this conversation.Blue: You seem to be putting subjectivists on some sort of pedestal. Do these guys also wear halo's in this rarified and elitist environment they live in?
Purple: I agree. But why is this not applicable for "random dude" objectivists? Because no halo's?
Purple - It can be anyone.
BTW, In the case of audio, the words - objectivist and subjectivist are not meaningful. For example I am an objectivist who also considers subjective phenomenon as part of the audio gear evaluation because that is the objective approach. Because audio AFAIK cannot be fully explained by objective measurements. We need new words.
Last edited:
As the gods hv said, don't try to understand me/everything too much.
Mostly if it's about handshake
problems it's worth the hassle finding answers. And Nothing is perfect. Companies are just thriving to make it technically Better at the r&d cost from what we all buy and fund them.
End of the day, it's not about technicalities but the experience. Outcome or end result.
So the best advice i ever got here when I was starting was to believe your own ears. Period
Demo as much as possible to arrive at ur own liking. Some like more salt or pepper or spice and some like medium or less.
Mostly if it's about handshake
problems it's worth the hassle finding answers. And Nothing is perfect. Companies are just thriving to make it technically Better at the r&d cost from what we all buy and fund them.End of the day, it's not about technicalities but the experience. Outcome or end result.
So the best advice i ever got here when I was starting was to believe your own ears. Period
Demo as much as possible to arrive at ur own liking. Some like more salt or pepper or spice and some like medium or less.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
You're right! We are getting too involved in trying to disprove other people's beliefs. If someone is happy in their belief we should be happy for them - it doesn't make our belief weaker. IMO, it's a bit like religion; I know that these are fantastic fairytales but despite that, I believe (not!) and let believe.
Last edited:
Yepp everyone starts somewhere n graduate with time
I believed in my ear and bought my Sony GR88 a few decades back thinking that it was the best system ever. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed that system for at least a year or so, until I realised that something was missing. Turned out to be the midrange as I found out later when I changed my speakers. So, I spent xxx amount of money on Sony and yyy on speaker upgrade. Got the sound that I now though I liked. Custom built speakers bought second hand did not last long. Changed to Quad 12L2. Now, this speaker still plays to my satisfaction after all these years. This paired with a cheap Topping amp sounds wonderful to me even after a decade or so. Would have saved a bit of money if I had joined HifiVision before I had purchased the Sony. The GR88 was quite an expensive mini for me at least.
The point I am trying to make it is that, what my ears initially told me was wrong. My ears still like the second setup of Quad and Topping to this day. So, in my simplistic way of thinking, going by ones ears can't always be right.
The point I am trying to make it is that, what my ears initially told me was wrong. My ears still like the second setup of Quad and Topping to this day. So, in my simplistic way of thinking, going by ones ears can't always be right.
Last edited:
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Please read a little bit about what is needed for transparent reproduction of sound. May be you can spare some arguments. Enjoying a colored sound is a personal preference. But if you want to listen what exactly is there in a recording the way the “artist intended” a system which doensnt add anything to reproduction is important
@Passive_audio_enthusiast - my apologies if this question comes across as insinuating - that is not the intent - but how do we know what the artist intended?
The perfect defensive response to a question to which one doesn’t know the answer. Go read.
Seems like you've come across a certain Andrew Jones interview.
And in case you haven't, it does make for a rather interesting view regarding his experience with "what the artist intended", in this case - Steve Vai:
Last edited:
Brilliant, extremely well put by Andrew Jones. Reiterates the beliefs I’ve long held - there’s no such thing as ‘what artist intended’ , and that ‘accuracy is subjective experience, an aha moment when it all clicks together ‘.
But then what does Andrew Jones know ? He’s only a speaker designer nearing sixty whose ears can’t be trusted at all. Better stick to measurement specs no ?
I think a different way to think of that is your tastes have evolved - which is a perfectly normal part of most hobbies. Just as our preference for music may also evolve with time, so does our preference for the sound palette that we prefer. Eg, I have a bunch of other hobbies (watches, pens, etc). In each of those cases, the stuff that I liked when i started out is not the stuff that i like now.
Trusting one's ears to decide what one likes is very different from expecting one's preferences to remain the same over time. I dont think anything can guarantee the latter (nor do i think it is even desirable - after all, there should be SOME refinement/evolution happening with experience, right?)
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
