Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

The perfect defensive response to a question to which one doesn’t know the answer. Go read.

go read this : https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/what-is-accurate-sound-r923/

@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?

Artist intended - what he heard at his desk while mixing. It’s done at a controlled studio environment where the devices used adheres to a minimum standard of flat frequency response at his listening position.

If you can recreate that environment at your home it’s possible to hear wheat they heard there at the studio.

If you get a flat frequency at the listening spot in your room (no matter how you acheive it- dsp / room treatment ..) you essentially can set up a benchmark here similar to the artists desk.

Playing back on this setup would be identification to what he heard at the studio. Larger the deviation of this response means you are distorting the recording. But it isn’t essentially a bad thing if it pleases your ear.

 

[headcase]

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?)

Good point.
And trusting ears doesn't mean living with same for life. It's just at the time of purchase. Then with time & evolve u want to upgrade. Again u trust ur but this time trained . It goes on. That's evolution only.

 

[Bloom@83]

go read this : https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/what-is-accurate-sound-r923/

Thanks milord for opening my eyes.
Care to see Andrew Jones’s take on this thing? Shared on post # 476 ?

Also - there is no such thing as ‘what the artist intended ‘, firstly. Collaboration between the artist (solo performer or band ) and sound engineers , studio mixing and mastering professionals , happens in the rarest instances. In most cases the artists leave them in the hands of these professionals and don’t give a flying fish (ask industry professionals if you don’t believe me ).

Therefore you are already one step away from what the artist intended , and actually hearing what the random studio engineer likes as his preference sound.

Secondly- you are not even hearing what the studio engineer originally mixed.
Because the original master sounds very different (and not in a good way ) from what it finally sounds on media (be that a tape or CD or streaming content ) - because of dynamic compression and other DSP applied to it (except for jazz and classical genres ) to cater to taste of masses. Streaming further changes it by adding even more algorithmic equalisation.

And this is why some mastering and mixing engineers (and studios) are famous because in their hands the final media output sounds great , which is why most reissued classic albums mastered by them are immediately sold out and highly sought after.

In the end , your majority source media is miles away from what the artist intended, and who frankly didn’t give a damn in the first place.

So all you’ve left is to buy a pair of speakers with the least distortion and flattest FR curve (as per your article ).
On this note check out what Andrew Jones says in that video , who knows a bit more about these things than you , me or the one who wrote that article.

 

[keith_correa]

So we refuse to learn to let go and we're still going on about "my daddy, strongest!"?

 

[Bloom@83]

Yes. What else are we here for ? To see ads ?

 

[aeroash]

it’s possible to hear wheat

Whaaaaaaat! No wonder I have been having an allergic reaction as soon as I turn on my audio system, now I know, it hasn't been gluten free!

 

[vkalia]

So we refuse to learn to let go and we're still going on about "my daddy, strongest!"?

While this certainly is a never ending topic, it still IS a discussion forum, right?

Don’t you think it is a bit dismissive/condescending to just wave off the comments and posts of others with these sort of responses - surely a better option for those who are not interested in this topic is to move on to topics that DO interest them.

 

[Bloom@83]

While this certainly is a never ending topic, it still IS a discussion forum, right?

Don’t you think it is a bit dismissive/condescending to just wave off the comments and posts of others with these sort of responses - surely a better option for those who are not interested in this topic is to move on to topics that DO interest them.

Couldn’t have put it better me’self

 

[prem]

Given that audiophiles hear differently and have different sonic preferences, different budgets, different space constraints, different convenience desires and different diminishing return values, among many other variables, it is rare to find in this hobby an objectively correct answer of general applicability.

The sooner we understand and appreciate this, the happier we will be in our pursuit of this hobby

 

[keith_correa]

While this certainly is a never ending topic, it still IS a discussion forum, right?

Don’t you think it is a bit dismissive/condescending to just wave off the comments and posts of others with these sort of responses - surely a better option for those who are not interested in this topic is to move on to topics that DO interest them.

Point taken. But, you see, old habits of trying to change the world die hard. And, I promise to try to change (which is more than I can say for others here).

See? Just couldn't resist.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Whaaaaaaat! No wonder I have been having an allergic reaction as soon as I turn on my audio system, now I know, it hasn't been gluten free!

It was a boring typo - hope you understood “what” I meant.

 

[jls001]

So we refuse to learn to let go and we're still going on about "my daddy, strongest!"?

I'm not done yet. I need to know if this "as the artist intended" is before or after autotune.

 

[coaltrain]

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

You’re joking, right? Because the only other option is ‘delusional’.
Watch the video below. You’ll get a better idea of how records are made.

 

[Bloom@83]

You’re joking, right? Because the only other option is ‘delusional’.
Watch the video below. You’ll get a better idea of how records are made.

Delusional is apt.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

You’re joking, right? Because the only other option is ‘delusional’.
Watch the video below. You’ll get a better idea of how records are made.

I consider you are joking. Anyway most “so called” high end is a scam to me

 

[Bloom@83]

Have you even heard of Alan Parsons and Steven Wilson , and know what they do ?

 

[vkalia]

Artist intended - what he heard at his desk while mixing. It’s done at a controlled studio environment where the devices used adheres to a minimum standard of flat frequency response at his listening position.

If you can recreate that environment at your home it’s possible to hear wheat they heard there at the studio.

If you get a flat frequency at the listening spot in your room (no matter how you acheive it- dsp / room treatment ..) you essentially can set up a benchmark here similar to the artists desk.

Playing back on this setup would be identification to what he heard at the studio. Larger the deviation of this response means you are distorting the recording. But it isn’t essentially a bad thing if it pleases your ear.

That's a fair enough premise upon which to anchor the goal of a system - if the goal of the system is to get to the truth behind the music.

However, with this method, we are listening to music the way the sound engineer *subjectively* felt would be the "best" - however HE defines best: true to the artists vision, more likely to appeal to buyers, etc.

Personally, i think that a more consistent - objective, if you will - goal for a sound system should be to make unamplified instruments (violins, piano, acoustic guitars, human voices) sound as real and lifelike as possible. This is a good reference/goal to work towards - and incidentally, is different from the goal of most audiophiles, who get off on paroxysms of autofellatio when their system reveals a mouse farting during the quiet moments that they had not heard on a previous system.

As an aside and going back to the broader discussion on objectivity: since no reproduction system is perfect, most designs are compromises - fixing one area will affect another. Eg, high global feedback will reduce harmonic distortion, but it does SOMETHING to the timbral accuracy that makes music lifeless for me. So even with an entirely engineering-based approach to design, there is an element of subjectivism on the part of the designer: namely, which tradeoff sounds the best. Different designers will take different approaches and we gravitate towards the ones that sound best to our ears.

(My comments mainly apply to transducers. Solid state amps are lifeless, soulless works of the devil and obviously have no redeeming features )

 

[prateekatasniya]

Actually the Thread topic wrong.
Its like making a wedding invitation mentioning
"Xyxy VS xxxx" instead of "xyxy WEDS xxxx"
Similarly objective vs subjective is a wrong thing to debate on as both go hand in hand and both are equally important.

 

[coaltrain]

Solid state amps are lifeless, soulless works of the devil and obviously have no redeeming features

Amen!

 

[keith_correa]

I'm not done yet. I need to know if this "as the artist intended" is before or after autotune.

We'll need to ask Cher.

As an aside, I think the way we are now enlightened at HFV, someone needs to enlighten Dali, Marantz, Dynaudio, Fluance, B&W etc. on what "as the artist intended" means so that they change their published philosophy. They probably need to use a better figure of speech so that it is not lost on us.