Sorry if I came across as sounding gratuitous. That's not my intention. I'm as serious a participant in this thread as the next person, and I say what I feel is right without trying to control the narrative, or act as the gatekeeper of who can/cannot participate. It's an open forum. You can speak your mind, and I can speak mine. I just say my part without trying to drive away people who may have said something I don't agree with from this thread. Why the onus on you to try and drive away members (like you've done a number of times on this thread)? We're participating because the topic DOES interest us.
Objectivity vs Subjectivity
- Thread starter Passive_audio_enthusiast
- Start date
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
An objectivist is a person who knows what matters for a transparent reproduction of the audio. So he knows what matters when it comes to buying an audio equipment and buys only what is needed. He uses this equipment to listen to all the music in the world.Engineering exam question:
Q1. Distinguish between objectivist and subjectivist? 10 marks
A1: An objectivist is a person who listen more to his hardware and less to the music.
An subjectivist is a person who listen more to music and less to the hardware.
Exam results - not yet declared.-
A subjectivist person listens the same track on every possible combination of equipment he can get hands on and enjoy the differences between the systems,and continue searching everyday for that sound he might one day like. At the same time he doesn’t undertand what exactly is wrong with the current system and has no clue about which direction he should go to get it fixed. So he keeps performing iterations of combinations between devices on end wasting time and money.
Unless he is lucky he is never gonna strike gold until his hearing wears out with his age .
It’s not completely true, but I think a little Defence
Tannoys, KLH, graham audio - all of them have different frequency response.Totally get where you are coming from. I was exactly here about 2 decades back. From an academic point of view this is a very valid point of view. However from a practical point of view, there are far too many variables which makes the home listener's job way more adventurous. This is very much like the digital vs analogue discussion.
-Studio acoustics vs homes
-Home listener's preferences vs what the artist / studio engineer thought sounded right with the distribution master
-Tonal quality of loudspeakers which cannot be measured
-Driver cone materials
-Enclosure design and materials
-Cone vs ribbons vs panels
-What loudspeaker, amp combination entertains you the most in your specific home environment. Some of the home systems can make your jaw drop !
-What kind of system work with majority of your music collection? This is very important. Even if you try various studio gear combinations, they all sound different. Many seasoned studio engineers have preferences for studio gear especially loudspeakers even though they all measure almost the same.
Your advice will not work for majority of home listeners. So, this discussion is just an academic one. But respect your point of view.
PS - My post is purely from the point of view / belief that a music system's only function is entertainment. It needs to appeal to the senses and provide entertainment for the senses with majority of a person's music. Most high quality home gear use good measurement as a baseline during the initial phases of design and development and then use subjective means to go higher and maybe even purposefully deviate a bit to achieve subjective levels of performance to achieve this end. This is a well known and accepted practice. So this is not even a discussion between Objectivists and Subjectivists. This thread should be renamed " Can mainstream measurement criteria fully and accurately measure all parameters that contribute to a high performance and fully entertaining audio product across the entire spectrum of discerning listeners ? ". The so called subjectivists are pretty much looking at this discussion from this point of view. In case you were wondering what the heck is going on
Also their directivity is different. Hence they sound different. If you look at the graphs it’s easy to understand why they sound the way they are.
That is an overly-simplistic summary. What you are describing is audiophile neurosis - and while it is true that there is a high correlation between Audiophilia Nervosa and subjectivism, the two are not identical.
And even the objective types are not immune to this. No system is perfect - and every system has its own set of compromises (a flat frequency response is the most basic of specs - timbral accuracy, dynamics, tonal decay and more are where the compromises kick in). So even objective types are not immune from Audiophilia Nervosa - they just solve it by poring over spec charts at ASR and obsessing over which one sounds better.
Ha Ha.
. My subjective view of the kinds of subjectivists and objectivists.The True Subjectivist
"A true subjectivist is a person who strikes gold often. Just tell him that applying a thin coat of gold on each and every IC chip in his equipment improves the sonic quaility of sound reproduction, he will do exactly that and write a long winding post on how the channel separation has increased, how the background has become darker and how he is hearing some notes that he had never heard before after applying a paint of 24 carat of oxygen free gold film". He reads various stereophile, audiophiile magazines. In general he/she doesn't have a strong understanding of the fundamentals of science, but he is a simpleton and happy with life, except when you criticize their cable or equipment. They don't get that angry when you criticize their music choice or if you say that you cannot bear to listen to Celine Dion. A true subjectivist has a religion which is his lovely sounding equipment and are mostly paranoid of measurements when their favourite equipment fails to measure well. Sometimes they will blame the messenger and sometimes they will proclaim measurements as blasphemy. A subjectivist will buy this and rave about how it improved his background, tonal balance and what not. Some of them will even try improving their audio by cooking their cables using a cable cooker like the one below. They believe in exotic things like break-in of cables.
The Pretender Subjectvist
This is a guy who pretends to be a subjectivists. He wants everyone to believe that not everything can be measured by science. He will often use good art to hide the deficiencies of his product. He is a manufacturer of the 24 carat oxygen free gold plating compound that comes in a tiny bottle which has a cap with a brush inside. You open this bottle and apply a thin layer of gold on your IC chips in your dac, amplifiers and preamplifier. You can also apply it on your the outside of your plugs and sockets, switches. More the merrier your music becomes. This guy also sells cables, power conditioners, cable cookers and everything and anything that improves the audio. Obviously, such hi-tech equipment will not be easy on your wallet and will have a secret sauce. Sometimes this guy may also be an editor of a magazine with Hi-Fi manufacturers as donors. They go by various names like Paul, Srajan, Hans, Alon Wolf with his $1050 rubber feet and many others. These people propagate faith in various audio equipments and will sell this, this, this to their followers.
The True objectivist.
These guys will mostly forever rot in audio hell. They don't have any audio religion, infidels that they are. Today they will listen to vinyl recording and marvel at the technique of the RIAA curve, but tomorrow they will drop the vinyl and be listening to pure digital music. They don't believe in anything supernatural. If something sounds good, there has to be a rational reason behind it and there has to be a way to measure this 'sounds good'. They don't believe in labels like Class A sound good, valves are better or applying 24 carat oxygen free gold on your IC chips will make it sound better unless there is a phenomena that explains it as scientifically valid. Their viewpoint in general will be met with derision by the subjectivists. Many of these objectivists are so paranoid of subjectivists that even when a subjectivist says they are experiencing something, it will be met with total disbelief. And the bluntness of the response of the objectivists towards snake oil is what creates this war, especially when that snake oil has become a religion. A true objectivist will never buy this.
and then there are some who don't belong to any camp. They really don't know who is right and just don't care. They just go about enjoying music whether it is flac, mp3, dsd whatever. The only one laughing on his way to the bank is the snake oil salesman like paul.
Last edited:
Interesting view but we could perhaps enhance itHa Ha.
The True Subjectivist
Just tell him that applying a thin coat of gold on each and every IC chip in his equipment improves the sonic quaility of sound reproduction, he will do exactly that and write a long winding post on how the channel separation has increased, how the background has become darker and how he is hearing some notes that he had never heard before after applying a paint of 24 carat of oxygen free gold film". /Snip
A true subjectivist ( if there is one) may try the above, but if he does not hear a difference will diss it. It is the Pretender who will do the above
A True objectivist may also try the above, measure it and if he does not find any difference diss it..
So you could add Pretender Objectivists as well who have not matured to understand what they want in music nor really understand all the measurements but follow someone who does.. and spam forums with quoted content
I would rather put them in a scale of 1-5..and most of us lie in some where in between. and for all you know this is a debate between X1/X2 with X3/X4/X5 ( I am sure there is no X0 here who will only measure sound and not have any subjective view around actually feeling the music it)
(Pure objectivists x0------------x1---------------x2-----------------x3--------------x4-------------x5 Pure Subjectivists
Last edited:
Ture. It probably depends on our individual personality. No one can be a pure objectivist or a pure subjectivist. Our senses are flawed and depend on individual tastes as we grow up. Each and every one of us are opinionated in some way or the other. Some like ice cream and some don't like ice cream like me. And hence the reason why measurements are important. The current state of affairs is that measurements surely doesn't measure the real essence of music that is felt by us. There is more to be understood but that doesn't mean that drop measurements and use only our senses. The question is how much to rely on measurements and how much to rely on our ears?
The true taxonomy of audioweenies is simple:
- soundphiles
- musicphiles
If you go back to the oh-so-cliched BCG 2x2 matrix, the above two fall in one dimension. Objectivists and subjectivists in another.
And all of us are somewhere in that 2x2 grid, like hamsters in a wheel while the rest of the world looks at us, rolls their eyes and moves on.
- soundphiles
- musicphiles
If you go back to the oh-so-cliched BCG 2x2 matrix, the above two fall in one dimension. Objectivists and subjectivists in another.
And all of us are somewhere in that 2x2 grid, like hamsters in a wheel while the rest of the world looks at us, rolls their eyes and moves on.
Nicely put. It’s clear that Objective measurements, subjective likes and dislikes are used by many FM.
Let’s not get obsessed with “labelling” others or trying to push anyone into a position of being defensive about their experience, technical knowledge (or lack of), preferences and choices.
We all follow slightly different paths, even as we share a passion for music and good quality audio.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Green - Usually this results in gear that stops at best possible mainstream measurements at the least cost in its development. Have tried this in the past. The ears tell a different story !
Red - Not really. Most go through an objectivist stage first and quickly learn that it is too limiting. Learning audio and acoustics is not rocket science. It is quite easy. They add subjectivity to the mix to get the best of both worlds.
Purple - The frequency and directivity graphs will only show that the speaker will sound different. An experienced speaker designer can take a fair shot at a guess as to how it will sound too. However, to know if it will work for your ears, music and home, you will need to rely on your ear. Also tone is quite difficult to measure. A speaker with similar frequency response and directivity can sound tonally different due to the many factors.
General note : If you are recording professional and you have studied acoustics and have fair amount of experience, given a studio acoustics situation and given a choice of 5 studio speakers you can fairly accurately guess how they will all sound. I think you are looking at this from that angle. That way, I agree to all that you are saying. For consumers in home audio situations, there are far too many variables to consider. For example, he or she may prefer the sound of a voxativ single driver with a SET amp. A studio guy will not touch that system with a ten foot pole.
Many people in audio have already tried it all ( including ASR approved systems ) and decided what they like. I have auditioned a few fabulous measuring systems in controlled acoustical environments. High end ATC with worlds best measuring benchmark amp, dac etc. Do they sound good ? Of course they do. Is that the most accurate sound I have heard ? Nope. I think it is just a very good version of accurate. Everything is just an approximation of the real sound.
Last edited:
I like the “evolutionary” perspective of this narrative.
It’s important (and humbling) to remember how we started on the audio journey and learnt along the way.
Many are aware how little they know (I am)
Some are highly experienced in particular aspects (electronics, DIY, acoustics, recording, music etc)
Very few will claim they know it all
But everyone is learning (evolving)
there is no view in this world that is objective. the claimed objective is the observer's subjective. the claimed objective measurements are the measuring machine's subjective observations. there is no human or human created machine which can even identify all the attributes(parameters to measure) of nature/sound, let alone measure them.
Very interesting!!!
“Machine’s subjective observations “? That’s not been discussed in this thread as much as I can recall.
Brilliant signature BTW
square_wave
Well-Known Member
PS audio owns their own studio where they use ATC apparently for mixing. They also make speakers that go beyond ATC subjectively. Here is a talk about the approach.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
It’s possible to parameterise everything we hear. People who disagree simply don’t undertand it. Or they are quite adamant to their belief (religion) just like me.
I thought I knew 3% of speaker designing and now after my last month's objective measurements vis-a-vis subjective listening, i have erased whatever little I knew and now it's 0% and have to start all over again. Mind you this was a cool 10+ years of effort.
If you are interested in an alternative approach which is focused on assessing the accuracy of sound reproduction, here's a good place to start.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/browse.cfm?elib=4719
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Red Mahogany finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
