Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

I don't think we should get hung up on this accuracy argument. Simply because it doesn't have a reference. The moment we record a 3D sound field using less than a certain number of mics, accuracy of the captured sound field is thrown out of the window. So for a recording of a live event, we are hearing everything from the perspective of a few recording mics. Also accuracy means different things to different people simply because of the hearing system that has differences between different people and the different audio reproduction chains. For some people accuracy is relative position and placement of instruments in the reproduced sound field. For some, it is just the feeling of musical instruments sounding like in a live event/how they perceive a certain instrument(s) and vocals should sound like. For some others, it is a combination of above and other things.

What the klippel NFS does while measuring speakers is it tries to estimate the anechoic response of the speaker and its characteristics in reproducing a sound field. It does this through a sound field separation technique. Even klippel say that variations of the order of 1.5dB is expected with the measurement system. There goes one arguement about accuracy given that humans can hear variations as low as 0.2 dB under right conditions. Ideally one would want a speaker to just reproduce the sound field captured in the signal that is fed to it. That is just my opinion. It speaks nothing about the preferences of other people. Let us say we have two speakers both having flat ON axis frequency response and smooth power response and directicity. Let us say both have coincident, coaxial drivers, exceptionally good transient response, and very low distortion. which one do we call as the more accurate speaker.
Some people prefer narrow directivity. Some people prefer wider directivity. What slope of the directivity plot or power response do we call as "accurate"?

There are only guidelines like if a speaker measures like this, it may sound like this. What we chose ultimately is what we like. I prefer good measuring equipment. Simply because i like tweaking it and tuning it to play according to my preferences. Some others prefer what sounds good to their ears right from the start without worrying about the measurement part.

Even if we argue that tonally "uncoloured" sound is the accurate one, it will vary with your position in the listening space depending upon the power response and directivity.

I support and respect Amir and Erin and other like them who try to educate others about all these different aspects for free. It is not necessary that everyone should have the same opinion. Measurements have a purpose. It shows the technical capabilities of a system. It doesn't tell with 100% confidence that this is how it will sound. It is upto us what we eventually choose to buy to hear music and there is no right or wrong in it.

Accurate sound to me- what the recording engineer heard while he mixed at his desk through his monitor. Whatever mics picked up, whatever eq he applied on it. Whatever effects he added to it at this point is heard by him using a flat monitor. So that’s what I call “artist intended”

At our home- I like to hear what he heard there at his desk because that’s what he wanted in his mix.

What should I do to hear that ? Best way is to go to the same studio and listen there. It’s not possible

What is my next possibility? Buy the same gear they had? Not enough! I need to have the same acoustics from the studio at the my home. Is it possible ? Luckily yes, as at the listening spot, the engineer was hearing something with a flat monitor. So all I need to hear the same thing is having a flat frequency at my spot.

How can I do it?

Add acoustic panels / diffusers to fix the room; add DSP to correct the sound at my listening spot.

This guarantees what the engineer heard at his desk (not necessarily the real tone of instruments/ ambience of rhe venue but a compromise which the engineer liked at this point)

NONE OF THESE MATTERS if the target is accurate sound, SORRY the sound the they heard at their desk.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

There are none and even if there were such hypothetical instruments, no one would use them apart from the ones actually building the amps / speakers as a guideline , before the final tuning is done by ears. Which is the current practise everywhere.

Consider , when Steinway and Sons tunes a piano costing thousands of dollars , they do that not by charts , but by their ears (they have dedicated employee just for that ).

When a studio engineer records a song , he adjusts its frequency curve , pitch and myriad other things going by what sounds good to his ears alone (and that’s why some mastering engineers are better than others ).

There is no such thing as perfect / neutral / flat sound. Everything from the source is already colourised by subjective perceptions and experience, unless we are talking test tones , which I suspect a lot of people listen to to measure their instruments to get a good night’s sleep.

The recording engineers perception at his monitor is the accurate sound of the “recording” it doesn’t mean it may contain accurate sound of an instrument. It’s limited by his mics capability, his creativity in using effects and all.

Consider electronic music, there are digital effects everywhere and not even real instruments. So, reproducing real instruments isn’t a concern in this case but hearing the effects he heard there at his desk is what accurate reproduction can target for at the max.

 

[prateekatasniya]

Tube amps mostly measure poorly yet many people like the sound over any of better measuring ss amps. I feel the numbers are like counting my cat's hair, doesn't matter if it's 2 million or 2.1 million my cat is furry enough. I only care when it goes below a certain threshold, then it will be considered a bald cat, neither me nor my neighbour would want it, who wants a bald cat.

For that you need to understand how human hearing works.
Even harmonic distortion makes the music pleasant.
Odd harmonic makes it irritating.
That's why tube sound pleasant because of the even harmonic .

any well read and experienced guy knows that both subjective and objective aspects matter.
Now we will come to know who is well read and experienced.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

I don't think we should get hung up on this accuracy argument. Simply because it doesn't have a reference. The moment we record a 3D sound field using less than a certain number of mics, accuracy of the captured sound field is thrown out of the window. So for a recording of a live event, we are hearing everything from the perspective of a few recording mics. Also accuracy means different things to different people simply because of the hearing system that has differences between different people and the different audio reproduction chains. For some people accuracy is relative position and placement of instruments in the reproduced sound field. For some, it is just the feeling of musical instruments sounding like in a live event/how they perceive a certain instrument(s) and vocals should sound like. For some others, it is a combination of above and other things.

What the klippel NFS does while measuring speakers is it tries to estimate the anechoic response of the speaker and its characteristics in reproducing a sound field. It does this through a sound field separation technique. Even klippel say that variations of the order of 1.5dB is expected with the measurement system. There goes one arguement about accuracy given that humans can hear variations as low as 0.2 dB under right conditions. Ideally one would want a speaker to just reproduce the sound field captured in the signal that is fed to it. That is just my opinion. It speaks nothing about the preferences of other people. Let us say we have two speakers both having flat ON axis frequency response and smooth power response and directicity. Let us say both have coincident, coaxial drivers, exceptionally good transient response, and very low distortion. which one do we call as the more accurate speaker.
Some people prefer narrow directivity. Some people prefer wider directivity. What slope of the directivity plot or power response do we call as "accurate"?

There are only guidelines like if a speaker measures like this, it may sound like this. What we chose ultimately is what we like. I prefer good measuring equipment. Simply because i like tweaking it and tuning it to play according to my preferences. Some others prefer what sounds good to their ears right from the start without worrying about the measurement part.

Even if we argue that tonally "uncoloured" sound is the accurate one, it will vary with your position in the listening space depending upon the power response and directivity.

I support and respect Amir and Erin and other like them who try to educate others about all these different aspects for free. It is not necessary that everyone should have the same opinion. Measurements have a purpose. It shows the technical capabilities of a system. It doesn't tell with 100% confidence that this is how it will sound. It is upto us what we eventually choose to buy to hear music and there is no right or wrong in it.

About directivity :

Narrow- sound doesn’t radiate much sideways but more forward. A glass wall on the side affects the sound less at the listening spot. If the same speaker is kept in an anechoic room, it’s not goin to sound much better. Downside- soundstage appears like everything is happening between speakers most of the time. If anyone subjectively reviews this speaker, it’s something more believable.

Wide-radiate outwards, and room surfaces can play a huge role in sound at the listening spot. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how the room is. We cannot predict how it is going to sound in a different room. Subjective reviews on these speakers cannot be relied on as the sound varies with rooms way too much. Upside is this speaker in certain rooms can provide larger than life soundstages(which isn’t present in the recordings)

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

For that you need to understand how human hearing works.
Even harmonic distortion makes the music pleasant.
Odd harmonic makes it irritating.
That's why tube sound pleasant because of the even harmonic .

This is true.

What's accurate? If there is one definable accuracy, then why do two products with same measurements sound entirely different?

This isn’t true, two products with exact same measurement in all aspects like freq resp, directivity, distortion figures will sound the same. Most people stop looking at measurements after freq resp graph.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

This isn’t true, two products with exact same measurement in all aspects like freq resp, directivity, distortion figures will sound the same. Most people stop looking at measurements after freq resp graph.

Will sound the same to a mic. Not to different people.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

About directivity :

Narrow- sound doesn’t radiate much sideways but more forward. A glass wall on the side affects the sound less at the listening spot. If the same speaker is kept in an anechoic room, it’s not goin to sound much better. Downside- soundstage appears like everything is happening between speakers most of the time. If anyone subjectively reviews this speaker, it’s something more believable.

Wide-radiate outwards, and room surfaces can play a huge role in sound at the listening spot. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how the room is. We cannot predict how it is going to sound in a different room. Subjective reviews on these speakers cannot be relied on as the sound varies with rooms way too much. Upside is this speaker in certain rooms can provide larger than life soundstages(which isn’t present in the recordings)

Not enough. Narrow and wide are just two classifications of an curve that can take infinite number of possible shapes. For your definition of accuracy, you need a certain slope to the directivity curve and power response. There is no standard in audio that defines such a universal metric.

The recording engineers perception at his monitor is the accurate sound of the “recording” it doesn’t mean it may contain accurate sound of an instrument. It’s limited by his mics capability, his creativity in using effects and all.

Consider electronic music, there are digital effects everywhere and not even real instruments. So, reproducing real instruments isn’t a concern in this case but hearing the effects he heard there at his desk is what accurate reproduction can target for at the max.

If all you want is hear nearfield, it is fine.
If you want " accurate" reproduction in typical rooms, you need to read up more about acoustics.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Will sound the same to a mic. Not to different people.

This is almost impossible to substantiate. Anyone can write on the internet that I bought two speakers of the exact same measurements and they sounded different. Since we are dealing with “subjective impressions” at his point, there is no way to verify it, unless we do a polygraph test of the person.

By the way, what two speakers have you compared in the same room which were having exactly same measurements ? It’s very unlikely that two speakers might have the same measurments in all parameters.

 

[Analogous]

Will sound the same to a mic. Not to different people.

I have a sense this might be a very significant observation pertinent to this discussion. Deserves some time to ponder

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Accurate sound to me- what the recording engineer heard while he mixed at his desk through his monitor. Whatever mics picked up, whatever eq he applied on it. Whatever effects he added to it at this point is heard by him using a flat monitor. So that’s what I call “artist intended”

At our home- I like to hear what he heard there at his desk because that’s what he wanted in his mix.

What should I do to hear that ? Best way is to go to the same studio and listen there. It’s not possible

What is my next possibility? Buy the same gear they had? Not enough! I need to have the same acoustics from the studio at the my home. Is it possible ? Luckily yes, as at the listening spot, the engineer was hearing something with a flat monitor. So all I need to hear the same thing is having a flat frequency at my spot.

How can I do it?

Add acoustic panels / diffusers to fix the room; add DSP to correct the sound at my listening spot.

This guarantees what the engineer heard at his desk (not necessarily the real tone of instruments/ ambience of rhe venue but a compromise which the engineer liked at this point)

NONE OF THESE MATTERS if the target is accurate sound, SORRY the sound the they heard at their desk.

Your preference is a flat frequency response on the axis you listen to. Other people have other preferences. That is all.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

If all you want is hear nearfield, it is fine.
If you want " accurate" reproduction in typical rooms, you need to read up more about acoustics.

I think in my previous replies I have mentioned many times about room correction. I was thinking it’s understandable at this point that I care about a lot. It’s easy to overlook when we read long texts.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

It’s very unlikely that two speakers might have the same measurments in all parameters.

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

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Your preference is a flat frequency response on the axis you listen to. Other people have other preferences. That is all.

I said this many times already here you are right about this.

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

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

 

[Vineethkumar01]

I think in my previous replies I have mentioned many times about room correction. I was thinking it’s understandable at this point that I care about a lot. It’s easy to overlook when we read long texts.

You are forgetting about the reverberant field. Room treatment just alters it to some extent. The only way to hear what the recording engineer intended is if you have the exact same hearing capabilities as that person and if you exactly recreate his settings in your place. Otherwise the reverberant field changes and your are not hearing what he heard anymore.

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

See. Again your "preferences" dictating your choice.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

See. Again your "preferences" dictating your choice.

What is wrong in that ? Everyone did the same.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

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

What is it that you call as tone. For engineers, it is the frequency response. For other when they refer to "tone" it is highly correlated with the frequency response. By saying you don't want that, you are saying that you don't want a speaker with flat frequency response.
What the engineer wants, only him and God knows..

 

[Bloom@83]

You are forgetting about the reverberant field. Room treatment just alters it to some extent. The only way to hear what the recording engineer intended is if you have the exact same hearing capabilities as that person and if you exactly recreate his settings in your place. Otherwise the reverberant field changes and your are not hearing what he heard anymore.

No , even then it’s not possible.

Because you won’t have the original masters.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

What is wrong in that ? Everyone did the same.

Nothing is wrong with that..
And therefore no one else is also wrong.
Hence some one hearing audio on his speakers with non flat frequency response (objectively "bad") is not wrong.
It is his preference. That is all. Don't we see here that both subjectivity and objectivity are important. None is right or wrong.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

The only way to hear what the recording engineer intended is if you have the exact same hearing capabilities as that person and if you exactly recreate his settings in your place. Otherwise the reverberant field changes and your are not hearing what he heard anymore.

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

Accurate sound to me- what the recording engineer heard while he mixed at his desk through his monitor. Whatever mics picked up, whatever eq he applied on it. Whatever effects he added to it at this point is heard by him using a flat monitor. So that’s what I call “artist intended”

At our home- I like to hear what he heard there at his desk because that’s what he wanted in his mix.

What should I do to hear that ? Best way is to go to the same studio and listen there. It’s not possible

What is my next possibility? Buy the same gear they had? Not enough! I need to have the same acoustics from the studio at the my home. Is it possible ? Luckily yes, as at the listening spot, the engineer was hearing something with a flat monitor. So all I need to hear the same thing is having a flat frequency at my spot.

How can I do it?

Add acoustic panels / diffusers to fix the room; add DSP to correct the sound at my listening spot.

This guarantees what the engineer heard at his desk (not necessarily the real tone of instruments/ ambience of rhe venue but a compromise which the engineer liked at this point)

NONE OF THESE MATTERS if the target is accurate sound, SORRY the sound the they heard at their desk.

Nothing is wrong with that..
And therefore no one else is also wrong.
Hence some one hearing audio on his speakers with non flat frequency response (objectively "bad") is not wrong.
It is his preference. That is all. Don't we see here that both subjectivity and objectivity are important. None is right or wrong.

Not even a single time I said, anyone is wrong in using a non flat speaker. I myself don’t have one at home as I bought it before I knew about all these things. I cannot afford to change it right now, but I seriously wish I knew all this sometime back.I have a soft corner for slightly few dbs. bumped up upper bass.

All I said is measuemts can tell how a device sounds, it’s left for us to choose what we like after seeing it.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

Not even a single time I said, anyone is wrong in using a non flat speaker. I myself don’t have one at home as I bought it before I knew about all these things. I cannot afford to change it right now, but I seriously wish I knew all this sometime back.I have a soft corner for slightly few dbs. bumped up upper bass.

All I said is measuemts can tell how a device sounds, it’s left for us to choose what we like after seeing it.

You certainly have good tastes. I like a few dBs too
Now we see some light at the end of the tunnel
Measurements tell a lot of things about a device's sound. Not everything. There shouldn't be a "subjectivity vs objectivity". There should be "subjectivity and objectivity". Both are sides of the same coin. Without both, the coin is not complete.