A Scientific Case For Subjectivism In Audio

[highfigh]

Why thank you!

I'm a bit of a physics dilettante so I'm familiar with that quote, and some of Feynman's work. In fact I may have been somewhat subconsciously inspired by it for my post.

Dilettante? Easy, college boy!

I used to watch Feynman whenever he was on PBS- that was some great programming.

 

[shadyJ]

Audio performance does correlate to standardized measurements and Dr Toole has proven this. Thats not to say that subjective bias interferes with the objective data on what we hear. I will also add the caveat that once objective data passes of whats being measured lies beyond the threshold of human hearing, audability differences are no longer detectable.

Looks like you meant to say that audibility correlates to measurements and that Dr. Toole proved this. Toole/Olive proved that audibility correlates to measurements when biases could be reduced. They also proved that the correlation between audibility and measurements goes out the window when biases were in play, such as the simple act of seeing the speaker. The problem is, how often do we listen to sound systems in an unbiased state? The answer is, of course, almost never. The big takeaway from Olive/Toole's research shouldn't be how audio performance can be made to be audible but rather how little audio performance really matters in everyday situations.

 

[Pogre]

The problem is, how often do we listen to sound systems in an unbiased state? The answer is, of course, almost never.

Right here is the crux of it. No matter how objective or aware of biases someone is, without controls in place it is necessarily a biased and subjective experience. Almost no one can claim to be truly unbiased.

I think admitting and acknowledging that is part of trying to be a good objectivist.

 

[3db]

Looks like you meant to say that audibility correlates to measurements and that Dr. Toole proved this. Toole/Olive proved that audibility correlates to measurements when biases could be reduced. They also proved that the correlation between audibility and measurements goes out the window when biases were in play, such as the simple act of seeing the speaker. The problem is, how often do we listen to sound systems in an unbiased state? The answer is, of course, almost never. The big takeaway from Olive/Toole's research shouldn't be how audio performance can be made to be audible but rather how little audio performance really matters in everyday situations.

You basically reiterated my response. Toole and Olive have proven that measuremented performance does matter but Toole has also mentioned the power of subjective influence in his book. It all still matters in everyday life. If it didnt matter, I wouldnt own multiple subs to even out the bass response across the listener position. That was a purely objective exercise and it gained me huge subjective rewards. If it didnt matter, we wouldnt have room correction facilities in play. It all matters until you move past the threshold of detection.

 

[shadyJ]

Right here is the crux of it. No matter how objective or aware of biases someone is, without controls in place it is necessarily a biased and subjective experience. Almost no one can claim to be truly unbiased.

I think admitting and acknowledging that is part of trying to be a good objectivist.

I think admitting and acknowledging that undermines objectivism, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe we should be looking for a new approach; a pursuit of accuracy in audio but not with claims that accuracy can be experienced. Rather, a sound system that relays the output signal as similar to the input signal as possible is worth the trouble for its own sake, not for matters of preference or audibility.

 

[Mikado463]

Looks like you meant to say that audibility correlates to measurements and that Dr. Toole proved this. Toole/Olive proved that audibility correlates to measurements when biases could be reduced. They also proved that the correlation between audibility and measurements goes out the window when biases were in play, such as the simple act of seeing the speaker. The problem is, how often do we listen to sound systems in an unbiased state? The answer is, of course, almost never. The big takeaway from Olive/Toole's research shouldn't be how audio performance can be made to be audible but rather how little audio performance really matters in everyday situations.

Yep, well said !

Good read here in this thread gents and in the end it's still a hobby that can be enjoyed 'objectively and subjectiely'

 

[3db]

Right here is the crux of it. No matter how objective or aware of biases someone is, without controls in place it is necessarily a biased and subjective experience. Almost no one can claim to be truly unbiased.

I think admitting and acknowledging that is part of trying to be a good objectivist.

I agree that we all have biases. Even mood affects how we hear things. I cant and wont argue this. But I disagree with Shady about Toole's objective and I also disagree with his suggestion that it doesnt matter. We all have done multiple subwoofer placements using purely objective measurements. Even the house curve I used to setup multiple subs was based on purely objective data. My poop eating grin I still cant wipe from my face after the setup is purely subjective.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Survival of fittest means paying attention to potential threats ...

But that is not what "The Origins of Species" really means. Natural selection and adaptability to changing environment.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yup. I completely agree!

I just think that the term "objectivist" is sometimes mis-applied to people who trust the science and measurements, but also think that since they're aware of bias they somehow transcend it or it doesn't affect them. I think those people are just as guilty of "listening with their eyes" (Shady put it that way, and I liked it) as cable believers and are not being objective.

Then, there are two camps of objectivists.
You named one. Me, I know I cannot transcend bias, nor can anyone else for that matter just perhaps think they can, so I don't even try and just accept science and measurements. At least the system will be accurate to what was recorded since you cannot have the real sound producers, musicians, actors, etc, in your space.
And, I don't worry nor chase the rainbow. Just enjoy what I have.

Dr. Floyd Toole in his decades of research showed that the majority/vast majority of people do like accurate speakers, meaning well measuring speakers. This is replicable
when bias is well controlled, DBT.

 

[ski2xblack]

Didn't the philosophers already hash this stuff out a few centuries back? (The rationalists, idealists, empiricists, etc, jockeying over if or how our subjective nature and objective reality intermingle...audio subjectivism is probably an off shoot from goofy French postmodernism.)

 

[Golfx]

But that is not what "The Origins of Species" really means. Natural selection and adaptability to changing environment.

I meant it in the context that it is a trait that contributes to survival.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtrycrafts]

Read this... https://www.soundguys.com/cable-myths-reviving-the-coathanger-test-23553/

Yes, cable matters.
Without them, you get the Simon Garfunkel effect, sound of silence.

 

[Pogre]

Didn't the philosophers already hash this stuff out a few centuries back? (The rationalists, idealists, empiricists, etc, jockeying over if or how our subjective nature and objective reality intermingle...audio subjectivism is probably an off shoot from goofy French postmodernism.)

Ha! I was just sitting here thinking this is an awful lot like discussing epistemology and dealing with the issue of solipsism. How do you prove you're not just a brain in a vat being fed signals that simulate reality? I can't, but I am pretty sure I'm sharing a "real" reality with the rest of everyone else here, and even if it's true that I'm just a brain in a vat it's the only thing I have to work with so I have no choice but to just accept it and continue on.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

A well-balanced approach is the key to everything in life.

Sounds like a fortune cookie.

But it is true.

It's great to understand all the measurements, all the numbers, all the graphs and all the theories. They can help us get closer to achieving the sound we want.

But.......here we go again .......AT THE END OF THE DAY..... Whether it is about choosing certain components (speakers, AVR, PJ, etc.) or choosing certain setups/settings (Auto EQ vs Manual EQ vs no EQ), we should go with what sounds/looks best SUBJECTIVELY to us.

 

[lovinthehd]

Funny that Amir/ASR started this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...are-measurements-everything-or-nothing.29062/ too. Seems a lot of "subjectivists" have been joining asr and complaining the forum/testing/review should be more subjectively oriented despite Amir's lack of interest in spending his time/efforts that way. I lean more objectivist myself just to weed out the chaff so to speak....but if something sounds bad to me it won't stick around....just haven't had much in the way of that sort of experience either....but I really don't care what someone's personal opinion particularly is....now, adding up many many of them and taking it as a general reaction, that I can find somewhat useful.

 

[Pogre]

I think admitting and acknowledging that undermines objectivism, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe we should be looking for a new approach; a pursuit of accuracy in audio but not with claims that accuracy can be experienced. Rather, a sound system that relays the output signal as similar to the input signal as possible is worth the trouble for its own sake, not for matters of preference or audibility.

Kinda points toward the fact that there are no true objectivists. At the end of the chain were all subjectivists whether we like it or not.

 

[Hetfield]

Kinda points toward the fact that there are no true objectivists. At the end of the chain were all subjectivists whether we like it or not.

Guilty as charged! [emoji1787] Take everything I say about speakers with a grain of salt. I'm ok with that.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Am_P]

I find the ASR crowd are subjectivists based on their eyes and reading specs..sort of a anti audiophile analgous to antimatter. Get the two in the same room and watch the room be obliterated. My take has always been measurements matter up to the point of crossing the threshold of audibility. Once passed that point, their will be NO detectable difference in sound in electronics.

For instance, I would like the ASR cheeseheads to put an identical speaker with identical gear in 2 rooms that have identical dimensions and furnishing. However, one room should have 90+ % glass surfaces and another with 90+ % wood surfaces. They can do their EQ and Dirac all day till both rooms measure really really flat. Now, the ASR cheeseheads will claim both setups should sound the same when they saw those 2 flat curves, but, in reality one setup will sound horrible and the other room will sound a whole lot better. He couldn't come up with a cheeseheaded curve to explain that, I think.

 

[PENG]

I think Shady might be making a point that no matter which camp you identify with, somewhere along the line we're all subjectivists.

If that's the case, he could have communicated that better, and/or define objectivist right from the beginning.

 

[highfigh]

I sometimes wonder why people obsess to this degree over the ultimate sound quality of equipment when the available recordings vary so much. If someone wants to hear their system at its best, they need to find a small batch of recordings in whatever formats they prefer and only listen to those because some sound like crap. At that point, the sound of the system is moot because even the equipment that has been found to be 'the best' can't make the sound better; great specs, or not.

I enjoy great sound, but the idea of listening to the music and enjoying THAT seems to have been lost. If Wiki page for 'audiophile' contains "An audiophile seeks to reproduce the sound of a live musical performance, typically in a room with good acoustics. It is widely agreed that reaching this goal is very difficult and that even the best-regarded recording and playback systems rarely, if ever, achieve it."- people are trying to achieve something that's impossible namely, reproduce the sound of a live recording. Having said that, a system can sound very realistic, but live? Not really. Not many people want to sit 10'-15' from some instruments because the sound isn't actually very pleasant from that distance but the sound on a recording can make some people happy. In any genre, there are some instruments that are hard to listen to without discomfort.