A Scientific Case For Subjectivism In Audio

[Pogre]

I got to listen to this yesterday when I was out and about. I understand what's being said about subjectivity and inescapable biases, but to me this makes a stronger case for objectivity than subjectivity. Objectivity is more than basing decisions strictly on measurements. It's also about removing as many of those biases as possible (including knowing how something measures) and making decisions based on what you hear.

I do agree that it's unfair to just dismiss something based on measured performance alone, and it does seem like a lot of self proclaimed objectivists look at the measurements and "listen with their eyes". That to me however, is not being objective. I think part of being objective is not only to be aware of your biases, but to also understand that you cannot escape them. Take every experience with a grain of salt. Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

 

[Hetfield]

Well I will say this about myself, cause I have been thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just easily pleased. I don't think I ever hear a decent speaker from a name brand that I though you myself, this sound like garbage. I go over the top with speakers I have owned not because I'm trying to justify my purchase just because I'm fairly or really very easy to please. I loved the Def Techs I owned, I loved the RSL speakers I've owned and I love the JBL speakers I have now. So I'm not a good judge for anyone looking for speakers, don't ever take that I say at any kind of indication.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[ski2xblack]

Being happy in a delusion only works as long as the delusion persists. Mutability of sensory perception is a fact, but shouldn't be relied on as the lynchpin of an audio rig's performance. If it were, we would all be using gold plated megabuck speaker cables.

 

[Trell]

[Snip] Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

Scientists controls for bias in their research and there is much research done on how to do so properly. It’s certainly not perfect, but it does work at least in some fields.

 

[Golfx]

Well I will say this about myself, cause I have been thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just easily pleased. I don't think I ever hear a decent speaker from a name brand that I though you myself, this sound like garbage. I go over the top with speakers I have owned not because I'm trying to justify my purchase just because I'm fairly or really very easy to please. I loved the Def Techs I owned, I loved the RSL speakers I've owned and I love the JBL speakers I have now. So I'm not a good judge for anyone looking for speakers, don't ever take that I say at any kind of indication.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Well said. I use shadyj and Matthew Poes to sort out my future options for me. They have a constant exposure to new and different speakers. My one or two encounters at a show aren’t in anyway close to the comparative diluent they have.

Regarding bias—it is ancestral in origin. It is needed to protect your family and clan from danger. Survival of fittest means paying attention to potential threats (hence why negative news recruits readership). Once we make a decision and arrive at an answer, THAT, then becomes valuable to us and needs to be protected by us—hence bias. Science therefore also relies on peer review to sort out flawed results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hetfield]

Well said. I use shadyj and Matthew Poes to sort out my future options for me. They have a constant exposure to new and different speakers. My one or two encounters at a show aren’t in anyway close to the comparative diluent they have.

Regarding bias—it is ancestral in origin. It is needed to protect your family and clan from danger. Survival of fittest means paying attention to potential threats (hence why negative news recruits readership). Once we make a decision and arrive at an answer, THAT, then becomes valuable to us and needs to be protected by us—hence bias. Science therefore also relies on peer review to sort out flawed results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Also it's been over a decade since I went to a store and heard a speaker to make a decision. It's on the house only at this point. Good return policy is what I look for. My JBL speakers were based on reviews, written, and YouTube. Then the forums to hear the pluses and minuses. Then of course the biggest was budget and the insane sale they were running. I'm a happy with the my decision but like I said I'm easily pleased and impressed.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[ski2xblack]

Scientists controls for bias in their research and there is much research done on how to do so properly. It’s certainly not perfect, but it does work at least in some fields.

Good old fashioned, Arny Kruger style abx testing works. Sure, it's an exercise in frustration one would only subject enemies to, but an effective bias adjuster when subjects are faced with the realization that their ears aren't golden after all.

 

[shadyJ]

I got to listen to this yesterday when I was out and about. I understand what's being said about subjectivity and inescapable biases, but to me this makes a stronger case for objectivity than subjectivity. Objectivity is more than basing decisions strictly on measurements. It's also about removing as many of those biases as possible (including knowing how something measures) and making decisions based on what you hear.

I do agree that it's unfair to just dismiss something based on measured performance alone, and it does seem like a lot of self proclaimed objectivists look at the measurements and "listen with their eyes". That to me however, is not being objective. I think part of being objective is not only to be aware of your biases, but to also understand that you cannot escape them. Take every experience with a grain of salt. Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

I think a problem lies in what exactly objectivism and subjectivism are in our usage. These terms need better definitions. Broadly speaking, objectivism in audio seems to mean that the audio performance of a sound system is perceivable and correlates to standardized measurements. Subjectivism in audio seems to mean that there are physical aspects of the sound experience that eludes measurements or at least standardized measurements but which nonetheless have a major impact on the listening experience. I think that there are major flaws in both camps. Both have an unfounded belief that they are closer to the "truth" of the performance of the system than the other.

I would propose that you can have a more accurate system, but you can never fully experience that accuracy. I don't know how much you could experience, but my hunch is that it is a lot less than people tend to think.

 

[3db]

I got to listen to this yesterday when I was out and about. I understand what's being said about subjectivity and inescapable biases, but to me this makes a stronger case for objectivity than subjectivity. Objectivity is more than basing decisions strictly on measurements. It's also about removing as many of those biases as possible (including knowing how something measures) and making decisions based on what you hear.

I do agree that it's unfair to just dismiss something based on measured performance alone, and it does seem like a lot of self proclaimed objectivists look at the measurements and "listen with their eyes". That to me however, is not being objective. I think part of being objective is not only to be aware of your biases, but to also understand that you cannot escape them. Take every experience with a grain of salt. Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

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.

 

[Pogre]

I think a problem lies in what exactly objectivism and subjectivism are in our usage. These terms need better definitions. Broadly speaking, objectivism in audio seems to mean that the audio performance of a sound system is perceivable and correlates to standardized measurements. Subjectivism in audio seems to mean that there are physical aspects of the sound experience that eludes measurements or at least standardized measurements but which nonetheless have a major impact on the listening experience. I think that there are major flaws in both camps. Both have an unfounded belief that they are closer to the "truth" of the performance of the system than the other.

I would propose that you can have a more accurate system, but you can never fully experience that accuracy. I don't know how much you could experience, but my hunch is that it is a lot less than people tend to think.

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.

 

[Steve81]

To share my 2 cents... When I got my KEF R500's, I considered them to be nearly ideal in how a speaker should be designed, attractive, decently measuring, etc. Unsurprisingly, I've been perfectly satisfied with them for the last 7 years or so.

Now suppose the actual sonic attributes remained, but other factors changed. Suppose instead of a nice wood veneer, the R500's were finished in Line-X, and my opinion on the overall design was "adequate, but unremarkable". Would my experience be the same? Probably not. Would I still own them? Probably not. The point? The heart wants what it wants... Of course, being at least somewhat objective can help shape what you want so you're not just wasting cash on pointless crap

 

[Pogre]

I find the ASR crowd are subjectivists based on their eyes and reading specs.

Exactly! That's what I'm getting at. Many of them may fancy themselves as objectivists but I'm arguing they're being subjectivists and allowing their biases affect their conclusions, and that bias is toward how flat that line is or how low those numbers are.

 

[Swerd]

I think part of being objective is not only to be aware of your biases, but to also understand that you cannot escape them. Take every experience with a grain of salt. Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

Well said. I like that.

Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, was able to express that same idea in a single sentence.

The first principle of scientific inquiry is that you must not fool yourself – and, that you are the easiest person to fool.​

 

[3db]

I think a problem lies in what exactly objectivism and subjectivism are in our usage. These terms need better definitions. Broadly speaking, objectivism in audio seems to mean that the audio performance of a sound system is perceivable and correlates to standardized measurements. Subjectivism in audio seems to mean that there are physical aspects of the sound experience that eludes measurements or at least standardized measurements but which nonetheless have a major impact on the listening experience. I think that there are major flaws in both camps. Both have an unfounded belief that they are closer to the "truth" of the performance of the system than the other.

I would propose that you can have a more accurate system, but you can never fully experience that accuracy. I don't know how much you could experience, but my hunch is that it is a lot less than people tend to think.

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.

 

[Pogre]

Well said. I like that.

Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, was able to express that same idea in a single sentence.

The first principle of scientific inquiry is that you must not fool yourself – and, that you are the easiest person to fool.​

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.

 

[Pogre]

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.

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

 

[3db]

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

 

[Bucknekked]

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.

.
Age plays a role and although it doesn't often get acknowledged it's a pretty important one.

As I have aged (I'm 67) I know objectively my hearing ability has declined and I'm no longer able to compete with 25-year-old ears for objective discernment. Dr Toole documents this pretty well in his book. What I am grateful for in this discussion is that my ability to subjectively enjoy my music and music system just keeps getting better and better with the passage of time and the building of experience.

The object of the whole idea of audio as a hobby is to enjoy the subject, which is our music (or movies).
I wrote that last sentence just so I could screw around with object and subject in the same sentence.

 

[highfigh]

I got to listen to this yesterday when I was out and about. I understand what's being said about subjectivity and inescapable biases, but to me this makes a stronger case for objectivity than subjectivity. Objectivity is more than basing decisions strictly on measurements. It's also about removing as many of those biases as possible (including knowing how something measures) and making decisions based on what you hear.

I do agree that it's unfair to just dismiss something based on measured performance alone, and it does seem like a lot of self proclaimed objectivists look at the measurements and "listen with their eyes". That to me however, is not being objective. I think part of being objective is not only to be aware of your biases, but to also understand that you cannot escape them. Take every experience with a grain of salt. Just knowing about biases isn't enough. You have to understand that you can't control or escape them, and to me that's part of being a good objectivist.

I don't think that checking the specs is the end of the analysis for people who don't believe people who say that something makes a difference and base that opinion on faith because there's no way to prove it or no proof has been shown. Specs are a way to see what it can do with the signals fed to a piece of equipment, that's all. It's data, not the sound, video or some other sensation and that should only be used to weed out the stuff that claims to be what it's not or can't be. Also, and I don't know who else has made the same decision, it's best to go into a viewing, listening, taste/smell test without caring one way or the other if something is better or worse than anything else. Go in with a blank slate, so the sound, video or whatever can stand on its own, not perceive it through the eyes of someone who's biased in some way.

Objectivity is ONLY based on facts- there's no bias allowed and if a measurement shows good or bad, it's not up to the person reviewing the data to form an opinion, but they need to come to some conclusion after the criteria that determine good or bad are met, or not. That still has nothing to do with listening or seeing something other than the data.

 

[Hetfield]

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

I just had an argument with PS Audio over cables and "high end expensive" power cables
It was actually hilarious how they justify this bullshit.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk