A Scientific Case For Subjectivism In Audio

[Pogre]

Someone may be an incredible musician, yet their idea of good sound may be totally different from the majority of others, whether musicians, or not. I know musicians who wouldn't know good sound if it bit them on the a$$ and I know others who have won Grammy awards for their music production- it's up to the person and their training WRT sound analysis, not the profession. Hearing music and listening to it are two very different things- many don't care about the level of musicianship, sound quality, production, etc- they just like the music while some care almost exclusively about the sound quality. I worked with someone who claimed to be an audiophile and said that he listened mostly to Enya because of the sound quality.

Most musicians I know (and I'll bet a paycheck I know more musicians than most people do) have compromised hearing anyway.

 

[highfigh]

I see...so it seems that are many limitations to this whole measurement paradigm w.r.t capturing the full listening experience when the room is an inherent part of it.

Hang on a second...the listener's physicality is going through going through subtle psychosomatic changes through the entirety of a listening session as well. Oh fk..this measurement paradigm is starting to get real fked up and compicated now

But, I guess the ASR emperor figures it all out measuring one speaker in his garage. Strangely, the Revels are the immaculate thing of the day anyday and he happens to be a Revel dealer....wow

Your first point is accurate- the room is incredibly important, yet forgotten in so many cases- this is most likely when a significant other or an interior detonator is involved with the decision-making part.

The physical part is accurate, too- nobody goes their through life maintaining pristine hearing ability. Even Neanderthals had hearing damage if they were close to a lightning strike. Just driving or riding in a car with the windows open can cause hearing damage and something as simple as a change in the weather can affect our ability to hear some frequencies.

However, a Dr Toole and Dr Olive have been mentioned- some of their work has found that people with different hearing ability tended to prefer sound that was very similar. The whole exercise of finding 'the best' is like firing a dart into the air and intentionally hitting one specific electron- highly unlikely that it will happen, but they may be 'close enough'.

Mostly, this (as a hobby) is about improving the technology, experience, etc. Some are obsessed, some are incredibly obsessed and some are so neurotic that they see nothing else in life.

Running a forum and selling sometimes go hand in hand- all of the audio magazines that reviewed products in the past were supported by ad revenue and people used to say "They never met a product they didn't like" about Stereo Review because they had ads for just about every brand at some point. They didn't seem to be objective, at all.

I'm not a big fan of dealers on forums posting as if they're unbiased toward manufacturers or models of equipment, then making recommendations for the brands they sell. These forums aren't theirs to use as a selling tool- if they want to do that, they should sponsor their own forum.

 

[highfigh]

Most musicians I know (and I'll bet a paycheck I know more musicians than most people do) have compromised hearing anyway.

I know some who came to the realization that their hearing has been badly damaged at a stage where it's too late to do anything about it and they really should have known although I asked one who has played around the World for over 40 years in front of crowds that were so large their cheering could cause hearing damage by itself and when I asked about his hearing, he said he was tested regularly and it was good, considering the details of life on the road, etc. I can't imagine how loud an audience of half a million people in one place would sound.

 

[Pogre]

I can't imagine how loud an audience of half a million people in one place would sound.

Me either, lol. My experiences with live music were mostly small local venues and weekly band practices that were held at my house growing up.

 

[Pogre]

Yeah? I suppose you would have no problems then linking everybody to a very quick video that showcases your expertise/prowess with such an instrument....

So do you have any private images or video you'd like to share with the rest of us of you or your family showcasing your expertise or experience in... anything relevant? Have you ever done a sound check? Tuned an instrument? Run a mixing board during a live performance? Anything?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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.

That's what I do.

I listen to only recordings that sound awesome. Screw the rest.

For my PJ, I try to watch mainly contents that have great picture quality. Screw the rest.

 

[Pogre]

That's what I do.

I listen to only recordings that sound awesome. Screw the rest.

For my PJ, I try to watch mainly contents that have great picture quality. Screw the rest.

You know, I have to admit that since I upped my audio game a lot of my more poorly recorded music gets neglected now...

 

[cpp]

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.

So very true, I'm 69 and let me tell ya, it just gets worst each year. I have now come to the conclusion, I'm going to enjoy my music, my way, the way I hear it, as its all I got left. .

 

[shadyJ]

That, I would agree 100% but in the video I thought you might have left people with the impression that you were biased against what you called the objectivist. If you follow the definition of "objectivism" by Merriam-Webster, you seemed to have defined objectivism and objectivist in your own way.

Definition of objectivism

1: any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience especially : REALISM sense 2a

Essential Meaning of objective
1: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions

Definition of realism

1: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary
2a: a doctrine that universals exist outside the minds specifically : the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality
b: a theory that objects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind

There are multiple examples in at least two slides I would take exception to:

Example1: You are right about what you were saying in the first screenshot, but what is your definition of die-hard objectivist? I would think if the die-hard objectivist is truly an objectivist, he/she will tell you his/her subsequent perception of the sound system's performance will be a subjective one.

Example2: In the 2nd screenshot, if the so called objectivist falter, for the reasons you listed, then as Pogre said before, they are actually subjectivist.

Other than that, I thoroughly enjoy your video, and I always respect your knowledge in loudspeakers, thank you very much.

The reason why I posted earlier about the need for better definitions is because the audio community vernacular of 'objectivism' and 'subjectivism' do not quite line up with their formal definitions. As has been mentioned in this thread, many self-proclaimed 'objectivists' aren't really that by the proper definition, and the same is true of self-proclaimed subjectivists. Of course, this whole subject can run much deeper and has been a matter of philosophical debate since ancient times, but I am trying to avoid that and stick to the facts of contemporary psychology. I could have brought even more research into the slideshow but I tried to keep it short (somehow the live stream ended up being over an hour and a half anyway). The article that I based much of the content for the slideshow is here. Even that article is just a brief overview of the matter that it discusses, and I could also have brought even more research that I found, but I didn't want to balloon it with abstruse studies.

To address your specific points, I am not trying to pin people into some arbitrary definition that serves my point but rather am using the way these words are normally used in the audio community against themselves. Many so-called objectivists ignore the full science. They think they can stop at blind testing and measurements and that somehow gives them an edge in accessing realistic sound reproduction.

 

[PENG]

The reason why I posted earlier about the need for better definitions is because the audio community vernacular of 'objectivism' and 'subjectivism' do not quite line up with their formal definitions. As has been mentioned in this thread, many self-proclaimed 'objectivists' aren't really that by the proper definition, and the same is true of self-proclaimed subjectivists. Of course, this whole subject can run much deeper and has been a matter of philosophical debate since ancient times, but I am trying to avoid that and stick to the facts of contemporary psychology. I could have brought even more research into the slideshow but I tried to keep it short (somehow the live stream ended up being over an hour and a half anyway). The article that I based much of the content for the slideshow is here. Even that article is just a brief overview of the matter that it discusses, and I could also have brought even more research that I found, but I didn't want to balloon it with abstruse studies.

To address your specific points, I am not trying to pin people into some arbitrary definition that serves my point but rather am using the way these words are normally used in the audio community against themselves. Many so-called objectivists ignore the full science. They think they can stop at blind testing and measurements and that somehow gives them an edge in accessing realistic sound reproduction.

Got it, thank you for the clarification.

 

[davidscott]

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

Kind of like back in the day when I had the new advents with the walnut veneer but would have preferred the more expensive actual walnut models.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How many musicians do you know and if you know a large number, how many DON'T have hearing damage? Even violinists have damaged hearing- have you ever been within inches of a real violin or Piccolo?

Not to mention conductors. There is an interesting paper on this:
Greener in the Outtakes

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Even Neanderthals had hearing damage if they were close to a lightning strike. ....

But they would have had to survive even a close call.

ps. I have some of those DNAs.

 

[highfigh]

But they would have had to survive even a close call.

ps. I have some of those DNAs.

I think 100 yards from a lightning strike is close enough. I'm always amazed by the SPL from a nearby strike- impressive.

European ancestry, here- two of my 10th Great grandparents came to America when an English Civil War, Plague and the Little Ice Age were happening at the same time. His father had died not long before they left and I think the conversation may have started and ended with "F&ck this!".

 

[highfigh]

Me either, lol. My experiences with live music were mostly small local venues and weekly band practices that were held at my house growing up.

I can ask, next time I see him. I watched the video and when they panned the cameras across the crowd, I said "Holy crap!". Most big acts use in-ear monitors, so it's really not the same as when Hendrix, Zeppelin, etc were cranking the snot out of whole rows of amp stacks.

 

[highfigh]

That's what I do.

I listen to only recordings that sound awesome. Screw the rest.

For my PJ, I try to watch mainly contents that have great picture quality. Screw the rest.

I like Blues- a lot of the classic stuff is just old and doesn't sound very good, but it's all we have. The station at the college I went to plays a lot of Blues and Saturday mornings in prime time for that. They played some Jimmy Reed & Howlin Wolf today and even with that sound, it's still enjoyable because it's not going to happen again. A local AM public radio station had a late-night show in the '70s into the '80s and it was all Jazz & Blues, but the music for this one wasn't played in the station's studio, it was recorded by the host and sent to the station over the phone. It sounded like crap, but the music was great.

 

[Bucknekked]

You know, I have to admit that since I upped my audio game a lot of my more poorly recorded music gets neglected now...

Yup. A lot of my favorites from the 1970's just sound like crap or just "lifeless".
The search for well recorded music really got kicked in to high gear when I installed the new stuff and got it all tuned up. Nothing will fix a dull or lifeless recording. So, I just don't play the stuff that sounds dull or ordinary any more. I can actually hear the difference. I never enjoyed jazz until I got this setup working. Now jazz and the horns are most enjoyable and entertaining. Old dogs can learn new tricks

 

[3db]

I like Blues- a lot of the classic stuff is just old and doesn't sound very good, but it's all we have. The station at the college I went to plays a lot of Blues and Saturday mornings in prime time for that. They played some Jimmy Reed & Howlin Wolf today and even with that sound, it's still enjoyable because it's not going to happen again. A local AM public radio station had a late-night show in the '70s into the '80s and it was all Jazz & Blues, but the music for this one wasn't played in the station's studio, it was recorded by the host and sent to the station over the phone. It sounded like crap, but the music was great.

Blues is the perfect genres where early recordings sound were of very poor quality. Still, its my favourite genre of music and I play old and new despite the poor recording quality of the older recordings. Kinda brings one back to that era.

 

[Dean Kurtz]

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

Science continually changes. So it's not the all in all, but it's a good guideline. Also, if it's checking at full volume or close to it, I never go that loud, so or doesn't mean as much to me.

 

[highfigh]

Blues is the perfect genres where early recordings sound were of very poor quality. Still, its my favourite genre of music and I play old and new despite the poor recording quality of the older recordings. Kinda brings one back to that era.

Some recordings can be surprising, though.

This has been remastered, but it wouldn't sound this good if the original had been really bad. Not bad, for 1930.