Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[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.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

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.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

View attachment 66080

This is a very accurate depiction of objectivists. They are highly intolerant of anyone liking equipment/having beliefs they perceive as "bad". This can be seen on the internet by visiting various websites where they post, even in this thread one can observe such behavior.

For anyone reading along and on the fence, please listen to equipment and then make your own informed decisions. Measurements can not tell you how a speaker will sound beyond some generic idea.

 

[Enkay78]

@Enkay78
You are back after "ending" the discussion

No one here claimed ultrasonic waves contribute to sonic quality. In fact many of us here don't believe in such or similar myths.
On your claim that 50+ year old men suffer from hearing loss. Yes it's true. I am one of them.
When I plug in my hearing aids that are calibrated to enhance my lossy ears some components sound harsh.
They measure extremely well, but sound unbearable. Should I buy and listen to them or look elsewhere for a different component?
Or should I take a perfectly measuring SOTA component that "accurately" reproduces sound and add tweaks to it to make it inaccurate?

A large majority of us in this hobby are not binary.
Measurements are relevant, but not the last word.
Subjective listening and opinions are also relevant, again not the last word.
A hobbyist takes both in some ratio and bases his/her decision whether a particular component is a good fit for enjoying music.

If you feel, measurements are the only right way, good for you.
Just don't insist that this method must be followed by everyone else.

And going off tangent, bringing in money/ego/what-not serves no purpose.
People (even hardliners from both camps) will buy what they want as per their budget and preference. I respect that.
People (even hardliners from both camps) may even claim that theirs is the best ever they've heard. I respect that.

Everything in an audio chain can be measured to a reasonable accuracy, even the room.
Even when perfect as per science, our dirty little brains trick us and say "No I don't like this"
Hearing is a sensory perception. Perception being the operative word.

Cheers,
Raghu

I am also hitting 50. So I don’t trust my ears to make any generalised recommendation. Some days my same speakers sound so sweet and musical (I am getting hang of these audiophile terms ), the soundstage forward and laid back……especially in night with lights off at low volume. But in morning and sometimes late afternoon, and more so when I am in an off mood, the same speakers playing the same songs at same volume sounds shitty, bright and irritating. (Oh yes same dac, same amp and same flac)

My contention for audiophiles are a general observation I have noticed after going through forums like audiogon, headhifi etc. There do exist a snobbish and elitist culture amongst audiophiles. And yes there are bragging so of their setups. And when commented against some of their habits, one can notice the hurt egos etc. Even in HFV , there are members (apology if I hurt anyone…..but it’s a clinical observation. Nothing personal or so). This is first forum in which I have used the ignore feature for toxic members (I never could imagine doing this in the past)

My comments are not per se to this forums members. It’s rather few observations in general.

I know psychoacoustics is a complex issue. But it still baffles my mind when we interchangingly mix the separate issues of music creation(art and leisure) with audio reproduction (science and electronics).

For me measurements are a must and fundamental parameters for audio reproduction be it DACs/amps/speakers/source. They are irrelevant for me to enjoy Pink Floyd/Deep purple/Iron Maiden/Black Sabbath/Rainbows/Fleetwood Mac/Abba/Carpenters/Jagjit/Maroon 5 songs. And based on the measurements I then decide how I can tune the music to my liking.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

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

This says it all.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

This is a very accurate depiction of objectivists. They are highly intolerant of anyone liking equipment/having beliefs they perceive as "bad". This can be seen on the internet by visiting various websites where they post, even in this thread one can observe such behavior.

For anyone reading along and on the fence, please listen to equipment and then make your own informed decisions. Measurements can not tell you how a speaker will sound beyond some generic idea.

It’s a meme which fits for hardcore subjectivists too. Even the slightest hint of objectivity will trigger them too.

This says it all.

That’s how you flex the words. Nice job.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

There do exist a snobbish and elitist culture amongst objectivists.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Enkay78]

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

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

That’s how you flex the words. Nice job.

I simply quoted what you said with bold emphasis. The entire post is quoted, no context is lost.

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

Correct. Harman/Toole/Olive's research is of no value. Zero. It is a marketing ploy to sell speakers, this should be obvious to anyone.

 

[Vineethkumar01]

So the research done so many years …..like Toole& Olive are not of any value?
Harman’s research is ……?


Why is this circle going on and on when research has foregone the conclusion that universally humans have certain preference of sound and music…..and these research has been the basis for the audio technology to develop?

I mean I am so confused at this.

Toole& Olive are not Gods on earth..
The research done for so many years has value to those who know how to use it. So they certainly are valuable, as all research is
But most of their studies are based on control groups of limited sizes.
All the objective conclusions they arrived at are statistical. Not universal.
When one goes deeper into the statistics part of it, one can identify the flaws. This is applicable to all kinds of research where statistical conclusions are arrived at. "Universally" humans don't have a "single" preference. It varies based on a lot of factors.
While their research can give guidelines, there are no "absolutes" in terms of conclusions that can be drawn.
As I had suggested in some previous posts in this forum, if you are interested in learning more about "some" flaws in their research, I would recommend you to read Kimmosto's fights with Amir on ASR and his other posts in general..
(Kimmo Saunisto is among the few speaker designers who knows what he is doing).
Most of the more commonly used metrics for speakers like frequency response etc tell completely about the "technical aspects" of system behavior when they are Linear Time Invariant Systems. All speaker are not such systems. Nor do these metrics completely tell about the "phsyco-acoustic" aspects. Therefore our measurement systems as they stand capture only a limited part of the whole knowledge needed. More research is needed to find out what is/are better metrics and how can we arrive at accurate classifications about "what in speakers do people really like" based on technical aspects and preferences of people.

 

[Enkay78]

Toole& Olive are not Gods on earth..
The research done for so many years has value to those who know how to use it. So they certainly are valuable, as all research is
But most of their studies are based on control groups of limited sizes.
All the objective conclusions they arrived at are statistical. Not universal.
When one goes deeper into the statistics part of it, one can identify the flaws. This is applicable to all kinds of research where statistical conclusions are arrived at. "Universally" humans don't have a "single" preference. It varies based on a lot of factors.
While their research can give guidelines, there are no "absolutes" in terms of conclusions that can be drawn.
As I had suggested in some previous posts in this forum, if you are interested in learning more about "some" flaws in their research, I would recommend you to read Kimmosto's fights with Amir on ASR and his other posts in general..
(Kimmo Saunisto is among the few speaker designers who knows what he is doing).
Most of the more commonly used metrics for speakers like frequency response etc tell completely about the "technical aspects" of system behavior when they are Linear Time Invariant Systems. All speaker are not such systems. Nor do these metrics completely tell about the "phsyco-acoustic" aspects. Therefore our measurement systems as they stand capture only a limited part of the whole knowledge needed. More research is needed to find out what is/are better metrics and how can we arrive at accurate classifications about "what in speakers do people really like" based on technical aspects and preferences of people.

I wish I could agree with you.

But statistics as maths and science is proven useful for population and large numbers sampling.

Many of the hypothesis in science has come from the statistical significance .....and probability. Standard deviations and probability factor are established concepts in science.

If we go by subjectivism, religion is the epitome of our human endeavour.