Objectivity vs Subjectivity

Kind of validates that subjectivists hear music more with their eyes rather than their ears :):) and also research shows that people prefer neutral sound in blind tests.
It's not as simple as that. At least not in my experience. More often than not, People tend to prefer what sounds natural to them. And natural and neutral are not one and the same thing.

Coming to gear, what measures well in an anechoic chamber may not be relevant in the real world. Hifi manufacturers keep in mind the rooms or situations in which those loudspeakers/amplifiers will be used as well as the gear they are likely to be paired with. I suppose it's upon the user to try and home demo the product to see if it works well in their room.
 
Kind of validates that subjectivists hear music more with their eyes rather than their ears :):) and also research shows that people prefer neutral sound in blind tests.
Yes. That conclusion is valid within the limitations of that experiment. Again, these are statistics-based conclusions and therefore have its own scope. Therefore we shouldn't over interpret it. What all senses people employ in enjoying music is there own choice. Eyes, ears, whatever else. :D
And then there are a lot of biases for the audio system to keep up with, and that too based on the time of the day. For example, here is an opinion from Kimmosto who has been doing measurement - based speaker design for the last 30+ years: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ngful-speaker-measurements.29768/post-1042968

In my personal case, if i just want to buy the most neutral, best measuring (so far) speaker, i can go out and buy the Genelec 8361A with its optional bass module. That will meet all the techinical specifications i can think of for now. But i will never buy it in its current version just because i hate the way it looks. I just can't stand its looks.. Does that mean i should always close my eyes and enjoy music. Well i wont.. :D
Other people have different opinions about the matter. So all i am saying is while it is good to have all the objective knowledge we want to have, we shouldn't be limited by its current state and say that all who do not agree to our way of thinking are not right. Maybe tomorrow another research about an objective paramater will come out with better/different conclusions and we will miss out on it.
 
That conclusion is valid within the limitations of that experiment. conclusions and we will miss out on it.
I guess it’s not possible conclude anything if we think the conclusion from an experiments confirms to that experiment and not true in real world. Everything like crash tests, medical studies are all not useful if the results were true only to the experiment and not useful in real world.
 
I guess it’s not possible conclude anything if we think the conclusion from an experiments confirms to that experiment and not true in real world. Everything like crash tests, medical studies are all not useful if the results were true only to the experiment and not useful in real world.
I think I have said all that i wanted to say about this subject of objectivity and subjectivity in my posts in this thread. It is just my viewpoint from my personal experience and what i have learnt from the experience of others who have been working in this field since before i was born. You can choose to take it or leave it and move on based on your preferences.

I have nothing more useful to say in this matter and far better things to do in life than trying to convince some else about my thought process.

I'm done with this thread. Good luck.
 
I would like to add to that our subjective experiences remain mostly the same overall although they might improve continue to evolve individually. ie even for the next generation the overall subjective experience limit will not change much . It will of course be limited by or change due to our own evolution as humans.


not all of us may hear the above 20khz sicne perhaps those signals itself are rare but it is a measurable phenomenon and may have been studied and measured in various ways ( perhaps for tinnitus, not again not sure of this area..) i have heard it what i think is that , by a simple on and off of a supertweeter, personally not a fan but yes you can discern it ergo it exists

Could you elaborate on the bold part? Not sure I understood this.

I have used equipment that is specced to be flat out past 20KHz vs equipment specced at 20Khz or thereabouts. I have observed differences, subjectively, in how it sounds, that extra "air" or "shimmer', it has a different sound/feel. I have also measured the response with the same system in the same exact position with the mic in the same exact position with 2 different amps and the response was near identical, there was a slight deviation around 2-4KHz but otherwise near identical, the amp specced past 20KHz had all the extra air etc, it sounded completely different. The deviation at 2-4Khz was very small, I forget the exact frequency,bandwidth and level though.

It also seems that many speakers often have a roll off above 10-12KHz, in room when we hear them, especially when we toe them in we are likely loosing even more HF and we seem to prefer that. I think the extra HF some people prefer is in the same 10-12KHz area.
 
Raghu,
Are you gently reminding me this horse is dead and just to enjoy the music?:)
This horse is so dead due to constant flogging;) Since this forum can't seem to agree on anything, it's best we let this "sleeping dog" lie.

You asked earlier in the thread how to learn to tell good sound. There's only one way, namely, to hear as many setups as one can possibly hear. It comes with its bonuses - you'll make new friends, and you'll most definitely widen your musical horizon. And you'll form a definite idea of what sounds good to you. The "you" is important because you will come across very good and refined setups that don't tug at your heartstrings, yet the rational you can't deny that it sounds good in its own way. So plurality is yet another bonus you'll develop. Enough rambling:)
 
This whole argument is getting so old. In a few months/years this thread will be forgotten, someone else will start another one, as new members realize they love this hobby - maybe in this forum or another one, and the arguments will ensue forth. Trust me, I have been through 3 decades of these types of arguments in various fora from the dawn of the internet age. The answer - What you enjoy and hear is right - everyone else is wrong - Period.
Cheers,
Sid
 
Could you elaborate on the bold part? Not sure I understood this

What I was trying to say was the experience for what can be heard from music is a constant ( not at an individual level though)
Eg the experience of listening to a jagjit Singh recording is constant. Each of us may have reached some level in that state individually are/maybe in the path to improve that by Improving ourselves. But the total experience from that cd/vinyl is fixed..

Now that I write it it sounds weird to me:rolleyes:
 
There are two Jagjit Chitra records - Unforgettables & Milestones , on which the recording quality is such a high level , that on a fairly resolving chain the sound envelops almost the entire area from beside the left ear to the right, with subtle instrument sounds coming from different corners of the room far away from the speakers.
Just mentioning cause it took time for me , personally , to reach that experience. Time to listen to other higher end setups , understanding what is needed in mine, all by the ear.
 
The Objectivist Audiophile Screenplay:

ACT 1


Friend:
"Hey, where did your speakers go?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"I sold them!"

Friend:
Sold them?! Why?

Objectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah... Well, (fiddles with db meter) since I've documented that everything measures correctly I can finally stop listening. So I sold them."

Friend:
(Turns head towards large stack of uber expensive Hifi gear with no speakers ) What about the rest of your equipment?

Objectivist Audiophile:
Yeah, I'm really pleased with it, it's perfect."

Friend:
Have you ever considered a different hobby?

Objectivist Audiophile:
No. Why?

End ACT 1

--
You need to see things from a broader perspective.
 
Your writing skills are quite good. Can you write a subjectivist version?
The Subjectivist Audiophile Screenplay:

ACT 1

Friend:

" Woooooh... dude what is going on? (Looks at large pile of wire and speaker parts) Didn't you just buy these speakers?"

Subjectivist Audiophile
"Yeah! But I'm going to make them better so I tore them apart."

Friend:
"You were just telling me how there was over five years in the R&D and they designed them utilizing the latest high speed computational fluid dynamic modeling in a virtual anechoic chamber with 3D printing because the guys brother works at DARPA?"

Subjectivist Audiophile
"Yep."

Friend:

"~And you're going to make them.... better?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah, see I'm replacing all these OEM teflon capacitors with the latest HoneyCombPaperMonkeyWaxFoil capacitors by DuumDORF."

Friend:
" DuumDORF?" "But all these look to be the SAME Values as the original caps?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah BUT the monkeywax SOUNDS BETTER!"

Friend:
"But, (Rolls Eyes) there're the SAME VALUES."

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Sounds better."

Friend:
"Remind me of Ohm's Law again?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
Who?

Friend:
"I thought so."

END ACT I

--
 
Last edited:
The Subjectivist Audiophile Screenplay:

ACT 1

Friend:

" Woooooh... dude what is going on? (Looks at large pile of wire and speaker parts) Didn't you just buy these speakers?"

Subjectivist Audiophile
"Yeah! But I'm going to make them better so I tore them apart."

Friend:
"You were just telling me how there was over five years in the R&D and they designed them utilizing the latest high speed computational fluid dynamic modeling in a virtual anechoic chamber with 3D printing because the guys brother works at DARPA?"

Subjectivist Audiophile
"Yep."

Friend:

"~And you're going to make them.... better?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah, see I'm replacing all these OEM teflon capacitors with the latest HoneyCombPaperMonkeyWaxFoil capacitors by DuumDORF."

Friend:
" DuumDORF?" "But all these look to be the SAME Values as the original caps?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Yeah BUT the monkeywax SOUNDS BETTER!"

Friend:
"But.... (Rolls Eyes) there're the SAME VALUES."

Subjectivist Audiophile:
"Sounds better...."

Friend:
"Remind me of Ohms Law again?"

Subjectivist Audiophile:
Who?

Friend:
"I though so...."

END ACT I
Now , can you do one with both?
 
Such a lovely question that's lead to an eminently readable thread.

To be honest, I did want to wade in quite a few times, but thankfully let it be since I did not want to flaunt my ignorance/add fuel to fire in a casual way.

So, I went back and gathered all my thoughts on whatever I have read in response to this question.
(Might have missed some; and let us all agree to let ASR be for a while)

And I have a simple question:
Audio being what it is, and products being what they are, can one really be a subjectivist without first being an objectivist?

Would be grateful if everyone who participated in this thread, including OP, answers this.

I asked myself this question, and I know what my answer to that question is, and who knows, your own answer might well answer it for you, while allowing all of us to understand each other better.
 
Last edited:
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.
Sir, Sorry to butt in in an ideological/philosophical thread, but would love to understand something from you. (of course, others are also free to answer this question, but I do want to hear Vineeth sir's answer)

And it is a serious question. Just so we are clear, am not taking the micky out of you. And it may even be an ignorant question. But please be assured it is asked in good faith and I would be grateful if you, or anyone, could answer:
What are the differences between a music recording and a movie soundtrack?
If there are so many variables in a music soundtrack that reproducing it is so nearly impossible, how do moviemakers so confidently go about their work knowing that people across the world will hear the same thing?
 
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.
Sir, this makes eminent sense.
Just if you don't mind sharing, what you bought and how has it let you down?
Not only would it enable experienced FMs to try and sort it, but it will also help a lot of new buyers make up their mind.
Regards
 
Just to liven things up (or another attempt to resuscitate the dead horse)…
I used to listen and give merit to this guy. But with my evolving knowledge about audio in particular (mind you I didn’t say music) I came to understand reviewers like him and how much he sells BS to sell ….or advertise the gadgets he reviews. I still feel much of the debate and confusion is happening with the interchanging concepts of audio(objective) and music(subjective).

I mean precision matters. And measurements goes towards making the production of audio precise. And yes research is still ongoing how we can define the curves and graphs of human hearing and preference in music.

Just suppose two audiophiles wants to compare what they hear…..that they hear same …..how will they do it? How will both substantiate that what they hear is same? Can the subjective descriptions of slam/forward/punch/laid back etc be understood and compared as unique quantified data points?
And if they hear any difference then how will they know?

A fellow FM has suggested to listen to many systems, preferably high ends, to have an idea about good sound and educate oneself.
This way one may find our what one prefers. But this is an unnecessary process. Audio research are out there showing this common preference. We just need to understand and interpret what all these researches mean. Popular consumer audio products just didn’t become popular.

To me the debate is very clear: (and here I am not trying to insinuate subjectivism is bad or having an agenda against subjectivist) measurements are the fundamental for our hearing. We have well defined auditory spectrum. And there are load of research on the preference curves of this spectrum. Our audio gadgets and technology are precisely being developed and evolved to produce/reproduce what we exactly hear. And this physics is science and objective data.

What I hear as ethereal in music can be studied. Is being studied. Everything is measurable in this universe. It’s a question of time and evolution of technology. In 1901, it would be hard to imagine a 5G smartphone. Copernicus would never have grasp the technology of James Webb space telescope.


So rest assured those of us who feels there are things unmeasurable, our grand children will know. Some researches will happen using MR neuroscience collating with FR and study how our auditory cortex in the temporal lobe works with our frontal lobe of logic/reasoning cortex.
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Red Mahogany finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top