Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[keith_correa]

We can write all the word salad posts we want (and I'm guilty of doing that too) but, IMO, it doesn't change some facts viz:

1. There will always be multiple camps when it comes to choosing equipment.
2. People in either camp, no matter how unbiased they appear to be or want to be, will always be (more than a little!) biased towards the camp they belong to. Nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the beast we call a "human".
3. No camp is the completely right one no matter how much handwaving is involved from both sides.
4. We all hear differently. And we choose differently. And at the back of our mind we think the other camp is wrong.

Let's try not to see sprites in posts where none exist; let's try to take differing PoV's and respond respectfully even though something doesn't fit within our belief system because even though to your mind you may seem to be right, in reality - you may be not.

Edit: I just realized that I am guilty here of doing the same thing that I accused others of doing - awakening the sleeping canine.

 

[vkalia]

That’s has been my perspective ….for my own personal decision to look for at the audio products. Nowhere I have said that it should be others perspective. Hence always my statement ‘for me measurement is critical and important’. And this perspective, again I am stressing, is from my current understanding of the vasts audio research, and from the current industry standards as followed by https://www.aes.org/standards/

Honestly, i have no idea why you have embedded those links and what i am supposed to glean from it - you have mentioned that these are the standards followed by the AES. Great- the AES is a clearing house for setting common standards for the industry to follow and to ensure interoperatbility. When did that become the arbiter of what should be the correct specifications that sound the best for most people?

However, even assuming that this is the holy grail of specifications that you presumably think is ideal - so what?

Even in in your own case, if there was a set of audio gear that met all these requirements, would you just blindly buy it and be happy no matter how it sounded? Or would you actually - horror of horrors - listen to it and let your ears be the final judge?

And yes I have given more precedence towards the engineering and manufacturing side, wherein the manufacturers should sell us well engineered products based on sound science. (And the choice and preference to leave to us customers. The snake oil in the audiophile industry is condescending to customers intellect.)

As i said before, i agree with you here. But the existence of snake oil and some implausible differences heard by golden ears does not invalidate the importance of subjectivity.

And when I said measurement, nowhere I am implied that a single measurement of FR should be what I should rely. Most of the time when I said measurements, it implies a set of relevant measurements as according to the standards relevant to the products. For eg I always insists SPINRORAMA for speakers. For the electronics, we have different sets of measurements.

You are getting caught in semantics. Let me reiterate: if you are saying there is one ideal set of specifications that gear must be designed to (whatever that is), then that implies any other set of specifications is inaccurate.

That is what i take issue with.

A debate that has continued for decades means that there are fundamental issues not addressed by ‘opposing camps’. This can be healthy. However the question that can be ask is whether this debate has been reflected on audio research. And what does the current research/technology contributes towards addressing the ‘decades old arguments’. Haven’t the audio researches established that there are indeed objective parameters which are considered bettter sonic qualities?

Sigh... and back to square one we go: your continued insistence that there are OBJECTIVE parameters as to what sounds better. I guess we can also quantify objective parameters for what sort of music sounds better, what sort of food tastes better, etc.

If you are referring to the Harman curve and such, your understanding of what it means is inaccurate. It is basically a glorified poll that tries to determine the sound characteristics that appeal to most people - it is not a universal truth by any means. Plenty of people - myself included - would rather stab ourselves in the ear with punji sticks than listen to that overly bright excrescence that is the sound palette of a transducer that follows the Harman curve.

As humans, we will always have differences in taste/perceptions. However to build up an axiom that machines and gadgets have character which cannot be measured…….

I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant.

 

[keith_correa]

The other mistake that I made was to buy the USB Regen. It did nothing and does nothing. You can as well put a usb extender cable and it will work as good as the USB regen. ASR also says that it does nothing.

Thank you so much for this! It made for extremely entertaining reading. I can't say that I did not enjoy the relentless "mauling"; what fun!.

 

[vkalia]

We can write all the word salad posts we want (and I'm guilty of doing that too) but, IMO, it doesn't change some facts viz:

1. There will always be multiple camps when it comes to choosing equipment.
2. People in either camp, no matter how unbiased they appear to be or want to be, will always be (more than a little!) biased towards the camp they belong to. Nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of the beast we call a "human".
3. No camp is the completely right one no matter how much handwaving is involved from both sides.
4. We all hear differently. And we choose differently. And at the back of our mind we think the other camp is wrong.

Let's try not to see sprites in posts where none exist; let's try to take differing PoV's and respond respectfully even though something doesn't fit within our belief system because even though to your mind you may seem to be right, in reality - you may be not.

Edit: I just realized that I am guilty here of doing the same thing that I accused others of doing - awakening the sleeping canine.

I am not really sure what is there to argue about: atleast from the subjectivist side, it is always a case of "if you like how it sounds, more power to you". Who possibly has a problem with that?

 

[keith_correa]

I am not really sure what is there to argue about:

Right! But, who's arguing? Not me.

atleast from the subjectivist side, it is always a case of "if you like how it sounds, more power to you". Who possibly has a problem with that?

That's the case in both camps. Only, the objectivist "side" shortlists the best sounding (to their ears) differently. I don't think anyone ought to have a problem with that.

 

[Enkay78]

Honestly, i have no idea why you have embedded those links and what i am supposed to glean from it - you have mentioned that these are the standards followed by the AES. Great- the AES is a clearing house for setting common standards for the industry to follow and to ensure interoperatbility. When did that become the arbiter of what should be the correct specifications that sound the best for most people?

However, even assuming that this is the holy grail of specifications that you presumably think is ideal - so what?

Even in in your own case, if there was a set of audio gear that met all these requirements, would you just blindly buy it and be happy no matter how it sounded? Or would you actually - horror of horrors - listen to it and let your ears be the final judge?



As i said before, i agree with you here. But the existence of snake oil and some implausible differences heard by golden ears does not invalidate the importance of subjectivity.



You are getting caught in semantics. Let me reiterate: if you are saying there is one ideal set of specifications that gear must be designed to (whatever that is), then that implies any other set of specifications is inaccurate.

That is what i take issue with.



Sigh... and back to square one we go: your continued insistence that there are OBJECTIVE parameters as to what sounds better. I guess we can also quantify objective parameters for what sort of music sounds better, what sort of food tastes better, etc.

If you are referring to the Harman curve and such, your understanding of what it means is inaccurate. It is basically a glorified poll that tries to determine the sound characteristics that appeal to most people - it is not a universal truth by any means. Plenty of people - myself included - would rather stab ourselves in the ear with punji sticks than listen to that overly bright excrescence that is the sound palette of a transducer that follows the Harman curve.



I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant.

Does a PVR sounds better or worse than your home theatre/AVR?

What does the so many research of double blind test about ‘sonic qualities’ of what is liked by ‘audiophiles/mucisians/audio engineers’ tells about?

Heck I mean why do we even have audioengineers?


Anyway my contribution to this thread not to assuage anyone (subjectivist/objectivist) to a ‘my perspective is right, yours is wrong’ stand. You can have scathing opinions against what you believe is not correct. It’s your prerogative.


But I am ending my part of this discourse: I believe in measurements. And hence I buy good measuring gadgets, and I am very choosy on this. And they sound good as I expected from them. I also have my UMIK1 and REW to confirm what I experienced as true to the measurements. Fortunately I have not been disappointed.

One can trashed it or not, I find this book amongst many others very helpful in audio production( I cannot upload the pdf due to size limit. But sharing the cover). One can also considers all the audio research trash or experts/audio scientist as trash….and stand strong with the belief of ‘my ears is the best’.

Unfortunately that’s not my stand. And yes you are most welcome to disagree.

 

[Analogous]

I am not sure anymore about what we are discussing here anymore. I know I have contributed to the confusion.
But it seems this horse can not be buried or cremated. Long live the horse!!!

 

[ssf]

And then there are a few of us who simply listen to our rums and drink our music

I wonder if we are labeled.. Am sure there are many.

 

[liverpool_for_life]

And then there are a few of us who simply listen to our rums and drink our music

Cleverly done!

 

[Bloom@83]

And then there are a few of us who simply listen to our rums and drink our music

I wonder if we are labeled.. Am sure there are many.

and sing ASR measurements in iambic pentameter

 

[keith_correa]

I wonder if we are labeled..

Yes, with the colors Black/Red/Green/Blue

 

[Nitin K]

 

[Analogous]

And now five dead horses receive CPR:

 

[vkalia]

Right! But, who's arguing? Not me.

That's the case in both camps. Only, the objectivist "side" shortlists the best sounding (to their ears) differently. I don't think anyone ought to have a problem with that.

Sorry, i should hav clarified - by the argument, I mean the general one (not that you were arguing).

I dont think anyone has an issue if someone says "this sounds the best to me". Objectivism, by definition, tries to define something is The One Correct Best Way, and i think that is what grates on a lot of people (well, that and setting up strawmen such as saying that anyone who believes in their ears doesnt value audio science).

Case in point - repeatedly pointing to the Harman Curve, as if that is a truism and a standard for what audio should strive to, as opposed to being just design goals set by the marketing team. It is also ironic that the Harman curve is nothing but a quantification of subjective preference.

Here is my closing thought on the subject: the plural of anecdote is data.

Happy listening, everyone.... may your system sound wonderful or measure wonderful, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Kannan]

View attachment 69251

Is it "Objective Horse of Subjective Horse"?

 

[Analogous]

Sorry, i should hav clarified - by the argument, I mean the general one (not that you were arguing).

I dont think anyone has an issue if someone says "this sounds the best to me". Objectivism, by definition, tries to define something is The One Correct Best Way, and i think that is what grates on a lot of people (well, that and setting up strawmen such as saying that anyone who believes in their ears doesnt value audio science).

Case in point - repeatedly pointing to the Harman Curve, as if that is a truism and a standard for what audio should strive to, as opposed to being just design goals set by the marketing team. It is also ironic that the Harman curve is nothing but a quantification of subjective preference.

Here is my closing thought on the subject: the plural of anecdote is data.

Happy listening, everyone.... may your system sound wonderful or measure wonderful, whatever floats your boat.

I might be wrong, but Wasn’t the Hartman curve based on a survey/poll?
If so would this not be made up of subjective opinions ?

 

[keith_correa]

Case in point - repeatedly pointing to the Harman Curve, as if that is a truism and a standard for what audio should strive to, as opposed to being just design goals set by the marketing team. It is also ironic that the Harman curve is nothing but a quantification of subjective preference.

The Harman curve was first brought up in this thread by a person who disliked the Harman Curve. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing right with that too.

About the Harman curve, this was also said by @Enkay78 : "The harman curve is a measurable curve which showcase the statistical preference of the sample of population tested". I happen to think he was correct. I think you may agree too. I didn't see any post where ANYONE said or even alluded that this was a truism.

As for design goals being set by "the" marketing team, I enjoy conspiracy theories just as much as the next guy but this is far out there with Roswell.

whatever floats your boat.

Amen!

I might be wrong, but Wasn’t the Hartman curve based on a survey/poll?

Listening tests and subsequent research on the outcome of those tests

If so would this not be made up of subjective opinions ?

Yes, to determine a preference which then got translated into an objective curve.

 

[Analogous]

Yes, to determine a preference which then got translated into an objective curve.

To make a subjective value into an objective one?

 

[ssf]

Wonders if I should post of the curves that I like.

I remember way back when I had my proper first HIFI unit. The Sony GR88. This had a V curve to start with and then most times I used to listen with the rock curve on. Extremes of frequencies with not a midrange in sight. Loved it back then when I did not know any better. Am sure, the V curve still has it's fans.

Come to think of it, I think the amp was actually fine as I had used it with other speakers and found it acceptable I think it was the speakers with the V curve.

 

[Analogous]

A Deep Dive Into Harman Curves – The Long Way Round (Part 3) |...

In this last part of the Harman curve series, we compares the Harman curves with alternative solutions proposed in Part 2, as well as other correction curves.

www.headphonesty.com

”Harman curve Lovers”: This group, which constitutes 64% of listeners, includes mostly a broad spectrum of people, although they’re generally under age 50. They prefer headphones tuned close to the Harman curve.

“More Bass Is Better”: This next group, which makes up 15% of listeners, prefers headphones with 3 to 6dB more bass than Harman curve below 300Hz, and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is predominantly male and younger — the listeners JBL is targeting with its headphones.

“Less Bass Is Better”: This group, 21% of listeners, prefers 2 to 3dB less bass than the Harman curve and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is disproportionately female and older than 50.”