Better Sounding Systems, Objectivists or Subjectivists?

Surrealists - why settle for reality when you can have so much more?

When these two camps retire to their listening rooms, which school of thought tends to get better sound?

That's the wrong question because they are likely to define "better" differently.  The real question is "Which school of thought tends to be happier with their sound?"    

How does the music make you feel and is it inline with how you wanted to feel at the time? Rather than listening for being able to hear this breath or that cymbal hit, how does it feel when you listen? That will tell you what sounds best. If it measures well and you feel good listening to it, doesn't make you tense (unless excitement all the time is what you're looking for) and you can listen for long periods without wanting to turn it off, you've got the best of both worlds.  Because of how mental this hobby is, one day something can sound great and the next day, just good. It's why auditioning equipment shouldn't be swapping stuff out quickly. Listen for a while, then listen the other way for a while.  Which one made you feel better? No difference? Buy the cheaper or better looking or more expensive or whatever your additional criteria is besides sound.

@kr4 indeed, who likely listens to their systems more? Those of us who listen to our systems when making component purchases and set up decisions, or those who look at numbers and graphs? Put another way, do those of us who trust our ears listen to our systems more than people who do not trust their hearing to reliably choose ‘better sound’? And if you can’t trust your ears to arrive at better sound, how do you know if you have better sound in the first place? It seems to me people who don’t trust their ears, who have a fanatical opposition to those of us who do, are probably in the wrong hobby which at the end of the day, is all about enjoying our systems which is of course, totally subjective.

They both get great sound then gather together for a giant love fest. 

there are people who have been in this arena for some time, yet don’t trust their own ability to discern what sounds good or ’right’... lost souls in this pursuit as far as i am concerned

then there are folks who rely on measurements, must, just must have measurements to establish or confirm their beliefs -- this because of their training, or experiences in related or other fields...well, that may be understandable, as we are all products of our life experiences -- when you have relied on a hammer (and only a hammer) all your life, it is hard to see the world as anything else but a bed of nails

Binary question, 0 or 1 

0

Can't we all just get a lawn 😢

It would seem that the objectivists 1st priority is to make sure the measurements are correct. Thus  the measurements inform them that the system sounds good, NOT the system's sound itself.

Not a serious question!

I do look at frequency response, efficiency and impedance curves. Never a deciding factor but a glance. Beyond that you ought to try to hear the speaker in your own or a similar sized room because that will fill in lots blanks. The room and listening distance are important to the sound you are after. You can rely on a professional to help or many just need trial and error and putting in the time to learn themselves. Dividing them into camps kind of isolates groups that I don’t find that different, or maybe I haven’t met enough audiophile that are so hemmed in to a belief about sound. Some speakers have a magic not found in the specs.

**** That’s the wrong question because they are likely to define "better" different….. ****

Agree.

****……The real question is "Which school of thought tends to be happier with their sound?" ****

Neither, I’ve met many from both camps who obsess over the “sound”. Happiest are those who only moderately care one way or the other and who listen for the musical content first and foremost.

Can we set Mapman up with a demo fuse for his 20,000th post. He's one of the more rational high post count people on the site. I'd chip in. 

Never again assume that the "camps" to whom you refer are mutually exclusive.

Such a characterization of "camps" could be worse I suppose, though at the moment I am at a loss to say just how.

When these two camps retire to their listening rooms, which school of thought tends to get better sound? Those who ultimately place their faith in measurements above actually listening to their systems? 

@bjesien thanks but I already got one you see.  See my system page.  It’s in box unused in front of turntable.  🙏

the funny thing is, objectivists don’t put systems together objectively. they just enjoy being contrary.

when tussling with an objectivist i often challenge them to describe in detail their process for system building, and then please list the gear and the process of decision making using measurements.

i get crickets. zero response. they never did it.

then i ask to just list one piece of gear and the decision process for the choice.

again....nothing. how can anyone take them seriously?

and btw; every step of my system building and decision making process is on my system page (or posted on various forums) for god and country to read. every subjectivist word. nothing hidden.

It looks nice there. 👍

There are certain people that cannot be objective about what they see or hear. You can show them a red flag and they will say it’s blue. Nothing will convince them that the flag is red. There is no evidence they will accept. It’s the people that are willing to experiment and try things that assemble the best systems. They are not afraid of being wrong about something and are open to new ideas. Those are the people that push the hobby forward.

@russ69  

 

It’s the people that are willing to experiment and try things that assemble the best systems. They are not afraid of being wrong about something and are open to new ideas. Those are the people that push the hobby forward.

+1

I have built two systems I enjoy very much. I built them to suit my ears,and I have never measured anything. (Other than speaker placement)  I have employed some items that others scoff at. I’m good with that. I look at this hobby as a journey. Some want to take the Freeway,others want to stay out of traffic. 

@noske U have his number ! 

Why not use every tool you have. If a measurement is off it doesn't guarantee there's a bad result but it points to something to check. In the end the final decision is subjective. It's the only way to put all the data one has into one decision.

But perhaps most important is to understand yourself. There are factors that must be there for satisfaction. You need to learn what they are or without them you'll never be satisfied. There are factors that are intolerable. You also need to know and recognize what they are or even a system that sounds good at first will ultimately not satisfy. I suspect you can miss a plus or two. But one bothersome factor and the system is a goner.

Audiophile use every piece of data available, both objective and subjective. But most important - audiophile know thyself. and that may be the hardest but most important factor of all.

you going to have great measurements and crappy sound so I never trust measurements I always trust my ears

Numbers can lie.

They precisely tell you a part of the story.

They're useful but become a trap for some people.

You can develop the ability to better than numbers.

You know an artist, a master...or just really good.

@mikelavigne

Try replacing the words "they" with "she/her", and "objectivist" with "women/woman", and recite your post to a friend who is a female.

You might receive anything ranging from laughter to a smack.

Generalities are perhaps something I have learnt to cringe at from a young age listening to a guy on a pulpit.

edit - I could have picked any number of posts by others (possibly including my own?), so please don't regard this as personal.

I like @mapman too....omni fans are hard to find, off enjoying the things. *L*

Objective is measured in plots and purpose, both good to have but only the point to make or jump from towards.

Subjectivity is what we experience and respond to; sometimes well, not hard to keep when discussing the same.  It's hard to translate moments into meanings that can only hint at the subject....

My stuff ain't SOTA, but I don't let that stop me.

Nor I towards all y'all.*S*

@noske, yeah I learned that cringe from the Women in Black.  Well-intentioned, no doubt.....like most things that revolve on being blind....

Harsh, perhaps...much like the candy-coated thing called 'history', lived through.

'Bots don't hurt...much...yet

Who says ’objectivists’ don’t listen? As an electronics scientist I consider myself an ’objectivist’ in the sense that I’m not a ’believer’ in cryogenic treated fuses and super expensive cables that after a 100 hour run in time magically improve the sound. Passive components can only act as a filter. (Before someone says ’have you ever listened to them’ ... yes I have, and I did’t hear a difference. Which doesn’t mean to say no one can hear a difference, if you do and if it’s worth the money to you, that’s great.)

But that doesn’t mean I don’t listen to speakers, amplifier, source and room acoustics to decide which sound ’better’ ... with that I don’t rely on any measurements at all besides my own ears and my dB meter.

The subjectivists seem less worried about being duped by some unusually clever nasty capitalist. 

The subjectivists seem less worried about being duped by some unusually clever nasty capitalist. 

There may be various explanations for that and not all of them are complimentary.

It is way to easy today for people to loose focus and get lost in their system to the point of no longer enjoying the music. For me it is a overweighted compromise or music first system second.  

@rudyb 

Who says ’objectivists’ don’t listen? 

Do you want names named?  That wouldn't be very nice.

Discovering which measurements are important, and in which order is a bit like getting a Rubik's Cube solved, it's no mistake when it's correct and can be repeated.

One of the main reasons I like reading many opinions of people who also enjoy our hobby, you just never know when they will share a bit of Golden knowledge that elevates your own, and in turn your system when implemented.

It’s fine if someone chooses not to listen to something, because they “know” it can’t possibly make a difference in the sound, or for any other reason. In doing so, though, they give up the ability to make any credible observations about whether or not it makes an audible difference, or what the difference is.

@tommylion 

Well, now, if someone tells me, or a group of "certified audiophiles" tell me, to hop up and drop a big 'ol steamer on top of my amplifier - no, I'm not going to do it and listen (or challenge my other oganoleptic senses) to see if makes any difference in sound. Now, should they explain to me a plausible mechanism whereby their claimed "improvements" could be effectuated by said steamer...well, no, in this instance I still wouldn't care. Point being, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary (or jeez, at least Ordinary) evidence of a plausible mechanism.

Psycho-acoustic is not subjectivist nor objectivist....

The better sounding system is always the best acoustically embedded one...

All the rest is upgrading marketing conditionment in all audio thread...

Timbre tonal playing microstructure EXPERIENCE is related to a specfic ears in a specific room...

Controlling the acoustical factors in relation to specific gear Is way more important than just using a tool to measure an amplifier quality or cherry pick amplifier by ears...The last two is not the end of the process, it is not even the beginning of the process...

Music listening is an esthetical and spiritual acoustically CONTROLLED experience in a room ...Like a musician controlling his playing body....

In the 2 cases timbre optimal perception is the key....

The worst system is the one created by objectivist, then less worst by subjectivist, the better one is created by an acoustician...

Some will demand an explanation of how something works before they are willing to try it, but, if it works (produces the desired results), no explanation is required for it to do so.

The worst system is the one created by objectivist

Objectivist? This has nothing to do with a system. They typically don’t need any “system” to really be an expert. They just KNOW. You know, graphs is the Internet and such 😉

Some will demand an explanation of how something works before they are willing to try it, but, if it works (produces the desired results), no explanation is required for it to do so.

Demand?  That's not nice, who likes demanding people?  I show them my back.

Anyway, is there something, anything, implicit in this statement that there exists no possible explanation or reason available for producing the desired results?

I never really bought into Ayn Rand's philosophy.

vinylzone

205 posts

12-12-2021 10:09pm

I never really bought into Ayn Rand’s philosophy

lol, a very different type of ‘objectivist.’ In fact villains in an Ayn Rand novel are precisely the types we see here pontificating why certain things in our systems cannot possible work and for which they have little of no direct experience. Clever comment 😂

that article pretty much hits nail on head

I have an Objectivists system with a Topping pre90, Topping D90SE DAC, and Benchmark AHB2. An ASR SINAD wet dream system. Though I got the system together from reading the much more reliable reviews from Sandu on Soundnews.net. The Benchmark LA4 preamp was once used in this system but now needed elsewhere.

I also have a Subjectivists (to me) system with the new KRELL / CODA amps and a CODA 07x preamp. I think it measures pretty good but it is more tube like than neutral.

Both systems are great and offer a nice change of pace.

The “objectivists” use is a misnomer here. It suggests these “folks” have “all the facts”. They don’t. There are countless “measurements” missing that we don’t even know about. The joke forums like ASR are full of morons. I have challenged the few I have interacted with on if they have ever listened to high-end audio. Have never gotten an answer. Objectivist in the audio world is currently just another word for moron. 
Not that I have any strong opinion here. 
 

udnh

The “objectivists” use is a misnomer here. It suggests these “folks” have “all the facts”. They don’t ...

Objectivist in the audio world is currently just another word for moron. 
Not that I have any strong opinion here. 

I don't have any strong opinion here either 😂, but I tend to call them Measurement Morons. Using "objectivist" to describe them is way too flattering for these morons.

I don't have any strong opinion here either 😂, but I tend to call them Measurement Morons. Using "objectivist" to describe them is way too flattering for these morons.

That's hardly an objective statement.  😘

They are not morons if they bother to listen.

I won't even consider a component unless I can see some measurements on it. I guess that makes me a moron.