objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

Probably very few are still following this thread, so I'm going to risk a few provocative comments.

First, as to objective measurements. The scientifically-trained engineers who create the stuff we buy rely heavily on measurements to work their magic. That's an incontestable fact. So saying that measurements are irrelevant is like saying that, if you are a believer in God, knowing God's intention when creating the world is irrelevant to our enjoyment of it. That may be so, but only given certain perverse assumptions. If you want your understanding of experience to correspond as closely as possible to the Creator's, you need to know the creator's criteria. 

Second, there are many ways for a system to sound good. The wine analogy I, and others, have used here and in other threads is an analogue: comparing one fine system to another is a bit like comparing a fine Pinot Noir to a fine Cabernet Sauvignon. They're different, all right, but it would be absurd to reject the one on the basis of what one values in the other, or vice versa. Bottom line: expensive systems almost always sound better than inexpensive systems, even if in different ways, and they do so to everyone, not just to audiophiles. We obsess over microscopic details that most normal people neither notice nor care about, and those constitute the majority of "debates" on this forum. But I have not yet meet a person with ears who is not impressed by a "good" system, even if such a normal person doesn't consider the cost and emotional investment necessary for assembling that good system worthwhile.

Third: Chacun a son gout/De gustibus non est disputandem. Some of us like listening to Tool or Metalica; others can't stand such music, and prefer string quartets. Some of the latter love Beethoven's quartets but can't stand Bartok or Shostakovich. Those different sorts of music are so different in character, content, and aural impact that it would be crazy to suppose there should be universal agreement about what constitutes the best possible musical reproduction. But this does not contradict my second point, and it relates that point to my first: all music—indeed, all sound—is ultimately a matter of frequencies over time. That's a matter of physics, interpreted by brains attached to bodies. So the technological devices designed by engineers to reproduce those sounds with the greatest objective accuracy will, almost always, be the ones that listeners prefer, no matter their musical preferences. A distorted tone will not compellingly convey Hendrix's feedback, nor the sweet woody sound of a fine violin.

Great post to read!

Thanks...

😊

BTW, I reread the teo_audio post, wow what a great read. I would have never expected to read something like that here. I found it very insightful in bringing the two worlds (the scientific world and spiritual world) into a complete thought.

Many involved in the creation of music know about the emotional communication that music (and other forms of art) brings to the table (no LP pun intended). These thoughts are impossible to quantify or objectify. Yet, they are real enough some devote their lives to it (musicians) and others (engineers) devote their lives to helping musicians get the "sound" they hear in their head on a record.  These engineers are often the true blood brothers to audiophiles, as both share a deep love of "the sound of things".

Brad

I read the posts with my Rabbit.

@snilf

As somewhat of a philosophy fan myself...

I think your initial post started with a bit of conceptual muddying. Right here:

Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices?

The muddiness starts with your referring to subjective "preference" rather than "impression."

The tension between the "subjective" and "objective" in audio, that is the tension that tends to make it look like some people are divided in to different camps - e.g. "subjectivist/objectivist," comes from an epistemic divide.

This epistemic divide is over the question "How do we evaluate the performance of audio gear?"

To generalize, the objectivist takes a more engineering/scientific stance to this type of knowledge. This combines an appeal to measurable characteristics (important insofar as they have been fairly reliably correlated to SUBJECTIVE impressions), with a central acknowledgement of the problem that humans are quite fallible and prone to bias effects. (Hence, listening tests controlling for bias effects become relevant).

So when it comes to our perception, "A seems to sound different/better than B," the objectivist will consider that with respect to the plausibility against what is known in technical terms, and look for technically plausible explanations, and he will hold subjective impressions, his own included, as suspect to the degree that such claims are more technically implausible. (And hence blind testing becomes ever more relevant).

In contrast:

The subjectivist holds his Subjective Impressions as "inviolable." He trusts his senses, his perception, to deliver accurate, reliable results, as the final arbiter of the "truth of the matter." "If I routinely hear a difference between A and B, then there IS a sonic difference between A and B" and if objective evidence doesn’t support this, well so much the worse for that "evidence." It must be wrong because my perception is right.

It’s pretty obvious why this epistemic divide would produce clashes. (Very much like atheists debating against faith-based beliefs).

But the key point here is that it would be clearer and more to the point is that referring fo "subjective preference" doesn’t get at this issue. Because "preference" tends to presume there IS a difference to "prefer." Virtually no "objectivist oriented audiophile" I know object to anyone having different preferences. They are more concerned about claims to KNOWLEDGE based on subjective IMPRESSIONS.

So if a subjectivist says "I preferred AC cable A over AC cable B in my system" the objectivist has no problem with preference, only with an objective claim hidden within, which is that cable A actually DOES sound different from B.

All too often these conversations get confused when subjectivists appeal to "preference" in which they are clearly begging the question that the objectivist actually cares about.

Therefore, your original question would have been more on point to ask something like:

Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective IMPRESSIONS, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices?

(I would hope it’s not necessary to add this caveat, but just in case: The discussion of people being "objectivist" or "subjectivist" is a generalization to clarify the points that tend to come in to tension. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a broad range of attitudes among audiophiles, who can be anywhere on a spectrum between the two epistemic positions. Even a single audiophile may be more "subjectivist" about some of his purchases, more "objectivist" about others...or his attitude may change on a whim from one time to the next).