objective vs. subjective rabbit hole


There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.

It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?

Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?

To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?

128x128snilf

Ah! Prof, I just looked at your thread—and realized why I recognized your "name" on this forum! I actually copied and pasted that thread some time ago into a document for storage in my "audio" file on the hard drive of this laptop, for future reference. It is a wonderfully clear and vividly descriptive account of a lot of desirable speakers, as the reactions to it from just about everyone also attests.

Frankly, I’m not sure why I frequent this forum, or why, for that matter, I even consider myself an audiophile. Yes, I’ve loved good audio equipment for most of my life; most of the time, I enjoy music more in my living room than I do live (a point of contention between my wife and me; she was a musicologist and music critic in her former life in Europe, and is more interested, I think, in the social aspect of live performance than in the music itself). But, despite my love for audio equipment, I don’t own much. My system sounds very good, and I have lots to compare it to: we have a very active audio club here on the California Central Coast, and I’ve had many opportunities to critically listen to systems in purpose-built acoustically controlled rooms that are vastly more valuable than mine. But I don’t covet any of them, and have long been happy with what I have. And by "long," I mean decades: my amplification, turntable and speakers all date from the last millennium. So, in other words, your experience, critical acumen, and talent for expressing your "impressions" are much appreciated to the extent that they share our common enthusiasm so effectively—but not because they might be useful as guidance for purchases, since I don’t feel I need to make any. I guess I’m lucky that way.

Back to the music, then! The Orpheus performance of Beethoven’s music for "The Creatures of Prometheus" is playing now, and is just gorgeous. The overture to this "incidental" piece is well known, but the rest of it isn’t, although it should be for anyone who loves Beethoven’s middle period. And the audio quality of this recording is stunning! One of the dance movements begins with a harp on the left, then the violins join, also on the left but in front of the harp; then a single flute, also on the left—which is joined by a bassoon way over on the right toward the rear of the orchestra, and then by a clarinet next to it, toward the center from the bassoon. A few bars later, a solo cello carries the theme, also very precisely located in space in front of the bassoon and clarinet, still on the right. And every instrument has a tremendously realistic, almost tangible presence and accurate timbre. This is audiophile bliss!

@snilf 

How, briefly stated, do you mean to persuade me that your "subjective impression" is such that the judgments you make because of it (your "subjective preferences") are judgments I should be persuaded are reasonable, well-informed, and worth taking seriously?

Very good question, one that applies just as well to (classical) music reviews, etc, so let me reverse it:

I would be persuaded your judgments are worth taking seriously if I knew you to be consistent, and I knew you to be comparing to a known and shared yardstick (say, live music), and I knew some of your listening traits (are you thorough - are you spontaneous, do you prefer baroque, classic, romantic... combination thereof, do you like to simulate reality in your room or are you after reproducing what's on the medium... etc).

Your judgment will then lead me to extrapolate my own preferences and approximate whether the device (or system, or performance, for that matter) in question is one I might like -- or not... regardless of whether you ultimately liked it; if you are consistent in your judgements and I "know" you, your informed opinion is always valuable whether or not we always agree or disagree.

 

A brief point on measurements: surely no-one disputes that when it comes to speakers, FR measurements, FFT, etc are useful; these easily correlate with what we actually hear. Regards

We are the ancestors, the makers of machines, machines that can exist under circumstances we can not. One day they will rule the universe and like billions of species before us we will become extinct. 

@mijostyn - pretty much a given that we will evolve to a human/machine hybrid. I don't see any other way for us to progress.

 

We are the ancestors, the makers of machines, machines that can exist under circumstances we can not. One day they will rule the universe and like billions of species before us we will become extinct.

I dont think so....i dont like Yuval Noah Harari philosophy at all...

Humans are spirit not only conscious machine....We are rooted in more than one uinverse...A conscious machine is rooted in only one universe...And A. I. is not rooted at all in a universe but create his own artificial corner in a universe...These distinctions correspond to precise  MATHEMATICAL distinctions  by the way not my impressions...

And evolving in a machine/hybrid cage is not a progress at all...

Even a conscious machine, which is not to be confused with the actual A.I. which is not conscious, even a conscious machine by definition of what is a conscious machine, and i proposed a scientist, the only one on earth that give a definition of a concious machine in another thread, even by this first definition of a conscious machine, we can see WHY this conscious machine will be prisoner and captive in ONE UNIVERSE... Human spirit is not...

I will not explain here save if you want an answer... I dont like to be insulted...i like to discuss...

An A.I. work with bits and Q-bits and statistical mathematical learning... Conscious machine as defined for the first time by Anirban Bandyopadhyay do not.operate like any Turing machine improved by quantum computation..They need another language invented by Anirvan and described by him and his team...This new language reproduce the brain/body/cosmos language... This was even anticipated by a great mathematician the late Charles Muses before Anirban idea in his book about the chronotopology of time...

https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Charles-Muses/dp/157898727X

@mijostyn - pretty much a given that we will evolve to a human/machine hybrid. I don’t see any other way for us to progress.