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

@mahgister 

You're always tossing Nobel Prize winners around like skittles. Francis Crick won the Nobel here's what he says about it. Is he  dumb? Not know what he's talking about? Great winner of numerous prizes? 

 

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”

Music speak without assumptions like God speak....They are self sustaining realities...

Music is a reality, God is an assumption. 

Crick like any Nobel prize is a human being which words may be improved...

I never say that because Alain Connes is a field medallist he must be right, i say that he is perhaps serious and we must try to understand him...

We will try with Crick description and complete it with Anirban Bandyopadhyay description of what is the scales interlocking clocks from the atoms to the brain and beyonfdto the solar system and to the galaxies...Lofe is a universal presence in the cosmos not a soup in an exceptional  pound anymore like some Nobel claims in the past...

And if we meditate about the way these inlerlocking clocks are working, an increasing chain of time-like fractals crystals integrated in one anither by rythms and frequencies, wee will have perhaps a clearer ideas than the old Crick an up to date science view about what id a conscious machine like our body...

and perhaps we will understand in a better way what isfree will and why any atom has free will... Because it is part of the cosmos design...

read a book i cannot resume this here...

 

 

I don’t really believe we have free will nor is there an overarching design but that’s a different discussion.

All reality are linked to assumptions, because a reality is a complex set of dimensional phenomena which we perceived only a part relating to our own assumptions..

an exemple:

we assume that fires burns no ?

 

yes we assume and fires burn us...

But suppose someone assume other thing ?

listen this video carefully... Dont go with your reflex this is impossible like unicorn orbiting Mars...

it is 46 minutes but is anything save boring... 😁😊

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7iqdj1wT8&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_CGFyisehOpLvbpDhdIe_ld&index=179&t=1s