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

@hilde45 ,

I think that video needs to be paraphrased.

To me, here is how this subjective vs. objective boils down:

 

  1. There are objective audiophiles that believe that perfect fidelity, electrical and otherwise and adherence to a doctrinaire as the artist intended method, as the only true path. They are wrong. Why? Because all music is manufactured and the final result is determined by a fallible human.
  2. There are subjective audiophiles who believe there are as yet undiscovered physical properties of wires, electronics, and anything else they can come up that explain changes they perceive they hear. They are wrong. Why? Because while we don’t know everything about the physical world, our understanding of how thing work but even more, how things behave is extreme. Do you think we would be able to build nanometer scale semiconductors, nanometer scale battery materials, antennas at 10’s of GHz, etc. that behave just as our model predict if we didn’t?

 

One group says I trust the science without realizing that there is no science that guarantees the accuracy of the underlying fundamental product, the music. The other group says I trust my ears without understanding but more importantly accepting the basic limitations of us humans. If neither group is willing to accept the fundamental flaws in their approach and learn from the other, then neither will move forward.

You are right but with an important remark:

One group subordinate hearing eliminating the subjective perceiver to electrical measures , the other group CAN or MAY read a specs sheets but subordinate this measures to the subjective perceiver impressions...To interpret any measures we must do it FROM A PRECISE hearing theory...

In psycho-acoustic which is the science studying perception of sound the objective installation and set of measures are there to serve and study the perceiver impression not to erase it at the end and declare it an artewfact or a deceptive illusion like you said....

Then one group is, if not as deluded than the other, some Amir disciples,  perhaps more... Why ? We dont understand human hearing which is a highly non linear phenomenon , with the actual Method inherited from Helmholtz and Fourier....

Then yes you are right the two groups must respect one another, but calling audiophiles "deluded" will not help.... Which is the more "deluded" group at the light of true science in the working not dogmatic science, guess which one? Those who despise the most the opposing  group...

Listening experiments are the only personal way to learn how to listen, and anyway is the basis of psycho-acoustic...Not electrical design tools used in the wrong theoretical context...

 

 

 

 

The human ears is trained in nature recognition sound environment, timing transients are very important in this context and detected and interpreted by our highly non linear cochlea/brain tools...

Then all our dacs for example specs sheets are based on wrong hearing theory reducing all hearing phenomenon to Fourrier method......

«Science is the history of science» Goethe

 

 

 

it is not me who say that but these 2 mathematical physicists :

Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller University have conducted experiments indicating that the human brain does not use the Fourier transform when resolving a cacophony of noise into individual sounds and voices.

While the Gabor limit associated with the Fourier transform stipulates that you can’t simultaneously determine a sound’s frequency and duration, the 12 musicians subjected to Oppenheim and Magnasco’s battery of tests beat the limit by as much as a factor of 13.

The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.

 

Now a question?

for deludeaudiophile...

HOW non linear detection ears/brain structured system can use noise in a way an ordinary electrical detection instrument could not?

 

The answer to this is the beginning of explanation about the way some very simple  devices i created for myself worked in improving the sound experience in my room...

😁😊

 

Yes. Answer begets question, question begets the answer.

It takes one back to the idea of ’the longer the question has been around, the more fundamental the error in it’s formulation."

This part of why science refuses, categorically, the idea of facts, and that in exploration, in the idea of science, that all is theory....as theory can be altered to find the new data, to deal with the frailty and error and incompleteness of the humans in the equation.

Facts are for engineering so that makers don’t make bridges out of ideas or unproven thought experiments. Engineering is one step down from science. Engineering that is inclusive of exploration is not engineering, per se. It is akin to finding pathways in exploration to make things, to make real objects, things that exist outside the mind of the individual and can be shared.

Pundits can conflate the two, if they are not careful or have not truly delved into the methodologies of science and the reason for those methods.

which takes you back to that axiom of ’the longer the question exists, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.’ Thus, understanding complexities, stubbornly unresolved, that are attempting to unfold in the mind of the given observer, requires the growth of the observer, in order for the observer to cognate the given complexities therein.

That quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti: Truth cannot be brought down; rather, the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountaintop to the valley. If you would attain to the mountaintop, you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

The large amount of time that this audio quandary has been in front of us.. states to all, if they find the mental capacity within (themselves) to realize it... is that the complexities are outside of (currently applied) modern science that is audio related (and utilized by the group that squabbles), until said sciences, or rather, the pundits that argue incessantly.... learn to encompass all components of the equation which are required in order to solve the quandary in front of the given seeker/observer.

The subjectivists, many of whom might try to utilize scientific methodology correctly..... urge caution and second looks. Science begins with observation, observation is king in science. Observation does not go away, in the face of science that says the observation is at fault, if the scientific methodology is the part that is truly at fault. which it can be in people who are frail and faulted, which all humans are. This is especially applicable in complex unresolved question and answer sets.

The objectivists can and many times do, call out the subjectivity, incorrectly, without any form of real scientific objectivity. as true and correct objectivity includes the observer in the complex equation.

where with humans... the observer as part of the equation... has to deal with human frailties like ego issues around the idea of expression, intake, and not knowing, internal filtering, mental constructional issues... and how that plays out in the mind and in human interactions with the world.

In other words, human frailty.. as tied to expressions in psychology.

 

To science, any observer or explorer in the world of audio, who claims that the subjectivists are at fault and are imagining things, are incomplete un-educated observers and have neither the authority nor the knowledge nor (quite possibly) the innate scientific capacity (quite possibly well outside their wheelhouse unless they grunt spectacularly hard--ie, grow) to lay fault in a large swath of audio subjectivist claims.

This, in clarity, to a mind that reads the above and cognates it, might lead one to conclude that things like ASR (the psychosis is right in the naming!) are deeply at fault and are miss takes on science and it's fundamental meaning. Where it is more akin to being a complete misapplication of the fundamental of science. a factualization of science --which is dogmatism - which is engineering. They've got both their pants and their head on - totally backward. Old engineers yelling at clouds.