objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

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).

+10  @prof and well stated.

Thanks, prof (from one to another, apparently) for taking my OP seriously. However, I suppose I buried what I’d meant to be a fairly simple point in too much philosophical baggage, and confused even a careful reader like you. You suggest that my original question was "muddied" by misusing the term "subjective preference" when what I really meant was "subjective impression." Accordingly, you restate my question as really being this: "Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective IMPRESSIONS, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices?"

But no, that is not what I meant to ask. OF COURSE subjective "impressions" are inviolable. As Kant writes, although this insight is more commonly associated with Nietzsche: "In a representation of the senses —as containing no judgments whatsoever—there is also no error." Subjective impressions are just that; they make no claim, by themselves, to being "right" or "better" or, well, to being anything other than what the subject himself or herself experiences. But that is indisputable, and not what I was asking about.

What I’d like to know is how those who deny the validity or value of measurements, of "objective" criteria of some kind, and who (reasonably) appeal to the experience of listening to music on audio equipment in place of looking at graphs and other data, would wish to recommend this or that component, this or that recording or playback technology, or indeed, anything else of an evaluative nature. 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?

How, that is, is your subjective preference to be defended to another subjective mind without appeal to objective criteria like measurements? You don’t have to defend your "subjective impressions"; they’re yours, they can’t be mine, and they make no evaluative claims. As Nietzsche tweaked the Kantian lesson, "The senses don’t lie at all; it’s what we make of the senses that introduces truth and lies."

But I’m sorry I brought this whole thing up. Someone above sagely remarked that the reason he spends time on this site is to share enthusiasms. I guess I’m just hung up on wanting enthusiasms to be shared with sufficient passion and cogency that I might be persuaded, by reading your post, to share yours. There may not be "objective facts" in the experience of "sound quality" other than those that can be measured, and the consensus is that measurement geekhood is a matter of barking up the wrong tree. Sure, that makes sense to me; if I wanted objective evidence, I would go to the measurement gurus for it. But I would appreciate more articulate expressions of enthusiasm than are usually found here.

@snilf :

Someone above sagely remarked that the reason he spends time on this site is to share enthusiasms. I guess I’m just hung up on wanting enthusiasms to be shared with sufficient passion and cogency

Subjective impressions are just that; they make no claim, by themselves, to being "right" or "better" or, well, to being anything other than what the subject himself or herself experiences.

I hope not, but I think you are clearly missing the point the objective measurement activists make in these audio forums. And militantly so. In their perfect world, no one will be allowed to share any subjective impressions, unless backed by “science”, in other words, by either independently certified by third party panels blind tests, or, measurements. If not, everything is null and void, basically hallucinations.

I am copying below the comment from the master of them all these folks, who is currently posting under a 13th username in Audiogon. This sums it all, their psyche.

I just stated rather clearly that until you either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are really heard, or provide some relevant scientific basis for differences to be heard, then the posts are simply self indulgent.