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?
@deludedaudiophile I can’t help but think this discussion is softly approaching something of a eugenics direction - which has some historical significance in the development of some exceptionally significant mathematical and statistical methods. {edit - I'm can't remember which without doing a non-woke google (impossible), but I think it includes Gaussian and Bayesian methods} I choose to not partake. Thankyou for clarifying the answer to my question. |
Well said.... |
I’m glad you found my indulgent speaker thread entertaining. As to your status as an audiophile, hey, it’s a big tent in my view :-) Nice to see a philosophy prof here. I’m not a prof, just a layman with a long interest in philosophy/science. I have a general lay-of-the-land understanding of the standard philosophical issues, though with particular interest in subjects like epistemology, free will, morality, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion (I’m not religious, but I’ve long been fascinated with "why people believe what they believe" including those belief systems that flourish outside the scientific world view). Just to riff a little more on the subjective/objective thing: I mentioned that one can use objective measurements to identify something in sound reproduction - e.g. 4dB boost at 150Hz - but that I’m also interested in "what that sounds like." It’s subjective character. For many such a boost is perceived and described as "increasing the warmth/body" of the sound, in particular say male vocals or any instrument in that range. So that’s the technical description along with the "subjective impression." The thing is, I work in pro sound (for film and TV). If you have enough technical familiarity, then a technical description can function like a subjective description. If you’ve heard enough what a boost at 150Hz sounds like, then saying "I’ve added a boost at 150Hz to that male vocal" equates to "telling you how it sounds" in the same way the words "adding warmth/body" to the vocal would. So in certain circumstances, with the appropriate experience, strict technical descriptions can equate to "what it sounds like." Similarly, with enough experience correlating measurements to audible consequences, someone can look at certain speaker measurements and understand "what that sounds like." (To some degree). Many audiophiles who say "you can’t tell what X sounds like from measurements" are often deriving that from their own level of ignorance on the subject, where they don’t have the experience and knowledge to get a picture of how something sounds from measurements. So this appeal to technical measurements aren’t necessarily at odds with the subjectivity of the matter. However, two things I’d have to say about that: 1. Most people don’t have that level of experience, so all sorts of short hand subjective description terms - e.g. adding "warmth" or "body" or "punch" or "brilliance" or "air" or "cleaning up the muddiness" etc - are used. Over on the ASR forum there are members that pretty much refute the relevance of any such subjective descriptors, especially those that come from the reviewing and audiophile world. They see it as unreliable and too vague at best, pure b.s. at worst. "Just give me the measurements; your subjective impressions are useless to me." This drives me a bit nuts because I’m often dealing with folks who seem to be reasoning in a bubble, not really examining their assumptions or the wider implications of their stance. (By habit, I reflexively do as wide a "consistency test" on whatever I argue).
These are typically people who don’t work in professional sound because if they did they’d immediately understand how impractical their demands are. Most of the very work they enjoy, be it music produced in studies or the sound (and images) of TV and movies, are constructed via the exchange of subjective descriptors. My clients don’t have technical knowledge, but we have to understand "how they want something to sound" and I have to know what they mean and how to fix or produce it. It’s all done via intersubjective communication, not reference to measurements. If subjective impressions and descriptions were truly that unreliable, not only would my job be impossible, much of human activity would be impossible. I continually try to impress upon these folks that "less reliable" (than measured or scientifically controlled listening) does not equate to "wholly unreliable" or "useless" or "bullsh*t." (In this regard it sort of reminds me of the "Philosophy 101 student syndrome." That is where a philosophy student first encounters arguments for radical skepticism, e.g. Descartes doubts, and comes out admonishing people with "you can’t REALLY know that." Not realizing that they have to move beyond radical skepticism to actually building a practical version of "knowledge" even given our lack of omniscience. Similarly, some "science/engineering" obsessed audiophiles adopt a level of skepticism about our perception that becomes incoherent if you trace out the implications). 2. Even when you have some technical knowledge and familiarity with how some measurements correlate to sonic characteristics, there is still vastly more happening in the reproduction of any single music track to be described, from all the tonal differences, spatial differences, production techniques, playing, melody, instrumentation, and on and on. A "bump at 150Hz" doesn’t capture anything like the full buffet of subjective sonic impressions available to be described. Them’s some of my thoughts anyway. Cheers. |
@prof , Corollary to your post, just because we don't know everything about electricity, does not mean we don't know enough for audio :-) I see that as a frequent justification in these forums for all kinds of what I consider ridiculousness. |
