My take on subjective vs. objective


I’ve been thinking about these words lately and feel there is a disconnect with how these words are being used in audio forums and how I would normally use them. I think of subjective statements as statements of value judgement while objective statements are statements of material fact, whether true or false. "The cat is on the mat." That’s an objective statement. "It is good and proper for the cat to be on the mat." That’s a subjective statement. So if an audiophile declares that one cable sounds better than another, that is on its surface a subjective statement - a statement about a preference. But there is an objective statement hidden in it, and that is that the cables do indeed sound different, as measured objectively by the listener’s senses, presumably by their hearing alone. The argument comes in as to whether they can still perceive that difference if they don’t have any other information to work with other than their hearing. Can the ears alone distinguish the sound or is the sound perceived to be different only when other senses are involved? This argument is purely an objective one about what can actually be perceived by the ears alone or what requires other senses to be working in conjunction with the ears in order for the difference to be perceived.

So the people that get labeled "objectivist" are the ones who want to know what can be heard when other sensory data is not available. The ones labeled "subjectivist" are the ones that want to know what they can perceive as sounding different when they are fully informed about what kind of equipment they are listening to. These are both objectivist. One should be called hearing exclusive objectivist while the other is called fully sensory informed objectivist.

A similar situation in the visual would be to compare lengths of things by eye. If a person looks at a piece of dowel sitting on a table, and then looks at another piece of dowel nearby and declares that one dowel is longer than the other, that’s a perceptual measurement they have made by eye - an objective measurement. They could also subjectively declare one length to be better looking than the other. They could then put the dowels side by side to give the eyes a more direct perspective. It may be noticed that they seem identical in length when right next to each other, so they then measure them with a gage that repeatedly and consistently reveals that one dowel will fit into a slot a bit easier than the other, so that indicates that one is slightly longer than the other. But maybe it’s not the one that the observer thought was the longer one. Maybe one dowel weighs more than the other, so this gave the observer a sense that the heavier one must be longer. It’s still all objectivity here. All objectivity requires perception. Tools give us different ways to assist our perceptions and perhaps draw logical conclusions. If the person insists that the heavier one is longer visually even though it fits in the slot easier, they are making an objective statement that it looks longer, not that it actually is longer.

asctim

Subjectivity is only what you think.

An opinion.

An impression.

Something depending on no more than a casual mood.

Something that can change from month to month, week to week, day to day.

Or sometimes, from even hour to hour.

 

A never-ending merry-go-round way of spending vast sums of money chasing an impression only to eventually find yourself back back to where you started from.

After which you will find none of the eager money collectors prepared to accept liability for encouraging you and leading you on this time and money consuming wild goose chase.

They will have moved on to the next mug, err I meant to say, enthusiast.

Not that I know anyone like this. 

Pause for laughter.

 

Objectivity is an attempt to discern what's actual.

Something measurable and repeatable.

A way of comparing the fidelity of the original recorded signal to the signal being transmitted by the loudspeakers.

It's called progress.

There is no need to be scared of objectivity when it comes to audio playback.

You will lose nothing by having a more accurate reference point upon which to base your listening pleasure.

Why wouldn't you want your playback to represent the recording you are listening to more accurately?

 

Even better, if you are so inclined and so wish, there's nothing thereafter to prevent you bringing your imagination into play as you listen.

If you don't, you will still have a faithful representation of the recording before you.

@cd318 

 

I agree with what you are saying overall but I think calling poorly established objective claims "subjective" is not the best use of that word. It suggests there's just a sliding scale where some facts are more objective and some ore more subjective depending on how well they've been established. So that means anything can be called subjective or objective depending on where you set the threshold for required evidence. David Hume divided things into "is" and "ought." He pointed out that you can never logically derive an "ought" from an "is." An "ought" will always be subjective, and an "is" will always be objective, even if the "is" isn't correct. The nature of the kind of statement is what makes something subjective or objective, not the experimentally established truth of the statement. If someone says their stereo sounds the way a stereo ought to sound, that's a subjective statement and there's no amount of repeatable testing that can make it objective. If someone says they can hear the difference between two cables, that is an objective statement and no amount of testing that proves they really can't will ever make it a subjective statement.

Why is it the arguments against subjectivity always entail taking the road to hell and ruination? These hyperbolic screeds are so.....boring.

All the best,
Nonoise