Subjective vs. objective? Or subjective and objective?

Interesting video. Oblective measurements can be very helpfull as he points out. I think most people would agree. I would not buy any speaker without looking at the objective measurements.

However, I'm not convinced that the sound can change that much (if at all) by using more expensive components if the values of the crossover are identical. 

Make sure you compare an apple to an apple... A blind test of two identical speakers one with expensive parts and one with lesser expensive parts. (I did not say crap/junk parts) Lets say Nichicon vs Dayton. The example Danny using the three different speakers proved nothing. Too many variables.

My bet would be if people knew in advance that there were expensive parts they would subjectively hear improved sound. This mental bias is a powerful thing. However, in a controlled blind test I doubt they could hear any difference at all.

Years ago Peter Snell would go to dealers with one cheap crossover and one with the most expensive parts. He could quickly switch crossovers by unplugging them and switch them out. He proved over and over that NO ONE could tell the difference in parts quality. Just because it cost more doesn't mean it's better.

I'd like to see Danny do the same subjective test as Snell. 

The best manufacturers I know use testing as a starting point, and fine tune be ear from there, they remeasure to confirm they're still in the ball park after listening sessions are concluded.  The one's I've known well admit that measurement doesn't detect nuance or subtle things well.  It's important to note that microphones and the ear/brain detect sound very differently, so relying too heavily on measurement without developing the skill of listening can give a false sense of being right.  Hearing is a sense, but listening is a skill that can and should be developed.

The concern of bias can work both ways.  Knowledge of a specific measurement can just as easily sway our perception as knowledge of a part change...it's just tougher to argue if objective data is considered truth.  Long term listening tends to overcome initial bias.  

It takes me extended listening sessions....sometimes days and weeks to decipher the full impact a small change in my system has made.  Big changes show up quickly, but small ones do not.  That long term view helps overcome day to day variables, and provides ample opportunity to get familiar with a given change.  Most blind tests are done with very quick samples, often on a system and room other than our own, and sometimes with music samples we're not familiar with.  If the test is done with more than a couple of people, there's the issue of less than optimal seating.  Add in the pressure of trying to hear a difference on demand, and it's all too possible for the listening test to prove ineffective....at least for subtle changes, which things like cables, caps, etc., tend to be.  I simply don't consider most blind tests to be strong evidence as proof of  anything but the most obvious differences. 

AFAIK, Danny did do a blind cable test, and correctly identified 8 out of 10 changes.  The two he missed with done with music he didn't pick, which highlights the importance of the material used.   

I like the fact that Danny makes a strong argument that a false dichotomy is being assumed between "objective" and "subjective"** in the context of audio, and Danny argues against it.

The core of the false dichotomy is the idea that objective measurements and subjective listening are *mutually exclusive* and opposing forces. This leads to camps of "objectivists" who dismiss anything not quantifiable, and "subjectivists" who may disregard measurements entirely. Danny actively tries to dismantle this by stating, "you can't rely on one only you have to use all of the tools that are available to you."

Danny points out that there is an over-simplification of "Objective Data." That is, the "objective" side often falls into the trap of believing that *all* relevant sonic information can be captured by current measurement techniques, and that a "flat" or "perfect" measurement always equates to superior sound. This is challenged with examples involving (a) parts quality, (b) an fact that a lot of distortion is not audible (and this highlights that while measurements are objective, their *relevance to human perception* is subjective), and (c) that measurements often focus heavily on frequency response and distortion but other things matter a lot, including "spatial cues," "soundstage layering," "speed," "resolution," and "air and extension" which are much harder to fully capture with simple amplitude or frequency sweeps, and often require more complex measurement suites (e.g., directivity, decay characteristics, or even novel psychoacoustic metrics) that are not always universally understood or applied.

On the other hand, the "subjective" side can fall into the trap of relying solely on anecdote or personal bias. However, Danny points out that our ears, especially in a properly set up listening environment, are incredibly sensitive and capable of discerning differences that current common measurements might miss or not fully explain. (His example of the notch filter illustrates this.)

I like the fact that Danny's approach is to advocate for a **synergistic relationship** where objective measurements identify problems and guide design choices, while subjective listening validates those choices, discerns subtle differences, and ultimately confirms the desired sonic outcome. They are not opposing forces, but rather complementary tools in the pursuit of better audio reproduction.

II didn't listen to the video, partly because I didn't have the time but mainly because it's a subject that has been part of my hobby for six decades and have seriously thought about it ever since. Plus I have had friends who were designers and who were among subjectivists. For one thing I even wrote for Stereophile when Gordon Holt who is the person most responsible for 'subjective' reviewing. And the answer is both and not either or.

Both subjectivity and objectivity should be used to their maximum. But while the final answer is sort of subjective, the more the objective the better just because objective is precise and agreed upon by most. While subjectivity has a lot more wiggle room. And making final subjective decisions it depends a ton on who makes the decisions. They vary from person to person. Although I do believe when a number of experienced subjective reviewers basically believe that comes almost close to objective subjectivity or is it subjective objectivity.

And finally there is the ultimate subjectivity but it only applies to yourself. I always advise those looking for audio advice that the most important factor is know thyself. You need to know those attributes that offend you because no matter what a device does that you like or even love if it offends you at all it will never satisfy. And it's good to know the attributes you want in a device, the more the merrier but I do think if it has many of them a few missing are less a problem than even one negative characteristic.

@hilde45  Very well said