Suggestions that can be found being made by (1) Subjectivists, and (2) Objectivists, in audiophile debates

[MLXXX]

In another thread in this part of the forum, two participants have walked away.  One has claimed there has been too much "disrepect" from those siding with "science". 

 

However I think that we typically see accusations from members of both camps, criticising the perceived approach of the other camp. It's a two way street!

 

I've seen subjectivists accuse objectivists of being narrow-minded, inflexible, judgemental, unwilling to use their ears, or "obviously" lacking hearing acuity. I've seen objectivists accuse subjectivists of being foolhardy  in unreservedly recommending a product to others without attempting to corroborate their own positive subjective impression by blind testing or measurement, particularly where basic principles of electronics strongly suggest there should no audible difference.

 

Both sides routinely level accusations.  We must guard against accusations becoming too pointed and personal, of course.  On the other hand, if what is being posted reflects just the usual difference of approach, no one should take serious umbrage, I'd suggest!

 

Here are two lists I've quickly put together to illustrate the sorts of differences in approach that may be encountered in the cut and thrust of audiophile debate:-

 

CONSISTENT WITH POSTS BY SUBJECTIVISTS:

 

1. A sighted subjective opinion by one person, or a group (e.g. present at an audiophile get together) of an audible improvement from use of a new product.

2. Sometimes corroborated by reporting an unsolicited apparently independent opinion (e.g. "my wife walked past and asked me what I had done, as the sound was very much improved, in her opinion").

3.. Sometimes bolstered by a technical argument as to why the sound was improved (e.g. by citing explanatory/promotional material provided by the manufacturer).

4. Typically with no recordings, no measurements, and no blind testing to support the sighted subjective opinion. 

5. Often with a strong recommendation that others try it and they too will hear an improvement.

6. Sometimes with a suggestion that objectivists lack flexibility and are foolhardy not to just "use their ears".

7. Sometimes with a suggestion that people are free to spend their money as they like and others are wrong to question them.

 

 

CONSISTENT WITH POSTS BY OBJECTIVISTS:

1.  Often a technical argument to the effect that a distinct measurable change (let alone an audible change) would not be expected, applying established electronics engineering principles. Allied to that, sometimes a critique that the manufacturer's purported technical explanation in their advertising of the product makes little or no sense.

2. Sometimes a subjective report by the poster that he or she has tried the product or something similar to it, and heard no difference.

3. Sometimes a reference to measurements, or blind tests, that have been undertaken by others with a similar product but which revealed no difference.

4. Often a reminder that sighted testing where negligible or very small audible differences are involved is notoriously unreliable.

5. Often a suggestion that a level matched blind test be carried out, or a measurement. Occasionally a suggestion that audio recordings be made.

6. Sometimes a suggestion that people are being taken advantage of if they accept on blind faith gushing descriptions from manufacturers unsupported by a plausible technical explanation and unsupported by measurements or blind tests. Allied to that, sometimes a suggestion that people are being gullible.

7. Occasionally a suggestion that some people if they become conscious they can't hear a difference but have expended time and money on an upgrade may decide to say the new product sounds better, in order to save face, or to avoid accusations of having cloth ears.

Edited October 30, 2021 by MLXXX

[TerryO]

What do you hope to achieve with this post other than starting another pointless **** fight? 
 

It would be all quite simple, easy and stay friendly if you guys stop telling people who are sharing their personal experiences that they are wrong and they have been fooled into buying snake oil products. In reality so what if they/we have, it’s our money we are all adults and if we decide these products work for us and want to share our experiences with other like minded audiophiles who are you lot to say it’s BS and our ears can’t be trusted.

Hiding behind saying that it’s not personal, it’s all about outing the manufacturers whose products you don’t like/agree with, is at best a poor excuse for putting down the person sharing their experiences, whether you lot realise it or not.

 

This so called objectivist behaviour is in my opinion harming the hobby, you lot and you know who you are as it’s nearly always the same five of six people who jump in anytime some one shares an experience you disagree with are actually stopping people from commenting and sharing their experiences because they don’t want to be ridiculed or have a argument.
This is a hobby that is meant to be fun, you lot, yes take offence if you must at being called ‘you lot’, go a long way to taking the fun and draining peoples enthusiasm out of this great hobby which is built on improving and tuning ones own system to more enjoy listening to music.
For many people that attitude and behaviour ends up harming not only the hobby but this forum.

 

Regards,

Terry

Edited October 30, 2021 by TerryO

[Esoterica]

15 hours ago, MLXXX said:

On the other hand, if what is being posted reflects just the usual difference of approach, no one should take serious umbrage, I'd suggest!

This is the thing. I didn't see anything worth being so offended by that you'd (in internet terms) storm out of a discussion.

It's not like people were being insulted, harrassed etc. I'll admit that foolishness and gullibility may have been implied, but I've seen threads where people "storm" off when there (to me) is no reason to be so aggrieved.
 

It's all part of a good, robust discussion. Frankly I find a lot of the discussion on SNA boring, but some of the most interesting threads are in this forum. How many posts, articles etc. can one read about this amp, or that format? For me, not a lot. 

[MLXXX]

2 hours ago, TerryO said:

This is a hobby that is meant to be fun,

 

Some people no doubt get a lot of fun out of mixing and matching and swapping and experimenting with their hi-fi kit. And those activities can become an end in themselves.

 

However a lot of audiophiles (myself included)  would not be interested in continually tweaking their set ups.  They are serious about trying to achieve optimum sound quality to maximise their listening enjoyment.  Once having carefully set up their system, they use it to listen to music. 

 

If a truly game changing innovation came along, yes they'd be prepared to upgrade.  But they are not interested in trying out the huge range of tweaks that get discussed, unless there is some pretty solid evidence the tweak or product really does give an audible improvement.

 

2 hours ago, TerryO said:

this great hobby which is built on improving and tuning ones own system to more enjoy listening to music

 

Certainly the improving of acoustics through choice of listening room, or room treatments has been an important consideration for a long time. These days sophisticated electronic devices (Audyssey etc) to compensate for the acoustics of small or otherwise less than ideal listening rooms are available, as a partially effective short-cut.

 

However, so often the tweaks described on audiophile forums are not to do with the huge changes possible through choice of speaker type and location, and room type and treatment, but focus on minor changes, such as changing an interconnect cable, or inserting a power filter.  For a person like myself happy with their existing system, such minor changes do not strike me as worth pursuing unless some sort of pretty solid evidence is put forward establishing they make a clearly audible improvement. 

 

As regards "improving and tuning" my system for streaming, I am not motivated to chop  and change such things as  ethernet cables and switches and routers. I hear no deficiencies in streamed audio beyond some issues I hear with lower bitrates from some sources.  I'm content simply to enjoy the music (relying on the buffering of the corrected stream data).  That's me. Others may choose to engage in major exercises of comparing "ordinary" hardware, or simply replacing their ordinary streaming hardware with hardware marketed for audiophiles.

 

Of course I still keep my eyes open for technological advances and that is an important reason I read through threads on this forum.

Edited October 30, 2021 by MLXXX

[POV]

2 hours ago, TerryO said:

This is a hobby that is meant to be fun, you lot, yes take offence if you must at being called ‘you lot’, go a long way to taking the fun and draining peoples enthusiasm out of this great hobby which is built on improving and tuning ones own system to more enjoy listening to music.
For many people that attitude and behaviour ends up harming not only the hobby but this forum.

 

 

 

Terry I see things very differently.  Audio needs more science in it not less, and I don't see why the forum should only cater to a particular part of the hobby.   I am also conscious of the large number of new and inexperienced posters we have here that could be forgiven for thinking that things like ethernet cables and usb cables should be a priority for them and waste money on such things which will achieve absolutely nothing.   I find this concept of 'tuning' systems by changing cables to be frankly bizzare, and especially so when we are talking about digital and network cabling where the only differences are in peoples minds.  People will swear black and blue that they hear massive differences from fringe cable tweaks whilst continuing to ignore room acoustics and speaker positioning, which paradoxically is the pathway to system 'tuning' that makes by far the most sense!

 

Other thing I would add is that it's the coming together of the science and the listening experience that makes this hobby fun and interesting to me.  I have no interest whatsoever, nor do I see it as fun being sold extortionately overpriced hifi accessories that I know with certainty will have zero impact on audio fidelity.  The mantra of some folks to 'just listen' and 'trust your ears' is one way of going about this, but it belies the fact that our senses not reliable, and it is very difficult if not impossible to make oneself immune to biases (and yes absolutely I accept that includes me

 

By the way, I don't have any ill will towards you or anyone else here, nor will I presume to tell you how you should go about discussions on an audio forum.

 

Have fun!

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by POV

[MLXXX]

5 minutes ago, POV said:

 I am also conscious of the large number of new and inexperienced posters we have here that could be forgiven for thinking that things like ethernet cables and usb cables should be a priority for them and waste money on such things which will achieve absolutely nothing.   I find this concept of 'tuning' systems by changing cables to be frankly bizzare, and especially so when we are talking about digital and network cabling where the only differences are in peoples minds. 

POV has expressed the above in pretty black and white terms, allowing for no exceptions, but it is a position I essentially share.  Newcomers can be expected to be younger people without a lot of disposable income. Directing them towards expensive networking "solutions" where it is very hard to pinpoint  any "problem to be solved" in the first place, is something that I myself would only dare to do if I had rigorously established by objective means that it gave a distinct audible benefit.

 

I would feel a terrible responsibility to be sure of my facts before advising someone in that way.

 

It would not be "fun" to spend a lot of money and get no audible benefit from it, especially for someone on a tight budget.

[rocky500]

I still think the forum should have a section for objectivist and subjectivists.

A bit like audiophilestyle has done. I think others too now.

When announced there was a real big uproar from the Objectivists. It does appear they where the ones most upset. I think a lot of threads were closed down or went in endless circles, so the change was made. It helped cut down the endless work the moderators had to do to intervene constantly.

Keep them separate and give the readers the option to visit which ever thread they want to.

Maybe the great audio debate for both views to discuss.

Edited October 30, 2021 by rocky500

[MLXXX]

8 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

should have a section for objectivist and [a separate section for]  subjectivists

 

One difficulty with that is that a subjectivist might want to have their cake and eat it too. They might not content themselves with a straightforward subjectivist statement such as, "this sounded great to me". They might decide to  say "this sounded great to me, because the clock has jitter of only a few femtoseconds".

 

They have then encroached on the realm of measurements.

[rocky500]

1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

 

One difficulty with that is that a subjectivist might want to have their cake and eat it too. They might not content themselves with a straightforward subjectivist statement such as, "this sounded great to me". They might decide to  say "this sounded great to me, because the clock has jitter of only a few femtoseconds".

 

They have then encroached on the realm of measurements.

Here is a good quote from Bruno Putzeys I saw the other day

"That’s one thing I have to explain again and again to my fellow doubters: when audiophiles report a particular listening experience, that experience is real. Trust that. Just don’t trust the explanation they proffer."

[MLXXX]

2 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Here is a good quote from Bruno Putzeys I saw the other day

"That’s one thing I have to explain again and again to my fellow doubters: when audiophiles report a particular listening experience, that experience is real. Trust that. Just don’t trust the explanation they proffer."

Ha ha. I'll pay that one!

[rocky500]

While I'm quoting as I have a few notes I have taken down in the past from another forum and seems sort of relevant.

 

OK...so this kind of dialogue is the stuff that seems to be a tremendous waste of time at least to my way of thinking!

Each side (person really) has their unique frame of reference. A subjectivist's frame of reference may be primarily based on sighted listening while an objectivist's is grounded on data, abx testing, etc.

Each person's experience is real to them and it's a fool's errand for someone to insist that the other side acquiesce to their terms, methodologies (or lack thereof), etc. Seems more reasonable to live and let live...

 

I say these things with an educational and work background in engineering, business, and more recently analytics...hence my leanings toward spending less on electronic gear and more on transducers.

 

Regardless, if someone with a different frame of reference from me is enjoying their audio experience, I'm happy for them and feel no need to convince them that their path is wrong...it's just different!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm -- listening to tunes vs a life/death choice -- not really apples to apples...wouldn't you agree?

 

This actually seems to illustrate my point in a weird way. Many on both sides (although more so the objectivists...imo) seem to be far too serious about what is nothing more than a fun hobby / nice diversion from the real world and all of it's very real challenges/problems/etc.

 

Again...I'm a guy with a data/engineering background that doesn't believe in spending a lot of coin on electronic gear (dacs/amps/sources/cables/etc.) for little to no incremental return...a closet objectivist I guess.

 

That said, I definitely don't believe in validating the intense desire that many on the either side of this 'debate' exhibit to be 'right'.

 

You know, as I spend time in various threads from the overly subjective to the fanatically objective, I'm beginning to think the subjectivists 'won' this argument years ago for the simple reason that they seem to enjoy themselves a lot more in this hobby than the objectivists do! Purely my opinion of course

 

So -- Ignorance is Bliss, Expectation Bias, Snake Oil...whatever it is, I don't see the need to keep tilting at this windmill.

[POV]

55 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I still think the forum should have a section for objectivist and subjectivists.

A bit like audiophilestyle has done. I think others too now.

When announced there was a real big uproar from the Objectivists. It does appear they where the ones most upset. I think a lot of threads were closed down or went in endless circles, so the change was made. It helped cut down the endless work the moderators had to do to intervene constantly.

Keep them separate and give the readers the option to visit which ever thread they want to.

Maybe the great audio debate for both views to discuss.

 

The whole concept seems really odd to me, essentially create 2 separate echo chambers!?  I would just migrate even more than I do now to other forums where balanced discussion is more embraced.  Maybe that's a good thing as certainly seems many here find my approach objectionable.

 

21 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

m beginning to think the subjectivists 'won' this argument years ago for the simple reason that they seem to enjoy themselves a lot more in this hobby than the objectivists do!

 

I don't consider myself to be either objectivist or subjectivist but I manage to have plenty of fun irrespective of what label folks want to apply!

[POV]

23 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

OK...so this kind of dialogue is the stuff that seems to be a tremendous waste of time at least to my way of thinking!

Each side (person really) has their unique frame of reference. A subjectivist's frame of reference may be primarily based on sighted listening while an objectivist's is grounded on data, abx testing, etc.

Each person's experience is real to them and it's a fool's errand for someone to insist that the other side acquiesce to their terms, methodologies (or lack thereof), etc. Seems more reasonable to live and let live.

 

How do you account for people new to the hobby getting balanced and sensible advice in this paradigm though?  And honestly I think many folks enjoy the dialogue and sharing of ideas more than some type of expectation that they are going to 'win' or change people points of view.  

[Ittaku]

You want to say what your subjective experience is? That's fine. I don't tell you it's in your head, but it's the innocent (or sometimes not so) questions about how things work that deserve honesty. If people ask questions about how something works, don't expect me to sit silently and listen to the malarkey spouted by all the manufacturers out there as gospel. What is wrong with me coming out and clearly saying "They say it's because it's electrons dancing to the light of the moon in conjunction with virgo aligns them and improves the air around instruments when in fact there's zero evidence to support their claims and no science is there to defend them." People deserve honest answers, and that's why we speak up.

[tripitaka]

Yes I can see that the 'well prove it' attitude could surely be a bit of a downer. But, on balance, I think I'd rather see claims challenged more often, not less.

 

We are all prospective purchasers of expensive equipment and  potentially at the mercy of hifi marketing claims.  The most valuable commenters in my view are those who help punters like me spend less money, for the same outcome.

 

I don't think anyone on this planet is foolish for spending $$$ on hifi product XYZ, good on 'em!  But if for some reason they also want to 'convince the world' of its merit then they either need evidence or should expect pushback.

 

PS I don't think the objectivist/subjectivity labelling is helpful, labels rarely are

[Guest Old Man Rubber]

2 minutes ago, tripitaka said:

 

PS I don't think the objectivist/subjectivity labelling is helpful, labels rarely are

 

No they are not helpful at all.

 

The thing to me is I enjoy the subjectivist assessments where they make sense:  speakers, room treatments, amplifiers, sources and at a complete stretch an analog cable (who knows what's going on in their room in terms of EMF etc).  

 

It's where the assessments are clearly out of the realms of possibility that need challenging.  I realise it probably comes across as offensive if somebody questions your subjective assessment of a digital cable or an ethernet cable, but throwing around technical terms in an attempt to bolster those subjective assessments is offensive in itself.  It helps a lot if you know what you are talking about.

 

I also find it a bit weird that somebody wouldn't want to learn more about the hobby of hi-fi by reading what somebody with more experience and background has to offer.

[stereo coffee]

Generally does a heavily subjectivist designed piece of equipment, reproduce music better, than a heavily objective designed piece of equipment, or vice a versa ? 

 

IMO there are intricate highly complex nuances in music, that demand the very best approach possible, and I think the subjective approach always goes the extra few hundred miles needed , whereas  the objective approach often settles for much less, because it has delivered, a on paper result, and see's absolutely no reason to go any further.

 

A great example is the Mike Albinson /  Peter Walker designed Quad 405 , providing exceedingly good measurements, but subjectively not attaining quite as well.  https://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/655/index.html

[MLXXX]

32 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

A great example is the Mike Albinson /  Peter Walker designed Quad 405 , providing exceedingly good measurements, but subjectively not attaining quite as well.  https://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/655/index.html

I note that article was first published in August 1976, that is 45 years ago.

 

Subjective evaluation in design is certainly important with loudspeakers systems. Measurements always depart a long way from a ruler flat freq response and minimal distortion. Human judgement can assess which of two competing designs (both of which have been optimised with the assistance of calculations and measurements) seems to be the better compromise for human ears.

[stereo coffee]

6 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I note that article was first published in August 1976, that is 45 years ago.

 

Subjective evaluation in design is certainly important with loudspeakers systems. Measurements always depart a long way from a ruler flat freq response and minimal distortion. Human judgement can assess which of two competing designs (both of which have been optimised with the assistance of calculations and measurements) seems to be the better compromise for human ears.

With respect, you need to go a few steps further,  and consider subjective evaluation for everything in your audio system. I was going to highlight the quad 57 review, some  21 years earlier 

[MLXXX]

Just now, stereo coffee said:

I was going to highlight the quad 57 review, some  21 years earlier 

66 years ago?  Well that would be going back a long way!

[stereo coffee]

A famous old pair of quotes being

Peter Walker "All amplifiers sound the same"      Martin Colloms  "Amplifiers DO sound different  "

http://quadesl.org/index.php/hard-core/amplifiers/christian-steingruber

 

[Esoterica]

7 hours ago, MLXXX said:

If a truly game changing innovation came along, yes they'd be prepared to upgrade.  But they are not interested in trying out the huge range of tweaks that get discussed, unless there is some pretty solid evidence the tweak or product really does give an audible improvement.

I only got back into Hifi a year ago and did a lot of swapping and changing in that time. Upgrading along the way and finally settling on a setup. It is fun , but it's gets tiresome after a while. Mind you I spent above my means, which forces me to stick with this setup for a while. 
 

Anyway, for the last few months and for the foreseeable future, I'm just enjoying the music.

[Addicted to music]

6 hours ago, POV said:

 

I find this concept of 'tuning' systems by changing cables to be frankly bizzare, and especially so when we are talking about digital and network cabling where the only differences are in peoples minds.  People will swear black and blue that they hear massive differences from fringe cable tweaks

!

it’s very possible that in the ethernet cable/switch threads that they hardware they replaced that they notice an audible difference could be faulty and or not performing to specifications or operating out of spec.   Yet they perceived that as an improvement and then go on a journey outlaying $$$$….and believing in the marketing that’s all worded up to convince you to buy there products!    How many here on the cable/ethernet threads have actually done a cable test or an ethernet test?    An example is where one of our devices when to display port for high speed connection,  we now know that this cable in time will become faulty and hang the operation of the product!    Now I know why!  
 

 

 

the only problem is, the Total Phase V2 tester is $15,000.

 

[Esoterica]

I just read that audiobacon article on network switches, the link of which was posted in the A vs. SR thread. I read a lot of the comments too, and the point of me bringing it up, is that it's interesting that out of those comments, the "believers" in audiophile network switches give as good as they get, if not better. Now this doesn't mean anything, just interesting that they are quite steadfast and vocal in their belief (in that comment section) and not easily scared off, like what this topic is kind of about.

 

P.s: I liked the tête-à-tête between the author and Joseph Yeung in the comments section best. 

[tripitaka]

49 minutes ago, Addicted to music said:

it’s very possible that in the ethernet cable/switch threads that they hardware they replaced that they notice an audible difference could be faulty and or not performing to specifications or operating out of spec.   Yet they perceived that as an improvement and then go on a journey outlaying $$$$….and believing in the marketing that’s all worded up to convince you to buy there products!    How many here on the cable/ethernet threads have actually done a cable test or an ethernet test?    An example is where one of our devices when to display port for high speed connection,  we now know that this cable in time will become faulty and hang the operation of the product!    Now I know why!  
 

 

 

the only problem is, the Total Phase V2 tester is $15,000.

 

 

Thanks for posting

While they possibly could have said all that in under one minute, I did learn something

 

and yes, it does open several cans of worms of relevance to the digital side of hifi!!