Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[SIY]

Copland amp + either Kudos or Neat speakers good synergy, Naim amp + Kudos or Neat speakers = headache.

Yes, seeing that brand logo makes a huge difference.

Now try it without peeking.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Yes, seeing that brand logo makes a huge difference.

Now try it without peeking.

Difficult!

 

[SIY]

Difficult!

But necessary if you're interested in what you actually hear.

 

[ahofer]

when people kept talking about how HD800 was the holy grail of headphones but you need a god tier amp with incredible amounts of power to drive them. Nobody could give a plausible explanation of why HD800 of all headphones would work that way,

This is a weird tick of hobbyists - they seize on the most impractical, unreliable, and esoteric object as the sine qua non of their hobby. It must be because the experience is heightened for the narrow window in which the product actually works. The Apogee Scintilla was a great example. I view it as an engineering fail, given the demands it puts on amps. The manufacturer never provided evidence of a connection between its ridiculous load profile and the sound, it was just sort of assumed.

Outside of our hobby - finicky Italian (and before that, British) cars, I suppose. Also food that has to be eaten at a certain split-second of preparedness. All the twiddling, prep time, and build-up really gets people primed.

 

[Geert]

Nothing. It’s an inherently oversimplified labelling system. Little more than an attempt at intellectualised name-calling. That is exactly how it has been used in the past, and this thread is no different.

Looks like different people take offence at using the word subjective, but what's the alternative if you want to refer to the type of audiophile that only trusts his ears and refutes scientific concensus? @MattHooper already asked for it but I don't see proposals. We need something that's practical in use, you can't expect us to use descriptions like 5 page legal agreements.

I don't believe using the word that can't be mentioned points to bad intend. I can't imagine there are people at ASR who believe there's no place or time for subjective impressions in life.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

But necessary if you're interested in what you actually hear.

How can anyone avoid looking before listening. Could identify Naim amplification blind or not.

 

[SIY]

Looks like different people take offence at using the word subjective, but what's the alternative if you want to refer to the type of audiophile that only trusts his ears and refutes scientific concensus?

Trusting one's ears is a necessity, and that is exactly why subjective judgment is crucial. Subjective, not uncontrolled. The problem is that lying brain.

The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational."

 

[SIY]

Could identify Naim amplification blind or not.

Great, let's see you do it.

 

[garbulky]

I voted ultra subjectivist because "what I hear is all that matters". But the description says "measurements are worthless" which I don't subscribe to. I think measurements definitely matter and can describe audio performance - to an extent. At the end of the day, I am only concerned on if I like the sound, looks, and experience with the device.

 

[Weeb Labs]

This was the option which most closely represented my position but I don't specifically regard myself as an objectivist. Subjective evaluation is incredibly valuable to me and is the means by which we have determined all preference curves and audibility thresholds. Without subjective evaluation, it would not be possible to interpret measurements in a manner which reliably predicts listener experience.

The problem is that many take subjective evaluation to mean "I listened for a few minutes after spending thousands of Dollars on the product and here are my expectation bias ridden impressions". I am only interested in controlled subjective evaluation. This excludes the overwhelming majority of published audio reviews and sighted comparisons. We know that uncontrolled reviews and comparisons produce unreliable data and applying this knowledge should be the obvious course of action rather than a characteristic for classifying "ultra objectivists".

 

[Geert]

Trusting one's ears is a necessity, and that is exactly why subjective judgment is crucial. Subjective, not uncontrolled.

Indeed, that's what I referred to in my second paragraph.

The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational

Good suggestions, although the risk is some might be considered as even more offensive. A diffult problem.

 

[majingotan]

Neutral for me. Feels good to own and spin through multiple systems ranging from horribly measuring to SOTA measuring systems. As far as visually and numerically seeing the large difference between those systems, they ever so slightly/miniscule different in sonics once volume matched. Having that knowledge then my choices for a specific budget, looks, prestige can be now personally tailored for my preferences

 

[sergeauckland]

Serge have you ever made a mistake buying kit after reading the measurement? Admittedly my quest for Audio Nirvana has been littered with mistakes. Sometimes feel like a HiFi junkie, same high after the fix and the cold turkey come down when I admit it sounds like s***. This time Iv’e got it right at least until January?

No never. The only thing I've ever bought that was a total disappointment was the Linn Sondek bought in 1976 on the basis of all the hype. It had to to be better than a Connoisseur BD1 didn't it? Sadly, sonically it wasn't. No worse clearly, but no better. Before then I'd thought that all a turntable had to do was to go round at the right speed. With all the hype surrounding the Linn, I doubted myself, but after buying the Linn, I realised that was spot-on. As long as the turntable goes round at the right speed with low rumble and W&F, everything else is mounting/locating/siting.

S.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Great, let's see you do it.

Pay for my airfare and hotel costs once the pandemic is over and you’re on!
In turn we’ll test several amplifiers unsighted and I would like to to identify the Amp from the measured results.

 

[sergeauckland]

Sounds nice in principle, not so easy to do in practice.

EQ certainly cannot fix all the problems in most real-life rooms where we put our speakers. And good EQ is hard to come by since most amps/streamers/DACs don’t have it. At most you get Audyssey in an AV receiver, as a cost-effective option, and I don’t think that’s good enough for music unless you severely limit it at bass management only.

Good EQ is expensive. The only easy to use solutions are RoomPerfect and ARC, and they’re very expensive. The rest, on top of that, are hard to implement (Dirac - I get a headache just reading the miniDSP manuals, and I am a REW user) or very inconvenient (Roon, which requires at least one PC in your audio chain).

I think it is easy enough, certainly easier than trying lots of different kit, buying, selling, buying again all in the hope of Audio Bliss. Good EQ is NOT expensive, the Behringer DEQ1296 is cheaper than some people pay for an interconnect, and it's as good as it needs to be for transparency. I'm not referring to room EQ, as I don't use it, never seen the point, much prefer to get the room comfortable without EQ, then accept what it does, just as I accept the room for everyday speech and domestic sounds. Anechoically flat loudspeakers (after EQ) in a benign domestic room and that's as good as it gets without a dedicated space.

S.

 

[MattHooper]

Oh, it truly doesn’t.

So you are claiming the definition I gave doesn't actually capture the general divide, and doesn't capture the viewpoint of anyone around here?

But by all means, instead of waving it away, please show where it is actually inaccurate. If it doesn't capture the essential divide, what have you been arguing against so often here?

So, once again:

OBJECTIVIST: believes informal subjective listening impressions in of themselves are neither reliable enough nor sensitive enough to understand how audio gear performs. Therefore the objectivist holds that we can only “KNOW” how equipment performs by appeal to objective measurements, and by correlating measurements to listening tests, especially listening tests using scientific controls for bias.
So: IF this doesn't essentially capture the essence of the two approaches audiophiles so often argue about...

If that doesn't generally capture, for instance, your own viewpoint...can you tell me where it is inaccurate?

As far as I can recall, that correlates with what you argue for here very often.

I wonder if you can get past your urge to disagree with everything I write long enough to answer?

(And note...given people actually DO fit in both categories...I've argued with tons of people who fit right in the definition of "subjectivist" I gave, and encountered numerous people who fit in the "objectivist"... there is nothing in the definitions that entail an "objectivist" can't use purely subjective appraisals when he wants to, or that there can't be some spread of people between the two ends, just as there can be with "Theist" and "Atheist" in terms of confidence levels etc)

 

[mhardy6647]

I’m waiting for someone to jump in to tell us the proper definition of the term ‘hobby’. One that we can all agree on (Mr. @MattHooper ?) You know, to bridge the epistemological divide

Yes, I now realize how shallow and banal* my comment was. Thanks for your objectivity!


________________
* Subjectively speaking.

 

[Weeb Labs]

Pay for my airfare and hotel costs once the pandemic is over and you’re on!
In turn we’ll test several amplifiers unsighted and I would like to to identify the Amp from the measured results.

There exists almost a century of peer reviewed studies which converge upon the same outcome. I wouldn't take that bet.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

No never. The only thing I've ever bought that was a total disappointment was the Linn Sondek bought in 1976 on the basis of all the hype. It had to to be better than a Connoisseur BD1 didn't it? Sadly, sonically it wasn't. No worse clearly, but no better. Before then I'd thought that all a turntable had to do was to go round at the right speed. With all the hype surrounding the Linn, I doubted myself, but after buying the Linn, I realised that was spot-on. As long as the turntable goes round at the right speed with low rumble and W&F, everything else is mounting/locating/siting.

S.

Got to agree about the LP12 overhyped. Around the same time 1976 listened to an LP12 and a Technics DD turntable bought the Technics and never regretted it. Would still have it if my daughter who was storing it hadn’t moved house and left it behind. Been underwhelmed by many bits of kit that measured well and had great subjective reviews. A few years ago did a listening test on speakers for a dealer in Norwich. Remember some huge Triangle speakers with more drivers than I had fingers and toes, a pair of Magnepaners and a pair of large ATC speakers. The ATCs were the only ones I would have given house room too.
Different strokes for different folks? You must have had your current set up for many years?

 

[SIY]

There exists almost a century of peer reviewed studies which converge upon the same outcome. I wouldn't take that bet.

Note well that he didn't mention what he'd pay ME if the results were random.