-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?
- Thread starter BoredErica
- Start date
-
- Tags
- poll
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,545
- Likes
- 4,393
None of it applies to me.
And I can’t ignore the label. That’s the entire point of your efforts.
Look: the point of this labeling is that an objectivist rejects subjectivism, and a subjectivist rejects objectivism. If they don’t, then they don’t actually belong in their box and are some sort of hybrid. Then the labels fall apart. My original point.
In another forum I once posted that I aim to be a Good Subjectivist and a Good Objectivist, and try to avoid being a Poor Subjectivist and a Poor Objectivist. So how can I possibly fit within your attempts to define and box people?
I know for sure that I am a subjectivist. So no definition of objectivist will apply to me, unless it wrongly includes subjectivism and hence contradicts itself.
I think I said before: people are trying too hard.
And I can’t ignore the label. That’s the entire point of your efforts.
Look: the point of this labeling is that an objectivist rejects subjectivism, and a subjectivist rejects objectivism. If they don’t, then they don’t actually belong in their box and are some sort of hybrid. Then the labels fall apart. My original point.
In another forum I once posted that I aim to be a Good Subjectivist and a Good Objectivist, and try to avoid being a Poor Subjectivist and a Poor Objectivist. So how can I possibly fit within your attempts to define and box people?
I know for sure that I am a subjectivist. So no definition of objectivist will apply to me, unless it wrongly includes subjectivism and hence contradicts itself.
I think I said before: people are trying too hard.
Last edited:
Pugsly
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2021
- Messages
- 98
- Likes
- 122
Do I think that it makes sense to use a multi-thousand dollar piece of equipment to perform the function of an EQ when that will only work in a limited case scenario with limited source material? No, I really don't...
As to the main topic, if objectivism is science-based, then it is grounded on falsification, which means that a null result of an ABX test or measurements does not show that there is no difference, only that no one has yet been able to reliably pick it out. It is always possible that there is some as yet unknown factor. However, Occam's razor: placebo is a real issue, auditory memory is flawed, and unless someone can demonstrate that anyone can hear a difference between two things, it is fair to assume that differences that have not been measured as yet and have not been shown to be reliably picked out in ABX tests are explainable using these already known factors. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,408
- Likes
- 12,449
Sure.
Anyone paying attention to your posts knows it does indeed mirror what you typically argue here. I suggest that if you stated what your view was on the most reliable way to evaluate audio equipment...clearly and without obfuscation....we'd see it mirrors the definition quite closely.
For some reason it appears you are set on disagreeing on whatever I possibly write, even when I'm trying to get us to some understanding.
The point of my efforts was to try to bring some conceptual clarity to the basic divide that causes so much argument in the audiophile world. The one that almost inevitably gets every thread about Cables on other forums eventually shut down, etc. One cohort starts posting about the awesome differences they heard between ethernet or AC cables, another starts asking for measurable evidence or asking if they controlled for sighted bias, the other replies all they need is their ears to know the difference, the other side points out no, the cable theory doesn't support the extreme sonic differences claimed by the manufacturer and that these folks are claiming to hear, so lets have better evidence than just anecdotal sighted listening...and back and forth it goes...until a thread dies.
Which side of that argument would you be on? We both know. You've given the arguments here. This is the divide that you see in audio forums all around the world. It's part of why the owner of this site started this forum!
The words "Objectivist" and "Subjectivist" are already in use...so I'm looking at what they DO or COULD identify. And as I said, I would like to see an alternative way to refer to a specific approach to audio evaluation shared by large groups of people. Otherwise we are stuck continually ad hoc phrases and having to explain them anyway, it seems to me. Just abandoning one set of labels doesn't actually lead to any more clarity.
If there are a GROUP of people who share the SAME approach to evaluating audio, e.g. one that values sighted listening to determine Ethernet cables sound vastly different, even against any objective evidence to the contrary...how would YOU refer to that group if you want to discuss their approach? Likewise, we know there are people who place much more emphasis and value in measurements of gear, and who are far more cautious about informal sighted tests ESPECIALLY in regard to controversial audio claims. This forum is full of such people. If you want to refer to this approach...what handy word or phrase would you like to use?
I'm not attempting to "box"anyone in. But the fact is unless there is some way to identify an approach shared by groups of people, we will be stuck with ad hoc and unweildy words and phrases anyway. By looking at already used terms Objectivist and Subjectivist, I explained that...only identify roughly two schools of thought in evaluating audio gear...and ANYONE can put HIMSELF anywhere on the spectrum between those, and explain why.
Well you'd have to first clarify what YOU mean by being a "Good" Subjectivist and a "Good" Objectivist.
But that would entail finally answering in detail your thoughts on an appropriate way to evaluate audio gear. But it seems you don't want to do that...I suspect because it will hew so close to the description I gave which you've claimed to reject. But I'd be pleased to find out my hunch is wrong. I can't answer your rhetorical question until you explain "good subjectivist" and "good objectivist."
Last edited:
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,545
- Likes
- 4,393
You missed my point — that being both a subjectivist and objectivist makes the labels irrelevant. If my aim was to redefine subjectivist and objectivist — ie same as your aim — then I would have expanded on them. But I have no such aim in this thread.
Last edited:
nerdstrike
Active Member
Seeing the direction of discussion I think I am an anti-false dichotomist!
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,973
- Likes
- 3,628
Looking at different defenitions of these words they seem to be mutually exclusive so you can't have both. I would call it appreciating the subjective perspective as well as objective facts. I can subscribe to that myself, altough I consider both to be essential and when it comes to more complex questions I value critical thinking and facts over subjective opinions.
Suffolkhifinut
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,224
- Likes
- 2,029
Tell him he will have to pay double if after looking at a number of measurements of amplifiers he can’t identify the each amplifier in a blind listening test. That applies to any of you who don’t believe listening is important. Strangely there seem to be many of you!Tell him that he will have to pay you back double the airfare and hotel costs if he doesn’t ace the test.
ZolaIII
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 4,212
- Likes
- 2,488
If measurements show hear able difference (±dB) and if it's in sensible range and subject can confirm that it can hear and identify such (±dB) difrence in same range than I agree. But that doesn't get us closer to explaining how so and to what extent nor to objectively verify why.
Its not what you can gain or luse it's how you can contribute.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,973
- Likes
- 3,628
Why should he, as no one ever claimed that? And if you think serious deviations in measured frequency respons are not audible I'm happy to come over and take your money.
What's realy strange is the amount of people that misinterpret the thinking about the value of listening altough it must be explained already a thousand times. At a certain point it becomes a sign of unwillingness.
With any amplifier worthy of being called HiFi, there won't be any audible differences to identify, so the whole point of listening (blind or sighted) as means of choosing amplifiers (or pretty much any electronics) is pointless. At least sighted allows one to choose on looks, which is about the only distinguishing marks once facilities are dealt with.
S.
Listening is the whole point of the exercise. Listening to the sound of the recordings that is, not the sound of the equipment.
DanielT
Major Contributor
Yes probably ... or not. At the boat club I talked to some of the old sailors a few years ago. A conversation about practical details. They have nice old wooden boats that they have been fixing all year round. In connection with my conversation with them, one of them said: Well, now it's time to put the boat in the lake. Then that season was over.
Said jokingly .... I think, though... I'm not entirely sure.
Tough to have to simmer around on the lake with the old boats. All the time it takes. Time that could instead be spent on adding another coat of varnish.
Last edited:
Among lame excuses for not putting one's beliefs to the test, this admittedly is one of the more dishonest ones.
Suffolkhifinut
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,224
- Likes
- 2,029
Once again can’t agree, so you think all HiFi amplifiers sound the same? If so why are there so many manufacturers most of them making several different ones at different prices and power ratings? Are they all charlatans preying on vulnerable people?
different power ratings will be required due to the sensitivity of the speakers, distance from speakers to listener and playback level that is desired. No mystery there.
Sighted, they're all different. Blind, not so much.
S.
OP
BoredErica
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Thread Starter
- #220
-Bling rich people pay for to look nice to their peers or feel better about themselves or they just like nice stuff
-Some products have nice marketing and stories around them
-Features. Connectivity, remote, many channels, fancy displays, looks. (I like things that look nice and I will pay more for that.)
-Better specs even if they're not audible because they think it's cool
-More power for people who really need to blast themselves but their neighbors too
-Most people are not scientific minded and believe all kinds of woo woo, and they rely on their uncontrolled subjective experiences to aid in their purchase, leading them to think it sounds better. People tend to be overconfident in their abilities because (almost) everyone has a pair of ears and can hear and has experiences so they think it automatically makes them qualified in assessing audio quality
-Some people who make products believe in their own BS
-Some don't sound the same on purpose to stand out, making their product the opposite of high fidelity by definition
Audio as a hobby is a notorious cesspool of antiscience. That's why I dislike being called an audiophile. I feel dirty being called that and some people will think I'm some kind of moron.
Last edited:
