My take on subjective vs. objective

@asctim

Do Pepsi and Coke (or Budweiser and Heineken) still taste the same once you know which is which?

Or only after you know which is which?

I think it’s undeniable that adding a visual element to any comparison is bound to influence the conclusions.

How could it not when sight is so closely related to memory and preconceptions?

Therefore I would argue that no sighted comparison can ever be called objective. Many experiments have also previously suggested as such.

 

A truly objective result is one that can be independently repeated time and time again.

This usually requires a carefully controlled environment and carefully calibrated measuring equipment targeted on precisely the specific quality you are seeking to measure.

Once you bring human beings and their impressions into the equation you have lost objectivity and are now lost in the realm of subjectivity bias.

Of course opinions and impressions can still be useful, but without evidence to back up those opinions and impressions, that’s the most they ever can be.

 

Whether we like it or not, we’re just not very good at measuring things with just our senses alone, are we?

I can practice all that I want, but I’ll never be more accurate at timing exactly what 2 minutes is than my watch is.

I agree with you in that it is true that there are degrees to subjectivity. This is the main reason, I suspect, why we tend to trust certain reviewers more than others.

Ultimately though, they’re all subjective of course.

I was recently reading about a particular model of Acoustic Energy loudspeakers and was surprised to find one reviewer calling them tonally warm and rich, and another who stated that he found them slightly dry.

Imagine a world where all audio equipment was designed by listening alone.

A world with no reference points.

No frequency response data.

No dispersion plots.

No resonance waterfalls.

No calibrated crossovers.

 

Now imagine a world where it wasn't.

What's the difference?

Only about 150 years of scientific progress.

 

I daresay even a hundred years from now there'll still be some people who will claim to prefer the former.

But none of them will be designing audio equipment.

 

Or look at it another way, if you go back 200 years, you won't find anyone having this debate.

In fact you won't find any audio playback equipment at all.

 

Perhaps what subjectivists really seem to searching for might just be a graphic equaliser module to tailor the sound to their own particular preference?

The only thing they will ever convince objectivists such as scientists, engineers, designers, manufacturers etc is that they see the world differently.

We already know that.

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.

@cdc

Life is never easy.

 

Unfortunately not.

Try as we may there just always seem to be too many variables at play for any lasting peace of mind.

Perhaps something is amiss in the human condition?

Or perhaps we’re just biologically built to endlessly go forwards, endlessly competing whilst forever seeking beauty, peace and perfection in some inscrutable Darwinian cycle?

 

Is there any wonder that so many of us still cherish the thought of a less complicated afterlife even though it’s quite beyond us to imagine how that would work out.

Now let’s imagine something a little easier, shall we?

How about this?

An audiophile walks into a dealers and asks for a loudspeaker that has full bandwidth dynamics, zero cabinet/panel resonances, a point source output with perfect omnidirectional sound and imagery, a ruler flat frequency response and a life-like instant transient response with no smearing whatsoever and with a real world instrumental timbre?

How would the dealers response go?

 

Perhaps something like this?

"I’m sorry sir, but we don’t currently have anything of the sort in loudspeakers, our loudspeakers are all hopelessly flawed in one significant way or another, but perhaps sir might care to visit our headphone department...?"

@cdc

'Research proved that in a live musical environment, approximately 30% of what we hear is direct sound while 70% is reflected from walls, ceilings and floors and only reaches our ears a few milliseconds after the direct sound.

The human brain uses direct sound for identification and to calculate location, but uses reflected sound to determine musicality and spaciousness, as well as direction.'

 

Definitely something worth knowing.

This probably explains why the venue matters so much at concerts.

I wonder what the ratio is in most domestic arrangements?

I guess a lot must also depend upon the distance you're sat from your loudspeakers. 

 

"I ask myself all the time why do I enjoy my boombox at work? Never even give "sound quality" a thought. But dislike (somewhere between tolerate / listen through the audiophile smog to hate) my home stereo?

Is it expectations based on price?"

 

Yes, I'd say so. It's natural to expect something that costs many many times more to perform considerably better. That's the reason why I usually wait a while before watching highly rated new films or listening to '5 Star' reviewed albums.

Otherwise they're usually a disappointment. They're bound to be.

 

"Is it that a cheap, but well balanced, system beats an expensive one if something is off?"

 

Yes, always. Sometimes you can learn to hear through defects, mainly by focusing on strengths, but sometimes you just can't.

 

"Does the home stereo reveal too much or is interaction with the room a problem?"

 

Well, yes, resolution can be a double edged sword as anyone who's a fan of selfies might tell you. Apparently there are still loudspeakers out there that have the infamous BBC/Gundry dip around the 2kHz mark to deliberately soften the sound a little.

I've never had room problems, probably because I've never had speakers that could go down low enough, but I think it's also undeniable that some rooms are just better (more lively?) than others.

I can remember from my days of amateur radio how most studio microphones would improve the sound of the presenters voice, especially whilst they were sat in a tiny room.

None of them actually sounded like that in real life.

And no one sounds the same outdoors.