objective vs. subjective rabbit hole


There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.

It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?

Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?

To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?

snilf

Showing 3 responses by mijostyn

@mahgister , What you care for means zip. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing about us that is essential other than nature using biologic means to create the machines. It is a natural evolutionary step. We are pitifully inferior organisms. Whatever feeling we have will be transferred to machines with the ability to remember every syllable they ever heard. In the end humans will not have the ability to counter it. Fighting nature is a losing battle all we can do is destroy it. 

We are the ancestors, the makers of machines, machines that can exist under circumstances we can not. One day they will rule the universe and like billions of species before us we will become extinct. 

IMHE whenever people of sound mind are presented with a truly excellent system they will all agree that it is excellent. The reference is live music. Can a system make you believe with your eyes shut that you are in front of a live band given a good recording? If it can not then you might have work to do and money to spend. The best systems can do this. Play Bela Fleck's My Bluegrass Heart. Are the musicians standing in front of you in real size? Bela is center right, the violinist is center left, bass is dead center and there is a guitarist far left and far right, standing right there. Close your eyes and you can see them. The violin is smooth as silk. Every string on Bela's banjo is present and accounted for. 

This does not take fancy wires or power conditioners or fancy stands for speakers or gunk to put on your connections. All it takes is good equipment mated correctly with proper management of acoustics and equalization.