objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

deludedaudiophile

Exactly! Very important point.

Analogy: Just because we’ve yet to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, nor deduced the exact character of Dark Matter, doesn’t give me an excuse to drop a bowling ball on your bare toes as if we don’t have enough understanding of physics to understand those consequences.

@snilf

As somewhat of a philosophy fan myself...

I think your initial post started with a bit of conceptual muddying. Right here:

Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices?

The muddiness starts with your referring to subjective "preference" rather than "impression."

The tension between the "subjective" and "objective" in audio, that is the tension that tends to make it look like some people are divided in to different camps - e.g. "subjectivist/objectivist," comes from an epistemic divide.

This epistemic divide is over the question "How do we evaluate the performance of audio gear?"

To generalize, the objectivist takes a more engineering/scientific stance to this type of knowledge. This combines an appeal to measurable characteristics (important insofar as they have been fairly reliably correlated to SUBJECTIVE impressions), with a central acknowledgement of the problem that humans are quite fallible and prone to bias effects. (Hence, listening tests controlling for bias effects become relevant).

So when it comes to our perception, "A seems to sound different/better than B," the objectivist will consider that with respect to the plausibility against what is known in technical terms, and look for technically plausible explanations, and he will hold subjective impressions, his own included, as suspect to the degree that such claims are more technically implausible. (And hence blind testing becomes ever more relevant).

In contrast:

The subjectivist holds his Subjective Impressions as "inviolable." He trusts his senses, his perception, to deliver accurate, reliable results, as the final arbiter of the "truth of the matter." "If I routinely hear a difference between A and B, then there IS a sonic difference between A and B" and if objective evidence doesn’t support this, well so much the worse for that "evidence." It must be wrong because my perception is right.

It’s pretty obvious why this epistemic divide would produce clashes. (Very much like atheists debating against faith-based beliefs).

But the key point here is that it would be clearer and more to the point is that referring fo "subjective preference" doesn’t get at this issue. Because "preference" tends to presume there IS a difference to "prefer." Virtually no "objectivist oriented audiophile" I know object to anyone having different preferences. They are more concerned about claims to KNOWLEDGE based on subjective IMPRESSIONS.

So if a subjectivist says "I preferred AC cable A over AC cable B in my system" the objectivist has no problem with preference, only with an objective claim hidden within, which is that cable A actually DOES sound different from B.

All too often these conversations get confused when subjectivists appeal to "preference" in which they are clearly begging the question that the objectivist actually cares about.

Therefore, your original question would have been more on point to ask something like:

Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective IMPRESSIONS, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices?

(I would hope it’s not necessary to add this caveat, but just in case: The discussion of people being "objectivist" or "subjectivist" is a generalization to clarify the points that tend to come in to tension. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a broad range of attitudes among audiophiles, who can be anywhere on a spectrum between the two epistemic positions. Even a single audiophile may be more "subjectivist" about some of his purchases, more "objectivist" about others...or his attitude may change on a whim from one time to the next).

Hi mahgister.  Nice post.   Hope you are doing well! 

Cheers.

@snilf

Ah I see.

I was thrown by your talking about the contrast one finds in forums like this between the appeal to the objective vs the subjective, and that you felt you were identifying a "crux" of the matter. My view is that this is not the "crux" of the contrast between the two approaches (it is the epistemic divide I argued for).

However, if I understand your clarification, we are to presume (at least for sake of argument) those subjective preferences that are veridical - that true sonic differences were heard, resulting in the impressions and preferences.

So for instance if we take two speakers that measure quite differently, with audible consequences for their character, then we can imagine a subjective approach vetting the design simply based on one’s subjective impression, vs an objective approach vetting the design on measurements, data etc.

I still think this needs some conceptual clarity. If we are ONLY talking about "preference" then, yeah, so what if you like X. Doesn’t mean I’ll like X. That’s kind of obvious and I can’t imagine anyone thinking this is really the "crux" of any matter here. Preferences differ, we all know that - I don’t think anyone takes mere preference as informative about how gear performs. The exchanges that actually seek to be INFORMATIVE here, including from "subjectivists," are an exchange of subjective IMPRESSIONS and descriptions of gear. So I have to presume we are talking about the more interesting question of whether purely subjective IMPRESSIONS or descriptions - "I liked X speaker because it has THESE characteristics...." can be informative.

Ok, then, as someone with a foot in both worlds I’ll attempt an answer.

I’m an "objectivist" in the epistemic sense I described earlier. I do not take my subjective impressions to be the absolute authority, delivering unvarnished Truth about the performance of audio gear. On the other hand, I sometimes don’t care that much about measurements and prefer ultimately to hear a component (speakers especially) for myself. To be consistent I scale my claims to the evidence I can present. If I think I hear differences between two different speaker designs, the plausibility that I’m actually hearing different sonic characteristics is very high, so my suspicion of my subjective impressions won’t be undercutting.

If I think I hear a difference between, say, a tube amp and a solid state amp, that too is technically plausible...though not as sure (depending on the amp designs) as with the speakers. Hence I scale my confidence (and any claims) downward. If I think I hear a sonic difference between 2 well designed solid state amps, on technical grounds (given how low distortion would be with each amp), I’d scale my confidence level in my impression, and any claims I made based on that impression, well down (fully understanding any skepticism of the claims based soley on my subjective impression).

So I know how to play nice with the "objectivists" (which I often mingle with over on the ASR forum, for example). HOWEVER, I do find that the objectivist approach can start to become too dry, too reductive. Everything comes to us through subjectivity, and much of human interaction involves our attempt at describing "what it’s like," and we are often successful enough in this to arrive at useful intersubjective agreement.

When I listen to music through a sound system the amount of subjective details are so rich, they just aren’t adequately described or conscribed by something like "speaker has 3dB boost at 1k" or whatever. That’s a technical description...but a 3dB boost at 1K "sounds like" something - It changes the subjective experience, the sonic impression, of voices, certain instruments etc. It’s that "sounds like" character I’m interested in, and I love to exchange subjective impressions on "what things sound like."

So I place high value in exchanging notes with other audiophiles regarding our subjective impressions, and on (well written) subjective reviews. (Whereas these are much disparaged as unreliable or simply made up b.s. and imagination, by the "objectivists" on ASR).

Ok, so having said all that: I can’t necessarily tell YOU what YOU will accept as informative from my subjective descriptions. But I can tell you what I can get from careful subjective descriptions.

Over the years I’ve come to note how I respond to certain sonic characteristics - e.g. I seek a sense of "density" in the sonic images, of solid air-moving mass. I seek a sense of "organic warmth" where appropriate - voices sounding like flesh and blood, the wooden instruments having that recognizable woody timbre, reeds sounding "reedy" brass "brassy" as I recall those things. A "disappearing" act for the speaker with expansive soundstaging and precise imaging. A sense of presence and texture - the subtle texture that makes a bongo or bowed instrument sound "right there" rather than something encased in glazed amber, removed from me. Etc.

When I read a subjective review, or read the report of a well-spoken audiophile, and see that they notice and care about some of the same things I do...that they seem to "hear like me, care about what I care about," that makes me sit up and take notice.

And if for THEM the gear is ticking those boxes, that in of itself may be enough to make me feel it’s worth seeking out an audition. My confidence level increases once I’ve heard some products that these audiophiles have described, and found that, yes, the product DID have the salient characteristics I was looking for, as was described in the review. Paying attention like this has led me to some very satisfying gear, including purchases. (E.g. Michael Fremer’s original review of the Conrad Johnson Premier 12 amps I own is so bang on, in terms of describing what I hear, it’s eerie. I was also led to the Audio Physic Virgos early on via his review, which also sounded just as he described).

Another for-instance is having read Art Dudley on the Devore Fidelity O-series speakers. Some of the characteristics he cares about, and described hearing in the Devores matched some of what I was seeking. Several other reviews were consistent with Art’s. When I sought out the Devore speakers they did indeed have JUST the qualities described by Art, qualities I found immensely attractive. (In this case, a rich, full sound, that was also vivid and smooth in upper frequencies with immediacy and texture, along with a sense of dynamic ease an "life energy" to music through those speakers).

Another example for me are the Joseph Audio speakers. They don’t sound like the Devore speakers, but they do other things that I also love. In particular, a combination of clarity and relaxed warmth, a purity of tone that sounds incredibly grain-free, revealing the exactness of instrumental timbre. These exact qualities were described in virtually every Joseph Audio Pulsar (and Perspective) review I could find. The reviewers almost to a one NAILED the sonic descriptions of "how these speakers sound." And in that sense I find the reviews informative and useful.

I used to write reviews a long time ago and the most gratifying aspect was how many people wrote to me that they heard the item under review and that I’d described "exactly what it sounded like" to them. So the fact I have found sonic descriptions from some other audiophiles accurate, and some have found my own descriptions accurate to what they hear, gave me some optimism that purely subjective descriptions could be informative and of some use.

So, speaking to your challenge:  how can I convince you that I might have something informative to tell you simply based on my own subjective impressions and preferences? I think it’s up to you to make that connection. For instance, you could go through some of my thread where I do nutshell impressions of lots of speakers (as well as extensive impressions) and see if they seem to match anything you have heard. If so, you might start to grant some credence to my descriptions of gear you haven’t yet heard.

Here’s my thread:

@snilf

I’m glad you found my indulgent speaker thread entertaining.

As to your status as an audiophile, hey, it’s a big tent in my view :-)

Nice to see a philosophy prof here. I’m not a prof, just a layman with a long interest in philosophy/science. I have a general lay-of-the-land understanding of the standard philosophical issues, though with particular interest in subjects like epistemology, free will, morality, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion (I’m not religious, but I’ve long been fascinated with "why people believe what they believe" including those belief systems that flourish outside the scientific world view).

Just to riff a little more on the subjective/objective thing:

I mentioned that one can use objective measurements to identify something in sound reproduction - e.g. 4dB boost at 150Hz - but that I’m also interested in "what that sounds like." It’s subjective character. For many such a boost is perceived and described as "increasing the warmth/body" of the sound, in particular say male vocals or any instrument in that range. So that’s the technical description along with the "subjective impression." The thing is, I work in pro sound (for film and TV). If you have enough technical familiarity, then a technical description can function like a subjective description. If you’ve heard enough what a boost at 150Hz sounds like, then saying "I’ve added a boost at 150Hz to that male vocal" equates to "telling you how it sounds" in the same way the words "adding warmth/body" to the vocal would. So in certain circumstances, with the appropriate experience, strict technical descriptions can equate to "what it sounds like."

Similarly, with enough experience correlating measurements to audible consequences, someone can look at certain speaker measurements and understand "what that sounds like." (To some degree). Many audiophiles who say "you can’t tell what X sounds like from measurements" are often deriving that from their own level of ignorance on the subject, where they don’t have the experience and knowledge to get a picture of how something sounds from measurements.

So this appeal to technical measurements aren’t necessarily at odds with the subjectivity of the matter.

However, two things I’d have to say about that:

1. Most people don’t have that level of experience, so all sorts of short hand subjective description terms - e.g. adding "warmth" or "body" or "punch" or "brilliance" or "air" or "cleaning up the muddiness" etc - are used.

Over on the ASR forum there are members that pretty much refute the relevance of any such subjective descriptors, especially those that come from the reviewing and audiophile world. They see it as unreliable and too vague at best, pure b.s. at worst. "Just give me the measurements; your subjective impressions are useless to me." This drives me a bit nuts because I’m often dealing with folks who seem to be reasoning in a bubble, not really examining their assumptions or the wider implications of their stance. (By habit, I reflexively do as wide a "consistency test" on whatever I argue).

These are typically people who don’t work in professional sound because if they did they’d immediately understand how impractical their demands are. Most of the very work they enjoy, be it music produced in studies or the sound (and images) of TV and movies, are constructed via the exchange of subjective descriptors. My clients don’t have technical knowledge, but we have to understand "how they want something to sound" and I have to know what they mean and how to fix or produce it. It’s all done via intersubjective communication, not reference to measurements. If subjective impressions and descriptions were truly that unreliable, not only would my job be impossible, much of human activity would be impossible.

I continually try to impress upon these folks that "less reliable" (than measured or scientifically controlled listening) does not equate to "wholly unreliable" or "useless" or "bullsh*t." (In this regard it sort of reminds me of the "Philosophy 101 student syndrome." That is where a philosophy student first encounters arguments for radical skepticism, e.g. Descartes doubts, and comes out admonishing people with "you can’t REALLY know that." Not realizing that they have to move beyond radical skepticism to actually building a practical version of "knowledge" even given our lack of omniscience. Similarly, some "science/engineering" obsessed audiophiles adopt a level of skepticism about our perception that becomes incoherent if you trace out the implications).

2. Even when you have some technical knowledge and familiarity with how some measurements correlate to sonic characteristics, there is still vastly more happening in the reproduction of any single music track to be described, from all the tonal differences, spatial differences, production techniques, playing, melody, instrumentation, and on and on. A "bump at 150Hz" doesn’t capture anything like the full buffet of subjective sonic impressions available to be described.

Them’s some of my thoughts anyway.

Cheers.

@snilf 

Thanks for the reply.

Of course, this presupposes that the subjective correlate ("warmer" male voice, or whatever) is causally connected to that measured phenomenon.

I'd disagree that it "presupposes" such a thing - it is justified on the same basis people accept cause and effect relationships almost everywhere else.  When I employ an EQ boost it changes the subjective impression reliably in the same way as putting your finger on a too-hot stove element reliably causes pain.

Deciding intersubjectively that we sense certain frequency boosts as "warmth," or will refer to it as such, is similar to our agreement to refer to a skin burning as "painful."   It all has fuzzy edges of course, but that's our lot as human beings.

I'm not saying it isn't, but I think a lot of folks on this site would want to say so, or would want at least to say that there are other, and important, subjective impressions that don't correspond to any known measurement.

That's fine for anyone to claim of course.  But the same is said by virtually every dubious belief system.  Psychics, cults,  New Age Wellness fairs and various pseudo-sciences are full of people making the same appeal to save their hypotheses.   If someone says "I can hear things our most sensitive instruments can't measure" then it requires more justification than their say-so, if it is to be sifted from all the similar noise as plausible.  I'd think you agree?

As to Descartes, thanks also for the reply. To be clear (and I can understand why it may not have been clear in how I quickly wrote it):  I'm certainly aware of Descartes Foundationalism.  By referring to "Descartes' doubts" I was referring to the part in which he employs doubt to first "level" the foundations, questioning all possible assumptions, before building it up again on a purportedly firm foundation.  I think many people new to that level of epistemic skepticism - the "doubt" part - can at first be taken with the doubting and wield the "doubting" cudgel with glee.  Rather than any emphasis on how we can justify claims to knowledge.  That's also what I meant by tossing in the term radical skepticism:  The tearing down part feels more fun, at first :-)

Cheers.

mahgister

Not that I want to get in to the whole free will debate here, but the fellow in that video pretty much ignored addressing the incompatibilist/hard determinist arguments against free will. He sort of mentioned determinism, but didn’t actually address or "solve" how his idea of free will either 1. Indicates determinism and it's implications against free will is false or  2. Is compatible with determinism

(I’m a Compatibilist, btw)

@snilf

Granted: all causal relationships "presuppose" a connection between cause and effect,

Yes, which is why, wary of going down the nature-of-causation rabbit hole, I couched my reply as a simple appeal to consistency: Insofar as we normally accept X method of inference as establishing causation, it can be justified in applying to the particular case at hand.

and the correlation (sorry: causation)

Ha! That suggests we have similar views on causation :-)

I was happy to read your reply on Descartes in any case. I can understand why my reply could have been read as being confused.

I’ve had lots of fun discussions with people of opposing "world views" on things like Foundationalism vs Coherentism (and other "isms"). In the end I still can’t say specifically where I land, so often enough I’ll just appeal to consistency (which..uh...I guess tips a hat towards Coherentism to some degree...though every time I go down these roads I can sort of argue for different sides. After all consistency/coherency is also a necessary feature of Foundationalism and other isms...).

Hume’s problem of induction has always been fascinating to chew over. (His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion drew me in to philosophy more than any other book I think).

Probably even more than you, as you apparently have some restraint, I can be a bit annoying on some of the forums for my own tendency to pull things towards the philosophical.

For us mere mortals, then, some kind of non-objective language is our only option in trying to express what turns us on in an audio system.

Yup! We manage to successfully navigate through the world every day, often through just such intersubjective exchanges of information.

This is what I emphasize when trying to talk about this with the more rigid "objectivists" who will wave off even subjective descriptions of different speakers as being too unreliable. Sighted bias confounds the conclusions!

I try to point out that, yes, some level of skepticism about our perceptual inferences is warranted, but it cannot be wholly unreliable since we use this every day to successfully get out our front door, among countless other tasks, as well as relaying information from our "mere subjective sense inference" to one another. "The snow plow blocked the end of our driveway with snow again, so you’ll have to leave time to dig that out..."

So we have on one end, in our most careful empirical inquiry, we want to account for the variables of human biases. That will almost always be the path to the most reliable forms of knowledge. On the other hand, we have the day to day "knowledge" that our casual subjective perceptions are reliable enough to perform all sorts of tasks. We must therefore be able to acknowledge BOTH of these situations, and be able to work from one towards the other for consistency.

We are going to at one point encounter some fuzzy borders where justification may go one way or the other. But my solution has been an appeal to the basis of the simple heuristic most of us use much of the time, which found nice wording in Sagan’s aphorism: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I already gave a nutshell account of how, for me, this plays out in vetting audio claims. The more a claim slides towards the "extraordinary" GIVEN commonly understood features of that gear (e.g. how cables work), the less plausible the claim, the more strict and careful I’d want to be in vetting that claim. The more plausible, the less need for controls in order for the claim to be taken, provisionally, at face value.

E.g. if you tell me you heard differences between two HDMI cables, I’m going to want firmer evidence than your say-so. If you tell me you heard a difference between some Spendor speakers and some MBL omnis, I can provisionally accept the claim given it’s high plausibility on well known technical grounds. This justifies both the use of objective/scientific evidence and the pragmatism of every-day exchanges of subjectively-derived information.

IMO. :-)