What are we objectivists missing?

Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh admired Hitler.  

Perhaps we’re coming from different perspectives. To me subjective and objective could be described thus;

Subjective observation is centered on a person’s own mind and perspectives, as opposed to being general, universal, or scientific. In this way, describing an observation as subjective often implies that it comes with (or is based on) personal biases.

Objective;

Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis.

Let’s say you’re a restaurant critic. There may be certain foods that you subjectively dislike—ones that are just not to your taste. But when critiquing dishes, you must leave your subjective tastes aside and be objective about what you eat—making objective judgments about things like how it’s cooked and seasoned and how the ingredients work together. Even if you’re served a dish that you subjectively don’t like, it’s your job to objectively assess its quality.

In a scientific experiment, your hypothesis might be based—at least in part—on your subjective opinion about what the results will be. But science is about being completely objective by gathering data and making conclusions based on the data.

In everyday life, your objective opinion is the one that sets aside your subjective preferences or feelings about something and instead assesses it based on facts and reality.

Dictionary dot com

Personally I dislike tube amps, inefficient, to much trouble to maintain, but there are tube amps that are well made, do a competent job within their specs and if someone likes them it’s none of my business. I've heard tube amp I couldn't tell from Solid state it's just my personal bias. Different strokes for different folks. If they start claiming they are superior to Solid State and sound better then I need more than their subjective opinion. How are they superior and have you compared tube amps to solid state in a blind listening test and pick tube amps better than chance.

For many things, subjective impressions are share-able -- if you see me accidentally stab my hand with a fork, you’ll probably say "ow" at nearly the same instant I do. We overlap so much for our experiences because we share a very similar physiology.

Measuring is useful when we are beyond the easy cases. Then, it can help a lot. But so can training of listening (or other senses). A chemistry kit can educe a chemical element that might not be immediately apparent. A training in tasting can help make apparent what was not, before.

It’s not "subjective" vs. "objective," as I see it. It’s how to make something apparent and also definite, qualitatively.

Wow. Two shoutouts for Ayn Rand who did not write about respecting other humans. She was the forerunner of Gordon Gecko (greed is good) and promoted selfishness above all else.

She admired serial killer Willian Edward Hickman so much that she modeled her protagonists in her books after him. She saw him as above all others and not tied down to societies laws and precepts. A superman, as she said.

All the best,
Nonoise

I am happy that we are almost on the same page about that...

My best to you ...

Good experiments use trained and untrained listeners. I agree with  a lot of what you say about audio, not all. To me 90% of what we experience is room/ speaker interaction and how we've tuned them with either passive room threats, EQ or both. As long as your electronic system is competently designed and most is, not specifically made to have a sound signature it's  no more than 10% of it, and yes, that's only my opinion.

Hear what you hear and love what you like.

  The definition of objectivism is the philosophy or theory that the main objective of the human experience is to pursue personal happiness and respect other humans. An example of objectivism is the philosophy made known by author Ayn Rand

I don’t care what you and John Doe discuss about subjective impressions. I do ignore it

That’s clear 100% for the "care" part. But, not so sure about the "ignore" part. You seem to reply to all threads on these very "subjective impressions" topics, cables, DACs, you name it. Majority of your 5,000 posts are replies to these threads. Not really ignoring them for some reason, they seem to bother you.

Some other people may, just may, however, be interested on John Doe’s subjective impressions.

Oh... and keep using "claims"

To return to the OPs question. We can't identify if something else needs to be measured based on subjective listening claims. Bias has to be eliminated first.

1 - People are free to share their impressions on anything audio in an audio forum

2 - You pick what is relevant to you. Ignore the rest

3 - Something that may not be relevant to you may be relevant to others

I’ll break it down for you.

I don’t care what you and John Doe discuss about subjective impressions. I do ignore it.

I am free to discuss my impressions on anything audio as well.

If the questions asked in an OP are given subjective impressions as answers then I’ll point out to him or her that’s all they are and should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Share whatever impressions you want but if someone is asking for RELEVANT feedback on a component my or anyones subjective opinion isn't really worth squat.

You seem to completely go past what I wrote. Let me repeat:

Again, I don’t think people are making claims. Instead, they are sharing their impressions. It’s a public forum. Meaning people gather, talk to each other, share what they like and don’t like, sharing their experiences. If you don’t like what people share, ignore them. Let the people who enjoy the discussion with each other be. As easy as that.

You keep focusing on "claims" over and over again. 

Let me break it down for you:

1 - People are free to share their impressions on anything audio in an audio forum

2 - You pick what is relevant to you. Ignore the rest

3 - Something that may not be relevant to you may be relevant to others

None of them most of the time learn with their EARS acoustic concrete science in listening experiments...

Good experiments use trained and untrained listeners. I agree with  a lot of what you say about audio, not all. To me 90% of what we experience is room/ speaker interaction and how we've tuned them with either passive room threats, EQ or both. As long as your electronic system is competently designed and most is, not specifically made to have a sound signature it's  no more than 10% of it, and yes, that's only my opinion.

A cable measured or bought for his magical true or untrue quality will not sound the same in two different rooms, especially if the evaluating ears read the publicity of the cables before buying it or worst because some measured it instead of listening it...

Astounding that people dont seems to understand that basic acoustic listening training is needed to be able to evaluate ANY component and optimize his working...

Subjectivist and objectivist focus on the GEAR market publicity, one group favorably the other group with defiance....Same error, one group trusting the branded name of the product the other group an electrical tool to measure it...

Astounding ignorance....But at least subjectivist guess that they can educate the way they listen....Objectivist are measuring tool fetichist.... 😁😊

None of them learn how to tune a room by themselves, nor to eliminate vibrations  and to control the electrical noise floor of the house to some extent,  AS the three main experiments in audiophile life... Not blind test nor upgrade...

100% true. But, this works both ways. For the "objectivists" too

Absolutely. If I say 2 dacs sound the same I will add if it's simply a subjective opinion or one I have tested. 

This thread isn't about cable A sounds better than cable B to John Doe but why will some claim A is sounds different  than B yet measure the same. Are there unknown measurements we need to make? My point is bias has to be eliminated to see if the reason is bias or some unknown before we can begin to investigate this unknown as a real factor.  Share whatever impressions you want but if someone is asking for RELEVANT feedback on a component my or anyones subjective opinion isn't really worth squat.

It is simple:

Subjectivist sometimes dont learn how to listen by themselves, and this is acoustic science training by the way... they trust more the branded name of the gear they bought than their ears training ...They train their ears distinguishing amplifiers marketed sounds qualities 😁😊

Objectivist are worst, they trust their measuring tools  ONLY...Or they trust  misapplied very limited blind test which are an  industrial methodological statistical tool not a tool for learning concrete acoustic ...

None of them most of the time learn with their EARS acoustic concrete science in listening experiments...

Solving equations of acoustic is not enough in applied acoustic of complex small room by the way...Acoustic like medecine is an art based on science...

All humans have biases

100% true. But, this works both ways. For the "objectivists" too

Subjective claims are null and void for everyone but the one making them

The emphasis is mine on the quoted phrase. Again, I don’t think people are making claims. Instead, they are sharing their impressions. It’s a public forum. Meaning people gather, talk to each other, share what they like and don’t like, sharing their experiences. If you don’t like what people share, ignore them. Let the people who enjoy the discussion with each other be. As easy as that. Go by whatever fits your bill, including the measurements you take yourself or read on the internet from a measurement guru of your preference.

The point of blind testing isn't to claim someone is delusional. All humans have biases, the only way to eliminate bias and continue the investigation into why something sounds different is by testing the claim. 

Subjective claims are null and void for everyone but the one making them. In order to show that the subjective claim has any relevance  beyond that it needs to be verified. This is true for things besides audio as well. I can claim a teapot is orbiting Mars, that I have seen it, but until such time it can be verified this claim is only true for me. This isnt some wild radical notion it's true for all human experiences the idea some ignore it for audio, to claim audio is different is depressing in a way.

It is the difference between what you ACTUALLY hear and what you THINK you hear.

Interesting statement.

What does it mean to actually hear something I don’t think I hear?

My dad has macular degeneration.

If I hold up an envelope to him and say, "What return address do you see, Dad", he will say, "It’s all a blur."

If I then add, "Ok, now what do you think you see, Dad?" He’ll say, "It’s all a blur."

If I then ask him, what’s the difference between what you actually see and what you think you see, he’ll say, "Please stop."

He really sees the blur he thinks he sees. I really see the address that I think I see. If I put it under a microscope, I would really see the pixels I think I see.

There is no independent access to "reality." There are just different components in different complex systems of experience. 

Reality is a word that does no work. 

A room is like a piano, it is easy to spot a lack with few months of listening experiments though... I never said it was easy for sure.. it must be learned...

People like to qualify 99% of people being deluded like idiots...And they like to put themselves in the 1 % of enlightened spirit. for sure..

This is not a sign of intelligence this labelling fury...

The truth is different, it is more 50 %...

It is more like a Bell or Gauss curve...

Like the I.Q. distribution...

Cretins are not a crowd of 99 %...

More like 50%...

And guess who claim to be in the 1% ?

Myself i claim to be in the good 50%...

I cannot prove it, save by rational post arguments...

Obviously. Unless you can “prove” it what you hear by either 1) measurements, or 2) third party independent panel certified blind test. Preferably both! Otherwise what you “claim” is null and avoid. You should not post such thing in the internet 😉

Where am i with my tuning acoustic method using my ears?

In the hallucinated crowd...

😁😊

🙄🙄🙄. The usual rhetoric. This one is even funnier, as usual on his posts. He quantifies the number of deluded audiophiles at 99%. 🙄🙄🤦‍♂️. Yeah, we are all hallucinating 

"if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference"

The above statement misses one crucial point.  It is the difference between what you ACTUALLY hear and what you THINK you hear.  99% of the audiophile world falls into the latter category.  As for the the other 1%, those descended from the monsters from the movie "A Quiet Place" :-)

No one need a blind test....

it is a tool useless for casual listener like you and me...

Interesting when organized...

But i never needed blind test to set and tune my room ...

Those who claim the opposite dont know acoustic, where blind test is only a necessary  protocol in some psycho-acoustic experiment...

Nobody ask his acoustician to pass a blind test before giving him money....

+2 @artemus_5 !!

These folks keep talking about "making claims" for some reason. Whereas people are simply sharing what they experience. Nobody is here to claim anything, or impose something on others, especially to THOSE others. If they like to "expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen", have at it! If that's what you want to do, do it. 

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best.

+1 @artemus_5

truly intelligent, educated people have an keen appreciation for what they (or we as mankind) do not yet know...

@artemus_5  

It's true, the equipment can go wrong sometimes. When it comes to keeping the plane upright without visual access to the horizon the human will go wrong every time. We just can't do it at all. Even birds can't do it. I'm with you though on knowing the limits to our equipment and science. When the science can't explain something we need to acknowledge that and explore it further. First we need to make sure there's actually something there that needs explaining. If someone could deftly maneuver an airplane without visual horizon cues and no attitude instruments, then that would be something to investigate. If they just said they could, not so much. But we could easily put a hood on them and have them demonstrate this ability. If they argued that the hood distracted them, we'd have to wait for actual inclement weather. If they said the presence of an observer or the settings of the test distracted them, or the poor handling characteristics of a perfectly good plane didn't give them enough feedback, I'd just disregard the claim. With audio claims, if someone won't expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen then I'll just accept that they do perceive a difference in non blind testing situations but I've got no reason to infer it's anything beyond just a perception. I'm personally interested in these sighted perceptual effects but see no reason to assume they're actually caused by a meaningful change in the sound that's reaching their ears. 

@asctim

Why the straw man argument when I never made an argument against machines & science? Apparently my point went straight over your head. Sometimes airplane crashes mare due to faulty equipment, NOT human error, excerpt in trusting the faulty machine. The weathermen use all kinds of equipment. Yet, how often are they wrong? let me reverse your last sentence

"It’s not about not trusting our science It’s about knowing the limits of our science and finding ways to augment them."

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best. This is scientism...and its very popular at the moment

@painter24 Thanks. Atttaboys are always helpful when we are generally outnumbered

We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."

Exactly...

Objectivist and subjectivist alike wear blinfolds that make them unable to understand a dynamic acoustic/psycho-acoustic process of correlation it seems..

😁😊

@artemus_5

SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and brought forth by man’s human senses

So do you trust your speedometer in your car to give you an idea of how fast you are going, or do you go by just watching the terrain go by? Have you ever tried flying an airplane when you don’t have visual reference to the horizon? It’s important to understand in advance that your senses will confuse you in that situation about something as basic as which way is up and which way is down. You can build instruments in advance that are immune to the effect and use their readout to tell you which way is up when your naked senses are disoriented. It's not about not trusting our senses. It's about knowing the limits of our senses and finding ways to augment them. 

+1 @artemus_5 I'm so glad you've made this connection and referred to it here; it's been on my mind for a good while.

... and until the people in the related physics field(s) get a grip on it, I'm going to do what someone else alluded to; I'm going to do me;

Listen to the music I love, on the gear, cables and tweaks I have chosen, as they sound different/better than others, in my system.

Can I trust my senses?; who cares!?, because their mine and they discern differences of better and/or worse in various audio products in my system. 

I couldn't give a gnats ar*e what ASR people think, or any others of their mindset; its not their money I'm spending. 

You need both objective to get a base to replicate or advance from and subjective to tell if it's enjoyable since that can not be measured. Nearly all audio products built by subjectivists have parts or materials that were carefully measured and meet specifications based on advanced objective measurements. All objective products meant for humanity’s replication of art must work, feel, sound, or look good to humans and that’s all subjective.

@bruce19 

So the problem here for those trained in science is that we have learned early on that our senses cannot perceive things that are there and conversely can also perceive things that are not there.

SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and  brought forth by man's human senses

objectivists lack a good bottle of cognac ... and the world will sparkle with colors

objectivists like me are missing audiophile deity.

what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

This is a very hard question, as it refers to unknowns.

There are many sensed qualities for which there is no quantifiable, measure-able correlate.

We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."

I don't know if someone has touched on it in this thread, but when considering the manufacturers goal is to sell product, they come up with supposedly innovative designs for their cables with exotic processes that (according to them) make profound (positive) differences! The question from a scientific perspective is if you can't measure the differences, then how do you formulate your hypothesis to even begin to design a cable?! Without a sound scientific methodology, where would you even begin to innovate? Regardless of whether there is actually a sonic difference, without a point to begin from, they are only guessing at what will or won't work, and how could anyone trust that?!!! 

Most objectivists miss Ayn Rand.

@sns 

“Audio subjectivists are the furthest thing from being religious, we disagree on so much. While we may believe in our systems and/or choice of equipment, we allow other's those same prerrogatives. If this religion, sure is one incoherent belief system.“

Have you checked lately how many religions there are on earth? And that is just one planet :-)

@sns 

“What “what are objectivists missing? Trust in their senses, which may be good thing in that certain individuals have a less developed aural acuity.”

So the problem here for those trained in science is that we have learned early on that our senses cannot perceive things that are there and conversely can also perceive things that are not there. Measurement and replication are the only tools we have in the struggle with self deception.

I'll give you guys a mystery of my own.  I got into upgrading speakers for a little while and the results were fun and educational.

I used a DATS V2 to measure replacement parts.  I believe Focals use Solen as their OEM and IMHO it shows.  I really prefer the sound of the almost as inexpensive Mundorf MKPs instead.  Anyway, I replaced the tweeter caps after measuring the original and new caps for capacitance and equivalent series resistance (ESR).  Both were very very similar.

For about 4 days after replacement I kept hearing weird surround sound effects.  I would hear sounds from the recording appear to happen below and behind me.  Later on this cleared up and never happened again.  The resulting sound was less harsh and more mellow than the original caps.

The weird sound effects I have always chalked up to head related transfer function (HRTF) effects.  The idea that the right comb filtering can make us hear things happen in 3D space.

HRTF effects are complicated.  If I wanted to measure or prove/disprove this was happening I'd need to have recorded the sound and compared the frequency response and phase responses of the before and after.  If that measured the same I'd chalk it up to my hearing, but to this day I think HRTF would explain what I heard and capacitor break-in behavior a lot more than uF and ESR.

If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same. So what are your opinions on what those differences might be and what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

Dark Matter, Dark Energy & the Higgs Boson (God Particle) and its interaction with said cable or tweak? Since it makes up 96% of the universe and we know literally nothing about it except its presence, it very well may be the missing factor. But the pride of man probably won’t allow it to be considered due to its ramifications

Playing golf recently I won a ball for longest drive, it caused great debate, was it red or orange? About 50% of other golfers round the table said each colour, you cannot tell someone what they see and you cannot tell someone what they hear.

A prime example of this matter is tube amps vs solid state ones or what some called glass vs sand amps. Compare a good tube amp’s specs, distortion, damping factor,  actual power out put, square wave accuracy etc. vs. most class D amps, all receivers, & most moderately priced solid state amps. On paper the tube amp might seem to be much less accurate & less faithful to the music. In reality, the reverse is more likely true. 
 

if this doesn’t show in the measurements, perhaps not all the right things were measured & I’ll bet we don’t really know exactly what they all are. Our brain & senses are very complex & amazing things w/ almost an infinite level of potential detail. 

First of all, we are not listening to a cable, we are listening to a system, our system, which most people here know the sound of intimately.

Here's a test:  How about you record your system playing real music at say 1 meter using "perfect" microphones direct into a "perfect" ADC. Switch cables and repeat. This is a thought experiment so I can say "perfect".

Compare the two digital files to see if there are any differences. Possibly incorporate AI "deep learning" to discover over time what that difference sounds like.

Just sayin'.

Regards,

barts 

Audio subjectivists are the furthest thing from being religious, we disagree on so much. While we may believe in our systems and/or choice of equipment, we allow other's those same prerrogatives. If this religion, sure is one incoherent belief system.

On the other hand, the objectivist insists on conformation to some set of specs. Rather biblical like, with those running the tests conflated as gurus or Gods imparting their commandments unto the unwashed.

Measurements. A well known measurements based reviewer lambasted a product for one singular measurement, in the report no mention was made of listening whatsoever to the product. The product measured 0.003% distortion. You cannot hear 0.003% distortion. The same pages waxes lyrical about a turntable that has 0.06% wow and flutter, that’s 20 times higher, and also quotes others at over 200 times w&f. 

It’s simple.  There are far too many variables in audio for anyone else to tell you what a change will do in your system.

Only buy from sellers who let you return the cable or the tweak if it doesn’t improve the SQ in your system.  Give it time to burn in, if it’s a cable or component, generally 100 hours or so, listen to it for a day, go back to what you had before and decide what you like better.

In audiophile threads objectivist are not scientist, they are at best some engineers focused on their design tools measures and at worst people obsessed by blind test...

They miss the fact that acoustic experience is a science correlating objective and subjective factor...A disctinct science than electronical engineering....

In audiophile threads subjectivist are most of them buyer and consumer obsessed by some brand name product ... They ignore that the sound experience is linked for a great part to acoustic and mechanical and electrical factors which are not dependant on the electronical design itself only but on the way it is embedded...

Objectivist and subjectivist partake one thing in common: they are obsessed by a piece of gear and/or the tools to measure it...They are in the cult/business of consumerism gear technology marketing...

They miss the acoustic scientific principle correlating objective device disposition and measure with an evaluating and an evaluated subjectivity...

All serious engineer designer trust their ears and their design tools TOGETHER...They use acoustic knowledge too ....

"I figure subjectivists are like religious people and objectivists are the scientists. There is no proof that a new cable, silver fuse, etc improves the sound, but they believe it does As @djones51 said, until you take vision out of any audio testing, there's going to be bias." - mr.skeptic

Scientists are objective? They're human and prone to the same biases as anyone, and in some cases more so with the hubris that science can prove everything. The fallability and inadequacy of man-made instrumentation is the weakest link of all. One day we'll train animals who have much keener hearing to choose our cables and components for us.