What are we objectivists missing?

All you need to do is get the best pure silver cables you can afford. 

Well, this did not go in the direction I had intended, but I suppose I should not be surprised. I guess the take away for me is "We don’t know what we don’t know".

@jtucker

There is a simple way out of this. Usually the problem is sorting out how to make the measurement needed. I’m sure you’re aware of the idea of ’if you can’t hear it, you’re probably measuring the wrong thing’.

So if someone claims a particular cable plays bass better, which not do a pink noise test and distortion vs frequency between the two cables of such a comparison? Do it with a microphone so the system in question is part of the equation. After that you can try to sort out why there is a difference if one if present. In this way you can see if expectation bias is thing or not.

I had a customer do exactly this and he found that a certain capacitor did affect distortion at various frequencies, verifying what he was hearing.

Refreshing to read wise post...

Thanks very much....

My best to you....

"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."

mrskeptic, you are assuming objectivists are scientists.  Bad assumption.  Both are subjectivists.  What is subjective about science?  Too much blind faith in current knowledge.  In audio, that is that the equations are good enough to measure everything, and if it can be measured by current knowledge, then it cannot exist.

Real world, unrelated example that I've brought up before.  Kepler's laws of planetary motion could predict the motion of all the planets--except Mercury.  Why?  The mass of the Sun is so great in comparison to mercury that you need to make relativistic corrections (ie Einstein's general relativity theory) to get accurate predictions for mercury.  Newton's theories work fine for the other planets, and Kepler used Newton's work to predict planetary motion of most planets.

The point?  Blind faith in science is a form of religion.  If Newton's equations (via Kepler in this case) can be limited to specific parameters, then show me the person smarter than Newton that has all the answers.

If anyone thinks that science is some objective monolith without emotional decision making, then they are showing the same blind faith that people today think is reserved for religion.

You can hear things that the physics of sound does not model.  And with current knowledge, cannot model.

"What are we objectivists missing?"

Plenty, including some of the most important parts.

+1 @henry53  for:

"Trying to be completely objective about something that is essentially subjective is not scientific."

@jtucker

"We don’t know what we don’t know"

Exactly. Our hearing acuity is much more complex than current science can define.

Not just cables but components as well. Great measurements can only get you so far, then the rest is an art of trying different things to improve the sonics. If we can measure what good sonics sound like, we’d have fatter bank accounts.

Being an Audiophile is primarily about 2 things, your equipment and how it sounds. Each person is unique, what you hear is determined by your ears and your brain, what you enjoy is determined by your preferences and experience. I have frequently sat in a colleagues room or store demonstration room and listened whilst someone told me how great it sounded, but to me it sounded awful.  Long experience trying to like Klipsch or Cyrus electronics comes to mind (separate story told here more than once). I cannot say Klipsch speakers sound terrible, but I can say they do to me. You can measure them until the cows come home, they will still sound terrible to me. This pastime is all about finding an illusion,( the Beatles or Bach are not playing music in your lounge room tonight), that you like. Someone telling you that  a different illusion sounds better or measures better is completely pointless. Trying to be completely objective about something that is essentially subjective is not scientific.

Audio for audiophiles is like golf for golf enthusiasts.  If you think there's a problem someone is willing to sell you a solution.  If you don't know there's a problem, someone is willing to invent one - and sell you the solution.  People have fun with either pastime attempting to invent perfection for themselves - which they'll never achieve but that's all part of the challenge.

Subjectivists do have things going for them.

They do help to keep a lot of people in jobs for one.

Secondly they also help keep the used market thriving as they flit from one brand to another.

I should know, I was one.

For a while it was fun ride, but in the end it got tiring.

We're not missing anything. When I listen to a $99 DAC with a SINAD of 123, then switch to a $100 DAC with a SINAD of 122, I rest easy at night knowing that the $99 DAC is superior in every possible way in the universe.  Then I rush back online to see if that dreamy Amir has given one of my comments an upvote.

Objectivists are just subjectivists calling out nonsense objective claims made by some subjectivists. 

What are objectivists missing....

The point.

@hartf36 The difference could be that I moved an armchair from one corner of my listening room to another, and it completely changed the room acoustics, all else being equal. Does that count?

Yes. The all else being equal being the the objective measurements of the equipment. It is data. It can be banged with a hammer and it will not change.

Then game-on for individual preferences, circumstances (however defined), room arrangements, and exaggeration.

I understand. Indignation.  I use that word with some trepidation as I tip-toe away into a safe zone. .

Because thinking dont cost money but our free time highest energy...

Correlative dynamic between subjective perception and objective dispositions escape them....

All that debate seems like a question with no answer to superficial mind ignoring that sometimes the answer is in the question itself in science, unlike politic....Here they divide the question in two parts and take a side... 😁😊

But who want to give times to a deep subject like the relation between acoustic and psycho-acoustic?

Arguing is more fun for some....

I don’t understand why this subject is such a sticky wicket.

Perhaps everything we hear CAN be measured, but - clearly - not everything measured can be heard.

Our individual ears, and brains, and personal listening spaces (including gear) are all............individual.  Simply put, we don't hear things the same, regardless of measurements.  Our systems could "measure" the exact same.  We won't respectively hear them that way because my left ear has some high frequency loss, likely due to a lifetime of shooting sports. You may have some loss in certain frequencies that makes YOUR hearing entirely unique.  Like a fingerprint.  No measurement will change that.  It is what YOU hear with YOUR ears/brain that makes some things sound good, others not so much.  Throw in individual "listening skills" and it would seem to sharpen further, recognizing that being a good "listener" still won't fill in those lost (audible) frequencies (though a decent EQ might help you out a bit....).  But it certainly adds to even more individualized hearing.

"If you can hear a difference, there must be some difference."  The difference could be that I moved an armchair from one corner of my listening room to another, and it completely changed the room acoustics, all else being equal.  Does that count?

I don't understand why this subject is such a sticky wicket.

@jjtucker Well, this did not go in the direction I had intended,

Which intention?

1. My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference.

...be some difference in what? "Sentence fragment".

2.If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same.

No device or cable ever "measure" exactly the same as another. Should they, then they are effectively the same device.

Anyway, cables and {electrical} devices don’t make the sounds that you perhaps are referring to. I digress.

3. So what are your opinions on what those differences might be

See point 1. I dunno, you are telling the story.

4. what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

The differences between what and what? Once there is an audible difference, there does exist a test that suggests what is causing that difference. Your assertion that there is something not being measured is one of your own making.

Perhaps if you seek a specific direction, the question must be framed in such a manner that is specific to your enquiry without mistakes of logic. Perhaps refer to a circular reference issue Excel users may occasionally bump up against - it sometimes takes some thought to figure out.

 

djones51 We can measure the audible spectrum for humans. We can even measure the spectrum for dogs and dolphins so I have no idea what your asking for.

Thyname +1 You are confusing "listening" skills with "hearing" abilities. Not sure if on purpose or by mistake

Those are subjective preferences, hearing ability isn't. Young females between the ages of 10 and 14 have the most acute hearing ability. 

Let us try again:

You are confusing "listening" skills with "hearing" abilities. Not sure if on purpose or by mistake

My wife has a better hearing than me and she cannot tune my room because she has never train herself in acoustic experiments......

You seems to separate brain and ears...

Acoustic is a physical science, psycho-acoustic is not...

I seems most of you can’t "comprehend" the fact that everything a human can hear can be measured.

Do you read what is posted here?

Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle

Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo O. Magnasco

Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 044301 – Published 23 January 2013

This was discovered few years ago in experiments in psycho-acoustic...

If you were right about what you just claim, we know all there is to know about human hearing by ELECTRICAL measures apparatus , this article would have been characterized useless. and never published..

Your claim is dogma.... scientism... Not science...

In psycho-acoustic the concept of timbre is impossible to define rigorously without correlating in a dynamic set of measuring process, electrical measures, physical acoustic conditions, and human perceptive experience...

Many concept and experience are inseparably subjective and objective correlative process...

Hearing +interpretation by learning history and training, is not reducible to few electrical information gained from measuring tools, nor completely predictable...

A musician is not a trained dog...a good acoustician too...

To make my point simple for your understanding: hearing =ears...listening= brain history... The two are correlated but listening cannot be reduced to only hearing acuity...It is more complex...

And the article above prove by experiments that listening skill can beat what physical science said was the ears limit before 2013...

 It is why i can tune any room, my wife with a better hearing status cannot...

It is called positive learned biases....

I didn't see anything about good music or good sound in the OP. Those are subjective preferences, hearing ability isn't. Young females between the ages of 10 and 14 have the most acute hearing ability. 

By that logic, babies are the group of population most able to discern good music and good sound 😂🙄

I’m not confusing anything. I seems most of you can’t "comprehend" the fact that everything a human can hear can be measured. How well you hear or how good your listening skills has nothing to do with it. If it’s within the frequency spectrum of human hearing or even dog hearing then we can measure it. 12 year old's can hear way better than anyone on here and everything they hear can be measured. 

«As Iain McGilchrist says, the left hemisphere is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Which is why we cannot let that vocal part of ourselves, that sees only in part, betray the silent part that sees the whole.»- Winston Smith

Sound is a part, speech and music are whole not reducible to only measures of parts externally related to one another ... 

Phonetic is not reducible to phonology for the same reason....

haha

just like being able to read and being able to comprehend... not the same... 

They cannot - just as measuring a heart beat and bicep circumference will not indicate what a gymnast is capable on the floor!! They will not even indicate whether the subject is a gymnast or just a non-gymnast in good shape who can;t even do a flip....

Perfect analogy, and spot on! It "reminds" of the "doctor" who was diagnosing a patient with heart disease by measuring his sperm count.

There is an art to listening.

We can measure the audible spectrum for humans. We can even measure the spectrum for dogs and dolphins so I have no idea what your asking for.

You are confusing "listening" skills with "hearing" abilities. Not sure if on purpose or by mistake

We can measure the audible spectrum for humans.

It is one parameter, this measure dont limit the complexities of perceived sound qualities in multidimensional neurophysiological analysis as such and by itself alone, but this measure limit only the physical range of our perceiving abilities on an external physical scale in decibel.......Sound is not only defined by decibels range...

Not necessarily, depends if bias has been accounted for.

here too you forgot the difference between the positive biases of a musician and confuse it with the negative buyer of an audio product..

Then if we can hear differences they can be expression of LEARNED biases then positive one, or delusion then negative biases... Acoustician and musician exhibit learned biases...

Thing are not always simplistic in two cases: true or wrong......

Blind test on musicians had demontrated their ability to beat the uncertainty principle in Fourier analysis ..

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/human-hearing-beats-sounds-uncertainty-limit-makes-mp3s-sound-worse/

«This problem has been highlighted in a recent Physical Review Letter, in which researchers demonstrated the vast majority of humans can perceive certain aspects of sound far more accurately than allowed by a simple reading of the laws of physics. Given that many encoding algorithms start their compression with operations based on that simple physical understanding, the researchers believe it may be time to revisit audio compression.»

Well, your question didn't make sense. 

My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference.  

Not necessarily, depends if bias has been accounted for. 

So what are your opinions on what those differences might be and what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

We can measure the audible spectrum for humans. We can even measure the spectrum for dogs and dolphins so I have no idea what your asking for. 

Well, this did not go in the direction I had intended, but I suppose I should not be surprised.  I guess the take away for me is "We don't know what we don't know".

Thanks anyway.

Interesting!

Thanks...

Food for thought....

The current measurements were designed to measure instrument operational stability in an artificial normalized environment with artificial normalized signals.

So, the operation of the amplifier is measured in a Platonic setting (ideal dead resistor VS reactive live loudspeaker), and a single sine or square wave (eg THD) or a combination of two waves (eg, IMD), with the same signal cycling precisely over and over, at the same amplitude. This is also Platonic, as real music has very little prefecty repetitive elements, and most of the signal contains simultaneous extremes at both frequency and amplitude.

So, we are measuring a irrelevant signal (perfectly cyclic) with irrelevant load (inert resistor), so no wonder the results do not correlate with sound quality. They cannot - just as measuring a heart beat and bicep circumference will not indicate what a gymnast is capable on the floor!! They will not even indicate whether the subject is a gymnast or just a non-gymnast in good shape who can;t even do a flip....

They correlate extremely well though with whether the amplifier is operating as intended, or it’s time for repairs....

If the object is to be subjective, the only way to ad objectivity is to put numbers to your opinion.  "on a scale of 1 to 5..."

Great book.

This question takes me back to the days of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Trying to define quality as either subjective or objective. But the answer doesn't completely reside in either, but really both.

This question takes me back to the days of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Trying to define quality as either subjective or objective. But the answer doesn't completely reside in either, but really both.

Albert Einstein said: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

nice!  ya einstein was one smart mofo  😂

This question takes me back to the days of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Trying to define quality as either subjective or objective. But the answer doesn't completely reside in either, but really both.

Albert Einstein said: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Many times, measurements in isolation, in the laboratory, miss the multitude of variables at play in the real world.  

For example, measuring a speaker in an anechoic chamber is far from real-world.  People do not actually use speakers in an anechoic chamber.  Speakers interact with the rest of the world, including the quirks of the electronics driving them, the room, and especially the listeners' ears.   Thus, "cabinet resonance" in the real world is not necessarily a bad thing if it interacts well with the total surrounding environment, just like cabinet resonance in an electric guitar is not necessarily a bad thing... Speakers, particularly, are the chief resonators combined with room and individual ear resonances.  To write off a speaker because it "resonates" is overlooking the fact that the universe resonates; it's the overall interaction that matters, the environment matters.  Stereos do not exist in abstract space; in use, they interact with the real world.

Likewise, amplifiers have their quirks, their individuality... and there's laboratory, and there's real-world.  But even in lab, there will be measurable differences, but which measurements translate and how they translate to my ears or yours is an entirely other question.  Plus, we all have subjective preferences as to sound ... ears and minds differ.  

Bringing me to my last point: some have said "your room is the most important component"... but I disagree.  Your EARS combined with your mind and personality is the most important component-team.  Ears matter; case in point, high frequency loss due to simple aging, loud noises, etc. etc.  but even without "loss" we all have different hearing profiles from the get-go, so a "perfectly measured" amplifier for example may sound worse than a "treble skewed" amplifier to my imperfect ears.  Likewise, to my ears, room, speakers, habits, purposes, and preferences, I may prefer a lusher sound profile rather than a "laboratory clinically perfectly neutral" profile.  Then, toss in the fact that mind and personality can be educated, and preferences can change, and purposes can change, and ears can change... laboratory measurements really cannot reflect all these real-world considerations.

It seems to me that (other than ears...) speakers are the most personal no matter how they measure, although measurements may help explain WHY I like one speaker over another - ah, the treble measures bright, nice!  helps compensate for my ear's dip in sensitivity up there -  then amps, and very lastly cables.

Measurements are a start, though, for sure.  But all those electronics still have to interact with your quirky room, and your own ears and mind are the ultimate endpoints.

Finally, there's this: folks: get your ears checked -- some of the most amazing pieces of audio equipment are the very recent, like in the last two years, excellent customizable hearing aids; yep, that's right!  Phonak Audeo Paradise and Widex Moment come to mind; micro-technology at its finest.  Short of laser eye surgery for the ears, they may be the most significant piece of tech you can add to the chain.

We hear bass but we listen Beethoven...

But with the help of physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic principles we can learn how to "listen" to acoustic concept in a "musical" way and not only in an acoustical way: timbre, imaging, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic..

And we can learn how to "hear" Beethoven too in the right acoustic conditions and not only listen to him...

We can distinguish music and sound but we cannot separate them in speech and in music..

The meaning level is not over the physical here but permeate it...

My audio room is my brain and my brain is all along my audio room.. . A chord is internal and an external event like a Klein bottle through my 2 ears...

@djones51

I think the word "impartial" does better work than "objective."

I like what you said here:

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.

One of the niggling things about scientific experimentation, is that it always involves a selection of which data to pay attention to and how to weight that data. Those aspects of scientific procedure are not written in the "book of nature." Such selection and weighting come back to the purpose of the experiment — what one wants to accomplish. And that's a valuational question. 

One of the great things about science is the corroboration process. No one can get away with the partiality we decry around here because there is a procedure to describe the experiment's objectives, control variables, etc. In other words, to make sure that everyone has aligned what counts as "the" data, valid results, and relevant facts.

Other than these ways of operating, there is nothing more we can do to check our results because we don't have an extra-human access to reality. But this has gotten us to the moon, etc., so there's not much to worry about.

One last point, pertinent to another post. Because listening is about the reception of meaningful sound, the idea that we have machine to measure what we hear misses the point.

Someone could know (and hear) all the words in a poem and yet be quite unskilled in interpreting what it could mean. That's one reason this debate is somewhat wooly and wild -- the "meaning" factor is unaddressed by measurement science.

@erik_squires ...I experience that same (wrote 'sane' 1st, but applicable..*L*) with my omnis' if I'm in a 'surround' situation....HTF is expected, and I like to play with it as I'm able....

It would seem as if that could have a handle one could grip with ongoing digital advances....but the 'trad crowd' will freak over that.... ;)

It seems to escape people that in acoustic and psycho-acoustic, separating perceptive subjectivity and material objective conditions and measure make no sense at all...

It seems to escape some people that we dont listen to the gear, but to the gear/house/room/ speakers relation... Acoustic material dispositions and concepts being the first and last with psycho-acoustic factors to consider...Not the electronic design...

Incredibly some seems to not understand that and prefer to be charcterized by their obsession with their beloved gear branded name or against it, with a measuring tool and a blind test...

Many dont seems to understand that the only way to learn to listen is studying music and/or acoustic...

Picking 10 amplifiers or 100, and comparing them is ridiculous if someone pretend to know audio because of that...

it is more important to know how to embed the gear mechanically, acoustically and electrically than buying many amplifiers or upgrading......

The relation between subjectivity and objectivity is anyway ALWAYS an ongoing dynamical LEARNING  correlative process...

Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh admired Hitler.

So did my concentration camp survivor father.

Objectively, Hitler took a country devastated after WWI and one of the worst states suffering from depression and brought it to a point where it almost took over the world. No such thing as “pure evil”. Or pure anything.

Thanks for these remarks...

Not less worst than Hitler are those who control money who financed his views nevermind his ideas about expelling jews and alleged "inferior" poeple and stole them of their right at first before deciding it is better to kill them...The bankers and corporations  without with there will never be no Hitler, no chemical to kills, etc....

No one is pure evil...You are right.. 

But a systenm can be pure evil .... Some political and economical system are born from pure evil... For exemple the mechanic of enslavement by debts... It is pure evil and pure economical catastrophy....We are free to participate to these systems or not....

But the hills are alive with the sound of music. 

What are we objectivists missing?

The sound of music.

To answer the OP post, all evidence suggests that under properly controlled conditions we do know how to measure audio signals in a way that accounts for the limits of human hearing. In uncontrolled, sighted settings there are a huge number of variables that change our overall perception of sound quality. Nevertheless, between any two models of speakers  it's easy to measure differences that fall within the known abilities of human hearing, often even between two speakers of the same make. There can be all kinds of interesting interactions between different components, such as amps and speakers, or even pre-amps and amps, and dacs and pre-amps, and even the cables used to connect them. This need not be the case, but it might be preferred to introduce audible non linear responses between these devices to give people room to tailor their sound by mixing and matching components. I believe that almost any speaker in any room can benefit from a little EQ - unless someone just hit the jackpot with the perfect match of room and speaker. Sometimes a little noise and distortion of the right kind can be nice too.

I'm totally for people sharing their subjective preferences. I take them seriously and accept that they really do prefer the equipment they say they do under the conditions they are using it. If they don't care about how measurements might correlate to sound preferences that's perfectly ok. No need to do blind testing if you're not interested.