|
Post by Pinch on Jul 3, 2014 9:39:36 GMT
Something I like about this place is that it hasn't sought to locate itself within any particular audio camp. Chief among the latter are, apparently, the objectivists and the subjectivists. I must say that, since coming across this particular use of these terms via audio forums, I've struggled to get a grip on what the central tenets of either camp are supposed to amount to. My suspicion is that, on either side, the positions may not be very well founded (hence why I like that TAS has distanced itself from all that). But admittedly I say this from a position of ignorance, since I'm utterly unclear as to what the positions are. To be absolutely clear, I'm not at all interested in initiating a debate among proponents of either camp - I'm just interested in what people take these two positions to amount to; what do they commit one to? (Bonus points for not caricaturing in disparaging terms whichever position you happen to disagree with.)
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 3, 2014 9:58:46 GMT
If it sounds good and the right sort of price I'll go for it. So I guess I'm objective
Prefer it to be black and unobtrusive just to balance with a bit of subjective
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 3, 2014 10:16:34 GMT
I think like all labels they are tiresome because they rapidly come to be used as pejorative. Subjectivists view themselves as having the confidence to trust their ears, and hear what they hear, regardless of any science or theory or explanation. They would view objectivists as being fixated on technical explanations and theoretical credibility and missing out on simply hearing the benefits regardless of how or why it works. Objectivists would defend their corner as not being swayed by "foo" - and expecting anything "real" to be repeatable. Not necessarily, but usually capable of rational scientific explanation, but repeatable, and not unique to the strenuous endorsement of the subjectivist claiming it. "repeatable" tends to get tarnished with "proven by blind test" but all that really means is capable of demonstration, when the demonstrator is reliant solely on what they can hear and not what they "know" or can see. I think most objectivists would also extend the "science" to the science of human auditory perception, and the influence of the brain as possible sources of the non-repeatable experiences of subjectivists Oh heavens - enough - much too serious. If it works for you, enjoy it. If you are a legitimate manufacturer (as I once was) you (I) feel a need to try and check whatever it is you think you've done is for real - repeatable - and not uniquely personal and subjectivist in that sense Enjoy your music!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 10:58:49 GMT
. I'm an objective subjectivist.
Sorry to be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 3, 2014 13:25:27 GMT
I think in order to be able to assess a system you have to be a subjectivist (what would be the point otherwise), but in order to understand what's happening and to make informed improvements, you have to be an objectivist. For me, it's never a case of one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on Jul 3, 2014 13:40:28 GMT
Thanks for the replies chaps! My interest here is simply to understand the ideas that these terms are supposed to label, since the ideas appear to structure a lot of disputes around hi-fi and audio, and - in general - I find ideas, and the way that they structure disputes, interesting.
pinkie's remarks certainly tally with what I've seen across the forums.
As per Martin's comment, my guess is that, in this case, a path between the two extremes is likely to be the more sensible one, but then again I'm still unsure what the extremes are. Perhaps I'm expecting too much in asking for a statement of the positions, and my first impression that they're not very well founded in the first place is correct.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 3, 2014 13:46:02 GMT
When I deciding on a bit of HIFI equipment I will do my best to understand the measurements (The Objectivist side) and also look at peoples personal experiences (Subjectivist). In the end I trust my own listening experience in the confines of my system and my listening room; but I value other peoples approaches
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 3, 2014 13:46:52 GMT
The extremes are:
A pure objectivist will never assess a system by its sound. They will use measurements to get the system 'perfect' and then listen to it 'knowing' that it's perfect.
A pure subjectivist will attempt to assess a system by its sound only. They will never look at technical specs or measurements and so will rely purely on listening to attempt to assemble a system to sound good.
As you can probably see from the style of my descriptions, neither extreme is one that I think is constructive to building a music system. They may get there by accident, but in reality it requires both attributes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 13:55:02 GMT
If something measures perfectly and you don't like it, you are a deaf git = objectivist view If something measures 'orribly but you like it a lot, you are human and human's are more than just a machine - subjectivist view
Neither are totally true although I tend towards the former in spite of the fact I am a deaf git and getting deafer.
I am quite sure that every human has a different experience of life including noise so their expectations are formed differently. One man's meat is another man's poison seems to work at every level in life. This makes the whole argument pointless (which it is). All a manufacturer can do is produce the best he/she can and let the punters decide if they like it.
So there is no right or wrong............except of course.............
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on Jul 3, 2014 14:10:27 GMT
The extremes are: A pure objectivist will never assess a system by its sound. They will use measurements to get the system 'perfect' and then listen to it 'knowing' that it's perfect. A pure subjectivist will attempt to assess a system by its sound only. They will never look at technical specs or measurements and so will rely purely on listening to attempt to assemble a system to sound good. Thanks Martin, that clarifies things somewhat. The elaboration in terms of different approaches to assessing a system is interesting. I guess my next question would be: with respect to what are we assessing our systems? For example, if I wanted to assess a system with respect to its capacity to accurately reproduce the information contained within a digital file (say), I don't know that it would even be possible for me to do this simply by attending to the way that it sounded, since this would then need to be cross-checked against the file to see how well they matched (not an easy task, and one which unavoidably involves measurement). On the other hand, if I wanted to assess a system with respect to its capacity to make a sound that I liked, then presumably I can do that simply be attending to the sounds themselves. Anyway, I guess my thought is that, depending on what we assessing our systems for, different approaches will be more or less relevant. If something measures perfectly and you don't like it, you are a deaf git = objectivist view If something measures 'orribly but you like it a lot, you are human and human's are more than just a machine - subjectivist view Thanks Gordon, also useful. Again, I wonder if it's really necessary to yoke together the issue of how well or not something measures in certain respects, and the issue of how well or not someone likes it.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 3, 2014 15:07:11 GMT
Pinch I think the objectivist / subjectivist divide is not so much about whether A is more accurate than B (that's good old subjectivist territory) It's more "I know you say you can hear the difference it makes when you change the colour of your carpet, but I can't hear that, and I don't understand how carpet colour affects how a record played on a HiFi sounds" I have deliberately picked carpet colour as a silly example, to avoid picking one of the more usual suspects for a bun fight, but maybe this forum just needs to "have it out" and demonstrate how these things are discussed in a dignified manner, but without treading on eggshells. However - "the divide" you have percieved, is more along the lines of my carpet colour example
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 3, 2014 15:13:40 GMT
For me, the middle ground is the one sensible people occupy. The two extremes make no sense at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 16:13:02 GMT
Balance is key.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 3, 2014 18:20:55 GMT
For me, the middle ground is the one sensible people occupy. The two extremes make no sense at all. I think that the 'best' approach is by default the one which works best for you - said as someone whose system, in terms of 'measurement apparatus', has successfully evolved for over 30 years with the use of little more than a stylus pressure gauge! Also, in terms of 'subjectivist vs. objectivist' - the views of the respective protagonists are rarely the problem, but rather how those views are expressed. The key is knowing how to offer an opinion on the subject constructively, without simultaneously demeaning the contrary (equally valid) views of one's 'opponent' - or worse, implying that they are 'deluded', simply because their opinions cannot be 'proven' by current scientific understanding.... Marco.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 3, 2014 18:26:42 GMT
Yes can get very heated rarely absolutes in SQ
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 3, 2014 18:38:27 GMT
I remember reading a great post by Dave C that went something like If measures good and sounds good ....Cool It Measures good and sounds bad .... Not cool If it measures poorly but sounds good..... Cool
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 19:15:16 GMT
I remember reading a great post by Dave C that went something like If measures good and sounds good ....Cool It Measures good and sounds bad .... Not cool If it measures poorly but sounds good..... Cool Aaaaarggghhh...I was about to say where's Dave Cawley when you need him?
|
|
|
Post by welder on Jul 3, 2014 21:16:18 GMT
One of the reasons I joined TAS is it seems both camps are welcome and apart from the inevitable exceptions this should enable us all to discuss our individual methods of achieving the best sound we can with our systems without the acrimony. I don't want to be told I'm some measurement freak when I attempt to measure something I have doubts I can hear and when I state I can hear something I can't measure I don't want to be told I'm some deluded audiophile.
We would all I believe have better performing systems if we used all the tools at our disposal.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 3, 2014 21:16:24 GMT
said as someone whose system, in terms of 'measurement apparatus', has successfully evolved for over 30 years with the use of little more than a stylus pressure gauge! You probably do more objectivism than you might realise, Marco. Little things like having your mains power impedance measured; adhering to good output power practice for your amp / speaker combo, matching preamp with power amp, having an interest in signal and speaker cable impedance and yes, setting stylus tracking initially with a gauge
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 3, 2014 21:17:14 GMT
We would all I believe have better performing systems if we used all the tools at our disposal. Agreed.
|
|