Objectivists/Subjectivists

[pkane2001]

29 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

This topic seems to becoming more and more of an issue on CA. I'd like to use this post as an opportunity to try an clarify my "problems" with the objectivist camp specifically, since I'm apparently a subjectivist.

 

Broadly speaking, for me, a subjectivist leans more to being interested in other's listening impressions, and personal experiences with whatever is being discussed. Objectivists lean more towards being interested in actual measurements and a scientific explanation of what's behind these subjectivist reports. Within each group there's various degrees of overlap. For example, in my case, although I may be considered a subjectivist, I'm interested in seeing measurements, if available. I'm also very interested in learning the hows and whys behind what myself and others are reporting. I'm also sure that many objectivists are interested in the impressions reported by subjectivists. Many sites and reviews are clearly a combination of objectivist and subjectivist perspective. We've all read reviews with varying degrees of listening impressions and measurements and I'm sure most have a preference for more or less of each.

 

Just as there can be a lot of overlap within the two camps, there also appears to be the opposite case, less and less overlap until those in each camp become almost opposed and unwilling to listen to the other camp (kind of like the way the world in general seems to be going ?). This to me is where the problems begin, although at the risk of offending, I believe it's more of an issue with the hard core objectivists then the hard core subjectivists.

 

From my viewpoint, the objectivists, at least in the context of this site, have nothing to post about without the reporting of experiences by the subjectivists. How many popular, long running threads have we seen based solely on so-called objectivist criteria? Not many, if any I would say. And if there are, I would suspect that very few so-called subjectivists are active participants. On the other hand, there's many, many threads started by people posting their listening impressions. It's these threads that perceived problems arise from. Depending on the topic or context, more or less of the objectivist camp becomes involved. In the worst cases, the objectivists actually "take over" the thread with their requests for measurements, tests, explanations to back up the reported listening impression. It's like the objectivists need the subjectivists to react to, without that, the objectivists are pretty much impotent.

 

Depending on those involved from both camps and the topic and context, many of these threads don't end well, with likely the OP and other early participants long gone. I myself get drawn into some of these threads and always end up regretting it.

 

This post could drag on even more (I know, hard to believe) but to come to a point, for me, as a subjectivist and an alleged adult, I resent being told what I can or cannot hear. It would be one thing if those saying it can't be, generally the more hard core of the objectivist camp, had actually had some kind of personal experience with the product under discussion, but that rarely, if ever, is the case. Their posts are generally based on work experience, prior education, books, YouTube, that have convinced them that what's being reported by the subjectivist is either imaginary or impossible. Many times the fall back is that the science or physics or whatever else is so well known that it would be impossible. To me, this attitude is verging on ludicrous, especially for topics related to computer audio, digital audio, etc. As a layman, it appears this field is changing incredibly rapidly. Hardly what would be expected if everything was already known. I'm sure some objectivists are already thinking "exactly, that's why there's so much snake oil". I'm sure that's true to a large extent. But isn't that in itself a sign of an subject with a lot of unknowns? This to me is probably my biggest issue, the apparent close mindedness from the more scientific/educated side of the hard core objectivists. It strikes me as almost arrogant that anyone would think that they know everything that could ever be known about a topic, especially topics being discussed on this site. Where's the scientific interest to explore for themselves and actually try some of these products for themselves? Then they would be in a position to apply their specific expertise to either prove the subjectivists reporting wrong or at least continue with more investigation. The main point being that they would be in a far more relevant position to post about what may or may not be behind the subjectivist experience. I'm not aware of a lot of scientific breakthroughs that were made sitting at a keyboard arguing in a forum. Again for me, without that personal experience, those objectivist posts have very little relevance, especially after years of reading the same types of things being posted by the same people over and over in multiple threads. Honestly, we've all read it so many times, you can save the effort and not even bother posting. We already know what you're going to say.

 

I'm going to finish with this to give any left reading what they're up against. When I was 6 or 7 years old in school, my teacher told us not to touch cold metal with your tongue or your tongue would freeze to the metal. Recess came and the first thing I did was run over to the closest metal pole and lick it. Guess what? My tongue stuck to it, had to rip off skin to remove it and cried like a baby. But at least now I believed my teacher and I never stuck my tongue on a metal pole in winter again. I guess a subjectivist was born.

 

The point of all this was to hopefully give some perspective from a subjectivist. Thanks for reading if you got this far.

 

Implicit in your post is the presumption that the subjectivist view is somehow better, that the objectivists are here only to pick a fight with the poor subjectivists. That automatic classification into us and them, that 'they' are the enemy is what causes a lot of the conflict here, IMHO.

 

I consider myself an objectivist. I came here to learn about computer audio, having been an audiophile for most of my life. I like to see measurements, I prefer to understand the technology, and I prefer to learn about things I don't know or don't understand. I get that there are others who are not interested in these things, been there, done that. But what makes your approach any more valid than mine? Should I just leave because you don't like my approach? It is a hobby, after all. Each of us derives something different from it. Tolerance and civilized discussion is a lost art, apparently and that saddens me immensely.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

If you carefully re-read my initial post and then your response, I hope you would see how much of your own interpretation you put into what I wrote. "They", the enemy, poor subjectivists, pick a fight. Those are your words, not mine.

 

That's how I interpreted the following:

 

Quote

From my viewpoint, the objectivists, at least in the context of this site, have nothing to post about without the reporting of experiences by the subjectivists..... Depending on the topic or context, more or less of the objectivist camp becomes involved. In the worst cases, the objectivists actually "take over" the thread with their requests for measurements, tests, explanations to back up the reported listening impression. It's like the objectivists need the subjectivists to react to, without that, the objectivists are pretty much impotent.

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

I'm disappointed and surprised that's what you took from that. I don't know what else to say.

 

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intentions, but on re-reading your words, I still get the same impression: 

objectivists have nothing better to do here but to attack subjectivists and to derail their threads. 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I think objectivists see it that way, and subjectivists see posts about "radical subjectivism" as the flip side of that coin.  What a surprise, eh?   

 

The lack of gray area, the polarization into extremes is a big problem. Not just here on CA, but in society in general.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

Even with everything that was involved in doing that, nothing was resolved. How far can we be expected to go?

 

I think it all depends on how curious you are.

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Not all Objectivists or Subjectivists are tarred with the same brush, neither do they all have rigid beliefs, with some having an interest in what they hear, as well as the measurements that may, or may not, confirm what they have heard.

 You fall into this group.

 

That is the first time I hear you say this, Alex. So, thank you! ?

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

PS: Null tests ending at whatever -dB don't count because the whatever -dB is subjective to the tester to begin with. Prejudiced (wherever that came from).

-> Oh, I know, we can't perceive a -120dB signal. Bwehhhhhh. Solves all !

 

But nothing.

 

OK, Peter, demonstrate that you can hear a -120dB signal at normal audio playback levels and I'll buy a Lush^2 cable.

[pkane2001]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

See ?

 

So no sale?

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

No sale. But I have an other proposition.

 

Be nice, now! I'm listening.

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Just read that briefly, please.

 

Dirk is my sheer reference for the only single person returning a Lush^2 because it id not work out. Wait, it sounded worse in his system. Ha, victory still, because it apparently made a difference. Expectation bias ? (I can easily unveil this because Dirk did so himself in the Lush^2 thread).

No. Dirk insisted to exchange for a new one, because he could measure an anomaly (multi meter, resistant-wise). I refused but instead I just sent Dirk a new one so he could compare infinitely with my hint it wouldn't make a different SQ wise. Upside down placebo.

Results ? tadaaa .... (drum roll)

Dirk now returned both for the price of one.

 

What am I saying ?

 

Paul, if you are sent one for free and if you dare to hear no difference with any random setting (and otherwise a few prescribed ones) then you are so down the drain of credit ... unbelievable. And this is the point: you would be the first one of objectivists (count me out) taking up that glove. But for free eh ...

So now you can choose to reject, pick it up and hear the clear differences all over the place putting YOU up to the task of proof in measurement (pick your tripod machines) or ... be the first one anywhere not to be able to hear.

Whoa, I most certainly would not pick the latter. I'd better also not reject. Thus ... have fun.

Address please plus required cable length (PM allowed).

 

PS: Someone help me out, please. What would be better ... keep it for free when Paul likes it for the better, or keep it only when it is normally paid for. I vote for the former. But a storm of protest because of illegal influence may roll over ...

 

And Paul, I have no mean intentions. If I may say ... you could be the only one rightfully question what is to be questioned (of that other camp I regard myself to be in as well ).

 

That’s very nice of you to offer. Can’t say I have all the right equipment to measure USB cables, but I have enough experience building and modifying them to know where to look. I’ll PM you. Do let me know what settings to use for best effect, though.

 

And  of course, I’ll have no issue saying that there is no difference if there isn’t one, but will be very interested in finding out what causes it, if there is.

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

I know it may sound like a challenge, but to me it’s just a question: if the reviewer did only sighted testing, I’ll discount most of the findings. Nothing wrong with sighted testing when doing it for yourself, but the reliability of such reports to others is pretty much impossible to judge.

[pkane2001]

33 minutes ago, esldude said:

You're making Bill's argument look 100% correct. Good job.

 

If there ever was an argument for additional moderation, Mr. L&L would be it.

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

But Amir from ASR has already proven that all opamps sound the same without listening to them. He must know more than even the real engineers who design them. 

 

Are you sure?  If you read ASR at all,  you'll find that Amir doesn't claim any conclusions about audibility of the devices he measures. He reports the measurements. And yes, sometimes the engineers that designed a component are surprised by what he finds, and sometimes they even fix a previously undiscovered problem based on this. Is this really so bad for us, the consumers? Would you rather nobody ever try to validate the design, just put blind trust in the manufacturer?

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That is not correct. His conclusions are not borne out by the experiences of numerous C.A. members .

 He is no better in this respect than several qualified C.A. members who regularly try to put down subjective reports to the contrary.

 

That's silly. He's entitled to his opinions just like you or anyone else. His measurements, on the other hand, are not an opinion. That's the difference between a subjective report and an objective one.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes but he does make recommendations about purchasing based on measurement without listening apparently

 

" Should you run and buy these short cables/adapters? No, you shouldn't "

 

But he didn’t say that you shouldn’t walk and buy it, now did he?

 

Again, any color commentary from Amir is just that. His opinion. Maybe worth just a bit more than dime a dozen. His measurements are invaluable, OTOH.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Groan....You really should be ashamed of yourself!

 

Not sorry....

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, RickyV said:

Pkane2001, i do not know about this,

Measuring by its self doesn’t make it “science” you have to know what your doing. So it depends on Amir if he is measuring correctly. Not saying he isn’t.

 

I didn't say measuring is science, did I? I just said it's objective. As in, it can be questioned, it can be reproduced by others, it can be tested, validated. A subjective opinion, such as 'not even a subtle improvement' or 'many veils lifted' or 'better microdynamics' or 'wider soundstage', or... are all in the category of being impossible to verify, but more so, for me, impossible to understand in the context of my own music, my own listening, in my own system.

 

Does Amir make mistakes with his measurements? Sure he does. But he produces a lot of verifiable data, and much of it has been verified by others, including those who dislike him or disagree with him. When a real mistake is reported, he fixes it. Try to convince a subjective audiophile that the soundstage is not as wide as they think it is  This is why objective is ... objectively better

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

So now you can measure not only the width of the soundstage, the depth of the soundstage, both behind the speakers AND the listening position , as well as the HEIGHT of the soundstage where this element is present, such as in a well recorded  Thunder Storm ? 

 

No. But if I tell you that my soundstage is bigger than yours, can you prove me wrong?  Can you even argue with this subjective opinion? No, because you have no idea what I'm hearing, except for the vague words of description that can mean very different things to different people. And when I tell you that it just got even bigger when I replaced my power cord, would you run out and buy the same power cord?

[pkane2001]

23 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That's not totally correct. I listened to what was on the far left and marked the spot. I listened to what was on the far right and marked the spot. I measured the distance between the two spots. It was a reproducible measurement. 😛

 

And did you count the number of veils lifted?

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

My system is transparent, no veils to count 😉

I can come over and measure your soundstage if you like. I just had my tape measure calibrated 🤔

 

No need, mine is bigger

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Anyway, I won't agree with any of his measurements because most make no sense at all. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time that he shows an FFT of a USB signal (not so in this particular case - that's normal DAC output).

 

Where did he do an FFT of a USB signal? As an example, here's what he measured in the last review, and pretty much the same for all the recent ones. For a Chord DAC:

• FFT of 1KHz signal on analog output at 2v to show harmonic distortion
• THD+N / SINAD
• IMD
• Dynamic Range
• Jitter
• Linearity
• THD+N vs Frequency
• Multi-tone distortion test
• Square wave performance
• Filter response at various sampling rates

Any of these you particularly object to?

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

He spent a lot of time playing bass in various bands too.

 

That completely disqualifies JA, as no self-respecting geek will ever be a part of something nearly as cool as a band.