Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[erin]

Objectivity is based on subjective experience.

 

In the field of audio we survey people to find out the average frequency range of hearing.

 

We survey people to determine the average limits of psycho acoustics.

 

We survey people to determine an acceptable level of signal to noise.

 

From these averages, engineers design equipment to record and playback audio to a subjectively satisfying degree.

 

The objective data based on average perception determines the baseline that we call objectivity.

 

Objectivity and subjectivity both matter equally.

 

Without truthful subjectivity we wouldn't be able to find a baseline for our objectivity.

 

So i don't think the battle is between the subjective and the objective, but rather between truth and sincerity, and ignorance and insincerity.

 

If we don't know the answer, we're better off to say we don't entirety know why, rather than to invent a story to make us seem more knowledgeable than we are.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, erin said:

Objectivity is based on subjective experience.

 

In the field of audio we survey people to find out the average frequency range of hearing.

 

We survey people to determine the average limits of psycho acoustics.

 

We survey people to determine an acceptable level of signal to noise.

 

From these averages, engineers design equipment to record and playback audio to a subjectively satisfying degree.

 

The objective data based on average perception determines the baseline that we call objectivity.

 

Objectivity and subjectivity both matter equally.

 

Without truthful subjectivity we wouldn't be able to find a baseline for our objectivity.

 

So i don't think the battle is between the subjective and the objective, but rather between truth and sincerity, and ignorance and insincerity.

 

If we don't know the answer, we're better off to say we don't entirety know why, rather than to invent a story to make us seem more knowledgeable than we are.

Objective measurements often require using tools that convert a very weak subjective view into a much more accurate and less 'noisy' objective view.  Of course, everything reduces to the subjective in one way or another, but that starts reducing the argument into nonsense.

 

On my project, if I didn't have just a little help from objective measures, it would have been totally impossible.   When dependent on subjective measures, those portions of the project are much more time wasting.   I have gotten a big dose of depending on the subjective, and I really don't like it.  Of course, if you have no objective goals to produce something, then a purely subjective evaluation isn't really bad.   The important thing:  don't try to compare the subjective with objective results, without appropriate disclaimers.   Certain qualities of subjective measurements are inferior to the objective.   Of course, enjoyment isn't objective at all.

 

Use the best technique for the situation, but don't misunderstand the powers of the subjective and/or the objective.  They are very different, and misuse can cause a real mess.

 

[jabbr]

@erin this is a nice story, however when we use the term "objective" we are discussing a measurement, typically from a piece of equipment that has its own specifications. Its always good to be precise about what we are discussing. 

[fas42]

In the real world, objectivists fiddle around just as much as subjectivists to get a system sounding good to them - then, to justify that they've made the right moves, they will present a whole lot of impressive numbers that "proves" they did it the objective way ... subjectivists couldn't care less about those measurments - if it sounds good, it is good ... enough.

[erin]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

@erin this is a nice story, however when we use the term "objective" we are discussing a measurement, typically from a piece of equipment that has its own specifications. Its always good to be precise about what we are discussing. 

We could only arrive at the objective measurement from our subjective experience. Without the subjective experience the objective measurement would only be theoretical. 

 

The subjective experience goes hand in hand with objectivity.

 

They are two sides of the same coin.

 

We only have measurements because of our desire to improve our subjective experience.

 

But the measurements are not the end goal. The enjoyment of our subjective experience is the end goal.

 

Even engineers who design electronic components like audio DACs and audio opamps listen to them after the prototype is built before putting them into production. 

 

The subjective experience is ultimately the end goal. But measurements play a big role in getting to the end goal.

 

They are two sides of the same coin

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

In the real world, objectivists fiddle around just as much as subjectivists to get a system sounding good to them - then, to justify that they've made the right moves, they will present a whole lot of impressive numbers that "proves" they did it the objective way ... subjectivists couldn't care less about those measurments - if it sounds good, it is good ... enough.

Making things up, Frank? For me it’s always been the other way around. When something doesn’t sound right, I try to figure out why using objective measures. I don’t fumble in the dark hoping to find one amazing combination that comes up once in 30 years and makes everything sound  ‘right’ by guessing and random flopping around. To me that’s like counting on winning the lottery to fund my retirement. It would be nice, but it’ll never happen.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Making things up, Frank? For me it’s always been the other way around. When something doesn’t sound right, I try to figure out why using objective measures. I don’t fumble in the dark hoping to find one amazing combination that comes up once in 30 years and makes everything sound  ‘right’ by guessing and random flopping around. To me that’s like counting on winning the lottery to fund my retirement. It would be nice, but it’ll never happen.

 

Nice try, Paul 🙂 ... yes, "figuring it out" is the method - I noted that Chris mentioned this as something he is very aware of; the ability to "figure it out" is what counts, rather than via raw 'knowledge' being pumped in, by whatever means.

 

However, the figuring out can be done in more than one way - measuring might suit one person, but a far more direct route is to start varying things - and listening. You change some aspect of the system, or the environment - did the SQ alter, in any manner - for better, or worse? If better, then you are onto something ... you can bypass the measuring phase, and move straight into the 'fix it!" mode. That's what I did 30 years ago - and I'm still doing it ...

 

Intelligent guessing is a key part of the exercise, yes - from previous experience you have a hunch as to what is significant - and it rarely lets you down; doing this over and over again is what gives one the expertise to find causes very quickly.

 

You see, the albums that I heard 30 years ago sounding really good are sounding just as good with the new, super cheap, active speakers - and how long did that take, hmmm? The duration of the journey will depend on the qualities of the raw ingredients, the gear used; and this is getting better, each year.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Nice try, Paul 🙂 ... yes, "figuring it out" is the method - I noted that Chris mentioned this as something he is very aware of; the ability to "figure it out" is what counts, rather than that raw 'knowledge' being pumped in, by whatever means.

 

However, the figuring out can be done in more than one way - measuring might suit one person, but a far more direct route is to start varying things - and listening. You change some aspect of the system, or the environment - did the SQ alter, in any manner - for better, or worse? If better, then you are onto something ... you can bypass the measuring phase, and move straight into the 'fix it!" mode. That's what I did 30 years ago - and I'm still doing it ...

 

Intelligent guessing is a key part of the exercise, yes - from previous experience you have a hunch as to what is significant - and it rarely lets you down; doing this over and over again is what gives one the expertise to find causes very quickly.

 

You see, the albums that I heard 30 years ago sounding really good are sounding just as good with the new, super cheap, active speakers - and how long did that take, hmmm? The duration of the journey will depend on the qualities of the raw ingredients, the gear used; and this is getting better, each year.

 

So you bought speakers that sound good? Great, good for you. Do you know why they sound good? And if they don't, do you know why? And what happens when tomorrow you hear another set of speakers that you think sound better? Would you know why? Sure, you have lots of theories, like dirty power, etc., but the reality is not the same as what you might imagine. Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions, no matter how many times you claim it. Scientific research has shown this. You may want to review the bias thread for examples of how terribly wrong our perceptions can be when allowed to run unchecked. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So you bought speakers that sound good? Great, good for you. Do you know why they sound good? And if they don't, do you know why? And what happens when tomorrow you hear another set of speakers that you think sound better? Would you know why? Sure, you have lots of theories, like dirty power, etc., but the reality is not the same as what you might imagine. Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions, no matter how many times you claim it. Scientific research has shown this. You may want to review the bias thread for examples of how terribly wrong our perceptions can be when allowed to run unchecked. 

 

The speakers don't sound good ... the recordings, do. Like most, you believe the playback chain to be partially composed of magic dust that makes recordings sound better or worse, depending upon how expensive, or well they measure. Well, unfortunately 🤪, they are merely a conduit for hearing what the recording is all about - and the closer they get to that, the less personality they impose upon what you hear ... I would have thought logic would have provided that, er, understanding to the situation, 🙂.

 

"Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions" - my God, is that why every very high measuring rig sounds identical to the next - like peas in a pod - what a waste of time going to audio shows, 🤣.

 

As they say, wives can pick it in an instance - they know when the sound is wrong, without having the slightest clue as to what's going on ...

[jabbr]

23 hours ago, erin said:

We could only arrive at the objective measurement from our subjective experience. Without the subjective experience the objective measurement would only be theoretical. 

 

Is English your primary language? In English we would say something like "The purpose of objective measurements is to improve subjective experience" ... is this what you mean?

[MarkusBarkus]

20 hours ago, fas42 said:

without having the slightest clue as to what's going on

...this could actually be your new Mission Statement. 

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...this could actually be your new Mission Statement. 

 

I like my current Mission Statement of making all the recordings I have sound good - rather than triumphantly proving how terrible most of them are; by carefully adjusting my rig to emphasise this ... 😉

[John Dyson]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The speakers don't sound good ... the recordings, do. Like most, you believe the playback chain to be partially composed of magic dust that makes recordings sound better or worse, depending upon how expensive, or well they measure. Well, unfortunately 🤪, they are merely a conduit for hearing what the recording is all about - and the closer they get to that, the less personality they impose upon what you hear ... I would have thought logic would have provided that, er, understanding to the situation, 🙂.

 

"Your ears, in combination with the brain, are not an accurate device for detecting minor audio infractions" - my God, is that why every very high measuring rig sounds identical to the next - like peas in a pod - what a waste of time going to audio shows, 🤣.

 

As they say, wives can pick it in an instance - they know when the sound is wrong, without having the slightest clue as to what's going on ...

A recording doesn't 'sound' at all.   it requires a whole complex of equipment and the software known as a 'recording' to manifest as sound.

 

Also, there is a LOT of processing in some data/signal chains, so being prejudiced for/against one or another kind of processing doesn't make sense.

 

What one should really want -- what did the recording engineer who did the mixdown -- WHAT DID HE WANT TO CREATE?

 

Since most consumer recordings are totally blotto quality, the first, wisest thing to do would be to use engineering decision making processes to convert the garbage recording into something much closer to the original mix.

 

Again - there is nothing sonically pure about a 'recording'.   In fact, depending on context, the word 'recording' is almost abstract.   Most of the time, when a consumer receives a copy of a recording after ordering it -- they are purchasing NOTHING that is pure, and NOTHING that is close to the performance that is advertized.

 

Listen directly to a recording in mp3 format -- what do you hear?   Take your CD, listen to it...   What do you hear?

My CDs don't make any sound...   My digital data files that contain recordings, they make no sound either.

 

 

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

A recording doesn't 'sound' at all.   it requires a whole complex of equipment and the software known as a 'recording' to manifest as sound.

 

Not quite sure what you're arguing, John ... consider this: you have a member of your family who plays a musical instrument well; you go to a high grade recording studio, and record a performance by her; which goes onto a file, with zero manipulation. Play that back at home - what you should get is something which triggers every sense in you that you are listening to that person playing, before you. A first requirement of a competent replay setup is that you get that ...

 

Quote

 

Also, there is a LOT of processing in some data/signal chains, so being prejudiced for/against one or another kind of processing doesn't make sense.

 

What one should really want -- what did the recording engineer who did the mixdown -- WHAT DID HE WANT TO CREATE?

 

What you want to hear is what was captured; including any extra processing, as intended by the producing people.

 

Quote

Since most consumer recordings are totally blotto quality, the first, wisest thing to do would be to use engineering decision making processes to convert the garbage recording into something much closer to the original mix.

 

It's only your opinion that the recordings are blotto quality; I have a totally different take on the matter.

 

Quote

 

Listen directly to a recording in mp3 format -- what do you hear?   Take your CD, listen to it...   What do you hear?

My CDs don't make any sound...   My digital data files that contain recordings, they make no sound either.

 

 

 

Not sure what point you're making here  ...

[kumakuma]

Deleted

 

[MarkusBarkus]

11 hours ago, John Dyson said:

A recording doesn't 'sound' at all.   it requires a whole complex of equipment and the software known as a 'recording' to manifest as sound.

That's the page I'm on too. The recording is meant to evoke the experience that was captured, maybe the spirit of the musicians or the composer, even an historic event. 
 

And a lot of decisions were made along the way to capture that event. Some of them may have even been financial.
 

I'm always trying to get the sound out of the speakers to sound more real to me, but I don't even know what that means in the context of a guy in a chair surrounded by acoustic treatments and audio gear. 
 

I think my system sounds good. I had a friend over last week who is a famous classical guitarist. He said he didn't know music in the home could sound this good. I played some of his recordings. He said that's what my guitar should sound like. 
 

But it's all an illusion. A beautiful illusion created by many people. Playing a recording is a new experience, evoking a past experience. 

[bluesman]

There are a few loose threads in this fabric.  First, measurement is not meaning.  One audiophile's "bright" is another's "shrill".  One's rich and full bass is another's flabby bass.  When both are trying to describe the same program, they're receiving the same information with the same letrics and measurements, but they're processing it differently.   That processing may be anywhere from the external ear (whose contours affect monaural spectral cues, like the frequencydependent filtering caused by the angle of incidence of sound with the external ear) all the way through the middle ear and cochlea to the central auditory pathways and the central auditory procesing centers in which our brains decide what we think we're hearing.

 

Second, all but a tiny fraction of the information cited as useful in this thread (starting with survey results) is entirely unvalidated and virtually never offered along with any measurement of variability, central tendency etc.  Most survey input about perceived quality is really just input about what respondents like.  The fickle factor is very important here, since we have no idea how consistently a given respondent will choose the same answer to the same question asked multiple times across multiple days.  If I were a betting man, I'd wager that every one of you on AS has "discovered" how great something sounds (equipment, music, etc) that you disliked a year before, even though othing changed in the interim except you.

 

Third, as John says, "Most of the time, when a consumer receives a copy of a recording after ordering it -- they are purchasing NOTHING that is pure, and NOTHING that is close to the performance".  I'm about to send Chris the first article in a new series called Realism vs Accuracy.  You'll find classic examples (with actual pictures of the performances showing the performers, instruments, and mics) of how live concert recordings project a sonic image that's nowhere close to the actual performance. 

 

There are objective, technical explanations for "seeing" the kick drum in the center of the soundstage while the rest of the drum kit is off to the far left or right.  There's a reason many recordings seem to present performer locations with pinpoint accuracy, even though the audience doesn't get it in the live peformance that was "captured".  Objectivity cannot be based on subjectivity. But it's helpful to identify the objective facts producing all those subjective interpretations.  And objectivity is behind the engineering that transforms a live peformance into what we hear in most commercial recordings.

[davide256]

On 3/7/2021 at 3:53 PM, jabbr said:

@erin this is a nice story, however when we use the term "objective" we are discussing a measurement, typically from a piece of equipment that has its own specifications. Its always good to be precise about what we are discussing. 

measurements are a great tool for physical phenomena. Which music enjoyment is not, it's a complex biological phenomena impacted by heredity, physiology,

culture and education. There is a reason music is taught as an art and not a science. It's complicated and everyone's "test instrument" is different.

 

[bluesman]

37 minutes ago, davide256 said:

There is a reason music is taught as an art and not a science. It's complicated and everyone's "test instrument" is different.

Au contraire, my friend - like photography, dance etc, music is both art and science.  The arts benefit greatly from scientific study and understanding.  And scientific investigations benefit from being led in new directions by artists.  Much of music and our interaction with it, from creation to enjoyment to likes and dislikes, is purely physics, biology, math, neurology, etc and the subject of countless scientific investigations.  The science of music is a popular subject in education.  Many musicians base their improvisations on an unconscious use of geometry or another mathematical tool that facilitates their self-expression.  Miles + modal = math! 

 

A lot of jazz improvisation is the generation of mathematical patterns of notes and intervals that fall within our "consonance" registry.  Even that sense of consonance vs dissonance has a scientific basis and is both biologic and learned.  Eastern music uses intervals and scales that seem somehow wrong to many western civilizations. The brains of Philip Glass and Charles Ives processed and perceived music differently from the brains of Beethoven and Copeland.

 

Much of the world's music is simply not well enough understood by those of us with conventional western brains to allow us to play it.  This is true of both rhythmic and harmonic content.  Even a basic funk beat can be intimidating if not impossible to play for many many excellent commercial and classical muisicians - their brains just don't process the lack of regularity and predictable patterns. We don't know why - it could be as simple as a difference in some biorhythm from person to person, or it could be a major difference in cortical function.  Whatever it is, it's fascinating!

 

See these to start a journey into the science of music:

• The Music Instinct: Science and Song (based on studies funded by the National Science Foundation)
• A Musicologist Explains the Science Behind Your Taste in Music 
• The Science of Music and Sound: What's Good 
• The Learning Science of Music  explores the most current research on the science behind learning music and its impact on the brain
• Benefits of Learning and Playing Music explains a lot very well and contains dozens of links to serious scientific works
• Math, Music and Imagination in Scientific American
• Training in Musical Improvisation May Teach Your Brain to Think Differently
• Why Dissonant Music Strikes the Wrong Chord in the Brain 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

Second, all but a tiny fraction of the information cited as useful in this thread (starting with survey results) is entirely unvalidated and virtually never offered along with any measurement of variability, central tendency etc.  Most survey input about perceived quality is really just input about what respondents like.  The fickle factor is very important here, since we have no idea how consistently a given respondent will choose the same answer to the same question asked multiple times across multiple days.  If I were a betting man, I'd wager that every one of you on AS has "discovered" how great something sounds (equipment, music, etc) that you disliked a year before, even though othing changed in the interim except you.

 

 

The reality is otherwise, fortunately ... perhaps only someone who has had a system that could slip in and out the required SQ, almost on command, can really understand this - as I did over 3 decades ago.

 

The subjective experience can be quite dramatically different - and was so, with that particular configuration. Wanting it to sound good, or bad, does nothing to change how the the reproduction impacts ... and this is still precisely how it is now, with my latest setup.

[bluesman]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

perhaps only someone who has had a system that could slip in and out the required SQ

Huh?

 

Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying that the following two statements I made are wrong:

 

1 - "all but a tiny fraction of the information cited as useful in this thread (starting with survey results) is entirely unvalidated"

2- "we have no idea how consistently a given respondent will choose the same answer to the same question asked multiple times across multiple days"

 

Those statements were both made with an eye toward survey results (cited by the OP as an important indirect basis for objectivity in the undefined "field of audio"), as I clearly stated: "Most survey input about perceived quality is really just input about what respondents like".  Lacking measurement of any respondent's test-to-test variability, and with no information at all about inter-respondent variation in knowledge, skill, experience, equipment, or anything other than a wilingness to answer survey questions, there is absolutely no objectivity in such responses.

 

You may well be different from most.  You may well be entirely consistent in your taste, judgment, and assessments.  And you may well have a one-of-a-kind system the likes of which none of us (or, as I assume you meant, I) have ever experienced.  None of this changes the general validity of what I said.  Without objective evaluation of any kind to support your stated beliefs and assertions that you're capable of hearing what you term "the required SQ", we're still left with purely subjective observations and comments. 

 

You provide us with none of your requirements for sound quality, and the only "measurement" you offer for meeting those requirements is your own subjective assessment.  So there's absolutely no objective basis for accepting anything in your post as validated fact.

 

I have no problem with your opinion, and I'm sure you're an accomplished listener with a lot of experience.  But with no evidence of validity except your own belief, there's simply no way to call it objective. It's exactly as I said in the post to which you took umbrage:  your opinion is (at least in this forum as of now) entirely unvalidated, as is the consistency of your assessment.  I mean no offense at all - this is a scientific discussion. And you may be the sharpest tack in the audiophile pack.  But until we look at your point under sufficient magnification and test its mettle, we have no way of confirming that and have to take it on your word.  And so it is with the vast majority of surveys intended to guide development of audio equipment.

[fas42]

As a quick answer, does my saying that I should have edited the quote a bit more, to only say

 

Quote

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that every one of you on AS has "discovered" how great something sounds (equipment, music, etc) that you disliked a year before, even though othing changed in the interim except you.

 

help?

[bluesman]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

As a quick answer, does my saying that I should have edited the quote a bit more...help?

I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.  But I'd be amazed if you haven't listened to an album or piece of equipment that you left undisturbed for years because you didn't like it, and said "Wow - this is so much better than I thought it was!" despite having 30+ years of experience with "...a system that could slip in and out the required SQ, almost on command".  One of the beautiful things about a lifetime pursuit carried out purely for pleasure is the next new discovery.  I'm truly sorry if you haven't had that experience as an audiophile in over 30 years. 

 

Are you saying that your system has remained unchanged in all that time?  If so, the doubt-to-benefit ratio increases dramatically.  And if you're saying that you've kept your system at the state of the art with progressive upgrades for over 30 years, you are truly unique if you've never revisited equipment you haven't used and albums you haven't heard for years, only to find pleasures and qualities in them that you missed when you first got them.   Further, most of us have had to resort to using an older piece of equipment from time to time, e.g. while waiting for a repair or having sold one unit but not yet received its replacement.  Many take old stuff out of the closet years later to use as a second system somewhere. 

 

 After being "replaced" by Infinity Reference Standards and other fine speakers over the years, my original LS3/5As sat for a long time until I was between speakers and "temporarily" returned them to service.  From purchase to sei-retirement, they were driven by some wonderful amps (Citation II, Marantz 8b, Yamaha B-2, a pair of MC75s, Hafler 500 among them). When they came back to the listening room, I'd just gotten a Prima Luna power amp and was amazed at the accuracy, imaging, richness, and punch of that combination.  I rediscovered how good the Rogers are, and the PL brought their admittedly limited bass to a new and surprising level of solidity. 

 

I still had my old Mac 75s and my 275, so I started comparing.....and I was again amazed at some of the Mac's qualities that I'd never noticed before, ignored or forgot (take youir pick).  I remembered the flaws, like the loose bass that made me bi-amp & tri-amp with SS on the bottom (Crown, Hafler, etc).  But I definitely discovered or rediscovered some fine qualities.

 

I often go back and listen to albums I bought only because I had to learn one or two tunes for a gig (I've been a professional musician for 60+ years).  And when I play an entire album I bought long ago and haven't heard in 30 years, I'm more than occasionally amazed at how good something is - the musicians, the arrangements, the recording itself, etc. 

 

So your post is still mystifying to me.  I'm happy to accept that you're truly unique, and I'm glad you find such great enjoyment in your system and your music.  You don't need objective support for anything that brings you joy!  Pleasure is its own validation.

[jabbr]

22 hours ago, davide256 said:

measurements are a great tool for physical phenomena. Which music enjoyment is not, it's a complex biological phenomena impacted by heredity, physiology,

culture and education. There is a reason music is taught as an art and not a science. It's complicated and everyone's "test instrument" is different.

 

measurements do measure physical phenomena such as audio signals. 
music enjoyment is typically subjective and not typically measured with an instrument. 
 

it is critical to understand the difference between a measurement and a subjective experience. It’s also critical how to relate the two eg the epistemology of “sense data”

 

it is critical to understand the difference between music as an art, and audio electronics as a field of engineering. it’s critical to understand the difference between measuring things and listening to things. 
 

nelson pass has written about this.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

Are you saying that your system has remained unchanged in all that time?  If so, the doubt-to-benefit ratio increases dramatically.  And if you're saying that you've kept your system at the state of the art with progressive upgrades for over 30 years, you are truly unique if you've never revisited equipment you haven't used and albums you haven't heard for years, only to find pleasures and qualities in them that you missed when you first got them.   Further, most of us have had to resort to using an older piece of equipment from time to time, e.g. while waiting for a repair or having sold one unit but not yet received its replacement.  Many take old stuff out of the closet years later to use as a second system somewhere. 

 

Sorry, busy morning, so only do a quick reply for now.

 

My equipment has changed many, many times over the years. But my goal is to hear the recording, not the equipment. If the equipment is good enough, then it gets out of the way - which happened to me 30 years ago. I'm different in that I tweak a system to the point that the latter gets out of the way - and then the same recording, as familiar to me as an old friend, again emerges. It doesn't keep "getting better" in dramatic ways - because the recording is what it is ... only minor gains are ever made.