View Full Version : Objectivists
Audioflair
21-02-2012, 21:24
The beauty of this hobby is that it is subjective. A complete novice is able to judge for himself whether a piece of equipment using the`latest technology` is musically involving or not. I think the `objectivists` should consider the concept of `negative coloration.`
The fact that many synthetic materials strip the sound of natural tonal colour and body seems to be being confused with accuracy, neutrality and transparency IMO. As if the more `bare to the bones` a sound is the more accurate it must be...
jandl100
22-02-2012, 07:36
Well, I'm mostly subjective, but I know of quite a few objectivists who enjoy themselves hugely, so there's room for all sorts in this hobby, I reckon. :)
Audioflair
22-02-2012, 08:37
I agree there is a need for both. It`s just that sometimes looking through various postings the objectivist argument - supposedly based on hard fact - can seemingly bludgeon the more emotional subjectivist argument. Yet the subjectivist approach is more relevant to what music is about IMO.
`When you know what you`re measuring...measure it.`
Is anyone really either though? I don't think so myself.
You have to make objective decisions at some stage else you'll be plugging in bits of bread because you shouldn't rule things out until you've actually listened to them!
Equally, if something sounds terrible to the objectivist, then they won't listen to it.
It's all grey (which is incidentally a great Cure track) and I bet most people lay within a very narrow distribution in the middle somewhere.
What creates the divide between the two 'camps' is mostly semantics and which club they perceive matches their character or ego best.
Consider for example that it feels more creative and emotional to be subjectivist and more logical and clever to be objectivist - just those associations will divide people who think otherwise exactly alike. Then consider the words people use to describe sounds and music and match them with the camp they're in - vague words that are subjective themselves (like 'musical' - how does that relate for example if an inharmonious sound is deliberately being portrayed?) or words that are precise in describing speaker response but ignoring the subtle human reactions to those sounds..
Moreover I think it was invented by people in the industry to create images for their products (either ones that measure badly or those that sound bad but measure well etc etc).
Free yourself from it all and save countless kilowatts of energy by not going on forums for hours over it - discuss music or gear instead.
Well, being regarded as more objectively based on here at any rate, all I can say is that in MY case, I cannot trust my ears, or even emotions from day to day, since I feel things differently from hour to hour, if you see what I mean. Therefore, I need good stable objective backup to give substance and a constant upon which to base my subjective judgements.
A classic is this - "Vinyl sounds better than CD!" A fine statement for a personal opinion perhaps, but what is the reference that vinyl and CD are being compared to, or is it "just" a personal opinion? I don't mean to open yet another can of worms on this one, but hopefully, you'll get a hang on where I am with this one... Amazing how some hideous sounding CD's from 1983-84 actually sound rather good these days - Vivaldi Four Seasons recorded by The Academy of Ancient Music (leader - Trevor Pinnock) is a classic one which springs to mind - the strident sound of the original instruments being mangled beyond recognition by the horrible Linn/Naim stereo's (definitely not HiFi to the original sound) we were selling and using back then... Playing this original c.1984 CD years later was a revelation for me, so much better did it sound to my mind.......
So, to answer the OP, my own take is to by all means choose equipment which will entertain you (eyes as well as ears if you can afford to), but hopefully choose gear that has been carefully and properly designed to do the job reliably and with stability for many years to come. If Glenn Croft can make equipment that lasts for decades without blowing up, which measures properly AND sounds great with his personal flavouring which doesn't affect the basic measured performance, then it's not at all impossible. And that's not forgetting the classic Quad and Radford which weren't listened to for what they did well, rather what they didn't do well, efforts then being made to make them go-wrong as inaudibly as possible.....
P.S. lastly, the whole subjective "thing" is never more relevant than in speaker design. Passive loudspeakers with sometimes complex crossover networks are a real pain to do right when "active" crossovers supposedly do it so much better and with lower distortion. Should be a no-brainer in theory, yet so many active speakers just "subjectively" jump in hard with both leaden feet and sometimes, just don't involve the listener. That's not to say that the "active" concept isn't intrinsically better, but just that removing one obstacle can show up issues in other areas and upset the sonic balance. One passive speaker manufacturer (who seems to be doing incredibly well on the international market) designs his speakers to measure properly FIRST - to do the fundamentals correctly - and then is listened to for many, many hours so that the fundamental design is fine-tuned..
Sincere apologies for appearing to bludgeon you here. Not intentional :doh:
Hi Nat,
Your whole post was excellent, however, this bit is what resonates most:
Free yourself from it all and save countless kilowatts of energy by not going on forums for hours over it - discuss music or gear instead.
Far be it from me to stifle something that people wish to discuss, but if this thread turns into the usual futile and circular arguments, between one 'camp' and the other, it will very quickly be binned ;)
People, you have been warned!
Marco.
I can say is that in MY case, I cannot trust my ears, or even emotions from day to day, since I feel things differently from hour to hour, if you see what I mean.
I share your honesty my world is equally in flux. It always amazes me when people say they can hear changes or differences, how do you bring up the previous experience to compare?
I guess that at some point you just have to trust your senses, or otherwise go mad! ;)
Marco.
I don't relate to trust my senses. Making a choice is a crainial activity, you think is that the same or different. The times I have gone with a change to revert and find little if any difference
The title of the forum says it all: "The ART of Sound". No mention of Science.
I too find myself in the middle, knowing that science cannot answer or indeed measure all things (but slowly getting there). However, some common sense is surely not out of place: electrons do flow in both directions; bits are 1s or 0s; the mains supply into the house may well be 'dirty' etc.
Having said all that, can we all agree on "Rule One"...which states...
..."if you think that you can hear a difference (between treatment A and B), then you can, and there is no NEED for an objective explanation", (although it would be great if there was!)..
BW
Bonky
The times I have gone with a change to revert and find little if any difference
That's the *only* way you will ever truly know if whatever you've done has made a genuine difference.
If after reverting it hasn't, then it's likely you imagined whatever it was you thought you heard. If however, when you revert and a difference is obvious, then that difference is genuine. Simple!
And when that happens, you've simply completed the process of ultimately trusting your senses, which is a WAY more accurate method of ascertaining reality than any futile amount of fatally flawed blind DBX testing, the results of which almost certainly do not provide the 'conclusive proof' some would like to believe.
The reverting back you refer to is precisely the methodolgy I use whenever assessing sonic effects in audio, and it has served me very well for the 25+ years that I've owned high-end hi-fi equipment.
Marco.
I too find myself in the middle, knowing that science cannot answer or indeed measure all things (but slowly getting there).
Precisely, although I would add the word 'currently' before 'cannot'. Things could change, as you allude to at the end of your sentence.
Marco.
anthonyTD
24-02-2012, 12:18
The title of the forum says it all: "The ART of Sound". No mention of Science.
I too find myself in the middle, knowing that science cannot answer or indeed measure all things (but slowly getting there). However, some common sense is surely not out of place: electrons do flow in both directions; bits are 1s or 0s; the mains supply into the house may well be 'dirty' etc.
Having said all that, can we all agree on "Rule One"...which states...
..."if you think that you can hear a difference (between treatment A and B), then you can, and there is no NEED for an objective explanation", (although it would be great if there was!)..
BW
Bonky
Good post Richard,
And i tend to agree with a lot of what you say, however, i do believe that everything can be explained if we know where to look and what to look for, unfortunetly i think it is our current lack of understanding of certain Phenomena [in scientific terms] that hinders us.
I truly believe that with the passing of time we will indeed be able to unlock more of the secrets that presently alude us as far as our senses, and the apparent un-scientific reasoning why we sense a change in sonics when there dosent seem to be any [current] logical reasoning behind it.
For now though [for me at least] i will still be relying on my senses to tell me if what i am hearing is good or bad/right or wrong.:)
Anthony,TD...
What creates the divide between the two 'camps' is mostly semantics and which club they perceive matches their character or ego best.
Indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone being entirely objective about hifi, because listening to music is itself an entirely subjective process.
I think the perception of 'objectivists' as people whose only criteria are measurements (as in, 'if it measures like X, it must sound like X') is true of only a very small number of people. The main dichotomy is between those who need to know why something sounds the way it does, or whether two similar components sound different, and are happy to invest time and effort in funding out, and those who aren't bothered. This only becomes problematic if people say that their individual, untested perceptions provide 'proof' of anything, or if people say that individual, untested perceptions are worthless.
All that's really needed is a realisation of when a discussion has become circular, and a simple agreement to differ when that point is reached.
i do believe that everything can be explained if we know where to look and what to look for, unfortunetly i think it is our current lack of understanding of certain Phenomena [in scientific terms] that hinders us.
I truly believe that with the passing of time we will indeed be able to unlock more of the secrets that presently alude us as far as our senses, and the apparent un-scientific reasoning why we sense a change in sonics when there dosent seem to be any [current] logical reasoning behind it.
For now though [for me at least] i will still be relying on my senses to tell me if what i am hearing is good or bad/right or wrong.:)
+1, with bells on!
Marco.
Precisely, although I would add the word 'currently' before 'cannot'. Things could change, as you allude to at the end of your sentence.
Marco.
Yes, an excellent correction - and is actually what I meant.
Thanks,
Bonky
Excellent post too, Joe.
I think the perception of 'objectivists' as people whose only criteria are measurements (as in, 'if it measures like X, it must sound like X') is true of only a very small number of people.
Indeed, but I can think of a few ;)
The main dichotomy is between those who need to know why something sounds the way it does...
Ah yes, the 'cravers of certainty', when often no such certainty exists. It must be enough to drive them nuts! :eyebrows:
...or whether two similar components sound different, and are happy to invest time and effort in funding out
Indeed, but that's proper science, conducted by proper scientists with genuinely inquisitive minds, who readily accept that current known science is unable to measure, and thus 'prove', everything that we genuinely experience in life.
Most 'objectivists', populating (some would say infecting) certain forums are NOT genuine scientists; they are merely those of the pseudo variety. Actually, I prefer to call them 'technical jobsworths': folk who use science as a crutch to support their own dogma.
...and those who aren't bothered.
Such as me (and I suspect you).
Hang on, let me qualify that... *If* there was a way beyond question to, as Anthony says "unlock more of the secrets that presently elude us as far as our senses, and the apparent un-scientific reasoning why we sense a change in sonics when there dosen’t seem to be any", then I would welcome that with open arms, as it would save a hell of a lot of hassle!
But until that time (should it happen), I'm more than happy to trust the human senses that I was born with, once my own subjective judgement criteria have been satisfied, as discussed earlier. I never just 'automatically believe' anything.
This only becomes problematic if people say that their individual, untested perceptions provide 'proof' of anything, or if people say that individual, untested perceptions are worthless.
Absolutely, but it also comes down to both 'camps' affording the valid observations of those of the other the respect that they deserve. Only when that happens will discussions of this nature not end as they otherwise always do.
All that's really needed is a realisation of when a discussion has become circular, and a simple agreement to differ when that point is reached.
Absolutely; and also this: that audio forums are about enthusiasts sharing ideas and experiences informally, which may be of interest or benefit to other forum members. No-one is submitting a thesis for formal appraisal!! People are simply relating their subjective experiences: 'chatting', as it were. And so provided that views aren't expressed as FACT, there is no onus on anyone to 'prove' anything!
Challenge people you disagree with, by all means, and do it robustly if you must, but always remember that their opinion is just as worthy as yours, unless you are a known expert in a relevant field, and thus stating facts from a position of authority.
Therefore, on that basis, people should be allowed to discuss their subjective experiences accordingly, without being open to abuse by belligerent and dogmatic 'objectivists', shouting "prove it!"; who in reality simply desire to poke fun at the 'enemy'. And so under those circumstances, their presence serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.
They are merely an unwanted irritant, which is why we actively discourage those types of people from joining our community here on AoS.
Marco.
Marco,
You wrote"...which is a WAY more accurate method of ascertaining reality than any futile amount of fatally flawed blind DBX testing, the results of which almost certainly do not provide the 'conclusive proof' some would like to believe."
I'm intrigued by this, as I would have thought that a double-blind, controlled, trial with a large (30+) semi-randomly chosen population, followed by a rigorous stats test is THE only way to substantiate scientifically whether a 'real' difference exists between two different treatments.
As far as I am aware all scientific studies above GCSE follow similar rules.
None of this negates my 'Rule One' of course, (.."if you think that you can hear a difference (between treatment A and B), then you can, and there is no NEED for an objective explanation", (although it would be great if there was!)...).
Thanks,
Richard/Bonky.
Thanks,
Richard
Marco,
I'm intrigued by this, as I would have thought that a double-blind, controlled, trial with a large (30+) semi-randomly chosen population, followed by a rigorous stats test is THE only way to substantiate scientifically whether a 'real' difference exists between two different treatments.
As far as I am aware all scientific studies above GCSE follow similar rules.
The counter-argument is that whilst this may work for washing powder it doean't work for audio because you need to be relaxed in your own home with your own system, over an extended period of time to properly assess equipment and combinations of equipment. Too much stress from the ABX situation and unfamiliarity with location and kit.
It seems to me that there are 2 things at issue.
I listen to music entirely for my own pleasure. If I enjoy my system that is enough. I don't really need to know why or how, though being an engineer I -want- to know why and how.
Also it doesn't matter what other people think, it is me who is listening. My wife, who is a professional musician, things hifi is pointless and ridiculous.
OTOH if I am a manufacturer I have to use science at some stage in the process, to get me part or all of the way.
Subjectivists didn't design the Saturn 5 rocket...
I worked in motor racing most of my career. When internet discussion about F1 came to be I was astonished what fans were prepared to speculate and absolutely firmly believe. Many of these things I absolutely knew the facts, being involved. At the beginning I thought I would "help" by giving the truth, usually kept from the press at the time to keep one's secrets from the opposition. The fans were, in all cases, so entrenched in their view that they just wouldn't accept the truth at all. Some got quite hot under the collar, usually ones who were passionate but not scientifically minded. I don't even read them now.
I have to have an objectivist view since it is in my psyche. I can not believe, for example, that anybody could design a superior loudspeaker drive unit by trial and error when modelling the magnetic circuit and dynamic behaviour of the whole thing can be very accurately done and errors which create non-linearities cheaply avoided.
And so on.
Yet I believe that if you can repeatedly hear something you haven't measured it is more likely that you are measuring the wrong parameters than that you imagine the differences you hear. All the advances I made in my field were through questioning textbooks and measuring more parameters to find new explanations.
In the end it only matters in a hobby that we are having fun and enjoying our music.
If we like the way something sounds that is fine, even if it is not "high fidelity" to the source in the literal sense.
Frank
Not wanting to know the whys of life leads people to be vulnerable and open to being fooled by people with ulterior motives. Something very much rife in the hifi industry (the ulterior motives).
I think that's why self-proclaimed objectivists are so keen to shout down some subjective experiences. It's a self-defense against being taken for a ride and that even extends to being 'taken for a ride' by your own mind and senses.
I certainly can't relate to the not wanting to know side - asking questions about life, the whys and whatfors are part of the richness of life!
Not caring and just accepting and floating along feels to me like just being taken on a pre-arranged coach tour of life... might as well arrange your own funeral now on one of those affordable funding plans I see on tv.
Might as well also believe all the doctored statistics governments and papers like the Daily Mail throw at you to lead you to be on their side.
My take too, Frank.
People who never examine the whys of life just go further and further down their own path of belief and then are too entrenched to ever come back, even if you know that what they were originally fed was a bunch of lies to shake them off the trail and are then revealed the absolute truth..
Challenging your own beliefs and dogma may be uncomfortable to some but to me is enjoyable and enriching.
Still, there has to be a subjectivist element to audio and hifi simply because you're buying for your pleasure only - that should come first.
It's also highly necessary because my ears are the only tools I have and, even if I did have the tools to measure, my knowledge could be entirely wrong and again lead me far down a wrong path like many scientists have been down too.
But... you could find yourself in a positive feedback loop where you only hear one type of sound and system because you're constantly re-enforcing your original tastes through never considering anything that doesn't 'feel right' to be worth a listen. Maybe the system that was measuring well was actually revealing a fault you hadn't heard before, masked by another 'taste' of yours.
Sure you could draw some cooking analogies by putting too much of one ingredient that you know you like so that everything you cook tastes of, say fennel. To everyone else it's obvious but to you... you simply don't enjoy other people's cooking!
Not wanting to know the whys of life leads people to be vulnerable and open to being fooled by people with ulterior motives. Something very much rife in the hifi industry (the ulterior motives).
I think that's why self-proclaimed objectivists are so keen to shout down some subjective experiences. It's a self-defense against being taken for a ride and that even extends to being 'taken for a ride' by your own mind and senses.
.
I don't really see that as a problem. Most people cannot afford to buy the crazy money kit anyway and the people who can... well, they can stand to be ripped off.
Note I'm not saying that all crazy money kit is necessarily a rip off. I wouldn't know.
Hi Nat,
Not wanting to know the whys of life leads people to be vulnerable and open to being fooled by people with ulterior motives. Something very much rife in the hifi industry (the ulterior motives).
I certainly can't relate to the not wanting to know side - asking questions about life, the whys and whatfors are part of the richness of life!
Not caring and just accepting and floating along feels to me like just being taken on a pre-arranged coach tour of life... might as well arrange your own funeral now on one of those affordable funding plans I see on tv.
Might as well also believe all the doctored statistics governments and papers like the Daily Mail through at you to lead you to be on their side.
The key to what you're referring to, as far as I'm concerned, is in what I wrote earlier, particularly the bit in bold:
*If* there was a way beyond question to, as Anthony says "unlock more of the secrets that presently elude us as far as our senses, and the apparent un-scientific reasoning why we sense a change in sonics when there dosen’t seem to be any", then I would welcome that with open arms, as it would save a hell of a lot of hassle!
But until that time (should it happen), I'm more than happy to trust the human senses that I was born with, once my own subjective judgement criteria have been satisfied, as discussed earlier. I never just 'automatically believe' anything.
I am curious about obtaining objective explanations for my subjective experiences, and exploring the 'whys' of life, but only up to a point. If there currently aren't any conclusive explanations, then I'm happy to trust my ears, *after* conducting my own tests and satisfying myself that what I'm hearing is real. Like I said, I never just 'automatically believe' anything, but after a certain amount of scrutiny, I will trust my ears. It's that last sentence that's important.
Like Frank said, it's a different ball game if you're an audio manufacturer - then your attitude must be rather different, and more measurement orientated. But as simply an end user of product - a mere 'punter', if you will, and music lover, I don't see why I should unduly concern myself with anything other than ULTIMATELY what my ears tell me.
I think that's why self-proclaimed objectivists are so keen to shout down some subjective experiences. It's a self-defense against being taken for a ride and that even extends to being 'taken for a ride' by your own mind and senses.
Sure, Nat, I get that. But the point is that they don't have to ram their self-defence mechanism down other people's throats who aren't similarly concerned about being "taken for a ride"... Moreover, anyone's valid experiences, subjective or objective, should never be shouted down in the first place. That's extremely discourteous and disrespectful. No wonder all hell breaks loose when you treat people that way!
The counter-argument is that whilst this may work for washing powder it doean't work for audio because you need to be relaxed in your own home with your own system, over an extended period of time to properly assess equipment and combinations of equipment. Too much stress from the ABX situation and unfamiliarity with location and kit.
Spot on, Martin. ABX testing in audio just doesn't work as effectively as it does in other industries.
As I said before, the most effective way of ascertaining whether something experienced in audio is real, is to live with the change for a while in your system, thus allowing your ears to become accustomed to the sound, and then a few days later, swap back to how it was before. Any imagined differences will then soon be shown up for what they are, or perhaps not, as the case may be.
For ordinary 'punters', without a mania for 'certainty', the process of ascertaining what is real and what isn't in audio doesn't need to be any more complicated or 'scientifically rigorous' than that! :)
Marco.
The counter-argument is that whilst this may work for washing powder it doean't work for audio because you need to be relaxed in your own home with your own system, over an extended period of time to properly assess equipment and combinations of equipment. Too much stress from the ABX situation and unfamiliarity with location and kit.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the 'home' and and 'synergy' arguments. However, I do think that the 'proper' scientific method can be used for subjects other than, for (your) example, washing powders. I think it entirely possible that suitable objective, scientific tests could be done on, for example, mains leads, cd players, speaker leads, mains conditioners etc. (In fact , which items of hi-fi could it NOT be applied to?).
The counter, and I agree with this, is that " a stats test revealed a probability of p=0.001 that there was a difference between , say, mains lead 'x' and 'y' in that 'y' was better, BUT ONLY with the cd player 'f', the DAC 'h 'and the amp 'r'."
In other words, such minuscule effects must, almost by definition , depend on the complex inter-relationships that exist between different components.
Again, Rule One is not violated.
Thanks,
Richard
As an addendum, I'd like to give you all an amusing quote about statistics. (Most people know the B.Disraeli one about "Lies, damned lies...etc"), but the one I like the best, which may be pertinent is...
"Statistics is like a drunk leaning against a lamp-post; there for support rather than illumination"
BW
Richard
Again, Rule One is not violated.
And it's that "Rule One" which in audio is always the defining and key factor. Love the quote, btw - how very true!
Marco.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the 'home' and and 'synergy' arguments. However, I do think that the 'proper' scientific method can be used for subjects other than, for (your) example, washing powders. I think it entirely possible that suitable objective, scientific tests could be done on, for example, mains leads, cd players, speaker leads, mains conditioners etc. (In fact , which items of hi-fi could it NOT be applied to?).
Look at it from a practical perspective - you are going to try to ascertain , scientifically, whether a particular mains conditioner improves the sound. You assemble your random 30 persons. But at whose house? They all have different systems, varying quality of mains etc. You do the tests in an hotel, maybe, or in a lab. In blind ABX you get a statistically valid result. The mains conditioner improves the sound. In the lab/hotel room with the specificd system you are using at that time. I read the result and buy the mains conditioner on the strength of it but because all my other parameters are different from your lab set up it does sod all for me in my home and system. What has been gained by the test?
Excellent point, Martin. And the same applies for anything else supposedly 'proven' in a lab, relating to audio.
The problem is, objectivists who insist on absolutes never acknowledge the grey areas!
Marco.
sq225917
24-02-2012, 22:19
What exactly is the synthetic that the OP refers to? All musical instruments are man made and therefore all instrument based music is synthetic.
I certainly can't relate to the not wanting to know side - asking questions about life, the whys and whatfors are part of the richness of life!
I want to know about life, certainly, but my brain is wired for poetry and novels rather than science and engineering, so I take all that sort of stuff on trust.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the 'home' and and 'synergy' arguments. However, I do think that the 'proper' scientific method can be used for subjects other than, for (your) example, washing powders. I think it entirely possible that suitable objective, scientific tests could be done on, for example, mains leads, cd players, speaker leads, mains conditioners etc. (In fact , which items of hi-fi could it NOT be applied to?).
The counter, and I agree with this, is that " a stats test revealed a probability of p=0.001 that there was a difference between , say, mains lead 'x' and 'y' in that 'y' was better, BUT ONLY with the cd player 'f', the DAC 'h 'and the amp 'r'."
In other words, such minuscule effects must, almost by definition , depend on the complex inter-relationships that exist between different components.
Again, Rule One is not violated.
Thanks,
Richard
If blind testing is simply about establishing whether A differs from B, fair enough; if a difference is clear enough it should be audible to anyone with reasonable hearing. But it can tell us nothing about whether A is better than B, because one person's better will be another person's worse.
Philosophical objectivity, realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent.
Subjectivism; the sun shines out of my arse.
Objectivism, the sun shines out of everyone’s arse.
What happens if you lock a group of Subjectivists in a room? A fight breaks out.
What happens if you lock a group of Objectivists in a room? They all break out.
What happens if you lock a group of Subjectivists in a room? A fight breaks out.
What happens if you lock a group of Objectivists in a room? They all break out.
What happens if you lock a group of objectivists and a group of subjectivists in the same room? No-one here gets out alive.
I want to know about life, certainly, but my brain is wired for poetry and novels rather than science and engineering, so I take all that sort of stuff on trust.
Mmmm... maybe, but I doubt it is actually 'wired' one way or another..
In science, for example, you find a mix of types of thinkers - some philosophical, some very rigid and technical, some visual thinkers, some think more in direct language (literary thinkers does one call them?)
In poetry and literary circles you'll also find a mix of different types of thinkers too - Goethe being a famously visual thinker who talked about having to 'translate' his thoughts into words.
It's a personal choice to take things on trust rather than check them out for yourself - sometimes a comfort-zone thing if you've been discouraged in the past. An efficiency of time choice too if you've many interests and things to do but who do you end up trusting? Often human beings trust those who are in many ways reflections of themselves or how we think we are (or indeed want to be). So again it becomes a positive feedback loop of re-enforcing what you already believe.
(what I'm trying to say in a sense is that I'm sure that your brain is certainly wired in a way that will competently suss the workings of hifi out - you would just have to have the desire first).
Philosophical objectivity, realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent.
..and that convictions are mind-dependent.
I think that is also the thing that objectivity tries to address - how easily the human mind distorts 'reality'.
I mean, certain psycological conditions are only the EXTREMES of reality distortion.. the rest of us exhibit varying degrees of distortion, a common factor being distortion by human culture - think of the different types of music around, different scales, opposite meanings associated with sounds and chord progressions, also different voicing for hifi in different markets, all completely dictated by the surrounding culture.
Subjectivism is that one take is correct for that particular individual but quite often they express it as the reality for all (ego-centricism). Same could be said of objectivists but because of the objectivism it comes across in a different way: ' what you THINK you are hearing is wrong - it cannot be that way! '
Again, total subjectivism is all fine for a hobby and personal passions but not really great for progress in a field, in understanding a situation so that efforts can be more efficiently applied - that requires a certain amount of objectivism and, in this hobby, then subjectivism to test it out..
Sure, Nat, I get that. But the point is that they don't have to ram their self-defence mechanism down other people's throats who aren't similarly concerned about being "taken for a ride"... Moreover, anyone's valid experiences, subjective or objective, should never be shouted down in the first place. That's extremely discourteous and disrespectful. No wonder all hell breaks loose when you treat people that way!
Well... you could see it as a responsible attitude to try to protect others from what they see as sharks in the hifi world. Even if you accept that the other person is enjoying throwing their money down a hole, it can still be a fist biting situation to not say something.. a social conscience even.
I write that in a kind of first-person but I hopefully don't hark on about those kind of things myself. My attitude is 'I do it my way and you do it your way..' to hifi. I think what would get me involved in an argument is simply seeing that someone is just confusing the 'truth' with their self-belief.. much like any religious nut.
I'm quite happy to take all people's views on board and ultimately what will get me to follow their advice are their descriptions of the sounds they like - if it appears to match mine then I'll take a look at what gear they've been using or have liked. I read these forums and old magazines and reviews etc etc etc and try to work it all out - I don't think I'll be wanting the same kind of sound as many so I have to objectively filter out other people's subjective reactions to equipment.
I guess that ultimately involves their subjective experience (as well as describing that experience in a way that I immediately understand) whether they consider themselves as objectivist or not..
As an aside: I've never ever understood the descriptor 'musical' as applied to equipment.. sounds like something rich and lush and soft-edged to me but some sounds aren't like that at all and never should be.
Well... you could see it as a responsible attitude to try to protect others from what they see as sharks in the hifi world. Even if you accept that the other person is enjoying throwing their money down a hole, it can still be a fist biting situation to not say something.. a social conscience even.
Indeed, but the type of people I'm referring to are nothing like that. They're basically self-centered, egotistical trolls intent on nothing else than 'converting' others to their mindset, by ramming their dogma home to an unappreciative audience, in the most belligerent way imaginable, whilst taking great delight at the ill-feeling and chaos that normally ensues! :rolleyes:
I will never have any time for people like that.
Marco.
Audioflair
25-02-2012, 11:23
I started this post as a newbie having missed my moment to respond to the Audionote posting. Didn`t realise all this was such well-worn ground though...
At the start, I was referring to extremists objectivists rather than those that are mildly subjectivist or objectivist.
Products which employ some subjective tuning for the finishing touch are nearly always better in my experience. 2 famous brands that measure beautifully leave me and many of my customers cold. E.g. dCS cd players. A speaker which measures ruler flat will sound hard in the upper mid to many because most ears prefer a dip at around 2kHz. Any reason given for this phenomenon would be theory wrapped up as fact.
Over the years in Hi-Fi, starting as a hobbyist, I have spoken to many people in the trade and customers who are determined to get a finite answer to everything.
Beyond a certain point I believe it to be futile. You start getting into the region of the unexplainable, adjectives-used meaning different things to different people, or the argument having so many variables you end up being guilty of causing confusion with endless qualifying.
I see some here arguing that the objectivist approach is a protection from unscrupulous dealers. Surely ones instinct and intuition is stronger than that! Perhaps that is just what objectivists lack so they lean heavily on `facts`... I believe a customer should ideally decide purely on the sound they are hearing and there is no place for b.s. on the part of the salesman. Sometimes advice on best set-up is needed but b.s. is easily seen through - with time all lies will out.
As far as judging equipment goes, for me good/bad components are ultimately judged by their absence. It is when they are loaned out that I fully appreciate what they achieved within a reference system. I.e. use them for months, feel they are good, realise how good a few months down the line when they are loaned out and missed.
Finally `the synthetic` I originally referred to - e.g. a copper foil cap may be too full-bodied for some but tonally it should sound more natural than a `cleaner` polyprop plastic cap that some objectivists would probably prefer (going back to the Audionote post). In fact, natural materials are hard to beat. Paper cones are still excellent but measure worse than umpteen brave new world materials like aerogel, carbon fibre etc. which have yet to achieve classic status on any design. Perhaps nature knows best.
Mmmm... maybe, but I doubt it is actually 'wired' one way or another..
In science, for example, you find a mix of types of thinkers - some philosophical, some very rigid and technical, some visual thinkers, some think more in direct language (literary thinkers does one call them?)
In poetry and literary circles you'll also find a mix of different types of thinkers too - Goethe being a famously visual thinker who talked about having to 'translate' his thoughts into words.
It's a personal choice to take things on trust rather than check them out for yourself - sometimes a comfort-zone thing if you've been discouraged in the past. An efficiency of time choice too if you've many interests and things to do but who do you end up trusting? Often human beings trust those who are in many ways reflections of themselves or how we think we are (or indeed want to be). So again it becomes a positive feedback loop of re-enforcing what you already believe.
(what I'm trying to say in a sense is that I'm sure that your brain is certainly wired in a way that will competently suss the workings of hifi out - you would just have to have the desire first).
It's probably partly down to mental laziness, but I do find it difficult to stay focused on technical stuff; my mind wanders and I find I've lost the thread. The same applies to philosophical writing. I've got one of those right-hand side brains.
Ironically, I wanted to be a scientist when I was a nipper, but as the maths got harder and the science more complex, I realised it was not for me. I scraped one science O level, and am fairly sure A level science would have been a disaster, so stuck to arts & humanities.
In terms of guarding against rip-off, I can honestly say that almost everything hifi I've bought has been, at worst, fit for purpose, and very reliable. Over time, I've tried and rejected some components that were favourably reviewed but which didn't work for me, so I temper others' opinions with my own (subjective) experience.
Hi Adrian,
Products which employ some subjective tuning for the finishing touch are nearly always better in my experience. 2 famous brands that measure beautifully leave me and many of my customers cold. E.g. dCS cd players.
What's the other? ;)
Good post, btw! I completely agree with the first sentence above, as it mirrors the findings of my own extensive experience.
Marco.
Audioflair
25-02-2012, 13:32
Tom Evans EL84 amps measure superbly but don`t engage me, oh and most ss phono stages.
Then there is the anodyne sounding kit, tuned to be `safe` sounding - Arcam, Primare, Copeland.
All IMO of course.
Ali Tait
25-02-2012, 16:00
I see you are a fan of The Big Lebowski. Great film. :D
A speaker which measures ruler flat will sound hard in the upper mid to many because most ears prefer a dip at around 2kHz. Any reason given for this phenomenon would be theory wrapped up as fact.
Presented neither as theory or fact, but wild speculation.
Perhaps since the vast majority of speakers on the market cross over from midrange to tweeter around 2kHz perhaps the majority of them have shite crossovers, or beaming discontinuities leading to a bit less level around these frequencies being less awful?
GDR
Ironically, I wanted to be a scientist when I was a nipper, but as the maths got harder and the science more complex, I realised it was not for me. I scraped one science O level, and am fairly sure A level science would have been a disaster, so stuck to arts & humanities.
In terms of guarding against rip-off, I can honestly say that almost everything hifi I've bought has been, at worst, fit for purpose, and very reliable. Over time, I've tried and rejected some components that were favourably reviewed but which didn't work for me, so I temper others' opinions with my own (subjective) experience.
Me too! Well, I was ok with maths up to A-level but A-level started to become a means to pass an exam. Still, I still wanted to be a scientist and continued all the way through to a physics degree .. yet the maths.. I started to ignore it in the end and concentrate on what I enjoyed - the physical explainations of the world - and hence flunked a little bit.
During that degree I realised that real science (as in how people in the real world do it) was not for me either. The lecturers had almost lost a grip on reality and were effectively using the real world to provide proof for their beloved maths and not using maths to proove the workings of the real world.. they'd become so caught up in their methods that they'd almost lost touch with what those methods were for.
I think that applies to the people we are calling 'extreme objectivists' in this thread.
Thankfully, they are not the average or anything more than a very small minority who really love the methods rather than the audio and they're in this hobby for a different reason. Perhaps the fault lies with us in assuming they are 'like us' and into the music first and foremost - it is us who are not understanding their angle.
Wrongful expectation is the source of all anger. (That's a paraphrase of a real philosopher who's name I can't remember).
I don't really intend to pick on you Audioflair - just there was a lot in your post to think about.. a good thing!
I started this post as a newbie having missed my moment to respond to the Audionote posting. Didn`t realise all this was such well-worn ground though...
At the start, I was referring to extremists objectivists rather than those that are mildly subjectivist or objectivist.
Ah.. that's the conclusion I've come to in this thread too - we're all talking about extremists in both directions as we all do both.
Products which employ some subjective tuning for the finishing touch are nearly always better in my experience. 2 famous brands that measure beautifully leave me and many of my customers cold. E.g. dCS cd players. A speaker which measures ruler flat will sound hard in the upper mid to many because most ears prefer a dip at around 2kHz. Any reason given for this phenomenon would be theory wrapped up as fact.
All science is just theory - it's the lay people who then go forward and wrap it as fact. Most people don't like uncertainty hence they either wrap it as fact or they place it in the 'unexplainable' box creating a psuedo certainty of it always being unexplainable.
Funny you should mention dCS as they were one of the instigators of the upsampling trend that is deeply set in the digital world these days..
'Argh!' you may say (many self-proclamed subjectivists do) 'upsampling sounds terrible, these objectivists go from bad to worse'
Yet how did they came up with the idea that upsampling improves things? By listening - entirely via subjective means - they couldnt explain why it worked but trusted their ears..
You also have to understand their history - digital Conversion Systems for industrial and military applications that have to be technically accurate for good reason. Then they got a commission for studio A/D conversion and they were encouraged to follow that path by subjective appraisal. So strong was, and is, that subjective apraisal that they have now ditched both their military and studio fields and are solely hifi now.
So they started in an area that could ONLY be objective - either works perfectly or doesn't - and moved that knowledge into areas where only SUBJECTIVE apraisal will further their success. Then they introduce a objective technology into a subjective field purely on subjective grounds..
Don't sound like extremists in objectivity or subjectivity to me.. only that you don't like their sound.
Over the years in Hi-Fi, starting as a hobbyist, I have spoken to many people in the trade and customers who are determined to get a finite answer to everything.
Isn't that just curiosity and a drive towards progress? Hard to envisage progress if you want to move in random ways, never trying to understand why those random ways are suddenly better.
Take Black Gates for example - they were designed to sound good, designed through objective means by taking experiences of what subjectively sounded better and then working out why that was and then used those discoveries (or maybe just 'theories' wrapped as facts) to improve capacitor construction to sound even better..
In other words, a determination to find a finite answer to capacitor construction so that they could further the industry - and further it they did!
Now, Black Gates - an entirely objectivist notion - have been assimilated by self-proclaimed Subjectivists as a random product akin to mystical crystals and Mertil cable blocks... Why not just ignore the objective science behind them?
To my mind, a purely subjectivist mindset will rarely invent anything new - you'd only be reacting to something you've just experienced and start a positive feedback loop by doing more of the same. In reality that mindset doesn't really exist as we all have to make objective decisions like whether it was stepping on the pavement crack earlier in the day that made it sound better - easy to reject that through objective understanding of how things work, surely?
Beyond a certain point I believe it to be futile. You start getting into the region of the unexplainable, adjectives-used meaning different things to different people, or the argument having so many variables you end up being guilty of causing confusion with endless qualifying.
... because people want instant sollutions and explainations else want people to shut up.
Real objective investigation into complex subjects can take decades to unravel and there will be many many wrong turns along the way. You're essentially saying they should stop trying if they don't find the facts within minutes.
In reality, there aren't enough people interested in hifi and sound reproduction to really investigate these things - it's left to hobbiests and businesses essentially. Hobbiests who will be flawed and all re-inventing the wheel and businessess who's bottom line it is to sell a product before they can even fund research. Then, even if that research doesn't produce anything worthwhile they're forced to make it pay to fund the next round of research - so you'll see some B.S marketing get a return.
Self-proclaimed Subjectivists in this sense hamper progress to a certain extent by telling researchers that they are wasting their time and that they won't buy their products because they don't agree with their methods... Some other manufacturers will then take advantage and market their 'Subjectivist' products to this jaded market.
Most hobbiests won't be satisfied with the not getting anywhere in understanding part - too frustrating, life's too short - and just revert to the making it sound good without needing explaination. At least they end up having something to show for the time spent.
Takes a certain, relentless, stubborn type of person to pursue new directions and it is often a thankless task, one that won't be put off by people telling them they're wasting their time, one that will argue back to protect motivations and determination.
I see some here arguing that the objectivist approach is a protection from unscrupulous dealers. Surely ones instinct and intuition is stronger than that! Perhaps that is just what objectivists lack so they lean heavily on `facts`... I believe a customer should ideally decide purely on the sound they are hearing and there is no place for b.s. on the part of the salesman. Sometimes advice on best set-up is needed but b.s. is easily seen through - with time all lies will out.
Must people don't know enough or can even trust their ears through inexperience and they rely on the expert who is the dealer or manufacturer. A change in sound can easily appear to be an improvement to anyone without experience.
All a bit idealistic I'd say. People are easily swayed by marketing and product image and placement and toe tapping - even those who are fully aware of what's being done.
As far as judging equipment goes, for me good/bad components are ultimately judged by their absence. It is when they are loaned out that I fully appreciate what they achieved within a reference system. I.e. use them for months, feel they are good, realise how good a few months down the line when they are loaned out and missed.
Finally `the synthetic` I originally referred to - e.g. a copper foil cap may be too full-bodied for some but tonally it should sound more natural than a `cleaner` polyprop plastic cap that some objectivists would probably prefer (going back to the Audionote post). In fact, natural materials are hard to beat. Paper cones are still excellent but measure worse than umpteen brave new world materials like aerogel, carbon fibre etc. which have yet to achieve classic status on any design. Perhaps nature knows best.
That last bit implies that the 'truth' is what you hear with a copper foil cap. You imply that 'full bodied' is more correct.
What if I subjectively want a clean, flat response? What if to me that full-bodiedness sounds entirely unrealistic and fake? Am I now an objectivist for trusting my ears and rejecting the copper-foil caps and paper cones?
No, I would be a subjectivist.
Seems like you're saying that people who prefer a certain sound different to your tastes are 'objectivists' and people who agree with your taste in sound are 'subjectivists'.
I think the whole subjectivest/objectivist stuff is nothing more than tribalism and trying to find an affinity with strangers on the net (or in person).
I really, seriously don't think any of it exists! We ALL do both!
What might appear to exist at the extrememes could simply a misunderstanding of people's motives, an assumption that they share your own motives..
There are of course egos all over the place who want to shove their views down your throat, in all areas of life.. again nothing to do with obectivism/subjectivism.
Audioflair
25-02-2012, 18:08
Reply to f1eng
`Presented neither as theory or fact, but wild speculation.`
Source BBC monitor design in the late 70`s.
`Perhaps since the vast majority of speakers on the market cross over from midrange to tweeter around 2kHz perhaps the majority of them have shite crossovers, or beaming discontinuities leading to a bit less level around these frequencies being less awful?`
Perhaps, but `not knowing is the most intimate` - wink!
Audioflair
25-02-2012, 19:38
Reply to nat8808
`Yet how did they came up with the idea that upsampling improves things? By listening - entirely via subjective means - they couldnt explain why it worked but trusted their ears..`
I`ll have to take your word for that - certainly seen as clean, detailed, but uninvolving by many.
dCS `Don't sound like extremists in objectivity or subjectivity to me.. only that you don't like their sound.`
Me and many others. Anyway, I was not really siting manufacturers as extreme objectivists as much as some forum posters.
`Isn't that just curiosity and a drive towards progress? Hard to envisage progress if you want to move in random ways, never trying to understand why those random ways are suddenly better.`
Who is advocating random ways? I just feel that after the scientific part of the design, some tuning by ear pays great dividends in a musical design.
`Take Black Gates for example - they were designed to sound good, designed through objective means by taking experiences of what subjectively sounded better and then working out why that was and then used those discoveries (or maybe just 'theories' wrapped as facts) to improve capacitor construction to sound even better.. `
I thought it was down to a carbon ring?
`Now, Black Gates - an entirely objectivist notion - have been assimilated by self-proclaimed Subjectivists as a random product akin to mystical crystals and Mertil cable blocks... Why not just ignore the objective science behind them?`
I absolutely agree; too much folklore surrounding them.
`To my mind, a purely subjectivist mindset will rarely invent anything new - you'd only be reacting to something you've just experienced and start a positive feedback loop by doing more of the same.`
Who is arguing for a purely subjectivist approach? I feel you are polarising the argument.
`... because people want instant sollutions and explainations else want people to shut up. `
Not possible I`m afraid. There is a point beyond which I feel the questions should cease and the listening should begin.
`Real objective investigation into complex subjects can take decades to unravel and there will be many many wrong turns along the way. You're essentially saying they should stop trying if they don't find the facts within minutes.`
No, how so?
`Most hobbiests won't be satisfied with the not getting anywhere in understanding part - too frustrating, life's too short - and just revert to the making it sound good without needing explaination. At least they end up having something to show for the time spent.`
So are you saying that a good sound can be made without full understanding of science and design?
`Must people don't know enough or can even trust their ears through inexperience and they rely on the expert who is the dealer or manufacturer. A change in sound can easily appear to be an improvement to anyone without experience.
All a bit idealistic I'd say. People are easily swayed by marketing and product image and placement and toe tapping - even those who are fully aware of what's being done.`
That`s why I try to always give good advice so that I get customers who reach the end point as directly as possible and are happy in the long term.
`That last bit implies that the 'truth' is what you hear with a copper foil cap. You imply that 'full bodied' is more correct.`
No, my fault, I mean that the tone per se is more natural albeit too full-bodied for some.
`Seems like you're saying that people who prefer a certain sound different to your tastes are 'objectivists' and people who agree with your taste in sound are 'subjectivists'.
`I think the whole subjectivest/objectivist stuff is nothing more than tribalism and trying to find an affinity with strangers on the net (or in person).
There are of course egos all over the place who want to shove their views down your throat, in all areas of life.. again nothing to do with obectivism/subjectivism.`
No, I was genuinely trying to make the point that the more objectivist posters are a little heavy-handed (and seem to have numbers in their user names...)
Reply to nat8808
`Yet how did they came up with the idea that upsampling improves things? By listening - entirely via subjective means - they couldnt explain why it worked but trusted their ears..`
I`ll have to take your word for that - certainly seen as clean, detailed, but uninvolving by many.
In lots of reviews for the original Elgar and interviews with dCS etc, articles by recording engineers talking about upsampling too. I'm sure it's mentioned in Stereophile online in the review of the Elgar.
Many people find clean and detailed as 'involving'. It's just a matter of taste.
I just feel that after the scientific part of the design, some tuning by ear pays great dividends in a musical design.
I certainly agree with that - the required end result is something that sounds good to a human so the final test should be a human listening to it.
`Take Black Gates for example `
I thought it was down to a carbon ring?
It is about electron charge build-ups due to shape of the plates and the right dieletric ( a solid one too so that the plates don't move and resonate) and other stuff. Not heard about a carbon ring. Designed by capacitor designers using physics and scientific theories of how capacitors work with audio signals. Then oddly seen as a subjectivist voodoo thing by self-declared objectivists despite the objectivist background..
`To my mind, a purely subjectivist mindset will rarely invent anything new - you'd only be reacting to something you've just experienced and start a positive feedback loop by doing more of the same.`
Who is arguing for a purely subjectivist approach? I feel you are polarising the argument.
No-one.. just demonstrating how one method doesn't work on its own. I could have written something about pure objectivists too.
So are you saying that a good sound can be made without full understanding of science and design?
Of course.. What do you mean by 'full understanding'? There is much you can do with a partial understanding. There's a lot you can do by copying other people's discoveries. Much of setting up a good system is just going over old ground - not discovering anything new, only discovering what people before have already discovered.
That's not going to progress the whole scene into the future though is it? People wouldn't have invented the stereo LP without getting all objectivist first. They would be just trying to get mono to work as well as possible. They probably wouldn't have got past the wax cylinder if they could just have improved the material a little and better needles.
No CD, no digital at all, no file sharing, no vinyl ripping, no self released material, no hi-rez, no portable music collections, no music file servers etc etc.
Take away the people who said that digital can be perfect and replace them with all those who rejected it straight away as not sounding right, all those who were happy wollowing in the status quo... and we'd be stuck 40 years in the past.
Give those objectivists room to breath.. please.
`That last bit implies that the 'truth' is what you hear with a copper foil cap. You imply that 'full bodied' is more correct.`
No, my fault, I mean that the tone per se is more natural albeit too full-bodied for some.
Still, that would imply that some people find full-bodied as 'un-natural'.. Is real sound full-bodied or is it not? Sounds like an individual choice and neither is wrong.
I'd say that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - if a system is always full bodied no matter what is playing, then the system is imparting a colour to the sound which could become boring and predictable or to some people would be the thing they enjoy and miss it when it's taken away...
I was genuinely trying to make the point that the more objectivist posters are a little heavy-handed (and seem to have numbers in their user names...)
hehe... I was quickly thinking about who has numbers in their names. Then I realised that I do!
I have numbers in my name because that's where my index and ring fingers fell when typing some random characters after my name (are you implying that using numbers = objectivist?? Now, that IS extremist! )
As I say, I'm not subjectivist and I'm not objectivist. Please don't take this discussion as me against you and therefore I must be objectivist if you are subjectivist - that's exactly the tribalism that I refer to and I reject.
Despite not thinking that the catagories really exist - save than as a descriptor for taste and choice of language to create comforting pigeonholes - but if they did exist, I recognise that I am fully both!
Well.. actually I'm forced to judge more by my ears as I've no test equipment and not interested enough to get the specs on everything.
To be really honest, I make choices based on desirability and provenance and aesthetic design and reviews and original unobtainability v cost today. I like exclusive and rare and well designed things... Only then do I listen to them and decide to keep or move them on.
Recently I rejected the objectivist idea that natural cone materials make for natural sounds (an idea I find promoted all over the internet with lots of statistical evidence and scientific theories) and, using just my ears, have discovered that my pro-audio monitors with metal cones sound wonderfully natural and full-bodied when the material is. Nicely detailed and clean sounding too!
One up for using your ears over conventionally touted theory I say..
In sum, we're not that different in many respects Adrian but I read your opinions as being too entrenched in what may be your own tastes.
Could be a generational thing as I see the objectivist / subjectivist debate as being a throw back to the 80's hifi industry and I get the impression that people that were caught up in that scene are those harping on about it now on the forums...
Unfortunately it has been instilled in some newer audiophiles too.
The age of eBay and thriving secondhand market I hope will destroy that as we can now try anything and everything for ourselves after all the heated debate has subsided. We can look back at what people said about it then and decide it was all ego-waving nonsense - personal taste misrepresented as the truth.
Could be a generational thing as I see the objectivist / subjectivist debate as being a throw back to the 80's hifi industry and I get the impression that people that were caught up in that scene are those harping on about it now on the forums...
Don't include me in that pish! ;) I'm calling it as I see it now in 2012. It's got feck all to do with what happened in the 80s.
Marco.
Audioflair
26-02-2012, 08:13
`Could be a generational thing as I see the objectivist / subjectivist debate as being a throw back to the 80's hifi industry and I get the impression that people that were caught up in that scene are those harping on about it now on the forums...`
Maybe so, but I have always been a bit of a lone wolf not part of any movement. As a newbie, in the OP I was simply commenting on the way these discussions tend to pan out.
`The age of eBay and thriving secondhand market I hope will destroy that as we can now try anything and everything for ourselves after all the heated debate has subsided.`
I`m all for people trying such gear often with the realisation that a classic piece of kit can inject a touch of humanity somewhere along the chain which much modern equipment lacks.
As far as egos go, I am finding theres a lot involved in this insatiable desire to dot the `t`s and cross the `i`s... LOL
Adrian, someone will have to show you how to use the quote system - lol! ;)
Marco.
Audioflair
26-02-2012, 08:36
Is it because I use Linux or because I am a subjectivist that I can`t make it work?...LOL
Can`t make the smiley faces come on either.
Lol...
Just enclose the text you wish to quote from people's posts between the following: "[Q-U-O-T-E]" and "[/Q-U-O-T-E]", obviously ignoring the ("") quotation marks any hyphens, but including the forward slash before the second 'Q'.
Marco.
or even highlight in different text colour Adrain if that eaiser
bogle111
26-02-2012, 14:55
I find this thread one of the more interesting that I have read in a long while on this subject.
I am going to go back and start reading from the beginning again before I comment as there is a lot here. I like to get the facts of what people are saying right first, before I have an opinion.
Objectivist or Subjectivist? and with or without an agenda? is this possible?? Anything is possible, but often/sometimes unlikely.
What has been said about the '80s Hi Fi industry certainly rings some bells. A lot of the BS that was around seems to have died now, with some of the companies that were worse at this still benefiting, though it did unfortunately "channel the market" or "manipulate the market" unfairly IMO, where both manufacturers and products suffered and the public were very misled.
What has been said about the '80s Hi Fi industry certainly rings some bells. A lot of the BS that was around seems to have died now, with some of the companies that were worse at this still benefiting, though it did unfortunately "channel the market" or "manipulate the market" unfairly IMO, where both manufacturers and products suffered and the public were very misled.
IMHO the worst thing that happened in the 80s as far as misleading the public went, was the Amstrad/Saisho et al midi systems they sold in places like Dixons that were a total rip off as they were incapable of doing the job required of them i.e reproduce music competently. Setting fire to your money instead and listening to the sound of it burning would have been more pleasurable.
ursus262
26-02-2012, 15:46
This has been a very interesting thread, which has provoked me into thinking, and I'm impressed by the quality of debate here. In fact, it's a relief that it hasn't turned into a total bloodbath :lol:
I trained originally as an engineer (I still am), initially working in the aerospace industry and latterly within the medical devices sector. I am a Quality and Certification specialist. What this means is that I am, by instinct and training, an objectivist. Most of the time that's easy because we are clear about the desired outcomes: an aircraft that won't crash or a ventilator that won't choke a patient to death! We test something, record the results, and decide if those results are within a defined set of limits and, if they are, we can be almost certain that the item in question will perform in the way that it was designed.
The trouble with our hobby is that we aren't necessarily dealing with stuff like that. Our hi-fi systems are a conduit through with music is channelled, and music deals with emotions in an ethereal and spiritual way. It's hard to be objective about something like that.
High Fidelity sound, taken to its absolute, could mean that you channel that music with nothing added, and nothing taken away - the theory being that you have a perfect sonic replica of what occurred in the concert hall or wherever. Well, objectively, that's OK, but the problem occurs in that listening environments change that reality as do our perceptions, tastes and prejudices. And, also, our ears' ability to perceive sound changes with age. There are a whole lot of variables that we just don't, or can't, map and understand and it probably isn't worth the effort anyway.
I'll give you an example: a few years ago, a friend asked me if I had a favourite colour. I thought about it for a few moments, and then realised that I didn't have any preference at all. It never bothered me and to be honest I never thought about it before. Some five years ago, I was diagnosed as having mild to moderate depression which I now understand I've had for most of my life. I was put on medication, and the depression lifted. Within a month of being put on meds, I noticed I had an attraction for the colour orange! I ended up with an orange car, and an orange kitchen! Quite why this happened, we cannot be sure, but suspect that the change in brain chemistry from the medication led me to liking a certain colour. So you see, we can all change and perceptions of reality can change as a result of changing circumstances.
And finally (and I can almost hear the hisses and boos!), there is only one speaker that for me has really, and I mean REALLY, touched the spot a far as sonics are concerned: the Realistic Mach Ones from the 1970s. I couldn't afford them at the time, but I've never heard speakers like them since! That's subjectivity in the mind of an objectivist.
So, I sit somewhere in the middle. I am objectivist in that we need to get the basics right - that's a given - but I now tend to have equipment that helps the music to move and entertain me.
I have found over the years that even the strictest objectivists will STILL end up with using purely subjective listening as the final chapter in their own choice of hi-fi equipment, but they must pass through that objective hoop beforehand to satisfy their inate urges. If it sounds crap, all the objective analysing in the world aint worth a plugged nickel anyway :lol:
Hahahaha... Yer not wrong there, Frank!! :lol: :mental:
Marco.
Don't include me in that pish! ;) I'm calling it as I see it now in 2012. It's got feck all to do with what happened in the 80s.
Marco.
:lol:
Really I meant the idea of subjectivist/objectivist divide - not taste in sound or ego-d up people ramming view points down throats to make a kind of Audiophile foi gras.
I'd have never considered the idea if I hadn't read old 80s magazines and letter pages or read forums talking about old subjectivist/objectivist debates from the same times.
I'd of course see differences in taste and direction and I'd see some enjoying the 'art of sound' side and I'd see some enjoying the technical side of circuits and digital theory. I'd also see egos about spewing on both sides.
What I wouldn't be seeing though is any cast-in-concrete camps or tribes or divide.
I think that idea of two battling sides was cooked up in the 80s and sees the odd revival. I only assume that the revivals stem from people in the 80s rather than people coming up with the same ideas again anew - it came about IMO via widely read magazines and they're not widely read anymore so isn't coming from there. Maybe manufacturers like to stir it up again to sell products?
The 80s hoo-hah wasn't so much subjectivist/objectivist as round earth/flat earth, the latter being essentially devotees of Linn and Naim who adopted a somewhat dictatorial approach to hifi, based around 'Pace, Rhythm and Timing' and the toe-tapping test. Such things as valves, direct-drive turntables and electrostatic loudspeakers were the work of the Devil according to the flat-earth brigade, and if you didn't agree with them you 'just weren't listening right'.
realysm42
26-02-2012, 17:09
I'm relatively new to all of this and from the sounds of it, glad I missed out on the 80's saga(s).
I tend to try and keep an open mind and generally come from a place of objection (and ignorance) hence me asking lots of questions. If you'd told me three months ago about the benefits of upgraded cables and isolation etc I would have scoffed but am happily reaping the benfits now.
I don't understand why some people get so upset about things, try it, if it works then great! I'm not a scientist and can only undertsand the theory behind some subjects so much but I don't think enjoyment has to run in parity with understanding.
There could be a merrit in having a technically amazing hifi for those that like that side of the hobby. It would be a constant work in progress and they could enjoy working out the steps to sonic improvemnt via purely objective means.
The idea that a system always has to sound the best at every point in its existance would be a mis-understanding of their intentions - a projection of one's own values rather than understanding others.
Now, if the tried to insist it sounded amazing then that would be a different matter entirely..
realysm42
26-02-2012, 17:13
There could be a merrit in having a technically amazing hifi for those that like that side of the hobby. It would be a constant work in progress and they could enjoy working out the steps to sonic improvemnt via purely objective means.
The idea that a system always has to sound the best at every point in its existance would be a mis-understanding of their intentions - a projection of one's own values rather than understanding others.
Now, if the tried to insist it sounded amazing then that would be a different matter entirely..
What is a technically amazing stereo? All of the right numbers and parameters of behaviour?
Audioflair
26-02-2012, 18:05
As a dealer it may have been foolhardy for me to expect my OP to be believed to be the genuine views they are rather than laden with ulterior motives - it`s been an interesting experiment. I can see that it`s certainly not easy for a dealer to say anything other than what is rather safe and staid which I find a bit sad. I honestly know of no old agenda in the 80`s regarding objectivists/subjectivists. I am only aware of the flat earthers Joe mentions. To what end would `ego`d up people be ramming viewpoints down throats?` Or trying to `cast in concrete camps or tribes or divides?` nat8808. There seems to be a paranoia regarding dealers/manufacturers. I don`t understand the ego thing either. Certainly the practise of picking apart and constantly dissecting people`s words is quite an ego-trip. Not sure if its my bag...
bogle111
26-02-2012, 22:03
I am not really giving away trade secrets; it was 20 - 30 years ago after all. But some of the current business owners will recognise the scene of some others businesses.
1980’s Style
ACT 1
You have two systems sitting in a room. A Customer; a novice; the Buyer walks in to the sales area.
A is a small UK company’s setup. Cottage Industry
B is mainly Japanese, say SP10, or Thorens, Yamaha amp and a pr of NS1000s. Japanese Corporate Product
All is fine, there is no hype and all is well. He has only come in to look and wants to book an audition sometime.
He looks at the equipment (Visual) and touches (Feel) and marvels at the different bits of kit. Two senses have been aroused, now he wants to listen (Hear). He's read a few mags and they seem to have the necessary creditable agencies. He is impressed by the agencies.
Still all is well.
Five are waiting in the wings, - the young salesman, the shop owner, the journalist, the “Cottage Industry” rep and the “Japanese Corp” rep. All these could benefit from the sale.
Still all is well. They are all just getting warmed up.
ACT 2
The Jap rep has phoned the shop owner and made an appointment because they have to discuss their orders six months in advance, and to see if they are achieving targets. The owner is busy discussing increased turnover, advertising budget, that extra .005% retro discount and they have also gone to lunch to discuss that future trip to the sun, with the rest of the boys in the “Ton Up Turnover Club”.
All is going a bit loose at the store, unattended, but the owner feels he is doing “Business” and it is a Free lunch. The Japanese Corp rep hasn't the time for product knowledge, tight schedule, but will be back in two months. He gives out a couple of product "Sales Points" leaflets to the staff.
Meanwhile, the “Cottage Industry” rep has made a bee line for the journalist and says, “You must come to the factory to see some new product under wraps, meet the boss “He likes your style”, he knows some really good places to eat, meet Charlie, he’s a gas and we would value your opinion. We’ll have a great time. Got a favourite wine? Hotel? We’ll sort that” while continuing on to the salesman to show what he should be listening to.
All is getting more hazy, but the journalist feels important and will have a good story with the review and maybe bring in more advertising revenue. The Cottage Industry rep is just reaching “Warp speed nine” and seizes the kill, or future sales I should say.
First stripping away what the salesman thinks and believes, he then begins to re-teach him everything, their way. Oh, and by the way, the earth is not round. “Come to the factory and we will show you the black art of setting up equipment properly, real F1 stuff. You’ll love it. I’m staying in town so all the staff can come out tonight for a pizza, on the house.” The business owner is told that it is now part of the Agency Agreement that we get your staff to the factory so they can set up our equipment properly.
All is going a bit rancid. The salesman is made to feel important and wants to know more. He sees the reps car, expenses and if he is really good, he may be working for that company one day too. Cause they only hire from within the trade (shops).
ACT 3
In the meantime, the journalist has been to the factory, wonderfully fed, put up in a reasonable hotel, suitably primed, met Charlie (he is actually a gas), got pissed and all consider each other bosom buddies. A review is published and the journalist is primed and has a great story.
All is starting to smell, but thinks the customer, both the Press and the Salesman are telling me the same story, so it must be true.
The customer returns to the shop and the salesman is ready. He has been fed, primed and ready to join the expense account brigade one day and wants to show the customer what he has learned. He is Bi-assed to the point of either selling that Cottage industry system, or loosing that sale completely. If the customer does buy the Cottage Industry system he will no doubt be hooked in to an upgrade path.
ALL is not well and far from edible.
ACT 4
The manufacturer is now running the owners business through the salesman and the magazines.
The journalist can convince more people with his quill than that one salesman, and is now free to convince future customers that they really have found “the Holy Grail” and can put it into print – Print means Gospel to many people.
ALL is Rotten and going against the Integrity of the dealer and the real benefit to the paying customer who seek no more than a good, unbiased appraisal of the equipment on offer.
The Japanese Corp. worked top to bottom - owner to salesman, the Cottage Industry worked bottom to top - salesman to owner.
Late '80s, you couldn't book a dem with a 1210. "All the next lot are sold and they usually go out in pairs." was often heard being told to customers.
Another Cottage Industry company starved the market of product so that each serious buyer created at least 5 enquiries for this product around the shops.
Some manufacturer's would tell you they had a good review coming out so you could get sufficient stock in, and that they had placed large ads placing dealers for the consumer benefit.
2012
There are not that many dealers with pure audio sales and many are down to between 40 to 60% of turnover.
Does the above still go on, I would doubt it given the present economy. What you have today is what was allowed to happen. Threats of loosing product agencies, loosing face by not being in that “Ton Up Club” with your fellow business owners. The dealer was stuck between a rock and a hard place, or to put it more obviously, between the manufacturer, the magazines and the salesman.
In the main gentlemen, that formed why the bulk of the industry went the way it did and why you have some of the opinions today, as well as some of the products.
The Dealers that are left that do a good job and follow their beliefs, whether Cottage Industry style or not, are the Respected few. Some reviewers, like MC, still maintain respect from me, not for everything written, but a lot.
And that people, is part what you got fed in the ‘80’s, and which is why for about 16 years after I got out of the industry, I didn’t listen let alone open any of my record collection. I am not judging, you can do that, I am just relaying what happened.
Subjectivist/objectivist divide in the 80's!!! Brainwashing and Bullshit more like.:mental:
Oh FFS fellas, stop analysing it like a load of bloody objectivists!!!!!!! ;)
I was brought up with the "tune dem" which some of you may laugh at. Good thing too, because so many of the well loved valve and vinylly things play tunes brilliantly - some of the better sorted CD/digital systems do too, although it's in the "tunes dept." that I find the Mini-T lacking - on the speakers I heard it struggling to drive........
Audioflair
27-02-2012, 10:14
OK bogle111 I know what you mean now. In those days I was a customer myself but after hearing, and aspiring to, Garrards, Microscanner Deccas with stacked Quad 57`s and OTL power amps etc. I could never take seriously the sound of the kit from those churches of bs. whose salesmen would stare deeply into your eyes and prescribe this turntable with those amps and that rack. Funnily enough that type of dealer would often undervalue trade-ins which were not part of their cirkus - and so I bought some nice Dahlquist DQ-12`s very cheaply from such a branch. My original point has been ignored (maybe because the post title `Objectivists` seemed confrontational - sorry all if that`s the case) so I will re-phrase it. Could the backlash against the 80`s brainwashing of customers many are bitter about here have resulted in a sound that is actually going beyond the natural? I.e. stripping meat off the bone. If so, a phrase such as `negative colouration` may be useful. Could a type of sound some see as `correct` (fair to say a fairly objectivist word) be compared to negative numbers on a number-line?
What is a technically amazing stereo? All of the right numbers and parameters of behaviour?
That's what I mean, yes.
Some people are in to the electronics side and technical workings of things and have chosen to combine that hobby with one that reproduces music - two birds with one stone.
I don't see that there is anything wrong with wanting to do that at all. I also don't see that there is anything wrong with collecting stamps.
realysm42
28-02-2012, 14:21
I agree, I don't think it matters why someone does something, if it makes them happy, why not?
Tbh, I only have a limited understanding of "hi-fi", enough to keep me entertained and the basics. As long as it sounds good, I'm happy :)
That's what I mean, yes.
Some people are in to the electronics side and technical workings of things and have chosen to combine that hobby with one that reproduces music - two birds with one stone.
I don't see that there is anything wrong with wanting to do that at all. I also don't see that there is anything wrong with collecting stamps.
Some people are in to the electronics side and technical workings of things and have chosen to combine that hobby with one that reproduces music - two birds with one stone.
I don't see that there is anything wrong with wanting to do that at all.
Indeed not; as long as such 'objectivists' don't arrogantly preach to others that it's the only way of achieving 'accuracy' or 'transparency', rudely demeaning and dismissing other equally valid system-building methodologies in the process, which arguably achieve such an effect with music, with rather greater success.
Trouble is, many of those types, on forums, take great pleasure from doing precisely that! It's an unfortunate (and often contagious) disease, derived from the desire for absolutism and the mistaken belief that in audio there is only 'one true path'.
Marco.
As a dealer it may have been foolhardy for me to expect my OP to be believed to be the genuine views they are rather than laden with ulterior motives - it`s been an interesting experiment. I can see that it`s certainly not easy for a dealer to say anything other than what is rather safe and staid which I find a bit sad. I honestly know of no old agenda in the 80`s regarding objectivists/subjectivists. I am only aware of the flat earthers Joe mentions. To what end would `ego`d up people be ramming viewpoints down throats?` Or trying to `cast in concrete camps or tribes or divides?` nat8808. There seems to be a paranoia regarding dealers/manufacturers. I don`t understand the ego thing either. Certainly the practise of picking apart and constantly dissecting people`s words is quite an ego-trip. Not sure if its my bag...
Hmm... This was an experiment? I assumed you had a view point you wanted to get off your chest.
What do you mean 'as a dealer'? I've assumed you were talking personally and not from a commercial point of view. I had no idea you were a dealer until you mentioned guiding customers.
I don't think anyone here is thinking that you have ulterior motives (not that, for the life of me, I could work out what they could be in a thread like this..).
As an aside, an important thing on forums is to not read general comments about the hobby (as I have made) as remarks aimed at you the reader. * Edit: I do realise in hindsight that could sound condescending but i don't know how else to encourage you not to *
Regarding the 80's: I've every hifi News from the 80s and many hifi answers and lots of The Absoute Sound - the letter pages and editorials and individual's collumns are full of remarks and rebuffs and arguments about people who listen v people who measure. This may have also been given names of flat earth etc - it is definately there. Where did it come from? You will read countless arguments about blind ABX tests with digital involving Linn and Quad and about amplifiers measuring perfectly and so there's no difference in sound between amps blah blah blah.
On the back of these discussions/arguments you will see adverts reflecting those sides. You'll read adverts from dealers and manufacturers setting out why they are different because they fall heavily on one side or another as a counter to the people they don't really like. Some dealers named themselves after one side or the other even, to show where they were coming from.
Oddly it's not in any of the 70s magazines. There are reverberations into the 90s magazines but more as just mentions back to previous arguments that the same people will still having. Into the 2000s it appears more bling driven and both sides of technical achievement and subjective tweaking and instinctive sonic merit are being given equal standing.. as they are today too.
To what end would `ego`d up people be ramming viewpoints down throats?` Or trying to `cast in concrete camps or tribes or divides?` nat8808.
That mash-up of quotes doesn't make sense... Have you heard Cassetteboy's audio montages where Tony Blair's speeches are cut up to make him say daft things?
The 'ego'd up' bit was to say that, as Marco was complaining about, there will always be people on forums who try to tell you that what you're hearing is wrong. There will also be people telling you that your perfectly measuring amp will sound terrible and is 'dry' or 'uninvolving' when the person is perfectly happy with it - Egos on forums that have to insist that their version of sound has to be the correct one.
The 'cast in concrete' you mis-construed as 'cast' was not being used as an verb when I said it. No-one is casting anyone in concrete necessarily. There does seem to be a view point though that people are either subjectivist or objectivist and that these view points are set in stone (or 'cast in concrete' - I quite like concrete so prefer that phrase to the old 'set in stone' one).
Certainly the practise of picking apart and constantly dissecting people`s words is quite an ego-trip.
err.... that's just common practice on forums - it means you can respond to points individually rather than them being lost by changes of direction in the thread before you've returned back to it.. Just learn to use the quote system and join in! No ego needed :)
Indeed; as long as such 'objectivists' don't arrogantly preach to others that it's the only way of achieving 'accuracy' or 'transparency', rudely demeaning and dismissing other equally valid system-building methodologies in the process, which arguably achieve such an effect with rather greater success.
Trouble is, many of those types, on forums, take great pleasure from doing precisely that! It's an unfortunate (and often contagious) disease, derived from the desire for absolutism.
Marco.
A need for absolutism or certainty is a disease in itself, derived from a lack of trust somewhere.. could be lack of self-trust or lack of trust in others. Or even a lack of trust in the universe as a whole.
A desire for certainty though... well I'm not really that way inclined myself but I'd say that desire is strong in most people.
It's what lead the human race to become an agricultural society rather than the uncertainty of hunter gathering and relying on instincts. Could say that it has also led to religious beleifs and practices around the world, the desire to have an answer for the as-yet-unanswerable. Same for audiophile religions.
Yet it has allowed humans to act and plan for the future.. like future hifi progression as money allows, for example. Not many people like spending their hard-earned money without the guarantee that it will bring an improvement.
In such an inexact hobby, there are no real guarantees as such so people have to feel convinced through confidence instilled by someone else (an enthusiastic dealer or manufacturer for example) or by groups of people (forum members, magazine reviewers etc).
It is relatively rare that people are either happy taking the risks (actually I'd say there are minimal risks when you buy secondhand, but some minds are hardset into mistrust of secondhand) - this is where I am - or very self confident in their choices. Many of these will be people who have objective or psuedo-objective points of view and are convinced before listening.
I'd say though that if you question what is the human reaction, the 'feeling' of a traditionally objective view point, it equates exactly, or near enough, to that same feeling of confidence that people will get from a conviction that paper cones give a natural sound or that valves are more natural, less artifical sounding.
I'd say that the strongly objective / subjective 'camps' are nothing more than different coloured layers apon the exact same human traits. As we all know, as fellow human beings, it is what we see on the surface that can strongly affect people's social responses..
To go back to the OP:
The beauty of this hobby is that it is subjective. A complete novice is able to judge for himself whether a piece of equipment using the`latest technology` is musically involving or not. I think the `objectivists` should consider the concept of `negative coloration.`
The fact that many synthetic materials strip the sound of natural tonal colour and body seems to be being confused with accuracy, neutrality and transparency IMO. As if the more `bare to the bones` a sound is the more accurate it must be...
Those convictions sound very absolute and 'objectivist' to me..
Personally, I like to listen to synthetic materials and natural materials and judge each individual product on its merits .. part of the fun, IMHO, is often to get a system together that is based on real subjective merits and breaks the commonly repeated 'rules' of audiophile land.
Sure, view points can be borne from experience but that experience will be personal in this hobby and there will always be exceptions even then!
I agree, I don't think it matters why someone does something, if it makes them happy, why not?
Tbh, I only have a limited understanding of "hi-fi", enough to keep me entertained and the basics. As long as it sounds good, I'm happy :)
I have to admit that for me this hobby is quite a lot about nerdy-ness on my part. It's about finding little treasures, it's like collecting rare records to a certain extent (well, except that I don't hold on to them too much if they're not being used). It's also about both finding exclusive, well designed, well built exotica of yesteryear whilst also trying to discover ways of getting great sound at as little cost as possible..
In other words, for me, the hifi part is much like stamp collecting..
But, I love sound and music so much that if it doesn't then sound very great, I'm not satisfied and try to find something else.. i end up keeping things that sound great over and above the nerd criteria above that I selected them with.
This means that I will probably never buy Croft for example simply because I could just go out now and buy it new - where would the excitment be in that? There must be some rare boutique item out there that sounds just as good. Or a rare, not-available-to-the-general-public, bit of bespoke pro, studio gear..
bobbasrah
28-02-2012, 16:37
Could the backlash against the 80`s brainwashing of customers many are bitter about here have resulted in a sound that is actually going beyond the natural? I.e. stripping meat off the bone. If so, a phrase such as `negative colouration` may be useful. Could a type of sound some see as `correct` (fair to say a fairly objectivist word) be compared to negative numbers on a number-line?
IMHO, any bitterness is somewhat restricted, but if the 80's is to be blamed for anything in hifi it is the abuse of the terms objective and subjective, which unfortunately survive to this day, generally as an accusative defence. The successfull marketing of several UK manufacturers and sellers depended on the subtleties of that distinction and it's appeal to prospective purchasers, to salvage business in what was a struggle for survival against japanese product at low prices.
Japanese manufacturers naturally fell into the Objective camp, the rest of Europe fell into the opposite, with the notable exceptions of the Amstrad etc brigade.....
IIRC, the 80's products were not bad equipment, but it was not the “night and day” audio renaissance that it was made out to be either, despite the expensive add-ons and upgrades that followed. It did however boost the secondhand market with some wonderfully cheaper older gear, at a time when the DIY side was becoming less popular.
bogle111
29-02-2012, 02:56
OK bogle111 I know what you mean now. In those days I was a customer myself but after hearing, and aspiring to, Garrards, Microscanner Deccas with stacked Quad 57`s and OTL power amps etc. I could never take seriously the sound of the kit from those churches of bs. whose salesmen would stare deeply into your eyes and prescribe this turntable with those amps and that rack. Funnily enough that type of dealer would often undervalue trade-ins which were not part of their cirkus - and so I bought some nice Dahlquist DQ-12`s very cheaply from such a branch. My original point has been ignored (maybe because the post title `Objectivists` seemed confrontational - sorry all if that`s the case) so I will re-phrase it. Could the backlash against the 80`s brainwashing of customers many are bitter about here have resulted in a sound that is actually going beyond the natural? I.e. stripping meat off the bone. If so, a phrase such as `negative colouration` may be useful. Could a type of sound some see as `correct` (fair to say a fairly objectivist word) be compared to negative numbers on a number-line?
I did not ignore the question, just trying to point out that there were "agendas", which precluded the Objectivist (from the 60's, 70s) as there became a way to coerce or format a planned Subjectivity in the 80s. This was adopted by some manufacturers and magazines that twisted Subjectivity - if you didn't agree, you were deef. Not bitter, just bemused.
Unfortunately, I have worn too many hats in this industry and could observe the way that the Subjectivists (Flat Earth, Left wing) would completely ignore the Objectivist view to the point where very little was based on fact, more on Recommendation and "Review". This gave birth to words like Musicality, PRAT & Involving applied to certain combinations that usually left out Detail, Impact and Punch as applied to others.
The final questions to me with sound were
Does it sound balanced?
Does it add its' own tone?
Can I afford it?
Can I live with it?
Got to have it! was the final decider.
There must be a fair amount of Objectivity and Subjectivity to all things, IMO. Too much equipment has been purchased on review.
As for undervaluing Trade Ins? no, that is not altogether correct, for me anyway. You had to give a G'tee, and charge VAT on it. It had to earn shelf space. There was no blue book, no Ebay then.
Having been an idler user, then a belter, it wasn't until a very good DD came in as Part Ex that I took it home and listened. Preferred it ever since, though still own one belt drive (Delphi), cause it looks good, and sounds not bad. Also a Decca London, cause nothing sounds quite like it, and was the second cart. I bought about 73.
I also liked Magnepans, DQ10s and Audio Research BTW. Having a Nak Dragon you would probably say I was an Objectivist, but you have to hear one first.
Regards
Pete
StanleyB
29-02-2012, 07:36
i have followed this thread for a while now but still have no idea what most of you are on about :scratch:.
Audioflair
29-02-2012, 09:17
Stan, let me attempt to explain... I have used the words subjectivist/objectivist approximatively and Nat in particular wanted more precision. He has examined the definition of the words, touched on dealer`s ulterior motives leading to a discussion on the history of these words in the 80`s Hi-Fi trade which was not my intended focus.
The spirit of what I said still holds true to me and hopefully to some others. I do not believe in finite knowledge, a gap will always be there. I do not believe good design is as objectivist as implied. I do not fear not knowing. I do not believe one can pin down a `correct` sound any more than a gorgeous one. I tried to speak personally and remove my dealer hat. In a nutshell, it`s when I disengage the intellect that I know if a piece of equipment is for me, the opposite is true for many and THAT is my point of interest.
StanleyB
29-02-2012, 09:50
That is not what confuses me Adrian. I don't judge music or equipment through either of those two processes. I am more of a technical opinion.
Slippershod
29-02-2012, 17:47
... Seems like you're saying that people who prefer a certain sound different to your tastes are 'objectivists' and people who agree with your taste in sound are 'subjectivists'.
I think the whole subjectivest/objectivist stuff is nothing more than tribalism and trying to find an affinity with strangers on the net (or in person).
I really, seriously don't think any of it exists! We ALL do both!
What might appear to exist at the extrememes could simply a misunderstanding of people's motives, an assumption that they share your own motives...
I really should plough all the way through this spiffingly good thread, but am finding some very refreshing comments here, like Nat8808's quoted from above...
i have followed this thread for a while now but still have no idea what most of you are on about :scratch:.
Q.E.D
:lol:
Thanks Stan for the slap around the face with the fish of reality..
Slippershod
29-02-2012, 21:09
and comments like 'I'm more of a technical opinion.'
clear as a mudfish ;)
Stan, let me attempt to explain... I have used the words subjectivist/objectivist approximatively and Nat in particular wanted more precision. He has examined the definition of the words, touched on dealer`s ulterior motives leading to a discussion on the history of these words in the 80`s Hi-Fi trade which was not my intended focus.
The spirit of what I said still holds true to me and hopefully to some others. I do not believe in finite knowledge, a gap will always be there. I do not believe good design is as objectivist as implied. I do not fear not knowing. I do not believe one can pin down a `correct` sound any more than a gorgeous one. I tried to speak personally and remove my dealer hat. In a nutshell, it`s when I disengage the intellect that I know if a piece of equipment is for me, the opposite is true for many and THAT is my point of interest.
You might find the book 'Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind : How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less' by Guy Claxton interesting.
Different sides of the same coin, intellect and instinct - sometimes one deals with a situation better than the other but you can re-evaluate the situation to allow the other way to be more beneficial. Western culture is quite biased towards the intellect side and is always re-enforced in our schooling systems.
Regarding choice of equipment: A 'gorgeous' sound may be coming out of your system in your opinion at that time but it may not be a gorgeous sound that the artist intended to come out of your system.
It could be like re-writing the ending of novels yourself because they didn't have a happy ending..
Not everything does sound gorgeous but there are many many people who will make choices in their system so that things tend towards that gorgeous sound - a homogeneity of their taste in sound.
Personally I'm not that way inclined, at least in intention. I try to judge my system to sound life-like which includes it being dry and uninvolving sometimes as well as over-the-top euphoric and rich, depending on the recording. It's tough to judge whether it's the equipment colouring the sound or if it's meant to be that way but if the system swings from one to the other when changing material then I know I'm getting somewhere.
I can imagine though that if you're used to putting a lot of sugar in your tea, the real taste of tea will never satisfy. I like black tea and choose white tea when I want a different, softer drink. Same with coffee. Other people have their set idea of what coffee 'should be like' (lots of milk, two sugars please) and stick with that forever and ever and will say that anything else is disgusting..
and comments like 'I'm more of a technical opinion.'
clear as a mudfish ;)
I did mean my post sincerely.
That Stan doesn't have an idea of what we're on about is a sure sign that what is being discussed is probably a load of nonsense like much of this hobby!
It's just a bunch of audio geeks who have spent too long trapped on a run-away train of thought.
Slippershod
29-02-2012, 22:28
"I did mean my post sincerely."
so did I. your replies in particular have touched on broader issues - or, at least, shown that the characteristics of the original debate can be projected, obviously, onto the wider world (and vice-versa ;)), and that there is merit in such considerations. I wouldn't belittle them, personally.
Audioflair
01-03-2012, 09:22
Nat8808 `You might find the book 'Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind : How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less' by Guy Claxton interesting.`
Thanks, it does looks interesting.
`Regarding choice of equipment: A 'gorgeous' sound may be coming out of your system in your opinion at that time but it may not be a gorgeous sound that the artist intended to come out of your system.`
My system is not `gorgeous,` that was just a word I used to make a stark contrast with the word `correct.`
`Not everything does sound gorgeous but there are many many people who will make choices in their system so that things tend towards that gorgeous sound - a homogeneity of their taste in sound.`
As a dealer, (being a dealer if you prefer Nat) the system is in a constant state of flux and has to be quickly adaptable to people`s tastes and preconceptions within reason.
At the moment, my personal tastes and preconceptions when listening alone are satisfied by a punchy power amp as near neutral as possible (but not necessarily SS) into speakers which are as sensitive, airy, transparent and delicate sounding as possible. The front end, however, is a valve output CD player to inject some body into proceedings - as I believe digital needs some such augmentation for voices to sound as human as they should and can do with vinyl - and a heavily regulated valve pre to give both grip and a more natural tone to the following power amp. Speaker cabling is rather retro at the moment - cotton sheathed copper. Interconnects are flat silver ribbon damped with silk. One constant for me is the desire above all for an agile bass (i.e. not B&W style ) and a natural, transparent sound. I am not afraid to use plenty of adjectives. There are various ways to achieve a given sound but I have always had an ideal sound to aim for in my head.
You might find the book 'Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind : How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less' by Guy Claxton interesting.
By that measure, I should have an IQ of 250 by now.
Erm scuse chaps an all that. Yer man Adrian keeps writing as a "dealer" and i wus wondering if any of you guys know his address coz my stash has run out.:D
Ali Tait
01-03-2012, 14:55
By that measure, I should have an IQ of 250 by now.
:lol:
Audioflair
01-03-2012, 15:11
Nice one Welder! :lolsign:
At the moment, my personal tastes and preconceptions when listening alone are satisfied by a punchy power amp as near neutral as possible (but not necessarily SS) into speakers which are as sensitive, airy, transparent and delicate sounding as possible. The front end, however, is a valve output CD player to inject some body into proceedings - as I believe digital needs some such augmentation for voices to sound as human as they should and can do with vinyl - and a heavily regulated valve pre to give both grip and a more natural tone to the following power amp. Speaker cabling is rather retro at the moment - cotton sheathed copper. Interconnects are flat silver ribbon damped with silk. One constant for me is the desire above all for an agile bass (i.e. not B&W style ) and a natural, transparent sound. I am not afraid to use plenty of adjectives. There are various ways to achieve a given sound but I have always had an ideal sound to aim for in my head.
To me the implied decision making process you've gone through to get the desired sound is an objective one. The CD player for example - you have a notion about digital sound and have reacted to that notion logically by choosing something you feel will counter its failings. This is partly what I mean by people naturally being both subjective and objective.
OK, your choices aren't on a technical basis in terms of the electronics but your choices are still logical on a basis of 'sound type' building blocks.
A traditional objectivist may choose gear that goes together technically and make logical decisions fitting blocks of technically complementary pieces together. A traditional subjectivist uses the very same logical building process but is instead working on the basis of sonically complementary pieces together based on their own theories of system building. The latter is dealing with results and the former is dealing with causes if you see what I mean. I'd say both methods are initially objective with subjective refining to see if it has worked or not..
Interesting that you choose a power amp that is as near neutral as possible. If that means something that doesn't effect the sound much then why wouldn't you apply that to everything in the system?
The agile bass bit is interesting too - I want agile bass when its there and I want plodding bass if that's what is on the recording (i.e. I don't want the system to be mucking about with the recording to suit my tastes). I guess you mean you want the speakers to be able to do agile bass? I'd like my speakers to do everything if possible.
With the CD player, the digital aspect is still there.. so in your mind you are using the valve output stage to colour the sound to counter a perceived deficiency. Seems like you are accepting the faults and not trying to get rid of them because you're not interested in understanding where the faults lie. You're happy to patch up the fault by 'correcting' it further down the chain. A more extreme objectivist would be looking as to why the fault occurs and correct it at source. You have kind of dismissed the fault as just a characteristic of digital that cannot be changed.
I would like to try a valve output stage on my DAC for it to be more transparent, i.e. to colour the sound less than op-amps might. In other words, I'd want to use a valve stage so that I can hear the digital music more purely. Funny how people use the same approach but believe they're doing opposite things.. That is down to perception and concept, a belief rather than actually trying to get to the nitty gritty and work out which of the two opposing ideas is right as an objectivist would try to. I'd say both views are based on ignorance of how things actually work and hopefully a real circuit designer (valve or ss) is more knowledgeable!
The reason I mention that book is because when things are complicated (like tiny changes in components changing the sound) the brain can often recognise patterns in cause and effect long before there is conscious understanding. In fact studies have shown that people believing they understand what is going on in a complex cause and effect game, fair worse (by being wrong) than those who believe it is random and allow their subconscious to pick up the patterns.
I'd say there is a fair amount of that going on with system building. But the latter is a natural adaption to the status quo whilst the former tries to understand and change the world. Both ways are good for different things.
For just enjoying the music and getting personal satisfaction out of what equipment is available you may as well forget how it works and figure a system out by feel and spend the rest of your efforts doing other things. That's my approach but I combine it with an enthusiasm for the gear itself.
If you're a real technical enthusiast and want to advance the world of hif,i even if only in your sphere of influence, you need to work on the understanding part but note that you may be wrong as you learn so have to still judge by feel too.
Audioflair
19-03-2012, 16:40
Again in reply to nat8808.
`To me the implied decision making process you've gone through to get the desired sound is an objective one.`
Or partly objective partly subjective as you say 2 sentences later?
`The CD player for example - you have a notion about digital sound and have reacted to that notion logically by choosing something you feel will counter its failings. This is partly what I mean by people naturally being both subjective and objective. `
I agree, part formula, part recipe.
`Interesting that you choose a power amp that is as near neutral as possible. If that means something that doesn't effect the sound much then why wouldn't you apply that to everything in the system?`
In that position in that particular system I can justify it. Neutral all through the system would for me be 1 too flat in perspective and 2 lacking believable tone and body in the human voice - Those are the two classic trade-offs I find with `neutrality` taken to an absolute. Of course, I could go about it differently; employ a clinical CD player and follow it with a particularly full-bodied Single-Ended amp but then the bass would annoy me.
`The agile bass bit is interesting too - I want agile bass when its there and I want plodding bass if that's what is on the recording`
That`s a personal one based partly on my having a boomy room - on the whole though I find I like a less fullsome bass than the average listener. Going from speakers that produce deep bass to those that don`t I am often surprised how the leading edge and decay of a bass note hold for me the emotion more than the mass of that bass note.
`With the CD player, the digital aspect is still there.. so in your mind you are using the valve output stage to COLOUR the sound to counter a perceived deficiency.`
I actually said ``to inject some body into proceedings - as I believe digital needs some such augmentation for voices to sound as human as they should and can do with vinyl``
It is with the human voice that I believe listeners can be most justifiably demanding in their expectations as we hear and recognise the human voice better than anything else. Whether a bass guitar should have a smidgeon more weight or not is neither here nor there for me. Having heard a DAC with output stage removed and signal coming straight off DAC chip (at 1.5v) I can vouch for addictive detail but an unnaturally hard tone. So in a situation where one could wish for the most objective approach to nail it as with human voice which we know best, we are left wanting.
` Seems like you are accepting the faults and not trying to get rid of them because you're not interested in understanding where the faults lie. You're happy to patch up the fault by 'correcting' it further down the chain. A more extreme objectivist would be looking as to why the fault occurs and correct it at source. You have kind of dismissed the fault as just a characteristic of digital that cannot be changed. `
As of this moment no-one has corrected that fault in digital yet! For me, Delta Sigma was the first technology to attempt a believable midrange and lately valve output stages often help. One has to judge when to creatively ameliorate a problem rather than always bank on there being a solution.
`I would like to try a valve output stage on my DAC for it to be more transparent, i.e. to colour the sound less than op-amps might. In other words, I'd want to use a valve stage so that I can hear the digital music more purely.`
And yet valve output stages on CD players nearly always consist of valves tacked-on to the existing op-amps of a player`s already functional output stage... E.g. Shanling.
`The reason I mention that book is because when things are complicated (like tiny changes in components changing the sound) the brain can often recognise patterns in cause and effect long before there is conscious understanding. In fact studies have shown that people believing they understand what is going on in a complex cause and effect game, fair worse (by being wrong) than those who believe it is random and allow their subconscious to pick up the patterns.`
My instinct tells me that is absolutely right.
`I'd say there is a fair amount of that going on with system building. But the latter is a natural adaption to the status quo whilst the former tries to understand and change the WORLD. Both ways are good for different things. `
My worry is that Northern European life has been ruined by those with a need to have a formulaic response to everything. All teachers are now expected to have the same style of teaching so that for every eventuality there is a set procedural response, same with policing, road-planning, hospital parking (poisoned toddler or blister you have to have the right change to go through the barrier.) etc. etc. Would that mania be down to a more subjectivist approach to life or a more objectivist one (or neither)? This hobby shows how we respond to different approaches in the same way that school pupils respond to different styles of teaching. Noble or Ferrari anyone?
. `
My worry is that Northern European life has been ruined by those with a need to have a formulaic response to everything. All teachers are now expected to have the same style of teaching so that for every eventuality there is a set procedural response, same with policing, road-planning, hospital parking (poisoned toddler or blister you have to have the right change to go through the barrier.) etc. etc. Would that mania be down to a more subjectivist approach to life or a more objectivist one (or neither)? This hobby shows how we respond to different approaches in the same way that school pupils respond to different styles of teaching. Noble or Ferrari anyone?
I totally agree with this, this continuous infantilising of people will only end in tears. Common sense approaches and flexibility of action is being gradually destroyed. One sees it at work where people follow procedures blindly. They have no understanding of what they are doing, because modern management wisdom dictates that they do not need to know. Sometimes this has hilarious results but more often the consequence is an expensive disaster.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.