No. What you said above is "Perhaps because an objectivist may know how to improve the measurements of an amp, but he does not know how to improve sound quality of that amp?" which is ludicrous.
the problem with objectivists vs subjectivists is simply that people cant accept that somebody else might be right, "their camp" is the right one, there is no middleground
imo one should inspect things from both sides... im kinda leaning towards the subjective side since i heared what opamps/capacitors/cables etc (and its hard to look over that) can do but i dont neglect the objective side, objectivist definitely have good points sometimes but they are simply wrong with audibility claims sometimes imho
A bit late and I'm not going to go through this thread but sometimes you do know.
At my college they had a number of drawings by Paul McCartney (or one of his minions) for a Wings mixing session in which he clearly indicated where within the sound stage he wants the various instruments and voice to appear. Of course it was mostly or all close miked and the eventual sound stage 'faked' using reverbs, delays and eq but he must have been happy with the result.
Ohh he does know that, but his problem is that peoples personal preferences are often different from the (objective) sound quality.
If as a designer you spend a year to develop an amp that is the proverbial wire with gain, but the customer says I don't like it, what then?
If we are all interested to get the input to our amps as faithfully as possible reproduced at the output, nobody would buy single ended tube amps for example.
Jan
You had deleted the best from my post!
What is "ludicrous" for you can be very serious for me and vice versa.
No surprises about this.
So, tell me about the mathematical model behind your listening experiments which you naturally carry out by your own admission.
And while you're at it, tell me what you've discovered recently in audio design science, I'm all ears.
And most of all, calm down.
You're joking, right?
First it is: everything you hear is subjective and now you ask me how could the sound quality not be objective?
You're talking about something absolutely theoretical and therefore philosophical.
That doesn't exist because if to know it you have to LISTEN TO it then it can only be SUBJECTIVE!
It seemed like it was all scientific and now it's become philosophical?
I've had enough with this, for me participation in this thread which could have been beautiful and instead was led to provocations without arguments ends here.
Thank you all.
First it is: everything you hear is subjective and now you ask me how could the sound quality not be objective?
You're talking about something absolutely theoretical and therefore philosophical.
That doesn't exist because if to know it you have to LISTEN TO it then it can only be SUBJECTIVE!
It seemed like it was all scientific and now it's become philosophical?
I've had enough with this, for me participation in this thread which could have been beautiful and instead was led to provocations without arguments ends here.
Thank you all.
The title transports a polarizing binary principle. Objectivism vs. subjectivism. Winners vs. loosers. The goods vs. the bads. Black vs. white. Intuition vs. knowledge ... You may go to hell with this simplifiying and low-level principle, and then Toby the devil will finally sort out things and name who was right and who was wrong. Instead, for us while still alive and writing posts following this principle inherently may lead to rather nothing but infertile and also potentially spiteful controversy.
Instead and fortunately, many posters described and advocated both theirs subjective and objective positions as two distinct, but potentially complementary assets. Assets while well mastered may be both of a great help to archieve great audio. Yes and bravo! You may in analogy think of the subjective and the objective positions/principles as a kind of stereo left and right channels. Both well tuned and playing together will reward you with a very pleasant experience. Enjoy!
Last edited:
What you hear is a perception and thus by definition subjective and personal.
Objective quality is what you measure. You know, wat scientists do by the millions every day?
It's an advanced concept, but you should give it a try. It's fun!
I'm surprised I need to explain that to an obviously smart guy like you.
Robert Pirsigs Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance comes to mind, but you're probably to young for that.
Jan
Last edited:
Objectively measuring subjective preference is valid and makes perfect sense. It's not the same as measuring the boiling point of water.
But would not an objectivist develop tests, garner results (from test subjects subjectivity probably) and then propose objective findings based on that? From the originator, is that not objective? Has this not been done for instance with harmonic orders of distortion?
The problem with threads like this is honesty, to which you are alluding, possibly not intentionally.
How can one be objective without having to be honest? They are interconnected I'd say.
We've all seen plywood/chipboard/cardboard boxes with a pair of PA drivers glued on, hailed by their makers as better than the latest TOTR speaker from
"mega bucks corp". Hell, I've made some of them! Being honest about ones children isn't always easy.
We've all seen plywood/chipboard/cardboard boxes with a pair of PA drivers glued on, hailed by their makers as better than the latest TOTR speaker from
"mega bucks corp". Hell, I've made some of them! Being honest about ones children isn't always easy.
Last edited:
I have experienced, for example, when I connected a small two-stage complementary transistors push-pull 5 Watt amp after a fat 200 Watt Marantz, that the listeners expressed: "epochal" (sonic assessment of the small amp). However, they denied their statement already a few days later, because: "can not be"-) But what can not be? Their ignorance regarding audio circuits as well as construction and more did not allow them to connect the experience of sound "better/worse").
Sure. In that case, its the typical human interpretation of results that is known to be both subjective and arguably wrong.
All the more so because phase information is often ignored or else underutilized. Phase of partials can change a sound, including if the sound is a distortion. The difference in the sound files at the following link are solely due to phase differences: https://purifi-audio.com/blog/tech-notes-1/doppler-distortion-vs-imd-7
Also, quoting Earl Geddes:
...people are satisfied with THD and IMD. It’s like the story of the cop who asks a drunk under a
street light what he is doing on his hands and knee’s. The drunk replies “I’m looking for my car
keys.” The officer asks “Where did you loose them?” and the drunk replies “Over there by my
car.” Baffled, the officer asks “Then why are you looking for them here?” to which the drunk
replies, “Because the light is better.” Everyone knows that THD is meaningless, but it’s easy to
do and “the light is better.”
To add to this situation, we have also found that nonlinear distortion in loudspeakers is, for
the most part, not a significant issue. There are, to be sure, subjective distortions that are level
dependent and as such are thought to be nonlinear distortion, but they are in fact linear effects that
have a nonlinear perception. The testing of this hypothesis is currently underway and the results
will probably be available in the future.
The bottom line here is that we know so little about how humans perceive the sound quality
of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker, that one should question almost everything
that we think we know about measuring it. From what we have found most of what is being done
in this regard is naive.
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Comments on howard.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.