Subjective vs Objective opinions, post your favourite links / experiences Options

[2Bdecided]

We're an objectivist audio community here. We don't necesarily believe that everything can be measured (psychoacoustic codecs prevent that anyway), but we do believe that subective opinions should be backed up by rigorous tests, intended to remove all possible bias from human subjective judgements and opinions.

I think this is a good thing. I read the following from Dibrom in a recently locked thread:

If we simply let people go around making claims without challenging them, we would be no further than the --r3mix days, and likely much worse even given the larger number of people that participate in these forums.

You seem to focus only on the negative aspect here (I think I know why....) and completely disregard the benefit that has been wrought by this attitude. Yes, some people might get scared off in the process, but overall, this attitude is more helpful than harmful -- much more so in fact. There have been numerous cases were real problems have been even more emphasized and brought to bear through the increased scrutiny these types of situations bring about.

I very much agree with this.

Look at the opposite case: look at most Hi-Fi magazines. They advice people on buying $1000s of equipment (not just choosing between free audio codecs!), yet their advice is usually unscientific. The listening is done sighted, and without any control conditions. Objective measurements are presented as being inferior and/or removed from what people actually hear. Manufactuers claims are repeated verbatim. Opinions are stated as fact, and little is ever questioned.

Most significantly, there is no sense in which the influence of the magazine is used to improve the state of the art. They simply comment, often in a virtually meaningless, marketing driven manner, on products which they decide to review. Rather than helping people to buy better Hi-Fi, and leading the manufactuers to build better Hi-Fi, they do the opposite: People are confused as to what really does sound better, and often buy overpriced junk; while manufactuers spend less time (and money) improving the sound of their equipment, and more time following the latest trend or marketing gimmic. The result is that it's all too easy to spend $20,000 on a Hi-Fi which sounds absolutely bloody awful!

The equivalent here would be to spend weeks encoding your CD collection using a command line and/or encoder that was pretty poor compared to the best that's been acheived, and is available for free. But we don't allow that. We don't let people claim that X is better than Y, when it isn't. We don't let people claim that Z has magical properties. We do testing, and we try to move forward. And that is a good thing.

The latest thread with Xerophase was a good thread IMO. Maybe it took two pages to express something that we should have said to him in one posting - but we were interested, he was interested, and we've got a useful result. We've learned something. By following the rulse of the forum. And by being polite and encouraging him to join in with how we do things here.

There's a lot in the "tone" of how you do something. Whether we accept unsubstantiated claims is not up for debate - we do not. But the manner in which you coax these people into doing things the right way is very important.

We've got to allow people who don't know any better (and sometimes even those of us who do!) to make unsubstantiated claims at first, so that other members can point out that they're unsubstantiated, and suggest a fair way of testing them. This doesn't mean we accept unsubstantiated claims as truth, but it does mean that people sometimes need to be allowed to post them as a starting point for discussion and investigation. "I think X" is an unsubstantiated claim, but it's OK if it leads on to "How can I test if it's true?"

We are an objectivist audio community.

If you have any good objectivist/subjectivist links, links showing the importance of evidence, proof, and blind testing against feelings and opinions, or the opposite side of the argument, feel free to post them.

Cheers,
David.

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm

http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

[HotshotGG]

There's actually a modest, steady level of audio 'objectivism' online these days, between this place, audioholics , AVSforum (the latter two are wobblier but that's because they don't mandate 'proof of claim'),

Don't forget about Head-Fi! Even though it's a great forum with some users reincarnated from this website and looking at things from a purely scientific point of a view I have seen some quackery topics on there. Some which make me cringe. Anyway I thought I would chime in seeing that you were mentioning other audio forums on the net.

[pisymbol]

There's actually a modest, steady level of audio 'objectivism' online these days, between this place, audioholics , AVSforum (the latter two are wobblier but that's because they don't mandate 'proof of claim'),

Don't forget about Head-Fi! Even though it's a great forum with some users reincarnated from this website and looking at things from a purely scientific point of a view I have seen some quackery topics on there. Some which make me cringe. Anyway I thought I would chime in seeing that you were mentioning other audio forums on the net.

I am a HeadFi reject or shall I say I have gotten out of the hobby and that community after a long and expensive journey. I've read Hydrogen on and off with some skepticism. But after many humbling experiences, I tend to believe this community is way more sane than Headfi (e.g. spending hundreds, thousands of dollars in recabling headphones that are about a foot long, etc.).

Folks spending 10's of thousands of dollars to eek out as much "signal purity" (whatever that means to whoever is spending the money) is utter nonsense and wasteful. After owning many hi-end audio equipment, I have found that the law of diminishing returns hits hard and fast right about a couple hundred bucks.

I love Head-Fi, I think some of the folks who post there are some of the nicest people you will meet. But just like many many audiophiles (a term I don't really want to be attached to anymore), they are being lied and fooled - plain and simple.

[odigg]

I migrated here from Head-Fi. Even if you are a audio "objectivist" hanging out at Head-Fi can make you start to question if the neurons in your brain are functioning properly. I won't go into my ideas of the psychology behind it, but what I think is best summed up by the people who say that audiophilia is a religion. I'm glad a forum like this exists. It reminds me that audio can be a fun and inexpensive hobby, not a mass of subjective insanity.

I think as audio has become cheaper and more accessible to people with limited financial resources these people have had to be more rigorous when thinking about how to spend their money. When your wallet is small it's easier to question conventional audiophile wisdom and look for people (like the people here) who are willing to say their IPOD sounds just as good as a $10K CD player.

Arguably, Hydrogenaudio also helps us to realize that perfection is measure in our minds. If all amps sound the same in a blind test, you can stop fooling with amps and start to shift your internal perspective to accept the amp you have is actually good. You can also put your focus somewhere else, like actually enjoying your music instead of constantly fiddling with your equipment. It seems like many people are chasing a perfection that has very little to with the audio reproduction of their music.

As far as the objective vs subjective argument, I think it's important to remember that things other than the sound can determine how we perceive that sound, and these things are actually important and not just points for ridicule. We are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Audio is a holistic experience. Music sounds better in a comfy chair. I like my headphones because they have wood cups, even though listening tests indicate the wood cups probably make no audible difference.

Now, I've obviously walked into la-la land. But Apple figured out (and companies like Dell are finally catching up) that people like things better if they look better. Let's not discount the important of industrial design and beauty. If you fall too far into the objective category you end up arguing that there is no practical difference between an amp in a nice metal case and a cardboard box. But there is a practical difference. People have to look at that case every day and I'd rather have a well crafted case than a torn cardboard box with wires hanging out of it. There may not be an audible difference, but that doesn't mean the amps are interchangeable for day to day life.

This post has been edited by odigg: Mar 23 2009, 00:22

[pisymbol]

I migrated here from Head-Fi. Even if you are a audio "objectivist" hanging out at Head-Fi can make you start to question if the neurons in your brain are functioning properly. I won't go into my ideas of the psychology behind it, but what I think is best summed up by the people who say that audiophilia is a religion. I'm glad a forum like this exists. It reminds me that audio can be a fun and inexpensive hobby, not a mass of subjective insanity.

Wow, can we start a support group. They have a saying when you join HeadFi, "Welcome to HeadFi, sorry about your wallet." And I used to think it was funny and partly true. Now, I think its hogwash. I think the majority of folks (not just HeadFi either) are more into justifying what they bought than anything else and that saying just supports this ideology.

What funny is I used to go to meets a lot and listen to a lot of equipment (I've pretty much heard everything including hours spent on the Mighty Orpheus setup worth over 20k). After a while I started to question the setup I had and if it was really worth it (could I really tell the difference between my 3k amp and my little small integrated amp/dac combo). I came to the conclusion the answer is no. Then I asked why? Then I started to read a lot of threads in this forum. I still have questions but I am a firm believer and will repeat that the law of diminishing returns HITS HARD with audio.

As far as the objective vs subjective argument, I think it's important to remember that things other than the sound can determine how we perceive that sound, and these things are actually important and not just points for ridicule. We are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Audio is a holistic experience. Music sounds better in a comfy chair. I like my headphones because they have wood cups, even though listening tests indicate the wood cups probably make no audible difference.

Riedel made a multi-million dollar business convincing folks wine tastes better in the appropriate glass. It worked.