The Objectivist vs. Subjectivist Debate (Long) (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Problem is, electrons don't remember what kind of metal they've just traveled through.

Oh, I have absolutely nothing against two-channel audio. Love it. In fact, that's how I prefer my music reproduced. It's just that I've returned to Earth after having been abducted by the high-end aliens for more than two and a half decades.

 

[george king]

Jack,

Here is the difference and problem. Electrons may not remember, but biological organsisms do, and they are changed by the memory. Much of physics and engineering are ahistorical in the sense that an electron is an electron is an electron - it doesn't really matter where they come from. On the other hand biological organisms are inherently historical in the sense that past experience determines largely who and what they are. We do not understand how history affects perception but it does. This is quite simply something the engineering (bits is bits) people ever seem to acknowledge or understand. Physics and biology are very different and it is all too easy to forget that.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ok. Let's just not start going into quantum physics too.

_Man_

 

[george king]

Man,

I hope not because then we really have gone down the rabbit hole to a land of magic and fantasy :b

 

[george kaplan]

My advisor was Warren Torgerson. He actually did his work at Princeton with Tukey and others, and then was at Bell Labs, but of course, he was very aware of S.S. Stevens, which is obvious in reading his book.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The wise old engineer said, "We can measure things we can't hear and we can hear things we can't measure."

I think this quote sums up my feelings on the matter.

 

[Angelo.M]

Lee:

Great quote; it would be fitting, proper and elegant to end this thread on that note...

 

[Rick_Brown]

I believe that you can be a subjectivist and an objectivist at the same time. In fact, I believe that this is a characteristic of our most brilliant equipment designers. A possible scnario:

They happen upon a certain design characteristic that (subjectively) blows them away with the improvment in the sound. They then spend countless hours (objectively) testing and re-testing to be sure what they heard was not a fluke, and many more hours to isolate and define what is happening and why. Once understood, they may then proceed to incorporate this in their products.

 

[Rick_Brown]

My apologies - double-posted.

 

[Joe Szott]

Wow, kudos to Rick and everyone else who posted on this. I can't believe that this thread wasn't:

* Hijacked into La-La land
* Locked down by an admin
* Moved to some other obscure forum
* Ended because someone went rabid

I vote we lock this down and make it sticky as sort of a unique oddity. Kind of like that 2 headed animal you sometimes see at the fair (but in a good way.)

 

[John Royster]

What's to lock Joe? There is no right or wrong answer, simply two different personal beliefs and philsophies. Kind of like many debates such as evolution/creation, politics, etc.

 

[LanceJ]

I've avoided this thread for days....oh well.

That guitar thing: each type of string has different elasticity characteristics, material composition, etc. that will affect HOW it vibrates. Two different strings may vibrate at the same rate but as another poster said, they will have different decay qualities for example, that gives them their own "sonic signature".

This is the same with all instruments.

As far as science and examining sound quality is concerned--what's the big deal? If you see a sine wave on a 'scope that has, say, a very rounded top & another sine wave of the same frequency with a pointy top, guess which one will sound harsher? Ta da, the pointy wave! That first wave is--literally--smoother. An easy correlation to see. And the reason synthesizer manuals warn about playing sawtooth and square waves through home audio speakers: these super-sharp waves at high levels can cause destructive heating of a tweeter's voice coil, and physical destruction of a woofer's surround and/or spider. Definitely UNsmooth sounds. But still no magic needed to see sound differences.

Next, we'll use a frequency analyzer to graphically show a speaker's response. One speaker will be an old favorite from the 70s, the KLH "Model 6" (it used a 10" acoustic suspension woofer & an @2.5" cone tweeter). It is known for it very warm & detailed sound. The other? The awesome Boston Acoustics CR9 known for its lively-but-non-fatiguing high end....and I just happen to own a pair! They use an 8" woofer & a 1" composite (coated fabric) dome tweeter. Anyway, when these speakers are tested, the KLH's frequency graph reveals a very noticeable drop past 13kHz, whereas the Bostons go all the way up to 20kHz with little downward sloping. No wonder the KLH's sound warmer--they have little usable output past @15kHz! Commercially available software is easily obtainable to do this test--again, no magic wands are needed to detect some kind of mystical energy patterns.

As a poster said on this thread at Audioasylum (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/256556.html), all the components of a CD's, a tape deck's or turntable's sound will be contained in its currents and voltages flowing out from its RCA jacks. EVERYTHING--because that's all that is happening in there. And there are incredibly sensitive devices nowadays that have no trouble whatsoever examining those waves of currents & their particular shapes in very minute detail. That's a FACT.

If someone really wanted to, they could simply hook up said instrument to each device under question and either use his own eyes to compare what's on the 'scope or computer screen or, with the computer, tell it to point out where the sine waves or overall frequency responses diverge. This is no big deal folks.

What I think we are lacking is someone to make up a database of what shape of wave, series of waves, etc. that corresponds to a particular audible sound. This isn't impossible, it would just be very time consuming. And who would want such a database? And, who would pay to compile such a huge database?

Science is not a religion for me, but is simply a tool to help explain things happening around me and I am not afraid of it. But the physical mechanics of music are one thing and the effects of music on ME are another matter entirely. Science is good at measuring things, but has yet to get a handle on a person's spirit. And I think people need to separate these two issues before discussing them or else long message threads like this will result!

LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Science is not a religion for me, but is simply a tool to help explain things happening around me and I am not afraid of it.

It is not a religion for me either and I enjoy using science where it is valuable to describe part of an event. But I am under no illusion that it can cover everything. Audio is an art as well as a science.

 

[RobertR]

We can measure things we can't hear and we can hear things we can't measure

The problem with the last half of this statement is that it assumes that if we hear something, it must be real (by "real" is meant an actual physical/electrical difference in the device under test (DUT)).

It isn't necessarily so. Listening tests have shown that people will hear "differences" even when listening to the same device. Therefore, the "differences" must originate in the mind of the listener, not the "artistic" abilities of the designer as manifested in the DUT.

What bothers me about subjectivists is that they typically refuse to acknowledge the influence of these internally generated factors on what the listener hears. They refuse to do anything to account for them, ie they denounce double blind listening tests as invalid, while trumpeting OPEN listening tests as "proof" of differences.

Any truly sound, rational approach to investigating differences between components needs to take psychoacoustics into account. Willfull disregard of such factors discredits claims that don't take them into account.

 

[Lewis Besze]

For example, in my jitter test, six of my recording engineer friends clearly here a difference in 20ps and 200ps difference created by a master clock. But we do not need a DBT to validate our own critical listening skills.

You may not but others do!
I can claim the opposite just what you said,since there is no evidence presented here, just talk.
Did your "testing" produced a paper,would you present it to say, the AES?
Would they concur?

 

[Lewis Besze]

I disagree. Why do I have the burden of proof? why not you? How can I prove that science does not measure all if you are not willing to follow what your ears tell you?

No, you have to prove that what you "hear" is there!
You make the claim, not science.You are asking science to prove your claim,and when it can't be, you blame the short coming of science.
If you make a claim it is up to you to prove it,but since you can't in a meaningful way, you "ask" us to "believe",and take a "leap of faith",and we all know where that leads!

 

[John-Miles]

Finally Lewis you have brought some reality to this subject.

But I have to say Lets give Lee the benefit of the doubt. maybe there are audible difference that the human ear can notice that science cant pick up, but if that is so then give us examples of when and where we can hear thsi for ourselves.
I for one am not going to buy those magic beans you and some "other" audio engineers "heard" on your own yet arent willing to go through a DBT to prove.