Science and Subjectivism in Audio

Glowrdr

Sounds like a job for Mythbusters...

treitz3

kevhed72 wrote: »

When referring to certain types of rock music, such as punk, "college" radio, "sound bands", and even "classic rock" such as Rush or the Stones, couldn't one make the argument the goal of a good setup should like the original, master recordings, vs. listening to the bands at even the smaller concert venues? I have seem many concerts of these musical types, and while enjoyable for numerous reasons, I couldn't say I have really went for the SQ of the actual music. Just a thought...

Sho' 'nough could.

bikezappa

tonyb wrote: »

Well then, thats the perverbial merrygo round isn't it ? Limited value ? Yes and no,seeing that most buy gear not by scientific fact, but by subjective reviews. In the end, most don't give a rats **** about the science of a piece of gear anymore than they concern themselves with the science in their choice of a toaster. Does it work ? Does it sound good ? Build quality ? Proven performance with actual users ? I'll send you a check. No scientific data sheet needed.

"Most technologies have universally accepted measures of performance car makers compete to improve MPH and MPG; computer manufacturers boast of MIPs (millions of instructions per second) and so on. Improvement in these parameters is universally accepted as progress. In the field of hifi, many people seem to have difficulty in deciding which direction forward is."

You don't use data when you buy a car, house, college education or TV? Is everything based on subjective observation?

Does the toast brown evenly, check CR for the data.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just telling you of an article that retells the history of subjective audio reviews, how it started and where we are.

It's not a merry go round for me, subjective reviews would tell me it looks nice and the remote is laid out clearly and the amplifier is easy to use and not confusing and generates low heat. If you don't care what the THD is at maximum power that's fine. I have no argument with you. It's your money, you get to pick.

tonyb

I'm not trying to start one my man, and believe me when I say I'm a big science guy, but science only goes so far. Sure science can be used to tweek MPH in a car,but it won't win the race all the time. Subjective decisions by the driver,coupled with science will. They work together not seperate from one another. There's value in each approach.

Just for the record, no, I don't care if a toaster evenly toasts, because I'd toss it in the garbage and never buy that brand again, just sayin' is all.:biggrin:

We can all go back and forth about the subjective nature of this hobby and what science has/can contribute, and everyone will be right,there is no wrong in this arguement. All I'm saying is both have value,and both are usefull in this hobby. The stated article puts less value on the subjective nature and thats what I disagree on.