There's Too Much Subjectivity in Audio

Early B.

For audiophiles, there should be much less subjectivity in audio. Here's what I mean -- let's assume that the goal of all audiophiles is to create a system that most closely re-creates real music, i.e. real instruments, and natural sounding vocals. So a middle C on a piano will only sound one way in my room. There's no subjectivity about it. We could easily test this sound by rolling in a piano in my den and playing a middle C.

If there's too much subjectivity in audio, then how can one even begin to sort out the thousands of products on the market? One product could never be said to be better than another product, except if it is solely based on individual preferences. And how much value should we place on someone else's opinion, particularly when they have different gear, different room, etc.?

Here's a bold statement: for most of us -- we don't know what real music sounds like in our own rooms, so we have no baseline for determining how our systems should sound.

There are ways to make this hobby less subjective. I say it's time to do that.

Face

Good point. As long as it sounds good to you, that's all that should matter.

shack

You and I do not have the same goal. My goal is to reproduce the sound that is most pleasing to me. Some "live" music sounds like total crap. Why would I want to recreate that? Music is sometimes performed in some venues with horrible accoustics. Why would I want to recreate that? You like the music that is produced in venue A. I don't but like the sound from venue B. So there is even too much subjectivity even in the outcome to do what you propose. It is just that subjectivity that makes it interesting. Frustrating sure...but still interesting.

Yashu

I am in both camps. It has to sound good to me, but also, if something can be measured, then it can affect the signal. I don't think that immeasurable things are of much use, since our capability to measure is so precise, as in, we have the technology to go much farther than you would imagine the human ear to go, but at the same time, the human ear and associated nerves and brain centers have been measured to react to changes that are on the nano scale.

So, the subjectivity should be in one's own opinion of our music and equipment, but I think that everything needs to be objectively measured and considered, based on everything we know about electronics, physics, and biology.

If it sounds good to you, that is the most important thing of all, but I would not get obsessed with anything that is completely immeasurable. There are plenty of things that DO have a measured effect on an audio signal to obsess about. I don't know everything about the technology used to measure some of these properties, but I do know that none of the equipment we have managed to build thus far, exceeds the power of your own brain. Not even the most powerful supercomputer in the world can exceed the raw processing power of the brain's neural networks. If man made equipment can measure something, there stands a good chance that your brain might be able to pick up on it also.

Chess is not a complicated game in theory, however after all the advances in electronics, AI, computer technology, we are only just now capable of having machines compete on a similar level as a human in chess. Remember, that these computers are programmed to do one thing, now imagine how much the brain can do, besides just play chess. There is a lot we do not know about the mind, but what we DO know, is that our technology has not surpassed it. So if our technology can measure something, then I would not want to be the man that says the brain does not have that capability.

bikezappa

Early B. wrote: »

let's assume that the goal of all audiophiles is to create a system that most closely re-creates real music, i.e. real instruments, and natural sounding vocals.

for most of us -- we don't know what real music sounds like in our own rooms, so we have no baseline for determining how our systems should sound. .

That's my goal to re-create the live music experince at home.

Where do you hear live music today to make that judgement?

My only option is classical music or going to a live FM Broadcast a the WGBH studio in Boston.

Maybe if people heard more live music they would understand how bad our systems really are. That could reduce the subjectivity.

bikezappa

[QUOTE=Yashu;722334 It has to sound good to me, .[/QUOTE]

How do you define good?

For example, I want my system to sound as close as possible to a women singing with out any electronics, speaker, amp....

I don't want my system adding or taking anything.

To me good is reproducing the recording as close as possible to the original musical evenr.

My hope is the recoding engineer is on the same page as me.

cfrizz

You pretty much nailed this one Shack. Some live music is absolutely awful & I certainly wouldn't want to play it at home.

All I want is to be able to play music that I like on good equipment. I don't care if it doesn't sound like it should if its being played live, I just have to enjoy it.

This will always be a subjective hobby, because everyone hears things differently & has different likes & dislike when it comes to music.

All you can do is put together the system that gives you YOUR favorite sound. Everyone elses opinion of it is irrelevent.

shack wrote: »

You and I do not have the same goal. My goal is to reproduce the sound that is most pleasing to me. Some "live" music sounds like total crap. Why would I want to recreate that? Music is sometimes performed in some venues with horrible accoustics. Why would I want to recreate that? You like the music that is produced in venue A. I don't but like the sound from venue B. So there is even too much subjectivity even in the outcome to do what you propose. It is just that subjectivity that makes it interesting. Frustrating sure...but still interesting.

SolidSqual

If Audiophiles want to have or should have a standardized sound, then why is there not just one audio company that makes products for everyone? Early B, you sound like you're proposing somekind of CoMmUnist aUdio New WoRld ORder!!!!!

Polkfest is an example of a bunch of audiophiles getting to together to hear how "differen gear sounds." Deep down inside, no audiophile wants a standardization. They just want their gear to sound better than everyone else's.

Early B.

shack wrote: »

You and I do not have the same goal. My goal is to reproduce the sound that is most pleasing to me. Some "live" music sounds like total crap. Why would I want to recreate that? Music is sometimes performed in some venues with horrible accoustics. Why would I want to recreate that? You like the music that is produced in venue A. I don't but like the sound from venue B. So there is even too much subjectivity even in the outcome to do what you propose. It is just that subjectivity that makes it interesting. Frustrating sure...but still interesting.

You missed the point. I'm not referring to "live" music, but accurately reproduced music in your own environment.

Early B.

SolidSqual wrote: »

Deep down inside, no audiophile wants a standardization. They just want their gear to sound better than everyone else's.

My vote for "Quote of the Day.":p

hearingimpared

I want my gear to sound as close to the tone of real instruments as I remember from my youth. There is no more subjective statement than that. I know what a sax sounds like. But it may not sound like that to someone else. It's all subjective. I love details. Usually (unless you are at the Circus Maximus at Caesar's in AC) live music sounds like a wall of music coming at me. I don't care for that. I like details.

If I can get the tone right and then details, I've achieved my goal in my room. That is why I am going for a tube pre/sand amp integrated. I've heard this amp in someone else's home and the tone of the instruments sounded right as well as the details. I hope it sounds the same in my room.

EDIT: I forgot one important thing. I love lots of bass which you usually don't get in live music.

venomclan

It places the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again.

wingnut4772

I think our brains play tricks and can convince us that what we are hearing sounds live because we interpret it to be so. I bet you that if you think a drumset sounds live on your rig and then you bring in a real drum kit and drummer into your listening room there will be some surprises...no matter how nice the gear.

Early B.

hearingimpared wrote: »

I want my gear to sound as close to the tone of real instruments as I remember from my youth. There is no more subjective statement than that. I know what a sax sounds like. But it may not sound like that to someone else. It's all subjective.

Music is not entirely subjective.

You can get a bunch of trained musicians together in a room, play a note, and they'll all tell you what note was being played. And it doesn't matter what acoustical environment they're in.

So what I'm suggesting is that audio gear should be scrutinized based on its ability to "objectively" reproduce notes as though they were being played with real instruments. (What audiophile would want their music to sound like fake instruments?) This can easily be done, but, of course, there's no marketing value in it. Much of the so-called high end gear would probably fail miserably.

Dennis Gardner

The piano in your own music room as a standard isn't realistic unless the recording venue was "your room". Chances are that a piano in my room would sound like ****...........;).

I want my system to have the guts to reproduce concerts at near "live" levels if needed & have enough resolution to show the subtleties of that acoustic studio session.

Once that is achieved I will tweak it to meet my auditory preferences as I didn't put this system together to get others' approval. I keep gear that sounds good to me and try to pass the rest of it on to others that might like its sound more than I do. It doesn't make that gear "bad" just not to my flavor.

SolidSqual

Early B. wrote: »

Music is not entirely subjective.

You can get a bunch of trained musicians together in a room, play a note, and they'll all tell you what note was being played. And it doesn't matter what acoustical environment they're in.

So what I'm suggesting is that audio gear should be scrutinized based on its ability to "objectively" reproduce notes as though they were being played with real instruments. (What audiophile would want their music to sound like fake instruments?) This can easily be done, but, of course, there's no marketing value in it. Much of the so-called high end gear would probably fail miserably.

I would argue there is more marketing value in being able to tweak your sound.

I think you are missing Shack's point a bit, audiophiles don't want their music to sound like "fake instruments," they want to hear it the way their ears hear the real thing. The problem is that everybody hears things differently. So yes, all the musicians may be able to tell you a note played is a "C" , but, that doesn't mean they heard it the same way. Those are two different concepts that don't prove each other.

Dennis Gardner

I think that music listening is as varied as the ride preference of cars. Some like to feel totally detached from the experience as they would in backseat of a Lincoln Limousine while others like the control of BMW driving experience.

I think most active audio buffs like to control their musical journey, which brings subjectivity into the equation.

SCompRacer

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

I think most active audio buffs like to control their musical journey, which brings subjectivity into the equation.

A BIG +1 to that. I think in general there is far too little subjectivity. Folks buy what is mostly talked about and like it without doing active comparisons of their own.

shack

Early B. wrote: »

You missed the point. I'm not referring to "live" music, but accurately reproduced music in your own environment.

No I understood your point. I'm sure there have been recording sessions that sounded absolutely awful, for whatever reason, and it took the recording engineer to master it to an acceptable sound. It doesn't sound exactly like what the artist played. Then there are those "one take" no mastering recordings that sound like heaven. To me the sound from my system is like the old saying about art... "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it". The same with my rig. I know that it sounds like what I want to hear...regardless of how the artist played it. If it sounds good, then I'm happy...regardless of whether it is acurate. Then again it may sound great to me...and sound like crap to you. Therein lies the subjectivity.

Early B.

Let me try it one more time --

You're free to buy whatever floats your boat -- no one can debate that and everyone does it. However, without a baseline, most people don't know how far or how close to real music their system is.

IMO, the most coveted pieces of audio gear, esp. speakers, should be those that can accurately reproduce musical notes. A piece of gear that can't do it doesn't mean it sounds "worse" and some people may love it, but it just means that the gear does not truly represent a "standard" sound as defined by real instruments, not by one's opinion.

There's nothing wrong with having both objective and subjective measures in audio, but when to comes to listening tests, there's nothing but subjectivity. When that occurs, the industry is plagued with a bunch of crap gear and tweaks being passed off as high fidelity. I'm just sayin' -- there's ought to be a way to eliminate some of the crap. Right now the industry suffers from persistent constipation.

shack

You simply can't have a baseline when no one can even agree on what it is/should be.

cfrizz

Early, who is able to determine what an accurate note is? And why exactly is it so important. What you want is impossible to accomplish because everyone hears things differently.

So long as the gear produces a sound YOU like that is all that matters. But from the sounds of it you are never going to happy because you will always be searching for something that can't be found.

You will always be searching for that perfect sound & it just doesn't exist.

SolidSqual

Sounds like you're trying to establish a "consensus", Early B. People call for a consensus when science can't give them answers or gives them answers they don't like. Afterall, Science doens't need consensus, "just the facts." The fact is that your "bassline" (if I may make a play words.") will not at all sound like the "bassline" of what a hip hop junky likes to hear. There can be no "base line."

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

Music is not entirely subjective.

You can get a bunch of trained musicians together in a room, play a note, and they'll all tell you what note was being played. And it doesn't matter what acoustical environment they're in.

So what I'm suggesting is that audio gear should be scrutinized based on its ability to "objectively" reproduce notes as though they were being played with real instruments. (What audiophile would want their music to sound like fake instruments?) This can easily be done, but, of course, there's no marketing value in it. Much of the so-called high end gear would probably fail miserably.

But it is entirely subjective. You cannot measure a good or bad performance. I might love a particular performance where you could just as easily hate it. How can that be measured? It's like trying to measure a genre of music to achieve a base line. Maybe with hip-hop the measurements would be indicative of it heavily bassed or synth'd. Am I making sense here? Do you understand what I am trying to convey?

Yashu

Amplified live music usually sounds terrible. Why is it sin for us to want it to sound BETTER in our homes? I can understand wanting to retain as much as the original recording as possible with classical music in famous venues, but for amplified music, a good studio (or direct from live mixboard) recording is going to blow away the live experience.

The only music that can be objectively measured is music that has been created, mixed, mastered entirely in the digital domain. I am speaking of a type of music that I like called IDM. This abstract electronic music does not have a "live" reference, and so it can be objectively measured and compared to the original digital waveform.

But see, this argument is flawed from the beginning with most audiophiles. Some spend tens of thousands of dollars on this equipment, but if they REALLY wanted to recreate what is heard in the studio then we would all have Genelecs, or some type of monitors actually used for the mastering of recordings. When I see someone spend 50k on some speakers and 10k on cables to try and get "closer" to the music, I laugh... if you want to be closer to the music then why are your houses not filled with studio monitoring equipment?

The fact remains that our high end gear does color the sound, and it is a personal preference. This is something that audiophiles probably all know in the back of their minds, but are not willing to talk about out loud to their other audiophile friends. Who can blame them? They could have saved a lot of money and time by just buying what the studios and musicians actually use to make their recordings, to master them, to monitor them. But where is the fun in that? Have you listened to a good set of studio monitors? Their freq. response is flat as a pancake, and transparent as hell, but are they fun to listen to? Most of the time, no!

Wilson Audio willingly admits that they add slight colorations to the consumer versions of their speakers vs. their pro models.

We are seeking an experience, it could be of live music, or studio recordings, electronic music, whatever, but we are seeking an experience that WE find pleasing to our ears. There is no shame in that. There is no reason I should be punished because of the ineptitude of studio engineers, or other conditions that I have no control over. What I have control over begins in the bits of a digital recording or the grooves of a record, and I am not going to dismiss this opportunity to please my ears, and my own mind.

If you truly want a transparent system, if you truly want to be as close to the music that is on the recording as you can possibly get, then I suggest you invest in some studio monitors and associated equipment/treatments, otherwise, don't pretend that this is what you are after when consumer products are what your money is being spent on. There is no shame in wanting to enjoy music, and we certainly do not all have identical ears and tastes, so at least be honest with yourself.

SolidSqual

I'm a fanboy of Yashu. Look at that big post!

dorokusai

Isn't that the whole purpose...your own experience? When you find a way to remove subjectivity from this hobby, drop me a email. The answer may be around the year 2050 or later, so if my email address is dead or I am, just post this question again.

Debate away, I have opinions to interpolate into adjectives.

dudeinaroom

Early B. wrote: »

..... So a middle C on a piano will only sound one way in my room. There's no subjectivity about it. We could easily test this sound by rolling in a piano in my den and playing a middle C.....

Great Idea, just make sure the recording is the same brand as the one in the room, and tuned by the same person. Sorry, could not resist. I do get your point, and that is also what I would like to have.

Early B.

shack wrote: »

You simply can't have a baseline when no one can even agree on what it is/should be.

As I mentioned already, there can be no disagreement about a C-note (or any other musical note). Let's start our baseline there.

No one can argue that a C-note doesn't have a particular frequency (i.e., sound), and that this sound can be measured scientifically and by trained ears, both of which are objective processes.

C'mon guys -- there are a plethora of music conservatories in the world, and the students and faculty will tell you that music isn't entirely subjective. In fact, music is both art and science. Ask any composer. So don't delude yourselves into thinking that your opinion is the only thing that matters. Sure, for your own rig it may be, but WTF do you or I know about how our systems ought to sound? We're really just pissin' in the wind, aren't we? That's why we trade out components all the time, because we don't have an 'effin' clue!


Well, that was fun.:D:p:D Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like I just took a huge Thanksgiving Day dump.:eek:

treitz3

shack wrote: »

You simply can't have a baseline when no one can even agree on what it is/should be.

Real sound is my reference, however there are many that say "they don't like the sound of live music"......therefore the subjectivity.

I would like to ask those who have made this statement......was it because of the f'd up or off axis location that you were listening in or was it because of the sound already having multiple generations of altered sound being broadcast over the speakers?

If those two elements were either corrected or eliminated, would you have the same opinion of real sound not being reference?

IMO, there are just way too many variables to consider when considering a baseline. For instance, when inside a live venue and you have the best acoustical "sweet spot" and no speakers are part of the equation, the balance between the volume of that of a drum/cymbal/tophat beat may be too loud to blend with the acoustics of a subtle chime or background singer.

How can there be too much subjectivity or a baseline to yield no subjectivity when there are so many variables to consider?

Early B.

treitz3 wrote: »

How can there be too much subjectivity or a baseline to yield no subjectivity when there are so many variables to consider?

That's easy. Eliminate them. That's part of the fundamental basis of all science.