Sound: objective or subjective?

Great quote. Mr Curl taught me something profound about myself.

I hear beauty, heart, soul, joy, pain.... They can't be measured.

Something's very wrong with me.

I think what he means in this case is that if he hears it, but is unable to determine the cause (i.e. measure it) then he can't address the problem which must drive him as an engineer crazy. He may not actually solve it, but at least he'll be able to try.

Another poster uses the quote from Daniel Recklinghausen, Chief Engineer at Scott "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it Measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing."

By this he didn't mean that everything is subjective, but rather it cannot be solved unless it is measurable and repeatable.
 
Last edited:
Sound is objective. Our perception of it is subjective. Keep a foot in both camps, 'cause that's where the phenomena reside.
Excellent. I'd change one word — "Keep a brain in both camps" — as in right-brain / left-brain.
 
An obvious exception is tonal balance. For example, a recording that has exaggerated bass - or attenuated bass - can be made to sound more like the live performance via the playback equipment.

IMO reproduced classical music has a clear benchmark - i.e., a live performance of classical music performed in its intended venue (i.e., symphony hall or opera house) with no electronics involved. This is all I care about.

I respect the fact that different people enjoy different types of music. With that said, there’s a difference between “high-fidelity” when talking about classical music, vs. electronically produced music (particularly if there never was a live performance). What is the natural sound of a synthesizer?

When I listen to recordings of classical music in my home, I want the configuration of hi-fi equipment that sounds like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house. IME, acceptable technical measurements represent a necessary though not sufficient condition to achieve this goal.

You hit it right on the nailhead.....

The obvious result is the sound and the equipment is nothing but tools to make that happen like values in an equation. Being objectively aware about the contribution of each peice of equipment, setup and accessories to recreate the sound of a live performance. Not getting personally involved with the tools (equipment) or giving the tools any credit beyond design and functionality. Then objectivity comparing noteworthy equipment....
 
I think what he means in this case is that if he hears it, but is unable to determine the cause (i.e. measure it) then he can't address the problem which must drive him as an engineer crazy. He may not actually solve it, but at least he'll be able to try.

Another poster uses the quote from Daniel Recklinghausen, Chief Engineer at Scott "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it Measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing."

By this he didn't mean that everything is subjective, but rather it cannot be solved unless it is measurable and repeatable.

I understand, and agree somewhat – but not completely. IME, many problems are solved without measurements – and without fully understanding why the remedy works. Some problems are solved via an “instinct” that someone has based on many years of experience. “Gut level.” “Seat of the pants”. Sometimes a systematic approach to “trial and error”. And sometimes just plain “throwing darts at the wall”.

In some cases, a theory is eventually developed as to why a “seat of the pants” solution is effective, and sometimes relevant measurements are eventually devised.

As I said earlier, hi-fi equipment is designed based on electrical engineering, and test equipment is essential in its development and testing. However, I reject any assertion that science understands everything about human perception of sound, and human enjoyment of music. Hypothetical question: Do you think that 100 years from now scientists will look back and say the following about reproduction of recorded music in the home: “In 2018 they had it all figured out”?

Let’s take amplifiers as an example. My opinion is that science is essential in developing a product that meets design goals for power output, meets target cost, has reasonably flat frequency response, reasonably low distortion levels, acceptable reliability, doesn’t pose a safety risk, etc. But at some point – if the designers want a best-in-class musically-engaging product – they have to sit down and listen to the amp – and quite possibly start making adjustments based on subjective listening. I.e., “If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.” I think the fact that different amps sound different is prima facie evidence that there are qualitative facets of audio quality that no one has figured out how to measure - yet.

As time goes by, science understands more and more. And my guess is that as time goes by - measurements will be used to get a product further through the development cycle - before a human must decide if it sounds good or not.

Bottom line, I think a lot of us are saying pretty much the same thing … :)

P.S. Last night I attended the symphony, where I heard Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique”. How many AK members claim that they have a recording and hi-fi system that can fully recreate the experience of a large-scale orchestra performing this work in a symphony hall? If you’re not familiar with this composition, at one point 4 people were simultaneously playing timpani, 6 people were playing double basses, and a percussionist was whacking the hell out of the bass drum – along with a large orchestra playing. (And there are works that have greater dynamic range – e.g., Mahler Symphony 2.) IME –bookshelf speakers wouldn’t get the job done. Because it’s almost impossible to recreate the concert hall experience of a large-scale work like “Symphony Fantastique” via a recording and home hi-fi equipment, subjectivity must be used by the consumer to choose the trade-offs that suit him or her.

P.P.S. I piqued my own curiosity, so last night after the concert I went down to my basement and played the last movement of “Symphony Fantastique” from this Blu-ray recording, using the 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio option:

41%2BEYqMSRUL.jpg


In my basement system, the front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205. (The Oppo UDP-205 provides "bass management" - i.e., a built-in crossover, and a connection for a powered subwoofer. With Oppo's bass management, the low frequencies are off-loaded from the main amp and speakers, thereby facilitating greater overall dynamics.) These four tower speakers plus two subwoofers provide significant acoustical power in this average size listening room. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾” titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10” woofers, one 15” powered subwoofer, and one 16” powered subwoofer. For this listening session, I drove the two front main speakers via my McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp and Scott LK150 (KT88), and the center and single rear speaker via my Scott 272 (EL34). (Unfortunately, one of my favorite amps in this system - my beloved Scott 296 (6L6GC) - is currently in the shop.)

Is this the best hi-fi system on the planet? I’m 100% certain it is NOT.

Is this hi-fi system capable of more dynamic range than any hi-fi system on the planet? I’m certain the answer is “no”. (I recognize the RF-7II are small compared with Klipschorn and Jubilee, but the RF-7II (plus subwoofers) are the largest speakers I can accommodate.)

Does this system reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments better than any hi-fi system on the planet? I’m certain it doesn’t.

With that said, IMO the right vacuum tubes mated with Klipsch RF-7II speakers deliver pretty convincing natural sound, and the system can deliver as much dynamics as I care for in my home. This hi-fi system delivers an enjoyable simulacrum of the experience I had earlier in the evening when listening to a live performance in the symphony hall (where the sound is 100% natural – i.e., no sound reinforcement system is used for the music).

This hi-fi system was tuned by ear, including amp selection, tube rolling (i.e., selecting the tubes that IMO produce the most natural sound with the RF-7II in this room), and tone controls. There is no AVR, no automatic room correction, and no plotting of graphs using PC software.

This hi-fi configuration involves significant doses of science (by engineers who designed the products), and a significant amount of tuning-by-ear on my part. In other words, a blend of objectivity and subjectivity.

Bottom line: one foot (or brain) in each camp.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is complete subjective. No matter how a piece of gear measures out no two people will ever hear it the same. It maybe close but it will never be the same. We often forget the most important part of our own systems, US! Everyone processes what our gear produces differently. I know we’ve all read some article at one point or another where the reviewer said “during my listing I suspected x frequency range was amplified or attenuated” and then they show you some graphs and say “ahha I knew this wasn’t flat”. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you would hear the same thing. Most of us hear things similarly enough that we can pick up some of these differences but until all of our listening devices incorporate individual eq’s based on an individuals hearing it will always be subjective.
 
hello hifi DAD from another Fort Wayne resident. Being a bit of a hardware nerd I would say 90-95% subjective. But I believe that things like speaker placement, room size, wall, floor and ceiling treatments, ear conditions including age, and what a person likes to hear make a huge difference in a system.
A while back I visited an old friend who had a lot of money invested in tube equipment and other stuff I didn't recognize. He loved this system and how it sounded. But I was only there for less than a day and never quite heard what he did. This may have been the fanciest system I've ever heard, but it hardly mattered.
 
hello hifi DAD from another Fort Wayne resident. Being a bit of a hardware nerd I would say 90-95% subjective. But I believe that things like speaker placement, room size, wall, floor and ceiling treatments, ear conditions including age, and what a person likes to hear make a huge difference in a system.
A while back I visited an old friend who had a lot of money invested in tube equipment and other stuff I didn't recognize. He loved this system and how it sounded. But I was only there for less than a day and never quite heard what he did. This may have been the fanciest system I've ever heard, but it hardly mattered.
I would have to agree with you BobHol and not just because your from Fort Wayne ;).

I guess I'm just looking at this very Black and White. It either is or isn't. Now, I'm not saying that the gear we choose or our rooms are not important, because they are. Otherwise I wouldn't have spent so much time, money and energy on gear, room treatments and placement as what I have. But when presented a question such as "Sound: objective or subjective?" I think of this in absolutes. lets just say for arguments sake that we forget about everyone being different and all that and we developed a perfectly linear response system in a room that responded in the same fashion. lets also say that this system/environment was also capable of reproducing our mediums with 100% accuracy. Even with all of that we will still never be able to hear ABSOLUTELY what was originally played. This is because none of the things between that event and our theoretical system are "perfect". Something was lost, compressed or in other words altered along the way.

Some people might say "well duh, we will never be able hear exactly what was played but what about what they wanted us the hear? You know, After it was mixed." To that I still say no. No that the gear you have will ever be able to replay to you what they wanted you to hear Perfectly. That is unless you used the same room and equipment they used to mix it.

Do I think that our systems can come close enough? Absolutely! Can they still move us to tears and send shivers down our spines? You bet! but in terms of absolutes it will never ever, ever be the same as if you were there.

I'm perfectly content with knowing that I will never hear exactly what some producer or band wanted me to hear. As long as I like what I hear and feel nothing else really matters. I will always continue to upgrade, tweak and chase my perfect sound.
 
Getting a room to measure flat is a great place to start but you may be surprised to find that doesn't sound like what your experience/expectations tells you what music should sound like, From there, you can either take measures towards making it sound like your experience/expectations want/expect or bite the bullet and live with what the meters tell what you should strive for. It's your call here. Even then, the results will vary from recording to recording, depending on what the engineer involved "think" it should sound like.

Just a little something to muddy the waters here. From about fifty ears years of attending live, amplified and unamplified concerts in everything from small venues that seat under 100 people to Radio City Music Hall and the like, i can tell you that even within the same venues, where you sit in them can have a drastic effect on what finally reaches your ears,
 
Last edited:
Getting a room to measure flat is a great place to start but you may be surprised to find that doesn't sound like what your experience/expectations tells you what music should sound like, You can either take measures towards making it sound like your experience/expectations want/expect or btet the bullet and live with what the meters tell you. It's your call. here.

That's for sure. I doubt anyone here listens in a flat room. Those who flatten out in-room response as much as possible with EQ almost always point out, as the Skip' did here, that is where they want to begin, and that does make sense, at least to me. I think it was ADS back in the 80s who produced the first automatic room correction device I ever encountered, and nobody liked the correction, but adjusted from there as I believe the manual suggested. Honestly, I didn't pay it much attention.

Every place I've lived had rooms that all sound different. Hearing, listening and enjoying involve science, perception and psychology - as I become accustomed to a room, I just let my brain sort it out, which leads me to enjoyment.

But it could sound so much better, some of you are thinking, and I think you are right. It could. I have heard systems sound better, by owners using various approaches. Oddly, though, I didn't enjoy the music any more than using my own that's good enough approach. I do care about SQ. To a point. But my enjoyment depends more on human factors. Psychology. Emotion.

One of the better-sounding systems I've ever heard was not very enjoyable because of who I was with. No, two. Two of the best, I mean. The settings were all wrong, over-bearing owners, upset wives in one case... I'm just saying SQ is not the be-all, end-all of enjoying music. A cheap radio and a certain girl from my youth spring to mind... glorious music.

Friends and family think I'm extremely picky about audio, and I guess they're correct from their perspective. From my own, I know different. I'm easy. They never met any real audiophiles. I'm just a poser who loves music.
 
IME flat to 20Hz is good. OTOH flat to 20KHz is not. Flat to 20KHz gives me almost instant listener fatigue. A gentle roll of above 12KHz works best for me.

I agree, try to get flat down to 20hz. I have found above 12khz the response is quite ragged on most tweeters. I have experienced such myself.
--------

Recording perspective is from the position that the mics. I prefer minimal electronics/mixing.

keep on truckin

joe
 
Last edited:
From about fifty ears years of attending live, amplified and unamplified concerts in everything from small venues that seat under 100 people to Radio City Music Hall and the like, i can tell you that even within the same venues, where you sit in them can have a drastic effect on what finally reaches your ears,
Perspective of instruments, yes. The sense of "live" in unamplified venues, however, is the same for me regardless of where I sit.
 
I just want a system to sound as though I'm present in the recording studio, or live performance. A I'll look at a components specs though ultimately unless I'm able to demo the equipment I'll read every review and skerric of information online then trust my gut instinct on a purchase. It's rarely steered me wrong. I'm now just purchasing music, and with new import duty and tax laws applying to online purchases in Australia next month will be cancelling my eBay and Aliexpress accounts. I really don't need them any longer. My systems have reached that point where the performance is in my living room so I guess I'm done :)
 
I tested for a while. It was mildly entertaining. As a tool it has some limited use for comparison from unit to unit. In the end I set the room up to sound the way I want no matter how it measures. It turns out the numbers can't hear a thing and have very poor taste. And now anything other than neutral on most units tone dials is usually not good.
So purely subjective for me. Measuring is for the people making the music.
I was shown a direction to go in. Thank you folks.
 
Of course its subjective.

I ll tell you all a story. Some sansui fanboy on other forum was bragging that his sansui was best, had wonderful sound that other brands didnt have, that there is nothing better. So buddy of mine went to this sansui dude home to listen to this "Best" amplifier. Afterwards he wrote that this sansui wasnt high end. That even cheaper accuphase that he listened at this sansui fan home sounded better. Also he listened there expensive (around 5000 usd) sansui separates that sounded even worse.

So is there are best amps objectively? Nope.
 
Of course its subjective.

I ll tell you all a story. Some sansui fanboy on other forum was bragging that his sansui was best, had wonderful sound that other brands didnt have, that there is nothing better. So buddy of mine went to this sansui dude home to listen to this "Best" amplifier. Afterwards he wrote that this sansui wasnt high end. That even cheaper accuphase that he listened at this sansui fan home sounded better. Also he listened there expensive (around 5000 usd) sansui separates that sounded even worse.

So is there are best amps objectively? Nope.
"even cheaper accuphase"?!

I don't know where you've been looking or have heard but, Accuphase gear has always been premium priced and IMO worth it. IMO/E it's a step up over anything Sansui, Pioneer, Kenwood, Marantz and others have ever made.

Please enlighten me as to what Sansui separates are "around 5000"?

FWIW: My Accuphase T-101 tuner is listened to several times a week.
 
Of course its subjective.

I ll tell you all a story. Some sansui fanboy on other forum was bragging that his sansui was best, had wonderful sound that other brands didnt have, that there is nothing better. So buddy of mine went to this sansui dude home to listen to this "Best" amplifier. Afterwards he wrote that this sansui wasnt high end. That even cheaper accuphase that he listened at this sansui fan home sounded better. Also he listened there expensive (around 5000 usd) sansui separates that sounded even worse.

So is there are best amps objectively? Nope.
Here's the thing, "best" relates to a person's exposure and experience with whatever you are talking about. If you are talking to someone with limited experience who got his opinions off of the internet and/or friends with similar experience. His system could really suck, but it's the best he's ever heard, and some doofuses on the internet confirmed it. Then again. Some people aren't ready for an awakening.
 
I ll tell you all a story. Some sansui fanboy on other forum was bragging that his sansui was best, had wonderful sound that other brands didnt have, that there is nothing better. So buddy of mine went to this sansui dude home to listen to this "Best" amplifier. Afterwards he wrote that this sansui wasnt high end. That even cheaper accuphase that he listened at this sansui fan home sounded better. Also he listened there expensive (around 5000 usd) sansui separates that sounded even worse.
I'm not sure what that anecdote was meant to prove, but in all honesty it proves nothing. It doesn't even present a cogent argument in favour of an objectivist view or a subjectivist view.
 
Back
Top Bottom