Sound: objective or subjective?

Dclapp

Active Member
For decades, the audio community has been divided into two camps: the Objectivists and the Subjectivists. Which is correct?

The best thing that I’ve ever read on this subject is from John Curl – one of our greatest living amplifier designers. His viewpoint, to unfairly generalize, is… Both!

I found this interview to be really enlightening.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

Your thoughts?

Doug
 
I'm an observationalist.

During listening sessions with my reviewer friends, we would most often make similar observations as to how a given component sounds. Followed by often preferring different ones. :)
 
It's both. Sound can be measured and, therefore, quantified. But the measurements don't tell you what to like or not like.

I think this hits the nail on the head. In the end I think there are roughly two camps, those that want the end result to sound like the real instruments and those that want the end result to sound like the recording on the medium being played back. It is all about what you want hear. I can add for myself, that either is perfectly fine, but as one who wants the result to represent the recording, I also want the recording to accurately capture, preserve and reproduce the real instruments.
 
I think this hits the nail on the head. In the end I think there are roughly two camps, those that want the end result to sound like the real instruments and those that want the end result to sound like the recording on the medium being played back. It is all about what you want hear. I can add for myself, that either is perfectly fine, but as one who wants the result to represent the recording, I also want the recording to accurately capture, preserve and reproduce the real instruments.
What does that mean.."sound like the recording on the medium being played back"?
 
What does that mean.."sound like the recording on the medium being played back"?

The output is a faithful but louder reproduction of the input, the amp (or other device) neither adds nor detracts anything in the way of it's own "sound". Minimal change due to noise, distortion or other artifacts. No changes because it can't respond fast enough to the music, no emphasis or deemphasis of any portion of the frequency band, etc.
 
We recently had a similar discussion on another thread: Bridging the Objective and Subjective Realms

Here's my thoughts:
  • Large-scale orchestral music and opera involve complex sound that has a clear benchmark (i.e., live performance in the intended venue with no electronics involved), and IME large scale classical music cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy via recordings.

  • All hi-fi equipment is imperfect, and colors the sound to some degree. A few published hi-fi specifications like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing the complex sound of classical music. Each audiophile must choose the trade-offs that suit him or her, based on their unique sensitivities to sound, their tastes in music, their goals for their hi-fi system, their listening room, their budget, etc.
It is therefore inescapable IMO that subjectivity is introduced when evaluating the quality of reproduced music – at least for the classical music that I love.
 
The output is a faithful but louder reproduction of the input, the amp (or other device) neither adds nor detracts anything in the way of it's own "sound". Minimal change due to noise, distortion or other artifacts. No changes because it can't respond fast enough to the music, no emphasis or deemphasis of any portion of the frequency band, etc.
But were you not making a distinction between two perspectives when you said "those that want the end result to sound like the real instruments and those that want the end result to sound like the recording on the medium being played back"? Not taking you to task here but unless the first camp's goal is the goal of the second, it's wishful thinking , no? I mean as far as the gear is concerned. We're limited by the recording so the best we can do is play it back as faithfully as possible. Some are better than others but it's an exercise in futility to attempt to improve a recording with playback gear.

So to your point, a very good one, it seems in the end it takes a subjective ear to evaluate what's going on regardless. Hence the wide variation in specs among high end gear.
 
For decades, the audio community has been divided into two camps: the Objectivists and the Subjectivists. Which is correct?

The best thing that I’ve ever read on this subject is from John Curl – one of our greatest living amplifier designers. His viewpoint, to unfairly generalize, is… Both!

I found this interview to be really enlightening.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

Your thoughts?

Doug

Both are correct. Measure objectively, tweak subjectively. One cannot live without the other.

It's the basis of creativity and innovation too. Well that and suffering.
 
We're limited by the recording so the best we can do is play it back as faithfully as possible. Some are better than others but it's an exercise in futility to attempt to improve a recording with playback gear.

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.
 
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.
Obvious to who? Not the recording engineer who set the frequency curve. Acceptable to who?...anybody's guess. High fidelity as a descriptor is different as it relates to the gear vs as it relates to the recording. Venue has nothing to do with how well it's done but the gear has a lot to do with how it ends up in your ears. However, I've found that it takes high end recording quality to realize high end gear capability.
 
Obvious to who?

Obvious to many people (including me) who listen to music produced by natural instruments in the intended venue (e.g., symphony hall or opera house) - with no electronics involved. Examples include classical music and opera. People who regularly attend live classical music performances – in the intended venue - know what a violin sounds like. We know what a string quartet sounds like. We know what a large-scale orchestra sounds like. We know what opera sounds like when performed live in an opera house that has good acoustics – and no PA system (or sound reinforcement system) is used. (Obviously when a symphony orchestra performs the National Anthem at the baseball park, a PA system must be used. That is NOT what I’m talking about.)


Not the recording engineer who set the frequency curve.

I don’t give a rat’s patootey what the recording engineer wants. For the music I love, the recording engineer(s) or producer(s) aren’t the composer, conductor, or musician – they don’t create the art – their job is to capture the performance as faithfully as possible.

Perhaps things are different for pop music. Based on what I’ve read - for some pop music - producers and engineers largely use electronics to blend together multiple sounds – some generated by synthesizers – some generated by different musicians in different studios at different times - to create a “song”. For this type of music, who is to say what the song is supposed to sound like? Apparently the only people who can say for sure are those who were in the recording studio listening to their electronically cobbled together song on some studio monitors.

Acceptable to who?...anybody's guess.

For classical music, acceptable to people who know what live classical music sounds like.


Venue has nothing to do with how well it's done but the gear has a lot to do with how it ends up in your ears.

For live music, the venue affects the sound of the original performance. Again – for the music I like – the engineers aren’t creating the music – the composer, conductor, and musicians are – and the venue (i.e., the concert hall) affects the overall sound.

The “gear” that is involved in creating classical music are instruments such as violins, violas, trumpets, etc.

Apparently for some pop music, the “song” is not created in a real space (i.e., a venue), but rather is created via some electronic mixing console (whether that be hardware or software). I confess I don’t know what a mixing console (or synthesizer) is supposed to sound like.


However, I've found that it takes high end recording quality to realize high end gear capability.

I agree with "garbage-in/garbage-out".
 
Back
Top Bottom