Rollcall time: subjectivists and objectivists, the headcount

There's been talk about a "hostile takeover" of Zerogain by the nay-sayers lately, with the tweakers feeling like they can't have a discussion without it descending into ever-decreasing blind-testing circles within a couple of posts. Perhaps we could have a headcount of who would consider themselves in each camp?

 

What do you do if you fall in between the two objectivist positions? For example, although I've never heard differences in cables, etc., I accept that in some circumstances they can sound different (to take a ridiculous example, a super-cheapie and a super-exotic). Do I vote for neither or both?

 

I'm similar - a subjectivist who's agrees that cables may act as tone controls, who has no interest in blind testing but a realistic understanding that, if it really was all about how it sounds, rather than a mixture of how it sounds and how it looks, blind testing would be the only logical way to evaluate gear. Given that it's supposed to be fun, I don't bother. An objectivist inasmuch as companies making claims for cables and other tweaks really ought to offer up some proof, but I have no expectation that they'll ever be able to. Somewhere in the middle, in other words.

-- Ian

 

Very interesting idea for a poll - I'll stick the same choices up next door at pfm as I'm rather curious as to whether the outcome will be much different.

Tony.

(Subjectavist, moderate)

 

I'd like to vote for the first sentance of the moderate objectivist, but not the second and at present I believe 'tweaks' can have a more significant effect than credited here. I do in many ways though find myself stuck between the two camps at the moment. I've certainly heard differences I believe to be real, but the arguments over belief influencing findings are I believe valid, and I wouldn't at the moment want to have to stand up in court and state categorically that cables worked, or indeed that they didn't.

I'm not too sure about using the terms "Objectivist" and "Subjectivist" BTW, they seem a little loaded to me. i.e. most people would think of being objective as being right, and I don't think judging cables on the basis of differrences you've heard is unobjective.

For the record, if the vote were a simple objectivist or subjectivist, I'd have to go for the latter.

 

I certainly agree with this bit: "Racks, cables and assorted tweaks must be chosen carefully to complement a system properly." I'd also start with: "systems must be chosen carefully to complement a room properly."

 

"systems must be chosen carefully to complement a room properly."

Do you mind if I mod this to: "speakers must be chosen carefully to complement a room properly."?

Ta.

P.S. How are they doing?

 

Whilst my views come closest to the option "Subjectivist (moderate)" i think the options do mix apples with oranges to some extent. It is possible to span two or even three of the options due to the mixture of statements contained within each.

 

I'm afraid for my purposes I'm slap bang in objectivist hardcore. One of the reasons I stay well away from cable debates (I can't win, and, I'm sure as hell I'm not going to join).

Too much of a scientist in me I guess - No measurable result = no go for me.

 

Well, these debates are ones I tend to avoid - simply don't have enough breadth of experience to really stand up and make enough sense HOWEVER, whilst accepting that speaker cables cables can make a difference, I find the claims sometimes made for power cables outrageous.

I have heard differences myself but not huge differences between cheap (£2pm), cheapish (£8pm) and (for me) expensive (£40pm) speaker cables - more in the nature of sounding different rather than better. And no I didn't blind test - why? Cos I couldn't be arsed with the hassle

I have to say though I am sceptical about power cords, not so much that that they can or can't make a difference (I don't know - seems unlikely though) but sceptical that in any sane or rational world they might make the kind of difference anybody but a lunatic would be willing to pay a 4 figure sum for - for a kettle lead!!

Oh yeah I voted objectivist moderate btw.

 

Nice one, PeteH

Steve
subjectivist - moderate

 

It may actually surprise some people that I'm "Objectivist, moderate" and not hardcore

I'll expand on that in a new thread that I'm going to start later today when I have the time. The whole subjectivist / objectivist debate has got entirely out of hand IMO so I want to try to correct some misunderstandings and hopefully sort out an amicable truce.

More on all that later though. If you can, please withhold any comments you'd like to make on the above paragraph until I've started the new thread - they deserve to be aired in the correct context.

Excellent poll btw PeteH, well thought out choices

Michael.

 

I have a basic theroy I follow, don't give a F**K if it's right or wrong, but it sure as hell works for me.
I go for the sum of ALL parts, rather than source first or the lairlerest pair of speakers I can stuff in my front room.
My Amplifier was the most expensive component in my system.
I audition equipment AT Home in my system, for a period of time, I use my ears, I'm in the subjective box, but not total hard core (as I do measure things, more so than most), It does have a bearing, to a point, but the bottom line is My EARS, I do tweeks, I try lots of hocus pokus, I reject lots (really), however the correct mod can make a decent difference, but I'm a believer in the accumulitive effect syndrome, the more bad links removed from a system the greater the next stage will emerge.
Here's an example, if I was to start from scratch again with £5K I'd spend £2k on the mains first (what ever form it would take) Old adage shite in<>shite out .
I've never bought any kit Blind ever, although we conduct blind testing (in limited doses) it serves as a tool, but not the bottom line. Wm

 

James, very well indeed thanks. May I mod it back again to systems? Without even mentioning supports, and without naming names, I've had a lot of trouble with lots of stuff in here one way and another. I'm fairly sure its mainly a room thing since most of the stuff I've not mentioned or named I've heard sound rather good elsewhere. Of course, its a system building and synergy thing too, oh, and personal preference has something to do with it although not that much. A good sound is usually a good sound in anyone's book unless they're axe grinding.

 

Moderate objectivist seems to basically describe my views perfectly.

 

I am a sucker for definitions, and the definitions there are contrary to my understandings of the words.

Object implies fact, and facts are proof, real, what you can measure, in a lab, in hifi it means get the best statistics you can.

subjectivist means senses, what you hear is more important, it doesn't matter how it measures, if you like it, that is enough.

I tend to the latter, as I have a good idea that I prefer something to sound good rather than measure well and sound?????
however, the former is also a guide to the skill, care and expense the designer has gone to, and can be important, too.

As to the above, I think a blind session is extremely valuable, as of the psychological effect of 'if something is £10k, it must sound it, so you naturally pick it over and above and £200 device. and can also be interesting to note a panel blind test, to see if there is any consensus, and differences in tastes. For this reason you can't really rely on it though. Hifi is essentially in the ear of the beholder, and it is oneself that counts, not the reviewers opinion, unless s/he happens to have a similar ear/ nervous system wiring/ brain neuron/synaptical pathways!!


Blind eliminates brands and prices, and even design philosophies, which can be prejudicial. Note at one time I had an audionote kit 1 300b amp....zero feedback, Class A, direct heated triode, in single ended configuration, paper in oil caps, valve and choke psu, all triode.
The holy grail of amplification? I found it lacklustre and dull, ok, but according to the Audionote hype the be all and end all.

So I have concluded by that, and lots of other listening, that a philosphy is meaningless, its just marketing, individual items matter, and the sound, who cares, if it sounds good, who cares if its class B transistor? and it is anathema to Peter Quatrop.


however, my view is that you must audition in your own room, if buying, manyatime I have heard stuff that I like, get it back, and change my mind. This can be ameliorated by in situ audition.

A very serious problem against this was I became aware of myself, with the chord dac 64 effect....this has a really high output voltage, which makes everything seem larger than life, big, and other things pale and sound weak and limp besides it.
One has to be aware of loudness differences, as when the dac 64 was 'equalised', it was less impressive, speakers can be prone to this big style, and opinions can be formed simply by it sounding more impressive due to more dbs. Kef do this.


I once was staunch against things like caps cables and mains, to a certain extent, I still think some effects are hyperbolised, and some prices are obscene, a certain RA I liked to villify.

And this can lead to obsession, making every connector, cable, inductor, cap, wire, speaker drive unit, drive unit, out of say silver, with only this cable here, that there.

but I do like big components, I dislike cheap nastiness of any sort, and I think that caps, and cables do change to the sound tone you can get to some extent. Tho' its not about price, sometimes cheaper things sound better than ludicrously priced ones.

Sometimes I think its all an accident and random, how the tonal signature arises. Then you tweak to alter the basic character, hence my slight anti against mega expensive cables, as I think it is limited in the electronics.

I suppose by the definitions above I fit between the middle 2

 

IMO, blind testing can help to eleviate 'sonic memory' When auditioning a new part of the chain, it is usually because I am trying to improve on one or several aspects of what I already have. As a result, I am listening for differences which would justify the outlay. I can remember occasions when I have sat back and exclaimed to my wife, "i don't recall hearing that before" In actual fact, because I am concentrating more, I am hearing parts of the music that have always been there and are no better reproduced than they were before. I have then played the same cd in the car and still heard the bit that I had previously thought I had just discovered. The mind plays funny tricks.

Rod

 

I'm an objective humorist...no thats not right? I'm a historical naturist..?

Like others, I can pick things I agree with in either of the middle categories, but I have got to put myself down as objectivist. Ultimately, I only care about how things sound to me, but if things don't make a big difference that I can prove it conclusively, then what's the point? I've never heard a cable change that had as big an effect as turning a tone control [that you could make for about £2..]

 

Nothing wrong with designing an efficient loudspeaker - all other things being equal, the more efficient the better. You just have to do your comparitive listening at the same volume.

 

Quite a poll,

subjectivist, moderate, seems to describe me.

This post does show a few different trains of thought though.