Vote

I picked "Mostly objective" since measuring equipment is much more sensitive than our ears. Most everything sounds indistinguishable these days, or at least different, not better.

Both viewpoints (subjectivist and objectivist) are needed for audio equipment evaluation: Subjectivist evaluation is necessary -- first, because we currently do not know how to measure everything audible, and second, in order to generate hypotheses for quantitative testing. How else would we know what quantitative evidence to look for, and what is subjectively important to measure? Objectivist evidence is needed for proving your findings and confirming hypotheses such as "this amp does not produce a good feeling of rhythm," and to make meaningful comparisons. Comment on Stereophile equipment reviews: I like it when somebody other than the main reviewer comments on the product at hand. People hear differently and notice different things.

I rely on magazine articles and Stereophile's wonderful "Recommended Component" issues, and then I see what is sold in MY area. I find stuff I can afford, then I go and LISTEN -- preferably with a bunch of my own equipment hooked up, using recordings I know inside and out. Then I just LISTEN. I decide based on sound and price, whether the manufacturer has been around more than two weeks, and whether the dealer is any good. I DEFINITELY rely on my ears for the final judgment. And I do not do A-B comparisons: I listen to perhaps a dozen tracks I know well and then form an impression. I quit if my ears get tired.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. . . .

Specs and measurements of a piece of equipment only give you part of the story. On the other hand, components that sound good initially may be hiding nuances and details not readily apparent, or the qualities you liked at first may grow fatiguing over time. Specs tell what the equipment is capable of, whereas listening tells you how well the equipment does it, so it is important to use both when making your decision.

Would you please repeat the question?

I am far more concerned about how a unit or group of units sound than I am in what the test specifications divulge.

My ears are always the final judge. However, I use all other sources of data to support my initial down select and to identify portential equipment for review. The challenge is that many items reviewed in Stereophile and elsewhere are not avaialable in my local shops.

Your definitions strike me as skewed to the subjectivists side. If I were involved in manufacturing, selling or writing about equipment I would, however, consider that a good thing.

But about speakers I am absolutelly subjectivist! (sorry for my english)

I believe that components of the same category sound different, regardless of measurements. However, I believe that too many writers overstate the degree differences and create the impression there are night and day differences. The question is not the degree of the difference, but rather the importance the listener assigns to the difference.

The last time I bought a component relying totally on reviews and manufacture's specs (I won't name the brand), I ended up too ashamed to look at myself in the mirror! I would never again buy anything without hearing it first.

I really wanted to like SACD until I heard it and realized the only difference I heard, was a higher record level on SACD.

I started as an objectivist 20-odd years ago. I guess it does take some time to start trusting your own ears . . . and to quit worrying so much about it.

I listen for fun. The better my system is, the more fun I have. If I like something and it measures poorly, who cares? This is a hobby, not a scientific experiment.

The real fun about this issue is that even those who proclaim themselves audio objectivists are nothing more than audio subjectivists; their only problem is admitting it. . . .

Empirical observation is used in disciplines like medicine, finance, economics, and even "soft" sciences like psychology and sociology. There is no justification for audio to consider itself exempt from such scrutiny.

Sorry, but I can't afford to be totally subjective, on my budget. Maybe in 20 years or so. Right now, I'm content to purchase quality, but budget priced gear, inwhich your publication has helped time and time again. But hey I am looking forward to those $10,000 mono-blocks. Thanks for all of your help, and please don't forget us folks on the lower end of the audiophile income scale.

Objectivist? Yeah, right. In the late '80s, wasn't "perfect sound forever" objectively perfect? Electronic measurements have very limited meaning when it comes to the accuracy of music reproduction as perceived by the human ear and brain.

What type of measuring device do you buy your equipment for? Is it your ears?

I am proudly an objective subjectivist. However, I am more objective than subjective, but the subjectivism has the power to override the objectivism. Ra ba ba . . .

100% subjectivist for speakers; 50% sub for amplification and digital

Currently mostly subjectivist. Who knows tomorrow ;)

Listening to music is a subjective experience. I want my audio system to reproduce the emotional feelings that I felt from live concerts. Technical parameters are important only because they give clues as to how a component will sound. Ultimately, if one system sounds more like real music than another one that measured better, I would choose the first.

The ultimate deciding factor is whether you like the sound or not, which is a subjective factor. However, there will always be something that you can nit-pick about a component, and objective measurements are the only way to find out where the problem is.

I think it is mandatory to listen to products before you make an decision. But here in Romania, there just isn't a real audio market, so you have to use your nose to sniff out the character of a product from reviews, magazines, or comments from friends.

I would really kile to select a stereo component listening at it but normally in a hi-fi shop: 1 - does not have all models of say speakers you are interested, or the amplifier you already own. 2 - the room is different from your house 3 - just before you have listened the bus diesel you used to go to the shop and traffic horns, etc, so you hear is not ready to listen at the the details 4 - sometimes a new component sounds different than the same component used. So to have a good guess is a good start to use experimental data to select three or four componets maximum, then anyway listen if the instrumental choiche sounds good. [To editors: I'm sorry but I'm a bit unfamiliar with english: please correct any grammar or spelling error I made]

Choosing tubes over transistors (a big difference to my ears) put me in the subjective camp.

I was stricly an objectivist until I had my first real epiphany: a 7W SE Audio Note amplifier driving MG 3.5s. Its specs sucked, but the sound made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.

Subjectivist v. objectivist is overly simplistic and pushes the debate in the wrong direction. If one says, "there is an audible difference here" that is a statement of fact, and whether it happens to be directly and discretely measurable by instruments or not, it is not "subjective". It may be tested by repeated audition and by different listeners. Something is "subjective" when it depends on the listener and not on the equipment, and it is therefore inherently non-testable, be it with instruments or with ears. It is gratuitous and entirely unhelpful to audiophiles, who already know what their subjective attitudes are. Certainly there are differences between listeners, but if any and all audio questions boil down to a subjective appreciation, then publications such as Stereophile (and any equipment over 200$) are useless. I think it would be astronomically more helpful to leave this sterile debate behind and concentrate on the difference and relationship between measurements and audition. All statements of fact can and should be tested, whether by instruments or by listening. Let's concentrate on what is a proper test for each aspect of the listening experience.