I've been thinking about this whole debate between the "objectivists" and "subjectivists" movements that seem to permeate the audiophile ranks and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to be on either side of the debate.
As I see it, the objectivist movement tries to establish some sort of objective criteria upon which all equipment judging is based, with the "live" sound being the objective standard.
The subjectivists on the other hand do not care about meeting any kind of an objective standard and all they want is to like what they hear, to essentially enjoy the music.
I see problems with both approaches and I honestly don't know how to resolve it.
The problem with "objectivist" approach is that reproduced music is an interpretation of reality. What I mean is this:
The equipment used to record a music session is not perfect from microphones, to the AD converters to the tape or digital media. The way the recording engineer chooses to mike the session, to the way they balance the equalization of the recording.
Once the recording is made, it is further interpreted through the mixing board, the mixing engineer who applies his own interpretive equalization and then that interpretation is further interpreted by the playback equipment. So, in the end, what are you really evaluating? An interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation?
I see this as analogous to photography. Does photography record reality or an interpretation of the reality? The lenses that a photographer chooses distort that reality, the filters, the film (is black and white reality? or is reality based on the color palette of kodachrome or ektachrome or digital?), the printing process and post production work.
The issue that I see with subjectivists is that if the only criteria is subjective listening, then there can be no objective measure for good equipment. Subjectivism sort of falls apart when evaluating equipment because if subjective criteria is applied, no equpment is bad. As a subjectivist, I either like it or dislike it, but it's neither objectively good nor bad. Thus, it can be argued that I either like a certain interpretation (distortion of reality) or I don't. If this judging criteria is applied, then any manufacturer can make anything in terms of equipment sound (rolled off highs, exaggerated bass, recessed mids or whatever) and there's bound to be someone out there who likes it. The manufacturer's argument to criticism would be that they're using their own subjective standard, hence it's not subject to critique using any other standard.
All of this leads to how does one review playback equipment? What standard do you apply? If you apply the objective standard, you're in effect saying that the manufacturer has interpreted the multiple iterations of the interpretations to what he thinks a live recording should sound (hence, he's really applying a subjective standard).
If you apply the subjective standard, then no equipment can sound bad. Someone is bound to like it no matter what. Then all it comes down to is whether the readers are in agreement with a particular reviewer. If one is to apply that standard, then all equipment should be reviewed by all reviewers and contributors so that the readers will get a better idea of what a particular piece of equipment sounds like. Furthermore, a reviewed sample should be compared to previously reviewed reference equipment by all reviewers and contributors. Obviously, this is impractical.
How do you reconcile this? Am I missing something? What is the criteria that's used in reviewing equpment?
Thanks
I've been thinking about this whole debate between the "objectivists" and "subjectivists" movements that seem to permeate the audiophile ranks and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to be on either side of the debate.
As I see it, the objectivist movement tries to establish some sort of objective criteria upon which all equipment judging is based, with the "live" sound being the objective standard.
The subjectivists on the other hand do not care about meeting any kind of an objective standard and all they want is to like what they hear, to essentially enjoy the music.
I see problems with both approaches and I honestly don't know how to resolve it.
The problem with "objectivist" approach is that reproduced music is an interpretation of reality. What I mean is this:
The equipment used to record a music session is not perfect from microphones, to the AD converters to the tape or digital media. The way the recording engineer chooses to mike the session, to the way they balance the equalization of the recording.
Once the recording is made, it is further interpreted through the mixing board, the mixing engineer who applies his own interpretive equalization and then that interpretation is further interpreted by the playback equipment. So, in the end, what are you really evaluating? An interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation?
I see this as analogous to photography. Does photography record reality or an interpretation of the reality? The lenses that a photographer chooses distort that reality, the filters, the film (is black and white reality? or is reality based on the color palette of kodachrome or ektachrome or digital?), the printing process and post production work.
The issue that I see with subjectivists is that if the only criteria is subjective listening, then there can be no objective measure for good equipment. Subjectivism sort of falls apart when evaluating equipment because if subjective criteria is applied, no equpment is bad. As a subjectivist, I either like it or dislike it, but it's neither objectively good nor bad. Thus, it can be argued that I either like a certain interpretation (distortion of reality) or I don't. If this judging criteria is applied, then any manufacturer can make anything in terms of equipment sound (rolled off highs, exaggerated bass, recessed mids or whatever) and there's bound to be someone out there who likes it. The manufacturer's argument to criticism would be that they're using their own subjective standard, hence it's not subject to critique using any other standard.
All of this leads to how does one review playback equipment? What standard do you apply? If you apply the objective standard, you're in effect saying that the manufacturer has interpreted the multiple iterations of the interpretations to what he thinks a live recording should sound (hence, he's really applying a subjective standard).
If you apply the subjective standard, then no equipment can sound bad. Someone is bound to like it no matter what. Then all it comes down to is whether the readers are in agreement with a particular reviewer. If one is to apply that standard, then all equipment should be reviewed by all reviewers and contributors so that the readers will get a better idea of what a particular piece of equipment sounds like. Furthermore, a reviewed sample should be compared to previously reviewed reference equipment by all reviewers and contributors. Obviously, this is impractical.
How do you reconcile this? Am I missing something? What is the criteria that's used in reviewing equpment?
Thanks