Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Sound is NOT a subjective "Thing" ! .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound is NOT a subjective "Thing" ! . - Page 2

post #16 of 64

Perhaps for clarity we should say that "good" is subjective.

 

Therefore "this sounds good" is a subjective statement while "this sounds accurate" is an objective one.

 

As to how people hear... it's irrelevant. The "good" is subjective whether we hear the same or not (since we may like differently), and the "accurate" is objective.

 

All that said: there is definitely a bell curve to what people find "good"

post #17 of 64

Accurate is a whole other thing, too.  Vinyl is "inaccurate" yet some people choose to spend loads of money on it to sound good because it is truly warmer than a digital sound.  I got away from vinyl because it doesn't sound better than digital and it's a pain in the butt to constantly dust and clean everything, and have sound degrade over time.  Anyone wanna buy some records?

post #18 of 64

That "accurate" is a "whole other thing" than "good" was, in fact, my point.

 

An objective, measurable thing.

post #19 of 64

Wow!

All this talk of sound makes me want to rock my Fanny Wangs!

Now where did I put my hearing aid?

post #20 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by terriblepaulz View Post

Sound is objective, but each individual's experience of sound is subjective


 

Exactly that!,Sound is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;it is in fact a physical force.
 
 
Since the use of our spoken 'sound' language  has it's limitation it is important that the few words we use ( even less so for Bennyboy71 because grunting words don't  count ) are used accurately.
post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Uthadude View Post

Perhaps you are referring only to the noun and missing the verb?

 

 

 

When I use the noun, I am still being subjective, because I do not actually hear the measurable, objective soundwaves, but rather the electrical impulses that my human analog to digital converter (ears) has processed. Actual sounds are of no use to me until they get inside my head. Subjective.

 

I agree with your op, but it's the way we speak.

 

I'm rather shocked at how lousy some people's human ADC's are. How can a sound be bass-heavy and bass-light? They're not being objective.

.


Hehe @ ADC's .  Being objective takes dedication and a pursuit of the facts even if they may not be to the individuals liking .It takes maturity .

 

And That's  why I began this thread .

 

A Good review on Headphones is a Objective review aiming to find the most balanced headphones within a certain set of parameters - Sound , cost , build etc .Aiming to be as accurate as possible without any other factors,factors that do not directly contribute to the quality of the headphone

 

A subjective reviewer may be recommending a headphone because they are made in his/her country or they sound better on there personal favourite songs or even because the headphone manufacturer send them  free Headphones for a favourable review .

 

So when a Reviewer begins there Review with "Sound is Subjective" . I think " mmmm...? maybe this review is biased,and how can it be accurate?, since the reviewer does not seem to understand  the physics of sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Uthadude
 
When I say, "that sound's good", I am not declaring that the actual soundwaves are good soundwaves. When I use the verb 'sounds', it should always be construed to mean 'sounds to me' or 'sounds like'. Subjective.

 

The "that sound's good" sentence is a obvious personal choice . where as " sound is subjective" is meant, even if unintentionally , as a statement of fact .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #22 of 64

Sound is a wave through the air that reaches everyone the same.  Once it hits any part of the ear, including almost-microscopic hairs, it gets altered.  And since every single person on earth is different, then everyone does not literally hear the same thing.  I don't even care if you are identical twins with identical DNA.  Those people still don't have the exact same structure of their body on the atomic, molecular, or even cellular scale.

post #23 of 64

ib1dance, I have only one advice, read a book by Wittgenstein. I admit "sound is subjective" is a little lacking in precision, but it only takes a small amount of imagination to understand what is meant: a flowery way of saying that people will have different opinions. Having read English books from different periods of time I have to say modern English is frighteningly lacking in phrases that evoke visual imagery, which is very useful in assisting thought. I would gladly take phrases like "sound is subjective" to the usual dead speech and writing I witness today, much of which I can trace back to the parroting of talking heads on tv.

post #24 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramicio View Post

Sound is a wave through the air that reaches everyone the same.  Once it hits any part of the ear, including almost-microscopic hairs, it gets altered.  And since every single person on earth is different, then everyone does not literally hear the same thing. 


.

 

So that "sound wave" is not subjective. The individual listener is ! . Sound is not subjective, our thoughts are .

post #25 of 64

Exactly, but my argument is for the sake that others scoff at others who say they can hear differences in stuff.  I think everyone hears differently, and everyone has different sensitivity of hearing.  It's not too unquestionable for someone to have better than average hearing.  It happens with sight.  Some people have better than 20/20 vision, which means their eyes basically are zoomed in further than the average person's eyes or have more retinal cells at the center of their vision.  Either way they can see greater detail at a further distance than the average.  Why is this so taboo in the audio world?

post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramicio View Post

Exactly, but my argument is for the sake that others scoff at others who say they can hear differences in stuff.  I think everyone hears differently, and everyone has different sensitivity of hearing.  It's not too unquestionable for someone to have better than average hearing.  It happens with sight.  Some people have better than 20/20 vision, which means their eyes basically are zoomed in further than the average person's eyes or have more retinal cells at the center of their vision.  Either way they can see greater detail at a further distance than the average.  Why is this so taboo in the audio world?



The people with better than 20/20 vision have demonstrated it. There is no testing done today that tests one's proficiency in hearing the thingsdifferences usually discussed in audiophilia. I think such tests can certainly be done, but they ought to be created by people who understand psychology. Optometrists all know the importance of keeping patients calm when testing their error of refraction, because it is variable depending on their psychological state. There is no reason why this wouldn't apply to the sense of hearing.

post #27 of 64

They try to keep you calm because you are in a dark room with a creepy person and you're covering your eyes.  I don't see what being calm and having more than 20/20 vision have to do with each other.  It's an eye chart.  People have demonstrated better hearing then others but it's still scoffed at.  I'm not talking about stupid little crap like $1000 cables, I'm talking about stuff like lossy vs. lossless debates, transparency of compression, 16/44.1 vs. 24/96, etc.  ABX DBT CRAP absolutely uses psychology to generate favorable results for the doubters.  Sorry.

post #28 of 64
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

 I admit "sound is subjective" is a little lacking in precision, but it only takes a small amount of imagination to understand what is meant: .


If I believe I am writing a "Fact"  that needed "a small amount of imagination to understand what is meant" ,then I am indeed not writing a fact but more a presumption &   that presumed element where the imagination has been used turns the logical thought based on fact into a subjective thought based on fact . The first being a proved Truth that can be built upon, the latter being a  theory.

 

I believe it's this kind of "reasoning"  that has caused some fields of science to lose it's direction  .

 

Using The imagination to "understand what is meant" can be helpful but should never be confused as fact .

 

It's healthy to know the difference between the subjective and objective mind .

 

The objective part of the mind has evolved using proved or trusted physical fact  .In earlier development by our 5 senses aided in  later development by science   .The subjective part of the mind is within the objective mind and was  "created" by the objective mind .

 

A crucial part of "knowing the Truth" is being able to know when a thought is  "objective" or " subjective " .

 

People whom begin there earlier life being taught to use there objective part of mind  are more likely to be more scientifically,mathematically  oriented. Whilst those believing there subjective thoughts are in fact a objective thoughts are more likely to believe in Religion or spirituality .

 

Medicine shows the brain is a physical object, though a subjective part of the brain can argue that the "mind" is a spiritual " thing" .

 

Reason dictates that you can not have a physical "touchable" object such as a human brain founded on a "thing" which is "non physical " or spiritual .I.E - Life is what it already is.

 

But spirituality is not based on reason it is based on faith .

 

Faith being a manifestation of the subjective part of the mind .Believing in something that can not or has not been proved either by our 5 sense's or scientific fact .

 

This is still in exactly the same context as a sentence saying " sound is subjective " .

 

Sound is a measurable understandable calculable fact.

 

You can subjectively choose to not believe in what you see,touch,taste,smell and hear .

 

Humans do have a unique identity & subjective part of mind.

 

Our Physical Bodies are all made from exactly the same material and thus are governed by all the same laws of physics/nature .And though slight difference's in physical shape , ear canals for example, will result in slight sound variations between two individuals ,the fundamental structure of sound remains the same for everyone and everything  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #29 of 64

Our bodies are not made of all the same things.  Everyone has different DNA.  Do you really think 2 cells of the same type are made of exactly the same amount of atoms?  Everyone eats different things, breathes different air, etc., therefore nutrients found in one's body will be different from person to person.  Keep digging a deeper hole...  And if out bodies were all the same then there wouldn't be different colored skins.  You can only speculate and say that everyone's body basically operates in similar fashion, not exactly.

post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramicio View Post

They try to keep you calm because you are in a dark room with a creepy person and you're covering your eyes.  I don't see what being calm and having more than 20/20 vision have to do with each other.  It's an eye chart.  People have demonstrated better hearing then others but it's still scoffed at.  I'm not talking about stupid little crap like $1000 cables, I'm talking about stuff like lossy vs. lossless debates, transparency of compression, 16/44.1 vs. 24/96, etc.  ABX DBT CRAP absolutely uses psychology to generate favorable results for the doubters.  Sorry.


All your points here are flawed in some way. Taking accurate measurements of refractive error is a lot more complicated than you think. It certainly is variable based on psychological state. People who see with a certain acuity may not see with the same acuity a few seconds later. Demonstrating "better hearing" is irrelevant, what we're talking about when comparing two pieces of audio electronics requires variables like memory. An analogy, asking someone which two shades of purple is the closest to purple, and the purples are only seen for a limited time, say, 0.5 seconds. His only reference for what really is purple is his memory, and the limited time reflects the limited time of sounds as music is played. Things like lossy vs lossless, compression types, sample rates, depend on more variables than "acuity of hearing". ABX DBT CRAP do not inherently use psychology to generate favorable results for the doubters. Poor test design and implementation can. Apology accepted.

 

ib1dance, your last post is just rambling. I'll repeat myself again, when someone says Sound is subjective, he means that people may have different preferences. Nothing more, nothing less. When you read something that seems strange, you can do two things, reject it because it does not fit your preconceptions, or adjust your preconceptions until it makes sense. You may think you are being very logical to reject everything that doesn't make sense instantly like some wikipedia article written for ease of understanding, but imo you are just being irrationally inflexible in comprehending language.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Sound is NOT a subjective "Thing" ! .