[ib1dance]

 
 
Headphone  Reviewers will explain that "there opinions are only a personal one because sound is a subjective thing ."
 
The sentence should read something like  'This is a subjective evaluation of these headphones" .
 
Which is a very different sentence then stating sound it's self is subjective .
 
To show how completely inaccurate is the  overly used phrase "sound is a subjective thing" statement, below is the dictionary description of the over used word "Subjective".
 
 
Quote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/
 
Subjective
 
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought .
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

 
Sound does indeed exist in the brain as tiny electrical signals, as it also does outside of the human brain as vibration .Though sound does not "Belong" to the thinking subject and is indeed  the "Object of thought" .It could be Argued that sound "itself" is also a thought process of the brain.Though that is delving far deeper into the physics of sound & should be reserved for another thread.
 
 
 
So,by reading the above dictionary reference, one can understand why many reviewers have got there wires somewhat crossed when using the word subjective to explain sound in there individual reviews of headphones .
 
And it can be understood that they are in fact wording the sentence "sound is subjective" completely incorrectly.
 
Sound it's self not being subjective to human perception at all . Sound is produced and defined by physical law.Physical  law is not subjective to a persons opinions .
 
In fact saying "sound is subjective" is just like saying "Gravity is subjective" .
 
Which of course would be complete nonsense !

 

[Bennyboy71]

One man's geek is another man's guru. Methinks you are being a little pedantic and semantic.
 
You are clearly not a Facebook friend of that tree in the forest, I can see.
 
Phil Collins sounds crap in any language, that much I can tell you. That's objective.

 

[haloxt]

By subjective they mean preference.

 

[ib1dance]

 
Quote:

One man's geek is another man's guru. Methinks you are being a little pedantic and semantic.
 
You are clearly not a Facebook friend of that tree in the forest, I can see.
 
Phil Collins sounds crap in any language, that much I can tell you. That's objective.

Me thinks me is being accurate and precise and the other man is factually wrong and confusing fact with fiction.
 
 
The Tree in the forest is a nice philosophers  Story. Which can  be really appreciated if you imagine the tree needs humans ( or humans whom think there God like) in order to "Exist" . In the non imaginary  world Tree's are having real problems tying to co exist with Homo Sapiens and there delusions of grandeur, these Delusions have lead to the earths natural environments destruction . " subdue it; and have dominion over." the natural world, is exactly how many act.
 
Without a healthy natural environment man can not survive long term .
 
Be a Geek,Guru,Homo sapien,Christian,Jew or a Tree, without Oxygen and clean water your subjectivity will turn to dust! Just as the forests turn to deserts without tree's .
 
Do you think a Geek or a Guru is "Above" nature and not bound to natural law.
 
Or "Above" sound and not bound to physical law?.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

By subjective they mean preference.

And if they wrote "musical/headphone taste is a matter of preference" that would make far more sense .
 
Though I'd have to agree with Bennyboy71 that if your preference for music is Phil collins it is a  crap preference .

 

[Bennyboy71]

And without horse tranquilisers you wouldn't be able to post what you just wrote.
 
Mate, can you translate that into proper words for me?

 
Quote:

 
Quote:

One man's geek is another man's guru. Methinks you are being a little pedantic and semantic.
 
You are clearly not a Facebook friend of that tree in the forest, I can see.
 
Phil Collins sounds crap in any language, that much I can tell you. That's objective.

Me thinks me is being accurate and precise and the other man is factually wrong and confusing fact with fiction.
 
 
The Tree in the forest is a nice philosophers  Story. Which can  be really appreciated if you imagine the tree needs humans ( or humans whom think there God like) in order to "Exist" . In the non imaginary  world Tree's are having real problems tying to co exist with Homo Sapiens and there delusions of grandeur, these Delusions have lead to the earths natural environments destruction . " subdue it; and have dominion over." the natural world, is exactly how many act.
 
Without a healthy natural environment man can not survive long term .
 
Be a Geek,Guru,Homo sapien,Christian,Jew or a Tree, without Oxygen and clean water your subjectivity will turn to dust! Just as the forests turn to deserts without tree's .
 
Do you think a Geek or a Guru is "Above" nature and not bound to natural law.
 
Or "Above" sound and not bound to physical law?.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[terriblepaulz]

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

 

[Justin Uthadude]

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

 

[ramicio]

Every person's ear is different.  Every person's brain is different.  I don't care if the principals behind hearing and sound are all physical law...  Everyone hears differently, and on top of that there is preference for certain sound.  Most of sound technology is psychoacoustic stuff, it fools the brain.  I get so pissed when I see people mock others and mention golden ears.  It's the same thing as optical illusions, which certain ones don't fool everybody.  The eyes are still seeing reality, but the brain is getting fooled.  Same thing with sound.  DBT tests are more psychological than physical evidence and is the very reason why the world is going to lose CD to lossy downloads, much less go to something better than CD.

 

[Bennyboy71]

Physicists can't even say what reality is.  Me, I'm all for the holographic universe theory, or at the very least the computer simulation theory.  Beyond that, it's all up for grabs as far as I am concerned.  Except Phil Collins, who is undeniably, quantifiably, qualitatively crap.  

 

[ramicio]

Reality is not complex.  It is only complex as you want it to be.  You exist, you see through your eyes, you can't be in other people's shoes, you die, and anything that happens after that no one will ever know unless resurrection becomes science, which it won't be since it is clearly proof that the soul exists because once you die you will never come back.

 

[Bennyboy71]

Um, ok, if you say so.  But who are you anyway? And can you prove that? 
 
Mate, you haven't got the first clue about reality, but that's fine because neither have I.  Nor pretty much any scientist. 
 
Yet.
 
But it will come, and once it's discovered, you will be surprised.
 
Maybe. Or not.
 
Quote:

Reality is not complex.  It is only complex as you want it to be.  You exist, you see through your eyes, you can't be in other people's shoes, you die, and anything that happens after that no one will ever know unless resurrection becomes science, which it won't be since it is clearly proof that the soul exists because once you die you will never come back.

 

[ramicio]

Has anyone actually come back from the dead?  NO.  Can anyone who thinks they are reincarnated prove it?  NO.  We will never figure out "reality", we are mortal.  Seeing how stuff in this plane of existence changes states of matter whether it's being observed or not we cannot know everything until we are able to view our physical universe from outside this plane of existence.  Good luck with your math, Hawking.  It's all about hierarchy.  Take a simulation like the Matrix.  Do you think something could exist inside the Matrix to simulate the Matrix exactly?  No, nothing can be as complex as the system it falls under.  Which is why our knowledge of anything physical is pretty insignificant and will always just be estimations.

 

[Bennyboy71]

I agree with you 134.7%
 
Quote:

Has anyone actually come back from the dead?  NO.  Can anyone who thinks they are reincarnated prove it?  NO.  We will never figure out "reality", we are mortal.  Seeing how stuff in this plane of existence changes states of matter whether it's being observed or not we cannot know everything until we are able to view our physical universe from outside this plane of existence.  Good luck with your math, Hawking.  It's all about hierarchy.  Take a simulation like the Matrix.  Do you think something could exist inside the Matrix to simulate the Matrix exactly?  No, nothing can be as complex as the system it falls under.  Which is why our knowledge of anything physical is pretty insignificant and will always just be estimations.

 

[fatcat28037]

Subjectivity, I've dreaded this subject coming out of the closet, its caused me great angst for years.