Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Is sound REALLY subjective?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 авг 2024
- How new measurement tools are impacting IEM targets: headphones.com/blogs/features...
On the Standardization of the Frequency Response of High-Quality Studio Headphones: hauptmikrofon.de/theile/1986-...
Read more headphone, IEM, amp, and DAC Reviews: Headphones.com/TheAudioFiles
Our Editorial Policy: Headphones.com/TheAudioFiles/...
Join our Discord server: go.headphones.com/discord
Measurement Index
forum.headphones.com/t/index-...
Resolve's Headphone Ranking:
headphones.com/blogs/buying-g...
How to read headphone measurements
• The 10 stages you’ll g...
Reference for the foot graphic: www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
In summary sound is absolutely subjective and objective measurements are useful in predicting the subjective experience. People who are good with EQ can change the objective measurements to experience a subjective improvement. That's why EQ exists.
But also, EQ should only be done to the graph up to a point - because of HRTF differences and HpTF effects.
We can say what headphones sound like but we can't say what they should sound like (notwithstanding the general shape that we can prescribe)
11 minute video really just needed this 3 sentence statement =O
It's not absolutely subjective. Sound is a physical phenomena and it happens even without your presence. Your experience is the subjective part and even then it's not absolutely subjective because if we can predict it, it means it has an objective part, which is common to at least a large group of people.
But then we can say that some gear's quality is more subjective than other. IEMs are more subjective because they contain an acoustical prosthetic of your pinna. A rubber ear made of sound. Full sized headphones on the contrary interact with your own pinna, giving your mind your own directional fingerprint. That suggests that headphone SQ is less subjective than IEM SQ.
@@ResolveReviews yes final EQ adjustments should be done based on your subjective experience.
Finding a reviewer that matches your preferences can help also casting a wide net and listening to a lot of opinions on the sound of a certain set can help especially when you are blind buying which is what I believe most of us are doing.
Thanks for doing this. Your reasoning is impecable. Headphones produce a determined mix of objetive ways. And both the anatomy of our body and our specific sensitivity have an impact on how we perceive each pair of headphones. The same happens with shoes, as you mentioned in your brillante metaphor. And adding to that I would say that it also happens with a product like wine. Each wine has an objetive material mix of elements. But each person will react differently according to their physical characteristics, the level of their sensitivity and their taste. So any of these experiences have an objetive source but will not be perceived in the same way by different people. In the case of wine, the fact that I don’t like drinking wine doesn’t mean that I understand that some wines are objectively better than others. In our time relativism has made many people to admit as valid any opinion about anything. And that is not an accurate approach to truth.
The variance in HRTF though does mean that what each of us will have as our “neutral target“ will differ. For an IEM to replicate neutral at my eardrum, the HRTF of my head and my pinna need to be factored in. Those will be unique to me. Sure we can get average approximations but this seems like a big issue.
Yes
I was thinking along the same lines. I wonder if the FR that people prefer has more variation between individuals if it's measured in air (speakers in room) or in ear.
This is something that a person gets better with the more headphones they hear. Then it becomes less about how their HRTF differs from other people, and more about the relative differences between headphones. And say if you can establish a baseline (some people use the HD6XX for example) you can describe what other headphones are doing by comparison in a way that's useful to anyone, and you understand your own biases better as well.
Good commentary. Off to read the article...
physics is not subjective
sound preference is subjective
@@markj9860well its objective, but most of us dont know our own HRTF. Thats not subjective, but we believe like it is.
@@markj9860 That's still physics and thus objective. What you make of the sound regardless of how it reaches your ears is where subjectivity comes in.
"This is what I call foot related transfer function", you're killing me bro 😂
"Auditory relativism is a terrible epistemology." On point! How I understand this conclusion: Yes, audio is subjective, but this does not grant you a 'every opinion is equally valid' ticket. Instead, we need to account for individual differences in experiences while still seeing the use of standardized targets and objective frequency response curve analyses.
Precisely this.
Finally, a video I can link to every time someone tries to dismiss me because “sound is subjective” 😂
sound is subjective. GET REKT
@@TheLeftistOwl OH, YEAH?! WATCH THIS VIDEO PUNK! ruclips.net/video/5tBKhg-brBc/видео.htmlsi=C9aa_9d30Fx7Pmp6
Its usful to reflect on what you like as a preference. For instance, knowing that you like bigger sounstage and more open presentation can be reflected in the graph with a elevated gain the presence region between 4 and 6k. If you like a more intimate, studio like sound, you will want a recession in the region. You can decide more on your next purchase because you understood how the graph *is realated to what you already like* .
I'd suggest its actually the combination of an elevation in the treble and a dip around 1.5khz (the HD 800 effect). But certainly an elevation in the upper regions of ear gain is part of it.
@@ResolveReviews yep, the hifimans have that too. You fill their 1.5k deficit in, a lot of their massive staging becomes more conventional at the cost of becoming more coherent. For me, its the only thing I would change on a susvara. Coherency matters more to me than diffuse presentation, most extreme in the hd800s with its combo of 1k recession and wild 6k spike. Thats maximum soundstage as far as FR is concerned (driver placement and specification also matters).
Great article, that's exactly what I needed! Thank you for the tip.
The sound itself is not subjective. It is physics.
But the neuronal interpretation of these signals is subjective. It is individual biology.
There is an interface between them, where these things are being mixed up, being transformed. That is the headphone. Machine to human interfaces are a tricky thing.
No thats not completely subjective. Thats your HRTF, which is a provable science. What you hear isn't subjective at all, however how you personally choose to perceive it is. But thats after you heard it. What you heard can be proven objectively if we knew your canal impedance as well as a few other factors that can be measured. Just not the interpretation you want to divulge. Thats subjective bias.
The neurological interpretation is very much objective and there are many measurements to objectively prove it. But our subjective bias of those Impulses are exactly that. Even though we can know something sounds a certain way to our ears, our conclusions will still be coloured subjectively. The neurology is objective, but how we psychologically deal *with that information* is subjective. But as Joshi said, thats *after* we hear it.
Does sound exist if no one can hear it or is it then just acoustic waves.
"Nothing is luck, it's just a complex calculation that we can't figure out"
- Dude what you said proved that sound is subjective.
So yes... and by that interpretation it is absolutely true that you can do an objective analysis on sound at ANY person's ear drum. However that doesn't mean it ISN'T subject-specific. As mentioned in the video, sound is literally impacted by the individual. So beyond just preference, frequency response at the ear drum is a subject-sensitive phenomenon. And we can measure the effects.
I liked the explanation. Thanks, Resolve! 😊
Great Video. I really think comfort and fit are way more important than people give it credit.
Good topic. ❤ I agree with Andrew.
Couldn't one measure the differences in HRTF between different listeners by using in-ear microphones under the headphones, that are placed very close to the ear drum? I would be very curious to see the average difference (standard deviation) between 10-50 different heads (in a proper "scientific" setting with repeated measurements for each head etc.) to see the magnitude of that. Of course that's only part of the picture, as the sensoric cells that follow in the chain may differ as well between listeners, and those two factors together then reflect the "physical differences" between listeners (before we get into "pure taste/preference").
So... can we do this?
I’m 42, movies and 80’s heavy metal are my passion but listen and enjoy all sort’s of 80’s music, while I’ve been listening to music all my life am quite new to the audiophile world and find it quite overwhelming with the technical stuff to do with audio such as headphones and IEMS, such as frequency response, impedances, sensitivity or any of the technical stuff, I try to learn them but have several learning disabilities and a low I.Q., plus I have OCD and slight Asperger’s, so for me learning headphones and IEMS has been a challenge and very frustrating and confusing, this all started from me wanting to upgrade my sound quality 2 years ago which having OCD and Asperger’s didn’t help, I want to understand so much about audio in a very simple way so I can enjoy my music on another level with the audio equipment I have like Headphone & IEMS I've previously purchased and try to understand how to use them with EQ and not spend so much money on audio equipment I can’t afford as I've gone deep in this rabbit hole already but need to stop.
As someone with similar neuro-psychological tendecies, I would advice you to look into mental health councelling.
There is very little happiness to be found in hardcore obsessions. Insight might be gained. But happiness will rarely be increased.
@@sms-t1 Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it, I'm already seeking help, been on medication for 20+ years to little or no effect and have seen numerous Psychiatrists & Psychologists over a span of 20+ years, but I get what your saying, I just have an obsession for my music to sound perfect or as good as possible, but didn't know there was so much to audio as I've discovered in the last 2 years of trying to understand it, which has been extremely frustrating to learn audio as I'm a total noob but want to educate myself without spending even more money which I've spent quite a bit on Headphones & IEMS and has not bought me any happiness only me being unsatisfied with them, but if I could understand how to EQ them on a basic level for more vocal clarity which is what I look for when listening to music through any audio equipment that would make me feel at ease and make me not want to purchase any more Headphones or IEMS.
I run a sweep tone and use EQ so it sounds like it has a flat frequency response then further adjust EQ so it sounds good on my music.
@@dangerzone007 I don't have the equipment or software to run a sweep tone, but I do prefer a flat frequency response, where no frequency is favored over another, what I look for when listening to music is vocal clarity.
@@robertobuatti7226 there are plenty of videos of 20 to 20 kilohertz
Spot on. Great content, thank you
What I found really interesting in the Listener article was section 2a. 'What Is Acoustic Impedance?'
In it, he compares the higher positional variance of the 8XX compared to the 800S.
I feel that the acoustic impedance of a headphone is not discussed very often. To me, it sounds like the low acoustic impedance of the 800S is a strong point, but is not something mentioned in reviews. On the contrary, I hear many people saying that the 800S is very fit dependent, which may not be true.
Going forward, is it worth discussing the acoustic impedance of a headphone more often? Or is it not of that much importance in a review?
I would say it's absolutely worth talking about. Part of why I wanted to be sure to mention it in that piece was so I could talk about it in future reviews😂
Having an article/section I can reference in case people need an explanation is useful, but yeah... Deeeeeefinitely going to mentioning acoustic impedance in reviews going forward.
That being said, I wanna be clear that positioning variance ≠ low acoustic impedance, and the inverse isn't true either. One can be indicative of the other but acoustic impedance is more complex than that.
One pain point here is that directly measuring acoustic output impedance is very vexxing, so outside of clear cases (the mesh on the 8XX has higher Z due to stickers, so it must be higher than the 800S), it gets very conjecture-y saying "this is acoustically high impedance".
Hey, thank you for sharing your invaluable insights on these issues.
May I ask if there is a way to learn more about the provisional JM-1 "Target" for B&K 5128?
Where did you get the different 109s?
I've actually been boring people with the shoe analogy myself. It does get the message across. Particularly in regards to people overstating the brilliance of custom EQ profiles like Oratorys Harman presets. There is a horrendous uncertainty stack-up between the headphone measured, the rig, the person creating the profile, and the end user. Both in terms of actually not hearing everything the same way, and different preferences like treble tolerance.
The only bad part to the shoe analogy i think is a large percentage of the population suffers from postural issues related to heel height as well as foot deformities (narrowing of the toebox) due to the popular trends in footwear
(i.e. point is there's massive trends that miss out on features for any given demographic, no matter how large).
I guess the same argument can be made for any head/earphone, both in sound (like harman) and fit or comfort (most popular IEMs being large, nozzle sizes only increasing, cups being too small, headbands almost being designed to be painful).
And yes this comes from my own experiences.
What was that objective measurement score that Jude on head fi covered few months ago.
I believe one of the main things regarding subjectivity in relation to headphones (and loudspeakers) are differences in listening levels. My listening levels are substantially lower than average. I could be wrong but it is of no consequence for my following example. Let’s say I listen on headphones to a Mahler symphony 15 dB below the level in the concert hall and you listen at the true level of the concert hall. Then I will, because of the Fletcher Munson “equal loudness contour “ find a headphone with an elevated bass and treble to sound neutral. You however will find a technical correct frequency balance to sound neutral. The ultimate solution is obviously to make headphones with a proper neutral balance and then get a headphone amplifier with an adjustable loudness facility. WHICH DOESN’T EXIST! At least as far as I know. How on earth did we end up with a hi-fi community where interest in silver cables outstrips interest in frequency balance 🤔 Greeting’s from Denmark
All info and feedback has its place when describing or researching audio gear. The more info the more fun I have. And I love talking about it all too. I think most true hobbyist feel the same way in general, more is better.
I feel like some form of standard between different audio products can help create a unifying experience between listeners. Atleast in the low end or general consumer market. But I also feel like most audio files are looking for an experience that is a step away from the norm weather it be more sub bass, treble etc
Really interesting. How do we communicate what our experience is? Like most of us we look at as much information as possible, especially if we don’t have access to a place to listen to the headphones. Objective measurements are just one piece of that information. That one piece is weighted differently for different people. For me being newer if I am looking at purchasing a headphone I haven’t heard, I like it when others who have heard it reference it to other headphones I have heard. I own the hd600, sometimes you will see several reviews say if you like the sound signature of the hd600 you will most likely like …
I have the HD600 too, and yes comparsion is a must! I saw many reviews where the reviewer said XY things about a headphone, (bassy, big soundstage etc.) i got a picture maybe how could it sound irl i tought at least. But after that when in another video he compared that headphone to others, he just said the opposite things what before, (flat bass response, narrow soundstage) just because relative the other products.... Thats why i only really trust to those reviews where there are comparsions between headphones.
Shoes and headphones are similar in that I spend too much money on both and have more pairs than a sane person needs
Equalise your shoes
Wow, I love that shoe analogy.
The sounds produced by a headphone/IEM/loudspeaker = objective. They are “objects” that we can observe.
How we respond to those “objects” (personally) is subjective. We are individually all the “subjects who experience”.
Sound is 100% not subjective. How you personally like/dislike/are ambivalent towards that sound is subjective. We’re really using the terms incorrectly, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Another example of scientism gone wrong. 🤦♂️
This is a terrific video. Loved the shoe analogy. I agree with everything you’ve said here. It’s really just not that difficult a concept and you’ve shown exactly that. Bravo
FRTF for the win!! I'm all seriousness, I 100% agree with you and your thoughts here.
Maybe it would be interesting to serve up measurements as an animation, where the graph rapidly goes through the entire range of different measurements that were done, in different positions and with different amounts of clamp and leak, so it's more like a fuzzy shape rather than an absolute fixed line.
I think there's an aspect to the subjective side that wasn't mentioned. The perception of audio is skewed by multiple biases, whether you are aware of it or not. The amount you spent on your cans, how it measures, what Resolve, DMS and Joshua said about it, and how nice the cans look all come down to well known biases.
Can't wait for objective measurements for trailing end of tones and sound stage.
Both of those are frequency response, though we don't know exactly how FR affects headstage, just that it does for sure since there are some things you can do it to widen or shrink the stage, simply by boosting or cutting certain frequencies.
Hell, you can even use mid-side comparator to change stage with DSP, works shockingly well.
@@KaneAmaroq So if you EQ an Audio-Technica ATH-M50x to be the same as a Sennheiser HD800s it will have just as good sound stage.
@@dangerzone007 If you knew exactly what to change (this is very hard, not really likely without further understanding) and if you weren't boosting frequencies enough to distort, yeah. Absolutely.
Audio is not magic. If it can be heard, you can measure it. But I hate to tell you, you do not understand what frequency response is if you think it's as simple as EQ.
I'm just sad that Harman OE is being phased out. I understand that it's inevitable because of better measurement equipment, but when I apply correction to Harman OE on my headphones, everything suddenly sounds natural to me, as if Harman OE is very close to my own HRTF. Here's hoping we get an adjusted target for the new measurement rig that matches what would be experienced with Harman.
Of course it is. That's why the best advice you give anyone is to listen for themselves and see if they like it. Now, to watch the video 😊
Well done, resolve.
A succinct beginning of an analysis.
🐅 this hobby can be as complicated or simpl as you want it to be.
if you want to become a little more competent and move along the hobby, you really do have to assess both ends of the spectrum. you will find you will walk down the middle somewhere
But you need to bear in mind to, that a hell of a lot of acoustic studys have been undertaken in this field, but when you dig a little deeper, there are a lot of flaws even with in the scientific papers,
There are so many areas of the human condition and circumstance that have never been taken into account.
you will find some floor with the assessment or the variety of people et cetera.
But as a rule, we tend to have a good understanding these days not that there isn’t more to learn or more to be discovered. Science is never an absolute
that's why I love your channel man !
You mean 'flaws', not floor, right?
@@samburden5053 the question is whose feet do we throw this down at? Apple text to speech, or me not for checking? 😂
Its not absolute, but science is our best education. Its vital that you use both subjective and objective interpretations together so you dont succumb to confirmation biases that cause addictions. Those addictions happen a lot in subjective sides of this community like headfi. They spiral, because there is nothing impartial to reflect on. Its essential you have both to protect your mental health far more so than your absolute enjoyment of this hobby. Mental health isn't enjoyable when vicarious pursuits can't be sustainable.
@@ConvinceMeAudio haha, thats very relatable. Far more so when you type in two languages and it auto corects to the one you don't want
I really like and enjoy both these videos and your opinions and have found them helpful in the past. But I do want to know, instead of evaluating a headphone, have you ever tried a new headphone WITHOUT looking at the graphs first, or without analysing how they sound, ever just put them on your head first and see if you enjoy them, without listening as an evaluation? Genuine question. I’m sure you must have at canjam surely?
Listening is always required BEFORE measuring. So the graph is always done after a headphone is subjectively assessed.
Almost all reviews do that. Even crinacle dies that. The only reviewer that I know that does it in the way you decribe is Amir, but everyone else does subjective listening first, followed by the data.
@@ResolveReviews So it’s never the case then that you get an email saying, ‘these are the new IEM’s from xyz, and these are going to be sent out for review this week’ and the first thing you do is look up a measurement graph from someone else…that doesn’t happen?
@@benstain2674 hopefully that’s right, because that’s how it should be done otherwise the reviewer is unnecessary. If there is no subjective opinion, then all we have is graphs and company spiel. But there are situations surely when that doesn’t necessarily happen in that order. In fact I’m sure one time I heard crinacle saying that he had measured something but ‘hadn’t tried it out yet’ and the graph said what it said. I just worry that might influence subjectivity if you see a graph first.
@@RocketLauncherwithInfiniteAmmo Well... I think you have to consider who is doing the measurements. In the majority of cases, WE are the ones doing the measurements, since they don't exist for many of the products we cover. And in the cases where they do, like for certain IEMs, those are typically done on 711 based systems, which aren't going to be accurate for acoustic Z since they don't have an actual ear canal. So to answer your question, generally no we don't have measurements beforehand. There are some exceptions like for well-known headphones we haven't covered, where we all have a general understanding of how they perform acoustically. But even then, that understanding usually doesn't come from 5128 data either.
You do not hear the graph, and do not hear in the same manner that microphones transduce. Human hearing perception is not a simple linear process, rather is nonlinear, and is significantly varied among individuals, some variation due to physiological differences, some due to psychological differences, some learned and some innate.
technically, we all have different ears n brain n etc.
so subjectively, we hear da same things differently.
If a headphone measures well then it ends up on my listening list, and if it also sounds good then it ends up on my possible purchase list, what ultimately determines my purchase is the one on my purchase list that has the best comfort and build quality.
why is that ear is a sensory organ and sound interpretation can be slightly different by environment we live not tropical or mount but the culture, personally i found at the start that audiophile neutral was like needle in my ears, but now i'm used to it , i understand search for detail in less muddied waters, but then again i agree that there shouldn't be a debate since the measurement is like saying this door opening is 6 feet and whether i ll fit is a decision i have to make,
The thing I find hilarious about "objective" graphs is that they are invariably presented relative to a categorically "subjective" target curve. Objectivity attached at the hip to the subjective. To be empiricaly "objective" wouldn't 0db be better. I'm think it speaks volumes that objectivity and subjectivity need each other to create context and greater meaning. The best benefit being a blend of both.
Another oddity is that creators all have different target curves. No one exactly the same. It would be interesting to create a composite of a few of these targets to measure against. A sort of Headphone Show Zone of Goodliness. One thing I find most interesting is when a product measures near as perfect to the target curve. Now we can have a real conversation. From literally across the globe one can obtain a product, combine the objective graph with the creators listening notes on music and really communicate in a meaningful way. Again, its not one or the other its both objective and subjective taken for what they are not forced into something they're not.
the diffuse field hrtf of a b&k 5128 head and torso simulator is an objective measurement with evidence to back its validity as a target curve when tilted and given a bass boost. the harman target was also objectively produced before being tweaked with subjective responses from participants. the point of a measurement is also not always to compare with a target curve, but can allow us to diagnose the glaring flaws or strengths of a headphone.
There was no target curve released for this instrument by the manufacturer so some degree of subjectivity had to be used. Particularly with tilt and bass boost. I'm not saying there is a problem with that. I'm saying targets are inherently preferential and at least partly subjective.
@@timothylai8483 somthing you have incorrectly diagnosed because you have no proper education.
@@enjoshi-godrez8775 are you genuinely restarted?
@@timothylai8483 "are you genuinely restarted".
A graph is like a map. You can look at it and get a good idea of where your destination is.
I think headphones are objective, preference is subjective.
It's so hard to say but yesss... I like my solaris 2020, sound good to me.
At the same time, the design and the quality of the drivers makes the headphones or iems not sound at the graphics, can be bright or warm and even bad timber.
in my opinion the sound is subjective, and objective data is for assist to your subjective preference
BRILLIANT...
I am not convinced that auditory relativism is a bad epistemology. It is still possible to have meaningful conversations about one’s experience with an audio product even if audio is relative and everyone has a different experience. Your argument can be interpreted in one of two ways. One: Auditory relativism is a bad epistemology because the relativity of audio makes any communication about one’s experience unintelligible to another listener. Two: The relativity of audio makes any communication about one’s experience unhelpful to another listener seeking a good experience with an audio product. Under the first interpretation, the argument takes for granted that listeners can still communicate their experiences intelligibly without relying on an established reference target. Most listeners have an intuitive understanding of how voices and instruments sound in real life and many songs involve instruments that listeners have heard in real life. Most listeners then rely on this understanding as the basis for communicating their experiences with an audio product. A reference target is designed to quantify this understanding and make it precise. Through reference targets can be a useful tool to allow listeners to communicate their experiences, they are not necessary. Under the second interpretation, your argument errs in assuming that listeners only talk about their experiences to make or receive product recommendations. Sometimes, listeners like to talk about their experiences because it makes for good conversation and can help members of the community forge stronger connections. That auditory relativism fails to help listeners recommend products to one another is not enough to establish that auditory relativism is a bad epistemology, or that auditory relativism fails as a way of conveying knowledge of one’s experience with an audio product.
It's at least 80% objective beyond hearing loss, but a lot of people are emotionally attached to purchase decisions and wish to claim the opposite or just haven't had enough time with audio in general to arrive in the general direction most do.
Of course taste in music is a big thing as well, but give a test group the same playlist, all the headphones available and a year to play with them and the consensus will be striking I'm sure.
oh dont get me started on shoes dude :D
I prefer shoes with distinct arch space right under my plantar fascia. If it touches something it bothers me and I also cannot really balance my weight.
I loathe the sharp looking narrow toebox designs. they just torture my feet.
I dont particularly require the arch support but having a 0.5 cm support is nice.
I've used the headphones/shoes analogy myself, but to justify having multiple pairs for different uses lol
I like the analogy of wines. I've heard the research of that the sommeliers don't really know the difference between them, because only the best of the best are there so that the differences become noise. So... I have 2 rules when I buy something that is not mesuarable the ability. One is to consider that the one that does not look good is better if they have the same rating. And the other is to integrate the ratings made by different people. The first one adjusts their gain and the second one compensates their noise. About data... I don't compare the graphs. Because they look almost the same :D
No your just horrendously uneducated on how to interpret these graphs. Thars why you made this false equivalence to something that isn't objective at all.
@@samulhardif8331 The first thing you said may be true. I don't know how to compare them well. But, the second is not true. Think about comparing 2 options that are the best. Then, if there is noise, the noise makes the differences ineffective. For example, the score of the one is 97 and the other one is 96. If there is the noise of +/- 3, you can't tell which is better. That is the simple result of the maths.
@@enjoshi-godrez8775 Oh, I didn't know that. I was uneducated. But the noise, I mentioned, is the difference between individuals. Though I'm uneducated about that too...
@@user-gs2ds2ke9m well that what makes it a false equivalency. You can interpret the graph in a objective way. You can deconstruct it into components that realate *directly* with your own perspective. The inference is constant. With wine tasting, you cant know what's actually going on in the MoW head, so you don't actually know what that reasult means exactly.
@@enjoshi-godrez8775 My analogy turned out to be wrong. Wine has no truth, but speakers do. It's the recorded sound wave. And the perspective is triangulation. I'm beginning to feel like it's worth getting to know for myself. Thank you.
one analogy I like, that sound is like food
some people like chicken meat, some people may like cow meat
but good chicken is good chicken even for people who don't like chicken
you may like spicy food, and you can add spice to your food like we can add EQ
Objectively, the ear/innercanal shape is going to affect your perception of the sound, maybe your height can have some effect too (on your bone structure)
Subjectively... Traumas 👀💧
I'm in this hobby for the fun of it, so i stay away from all those objective things, not because they don't matter, but because they take away some of the fun in this hobby. So when i see a video where the objective findings are longer than the subjective impressions... Well that's no fun lol
While that's fair, your method is also incredibly subject to confirmation bias, and someone telling you about a product can easily make you experience things that aren't really there.
So unless you have tons of money to waste on stuff that oftentimes doesn't even matter, it's good to know if what you're working with is actually real and not just some weirdo on Head-Fi talking about things he has no idea about.
@@KaneAmaroq that's also valid, this is my main hobby so I have the luxury to take such risks. I don't really pay attention to what anyone says tbh about anything, unless it's someone I know and respect. I just go for it and see if I like it or not, which I know isn't realistic for everybody, and it's something most people aren't committed to do. It will depend on how deep you are in this hobby, and I find that the deeper you go the more things don't make sense. But it's still good to try and make sense of things when you can
I think there are variations on what sounds natural, but measurements help verify what I hear sometimes.
A good rule of thumb is to hear a reviewers comments on a headphone/iem you already own to calibrate their subjectivity to your own.
Thats also how you use objective measurements. You understand how that iem sounds because of the relative differences from the iem you own on the same rig. Its a better confirmation if you learn how to read the graph.
In a follow-up video you should ask the question is sound in cables subjective.
I mean... insofar as it relates to audiophile cable memes, that's a bit like asking if magic is subjective. All depends on how much you BELIEEEEVE.
@@ResolveReviews I saw a video recently where Wave Theory was 100% certain that the standard Hfiiman cables produced a treble peak. Then there's passion for sound who goes on about different cables sounding different. Of course none of these people ever measure anything or do a blind test. The headphone impedance should be much higher than the cable impedance so there's no logical explanation. These people either have magic hearing or magic imagination. I find this incredibly annoying because I hate all the snake oil. I guess I better question would be how much of subjective hearing is in the imagination.
@@dangerzone007 Hmmm... I'd be curious to test that hifiman cable peak claim. That's one that would be clearly verifiable in measurements if that is in fact the case. I doubt it, but easy enough to verify.
@@ResolveReviews My experience is that my silver headphone cable results in a cleaner, more detailed sound than my copper cable. Silver is a superior conductor than copper, so based in scientific theory, this observation holds water. A recently published scientific paper supposed that the differences between the (perceived) sound of silver and copper cables is in _the time domain_ and cannot be measured by simply measuring and comparing frequency responses.
@@mattrismatt Ironically then this wouldn't matter for headphones at all, given that they're minimum phase devices - where time domain information is proportional to frequency response. So if it did make an audible difference... , you'd see it in the FR.
Bring back Golden sound on the next headphone show live stream.
Fr fr no cap ong
I don't find the shoe analogy to fit in that well. Where I stand right now is that frequency response, and other measurements, along with the subjectivity are all part of a review. However, much like with smartphones, shoes, or other products one thing is the product details (and their claims) and another thing is how they work (sound) for you. If you don't have access to some of these headphones to try out before purchase then you might need more than just objective measurements to be informed in your purchase decision.
Objective measurements and subjectivity are all part of a review but what is on paper is not the whole story; how many times have reviewers stated that a headphone does not sound like expected. When reviewers describe how sound is like for them it paints a better picture. Otherwise, according to Crinacle all Meze headphones would be terrible even though that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion.
In short, both are important but just like in this video objective measurements are often overstated and contribute to a sense of elitism in this community.
The meze opinion is popular with people that have standards. Unfortunately a lot of audiophiles have purchasing addictions which prevent them from reconciling with the fact price doesn't follow performance as a rule. They will judge the product based on its price exclusively no matter how bad it is in reality. That example is 'fental gilness'. Its not a good example.
7:09 Listener in shambles
I'm surprised hrtf compensation software isn't standard on ANC headphones. That combined with the ability to choose a target curve and the majority of "objectivists" would pick up one of those and never look back. Graphs would then be irrelevant and more emphasis would be put on finding optimal target curves. Analog wired headphones would be dead and gone only kept alive by an ever decreasing number of hobbyist claiming the intangibles still matter.
Personally I haven't seen enough on either side to be convinced of anything because of conflicting information. EQ seems to solve every issue I've had with frequency response, but even then all my headphones still sound significantly different. Where I stand currently I think graphs are taken too seriously because EQ is getting easier to implement by the year so stock tuning is becoming less relevant. Because of that I think more attention needs to be focused on the technicalities that subjectivists hold onto so strongly, as in to focus on proving/disproving those attributes. Should those intangibles be in what we can measure then with good enough EQ stock tuning will become truly irrelevant, and EQ headroom will be more important.
I realized just how subjective sound is when i bought some "nice and balanced sounding" IEMs, only to have them Torture my ears with high frequencies. At that point i realized i am CRAZY sensitive to treble, and I enjoy head shaking bass because i feel music lacks authority without it.
Food would have been a better analogy. Measuring the amount of salt tells you if there is anything wrong with the food. How it will taste will depend. Nevertheless, very few will like 1 kilo of salt in their plate.
Ah, now I understand why there are so few women in audio. Men buy shoes for comfort and women don't.
This is the best comment. RUclips buried it because they are allergic to comedy.
DT200 best IEM, change my mind (you can’t). Great video though, you tackled a controversial subject very well.
I would say sound is objective. For example, 1000hz is 1000hz, 85 dB SPL is 85 dB SPL.
Lets say objective means fact and subjective means opinion.
Some people will call the measurement "objective" and the human hearing "subjective", but both of conclusion came with same source, so they must be same.
It is either objective or subjective. And I think sound is objective as I state 1000 hz is 1000hz. No one should hear 1000 hz sound and call it 2000 hz. Just some people think the measurement do not match with their hearing, then they differentiate objective and subject sound, they treat sound and perceived sound as different sound.
Some may say different people have different ear drum and ear shape. It definitely change how we perceived sound, but it is just the limitation of how we measuring or perceiving the sound, the source of the sound still remain the same and also that is the factual or objectivity of it. Maybe we perceiving the sound differently and resulting different opinion make people think sound is subjective, factually only the feels of perceiving sound is subjective (opinion) not the sound itself.
For short, You drink coke using different containers. You will get different taste, but you just perceive the coke differently, so you will not call the coke is subjective. The coke likes sound, containers like ear shapes and ear drums, taste like hearing.
Another example, temperature, 25℃ is 25℃ (subjective) . Some will say it is cold (subjective) , some will say it is hot (subjective), some will say it is good (subjective). The sound is similiar to the temperature, the difference is the measurement of hearing sound has limitations, so the measurement is not exactly the original sound.
Technically, their are properties of sound that are objectively measurable. However, one's perception of sound is subjective.
Since there is no shared consciousness between humans, all of one's perceptions are subjective.
There is no way for anyone else to perceive directly what I am hearing. Therefore, what I am hearing is purely subjective.
The open question is how do objective measurable properties of sound relate to one's subjective perception of sound.
Are there correlations and/or causal relations between the measured objective properties of sound and one's perception of sound, and how do these correlations and/or causal relationships vary across populations of subjects and with conditions or attributes of subjects such as physical health, mental health, age, sex, stress level, socio-economic status, educational level, hearing acuity, mood, extent and/or type of musical experience and/or training, etc.?
Opinions are always subjective. Frequency Response measurements are objective. Someone articulating how a headphone sounds is subjective. You can change the test scenario or apply EQ, but that doesn't alter these basic facts one bit.
hope to see a sitting Talk between Resolve GoldenSound and Valour about the Heddphone 2 , the review of Resolve and Golden left me with the feeling that the Hedd 2 is a bargain at 2000$ where josh seem to think it dont worth 300$!
Maybe Josh just doesn't like Hedd.
For some people "subjective" means that they can take a truckload of drugs before their listening session and whatever they hear from that is headphone sound quality. Like seriously, a lot of opinions online are useless for a consumer, because they don't really evaluate the product, only the trip that a person once had with their music.
Moreover, people who review audio gear have no way of knowing where a certain impression came from. Were it the headphones? An amplifier? A cable? Or maybe you just heard what was recorded in that piece of music? Their decision on which one was that is almost always arbitrary and based on convenience.
The only method that brings something conclusive is cross referencing objective and subjective data. The more data points and sources, the better. Anything else and you're not reviewing a product, only your own mind and tools.
This is an interesting and worthwhile video, and your shoe analogy makes a lot of sense. However, are you really talking about subjectivity?
When most people say something is subjective, I think they mean that individual tastes and preferences play a significant role in people’s experiences. This isn’t a particularly interesting claim, but it’s still important: people have different opinions about the same experiences. You like jazz; I mostly don’t, etc.
Your definition of subjective here is a bit different - more along the lines of ‘varying from one person to the next’. So, following your analogy, shoes fit different feet differently, and people have different experiences of the same shoe as a result. You find Crocs comfortable; I don’t, etc.
The problem with this second definition is that it actually relates to different *objective* experiences. Crocs fit your feet; they don’t fit mine. The fact that I despise them for a whole host of subjective reasons is another matter entirely.
I wonder how much of the debate between so-called objectivists and subjectivists really comes down to using the term ‘subjective’ in these different ways. We really have three positions:
1. All things being equal, people’s experiences of identically-measuring headphones will be the same…
2. … but all things aren’t equal, and individual experiences do vary because of *objective* differences in anatomy, etc. that we don’t yet fully understand and can’t feasibly measure…
3. … and even if we discount these objective anatomical differences, people - for reasons of taste, etc. - have different subjective responses to the same sensory experiences.
I suspect many objectivists, as well as those who stress the primacy of ‘subjectivity’ in the world of audio, actually converge on position 2.
Confucius said: "Items that measure well will not always sound good. Items that measure poorly will not always sound bad."
All five of our senses are subjective. That isn’t even in question! Now can you postulate a median that most people fall in? Absolutely!
With today’s spacial head-tracking technology it should be possible to develop up firing speaker shoes that keep a coherent beam of sound focused on each ear regardless of whether one is sitting, standing walking or running. Of course these would include the old Maxwell Smart shoe-phone tech for taking calls but the real star of the show would be the sole nurturing sound.
Sole nurturing indeed!
These feet have major PRaT (pasing, rythem, and tone)!
@@ResolveReviews To Play/Pause you jump once on the spot. Play Next Track: Jump to the Left. Play Previous Track: Jump to the Right. Increase Volume: Hop forward on Right Foot. Decrease Volume: Hop Backward on Left Foot. ANC: Tap Dance. Aware: Line Dance. ..
2:57 FOR FREE?
That was a long way of saying what I have been saying for quite a long time.
Everyone’s ears are different.
It’s notable to me that the reviews with graphs are almost never really just reviewing the graph, but rather have a core of their listening impressions that then go to the graph to find explanations for the cause of their impressions. There’s a balance between objective and subjective review content.
On the flip side, with reviewers who seem allergic to graphs, they often throw out puzzling impressions that make me feel like never mind calibrating against a measured objective reference point, they’re neglecting to calibrate against some kind of subjective reference.
Yes if they don't use the graph they should state the difference between that headphone and a reference headphone on a particular track.
That second part - the amount of times I read a subjective review/impressions of a headphone that contradicts itself. A lot of the time I think it's just people confusing terms, like people talking about a headphone having forward treble and recessed bass and mids, only to describe it as "warm" moments later, but sometimes it just sounds like they're literally writing their impressions one sentence at a time during the first song they've listened to, and changing their mind every few words. 🤣🤣
Perception is subjective.
An objective reviewer should be able to satisfy anyone after a subjective assessment by simply including the objective data from several of other popular headphones for comparison. Of course, the reader needs to be familiar with the subjective audio from at least one of the compared headphones…
There are blindtests where listeners hear a difference, only because they think there is a difference. When doing a nul test it appears that there was no difference at all. The mind can be tricked easily, our ears are not hardwired, sound is interpreted by our brain. Our brain can only pinpoint focus on three instruments at a time, the rest gets more into the background. A good mixing engineer or producer knows this.
To me raw measurements being shown are still import. People who have been in this hobby for quite some time already have their own preference and to me just looking at the raw measurments would tell me if I'd like it or not. Same as reviewers doing compensated measurements.
See you think you want this... but when you consider what's going on with the different measurement rigs, you realize that you actually want compensated graphs. Raw graphs are just a worse visualization across the board because of the parallel line illusion (even some of the folks doing the measurements fall into this trap). The only scenario where raw graphs are of value is when the measurement is done on a GRAS system and being shown relative to Harman, because that's meaningfully different from the DFHRTF calibration of the system, and that's when you don't want people to assume it is by showing it as a flat line.
@@ResolveReviews I get that different rigs will show different values but why show it compensated to harman curve when you and crin also agree that it is shouty? why not compensate it to zero (flat) then?
@@lisan_al-ghaib we compensate to the DFHRTF of the rig, which is effectively "compensating to zero". It's like a microphone calibration. We then show it relative to the preference tilt (which is Harman research). But it's still compd to each rig-specific HRTF.
@@ResolveReviews but why still use Harman though? I thought everyone agrees it's not neutral enough. Because minor shout + bass shelf isn't exactly what you'd call neutral. It's like when calibrating studio monitors or speakers, there's no target curve afterwards.
@@lisan_al-ghaib it doesn't change the outcomes of the preference research. The issue is the starting point for IEMs was the same as over ears, and that didn't factor in the lack of acoustic Z on the ear sim. But the research itself is still the best we have. So we just apply that to the DFHRTF.
The only people who complain about objective data even when it is additive to a subjective review are those who either don't understand what it means or routinely find it misaligning with their own hearing and instead of accepting they don't understand it or that they may have flawed hearing they choose to denounce the data itself.
Exactly. Addicted is the right word. They're so in deep into purchase validation addiction and bias that they will box themselves into one way of thinking so they can validate those purchase decisions, instead of understanding what the measurements means in respect to your preferences. They don't comprehend what the latter means.
Thats basically what headfi is.
This is not black and white. Something resolve tries to explain but doesn't quite get it. You can try to approach how headphones sound from a partially objective viewpoint, but because of how people do hear things differently, sometimes it really is almost completely relative and very much can't be reined in by objective measurements.
This is also still not addressing the elephant in the room. I'll flip what Resolve said on it's head and say that objective measurements can go only so far. In the end, subjective experiences make or break audio products and are the ultimate determiner of whether these things get sold and exist. And that's not to say that these subjective experiences are like some kind of vague, almost spiritual notion - but that they are real characteristics which objective measurements cannot fully represent. Dynamics in various bands all over response, staging (in all dimensions), refinement (IMO combination of smoothness and detail) and imaging, which alone in my experience can change how the frequency response is perceived massively, and therefore can make two headphones with very similar responses seem hugely different (Hifiman's whole line for ref.).
Ultimately, I think that the only thing that can carry you in this hobby is experience. Like most other hobbies, really.
I mean, there's gotta be SOME reason why the CA Vega 2020 sounds pretty decent to me but to everyone else they want to chuck it into Mt. Doom.
Poor, uneducated tastes. Thats how you reach the conclusion you have, not just HRTF.
Some people eat dog food. We don't have to listen or respect these people, but they are out there. You're a dog food eater.
@@enjoshi-godrez8775 When people say audiophiles are just a bunch of elitist assholes, you are the guy they are referring to, lmao.
@@TonkyTronicus i don't mean it like that. I made the equivalence in the tuning of the vega, which has bass so horrendously overblouted at even at 500hz that completely swallows everthing until the presence region is as esoteric as eating dog food. Eating dog food doesn't make you evil, you just have completely unsympathisable views on food. The vega is equivalent to that but for iem tunings. Thats it.
@@TonkyTronicus again, if you asked what food someone liked and they said dog food, what would be your response? You wouldn't say something outwardly hurtful to them, you will be apathetic to their opinions. They're so beyond the scope of decency, that you cant have a real conversation with them.
technically objective but subjective preference.
I don't understand how this is an argument. EXPERIENCE is subjuective, but FR is very much not. Even if you don'r personally care about graphs and data, I can't imagine why any would argue for them not to be included. Even if the data isn't important to you personally, who would ever argue for less data available to the cusyomer?
So I get the spirit of what you're saying, but technically this wording is incorrect. FR at the ear drum is very much subject-specific, as I showed in the video with different HRTFs of different 'heads'. Moreover, HpTF effects and HRTF variation make it the case that FR at the ear drum is literally influenced by the subject to varying degrees. But yes, having the data as an indicator is precisely the point.
3:17 4:11 my guy…
Whenever a review describes how something sounds they should do it in the context of the frequency response and distortion measurements and how the frequency response and distortion correlates to the sound. If there is high distortion in the bass at high volumes then that should be part of the reviewers description.
I don't take subjective experience seriously when reading/watching most audio reviews. It's interesting to hear the reviewers experience, but as you said, everyone's ear is different. I still don't see the value of subjective evaluation of sound in reviews.
You're confusing FR with the intangibles like soundstage and detail. They're not completely inclusive. An identical FR can sound different. Thats why the subjective part of the review is required. The graph objectively does not tell you everything and never will.
@@samburden5053 First, how am I confusing FR with "intangibles"? Second, "identical FR can sound different" is exactly my point, so you're basically just echoing me there. I never really find soundstage and imaging to be that much different on a variety of different headphones anyways, YMMV on this, but that's why I don't take subjective experience seriously.
@@AFreezer what headphones have you tried and what music do you listen to? If you only listing to terribly mastered anime music on poorly reviewed 50 to $200 headphones, then yea that makes sense. But not a LCD5 listening to daftpunk. So which is it?
@@AFreezerthere is objective data like distortion, envelope smearing, impulse response, sound power, etc that all at not effected by FR, but do objectively alter the wave single. It is objectively provable that the same FR will sound different. Your conclusions is based on poor education and experience.
Y'all ain't reading my comment 🤣🤣 What you pointed out, "same FR can sound different" IS my point.
Tldr technically yes and no
The problem arises because sound has both the meaning of moving pressure waves and the signals from ear to brain bundled together
A simple thing people, if you think sound is Objective you don't have enough experience.
Sound is subjective and share your subjective review, use objective to back up what you are saying.
Its also useful to reflect on what you like as a preference. For instance, knowing that you like bigger sounstage and more open presentation can be reflected in the graph with a elevated gain the pretence region between 4 and 6k. If you like a more intimate, studio like sound, you will want a recession in the region. You can decide more on your next purchase because you understood how the graph realated for your next purchase.
@@benstain2674 Exactly, like my ear canals boosts frequencies upto 300hz way too much so even a little bit extended bass makes me puke, on the other side my ear canals lowers 5-7K way too much, so Neutral Bright Signature is my preffered choice.
And we can't blame people who haven't tried enough headphones, it's what they have to do. But passing judgements by that is a big sin in the hobby.
@@benstain2674... I don't think it's as simple as attributing different frequency ranges to things such as soundstage etc. What about in cases like mine, where I have been tested and found to have a considerable drop at "the presence region" in one of my ears? Will my experience always differ from most? Will I ever experience "soundstage" the same way that you do with the same headphones? Even with EQ applied?
Oh, of course sound is subjective. When someone spends four figures on a headphone cable, they subjectively hear every FR quirk of a given headphone go away!
yes
When a reviewer uses the word Epistemology and relativism … don’t even try to be a smart a$$ in your responses lol. I’m wondering if in a perfect world before you start getting serious with audio, ( you know getting separate amp and preamp or DACs or Cd transports etc for your speakers or headphones ) you are required or forced to hear a close to perfect measuring headphone or speaker. Would “ subjectivists” continue to exist in this audio related endeavor we are in? Is realism really the objective of those who consider themselves objectivists? Or is realism in reproduced / audio recordings really the intent or we are robbed of this goal by the recording engineers who are involved ?
Next time you speak to me, no cap and shave (only the beard) or not ! Big dilemma in my objective/subjective opinion... :)
Exactly what I'm thinking. If one's perception is sooooo off from others and cannot be characterized since everyone is different, what's the point those people sharing their experience on the net or discuss with others.