I notice that I have to keep explaining my Subjective opinions to people in other Audio forums. So I would like to create an open discussion on the matter. Do you base your Audio experience/purchases on Subjective listening or Objective data?
This is a very good topic actually.
I always prefer subjective listening to judge an audio gear nowadays however in the last few years or so, the all my blind purchases were based on objectively reading graphs and tech.
1 Like
I like tubes and cables from a subjective me 
2 Likes
I am currently in a back and forth on Head-fi over this, lol
I have respect for those who are in either camp, or those who fall in between, but don’t try to be an authority on something especially if reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Whatever gets you to your audio nirvana, is the right path to go down. I will browse graphs, but I know that only tells a small part of the story. In the end it will always be an individual’s ears that have the last word. 
1 Like
I am a cables matter guy myself, and I am about to get into tubes next month. 
2 Likes
Welcome 
…
3 Likes
Thanks, but my wallet will hate me soon.
2 Likes
Sometimes you are forced to do that depending on where you live. Better to base it on the graphs in that case than going in completely blind. It is what I had to do with my Arya Stealth purchase. Graphs + Subjective reviews.
1 Like
Also watching multiple reviews while making blind purchase can either make or break your purchase decision. for example when I was about to buy Edition XS, I got motivated to buy it after watching a couple of reviews while one of the reviewer completely shattered my dreams but guess what? I eventually bought it
1 Like
Your brain and ears – which always are subjective – should be the final arbiter of any purchasing decision, not a frequency graph.
Graphs are just guideposts. They can’t replicate your ears and brain.
And for those saying they can’t try headphones, then take some time to find reviewers who like similar sound signatures as you or have positively reviewed headphones you have tried and liked and criticized cans you have disliked. Follow their lead because they’ve actually heard the unit in question and not just run a frequency curve graphing program.
Buying straight off a graph almost always leads to disappointment because graphs don’t measure stuff like stage, imaging and timbre very well, not to mention the most important aspect of any headphone purchase – comfort.
4 Likes
My original statement was that I noticed a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/xxx FLAC. It was solely a subjective statement in how it was formulated. Many hours of back and forth since then. 
I usually base most of my purchase decisions based on viewing graphs, having a nice dataset for reviews (both written and videos), and then finish it off with the actual listen when I get it. The last part, as we all know, is the true test and how it sounds to us.
As a cya for that last statement, I try to get things from places that are easily returnable (e.g. Amazon) but am also fine with selling gear on the gear selling sections of forums or on eBay as needed. As time marches on our tastes might change too so it’s just a natural way of things for us audiophiles to sell the old stuff and either get new shiny things or just stick with the favorites of what you already have (for as long as you can hold out…lol).
2 Likes
I’ll throw out that I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how we - the collective we - often frame this discussion as a versus kind of thing, ie. subjective VS objective. The underlying implication seems to be that the subjective and objective aspects of sound reproduction are in tension or conflict. In reality, they are in concert. It’s becoming clearer to me that we really should be reframing the discussion as subjective AND objective. There is a balance to be struck between the two - or more accurately there are balances to be struck between the two.
The nature and behavior of sound is objective and well understood. The electronic reproduction of sound is fairly well understood and is quite objective. There are some holes in our collective understanding, but we know enough to be very confident in how we do it and create very predictable and repeatable results.
Where it gets tricky is on the perception side. The how our perceptions work is objective. We are all the same species. Thus, the physiological processes by which we hear and make sense of sounds are identical from person to person. The challenge is that everyone’s body has just a little bit different shape which influences how those physiological processes get started. Then, while all our brains work the same way, our experiences make different things more salient than others. This causes each person’s brain to physically “wire” itself slightly differently than anyone else’s brain, which in turn means we all have slightly different takes on what sounds “good” or “right” or “accurate” or “pleasing” or… And here’s where the subjective aspects come in. The mechanistic processes are objective. Our experiences of them is subjective - and ironically are subjective for objective reasons.
For me currently it comes down to this: we have lots of evidence that suggests that there is an acceptable range of traits that for the vast majority of humans to enjoy the electronic reproduction of music (or gaming sounds, or tv/movie sounds, etc.), must fall within certain tolerance ranges. That’s objective. How adjustments are made within those tolerance ranges is also objective. But how each person responds is subjective - even though the reasons for that subjectivity are themselves objective (I hope that makes sense). Thus, I believe it’s important to approach this as each person finding their balance points. I’ll also throw in that we need to be aware that our balance points are not static either. Our brains are very plastic and are constantly forming new connections. Those balances points will inevitably move.
Clear as mud? Haha.
So I come back to where I started, I hope that collectively we can figure out how to move beyond framing the debate as an either/or discussion and figure out how to approach it as a yes/and discussion. My $0.02.
Cheers, all
-WT 
7 Likes
I don’t disagree that both sides come into play in how we ultimately perceive sound, but It is how we go about discussing the topic that is important. If someone says something sounds better to them, don’t try to throw “Objective” & “Scientific” reasons as to why they shouldn’t prefer something. The argument that you are wrong for liking something due to measurements drawing to a different conclusion is a lost argument to begin with. That is my reasoning for starting this thread.
1 Like
If enough people seem to subjectively like a piece of gear and Amir complains about some kind of measurement on it, then I am interested. Because then I KNOW it’s measurably different.
If enough people subjetively like a piece of gear and Amir praises it, then I am only somewhat interested.
If Amir gushes over a piece of gear’s measurements, then I don’t care and assume it sounds sterile AF.
I am only somewhat joking… but this approach has helped me find gear that I like, personally. Of course, there are exceptions to those rules.
1 Like
The biggest exception to the above rules: Amir, the subject of idolatry from the neutralites/“measurements are god” crowd at ASR, is a self-admitted basshead. 
His parametric EQ suggestions for headphones he measures and reviews create bloated, bovine gas bass cannons. I like warm tuning, but his EQ settings spawn absolutely excessive low end.
3 Likes
doesn’t really matter…I’m never wrong. I may not always be right…but I’m never wrong.
4 Likes
Science has well-established that our physiological processes/structure are NOT close to identical in experiencing music. For example, musicians hear/experience music differently than non-musicians. Musicians have signficantly different cortical development (grey and white matter) than non-musicians. I can provide the community with pages and pages of links that show this difference, if you would like. Please let me know.
You bring up some other excellent points of discussion, though.