Why we (often) upgrade the wrong things (first) and ignore the important things

I never saw a room treatment that looked sexy to me. A vintage Yamaha receiver with 20 buttons and meters, however.... 

You can never go wrong with...

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/uUQAAOSw1B9jDXVd/s-l1600.jpg

DeKay

Great comments! Glad you are liking the suggested video.

I disagree that audio is subjective. 

Something that comes up constantly in audio forums is the claim that sound quality is "subjective," usually deployed to shut down conversation or excuse any result from any equipment. 

But if that were really true, we wouldn't be able to have these discussions at all — and clearly we can. We read reviews, take recommendations seriously, update our views after a demo or a careful listening session. That's not what a purely subjective domain looks like.

What people usually mean when they say "it's subjective" is one of a few things: individual listeners have different sensitivities and preferences (true, and manageable), the variables are hard to control (also true, but that's an experimental challenge, not a metaphysical wall), or the causal chain from equipment to perception is complicated (absolutely — but complexity isn't the same as arbitrariness).

There's also a large scientific literature on psychoacoustics and listening preference that converges on real findings about what most listeners find pleasing, fatiguing, or accurate. That literature exists because the domain is tractable.

So "subjective" in audio mostly just means "I'm not going to control for those variables right now" — which is fine, but it's an admission about methodology, not a deep truth about sound. Once you account for room, recordings, listener sensitivity, and stated preferences, there are genuinely better and worse ways to achieve good sound. The conversation we're already having proves it.

This is hobby is so subjective, that when someone broaches the subject of blind testing, they almost always get written off with "I know what I hear" or words to that effect. It’s not surprising that so many people seem to almost get offended about that subject because they have to justify their megabuck components or cablles that make no objective difference. It’s also telling that so many people either don’t know the science behind it or, more likely, just deny it. 

@hilde45 you make good points but I do think that good sound is inherently subjective and I think your comments capture that when you talk about listener “preferences”. That’s what I mean by subjective. 

you and I could listen to the same system in the same room, alternating turns in the listening chair. I might think the sound was the best thing since seven up while you may not like it at all. To me, that’s the definition of subjective. Take a speaker brand like magico. most would agree these are very well designed well built speakers that have a distinctive house sound. Obviously, lots of consumers find that sound to be detailed, transparent and very enjoyable. Some, however, find it to be bright and fatiguing. To me, it’s a matter of subjective preference. And while we do continue to have these discussions, I think the inability to accept that a lot of this is simply a matter of subjective preference is why the discussions go sideways so often. Some people have a hard time accepting that what they like is not necessarily the definitive, objective and universal truth. It’s just what they like. Others may like something else. Maybe we just define the word subjective a little differently.