Subjective vs Objective in Audio - Which is Better?

Subjectively objective! Or Objectively subjective! You CAN be both because audio IS both.

One of the challenges when talking about complex issues is how a lot of people don't actually listen to what you are saying. Instead they find the first thing to react to (often just the video title...), so they can post a comment meant to dispute what they think you are saying.
Very few of the viewers that commented on my last video understood the points I made in that video. And as I've been doing the YouTube thing for 12 years now, it comes as no surprise, but I thought I went above and beyond to make myself clear. I even wrote a very long description (long enough to trigger the "your description is too long" warning from YouTube) filling in details and clarifying points I made in the video.
But then you'd have to read that AND be willing to understand it as well. It can be frustrating!

So, I'm subjective where it makes sense and I'm also objective when that is the best approach.
For example I measure speakers! You've seen me do that! BUT that's just to evaluate what's going on when I'm designing a speaker. OBJECTIVE data of limited value.
That objective data is used to help make the design as close to "technically" perfect as possible, but, at the end of it, they have to sound good, and that's SUBJECTIVE!
If I don't like how they sound based on the objective measurements, I will make changes based on my subjective preference.
That's why speaker measurements of the type I was talking about are misleading. They only show ONE layer of a multi-layered problem. They conclude that a speaker MUST sound good because it measures well and for most people that will be true.
But if you want to know exactly how a speaker actually sounds, YOU have to listen to it in YOUR room. You may love it or you may not - that's the part that goes BEYOND the measurements.

Remember the side speakers I just finished? How I spent a lot of time designing the crossover and settled on a design based on the measurements? And then made those crossovers?
But when I assembled the speakers, the eagle-eyed viewer might have noticed I added a capacitor on the woofer. Why? Why did I do that?
Because it SOUNDED BETTER with that cap added. It pulled a bit more energy out of the upper midrange and they sounded better to ME.
Were they still flat? Nope! But they sound great to me in my room and THAT'S what matters.

Where sound quality of a system is concerned, the three biggest factors are:
- your hearing / listening preferences
- the room
- the speakers
These will make the greatest differences in how a system sounds. That's why I'm singling out speaker measurements as misleading, because the speakers play a major role in the system and they are intimately connected to the other two items listed above. They play in the room and you listen with your ears. I know that seems like I'm overstating the obvious, but it seems that too many people have not made that connection.
Other components, like the source, amp, dac, etc. can make a difference (sometimes a pretty big one), but not as significantly as the three above.

You can help support the work I do in making these videos:
Support this channel on Patreon:

#diyspeakers
#johnheisz
#audio

My "Scrap bin" channel:

My main channel:

[IBuildIt]

Subjectively objective! Or Objectively subjective! You CAN be both because audio IS both.

One of the challenges when talking about complex issues is how a lot of people don't actually listen to what you are saying. Instead they find the first thing to react to (often just the video title...), so they can post a comment meant to dispute what they think you are saying.
Very few of the viewers that commented on my last video understood the points I made in that video. And as I've been doing the YouTube thing for 12 years now, it comes as no surprise, but I thought I went above and beyond to make myself clear. I even wrote a very long description (long enough to trigger the "your description is too long" warning from YouTube) filling in details and clarifying points I made in the video.
But then you'd have to read that AND be willing to understand it as well. It can be frustrating!

So, I'm subjective where it makes sense and I'm also objective when that is the best approach.
For example I measure speakers! You've seen me do that! BUT that's just to evaluate what's going on when I'm designing a speaker. OBJECTIVE data of limited value.
That objective data is used to help make the design as close to "technically" perfect as possible, but, at the end of it, they have to sound good, and that's SUBJECTIVE!
If I don't like how they sound based on the objective measurements, I will make changes based on my subjective preference.
That's why speaker measurements of the type I was talking about are misleading. They only show ONE layer of a multi-layered problem. They conclude that a speaker MUST sound good because it measures well and for most people that will be true.
But if you want to know exactly how a speaker actually sounds, YOU have to listen to it in YOUR room. You may love it or you may not - that's the part that goes BEYOND the measurements.

Remember the side speakers I just finished? How I spent a lot of time designing the crossover and settled on a design based on the measurements? And then made those crossovers?
But when I assembled the speakers, the eagle-eyed viewer might have noticed I added a capacitor on the woofer. Why? Why did I do that?
Because it SOUNDED BETTER with that cap added. It pulled a bit more energy out of the upper midrange and they sounded better to ME.
Were they still flat? Nope! But they sound great to me in my room and THAT'S what matters.

Where sound quality of a system is concerned, the three biggest factors are:
- your hearing / listening preferences
- the room
- the speakers
These will make the greatest differences in how a system sounds. That's why I'm singling out speaker measurements as misleading, because the speakers play a major role in the system and they are intimately connected to the other two items listed above. They play in the room and you listen with your ears. I know that seems like I'm overstating the obvious, but it seems that too many people have not made that connection.
Other components, like the source, amp, dac, etc. can make a difference (sometimes a pretty big one), but not as significantly as the three above.

[bonzainews]

You are absolutely right about how 98% of people don't care what they listen to. I went to a wedding a couple of weeks ago where the DJ had the most god-awful midbass reverberation and absolutely no low bass at all. The highs were so shrill and annoying it sounded like he was playing everything through a tin can. I spoke to 5 people about how bad the sound was and nobody seemed to notice. That's when I shut up because I realize I was being the jerk thinking that everyone should agree with me.

[francisrichards]

Mr Heisz, you are a breath of fresh air. I enjoy your insight, knowledge, explanation. Thank you for sharing.

[paulhirst]

I also like my music "more lively" and this could be a personal preference or a compensation for my inability to hear higher frequencies as well as low. Thank you for this follow up video. I really do enjoy them and I finally got my system back up and running.

[daifeichu]

I knew this video was coming as soon as I saw the last one. That top comment is important to what was said in the video but some people are not going to read it unfortunately. If you watched that video you really should read it to get a full understanding of what was said.

[davebullard]

Why do I type crap like this into the internet?
The subjective experience is the only one that we will ever have access to.
Objectivity requires consensus and must be taken on faith.
BOTH are useful and important but in the end your subjective experience is where you spend most of your time.
So listen to whatever you like on whatever you like wherever you like.
Thanks John.

[redKnight]

OK, to be honest - for the most part, I basically have to force myself to listen to these videos wholly. I am not that deep into the whole "audio bubble" (listening to this on my laptop speakers, while having just listened to some music on the same ones), but all in all I find your thoughts very, *very* interesting, especially because I've come to understand there's always a takeaway for me. This time, it's the whole "a flat frequency response curve isn't going to tell you about your preference for the sound of the speaker" topic.
So John, thank you very much for your insight and your commentary on the matter.

[nicoras]

Everything that is input to your sensory system is subjective, and almost everyone will respond differently to the stimulus. When you manufacture equipment and offer, its measured performance is really for comparison with other similar products. Taking something as simple as a lightbulb, when is it too bright, too light, too blue, too yellow. It comes down to whether that light appeals to you in your environment you want to use it in. Whether they tell you it is a 6 watt or 10 watt and show the spectrum, intensity, light dispersion and so on, is of little consequence whether you will like it. You will almost always tune your TV colour and brightness settings, not optimally, but to your liking. You would never try and optimally salt your steak, because what is optimal, and to whom?

[PappaBear_yt]

I always thought music is all about subjective impression, the feelings it creates inside ourselves.

[ronhochhalter]

Thanks for creating these common sense audio videos. This is exactly what I needed to hear on my speaker building journey. Common sense tells me if it sounds good to me in my room, then mission accomplished. As a very meticulous woodworker, appearance is as valuable as the sound. Thats just me. I'm currently working on a very ambitious project to make a set of speakers that have an aesthetically unique design. They might end up sounding horrible, but just like any project you never know how it's gonna turn out until you actually try it. At the end of the day as long as you can afford the materials there is no such thing as wasted time in the shop. I believe the best and most valuable gratification comes from when you build something yourself without allowing everyone around you to dictate how you approach the project. I consider someone like you to be a valuable resource because your approach is realistic. This goes for audio projects as well as your woodworking projects.

[scottwolf]

It depends on what you employ as test data. Square wave performance of the loudspeaker system, and/or amplifier and Cumulative Decay Spectra plots will yield how well the transducers will be able to recreate what has been input into them. If one takes the Phase plot and turns it over and upside down, and then traces the function so it is easily visible, then places the Amplitude plot along side of and lower than, IF they are mirror images of each other, a visual geometric representation of the Hilbert Transform, then the loudspeaker system is Minimum Phase, a rarity.
It is interesting that you have noted that, 'Gilding the lily', by attempting to create a, "Flat", Amplitude response, degrades the performance. I totally agree and have never attempted to compensate a transducer for Amplitude response as it will most likely degrade criteria including Phase response, which many believe to be more critical in attempting to recreate a more pleasing facsimile of the original performance.
As someone who builds, tests, and reports out the subjective outcome, your discussions aren't, "Rants", but well received empiricism for those of Us who desire increased sound quality in Our own listening spaces. Keep it up and thank you for your efforts.

[mabehall]

Subjective is what most audio reviews are about and they are not reliable. In test on sound quality Dr. Floyd Toole PROVED that people will generally pick the speaker they have been told is more expensive. People will generally say the more attractive speaker sounds better. And, Dr. Toole PROVED that reviewers were the worst in picking speakers compared to the general public, audio salesmen, and trained reviewers in that order. But what is generally the goal of a speaker. I would say, to faithfully reproduce the musical signal it has been given—-the one the audio engineer with the artist decided they wanted you to hear. Now, unfortunately this doesn’t take into consideration that the engineer may be using a crummy speaker, or his studio doesn’t have decent sound treatment in which case you won’t even hear what they intended, but what they thought they intended. You have to start somewhere though. So, what are the fancy sound test trying to tell us. They are duplicating, very successfully, a speaker test in an anechoic chamber. A place where the sound is not affected by bad floors, ceilings, walls, OR good floors, ceilings, or walls. Kind of an even playing field place! A place to START a speaker comparison not finish one. A place to find and potentially eliminate the most obvious problems like resonating cabinets, total level mismatch between drivers, maybe poorly designed crossover networks. In addition these test tell us of the off axis responses of the speakers which helps because peer reviewed listening studies have shown that “most” people prefer a certain sound. If some individual prefers nothing but heavy base then let them buy that type of speaker. If someone prefers the over bright sound, then fine—-incidentally, in a show room, “most” people will pick the over bright speaker- it’s why Klipsch does so well. So where do the fancy test get you? A place to start. A place where you can add room treatments to fix a room problem not a speaker problem. A place that gives you a way to objectively place speakers in a poor, or good to excellent category to start with. Because, all the room treatments in the world won’t make a crummy pair of speakers sound great and yes, I know that 90 something percent of the people don’t care, but those people don’t know what sound treatment is, don’t watch these videos, but, they probably have a hobby of their own that they enjoy as much as we enjoy this one and that’s just fine.

[sudd]

in my experience when i measured my system to flat it sounded bad. with custom eq or dirac auto eq.
when i eq my system to sound flat, it sounded great.
your ears need to do the final decision.

[AquaPeet]

Aren't the hearing aids a kind of equalizer that boosts certain frequencies to 'fix' the sound for your ears?
Wouldn't the equalizer of your sound system be able to adjust the sound to your ears so you could lose the hearing aids when listening to music?
It wouldn't matter if it'll sound crap to other people if you're the only one in the room.

[buka]

Well, maybe I misunderstood your point in the last video. My point was that speakers have to "be flat" in an anechoic chamber so they can have a chance of sounding good in a well treated room, etc etc. If your speakers have lets say a 5dB "valley" in mids/highs they will sound bad in any room. And my other point is, while audio quality is objective, audio enjoyment is more subjective. Speakers that I made myself will sound better to me than the ones I bought, even though I bet I would not be able to distinguish them in a blind test.

[wattspeakers]

Okay, first of all, you're completely wrong... Not sure about what, I didn't really watch the video but I'll come up with something. JK 😅

You're spot on with all that you said in this video and others. Speakers by themselves are born of unicorns and part science, part magic... Oh and there's a leprechaun in there somewhere because luck is a big factor. Then combine that with various listening arrangements, rooms, applications, equipment, source material AND wow... Then take into consideration the miracle of ears and individual biological and psychological makeup and what you've got yourself is something along the lines of herding cats to please everyone.

That being said, I run a pair of speakers, one made of old pizza boxes, the other is made of 2" MDF with concrete stand. I use coat hangers instead of speaker cables but they're really super well made and wrapped with the best electrical tape I could find at the Dollar Tree. Together they measure 8 Hz to 43, 000 Hz, +/- 1/2 Db and play up to 195 Db while maintaining perfectly flat response in my unfinished basement.

Love the videos and topics John, keep up the good work. Man o man... If I was your next door neighbor I'd be bugging you all the time... borrowing tools, (like the vertical circular saw thingy. Can I borrow that for awhile? And could you cut the lumber and do the holes, because I don't think I can operate anything less than aerospace grade tooling. Got any glue? I ran out.

[dcuccia]

Really interesting discussion - thanks for challenging some of the ideas implicitly floating around. I tend to gravitate toward the quantitative analysis, as a starting point for discrimination between speakers, but fully acknowledge that its just the start - the system frequency response includes the room and your ear. Moreover - frequency response curves assume a linear system (double the input gets you double the output), and so that's a severe limitation given himan hearing, and speaker distortion at high power. I do think an important point that's missed in your discussion is that with reasonably priced DSP, we can't EQ rapid changes in response vs frequency. So that characteristic of a speaker is important to identify and avoid. E.g. how well does it perform at a crossover point? Everything else should be EQ-able, if the directivity is reasonable. Building a HiFi+HT system now with used KEF Ci160Q concentric drivers + 10" woofer in a 3-way config, and hoping all can be reasonably EQ'd with my sub, in my room. Not necessarily going to target flat, but hopefully with a relatively "line-like" starting point in frequency response, I can achieve digitally the appropriate color/tone I'm subjectively looking for.

[Audio_Simon]

I feel like you are avoiding the fact that the targets for these measurments are based on extensive and careful *subjective preference* trials.

There will always be outlier cases, both preference and enviroment, but it makes sense to design speakers that sound best for the most people.

When it comes to the room that should be accounted for by the user with acoustic treatements and EQ. It doesnt make sense to build a commercial speaker with a drop in the mid-bass because in a minority of rooms it will sound better. You can do this for DIY but not commercial equipment. Also, without measurements how would the user determin what fcators they prefer and find those speakers that suit? Blind luck? 😅

[jameslester]

I look for a system that portrays the music in such a way that I connect emotionally to what I'm listening to. Speakers that measure a flat frequency response, are generally the antithesis of that for me.

[imqqmi]

It's funny you say that. It's the age old question does my soundsystem sound as it's supposed to vs does it sound good. Do I live my life as I'm supposed to vs is it a good life? What's the meaning of life anyway? There's no meaning and it's all meaning. Life is a dichotomy and so is audio. Maybe.