The following essay is a newly expanded treatment of my Audio Engineering Society paper of the same name, first presented at the 1991 AES convention in New York. It is published for the first time in this book.
Abstract
Critical observational listening can reveal aspects of audio equipment quality not exposed by traditional measurement techniques. Observational listening impressions are, however, often dismissed as mysticism, even when conducted by conscientious, technically oriented practitioners.
This paper outlines the methods and underlying philosophy of critical listening, explores why critical listening is rejected by some within the scientific audio community, and draws the distinction between serious listening and pseudoscientific claims.
Introduction
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions;
both dispense with the necessity of reflection. Jules Henri Poincaré as quoted by
Bertrand Russell in the preface to Science and Method.
The theme of the 91st Audio Engineering Society convention, “Audio Fact and Fantasy—Reckoning With the Realities,” reflects the increasing polarization of the audio community over so-called “subjective” and “objective” audio. The conflict is so deep—and so fundamental to audio engineering—that the discourse has become known as “The Great Debate.”
At one extreme, audio “objectivists” claim that no audible differences exist between competently designed and built products. This faction holds that “if it can’t be measured, it can’t be heard.” Objectivists reject the listening experience outright, believing that nothing more can be known about audio equipment quality beyond the numbers generated by technical measurement. Those who use the listening experience to judge equipment quality are considered “charlatans” (1), believers in “astrology” (2), and “think the earth is flat.” (3) Indeed, the letter from this convention’s chairman inviting members to submit papers referred to critical listening observations as “fantasy.” (4) Further, objectivists attempt to discredit listening observations by speciously linking critical listening with rejection of physical laws and established scientific fact. (5)
At the other extreme are critical listeners who repudiate any role of science in audio engineering, and who make absurd pseudoscientific claims about the audibility of certain phenomena.
Most critical listeners, however, reject this fringe view and simply trust their ears when making judgments about reproduced sound. To many of these listeners, the audio engineering establishment is made up of soulless technocrats whose narrow and rigid world view excludes a sensitivity to the subtle, yet musically significant, differences between audio components—differences that cannot be measured with existing technology. The objectivists are viewed as bound by theoretical dogma, and constrained by their refusal to accept the reality of direct experience. The objectivists’ claim that products with similar technical performance will sound identical is an absurd premise anathema to the experience of hundreds of thousands of critical listeners.
Thus the lines of division are drawn.
The term “subjectivist” has been generally used to describe those who rely on the listening experience to judge sound-reproduction quality—largely because the term represents the polar opposite of “objectivist.” In this paper I use the expression “observational listener” (1) because it better describes the process of critical listening.
Any inquiry that attempts to truly understand “The Great Debate” must address the underlying philosophical structures of both positions rather than rehash the same tired arguments. Although documenting observational-listening methodology is useful, a more fruitful approach examines the underlying source of the conflict. In addition to presenting the basic tenets and methods of observational listening, I shall attempt to look beyond the traditional battlegrounds and establish a wider framework for the debate. Indeed, “The Great Debate” is symptomatic of the uncertainty of science’s capacity to encompass within its domain all forms of knowledge.
My profession gives me a unique insight into this conflict; I am a fulltime reviewer of so-called “high-end” consumer audio products. In the course of my work, I have evaluated the sound qualities of more than 300 products and measured their technical performances. My job has been listening to, and measuring, audio equipment. My experience overwhelmingly indicates that many aspects of audio equipment quality are revealed in the listening room, not in the test laboratory. This simple thesis will be regarded by most audio professionals as a given truth unworthy of debate, yet others will denounce it as heresy and a threat to science’s role in audio engineering, and, indeed, a threat to science itself.
This paper will explore why.
Next: Observational Listening: Methods and Criticism
