Subjectivity vs. Objectivity in Audio

Audiophiles generally pursue the "ultimate sound," which is interpreted as sound in the listening environment that most closely simulates live music. However, many producers and mixers like to "juice" the sound, enhancing bass and treble such that the music has a chance of some fidelity in less than optimal environments, such as cars and through MP3 players. Given that an audiophile is classically not interested in either of those listening venues, should they disregard seeking out components that faithfully reproduce inaccurate sound?

The objectivist crowd loves to point to graphs and charts, displaying which component is most faithful to the incoming sine wave, and the reality that even mediocre gear can reproduce sound nearly as well as the megabuck gear. If we are to assume that this test gear can measure sound that exceeds that of human hearing, the question remains - does that which humans cannot hear factor into relevant measurements for audio equipment?

Consumers require objective measurements to offer a comparative baseline for evaluating components, prior to taking the time to audition them. What matters in the end (subjectivists and centrists argue) however is what is heard, whether that's "accurate" to a test instrument or not is a matter of semantics. Many cannot be satisfied that what they are hearing is accurate if the graphs don't support it. What becomes interesting though is how the original mix on the recording medium compares to real music (remember, that's all audiophiles care about). Therefore, if the mix on the CD doesn't compare favorably to real music, but the device that plays back the inaccurate CD offers a "flavoring" that allows mimicking of that live event, which is more critical?

Double blind testing solves much of this issue. Presented with a bank of gear, speakers, and interconnects, listeners are encouraged to select which they prefer consistently, absent visual cues. Without knowledge of what is playing, listeners cannot pre-form biases based on brand or knowledge of price point. Interestingly, although this testing still relies on human hearing as opposed to the results of a test graph, if the test is to be successful, it still relies on consistent results above the mean (typically greater than 70 percent accuracy). Note however that this type of testing measures preference, since accuracy tends to be subjective when human ears are the only means of measurement.

The debate will never end, since both sides have fundamentally valid arguments. Who can argue that faithfulness to the source is not important? Equally, who can argue that it makes no sense to attempt to seek out gear that pushes the bar closer to real life? The consumer ultimately is the one making the decision here, but in the meantime, plenty of interesting debates are in the offing in many audio-focused websites and magazine publications.

From Showroom to Stripmall

Change is inevitable. Change in the age of the Internet, and its undercutting pricing format, however, has left many specialty dealers with a conundrum: Do they take the hit on the sales of products, only to make the difference up on install, or do they allow customers to get the best price and install only? Hybrid dealers became very successful around the late 1990s, and the savvier ones are actually thriving while many well-known entities have folded their tents.

Although the idea of shopping online for the best price on nearly everything is the de facto practice for the majority of consumers, dealers with well-appointed showrooms have been left wondering whether it was worth the effort and rental space to have done so. In fact, many dealers around 2005 started to move to industrial park-style office spaces, selling from a portfolio book as opposed to a showroom. The logic was then (and is today) inescapable -why pay for showroom space when the margins on equipment no longer allow such a practice? Adding in the fast-paced rate of equipment line turnover, and dealers that did not listen to the call and refused to lower their standing inventory without the product movement to support that course of action were threatened with closure. Many did.

Absent the problems faced with many consumers coming into showrooms to evaluate products never intended for local dealer purchase, custom-only dealers only had to deal with making sure their installation program would work with installing externally-purchased equipment. These dealers (and their hybrid cousins) spent enormous sums to up the install game of their personnel, ensuring their certifications in lighting, networking, and automation were able to stay ahead of the consumer curve. The best dealers managed to create fantastic profit streams, while being only as profitable as necessary on the gear. Concurrently, the reputations of these custom houses have made the idea of purchasing equipment elsewhere a less-savory idea, when the idea that a few of these places won't touch equipment not sold by them. In a turn of events unforeseen by Internet dealers, the better local retailers made their installation services such a draw, that the product they sold ended up maintaining better margins.

The future of custom retailers seems to be a drastic thinning of key lines that are absent online competition, and devoid of big-box presence. This is acceptable for a few reasons; namely, smaller dealers' draw is quality of services. Of course, they cannot compete on a volume basis with larger dealers, so it can't be reasonably expected that they compete tow-to-toe with every price-slashing dealfest every weekend. Although many custom retailers are members of large buying groups (like ProGroup) to help with buying power, if they do everything as expected, the quality and professional nature of what a great custom install dealer can do has more to do with the overall experience than getting the best price. To many consumers, it's well worth the money.