otherwise you end up with a dictatorship (aka Hydrogen audio) or the likes of a Jimmy Swaggart organisation.

OK these are extremes, but both unhealthy and don't allow freedom of expression. Even though there maybe people of opposing views here on CA, it tends to balance, it's shaky, but balanced.

Much like noise on an XLR transmission cable, the noise gets on the cable, but it's rejected by the receiver

+1

Does that make 2 1/2?

Mathematically, objectively, it must be so!

OK, not content merely with agreeing, I'll add this: With the declaration of knowledge comes the responsibility to actually possess that knowledge. Example: Someone claiming to "objectively" show mathematically that the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics clearly doesn't know enough about evolution or thermodynamics to claim objectivity.

To my mind, anyone claiming to be "objective" about audio carries a heavy burden of actually knowing enough about digital audio, audio electronic engineering, etc., to make his/her assumed title a correct one. And strangely (or not) the relatively minuscule number of people posting here who know enough to arrogate such a title to themselves (certainly Demian Martin and Gordon Rankin; perhaps Miska, PeterSt, Damien, and a handful of other software/hardware designers) are not those purporting that their positions are "objective."

Common sense is more unwelcome..

If I was you I'd stick to all the software developments on the site... I'll call them the "practicalities" of computer audio... You know whether a file plays or not, and on what system etc..

More and more utter nonsense is being posted on this site every day, with increasing frequency. Chris and CA, need to get their head around what to do about this IMHO..

The whole polarization into these two labels is part of the problem Bill.

Substitute "Intelligent, inquisitive, inquiring, and a little extra observant" for Objectivist and "Intelligent, inquisitive, inquiring, and a little extra sensitive" for Subjectivist, and I think you come up with a much better picture.

You notice they have the same traits, but one is a little more sensitive, meaning they perceive the world in part, by what it feels like. The other perceives the world more by use of the rational facility, or in other words, by what they observe, calculate, or engineer.

And of course, each type of person has some measure of the traits of the other type of person.

A very "sensitive" person can learn to use observation as a tool to better understanding. And even the most clinical of persons can learn to use how they feel to help them form a judgement about something.

As 1.5 said, it is the balance. I firmly believe both types of people are needed here to keep that balance. And the result is pretty amazing, people all love to share the joy this hobby brings them with each other.

It is easy peasy for either type of person to see when it gets out of balance.

When someone comes on the system deriding how awful it is that "some people" are unwilling to put up DBT results to back up how they feel - it is out of balance.

But also, when someone puts up how they feel as a reason to dismiss any DBT results they don't agree with, it is again just as far out of balance on the other side.

When a group gets together and someone says, this "feels" like that, and other members of the group say "Wow! I bet you feel that way because "this thing" is happening and you are sensitive to it..." - well - magic happens.

Not that it is ever easy.

-Paul

I think I got about 5 posts in at HydrogenAudio before they decided I was no good.

It was some discussion about double-blind tests, and I think I made two unwelcome comments:

(1) I suggested that DBT, far from being a Gold Standard, was a mere starting point, most useful for when genuinely objective experiments and measurements couldn't actually be made, or secondarily, for determining when real measurable differences were in fact audible.

(2) They had some sort of mutually-agreed-upon formula for what was required to "pass" a DBT, and whoever was describing this didn't seem to understand what a statistical significance test was, or what confidence limits are. I was trying to point out what they had agreed on was arbitrary, and what was fundamentally of importance was the significance test itself, not the particular implementation they happened to choose. Then I had the temerity to point out that simply accepting a rule for interpreting the outcome of a test, without understanding the basis of that rule, was essentially a subjectivist-like appeal to authority.

I got shown the door. Funny place. It was like they slavishly ape what they (sometimes wrongly) perceive to be scientific methodology, without really thinking about things any more critically than those they (often rightly) fault for not doing so.

I think it would be a pity if here one point of view or the other were to be curtailed.

It was like they slavishly ape what they (sometimes wrongly) perceive to be scientific methodology, without really thinking about things any more critically than those they (often rightly) fault for not doing so.

No better description has ever been uttered, IMNSHO.

-Paul

That is exactly what my impression is these days too.

I dunno, difficult to pinpoint why I feel that way.

Caner

Hi Bill - Great question. CA is, and has always been, a place for people with every opinion under the Sun. Call it objective or subjective or whatever. I always encourage everyone to post their comments no matter where they sit on the continuum.

Two things, at least, cause problems when people with such differing opinions leave comments: 1. Lack of professionalism or respect for others and 2. Difficulties with the written language's lack of inflection, tone, emphasis, and so on that is easily seen in person to person live conversations or even heard in phone conversations.

P.S. possibly a third is people who take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet. Without consequences some people will simply be jerks.

I don't post here that often, but I thought I would throw my two cents into this topic. I am in the medical field, primarily autism, and my job requires that I be skeptical by nature. I find that my thinking on audio matters is closely aligned to Bill’s observations. I particularly appreciate his reminders that DBTs aren’t particularly interesting when no one hears a difference, but could be very interesting if one person consistently heard a difference that no one else is able to.

I do give some credence to the "trust your ears" philosophy. I accept that some people may be able to hear differences that I cannot, but I have difficulty understanding why some would object to having those abilities objectively tested. For example, I am certain that I can hear differences pretty easily between lossless and 128 kbps MP3. I'm also fairly certain that I would be able to detect those differences in double-blind testing, and if I wasn't able to, I would have to consider whether an expectation bias is involved.

I'm not sure I have a point here other than to say, yes, Bill, some of us do appreciate your skeptic's view. I mostly stay out of these discussions because it seems the discourse is about as likely to change someone's mind as a debate on evolution.

Some tend to oversimplify things a bit, which tends to bore or annoy others.

Peter Belt is now watching this thread from beyond, so be careful.

"given that I think it is unlikely the human ear can distinguish unmeasurable differences, and that claims to the contrary require compelling evidence to be taken seriously."

I would say instead "currently unmeasurable differences", in addition I take more seriously what people "hear" as opposed to what they can currently measure. I care more about what music sounds like not what it "looks" like and that is why I will never in my entire life understand "objectivists", as I listen to music NOT look at it!

As audio designer John Curl explained to me we can only measure a very small percent of what we can hear, however measurements are important as they can reveal poorly designed and faulty component parts. He has an entire room of nothing but test equipment. With parts that measure exactly the same, it is his ear that he uses to chose the one that "sounds" the best.

If it sounds good I like it, if it sounds bad I don't like it. For me it really is that simple. Thus I am a subjectivist.

OK, now answer the question...

Its an age old question. The Audio industry has been up to these tricks for decades. It's part of their marketing philosophy. Making ageing baby bombers "think" they "hear" a difference, by purchasing the next "better", more "hifi" based equipment....when the only truly proven medical fact out there, is that human hearing deteriorates as one gets older....

So it's simply a matter of selling "youth" to an ageing person..

Like skin cream that miraculously smooths out wrinkles...

I promise not to tell the other subjectvists (those buggers never listen anyway) but here's the thing...

Am I correct in saying that you only listen to high resolution recordings because you have found that cd resolution does not sound good? Meaning that you check the the specification of a recording before you key in your credit card and click the download button? Dare I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that sounds suspiciously like objective behaviour. Looking for repeatable measured data that backs up your observations, why it's goddammed scientific.

Now you may well think I'm stretching things a bit, but please understand we're getting a little desperate here in objective land and frankly we need the numbers.

Of course the industry now has a"tripple play" in motion..

* A lot more older people

* They are the ones with the money

* They also "feel" younger and more "groovy" by switching to computers to play their music..

Is it any wonder this site has so many hits...

...this site is unique and insightful exactly because of the range of opinions expressed here...and with an unusually collegial and helpful atmosphere.

It only falls apart, in my opinion, when the comments become personal or with the use of oblique posts condemning other's opinions with comments like:

"More and more utter nonsense is being posted on this site every day".

WDW

As I said. This site is best for information on what is quantitative...

And avoiding the "pseudo science"

Google/wiki the word "Pseudoscience"....

At least that is what I though thought the OP'er was on about..maybe I mistook him...

Actually it's not the lower resolution that turns me off of CDs, it's a uncomfortable feeling/sound I get from acoustic strings (violins especially) from CDs.

To me CDs of orchestral music are uncomfortable to listen to, I have no idea what causes this phenomenon. But it doesn't exist on LPs, cassettes and reel to reel tapes from analog masters. Also it does not exist on most SACDs, DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads. And those SACDs, DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads that sound uncomfortable I suspect of being converted to 16/44.1kHz at some point in their production.

It is important to note that I enjoy cassettes which, like CD don't have much frequencies above 20kHz and at 0dB only extend to 14kHz or so. That is why cassette decks are measured at -20dB.

If avoiding CDs makes me somewhat of an objectivist I guess I will have to accept that as I really don't enjoy CDs.

My favorite computer music files are 24/96 music files of audiophile LPs, even though I am sure pure digital 24/96 and DSD music files measure better. There is just something about a great LP I love.

As Peter Green said "Oh, Well"

Teresa - Do not turn this thread into why you like high resolution and not CD or anything similar. You've discussed this many many many times on the site previously.

..."objectivists", the duller ones, seem to image we need a lesson or two and that I find hard to take. Courtesy and respect is just so cool.

A quick look at the "what's your occupation thread" tells me the IQ quotient of our typical poster is higher than average so we don't need to be directed to google a word we all know well enough.

Hi wappinghigh - I've been fortunate enough to know many manufacturers, designers, distributors, and dealers in the industry. My experience has been very opposite to what you portray as a very seedy industry.

Edit: I don't want to derail Bill's thread. Wap I've removed my question from my comment.

Well said wdw.

I dislike the comments falsely attempting to teach people something when they really are statements made to bolster the ego of the person commenting.

CA is not for the retired debate team to continue living the dream. Smart people around here can make up their own minds and contribute both objective and subjective commentary with professionalism and respect.

I think I got about 5 posts in at HydrogenAudio before they decided I was no good.

So you are insufficiently objective for HA and too objective for CA. You are a true moderate.

[Deadpan]That, or you got a talent for ticking people off.[/Deadpan]

"Presbycusis is the term that is used for hearing loss as we get older, from around the age of 40 our hearing will gradually decline and we may find that we have to turn up the TV louder to hear it comfortably or we think that people are mumbling or we miss what people say and find that we have to ask them to repeat themselves more frequently. People suffering from Presbycusis will also find it harder to hear certain sounds such as water dripping from a tap and some shy away from activities that they used to enjoy socially due to their problem."

Chris, the point I was making was presbycusis starts very early in life, and is something that is rarely mentioned in audiophile circles or by hifi manufacturer's. Despite being one of the few known facts in this whole debate on listening tests and double blind trials. I wasn't saying the industry is evil or malicious. I was just saying that it rarely points this out to prospective consumers. I was using this as an example of "objectivity" being "unwelcome".

Cheers

Hi wap - Thanks for the reply.

I respectfully disagree with your point that "this s an example of "objectivity" being "unwelcome"."

Presbycusis, whether by name or description, is discussed a fair amount by many in the industry. I think it's weird you mention Presbycusis is "rarely point[ed] this out to prospective consumers." Can you cite a reference for that statement. I'm willing to bet you are 100% correct that it isn't discussed but could never back that up with any facts. Still, is it really the responsibility or job of a manufacturer to tell the customer his hearing has been declining since the age of 40?

Similarly as men age Erectile Dysfunction increases according to the [Cleveland Clinic]. Should there be a list of manufacturers of differing types of products providing this information to customers?

Also, smoking can cause Dysgeusia a distortion in the sense of taste according to the Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Should restaurant owners be obliged to notify smoking customers seeking an expensive steak about this disorder?

This has nothing to do with you personally wap. I'm just disagreeing with your point. That's all.