I would say yes.

Or then again, no.

According to the principles of Objectivism, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Which suggests that if you are conscious of a difference in SQ when you place your Mac Mini upside down on a Mogambi wood block...then there is a difference. So what if you can't measure it.

On the other hand, if the only folks allowed here were the conscious-of-something crowd, we'd never have a reason to look at those crazy coloured frequency graphs. And this would be a poorer place without them.

Or it's a richer place with them.

Whatever...

Your existentially,

Ayn

PS I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.

I would say yes.

Or then again, no.

According to the principles of Objectivism, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Which suggests that if you are conscious of a difference in SQ when you place your Mac Mini upside down on a Mogambi wood block...then there is a difference. So what if you can't measure it.

On the other hand, if the only folks allowed here were the conscious-of-something crowd, we'd never have a reason to look at those crazy coloured frequency graphs. And this would be a poorer place without them.

Or it's a richer place with them.

Whatever...

Your existentially,

Ayn

PS I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.

Chris. How many listening session do you attend, where the salesperson turns *up* the volume to demonstrate the (better) sound qualities of equipment A vs B...?

Funny that they never turn the volume down. Now (LOL) the purists would say here.."well that's because everyone knows the problems with digital volume control..."...and the cynics would say "well it's obvious. Even though they may not know about physical hearing deterioration, they *do* know louder volume sells equipment"

I urge you to try this little social observational experiment for yourself one day next time you audition some gear

Now I'm no suggesting equipment manufacturers put a warning label on their Hi Fi like the smoking industry!! "Warning. Auditioning of this equipment will be subject to Presbycusis and lack of double blind trial". Obviously this would be ridiculous. No harm is being done here...(other than potential psuedoscientific misrepresentation, and the failure of the disclosure of the power of placebo). But there is definitely a place for objectivity in hi fi assessment, and this should be encouraged at all times. Proponent's of objectivity should not be made to feel unwelcome.

Cheers

Oh yeah, because that would be BORING!!!

God forbid I should ever find myself in a world where everybody though the same as me. What a nightmare!

Friction keeps us warm.

RS

And, to their credit, the objectivists here acknowledge that science does not have all the answers.

I have no problem (a) preferring hi-res and (b) acknowledging that I can't hear a damn thing above 15 kHz while © thinking/wondering that the increased sample rate yields benefits due to better temporal resolution.

I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.

The term appears to be used primarily by those opposed as a term of dismissal.

It is kind of like calling someone a "socialist" (in the United States, where it is implicitly a pejorative). It prevents one from having to take the time to actually try to understand.

"Well, of course he doesn't think the magic purple power cable with the Walmart wolf-tshirt insignia improved his soundstage. He is an objectivist."

edit: Removed the "r" from "perjorative", although I think I like this word better than the real one.

Although I have never been called an "objectivist" before posting here, I guess my outlook is more sympathetic to that camp, 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.

Hoping that I understood what you said ... this is suggestively telling that what can't be heard can also not be measured. So from this point on all is moot.

Ok, why ? because nothing in the world tells that what we currently measure is all that can be measured.

It even tells (me) that when whatever DBT points to A as the winner, it is scientifically proven that not all could be measured.

Or am I making it too difficult now ?

I know of many examples where things can be measured but I at least cannot hear them.

I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them.

Well sort of ...

I was trying to point out what they had agreed on was arbitrary

When, in whatever observation, judgement, decision, etc., one has to make an arbitrary decision, not all has been taken into account, or couldn't be taken into account because of improperly set boundaries to the project (etc.).

This WILL mean that the test was wrongly setup, hence the outcome is not valid.

PS: For me this means that I keep on seeking for that sneaky little argument so the arbitrary decision becomes a logical decision, or broaden the boundaries so more data becomes available (re-iterate).

I was afraid of that; your statement had just one "negative" too many in it for me to comprehend (I'm serious).

I know of many examples where things can be measured but I at least cannot hear them.

This makes you what ? Can IMO only be a subjectivist, with eager desire to be deaf. Or ?

I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them

Here too ... can't you write this in some normal form ? my small brain gets upside down from it (hey, english not being my language doesn't help here either :-).

"I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them."

Doesn't this assume you're measuring the right thing? I would think part of the problem is that there is some factor in play which has not been identified and is not being measured.

For example, I did nothing at all to my system last night, but for some reason it sounded richer and fuller. Some may say that was due to the Irish whisky I was drinking, but that's not going to show up on any waveform.

I've never heard something that cannot be measured.

I've seen plenty of measurable (objectively real) differences that are nonetheless inaudible.

For example, I did nothing at all to my system last night, but for some reason it sounded richer and fuller. Some may say that was due to the Irish whisky I was drinking, but that's not going to show up on any waveform.

I think that is what is commonly referred to as a hallucination. Try Ardbeg.

I have no problem (a) preferring hi-res and (b) acknowledging that I can't hear a damn thing above 15 kHz while © thinking/wondering that the increased sample rate yields benefits due to better temporal resolution.

Then science tells (me) that "Hires" is not related to the high(er) frequency that can be in Hires, but should tell that this temporal resolution does the job (for you).

Because this is not true for myself at all, it should tell that schience s*cks in this regard, or at least is incomplete somewhere. Which is the same as s*cks.

Of course I now assume (because it was not in your post) that there's enough "science" around related to this subject to be able to state that science tells that Hires is better.

A bit of a pitty it is that 90% (made up this number) of people addicted to hires "claim" that this is because of the higher frequency now being engraphed in the data - which could even have been proven by numerous DBT whatever listening tests, while at the same time at least me, myself and I can easily prove that all you listen to is to distortion in those higher frequency regions.

So what does this tell ?

For me, without knowing the real truth (because too hard to test), only that the higher frequency is not related at all. It would be the most safe for now to conclude just that.

And how it this related to the topic ? Well, it is for me because personally I take nothing for granted.

And next, because the equation about the high ferquency just fell out (per means of this funny post), one thing remains, and this is this temporal resolution.

So, not telling any truths, but this is how I operate.

I've never heard something that cannot be measured.

Gordon Rankin says he hears differences that don't show up in his measurements, and I'd bet his audio measurement equipment is better than what's available to you. (He says this about USB cables, which he doesn't manufacture.)

So either Gordon's ears are better than yours (overall unlikely due simply to age, though granted he may well have taught himself to listen for particular things), or his long experience makes him more familiar with differences in digital audio equipment than you are. I'm guessing the latter.

That's why I occasionally put quotes around "objectivist." To me, objectivity requires a level of knowledge, or it amounts to little more than an unsubstantiated claim that one's thoughts are consonant with reality. Perhaps better for most of us who aren't audio electronics engineers or programmers of audio software to use terms like "skeptical" rather than "objective."

I've never heard something that cannot be measured.

Ok. So what does it say ? it can come down to being able to hear the difference with the mains plug in and out, while the Voltmeter proves whether voltage was fed to your amps.

So it says nothing (IMHO).

I've seen plenty of measurable (objectively real) differences that are nonetheless inaudible.

... to you at that time;

Learning what to listen for could be the first step to the solution.

Of course "ears" is a next subject, but I always find that the most weak to bring up. Besides that, it is not my experience with other people. Learning what to listen for (or feel), yes.

Gordon Rankin says he hears differences that don't show up in his measurements

But this is another upside down of it again. Or actually what I said in (I think) my first post in here;

It just "proves" that not all was measured what could be (or should be) measured. That's all.

Of course this assumes Gordon's ears to be right, but it also makes him an objectivist - seeking for the truth behind it (being knowledged and all) (instead of going in denial about your his own ears or something).

or it amounts to little more than an unsubstantiated claim

Maybe this says it all.

Hmm,

Does this really need to be so divided, and is there not some middle ground where both are applicable and respected? Maybe I am just silly, but I truly attempt to marry both in my decision making processes. IMO, trusting either one while ignoring the other is the act of a faith based decision.

I have little faith in anything, attempting to walk forward seeking congruency.

It just "proves" that not all was measured what could be (or should be) measured. That's all.

Yes, that's what I meant. I certainly understand that everything involved in producing sound through audio equipment should be measurable. I can think of 3 reasons such measurements aren't necessarily available:

- Intractability of chaotic situations: Bill referred a little while ago to the "3 body problem." Gordon Rankin has referred to the unpredictable ways system components interact. In these situations measurements of a single component may have reduced usefulness in predicting variations in audible effects within the system.

- It's not yet known that the quantity to be measured is audibly significant, e.g., jitter as digital audio was being developed.

- The quantity is known but its full significance isn't realized, so most developers and users don't go to the trouble and expense of measuring, e.g., jitter in the days of the earliest CD players.

I agree, and I think the labels ("objectivist", "subjectivist", "grey-beard" [the latest idiocy]) are needlessly divisive.

... the labelists.

After having worked in the audio industry for a well known manufacturer, and been peripherally involved in product development, it is clear to me that the commonly used audio measurements are not adequate for describing the actual performance of the components. We just do not know what to measure, and how to measure it, and how to correlate those measurements to actual sonic performance.

This does not mean we should just give up, I applaud those who are constantly trying to figure out how to adequately describe sonic performance through measurements, and hope that they do succeed.

In the mean time, it is clear that the best audio products will be developed through a rigorous process based on both measurements and subjective listening tests.

Note, that listening to music for pleasure is an entirely subjective experience as well.

WG, although we do not always agree, I certainly welcome your contributions to CA, and would never seek to outcast those who might term themselves objectivists. I do have little tolerance for those who may criticize the (often subjective) observations of others, and I also really do not well tolerate the closed minded.

Do I feel like an unarmed swordsman when dueling with you?

Cheers,

Bill

"listening to music for pleasure is an entirely subjective"

but..too many times equipment reviewers do not acknowledge this in their reviews. What that do is cloud their assessment by *trying* to hear a difference in the music (when what they should be doing is objectively assessing the difference in the sound)

You can't subjectively assess sound. Sound is a physical property. But as you say you can subjectively assess music.

Nor can you subjectively assess light. Light is a physical property. But you *can* subjectively assess colour.

Saying you subjectively assess sound is like saying you feel a "warmth" from the colour of red as apposed to the colour of blue. You *see* light. (objectively). But you *feel* colour (subjective)...because a colour adds a subjective interpretation to your perception. If you touch the colour red it doesn't burn you. You don't pull your hand away....

There is *music* (the art form) and *sound* (the physical property that is heard)

When assessing equipment, way to may times reviewer's confuse the two....just like in the colour analogy they *add* their own subjective interpretation into the assessment. Without acknowledgment that they have done this.....