Audiophiles lack of respect.

[Jud]

It's almost impossible to make a decent objectivist ABX test

 

In my particular case the word "impossible" is a challenge

 

Sounds like a challenge to make a decent ABX test, then. :-)

 

I would imagine there is academic literature on various potential pitfalls in the design of such tests that could be helpful for anyone wanting to design a better one.

 

[Julf]

"Subjetivist discovers and create new things. Steve Jobs wasn't a computer engineer. Nor Jules Verne, Leonardo Da Vinci, etc. either."

 

Steve Jobs is kind of an interesting example. He didn't actually create anything. He took what others had created, and used it to create a brand. Brilliant marketing, but...

 

Jules Verne was a failed law student and stock broker, that turned out to be a great author. But not sure you can claim he was a subjectivist. Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer - but what makes you think he was an subjectivist? Most of his work shows a very analytical and objective mind. To quote a Leonardo expert: "Leonardo's experimentation followed clear scientific method approaches".

 

"Objetivist refuse everything regarding new theories and defends the existent ones."

 

At this point I would like you to point to some more widely accepted definition of "objectivist" and "subjectivist".

 

"Since I began in this forum I'm biassed, and still are, by the IBM old slogan "Think Different""

 

Ironically a company mostly founded and run by engineers

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Roch,

 

**"...Since I began in this forum I'm biassed, and still are, by the IBM old slogan "Think Different"..."**

 

"Think Different" was in fact, an early ad campaign from Apple, not IBM.

I recently read Steve Jobs' biography, where he spoke about it with the author. (And I remember the ads.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[elcorso]

...since they are a very important part of the mechanism, at the some complicated techno world of today. Then please, don't feel offended.

 

Engineers built my home, car, household gear, etc.

 

Steve Jobs had the geniality, even not being an engineer, to hire a bunch of good ones who molded what we wanted and was in his mind.

 

Jules Verne was a visionary, and on his 'visions' created mechanism (impossible on his time), but possible to get it now implemented.

 

Of course Leonardo approaches the 'scientific method' but about things, mechanisms and technics inexistent at his time, then new, broked the existent theories and creating new ones.

 

Leonardo is described as the archetype of "The Renaissance", after the obscurantism period that wanted also the things remained the same as always (More or less your theory regarding digital).

 

Of course IBM had a bunch of engineers, but do you think his slogan was from his 'engineer department' or the 'creative department'. Then, the engineers had to be reeducated about thinking different.

 

BTW, wikipedia is a very nice database, but his sins come from omissions, and a lot of times for inaccuracy, since everyone can write what they want on it.

 

Carpe Musica,

 

Roch

 

PS/ "Airhead" will be another word to my compliment list , thanks so much.

 

[elcorso]

My wife gave the book, but she is reading it right now, since she talks too much, I believe I don't need to read it!

 

"Think Different" applies more for Apple than IBM, but I don't know why I only remember that from IBM. Maybe they want to sell some "Think Thank" in my country by that time, and Apple was inexistent on this days over here.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

 

[bdiament]

Hi Roch,

 

**"...Of course IBM had a bunch of engineers, but do you think his slogan was from his 'engineer department' or the 'creative department'...**

 

It was the creative department but not at IBM. ;-}

 

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[thesurfingalien]

Hi All,

 

I have visited with two rich guys (as in millionaires) to listen to their systems. All very (for me mind-boggling) expensive stuff, mostly from brands I never heard of before.

 

The thing is that I am reluctant to call both of them true audiophiles... Sure, they are into it, but for them it seemed more a statement of "I have the best money can buy". I even doubt they REALLY listen to an upgrade to see if they can hear any improvement. No, they just buy it because they can afford to do so.

 

On both occasions, I was not even really impressed by the sound because of the bad acoustics in their living rooms.

 

I realize this might be an extreme example, but sometimes people do silly things with money...

 

Peter

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Roch,

 

Looks like we both posted at the same time.

 

If your wife doesn't tell you about all of the book, you may find it interesting to read for yourself.

 

What I liked most about Jobs was his interest in the experience.

The machines didn't have the highest numbers in terms of CPU speed but the experience of using them sure was (is!) a game changer. He understood the difference between measurement (the "map") and experience (the "territory"). ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Julf]

"Leonardo is described as the archetype of "The Renaissance", after the obscurantism period that wanted also the things remained the same as always (More or less your theory regarding digital)."

 

This is where I think the fundamental disagreement lies. You see "my theory" regarding digital as "obscurantism". I see actually using science, experiments and rational thought as much more dynamic, creative and progressive than the medieval superstition of believing in "bit-eating monsters".

 

Let's have a quote from the much-despised Wikipedia (a dynamic, creative and democratic environment created by engineers that is challenging the rigid authority of "authorative" sources), on"The Renaissance":

 

"Perhaps the most significant development of the era was not a specific discovery, but rather a process for discovery, the scientific method. This revolutionary new way of learning about the world focused on empirical evidence, the importance of mathematics, and discarded the Aristotelian "final cause" in favor of a mechanical philosophy. Early and influential proponents of these ideas included Copernicus and Galileo and Francis Bacon The new scientific method led to great contributions in the fields of astronomy, physics, biology, and anatomy."

 

"Of course IBM had a bunch of engineers, but do you think his slogan was from his 'engineer department' or the 'creative department'. Then, the engineers had to be reeducated about thinking different."

 

As has been pointed out, that slogan was used by Apple, not IBM - and it was an outside agency that came up with it.

 

"Apple's CEO was not at all fond of the original "Think Different" ad, as revealed in a detailed account written by a member of the ad team that developed the 1997 campaign."

 

Steve Jobs and the "Think Different" ad - The untold story.

 

[elcorso]

The same of the same...

 

Then, IBM pirated the campaign from Apple? Because this was publicized in my country for several years in the main newspapers, where Apple hadn't arrived yet. Now we have a lot of nice Apple Stores, that sell a lot of their great products.

 

Who hired the 'outside agency', who hired and created the 'team'. If you still believe in 'spontaneous generation', please read about Pasteur in Wikipedia.

 

In this side of the world we had, some years ago, a very stupid president. But then we discovered that is was a wise man, since he hired intelligent and practical people to make the duties.

 

BTW, I see thanks to Wikipedia you are learning something about "The Renaissance", good for you. I have large encyclopedia (12 big books) about the same, even some my old ancestors are mentioned there, but I don't like to talk about, they were very bad people, something like the Borgia's concigiere. But you know, in every family we have our sins, regarding me, I'm only the airhead...

 

Roch

 

[Jud]

Nothing at all wrong with being objective or with using the scientific method. Though I'm not a scientist, I'm certainly a devoted amateur.

 

An important part of science is making models. To do this, one needs to leave out a great deal of the complexity and chaos of the natural world to create an idealized system that can reveal how things work at a deep level. It is essential when doing this not to leave out something important, i.e., something that has a material impact on how well the results obtained by the model correspond with those obtained in reality (by experiment, observations/measurements of natural phenomena, etc.). If one insists on leaving things out that affect the correspondence of the model with reality, then one has become not an objectivist, but a reductionist. Objectivist philosophy can certainly correspond with science, but reductionism cannot, since it elevates an inaccurate model over accurate correspondence with nature.

 

In the Jobs biography, it's described how one of his frequent methods of operation was to initially criticize an idea (and the person putting it forward) vociferously, to an almost shocking degree, only to become a champion of it if it survived the initial storm. He did this particularly in instances regarding design of new products, and advertising.

 

Thus when we consider objectively the additional information from his biography, showing he tended to behave exactly this way regarding many if not most advertising campaigns (even those he wound up supporting to the extent sometimes of falsely claiming authorship), we can say Jobs was most probably just doing his usual trial-by-fire and had no special initial antipathy for the Think Different campaign.

 

[Julf]

"Objectivist philosophy can certainly correspond with science, but reductionism cannot, since it elevates an inaccurate model over accurate correspondence with nature."

 

You are of course totally right.

 

On Jobs:

 

"Thus when we consider objectively the additional information from his biography, showing he tended to behave exactly this way regarding many if not most advertising campaigns (even those he wound up supporting to the extent sometimes of falsely claiming authorship), we can say Jobs was most probably just doing his usual trial-by-fire and had no special initial antipathy for the Think Different campaign."

 

Again, yes, I think you are right.

 

"In the Jobs biography, it's described how one of his frequent methods of operation was to initially criticize an idea (and the person putting it forward) vociferously, to an almost shocking degree, only to become a champion of it if it survived the initial storm. He did this particularly in instances regarding design of new products, and advertising."

 

So by initially criticizing an idea vociferously, to see if it survives the initial storm, we are just emulating the model of the wonderful genius of Jobs?

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Julf,

 

**"...So by initially criticizing an idea vociferously, to see if it survives the initial storm, we are just emulating the model of the wonderful genius of Jobs? ..."**

 

But there's "one more thing": ;-}

Jobs experienced first; he didn't criticize prior to (or instead of) experiencing the thing directly, for himself.

 

As far as I know, he also didn't question his experience.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Jud]

So by initially criticizing an idea vociferously, to see if it survives the initial storm, we are just emulating the model of the wonderful genius of Jobs?

 

The biography portrays a very complex man. We are all complicated, but Jobs may have embodied more contradictory tendencies than most. I think it is safe to say the biographer would not be in favor of people acting as Jobs did in many, many situations. One certainly feels the author's disapproval unto shock at many of the scenes he describes. At the same time he does portray accomplishments that others besides Jobs may not have been capable of. One danger of this portrayal, balanced as it is, may be a feeling that one would have to be capable of the at times truly awful unpleasantness Jobs displayed in order to accomplish what he did. (This is not an original sentiment with me, but of a perceptive book critic writing about the biography.) The biographer never goes so far as to say this, but he never specifically rejects it either, at least so far as I recall.

 

[Mark Powell]

'Think' was and is, an old IBM slogan, first used in around 1923. Invented by Thomas Watson (or so it is claimed in the rather 'toadying' histories) the founder of IBM, who was neither an engineer nor an 'artist', but most of the time before he started IBM, a cash register salesman for NCR.

 

Apple's 'Think Different' was obviously a slightly humourous, and slightly barbed, stab at IBM.

 

Whether you think it is clever, or Apple unable to think up a slogan of their own, is perhaps a matter of where you are coming from.

 

[elcorso]

Maybe the campaign in my country was 'created' from some agency over here, when they begin with the Think Tanks. I'll ask some friends in advertising business.

 

Steve Jobs 'brain storms' or 'feedback' is still very used in business administration, but in a less heavy way. My wife, who is a clinical phsycologist, believes that this kind of caprice behavior is common to genius and/or artists, but at the end they got their goals.

 

Roch

 

Sent from my iPad

 

[RealAudio]

The Steve Jobs “personal experience” is being used as a proxy for the high end “personal experience” judgments’ that aren’t supported by measurement. I reject that analogy.

 

Although Jobs was the driving force behind Apple’s strategy and product user experience, Apple’s product implementation, marketing and manufacturing is a very disciplined data driven process. His creativity wouldn’t have created anything without that. Everyone forgets this failures: Lisa; NeXT; Newton.

 

If you look at the history of astronomy, you’ll find the real analogy to high end “personal experience” . Until relatively recently, astronomy was based on personal experience, a lone individual peering into a telescope, drawing his observations. Once canals were observed on Mars, everyone started seeing canals on Mars. Once astronomy moved from personal experience to photographs, the canals disappeared.

 

 

[Melvin]

I wonder if Mr. Jobs respected audiophiles.

 

[Julf]

And anyway:

 

The Onion: Open-Minded Man Grimly Realizes How Much Life He's Wasted Listening To Bullshit

 

[Jud]

Once astronomy moved from personal experience to photographs, the canals disappeared.

 

Do I recall correctly that there are "seasonal" color changes of the Martian landscape near the polar caps?

 

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

Yes, the polar ice cap grows and shrinks with the Martian seasons. This is easily visible in a modest telescope.

 

Storms too, can be seen on the surface, as they can be in the cloud tops of Jupiter and Saturn.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Some cultures are not very good at recognising 'tongue in cheek', or irony.

 

I too am a wonderful genius. My wife thinks so, purely because I had a much better education than she did and (not connected) somehow know lots of totally useless things.

 

We (voluntarily) had psychological testing on an 'outdoors' course that IBM sent us (also voluntarily) on. Run by the the local authority, not these commercial rip-off merchants. I turned out to be a 'plant'. Get some ideas myself, but my main contribution to a team is stirring them up a bit so they think. Sometimes they don't like it. Jobs was a 'plant' too. Neither me nor Jobs would have known we were 'plants'.

 

[Jud]

I turned out to be a 'plant'.

 

Shrinking violet? Prickly pear? ;-)

 

[Jud]

One of the true classics:

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/meth-addicts-demand-government-address-nations-gro,2137/

 

[Mark Powell]

It's some kind of psychological term, and we all know how many terms they have. One even spent years testing pigeons. And he still had no more idea why a pigeon lands on this pole rather than that wire than you or I have.

 

It certainly doesn't mean we were recognised and deliberately 'planted'. Unless IBM managers were a whole lot more clever than they appeared to be