Fear and loathing not required

[esldude]

Hey, this is supposed to be a snark-free thread. All ideas are equal, ipso fatso.

 

You mean I can't post this?

 

[esldude]

Oh. I actually disagree with that. You are getting more data (if it isn't faked upsampled stuff). If you are incapable of processing the data such that it makes a difference, it isn't the seller's fault your ears or equipment or dog is defective. (You could make a similar argument for lossless redbook vs. 320 kb/sec).

 

Did not think of the dog. People with cats have it worse as their hearing range is higher still. I guess we have to go to at least 176 khz. That explains those defective double blind tests. They don't let people have their cats during those. If so, then the cats behavior likely interacts with the humans, and there you have a real effect.

 

Just don't ever get a bat for a pet. Then you'll need 764 khz for a sample rate.

[InfernoSTi]

Let me argue that all objective is actually subjective. And please take this as a logical argument that assumes that objective means actual scientific objective based on testing with the best resolution test equipment based on the best theories available today. Let's assume that it is the best of the best as we know it at this moment.

 

How we pick what to test "objectively" appears to be a subjective choice of what to "test" and what "weights" to assign and what "alpha and beta errors" to ignore and what "future tests that have more accuracy or even validity than current tests" to hope won't be discovered, etc. So we start with a faith based choice of theory, equipment, and what to ignore as invalid with any "objective" test.

 

All arguments about the validity of the objective outcome revolve around the validity of the test, the weighting, and the alpha/beta errors and future unknowns to ignore. The test means little if we are testing the wrong thing, or are using poor equipment, or if the errors are known to be super great.

 

So what an "objective" test really represents is the generally accepted validity that the outcomes produce meaningful results. Once the outcome of the test produces repeatable results, then people say it measures well.

 

Let me take a quick sidetrack to use an example that I see a lot in posts. Dynamic Range testing is an example that some will say does and others will say does not measure "good" audio. Others says it is good to a degree and assign a weighting factor to it. Others, yet, say there is the error in the testing itself (saying the same exact source produces two different DR numbers depending on the playback format, higher for vinyl and lower for PCM yet they both started with the same DR). So it appears it is a subjective choice to decide if DR is an objective measure of quality and to what degree (and if one decides to ignore the errors inherent in the testing). While the test is objective, the results are both questioned in terms of if they result in consistent "higher is better" outcomes and also if the tests even measure accurately depending on the playback format.

 

So what this leaves me wondering is if "objective" is really a subjective faith that todays tests are revealing enough to be universally accepted and that somehow tomorrow we won't have more accurate testing equipment, new tests that reveal more meaningful results, and so on.

 

I mean who here today believes we can measure with greater accuracy and with a wider variety of tests anything over fifty or a hundred years ago? Don't we think the same thing will be true in the future? If so, we can't actually believe that today's tests are completely valid except by faith alone? As if in this moment all truth is known and all knowledge complete? Ridiculous when you think about it, really. How hard would we laugh at the absolutists of 100 years ago when they tell us they can measure reality completely and that their resulting concept of the world was absolute and final?

 

So if we objectively believe that today's tests are evolving and represent more a combination of the (subjectively) chosen tests, how much we weight those tests, what errors to ignore (or what weight to assign the unknown unknowns), and what resolution our current measurement equipment is capable of achieving, then we can't call "facts" objective at all. We call them results.

 

Finally, if a large group says they don't find the tests reliable in predicting sound quality, then can we reasonably assign a large factor to the unknown unknowns without it appearing to invalidate what we do know today?

 

It isn't that someone is right and someone is wrong. It is that the R Square of today's tests isn't actually 1 and that it may be 0.5 or something and we just need to keep perfecting the model.

 

This solution actually acknowledges both camps, the objective and the subjective. Unless, of course, folks are more concerned about winning than learning or finding truth.

 

Best,

John

[esldude]

Let me argue that all objective is actually subjective. And please take this as a logical argument that assumes that objective means actual scientific objective based on testing with the best resolution test equipment based on the best theories available today. Let's assume that it is the best of the best as we know it at this moment.

 

How we pick what to test "objectively" appears to be a subjective choice of what to "test" and what "weights" to assign and what "alpha and beta errors" to ignore and what "future tests that have more accuracy or even validity than current tests" to hope won't be discovered, etc. So we start with a faith based choice of theory, equipment, and what to ignore as invalid with any "objective" test.

 

All arguments about the validity of the objective outcome revolve around the validity of the test, the weighting, and the alpha/beta errors and future unknowns to ignore. The test means little if we are testing the wrong thing, or are using poor equipment, or if the errors are known to be super great.

 

So what an "objective" test really represents is the generally accepted validity that the outcomes produce meaningful results. Once the outcome of the test produces repeatable results, then people say it measures well.

 

Let me take a quick sidetrack to use an example that I see a lot in posts. Dynamic Range testing is an example that some will say does and others will say does not measure "good" audio. Others says it is good to a degree and assign a weighting factor to it. Others, yet, say there is the error in the testing itself (saying the same exact source produces two different DR numbers depending on the playback format, higher for vinyl and lower for PCM yet they both started with the same DR). So it appears it is a subjective choice to decide if DR is an objective measure of quality and to what degree (and if one decides to ignore the errors inherent in the testing). While the test is objective, the results are both questioned in terms of if they result in consistent "higher is better" outcomes and also if the tests even measure accurately depending on the playback format.

 

So what this leaves me wondering is if "objective" is really a subjective faith that todays tests are revealing enough to be universally accepted and that somehow tomorrow we won't have more accurate testing equipment, new tests that reveal more meaningful results, and so on.

 

I mean who here today believes we can measure with greater accuracy and with a wider variety of tests anything over fifty or a hundred years ago? Don't we think the same thing will be true in the future? If so, we can't actually believe that today's tests are completely valid except by faith alone? As if in this moment all truth is known and all knowledge complete? Ridiculous when you think about it, really. How hard would we laugh at the absolutists of 100 years ago when they tell us they can measure reality completely and that their resulting concept of the world was absolute and final?

 

So if we objectively believe that today's tests are evolving and represent more a combination of the (subjectively) chosen tests, how much we weight those tests, what errors to ignore (or what weight to assign the unknown unknowns), and what resolution our current measurement equipment is capable of achieving, then we can't call "facts" objective at all.

 

Finally, if a large group says they don't find the tests reliable in predicting sound quality, then can we reasonably assign a large factor to the unknown unknowns without it appearing to invalidate what we do know today?

 

It isn't that someone is right and someone is wrong. It is that the R Square of today's tests isn't actually 1 and that it may be 0.5 or something and we just need to keep perfecting the model.

 

This solution actually acknowledges both camps, the objective and the subjective. Unless, of course, folks are more concerned about winning than learning or finding truth.

 

Best,

John

 

A false premise leads to false conclusions.

 

I also find your description of matters close to though not quite: Wronger than wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I do applaud and recognize your attempt to form a bridge to an amenable solution.

[InfernoSTi]

A false premise leads to false conclusions.

 

I also find your description of matters close to though not quite: Wronger than wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I do applaud and recognize your attempt to form a bridge to an amenable solution.

 

Thank you.

 

So what is false exactly?

 

Are today's tests absolute in both their resolution and completeness? Are there zero unknown unknowns? Are there no errors at all? Do today's objective audio tests produce a model that has a perfect fit? Please don't just dismiss with a broad sweep of the hand and fail to give any specifics.

 

If, as you reference, "the degree of their wrongness attenuates with time," how do we know we are studying disease prior to the discovery of bacteria and viruses or not? And even then, how do we know if we are at the early stages or the more mature stages post discovery?

 

And while I understand the point of your link, there are quantum changes in our knowledge that change reality completely, not with a fine correction. Think Non-Euclidean geometry…it didn't incrementally change our understanding of math that had progressed for 2,000 years. It turned it upside down overnight (relatively speaking).

 

Who can argue that parallel lines never meet? Nobody but those that subscribe to the faith of Euclid. The proof is just as exact for other conclusions to be drawn…if you actually believe that math is valid to begin with (and I do). The test of "is it internally valid?" is no longer the test as many (mutually exclusive) geometries can exist with equally internally valid assumptions, the selection of which is a matter of faith, not math or science. If one of those had been "discovered" first, it would be the more normal of the three, but that is a matter of chance, not math or science.

 

I mean this questioning sincerely…what part is wrong (and if all parts, then itemize)?

 

John

[esldude]

Thank you.

 

So what is false exactly?

 

Are today's tests absolute in both their resolution and completeness? Are there zero unknown unknowns? Are there no errors at all? Do today's objective audio tests produce a model that has a perfect fit? Please don't just dismiss with a broad sweep of the hand and fail to give any specifics.

 

How do we know we are studying disease prior to the discovery of bacteria and viruses or not? And even then, how do we know if we are at the early stages or the more mature stages post discovery?

 

I mean this questioning sincerely…what part is wrong (and if all parts, then itemize)?

 

John

 

Maybe I should PM that. I am going to be castigated already. And what I say would be fodder for more contentiousness which I really am not interested in. Also, if he wishes, wgscott, being a real practicing scientist probably could give a better, clearer and more concise critique than I will. If he wishes to do so. I can PM you.

 

While I did dismiss it in one swipe, it was only due to not having time for a proper reply point by point. I will give you one maybe sometime tomorrow in the PM.

[InfernoSTi]

Maybe I should PM that. I am going to be castigated already. And what I say would be fodder for more contentiousness which I really am not interested in. Also, if he wishes, wgscott, being a real practicing scientist probably could give a better, clearer and more concise critique than I will. If he wishes to do so. I can PM you.

 

While I did dismiss it in one swipe, it was only due to not having time for a proper reply point by point. I will give you one maybe sometime tomorrow in the PM.

 

I understand and would like to read your thoughts either publicly or in a PM. I did edit my response but that was before I saw your answer.

 

And let me say that I am not trying to pick a winning or losing (loosing for all you loose spelling guys) side. And please believe me that I would not disrespect you personally with an attack. Let me explain that in more detail.

 

I believe that the subjective camp (in broad sweeping strokes) is able to enjoy their position because of a lot of hard work and discipline of the objective camp (in broad sweeping strokes). And I believe that music reproduction is art and, therefore, ultimately, a matter of personal (subjective) enjoyment. But I fully believe that the hard work of those that measure things make our (music) world better.

 

Best,

John

[acg]

Gotta hand it to you, Diogenes, you've just picked one of the worst examples of belief that I can think of. We are in complete agreement on that. Here's what might be the real challenge for you: pick the worst example of "fact" you can find, and pit it against the best example of belief you can find. Otherwise, what you're doing is just a polemical exercise, and not really a challenge for someone of your apparent intelligence.

 

 

How about when it was a fact that the sun orbited the earth, but Galileo formed his own opinion to the contrary.

 

Or if you won "trial by combat" you were in fact innocent of your accused crime.

 

Those were some pretty ridiculous facts!!

[esldude]

I understand and would like to read your thoughts either publicly or in a PM. I did edit my response but that was before I saw your answer.

 

And let me say that I am not trying to pick a winning or losing (loosing for all you loose spelling guys) side. And please believe me that I would not disrespect you personally with an attack. Let me explain that in more detail.

 

I believe that the subjective camp (in broad sweeping strokes) is able to enjoy their position because of a lot of hard work and discipline of the objective camp (in broad sweeping strokes). And I believe that music reproduction is art and, therefore, ultimately, a matter of personal (subjective) enjoyment. But I fully believe that the hard work of those that measure things make our (music) world better.

 

Best,

John

 

Yes, thank you John.

 

You have a PM. Actually a three part PM. I thought you deserved a response without waiting another day.

 

Respectfully,

Dennis

[sandyk]

And I believe that music reproduction is art and, therefore, ultimately, a matter of personal (subjective) enjoyment. But I fully believe that the hard work of those that measure things make our (music) world better.

 

Unfortunately, we now have the situation where all the recent advances by talented engineers and software designers, involving measurements from markedly improved designs, that gave us SACD, DVD-A, BluRay Audio, DSD recordings at even higher resolution, as well as DSD downloads, high resolution Downloads from HDTracks and others, being attacked by those who weren't privy to the original design processes.

These people are attempting to turn back the clock on extensive advances in both software and hardware designs that gave many millions of people added enjoyment from their music purchases, simply because they personally are unable to hear the improvements, or refuse to accept the science behind these advances.

[Daudio]

So what is false exactly?

 

John,

 

Nothing really. you made some very good points, but Esldude just can't seem to pry himself away from arguing, mockery, and intolerance. I fear he is beyond redemption

 

I am saddened, sickened, and infuriated at what is going on on the CA forums. This thread is just a more extreme example: the OP called out for tolerance, and was immediately met with a torrent of mockery and negativity from the usual gang of intolerant assholes. Very similar to a recent thread started by Superdad, that was immediately buried in a flurry of nasty, mocking posts by Esldude and Mayhem666 - disgusting

 

Anybody who want to criticize me for calling names is welcome, because I am sick to death of the sabotage and pollution of this online audio community by said assholes, and I'm too old to care what you think or say of me. And remember very clearly that I am not now, nor have for some time posted anything regarding your opinions or issues, but only your behavior, bad, disgusting, despicable, unworthy, unacceptable online behavior.

 

It's way past time that this shit stops. It is not doing anyone any good and is driving away a lot of folks who see this crap and are either disgusted or intimidated away from CA, or at least, from posting their contributions. That is not what CA is about, and not what Chris C wants for these forums.

 

We have heard your opinions a thousand times over and don't need to hear them again, we don't want to hear your negativity and mockery any more. So how about just holding your tongues until you have something new to contribute ?

 

Get it ? Got it ? Good... Goodbye.

[Jud]

You know that is garbage you are spreading. If that were true, the bleeding ears of the audiophiles buying such fraudulent merchandise would have made big news. And those companies would have either went belly up or mended their ways. No way could such a thing have happened. No matter how many facts you wish to bring, I have it on good authority people the world over buy these without complaint. There are those that can't even stand to listen to a 16 bit source. Obviously they would be complaining too.

 

"There are those that can't even stand to listen to 16 bit source" Really? Is that so? First, for a hobby that about "enjoying the music", there is almost no music available in high rez. Go through the classical catalog, almost none of the great performances from the great performers is available in anything but standard redbook. Being limited to those artists who prove that the difference between being an artist on Barry Diament's label and a pizzia is a pizza can feed a family of four is music hell. Besides, as I said before, since its been shown that no one can hear the difference between redbook and high rez, I put that claim in the same file as the claim by Scientologists that their "training" enables them to move physical objects by mental concentration. My bet is that if you play them high rez and tell them its red book, they will say its red book, and if you play the red book and tell them its high rez they will say its high rez. The power of self delusion is one of the strongest powers on earth.

 

Diogenes, you did get that Dennis was being sarcastic, right?

[InfernoSTi]

Yes, thank you John.

 

You have a PM. Actually a three part PM. I thought you deserved a response without waiting another day.

 

Respectfully,

Dennis

 

Thank you, Dennis, I've read them (albeit quickly) but have to work for the next 12 hours but wanted to say your response was very thoughtful and appreciated.

 

Best,

John

[Boris75]

As I have been told, in the high end audiophile world opinion trumps fact every time.

 

Your statement is fully in line with my experience.

[InfernoSTi]

John,

 

Nothing really. you made some very good points...

 

I am saddened, sickened, and infuriated at what is going on on the CA forums. This thread is just a more extreme example: the OP called out for tolerance, and was immediately met with a torrent of mockery and negativity…

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I would like for folks to speak with civility and respect first and to seek knowledge rather than victory second. This would allow for all sides to be heard and for understanding to grow. This is required by folks on both sides of "the debate" to work.

 

Best,

John

[89reksal]

This is how I see this topic (and a lot of posters on these threads):

 

[Paul R]

The below is a perfect example of why this thread should be locked or even deleted in my opinion.

-Paul

 

 

A false premise leads to false conclusions.

 

I also find your description of matters close to though not quite: Wronger than wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I do applaud and recognize your attempt to form a bridge to an amenable solution.

[bluesman]

Do facts matter? Is rational inquiry legitimate? If the answer is no, I am not clear how a "Code of Conduct" could even be constructed, let alone enforced.

 

What is the evidence (assuming evidence matters) that what we have now is something other than a healthy discussion?

 

Perhaps the real dichotomy is between the rigidly literal and the loosely interpretive. I don't think anyone advocates, envisions or even imagines an armed cadre of posting police - but it would lighten things up a bit if we could avoid the edgy posts that are highly (and obviously, if you step back and read it before clicking "submit") likely to provoke a similar response and an escalation to the limits of civility. And I truly hope that nothing found on this forum is the most important thing in the life of anyone posting here. We're here for mutual fun, education, amusement and enlightenment - it's not a jousting tournament.

 

[wgscott]

Let me argue that all objective is actually subjective...

 

I think you are on to something here, but if you permit me to substitute the "objective/subjective" dichotomy (which I never really liked or even encountered before coming here) with something that I think might actually more accurately represent what you have in mind, then I think the essence of what you are saying might become a little bit clearer. If I have totally misconstrued what you are suggesting, please forgive me.

 

In philosophy of science, the problem of understanding what the difference is between empirically-based knowledge and religious belief has been ongoing for several hundred years. Perhaps a slightly more neutral way of putting that is the question of what distinguishes natural and physical sciences from metaphysics (which would include religion as well as stuff like Freudian psychology). Karl Popper came up with a compelling argument in favor of drawing a line based on what is testable, suggesting we reserve the idea of a scientific hypothesis for one that can be tested and potentially refuted. In other words, a scientific hypothesis, at least implicitly if not explicitly, should be able to tell you under what circumstances you can safely reject it as being wrong. Religious explanations of phenomena, and Freudian psychological explanations of phenomena, for example, don't do this. If everything can be explained in terms of your desire to murder your father and boink your mother, for example, then there are no conditions under which that psychological explanation can be rejected, and it therefore is not testable and it lacks genuine explanatory power.

 

The idea of testing conjectures and refuting them is derived from David Hume, who showed that beyond the realm of pure logic and mathematics, you cannot prove anything (there is no inductive proof in science). The only way to proceed, then, is to try to refute something, and if you try as hard as possible to prove something wrong, and you cannot, then you can begin to have some confidence in your conjecture or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. (This is essentially Popper's principle of falsification.)

 

A corollary of this is that all empirical "facts" are really hypothesis-laden observations. So rather than say we can't call facts "objective", what I would suggest is that we can't call facts indisputable. (If they aren't objective, then they can't be proven to be wrong.) They are hypotheses, and like all others, have to be tested. All of our knowledge, including empirical observables (facts) is in this sense tentative.

 

The difference is in what we here tend to call "subjective", which I would suggest ought to be replaced by "untestable."

 

If someone claims there is an audible difference between two audio files that have the same sha1 checksum, this is a testable hypothesis. There is also a corresponding "null" hypothesis that says the two must be identical. The first claim is essentially a statement that amounts to a claim that the null hypothesis is wrong. There are at least two very simple ways to refute this null hypothesis. One is to show measured differences, and the other is a double-blind test. However, if the person claiming that two bit-identical files sound different will not accept either of those two potential examples of refutation (or another one that I may not have thought of), and they cannot come up with any potential observation the result of which would cause them to accept their hypothesis as being refuted, then they are making an untestable metaphysical claim (like Freud's Oedipus complex or a religious explanation). It doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it does mean we have no way of knowing.

[sandyk]

It doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it does mean we have no way of knowing.

 

We were born with a pair of ears, and some dedicated engineers, with further improvements over the years by later generations of engineers, gave us the ability to construct some very good electronic amplification and transducers.

The final test isn't what some checksum deigned by man who isn't infallible may report , or well intentioned DBTs designed by the very side that wishes to disprove the proposition.

DBTs are unable to do this, they can only suggest a possibility. Nothing more.

The final arbiter must always be what our ears tell us repeatedly under non sighted conditions, not what measurements taken by those with an axe to grind may say. With most null tests in other Audio areas, the results are more often than not, not a complete null, but the person performing the tests invariably claims that the results are beyond the limits of audibility. How arrogant is that ?

Yet once again wgscott has used my reports in a thread to further his own personal agenda, when in this thread there was no reason to do so.

[The Computer Audiophile]

A Code of Conduct for Computer Audiophiles.

 

Its all music ~ B. Dylan

Its the same song ~ N. Young

Why can’t we all get along ~ R. King

 

Objective v. Subjective: The Great Debate

 

I am concerned that recent postings regarding the great debate between the Subjective and Objective camps have led to hurt feelings, unbridled snark, name calling and a general decline in the level of discussion which, for the most part, has made this site a haven from the darker regions of the internet.

 

For the Subjectives: You are truly blessed. You can take great comfort in that you are able to hear differences in the various modifications that all hobbyists enjoy. Replace a cable, change software settings, compare and contrast DACs, is that not what the hobbyist does?

 

For the Objectiveist: Measurement. Science. How lucky you are to have the education, the dedication, and the mental capacity to follow dispassionate scientific method in the advancement of your hobby. Indeed, there is nothing as soothing as a good chart that proves the square wave is square.

 

Now, I submit that both camps are interested in the same outcome, the best possible reproduction of source material.

 

The proposed Code of Conduct would be that in future discussions each group should note that the opposite camp has a different take on the hobby and that each opposing opinion is valid in the context of the person who has the opinion.

 

In short, there is no right or wrong in the hobby context. Even if a posting flys in the face of logic, so what? If the poster believes that a white room sounds different than a red room who cares? Respectfully disagree and move on. Elevate the discussion!

 

 

(Please note the poster pumps his computer music files over SONOS (wireless) or through USB to a hum-rich tube amp, further, he suffers from tinnitus, so he has no ability to judge any audio equipment or high resolution file.)

For the most part you're right on. Nobody is killing puppies or saving babies here. If white paint sounds better to someone, so be it. If you don't like that, move on to another thread.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I would say it's not Subjective vs Objective, it's belief vs fact.

I have a little problem with this comment and I suspect many others take issue with it for the same reason.

 

Facts, when talking about the cutting edge of something or those who push boundaries, are often only part of the story. We don't always have all the facts yet some people conclude what facts we do have must lead to the one and only answer. For example, using a green marker to color the outside of a Compact Disc. This had an effect on the sound of the CD. Many people dismissed this because their set of facts told them it was impossible. How could this possibly change the sound? Once Keith O. Johnson figured out the green marker caused the servo to go crazy and effect the power supply causing larger amounts of jitter, and followed this with measurements as proof, people started to believe this green marker tweak has an affect.

 

 

People who feel strongly about a position based on facts must always consider they may only have some of the facts.

[Guidof]

 

People who feel strongly about a position based on facts must always consider they may only have some of the facts.

 

Yes.

 

Guido F.

[Superdad]

People who feel strongly about a position based on facts must always consider they may only have some of the facts.

 

Chris: May I have your permission to place that statement in my signature line? Do you need/want me to attribute the quote to you?

Thanks,

ALEX C.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris: May I have your permission to place that statement in my signature line? Do you need/want me to attribute the quote to you?

Thanks,

ALEX C.

Feel free. No need to quote me.