Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[wushuliu]

Just now, jabbr said:

 

Thing is, many people might be entirely uninterested in using science to advise their purchases. What would be the point of the effort, not like it's going to get anyone tenure  

 

Ah more signifiers. Question is what do we mean when we use the word science...

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

There should be a name for this...

There is ...

[plissken]

20 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

 

That is a vague collection of signifiers. Objectively that statement means absolutely nothing. The equivalent of a product needing to be '100% natural'.

 

If someone needs to know why subjectivists should push back here is why. 

 

 

 

Well this is a vague topic. In other threads where something very on point is being discussed then we can be very specific in what we would be designing an evaluation method for.

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes, some things are black and white, such as my first television. A 12" black & white.

actually it had greys too...

[Jud]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

Like there's a DBT kit you can buy off Amazon.

 

If there were, would folks who like the “objective” side of things buy it?

 

I certainly see marketing patter directed toward objectivists, though not so much as toward subjectivists.

[beerandmusic]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Trying the determine if there is an actual number for appeal to popularity

 

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

Everyone is free to use their own method of deciding what they are interested in. Mine is as posted, in the context of a whole bunch of other threads and posts e.g. The "1/f" thread I started, so don't want to repeat here. Dennis honestly asked and I answered.

 

i use the theory, if miska likes it, it has to be good...and to some degree it is true....he listens a lot and he does a lot of measurements, and he is honest.  ....besides I am lazy.

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

I agree. But that means time and money. Much cheaper to tell people they're making things up.

Just as cheap to tell people their ears are crap.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

Just as cheap to tell people their ears are crap.

 

No, no, it’s your system.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

No, no, it’s your system.

That's why I avoid mentioning specifics of my gear. Whatever it is, someone will have a personal grudge with the brand.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's why I avoid mentioning specifics of my gear. Whatever it is, someone will have a personal grudge with the brand.

 

Aw c’mon, be a sport, let us mock your equipment!

[fas42]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm always curious when others are talking about 'lowering noise levels'. How do you define 'noise levels'? I really can't hear noise in my system at any DSD or PCM settings. Or are you perhaps referring to how noise might affect SQ?

 

DSD512 sounds just a bit more natural to me than DSD256, but the effect is fairly minor.

 

You answered your own question - it's the "sounds just a bit more natural" factor. The pernicious sort of "noise" which degrades SQ is that which cripples a playback system so that it always sounds 'hifi', no matter how brilliant the spec's and measurements are. Remove those 'noise' factors  and the system transitions to becoming "more natural", until it can become 'convincing' - has the "fool you from behind a curtain" quality.

[pkane2001]

This whole objectivist vs subjectivist dichotomy reminds me of another great conflict between Little-Endians and Big-Endians that didn't end so peacefully:

Quote

It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller End.

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Thing is, many people might be entirely uninterested in using science to advise their purchases. What would be the point of the effort, not like it's going to get anyone tenure  

 

dunno - but Maggie does blind testing before they intro a new speaker

 

for a consumer, it can save them a lot of money

 

(I am out of the tenure biz BTW - in fact, I am _supposed_ to be retired twice...)

[Ralf11]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's why I avoid mentioning specifics of my gear. Whatever it is, someone will have a personal grudge with the brand.

 

I mock your reliance on electronics and lack of photonics

[Ralf11]

I think it is useful to look at the BS liquid cable thread (TEO cables, and I guess the t stands for Toxic...).

 

One poster noted that since their web site was chock full of BS which could not possibly be true, there was no reason to waste his time by ordering & listening to them.  He was able to use his technical astuteness to winnow out the chaff, and reduce the panoply of possibilities to a reduced subset.

 

I think that is a very useful process to a consumer in the world of audiophilia (not to mention that it also reminds me sparse statistical techniques to get  a handle on a large universe of effects - a la Box, Hunter, Box - and if anyone is interested I'll look up the title of their book).

[christopher3393]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Objectivists are concerned with confirming results in a way that passes the smell test.

 

The smell test isn't necessarily a bad heuristic device. I understand it as an appeal to common sense. But "sensus communis" itself is open to multiple interpretations and valuations, isn't it? Finally, it is just a heuristic device, fallible, right? Over reliance on it is simply not good objectivity is it?

[Ralf11]

If I collect 30 trained listeners, and use a double-blinded test regime, randomizing presentations, and... yad yada yada... then is that an objective or a subjective testing protocol?

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

If I collect 30 trained listeners, and use a double-blinded test regime, randomizing presentations, and... yad yada yada... then is that an objective or a subjective testing protocol?

 

I would think that would be called "objective". Wouldn't it also be called "rare"?

[Ralf11]

maybe medium-rare?

 

the listeners are performing a subjective evaluation, which the experimenter is ... um... objectifying

[plissken]

9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

The smell test isn't necessarily a bad heuristic device. I understand it as an appeal to common sense. But "sensus communis" itself is open to multiple interpretations and valuations, isn't it? Finally, it is just a heuristic device, fallible, right? Over reliance on it is simply not good objectivity is it?

It's scads better than sighted, biased, evaluation. Gotta start somewhere.

[christopher3393]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

It's scads better than sighted, biased, evaluation. Gotta start somewhere.

 

I wholeheartedly agree regarding the problems of sighted biased evaluation, but I also believe that long term "just listening" has a role to play in the evaluation of sound quality. This is often completely negated by some here. It is all about finding a practical balance. Science in action doesn't always look like "best practices".

[beerandmusic]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Aw c’mon, be a sport, let us mock your equipment!

panasonic

[plissken]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

I wholeheartedly agree regarding the problems of sighted biased evaluation, but I also believe that long term "just listening" has a role to play in the evaluation of sound quality. This is often completely negated by some here. It is all about finding a practical balance. Science in action doesn't always look like "best practices".

It shouldn't be negated at all. But still sighted evaluations hold no water for efficacy.

 

Still looking for a willing and honest audiophile.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

panasonic

 

Fisher Price

 

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Fisher Price

 

 

my fishers better than your fisher