"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[sullis02]

On 4/4/2018 at 6:10 PM, Ron Scubadiver said:

The Hydrogen Audio TOS is not evenly enforced and is also imposed on observations that indicate a malfunctioning piece of gear.  They also reject measurements, which are objective for the rest of us.

False.  What 'they' also reject is this sort of argument:

"Look at how different an mp3 waveform is compared to lossless.  Therefore mp3 sounds worse."

or

"This DAC measure with 0.0003dB less distortion than this other one.  THerefore it sounds better."

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:51 PM, Ron Scubadiver said:

Nothing has changed and that will get you banned, but some members are obviously getting away with a lot and the guy who runs the forum breaks his own rules whenever he feels like it.

 

Who is this 'guy' who 'runs' the forum?  There are multiple administrators , monitoring different sections of HA.  

 

You are not a  reliable source of information about HA.  Stop. 

[sullis02]

On 4/5/2018 at 1:50 PM, Norton said:

 

Isn't this just a rather impolite label for "people using their systems to enjoy music"?  E.g.99% of the population?

 

Rather, it's a rephrasing of the phrase 'routine ignorance of psychological bias'.  With the word 'ignorance' meant literally.

 

Most people either aren't educated about, or refuse to give credence to, the fact of multiple biases at work whenever they make a decision. 

 

I'm seeing it in this thread, and on this forum generally, in spades.

 

All 'objectivism' boils down to, for routine listening , is: allowing that your impression isn't formed only by the sound waves hitting your eardrum.  

 

Shorter version: what you believe, might be wrong. To be more certain, you have to do work. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/5/2018 at 2:59 PM, Albrecht said:

Except when you measure the wrong and/or irrelevant thing...

 

It's more like the Hawking quote

 

" The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. "

 

 

 And how is subjectivism, unmoored from doubt, anything but an 'illusion of knowledge'?

[sullis02]

On 4/7/2018 at 12:49 AM, Rexp said:

The quality of a fine audio system and the quality of a fine wine are both subjective judgments and since no one has come up with an objective way to determine quality, i'll stick with my opinion and opinons of others I trust and not some nerd with a scope.

 

I take it you've never read up on the interesting things that happen to preference ratings when wines are compared 'blind' (i.e, without the drinker knowing anything about the price or label). 

 

What if your opinions of sound 'quality' are in fact being informed by things other than the sound?

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/7/2018 at 4:28 AM, adamdea said:

QED

 

er...sorry , *what* is demonstrated by that post?

[sullis02]

On 4/7/2018 at 11:28 AM, firedog said:

I'm certainly not a hard core objectivst or subjectivist - I'm somewhere in the middle, so in the end I just try to make the best evaluations of SQ I can and accept the results - even if I'm "fooling myself". In practical terms, there isn't anything else most of us can do most of the time.

 

That you are willing to entertain the possibility that you are 'fooling yourself' puts you in the objectivist camp. Welcome!

;>

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/7/2018 at 1:34 PM, Allan F said:

 

And others might argue that some deliberately describe the differences as being that subtle in order to justify their bias in not hearing and/or ignoring them.

 

There is a way to cut the gordian knot here, you know.  It's called blind listening.

 

 

[sullis02]

20 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

You must be kidding. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you may have a different cultural context and/or English isn't your first language. Michael Fremer used to do standup comedy and, if you've ever seen him in person doing one of his turntable setup seminars, he still does. He's very funny and makes something as dull as setting azimuth entertaining, which is saying something. To provide some basic humor tutulage for you here: With the reference to "Grunge Tuesday", he's making fun of the shirt he's wearing and the "albino Hitler salute" comment was the sort of spontaneous physical comedy that Robin Williams used to do so facilely. (Fremer is Jewish, by the way.)

 

I've gotta say. Given some of the vitriol and name-calling that happens on CA when things get heated, that someone find's MF's schtick offensive is kind of...funny.

 

Badaboom.

 

What's offensive is the lameness of his attempts to be funny.    

[sullis02]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Stated like that it should put to bed all the debates between subjectivists and objectivists.... Yeah, right!

 

What it *could* do is form at least a point of agreement.   Can we agree that subjective impression is fallible?

 

It's merely a foundation of scientific method, after all.

 

 

[sullis02]

2 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

There is one in particular, and there is no reason to out him here.  Your accusation is not appreciated.

 

So you admit that the 'guy who runs the forum' that you cited, is actually...a member of an administration *team*.  

 

Any other careless claims about HA that you care to correct?

 

 

[sullis02]

19 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

If this works for you, I am happy for you. However, I enjoy music by the impression formed by the sound waves hitting my eardrum and thereafter transferred to my brain. I see no reason to question my belief in that impression, regardless of the opinions of others.

 

Why would it not 'work' for you?  Enjoy whatever music you like.   Everyone gets to like what they like.  The debates aren't about that.  They're about claims as to *why* something sounds the way it does.   Is it because of the way it was mastered? Is it because it's a WAV file , not FLAC?  Is it because you changed a cable?  Is it because invisible unicorns whispered in your ear?    

 

 

[sullis02]

2 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

Some measurements indicate a problem, others do not.  I favor freedom of speech over some philosophical problem they have at hydrogenaud.io.  If someone can't reject a silly claim, that's their problem.  It's easy to go overboard.  There are many claims I see over there supposedly based on blind a/b testing that can't be believed.

 

You might notice the discussions over there are rather stilted and most of the posts are foobar2000 help issues.

 

I've been reading HA for over a decade.  There's no tolerance for subjective flights of fancy, which makes it a refreshing change from most audio forums.  That is the point.  If that's 'stilted' to you, that's your problem.  It's no excuse to make up lies about the place.   

 

As for your argument from incredulity re claims from blind tests, it is hereby noticed, and filed appropriately.

[sullis02]

22 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

You are calling me a liar.  That's a personal attack if there ever was one.

 

Oh dear.  Wouldn't want that.  In that case, let me amend 'make up lies'  to 'post multiple poorly researched and inaccurate claims about'.  Better? 

[sullis02]

12 hours ago, drbobb said:

Cmon Steven,

Although TOS#8 can be seen as a, IMO "nice", feature of HA, it is clear the TOS's are not uniformly enforced.

It's obvious "the guy" is greynol, and he often breaks TOS#2 and 5, and allows you and AJ and other to, also. Then he hides behind 7 to essentially say that as a global moderator, he can do anything, and no one can question him.

 

 

The primary animus I sense against HA is not for supposedly inconsistent TOS#2 (everyone play nice)  or  #5 (everyone stay on topic) enforcement, but against enforcement of its 'nice' TOS#8 -- its distinguishing 'objectivism' feature versus pretty much every other audio forum, CA included --  which , understandably, is anathema to 'subjectivists'. 

 

The rest of the complaints are just gravy by comparison.    

 

 

[sullis02]

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 I could just suggest what I think may be a fruitful direction: Kant's subjectivization of aesthetics, which he couldn't have and wouldn't have argued before writing the Critique of Pure Reason. So, in terms of Kant, the third critique, The Critique of Judgement. Especially the effects it had. Before Kant, we don't have the subjectivization of taste. After Kant it gradually becomes a presupposition, one that many or most here would accept, I would guess.  And this is, I think,  a kind of radical subjectivization. If aesthetic experiences and judgments are finally understood to be strictly individual, irrational, idiosyncratic, relativistic, etc., then where are we?

 

We are nowhere with that,  as far as determining the probability that  a) a 'heard' difference between A and B has a basis in reality and b) whether a preference is due only to the heard difference.   

 

These are not questions of 'taste' (though 'b' is related to it), but they are central to the debates about audio . 

 

Since Kant's day we have developed methods to help us answer them.

 

 

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:45 AM, drbobb said:

 

 

 

HA is the objectivist equivalent of Herb Reichert's piece in the OP.

 

 

 

Ah.  "Both sides are just as bad'.    One sees that sort of lazy argument a lot these days.

 

[sullis02]

23 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

I can assure you that it has been the same old AK since at least 1991.

 

Do you know the meaning of rahe and rao? Their history, their wars?

 

 

sorry, off topic, pure archaeology

 

 

 

 

 

Memories....  ;> 

[sullis02]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, Albrecht said:

 

 

Ultimately, all I am saying is that

1.empirical knowledge is in fact knowledge, and can be "good" knowledge;

2. The end result of listening to music is a subjective experience.

3. Science or scientific investigations through the application of the scientific method can & do use observational/anecdotal tests & can garner valid results in predictive experiences.

4. Excluding 3 from said investigations results in erroneous conclusions because of 2 & other (objective tests [especially cursory] are inadequate predictors of subjective ends/goals).

 

Investigation -- measurement  -- of what influences preference (a subjective end) is a well-established branch of psychology.  Toole and Olive have done considerable work on it as regards preference for e.g. loudspeakers, and they aren't alone; the psychoacoustics  of preference is an active field of research. So perhaps you need to define what constitutes 'inadequate',  in terms of prediction. 

 

If you mean "not an absolute predictor of preference"  that would of course be a straw man.   

 

Your complaints about Archimago's tests, versus what their stated intention is and the degree of certainty he claims for the results, strike me as specious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sullis02]

21 hours ago, Albrecht said:

 

" The "poor science" accusation the result of the straw man - it is not what audio objectivists are claiming. "

What are they claiming? Can you address why their testing is "better" science than those who are doing more, and more thorough testing with both better measuring equipment, and with comparative listening tests? And, - testing many more aspects of the experience?

 

What aspects of experience need to be further tested when  a subject is presented with the same DUT (device under test) yet reports that A and B  'sound different'?

 

What aspects of experience need to be further tested when a listener who claims obvious, 'veils lifted' difference between A and B, apparently cannot tell them apart when their identities are simply masked?  

 

I submit that at that point we are purely in the realm of the imaginary; there is probably no *real* audible difference between A and B, for that listener. 

 

Let us remember that obvious, 'veils lifted' reports of difference are the *NORM* in audiophile land.  Differences so subjectively large should not be difficult to verify in blind tests; their statistical support should be quite robust.  Even 'flawed' blind tests should 'work'.  And yet, and yet, and yet....what have we seen in practice, over decades now?  

 

Let us keep all this in mind before going off into rhetorical flights about epistemology. 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, Albrecht said:

. I think that there are many issues with Stereophile, (most notably, their individual component review approach), - but in their reviews, Stereophile uses both measurements and listening tests to draw conclusions.

 

On the contrary, one of the many risible aspects of Stereophile is the 'Chinese wall' between their subjective reviews and their measurements.  The latter rarely if ever inform the former, from what I've seen.  Atkinson sometimes make note of the review in his measurement report, typically when something reported in the review might be 'explained' by the graphs.  Measurements that flatly belie the praise (or damning) reported in the review, are another matter....

I'm hardly the first to notice it, either.

[sullis02]

As for Reichert, he's a sophist, nothing more or less.  

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/12/2018 at 6:23 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

How would you change that?

 

Do the reviews double blind.

 

[sullis02]

On 4/13/2018 at 4:21 AM, drbobb said:

Working backward...

 

You grab 1 sentence from my post, do a quick hit and run, and say my argument is lazy? Why don’t you answer why your posts often show the same bad traits as Herb Reichert’s article. Perhaps you are both good people, but your writing does not reflect it.

 

“Sides”?? What side are you on? I compared posts on HA (mostly from a small sub-group) to an article from one guy. I wasn't thinking of "sides".

You are not on my side. My side is the one consisting of scientists like me, and pro-science others, who not only understand and appreciate the value of information we get using scientific methods, but also want to foster a trusting and respectful relationship with members of the public who may not fully understand the details. My side want to battle anti-science attitudes.

Caustic, condescending writing from you and Mr. Reichert does not help the problem, it exacerbates it.

 

 

OMG, you're a scientist?  Me too!

 

From my perspective, spanning several decades of the 'Great Debate' in audio,  Reichert and HA absolutely do represent different 'sides'. And HA has done more to promote evidence-based thought about audio than pretty much any other audio-related 'publication' that isn't an actual scientific journal.

 

I don't expect pearl-clutching and false equivalency claims from you to change that.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sullis02]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:33 AM, adamdea said:

 

Unfortunately however, for reasons which are too various to go into, sides tend to become entrenched around the issue of whether things sound identical or not. I often come back to the Mayer Moran test and the argument around it. The test is now widely regarded as invalid because some of the hi rez turns out to have been upsampled redbook. This is strictly a good point. But the participants were asked to brign their favourite SACDs and no one had known that some of them were only upsampled redbook. I'm inclined to think that this tells us 99% of what we need to know.

 

+1  I've made this point ad nauseam across forums, whenever M&M come up in a conversation, typically being disparaged for the reason you cite.  As an argument against M&M it smacks of goalpost-moving -- disingenuous, self-serving, and history-denying.

 

Because some of  us *do* remember the hype being printed in reviews about the 'hi rez sound' of SACDs and DVD-As...*regardless* of the source (tape or digital).  And we know that that is what M&M was responding to.