"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

It seems Audiostream is trying to come up with more and more imaginative ways to troll those who they apparently perceive as a threat.  While it appears that you and Herb might share some affinity for "feeling" rather than "knowing", this looks to me like you're trolling this forum on ML's behalf.

LOL, - I'd love to see your definition of "knowing." Talk about trolling,...  

anti-audiophiles who come on an Audiophile website and try to "sell" their speculative belief system in order to denigrate and change the minds of audiophiles....

 

Question, (and believe me, I have major criticisms of Audiostream), how can someone troll their own site?

 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

This little broadside just popped up on Audiostream:

 

https://www.audiostream.com/content/audio-without-numbers

 

I'd love to see intelligent critical responses  rather than angry venting or ridicule.

 

"" Self-proclaimed audio objectivists, like those that troll audio forums, are not scientists, or audio professionals; they have not directly experienced the giant Sound Lab speakers or the acoustic-wind of a 15A/13A Western Electric horn system. They are pathologically self-centered people who watch the hurricane on TV and then later, tell the hurricane survivor that lost their cat, "That wasn't a hurricane—it was only a tropical storm."  """

 

This is sooooooo true! WOW...

[Albrecht]

34 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

There's copious back and forth in the forum about "feeling" vs. "knowing" (notice the scare quotes).  I encourage you to seek that out if you're genuinely curious.

 

ML isn't trolling Audiostream, he's trolling all those mean objectivists that gave him sads.

"There's copious back and forth in the forum about "feeling" vs. "knowing" (notice the scare quotes)"

 

It looks like I mis-interpreted your meaning there: sorry about that.

 

""ML isn't trolling Audiostream, he's trolling all those mean objectivists that gave him sads.""

Got it, - I don't disagree that ML gets "triggered" pretty quickly and easily, and has a tendency to be a bit preachy.

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

That is all he has left as he has banned anyone who does not already agree with them.  It is probably not an accident that Herb has published this piece at audio stream instead of stereophile because JA to his credit would allow an opposing viewpoint.

I haven't seen any evidence that ML has banned people that for an opposing viewpoint. I have seen evidence that he's banned people for being rude & disrespectful.

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

ML is pompous. Gotta be one of the worst audio snobs going imo. Hate to say such things but he makes no apologies.

I don't disagree. But because he is pompous does not mean that he bans people for having an opposing viewpoint.

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from? Many if not most of the regulars around here on the objectivist side have been banned by ML for respectfully disagreeing with him...

""Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from?"

 

I don't think that you read what I wrote. I said that i haven't seen any evidence that people have been banned for disagreeing. It doesn't mean that people haven't been banned. It doesn't mean that people could've have even been banned for disagreeing, - I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN ANY....

If you'd care to produce some, - it might be a learning moment for me. (There are Audiostream articles & comments on them that I have not seen; i promise).

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, marce said:

Open your eyes then...

 

LOL,

Sure, yeah, after you open you mind....

You're the one making the claim, - produce the evidence.

[Albrecht]

58 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Radical subjectivism did not start with MQA, as it has essentially been the culture since "High Fidelity" died around 1980 or so.  Buuuttttt, I think 3 things have converged in the last 5 years or so that has caused a bit of a churn.  First, consumer oriented forums such as this one has allowed non-radical subjectivist information - an opposing view.  Second, the younger value oriented "personal audio" guy/gal has become a real demographic and $market$ force.  Third, MQA pushed radical subjectivism to the breaking point, and put the spotlight on confidence game underneath the "old guard" like perhaps nothing before...

"Radical Subjectivism" that is a pretty good Trump-like troll.

How about good science?

There is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVISM

 

"oriented "personal audio" guy/gal has become a real demographic and $market$ force"

 

LOL, there are no audio manufacturers in either the lo-fi consumer end, nor in the high-end that are making any money out of audio, and there's certainly no "market"

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

That’s clearly an untrue statement. Please show us proof NO audio maker is profitable. Many say they are, and are expanding production. Some of them even post at this forum. 

Go to CES, or take a look at the vendor list.

Oppo is shutting down. Look at all of the consumer manufacturers shifting their business to other areas, and the high end manufacturers quitting....

 

It is a market that is dead or dying. Yes, - I should've said SIGNIFICANT: but was responding to the cray.

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

First, CES has become a basic graveyard for high end audio and should not be used as a metric for the health of the high end audio community.

 

I have been hearing the death of high end audio for years and it just keeps on going.  Yeah, there are winners and there are losers BUT make no mistake plenty of them are making money and some are making huge amounts of money despite your claims to the contrary.  Oppo shutting down has no relevance to the discussion.  It isn't worth it for them, period.  In fact, more Oppos were sold to video than audio enthusiasts so are you suggesting video and makers of video like Sony/Samsung/LG/ETC are going out of business because Oppo is shutting down??

Start naming companies.

This is very important to the anti-audiophile trolls to sell their agendae of all these predatory companies that are bamboozling consumers with fraudulent products that are no different than consumer audio. They drive the Lamborghinis   LOL!

It's funny, as many of these "bits are bits" flatearthers are the same people that defend the Koch-Criminal-Capitalist in other areas.

 

"Sony/Samsung/LG/ETC are going out of business because Oppo is shutting down??""

what a wasted sentence, - did you think before you typed it. I said nothing even remotely like that. I used OPPO as an example, - not as a cause.

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, marce said:

I have seen many banned not for being rude but for not following his idea of reality, if you disagree you get banned simple.

" if you disagree you get banned simple."

 

I have not seen any evidence of that. So, - until some evidence is produced, - there is really nothing more to say about it. But I understand that those who "don't like" ML will choose to continue nonetheless, - and believe something that is unsubstantiated. I have asked for some sort of evidence, and no one has yet to produce it.

 

What people have told me to do was for me to do the work and go find the evidence on my own: asking me to prove a negative.

 

[Albrecht]

Just now, crenca said:

 

I want some of whatever your smoking!

just reason my friend. Lots of places where you can learn you some....

[Albrecht]

Just now, Mayfair said:

I think the inherent problem with subjectivity is the same as the inherent problem with "rules of thumb".  No two people have exactly the same-sized thumb. 

 

On subjectivity vs. objectivity, I think Galileo still has the best quote:

"Eppur si muove"

The "problem" is when "subjectivity" is "sold" & straw-manned into something bad, - when often, - it is the application of the scientific method. Of course, pseudo science is very popular, and very popular here.

[Albrecht]

12 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Yes, but the fact remains that we don't have complete information. So one for example might derive some conclusions from "subjective evaluations" that one can corroborate or refute over time and subsequent subjective evaluations.

 

For example, I have a pretty good idea what the sound signature of my AvantGarde speakers is since I have now used them in many places (three apartments at this point). I think this gives me an "objective" understanding of their sound (and in my experience other AG speakers's sound) without having measured them.

 

I have also learned that although my Ongaku amp measures horribly, paired with appropriate speakers it is actually a very low noise and sweet sounding device. Again no real measurement but what I would call experimental discovery.

 

Finally, I will mention the topic of MQA (yes!). People can have all sorts of opinions on it's DRM features or restrictions on decoding mechanisms without ever experiencing MQA sound. That is totally fine - it is objective. I have listened to a lot of MQA and have developed my opinions on its sound (I've been clear elsewhere). This I think is pretty objective as well in the sense it is reproducible.

 

My point is objective is in my opinion measurable - but there's also experimentally objective which I don't have anything like numbers behind but are the result of long comparisons and forming an opinion. I don't regard that as entirely subjective.

Hi,
FWIW, - I agree with your assessments of what you are calling "kind-of" objectivism. But the "radical objectivists,'  (LOL) anti-audiophile trolls here are going to call your reproducible characterizations of the sonic signature of your AvanteGardes; "radical subjectivism" 

[Albrecht]

23 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Not at all.  It rather summarizes a philosophy, an outlook on reality and how man knows reality and the real (epistemology).  From wikipedia (just one of many places you could go):

 

Subjectivism is the doctrine that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience."

 

Radical Subjectivism can be defined as taking the above and changing it to read it to "our own mental activity is the only fact of our experience".  This is an exaggeration that leads to a "radical" take on audio, such that math, general engineering principles, even common sense (which is merely that others experiences can actually be more "true" or "real" than your own limited experience) are denigrated or said to be irrelevant, even unreal.

 

As an objectivist (or just a music lover and "audiophile") I admit the subjective side everything - my own idiosyncratic experience of reality.  I like Classical, you like Rap, etc.  On the other hand, I also admit the objective side of electronics and our ability to design and measure them, digital, math, etc.  It is a "both/and", not an "either/or".  

 

Audiophiledom as a culture, market, and hobby does not suffer from an overly emphasized "objective" outlook, even though such folk do exist.  Rather, it suffers from an overly emphasized subjective outlook.  Thus an Herb Reichert can write with all seriousness about audio without numbers, except audio is a technological endeavour that utterly rests on numbers, quantity, measured reality, etc.  His article says more about his own philosophy than it does anything about audio...

"" Audiophiledom as a culture, market, and hobby does not suffer from an overly emphasized "objective" outlook, even though such folk do exist.  Rather, it suffers from an overly emphasized subjective outlook."

 

That is simply untrue.  (If it were true, then there would only ever exist 1 speaker type, 1 amplification system, & 1 source). If the "math" or "measurements" reflected accurately the experience: then we would achieve universal recognition & consensus of what is "best)"

 

This sort of anti-science, or bad science,  (hide the head in the sand) perspective; is something that I often find dangerous outside areas of the listening experience/audio gear performance, and leads to all sorts of denial-of-reality-type issues.

 

 

[Albrecht]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Here is a quote from a famous 19th Century scientist that I used to have on my office door:

 

"When you measure, you know... something."

 

- Billy Thompson

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. "

 

[Albrecht]

When

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Lord Kelvin did make a mistake, at least once.

 

Get back to us when you achieve 1% of what he did.

All of sudden bringing me into this approaches ad hominem and doesn't do anything to support your position: but draw away from it. The definition of the scientific method, and Kant's classification & definition of knowledge are so widely accepted, that most (and reasonable) people don't bother to argue. You can be as intransigent as you want, - but that doesn't make you right.

And this goes to the heart of the OP, and the article that it cites: in that there is a small minority of vocal trolls that not only are opposed to scientific investigation, but deny that a key component of it is not even knowledge. (The article even quotes the definition of the scientific method).

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

Whatever your smoking has you playing the philosopher 

 

Why don't you say a bit more about the above two statements.  How are they linked?  Bonus question:  tell us specifically in what way is Herb Reichert is a Kantian?

""Whatever your smoking has you playing the philosopher""

You waste valuable time and energy with the above sentence, trying to diminish arguments with personal statements/attacks that aren't about me: stop the cult of personality crap.

 

Reichert wrote out the definition of the scientific method & referred it back to the types of knowledge, (defined by Kant), & how many of these unreasonable positions held by objectivists are bad science. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not Reichert is a Kantian; that's a mis-interpretation.

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Far be it from me to blame an outside source for this forum's semi-official hobby arguing to extremes... 

 

... but, in this case I do think that many of us are getting into unnecessarily antagonistic arguments because the discussion here is trying to use Reichert's fundamentally flawed, straw-horse versions of "subjectivist" and "objectivist."

 

What Reichert is unfairly (or overbroadly) calling "objectivism" is really scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism. This distinction is crucial IMHO because while scientism of course exists in engineering/tech-centric communities like this one, it tends to be a minority view. The majority of science/measurement-oriented folks here are actually quite rigorous about what can and cannot reasonably be claimed based on the available evidence. True belief in the scientific method is based not on a faith that we know things, but rather on the admission that we don't know things and have to work hard and coherently to try to learn. A corollary of this is that observation (including, for example, listening to music) is part of the scientific method.

 

What Reichert is calling "subjectivism" is a contradictory and somewhat incoherent point of view. This is not surprising: It's often easier to simply (and crudely) define one's perceived enemy than it is to define one's own position free from contradiction and confusion.

 

But as far as I can tell, for Reichert a "subjectivist" is someone who believes only in the observational part of the scientific method; who equates observation with "experience"; who believes the Enlightenment consisted only of its Romantic, Rousseau-ian side; and who believes measurement and repeatability of results are the enemies of "love, poetry, and humanism."

 

As with pretty much any screed written by an intelligent person, there are of course kernels of valid points in Reichert's piece. But they're overwhelmed by the raging Id of the piece's tone and overreaching, deeply flawed claims.

 

As for myself, I prize my personal enjoyment of music above the objective quality or fidelity of my system - but counter to Reichert's implication, I don't find those two things incompatible or in opposition to each other. I don't love my stereo system because it outputs some ecstatic, intangible quality that can't be measured. No, I love it because its quality is good enough that I enjoy it and it makes me happy every time I listen to it. Even within that happiness, I know it could sound better. And I have little doubt that while measurements would not tell the whole story, a system that sounded better to me would indeed measure better in myriad ways, many of which also would help explain to me why it sounded better.

 

Where I do think listening-based experience is super-important, is in guiding our sense of what measurements are important and/or decisive - and perhaps even more importantly, what scale of difference various measurements make (e.g. how about room dimensions, speaker placement, and wall treatments before you start obsessing over USB cables, digital transports, or tonearm wiring?). And on that count, I think both the Old Guard and many of us here don't always pay as much attention as we might.

Hi TT

I appreciate your post and perspective and attempt to bridge a "gap"

 

However, I do not believe Reichert is saying or implying ""equates observation with "experience"; who believes the Enlightenment consisted only of its Romantic, Rousseau-ian side; and who believes measurement and repeatability of results are the enemies of "love, poetry, and humanism."""  But, he is referring to consistent, repeatable, observations and evaluations (and controls) not only by himself, but corroborated by the experiences of many others: & the engagement of the scientific method, asking "what if?"

 

Also,  I would point out that you did not mention that from the "objectivist" viewpoint that apriori knowledge, (math), has been involved in (perhaps) the duplication of playback devices: that the objectivist "feels" that there can somehow be certainty in an experience that is subjective.

 

If one uses the example of musical instruments, - a Stradivarius violin does not sound similar to an electric Yamaha, or even an acoustic Yamaha. Then again, - since the recording of said violins does not sound like the real violin in the room, - then how can any objective result be achieved?  The result, - the music coming out of the stereo, - cannot have a certain, defined, result. Therefore objective measured, parameters cannot be attached to the final experience. However, one can build up experiences and come to repeatable conclusions and a-posteriori KNOWLEDGE.  (A Stradivarius will not always sound like a Stradivarius when it's played in different locations, gets recorded, mastered, & played back through an amp and speakers).

 

Musicians often listen to recordings mostly for content: (performance), not so much tone. As they know what their instrument is supposed to sound like: this happens through experience. They are going to evaluate both recordings, and the playback of recordings on the basis of EXPERIENCE. As a songwriter, musician, and producer who has played live, recorded our, and others' songs, and listened to that music and others music on hundreds of systems, I can say with some degree of knowledge that by the time the music gets through at least 4 generations of tech, - it NEVER sounds exactly like it does than when you're playing it. I would think that many people here own 5 or 6 music playback systems (or more) of varying levels of quality. Does a Stradivarius violin sound the same on a 6 ft tall AvanteGaarde based system as it does with Wilson Sofia based speaker system? If so, how would one know that if they didn't experience both? One can look at various measurements of things like off-axis response curves etc, - but wouldn't it better to actually have measurements corroborated? Can the level of tonal richness of a Stradivarius be measured ?

 

Science is always qualitative. One can always have good science and bad science: and therefore better or worse science. By piling up more and more varied tests, if one still reaches the same conclusions, it reinforces their validity. Indeed, by questioning past conclusions, and conducting BETTER and/or more thorough experiments and investigations, - is how science has advanced, and will continue to do so.

 

Finally, underneath at least some of this debate, tempers flare. This stuff isn't going to be easily calmed, - because at least some people believe that the anti-audiophile crowd are using coded language that (at the very least) strongly implies that the audiophile's reporting of their experiences and their experiential knowledge are lies. Because they have "ran the numbers" and did the measurements, and those don't PROVE with a certainty that "A" sounds better than "B."  It doesn't matter how many times it's said that the measurements are too cursory, measure the wrong thing, or only measure one small element of a system that is complex enough to require way to many to formulate a conclusion. This really comes home when there is relative consensus and the evidence has piled up amongst the experienced, comparative listeners.

What is happening underneath all of this is that some folks are judging other folks experiences, not on the basis of having that same experience, (present at the event), but on the basis of some theory or other type of knowledge that is outside that experience.

 

[Albrecht]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I appreciate this post, I really do.  That said, you are essentially describing a caricature of what we audio "objectivists" are speaking from just as Herb is.  Audio objectivists (as a general rule - might be exceptions) are in no way German Idealists who approach science, measurement, and audio in an "a priori"  metaphysical Kantian way.  If either camp borrows from Kant, it would be the subjectivists and their understanding of the experience and knowledge, though they appear not be rigorous enough for anything like Kant - they are more like free form Cartesians with a large heaping dose of Hippie thrown in

 

It's not that radical subjectivists are "lying", they just are missing balance, perspective, and humility in how they evaluate their experiences.  Their explanations of why something is so are often nonsensical, and they seem unwilling to entertain anything but their own perceptions - they lack balance.   Their descriptions of "science" are strange and emphasize the wrong things and frankly, are merely meant to justify their own understanding of the value of their "experience".  

 

In any case, I appreciate your effort to put some meat on the bones of your assertions...

 

 

Hi,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Kant identifies two types of Apriori, - math is one and Metaphysics is the other.

 

Cheers,

 

[Albrecht]

16 hours ago, firedog said:

He quoted a dictionary definition of science and then went on to show he has zero understanding of what science actually is and how it works. His point about “observations” was laughably wrong and showed that he doesn’t know what the word even means in a scientific context and how it is applied. 

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. So you are not taking "observations" in the sense of literal (use of eyesight) observations are you? What is meant is corroborated and repeated experiences of the senses. There are smell tests, hearing tests, etc.

 

" showed that he doesn’t know what the word even means in a scientific context and how it is applied. "

I didn't get that impression at all. I will go back an reread.

[Albrecht]

On 4/10/2018 at 7:44 AM, crenca said:

 

Perhaps @christopher3393can explain, but I too am at a loss to see how Kantian (or really any other German Idealism) really comes into play.  Just as you point out, Kant is at the end of the day a Cartesian (i.e. Cogito) metaphysician.  The person upstream who identified the categories Herb Reichert abused used in his hit piece with Kant is mistaken IMO - these go back much further to Aristotle.   I don't remember (it's been 20 years since I read After Virtue) but my guess is that Macintyre's complaint would have been with Cartesian metaphysics and the modern morality that is (often) derived from it (i.e. modern anti-virtue "ethics").

 

The subjective/objective divide in Audio is much more along the lines of methodological materialism and its "anti-metaphysics" (on the objectivist side - Francis Bacon, etc.) and a crude (and vague, and incoherent, etc.) modern psychologism (that does have some things in common with the Romantic side of German Idealism).  Perhaps @christopher3393can tie it all in better for us...

As I read your post, it seems like you're attaching a label (German Idealist) to Kant that is outside of the scope of his specific classifications & widely accepted explanations of what knowledge is. I think that it's problematic to label Kant ""Cartesian (i.e. Cogito) metaphysician"  Where did you get this from? Even it were true, does that make Kant's classifications of what knowledge is, how the types of knowledge are classified, any less true? Are you trying to say that because Kant might be a "German idealist" that somehow empirical knowledge was such "lesser" knowledge that it should be discounted?

 

This is straw manning Kant in what appears to be a dismissal of his work in regard to at least one of the two areas that Herb is discussing in his article. (And why do you have to call it a hit piece? It is NOT a hit piece, it is an explanation and analysis of what he sees happening with on-line discourse and what he interprets as a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and [also] knowledge). So, empirical knowledge is knowledge: knowledge from experience is knowledge.

Science is always qualitative. The argument that science is either on or off is just plain silly. You can have good science and bad science, good tests and bad tests. The same is true for knowledge, - you can have knowledge through experience and observation. You can have many experiences that achieve similar results and then you will have BETTER knowledge. You can have many experiences backed up with measurements. You can have irrelevant experiences, AND irrelevant measurements.

 

Listening to music is an experience. The goal of "improving the listening experience" or making the experience enjoyable is subjective. When someone makes a recording of a live musical event, they are making/creating an interpretation of the event/experience. The more experiences that one piles up, (with controls), the MORE EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE THEY GARNER. The more times you hear a Stradivarius, (especially in different contexts), the more that you will know about the character of that violin. This same truth exists with the Meitner MA-1 DAC. The experience is not objective, not measurable, and certainly never garners a consensus of accuracy. The listening event, whether it's in a car, a living room, or a concert hall is an amalgamation of so many factors, that measuring any one element will not allow one to "predict" anything. To me, this smacks of trying to achieve some sort of certainty to an area where it can never exist.

 

Science is fluid and progresses and develops. As more and more varied tests are developed and employed, we garner more evidence to strengthen the conclusions. In the case of a subjective experience, subjective conclusions. This is why someone like Archimago will always be conducting poor science:  conducting a small sampling of cursory measurements on only 1 part of a complex system that is amalgamation of many factors. All the while, - completely ignoring the most important testing that is directly attributive & applicable to the event/experience. At the very least, listening tests would corroborate measurements. 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.

 

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).

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

In reality this world runs on both objective and subjective belief and information.  It's just that in the audio hobby people are often making decisions to purchase very expensive items which are functionally similar to inexpensive items based on subjective claims often verging on BS.  Many objective tests appear to clobber audiophile beliefs such as the well known folding chair setup where a cheap pro audio amp and consumer blue ray player on a fooding chair appeared to be equal to a $12,000 stack of audiophile gear.  Perhaps all good amplifiers sound the same and when something sounds different it is due to euphonic colorations it is adding.  There is only so much information in a minute of Red Book.  Am I to believe there is some secret sonic bliss encoded within which can only be retrieved with a $20,000 DAC?  Nobody has ever offered me a reasonable explanation about how anyone can hear frequencies of 24 kHz and up, yet this is one of the foundations of MQA.  I do know one thing.  If I don't fall for the expensive BS I can objectively spend my money on something else.

""often verging on BS."

How do you know? Have you properly evaluated any of those claims? Or tested them yourself? Have you been present at the events that have resulted in the claims?

""Am I to believe there is some secret sonic bliss encoded within which can only be retrieved with a $20,000 DAC?"

Who has said that there was? Is the DAC the only thing at play?

""Nobody has ever offered me a reasonable explanation about how anyone can hear frequencies of 24 kHz and up,""

How is that relevant? Is that the only criteria that you think builders/designers would want to have in a product? Do you think that that is the reason that a product is more expensive than a consumer product? Is it possible that because the product has the tech and parts to go that high,- that it might have a (positive) affect on other parts of the spectrum?

""I do know one thing.  If I don't fall for the expensive BS I can objectively spend my money on something else."

Yes, - you may not find value in higher performing audio, or even in listening, - but I'm sure what you find of value is not applicable to (at least here) most others. But then, this isn't a (primarily) a place for consumer audio.

[Albrecht]

37 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Just to address your first paragraph, Kant is a German idealist/metaphysician - that's his place in Western intellectual history ( as is its Cartesian roots).   Those categories to which you and Herb refer go back to Aristotle, and indeed everything since then is just a footnote to Aristotle's initial work (including Kants).  Since neither I nor any methodological materialist (i.e. scientist) would agree with Kantian metaphysics, his particular take on the categories is beside the point.

 

As to the rest of your post I admit I am not following exactly what you're trying to argue except you seem to think of science and the audio objectivist in the same fashion as Herb does which is itself a straw man.

No,

""Since neither I nor any methodological materialist (i.e. scientist) would agree with Kantian metaphysics, his particular take on the categories is beside the point."

No, - it's precisely the point. What was under discussion was empirical knowledge, and is empirical knowledge, in fact knowledge. Who Kant was, was and is irrelevant. Kant's classification and definitions of the types of knowledge was and is widely accepted. Aristotle did NOT lay out and define knowledge into the 4 types like Kant did. The discussion has ZERO to do with Kantian metaphysics.

A key component in any scientific is empirical knowledge, - us scientists call these things experiments. (Although irrelevant, I do question whether one could attach the label of German idealist/metaphysician: and that's certainly NOT his "place" in the history of Philosophy. Indeed, in the Critique of Pure Reason, the main tenant is his assertion that we need to move beyond traditional philosophy and metaphysics).

 

It's like saying Marx was a communist so his critiques of Capitalism are invalid.

 

"argue except you seem to think of science and the audio objectivist in the same fashion as Herb does which is itself a straw man."

 

How can that be possible when I am claiming that the "audio objectivist" is engaging in poor science?

[Albrecht]

39 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

@Albrecht  You sure are full of radish juice and horse sweat.  It is incumbent on those who make subjective claims to provide evidence.  I am not required to meet your standard of proof when I am skeptical of claims which make no sense at all.  I have been messing with audio for 50 years and have heard numerous in home and in store sessions.  Many confuse improvements with simple differences.

 

As for consumer audio, a $60 Blue Ray player can do a damn good job spinning CD's.  That was established in the folding chair blind test.  

 

As for value, I find the amounts some audiophiles are willing to pay for small improvements (differences?) is completely outside of what I understand of economics as the dismal science applies to consumer behavior.  Perhaps you should look up the term "Veblen Goods".

"" You sure are full of radish juice and horse sweat "

What an amazing, reasonable, argument addressing my points, and countering them. I bet that took you a long long long time...

""I am not required to meet your standard of proof when I am skeptical of claims which make no sense at all. ""

I don't have a standard of proof and am not making any claims, and don't expect you to follow my standards. Who's claims are you referring to? I would never expect us to have the same opinion on anything....

 

"As for consumer audio, a $60 Blue Ray player can do a damn good job spinning CD's.  That was established in the folding chair blind test."

If only high performance audio relied on a motor spinning CDs.  I am not sure I wanted to know what the folding chair blind test is...

 

"As for value, I find the amounts some audiophiles are willing to pay for small improvements (differences?) is completely outside of what I understand of economics as the dismal science applies to consumer behavior.  Perhaps you should look up the term "Veblen Goods".""

 

As i said, - the vast majority of people who care about improving the listening experience don't GAF about what you think is of value and/or what they value or buy or is given to them or what they hear when they visit friends.....