"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

If you delete the caustic rhetoric from "Self-proclaimed audio objectivists, like those that troll audio forums, are not scientists, or audio professionals" to "Amateur objectivists can't imagine that numbers and counting are little more than cultural fabrications with a stronger history in banking than science", 

 

 

Then you would be replacing something crude and crassly stupid with some vain cultural studies trumpery.

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Has it ever occurred to you to post something of substance instead of the incomprehensible drivel that defines you?

Obviously I get the playground-insult tone, but I have no idea what you are saying. Perhaps it would be best to go back to your contribution of substance- the thing about counting, banking and science?

[adamdea]

I have for years been of the view the terms “objectivist” and “subjectivist” have neither  any coherent meaning nor any practical use in identifying fundamental issues in dispute. If anything I regard them as the philosophical analogue of the sort of vague sciencey-sounding verbiage that appears in marketing copy.

I will at most concede that it may be legitimate to look at them as terms in actual use and labels which some people use to self-identify. 

As far as I can see

-there is no coherent epistemological or ontological system represented by the word “subjectivism”;

-the expression “objectivist” is used to apply to a person who considers that audio engineering and hifi listening should be informed by and analyses by conventional scientific thinking. I see little evidence that those who take the opposite view have any particular reason for doing so (as a group).  Some have a sensible desire to keep a senses of proportion and a well- rounded amount of “who gives”. Some are hippies, some are arts graduates with a chip on their shoulder about not understanding maths, some are not very reflective, some use too many long words and some are plain stupid.

 

 It’s not an -ism

 

Elevating all of this into objectivism and subjectivism does nothing but obscure the issues and play into the hands of the intellectually vain. 

 

[adamdea]

18 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

I am very confused about existence and consciousness.  

 

Surely not. Child'splay innit?

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Coherent, no (is Herb's pile not a monument to this?).  Audio subjectivists do tend to share a few beliefs however about the world, their ability to perceive it, about "science" and engineering, and most of all about their own ability to evaluate their own experience.

 

In all that, it is an (granted, incoherent) epistemology...

Not really. We are talking about hobbyists who happen to take positions which would , if they were thought- through, consistent and sincerely-held, commit the holder to certain epistemological positions. But they aren't and they aren't. I really genuinely believe that it hasn't occurred to most people who buy dumb mains cables that if they did anything then they would be required on medical scanning machines. I can't personally understand how anyone can see things that way, but there you have it.  I don't really think that most of them have a genuine explicit and strongly held belief that hifi is electrically and perceptually sui generis. 

 

Lots of people who buy into hoodo in one area of their life are reasonably rational in others. Many people who buy homeopathic products turn out not to be fools or have particularly eccentric views on the structure of scientific thinking. By and large these things are not a battle between grand belief systems but between those who want to think hard and those who don't. 

The really important point is that none of this really matters, except to the extent that one personally cares. For my own part I regard the unexamined life a not worth living. But we are not sitting in on a live debate between st Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe, nor the Bohr -Einstein controversy. It more reminds me of being kicked under the table by my mother for sniggering when an elderly relative explained to the dinner table that he used a copper bracelet which cured his rheumatism.

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Coherent, no (is Herb's pile not a monument to this?).  Audio subjectivists do tend to share a few beliefs however about the world, their ability to perceive it, about "science" and engineering, and most of all about their own ability to evaluate their own experience.

 

In all that, it is an (granted, incoherent) epistemology...

ps It's fun pretending I know.

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

I hope I don't offend you, but could it be that your carrying features of your own philosophy into your evaluation of subjectivism?  What I mean is what you are expecting to see in a subjectivist epistemology (i.e "thought-through, consistent") would only be found in an objectivist person/philosophy?  Could it be that this incoherency, seemingly random application (audio yes, accountancy no, medicine yes, bridges no) and (from an objectivist viewpoint) shallowness IS part of the central character of subjectivism?

 

Another way to put it is that you "think hard" about pattern and consistency in Reality (i.e. the real, the cosmos, etc.) because you presume that Reality has this character.  However, because the subjectivist does not presume that Reality has this character, they only appear not to "think hard".  Indeed, from their philosophy it is the objectivists who have not thought through reality and realized it subtlety and poetic character - this is one of Herb's Reichert's central accusations!  

 

Again, people are not their philosophy, and no one is a "pure objectivist" or "pure subjectivist" - these categories are shorthand that allow us to think about a cluster of tendencies, beliefs (conscious and unconscious), impressions, etc. that would otherwise overwhelm.  In vain do we look for a pure example "in the wild", so to speak

 

Thanks 

All good points. Don’t get me wrong, it can be fun to play a sort of “what if” thought experiment about this stuff, but I don’t think that objective/subjective tags correspond to anything much in philosophical terms and tend to obscure the issues. One of my hobby horses is that the physics/metrology  side of the debate is largely a misdirection as, if you try hard enough you will always find some difference; the other is that the issue is not the infallibility of experience as such but an assumption that rather  the reliability of “intuitive” causal explanations. And a third is that subjective/objective as traditionally (and more accurately) used do not map. 

The only connected use of obj/subj I am aware of is that of Ayn Rand.

In general the use of this sort of tag just helps people to make empty, pointless statements which sound clever to them. Best avoided if possible. 

[adamdea]

14 hours ago, GUTB said:

I dislike the term objectavist but it gives them a sense of scientific legitimacy that they don't remotely deserve.

QED

[adamdea]

8 hours ago, 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.

Well great, except -and this is surely obvious- making value judgment about stereos is more like making value judgments about wine glasses not wine : 

1. yes it really is that tragic

2. the decision might benefit from technical input; it may be possible that changes in the wine glass affect the taste of the wine; there are probably better uses of one’s time. 

 

[adamdea]

31 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

I don't know adamdea, I think Rexp's succinct statement, which in so many ways captures the essence of Audiophiledom's "subjectivism", is the very definition of "infallibility of experience" or said another way, infallibility of the subject or a set of trusted subjects

True, but I think it’s more about connoisseurship ie more of a practice than a study. 

[adamdea]

21 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Ah!  I think I get what your saying now.  I agree with you fully, neither "subjectivism" nor "objectivism" as descriptors in Audiophiledom is a "study" or a coherent philosophy or practice.  No, these terms are only used to gather together tendencies in a diffuse setting (i.e. a "hobby").

 

However, if you were to scratch the surface of these folks some of them (certainly not all) would reveal that these tendencies "go all the way down", as it were.  In other words some of these folks (not all) are expressing deeply held beliefs about life in general.  Take Herb Reichert or Michael Lavorgna - these guys are "artists" and "subjectivists" through and through, and approach all of life that way.

Yes I’m sure that is right. I prefer to call this set of ideas the audiophile belief system. It includes a number of myths such as the belief that it has been demonstrated time and again by audiophile listening that there existed hitherto unknown distortions that engineers had been unable to identify let alone measure, and that everyone agreed  that the engineers has been wrong about devices which were supposed to sound the same. But in general I consider that the really important characteristic is an over-dependence on kit as the primary cause of all differences in experience and a belief that changes in kit are needed to stimulate one’s enjoyment. 

 

 One of the most puzzling things about the general debate is that it is frequently asserted that “objectivists” (i want you to note that I am holding this word with long tongs and wearing thick gloves) are dull, prosaic sorts not interested in art. What I find odd about this is basically the wine/ wine glass point mentioned above. I think people would find it very odd if they came across a group of poetry fans whose primary interest was in finding ways of experimenting with different types of ink, paper, typefaces and glasses in order to see whether they improved the experience of reading poetry. 

Well there you have it. 

[adamdea]

On 07/04/2018 at 8:03 PM, Ralf11 said:

What if I let 20 people listen to music on 2 different types of equipment (blind, A/B/X) and guess which X is A or B?

 

That is subjective, right?

 

Suppose I then apply statistical analysis to determine the chance they guessed right by chance?  

 

That is objective, right?

Sounds about right 

[adamdea]

3 hours ago, sullis02 said:

 

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

 

Ok mate I'll run it for you in slow motion.

 

On 4/7/2018 at 9:28 AM, adamdea said:

 

In general the use of this sort of tag just helps people to make empty, pointless statements which sound clever to them. Best avoided if possible. 

On 4/6/2018 at 6:37 PM, GUTB said:

I dislike the term objectavist but it gives them a sense of scientific legitimacy that they don't remotely deserve.

On 4/7/2018 at 9:28 AM, adamdea said:

QED

 

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

duplicate

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

Well, I did a little digging and found a few things, some familiar, some new to me. I do

 

Here's a review that provides a very good summary: https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/robert-watt-on-dennis-schultings-kants-radical-subjectivism/

 

 

 

 

 

A review that emphasizes "the struggle against subjectivism": https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1137&context=eip

 

Aesthetics and subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche

Andrew Bowie

 

 

From the intro: 

"The new focus of philosophy on subjectivity established by Kant accompanies the c

 

 

 

 

 

These are all very interesting. Lots of food for thought. I have to confess I haven't read a book on Kant for a very long time, but any way up, the I'm fairly sure term "subjectivism" here is not being used in any sense which maps to the way it's used in audiophile discourse (and I'm not sure whether it is used in the same way in those books either). I think it is sometimes used to describe those whose starting point is something like the Cogito. Howerv that position can lead to all sorts of things including radical scepticism about the senses (something with which audio objectivism is often conflated). 

IIRC subjectivism has cropped up as a tag in lots of places. I seem to remember there's a chapter in Macintyre's After Virtue about something he terms subjectivism. I don't think these relate in any way to kant's transcendental deduction or audiophilia. Neither I think does Ayn Rand's usage. 

 

Obviously in some areas it is useful to have a tag to apply to particular positions. Here I'm not sure it helps. 

 

[adamdea]

12 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Does anyone else find this psuedo-intellectualism to be less than enlightening? Not to mention condescending.

I can't quite see the point you are making but I sense hostility.

[adamdea]

14 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?

Yes I’m with you about this. Perhaps it would help if I explained where I was coming from. 

When I first bumped into internet audio forums about a 10-12 years ago, I was inclined to assume that the words objectivist/ subjectivist were used in a way which corresponded roughly to some sort of (Anglo/American/German)  philosophy usage and that a subjectivist was supposed to be someone who regarded subjective preferences as an end in themselves (in a moral/aesthetic dimension) not dependent on any material objective facts and radically unfalsifiable (in the truth/knowledge dimension).

To be a bit more concrete, I assumed that a subjectivist was someone who said “I prefer the sound of this [grounding box]. It does not matter whether in fact I can’t distinguish when it is in circuit or not; it does not matter whether you have opened it and shown that it is full of sawdust; it does not matter whether the engineering explanation given by the designer would have him thrown off an undergraduate course; it does not matter whether I like it because I like shiny things. I like it, and that it all that matters. I cannot be wrong when I say I like it.”

I would be happy with that position being termed radical subjectivism. It is not a point of view I hold, or even greatly admire, but I consider it to be tenable in a way (although probably difficult to hold consistently). 

Unfortunately it gradually dawned on me that, although one does occasionally come across a position roughly mapping to what i term radical subjectivism, what characterised the audiophile belief set was  a set of positions which really amount to something like fantasy physics/ fantasy powers. These include believing that audio foo is firmly based in science; that there is firm evidence that middle aged humans can hear over 30 kHz; that vinyl records have infinite resolution; that engineer all know that things that measure the same sound different; that there are no known limits of hearing; that high bitrate mp3 sounds awful; that a CD player is a turntable; that ABX tests obscure results Apart from the science says this fantasy, there is the Galileo/ paradigm chance fantasy - if science doesn’t say this now it will soon. There is also (drum roll) what I call the “human sound quality measurement device “ fantasy. 

There are many variants but what characterises them IMHO, apart from a conviction that listening to hifi boxes MATTERS , is that they are mainly based on bad science, twisted science and/or ignorance or lack of interest in basic well established knowledge in both physical and human sciences. 

I have often been struck by the fact that cable vendors, purveyors of dubious audio formats and hifi journalists tend to serve up big dollops of bogus or misreported science. It’s not about subjectivism, it’s about imagining that the facts match what you want them to. 

 

This is why I don’t think that the expression subjectivist or objectivist really help. 

[adamdea]

5 hours ago, drbobb said:

Yup!

That's Karl Rove's tactic #3. See here, Tactic #3, page 5.

It is also pretty obvious in the orange comb-over king's penchant for crying "fake news".

[adamdea]

5 hours ago, drbobb said:

 

 

 

I responded to your response to "the gravy"(see above). Your pretending to not know to whom Ron referred is disingenuous. I don't find the "primary" problem to be TOS#8 (prove it), but as @Ron Scubadiver mentions, attempts to enforce TOS#8 while blatantly ignoring TOS#2, #5. And not just by you and others, but by a "global moderator", who hides behind TOS#7(shut up-I'm God).  I'd guess that is what @Ron Scubadiver meant when he said the HA TOS are "not evenly enforced".

Although some disagree, I find Chris' enforcement at CA predictable, consistent and therefore fair. There is no equivalent to TOS#8, but if someone posts something I don't want to read, ... I don't.

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

 

I'm not sure why there is so much HA hate. It's a funny place, with a range of people, some of whom are a bit weird. But I think one can learn quite a lot there because there are undoubtedly a number of really smart and knowledgeable people who hang out there like JJ  (OTOH there's Arnie kreuger).

 

What I don't particularly like about it is that there is an air of besieged paranoia about the place. The regulars have a weariness with mainstream views and having to go over basics which has over time led to them more or less assuming that any newcomer is a troll out for a fight. Quite often they are right of course. This can mean that in order to find out information about a topic one has to go through a bit of ritual tummy ticking and/or a term of fagging just to prove that one really does mean to ask the question one appears to be asking. 

[adamdea]

43 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Both deeply-rooted pillars (*) of the audio internet, and this since long before the www.

 

(* But not of the same type, I have to add.)

 

 

 

True. Arnie in some ways is the epitome of the internet warrior and of the feature of HA I mentioned (though I'm not sure whether he hangs out there still). I have wondered whether at some time he was well balanced, but certainly in recent years he seems unable not to have an argument or even to concede the slightest point.. 

[adamdea]

33 minutes 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

 

 

 

I don't know about them, I'm afraid. Do tell...

[adamdea]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Amamdea, I would be interested in your thoughts as to what would help in your opinion.  I read your argument as a good explanation as to why we need some way of naming these clusters of "beliefs", and subjective/objective has become the way we do this even if the terms (because of their past and present history) are not perfect.

 

Also I think @christopher3393is on to something when he points to a radical subjectivizing of aesthetics is part of the background of "imagining that the facts match what you want them to."  Herb Reichert's hit piece is good evidence of this IMO.

 

I suppose I am saying that from what I can tell, you are explicating an objectivist view about reality and "facts" (to which I agree) and then saying that those who we have termed "subjectivities" are disagreeing with or denying these facts, and so what is really in dispute are facts.  What I and I think @christopher3393are saying is that subjectivists hold a different relationship to these very facts, so they can (and very often do) agree to the same facts!  What these facts mean in a subjective sense (something that is part of our nature objectively - so both audio subjectivists and objectivists have a subjective relationship with "facts") is what differs between audio objectivists and subjectivists.  Again I point to Herb's words.

I will have to have a good think about this. I see the words "language game" hovering. 

[adamdea]

17 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

How would you change that?

Hmmm. I always wondered, once the j test results converged, how the DACs and especially transports were supposed to sound different. 

[adamdea]

53 minutes ago, drbobb said:

I don’t hate HA, but I’ve grown weary of the weariness there, and the small group that have manifested that weariness and paranoia in condescending, arrogant and pretentious harassment. The allowance of that harassment does reflect on the whole site. Otherwise I agree with everything you write.

It reminds me of the Millwall chant "no one likes us, we don't care." But I retain some affection for the place.

[adamdea]

12 hours ago, sullis02 said:

 

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. 

 

I agree with most of this and would add one further point, or slightly different perspective. I formed the view some time ago, based on precisely these considerations that the question whether or not it was possible to tell 2 things apart was quite possibly besides the point  (even if it is interesting and might produce a slam dunk depending on the answer). The reason I say that is that I came to the view that in many cases it seemed to me that whatever it was that caused the "veils lifting", "extra octave of bass", "more details appearing" experience, it wasn't the differences between the devices as such. 

 

The experience is real but it's what happens when your attention is focused/you more interested/whatever [I am not suggesting that this can be reduced to a formula, that it can be consciously identified or consciously controlled] . We all want that experience and we often get it when we are particularly excited about a piece of kit. But whether you can or can;t tell two dacs apart, one thing is for sure: unless one of them is really weird or really badly designed you will not be able to tell them apart blind by how many veils there are. Go figure.

 

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.