"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[crenca]

9 hours ago, adamdea said:

 

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....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. 

 

 

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.

[Ron Scubadiver]

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.

[Fokus]

4 hours ago, adamdea said:

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, 

 

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

 

 

 

[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).

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, drbobb said:

Yup!

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

 

Didn't Rove steal that from Lenin?

[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. 

[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.

[Ralf11]

17 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

...

Ultimately, all I am saying is that

...

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.

 

 

your #3 is problematic

 

Science involves experimentation, which means there is a manipulation and a control.

 

mere observations or anecdotal reports may be of interest to a scientist, but only to form a working hypothesis, which will then be tested by experiments

 

Your other claims are also a concern, particularly the reliance on 'experience." (Rimbaud notwithstanding).   Confirmation bias, viewing pictures, smells and etc. ec. will ALL affect aural impressions in the brain.  There are numerous experiments showing this; it not just an idea.

 

Thus, to determine the SQ of something, you will need a control and a statistically valid sample (to ensure someone did not identify one item simple by guessing correctly).

 

An exception would be if there were a huge difference in SQ, such as comparing GUTBS' boombox with an audiophile system.

* An exception to that exception would be if fas42 carefully tuned up GUTBS' boombox so well it sounded like an audiophile system...

 

people can, of course, buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want: ergonomics, style, convenience, or a hyposexual desire for really phaat cables

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

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?

 

 

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.

[Ron Scubadiver]

@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".

[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.....

 

 

 

[Ron Scubadiver]

@Albrecht  Don't waste your time fussing at me.  Take your credit card and run (don't walk) to your favorite supplier for another expensive hit.  I guess you did not look up "Veblen Goods".  

[crenca]

22 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

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?

 

No.  As to his general place in philosophy, you get Kant wrong. You get Aristle wrong.  Go take a class.  As to Kant's place in the philosophy of science, I don't believe you (though modern philosophy was not the focus of my studies - I focused on classical philosophy).  Someone familiar with the philosophy of science will no doubt chime in, but western science/methodological materialism is at core an anti-metaphysics. 

 

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

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

No.  As to his general place in philosophy, you get Kant wrong. You get Aristle wrong.  Go take a class.  As to Kant's place in the philosophy of science, I don't believe you (though modern philosophy was not the focus of my studies - I focused on classical philosophy).  Someone familiar with the philosophy of science will no doubt chime in, but western science/methodological materialism is at core an anti-metaphysics. 

 

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

 

" 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?

 

""As to his general place in philosophy, you get Kant wrong""

Even if that were true, - which it isn't. (Why not tell me why it is wrong, what is his place exactly, why not explain.)?

""Go take a class."

Why don't you?

""though modern philosophy was not the focus of my studies - I focused on classical philosophy""

I focused more on "modern philosophy"

 

""Someone familiar with the philosophy of science will no doubt chime in, but western science/methodological materialism is at core an anti-metaphysics. ""

Again... but, this is irrelevant to Kant's (for lack of a shorter way to say it) definitions of knowledge. Whether or not Kant preferred, talked about, or was labelled as a metaphysician is (again) irrelevant. Especially since Kant, - in his early work promoted REASON and sang the praises of Copernican science.

Empirical knowledge is not metaphysics. Empirical knowledge is not lesser than (apriori) mathematical equations. Technical measurements ARE empirical knowledge.

 

After this amount of posts, I am speculating that my questions (re: empirical data) from before will go unanswered, en lieu of a "beyond the scope" of this and Herb's article, namely who Immanuel Kant was: which is of course so irrelevant..... 

[Albrecht]

26 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

@Albrecht  Don't waste your time fussing at me.  Take your credit card and run (don't walk) to your favorite supplier for another expensive hit.  I guess you did not look up "Veblen Goods".  

"" I guess you did not look up "Veblen Goods".  ""

didn't need to, I know what it is...  no need to for me to stoop to your level of ignorance here.....

"" Don't waste your time fussing at me."

Pot meet Kettle, Don't waste your time in a place that you don't belong

""Take your credit card and run (don't walk) to your favorite supplier for another expensive hit."

Enjoy listening to your junk-ass TV speakers

[fas42]

Audio is the messy business it is these days because it very rarely is dealt with at a system level - the perception is that each box of the whole can be made 'perfect' ; and then it's just a plug 'n' play game ... the sad truth is that this doesn't "work" - hence that glorious term, synergy ... which is just a cute way of saying that the combo doesn't mess it up more than usual.

 

Until the industry sorts it out, individuals can add their own "expertise" to the situation, and make it work like it should ... not need to go all philosophical about it ... .

[Ralf11]

yes, the hole is greater than the sum of its parts

[One and a half]

@fas42, when there's a different box to fix abc problem, there's always a compromise with a) another two wires, b) Power supply c) Noise created by that power supply in c) d) having to cope with the upstream noise and the effects transmittable downstream.

 

With a CD player, there's the mechanical mechanisms for reading the disc contents, some electronics to control the motor/laser and a DAC. Everything is in the one box. As soon as you start spreading out functions, like clocks, separate DACs, streamers, USB treatments, Ethernet filters, more wiring, and LPS's everywhere, the problems just keep adding up and you can't stomp on the noise.

 

A small section of Industry has sorted it all out, there's still rotating discs or for those wanting file based systems, Linn Klimax/Akurate/Majik, Lumin A1/T1/S1/D2 with minimal cabling or additional power supplies and wires.

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

"" I guess you did not look up "Veblen Goods".  ""

didn't need to, I know what it is...  no need to for me to stoop to your level of ignorance here.....

"" Don't waste your time fussing at me."

Pot meet Kettle, Don't waste your time in a place that you don't belong

""Take your credit card and run (don't walk) to your favorite supplier for another expensive hit."

Enjoy listening to your junk-ass TV speakers

Go stew in your own juice.  You are one unbelievably ugly person.  Throw your money away.  My junk ass TV speakers are LS50's you uninformed pathetic, miserable dude.  I bet you have a ton of money invested in audio and you are not satisfied.  You wasted every dime of it.  Too bad for you.  I hope something more expensive will come along for you to get your next hit.  You are being exploited by a bunch of charlatans while I LMAO at you. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Settle down people. Nobody is saving babies or killing puppies. 

 

If you can’t keep the insults to yourself you’ll be forced to post insults and attacks elsewhere. CA isn’t the place for this nonsense. 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, One and a half said:

With a CD player, there's the mechanical mechanisms for reading the disc contents, some electronics to control the motor/laser and a DAC. Everything is in the one box. As soon as you start spreading out functions, like clocks, separate DACs, streamers, USB treatments, Ethernet filters, more wiring, and LPS's everywhere, the problems just keep adding up and you can't stomp on the noise.

 

A small section of Industry has sorted it all out, there's still rotating discs or for those wanting file based systems, Linn Klimax/Akurate/Majik, Lumin A1/T1/S1/D2 with minimal cabling or additional power supplies and wires.

 

Not in my experience. It's getting closer all the time, but there is no sure-fire solution out there, at a reasonable price, which will just get it right without extra fiddling - I may be wrong, but the responses in forums like this say otherwise.

 

The dilemma is, between having choice and each box "just right" for one - which means no guarantees they won't cause subtle issues for each other, and all the dramas of connections, etc; versus, the "all-in-one-box" solution - the latter has to deal with unwanted interactions between circuits in that box, and be engineered with absolute thoroughness in every area - but to my mind has the best chances of nailing it.

[One and a half]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not in my experience. It's getting closer all the time, but there is no sure-fire solution out there, at a reasonable price, which will just get it right without extra fiddling - I may be wrong, but the responses in forums like this say otherwise.

 

The dilemma is, between having choice and each box "just right" for one - which means no guarantees they won't cause subtle issues for each other, and all the dramas of connections, etc; versus, the "all-in-one-box" solution - the latter has to deal with unwanted interactions between circuits in that box, and be engineered with absolute thoroughness in every area - but to my mind has the best chances of nailing it.

Well, good luck with choosing the right combination and I hope your permutation mathematics is up to scratch.

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

 

Empirical knowledge is not metaphysics.

 

That is the only thing you said that can be said to relate to Kant, objective/subjective in Audio, etc.  The rest just does not make any sense at all...