"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[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" 

[NOMBEDES]

I am very confused about existence and consciousness.   Many of the quantum physics "abstracts" *  I read claim we don't have any....existence and/or consciousness that is. 

 

We exist in a simulation lab?

 

Ok, where does music come from then?

 

 

*or what is reported about the abstract.

 

 

[Norton]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

Radical subjectivism

 

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

 

For example, I'm very much enjoying Jaqueline Du Pre Dvorak Cello Concerto in MQA right now (Tidal 79657598 for anyone who would like to replicate my extensive "testing"...)

 

I've never understood how you apply objectivism in practice - rocking up to you local HIFi dealer armed with an Oscilloscope perhaps?

[NOMBEDES]

Reviews of audio equipment are worthless.  Don't read them.  Subjective / Objective, it makes no difference.

 

The only review which may be of assistance is you hooking up your kit in your own room.   If it sounds good to you in your room, then it is good.  

 

So be it.

 

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Many of the quantum physics "abstracts" *  I read claim we don't have any....existence and/or consciousness that is. 

 

Quantum physics and consciousness -- there's a hot new topic to debate right after we finish with MQA

[Mayfair]

45 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.

Sure.  I think perhaps putting it another another way, to be considered useful, whether based on an objective or a subjective evaluation, I think results should be both valid and reliable.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/intro/validity.htm

[look&listen]

28 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Ok, where does music come from then?

https://www.amazon.com/Musicophilia-Tales-Music-Revised-Expanded/dp/1400033535/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1522951735&sr=8-6&keywords=oliver+sacks

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

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

 

 

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...

[NOMBEDES]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Quantum physics and consciousness -- there's a hot new topic to debate right after we finish with MQA

 

 

This indicates that we will "finish" the debate about MQA!!!

 

Just like we finished the cable debate.,,,

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

 

This indicates that we will "finish" the debate about MQA!!!

 

Just like we finished the cable debate.,,,

 

Yes, right after we finish those two we'll solve the problem of consciousness....

 

[miguelito]

35 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

Sure.  I think perhaps putting it another another way, to be considered useful, whether based on an objective or a subjective evaluation, I think results should be both valid and reliable.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/intro/validity.htm

Completely agree. 

 

Also, if I understand what "Radical Objectivists" are, can you clarify whether such objectivist would regard the Standard Model in physics as a failure because it does not include gravity? 

 

I am not an advocate for baseless subjectivism - on the contrary - but I understand that what matters is that it is important for the findings to be well founded and reproducible.

[Alcap]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

MQA is seen by many here as a closed format attempt to control the production and distribution of music, ultimately at the expemse of the consumer. The initial response of the professional audio press was to glorify the possibly dubious technical and SQ claims of MQA as a revolutionary panacea for SQ and the world of hi-end audio. Pretty much no actual analysis or evaluation of the claims.

 

Audiostream: the editor, Michael Lavorgna, got into some heated exchanges here. Not all of the heat came from him. But it ended when he used the site private messaging service to launch profanities at one of the members. So Chris banned him.

He seems to many members here to represent an elitist audio press whose members (some here think) believe they should be the tastemakers in the audio world and that all of us `’regular people`’ should accept what they say fairly uncritically - because they are professionals - and we aren’t. 

ML has since gone out of his way to use his platform to disparage audio forums in general, posters at forums, and this forum - and it’s editor - in particular.

Ok, now I understand what all the buzz is about as soon as audio stream is mentioned and thanks for the explanation concerning MQA.

[Ralf11]

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

[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.

 

 

[crenca]

21 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

 

Right.  There is a real wisdom in that humble"...something".  He recognizes that measurement is only part of the picture, so to speak.  

 

What is the difference between knowledge (wisdom) and information (fact)?  Perhaps it is in connecting of all the dots (of information), the collection of experiences that help you perceive when a measurement is relevant or not, and the recognition of when things of the perception (such as measurement) stop being relevant and things of the soul (e.g. subjective "likes" and "dislikes"), like music take over.  It is the correct and right balancing of one domain of knowledge and human endeavour (such as physics) with another (art, poetry, love)

 

What Herb Reichert gets wrong is this balance, this wisdom.  He wrongly projects one domain of knowledge (his artistic, poetic sense of the world) into other domains of knowledge (electronics, engineering, measurement, digital software and math).  This strikes a person with balance as eccentric at best and certainly not real - life is not like that.  He even comes across a bit manipulative, in that he is trying to convince people that engineering and math is somehow fundamentally opposed to their experience of poetry and music.  Thus, @Nortoncan ask me if objectivism is somehow a denial of his love of music.  On the contrary, without the objective things of this world and human knowledge like numbers, math, measurement, etc. Music and poetry would not even be possible!

[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. "

 

[new_media]

If anyone from Stereophile is checking in on this bothersome forum, I have recently allowed my subscription to lapse.

 

I am glad that I did.

[Ralf11]

20 minutes ago, 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. "

 

 

Lord Kelvin did make a mistake, at least once.

 

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

[Indydan]

Lavorgna, Reichert and their friends, will be releasing a movie on the subject.

 

 

[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).

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

The definition of the scientific method, and Kant's classification & definition of knowledge are so widely accepted....

 

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.....

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?

[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.

[Ralf11]

neither he nor you understands science

[tmtomh]

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.

[crenca]

31 minutes 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.

 

Well stated.  I would only add that Reichert quotes a definition of science, but misunderstands "observation"... It is not what he thinks it is, his personal poetic observations...