Jump to content
IGNORED

"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert


Recommended Posts

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. 

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
3 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.

 

Subjective judgement is akin to tasting: it won't tell you that something is good (in this case accurate at reproducing the signal) but whether or not you like it.

 

Good = objective

Pleasing = subjective

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Subjective judgement is akin to tasting: it won't tell you that something is good (in this case accurate at reproducing the signal) but whether or not you like it.

 

Good = objective

Pleasing = subjective

As I said I judge audio systems subjectively cos as far as I know no one has come up with a way of objectively proving the analog signal captured during recording is identical to the one reproduced by the audio system. Or have they?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Rexp said:

As I said I judge audio systems subjectively cos as far as I know no one has come up with a way of objectively proving the analog signal captured during recording is identical to the one reproduced by the audio system. Or have they?

 

Measurements are made by comparing the signal going in with what is coming out. So yes they have.

Will this tell if you like the outcome: no.

 

Gradient even performed an AB comparison where the listener would hear the recording in one channel and the live feed from a speaker reproducing into an anechoic chamber. Only one speaker was deemed"transparent", but that was in the early 90's if I'm not mistaken.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
5 hours ago, adamdea said:

... 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....

 

9 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.

 

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

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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. 

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, adamdea said:

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

 

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.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, adamdea said:

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. 

 

Did I say making a value judgment about wine is like making a value judgment about stereos? I buy wine on the recommendation of trusted souces, and similarly I mainly audition audio gear suggested to me by trusted sources. I get less disappointments that way.

Link to comment
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. 

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

To be sure, we ultimately have to listen, but confirmation bias is real.

 

But it works both ways. If you don't expect to hear a difference, the effect of confirmation bias will be that you won't hear it even if there is one.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

But it works both ways. If you don't expect to hear a difference, you won't.

 

Some would argue that differences so subtle that they require faith on the part of the listener, can probably be ignored with little or no impact on the overall listening experience.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
1 hour ago, adamdea said:

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. 

 

Your final statement here, which I have bolded, is a great analogy. Well said! 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Some would argue that differences so subtle that they require faith on the part of the listener, can probably be ignored with little or no impact on the overall listening experience.

 

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

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

Just had a look at AS. There is a new video by AR regarding a record cleaning device. If I didnt know better, I'd swear these guys are trying to get fired. Or perhaps, the people at HiFi are going to buy the rights to Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and post equipment revues there. I dont find a reference to the Christian religion or a Nazi salute funny. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive to this sort of humour, but what the hell are these types of comments doing in a HiFi equipment review publication?

greyscale

 

Marantz 6007, PSB Image B6 & B5, Synology 216+, 2010 Macbook Pro

Audirvana 3.03, JRiver.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...