"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[sullis02]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Stated like that it should put to bed all the debates between subjectivists and objectivists.... Yeah, right!

 

What it *could* do is form at least a point of agreement.   Can we agree that subjective impression is fallible?

 

It's merely a foundation of scientific method, after all.

 

 

[Allan F]

13 hours ago, sullis02 said:

All 'objectivism' boils down to, for routine listening , is: allowing that your impression isn't formed only by the sound waves hitting your eardrum.

 

Shorter version: what you believe, might be wrong. To be more certain, you have to do work

 

If that works for you, I am happy for you. However, I enjoy music by the impression formed by the sound waves hitting my eardrum and thereafter transferred to my brain. I see no reason to question the certainty of the belief in that impression, regardless of the opinions of others.

[Allan F]

Duplicate post.

[sullis02]

2 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

There is one in particular, and there is no reason to out him here.  Your accusation is not appreciated.

 

So you admit that the 'guy who runs the forum' that you cited, is actually...a member of an administration *team*.  

 

Any other careless claims about HA that you care to correct?

 

 

[sullis02]

19 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

If this works for you, I am happy for you. However, I enjoy music by the impression formed by the sound waves hitting my eardrum and thereafter transferred to my brain. I see no reason to question my belief in that impression, regardless of the opinions of others.

 

Why would it not 'work' for you?  Enjoy whatever music you like.   Everyone gets to like what they like.  The debates aren't about that.  They're about claims as to *why* something sounds the way it does.   Is it because of the way it was mastered? Is it because it's a WAV file , not FLAC?  Is it because you changed a cable?  Is it because invisible unicorns whispered in your ear?    

 

 

[sullis02]

2 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

Some measurements indicate a problem, others do not.  I favor freedom of speech over some philosophical problem they have at hydrogenaud.io.  If someone can't reject a silly claim, that's their problem.  It's easy to go overboard.  There are many claims I see over there supposedly based on blind a/b testing that can't be believed.

 

You might notice the discussions over there are rather stilted and most of the posts are foobar2000 help issues.

 

I've been reading HA for over a decade.  There's no tolerance for subjective flights of fancy, which makes it a refreshing change from most audio forums.  That is the point.  If that's 'stilted' to you, that's your problem.  It's no excuse to make up lies about the place.   

 

As for your argument from incredulity re claims from blind tests, it is hereby noticed, and filed appropriately.

[Allan F]

31 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

Why would it not 'work' for you?...The debates aren't about that.  They're about *why* something sounds the way it does.   Is it because of the way it was mastered? it because it's a WAV file , not FLAC?  Is it because you changed a cable?  Is it because invisible unicorns are whispering in your ear? 

 

I have already answered your first question in the post that you quoted. If that doesn't satisfy you, to quote Bob Dylan (Positively 4th Street), "Don't you understand it's not my problem". As you should know, this "horse" has been flogged to death on numerous occasions on this forum. I prefer to let it rest in peace.

 

Short version: These "debates" have become both repetitive and very tiresome.

[Ralf11]

I enjoy music by the impression formed by the sound waves hitting my eardrum and thereafter transferred to my brain along with sensory input from your eyes, and preconceptions...

[pkane2001]

26 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

 

What it *could* do is form at least a point of agreement.   Can we agree that subjective impression is fallible?

 

It's merely a foundation of scientific method, after all.

 

As you can see from the comments after yours, not everyone agrees to the starting point. And while I do, I find that I'm becoming more sarcastic and more cynical as I keep arguing the same arguments, often with the same set of people, ad infinitum. Maybe you'll be more successful at it

 

[christopher3393]

On 4/6/2018 at 2:18 AM, adamdea said:

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. 

 

 

On 4/7/2018 at 3:28 AM, adamdea said:

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. 

 

Well, I did a little digging and found a few things, some familiar, some new to me. I do think they are relevant to the discussion, albeit somewhat circuitously at times with lots of labor involved. Here are just 3 examples. There are plenty of others.

 

Kant's Radical Subjectivism: Perspectives on the Transcendental Deduction

Dennis Schulting

 

 

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/

 

This also raises the interesting issue of "epistemic humility", which one could simply define this way: "If our knowledge of the world is always filtered, interpreted and (in important ways) ‘constructed’ by our a priori faculties then we can never know things as they truly are and we are forced to accept a degree of humility with respect to our ‘scientific’ pronouncements."

 

German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801 

Frederick Beiser

 

 

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 complex and contradictory changes wrought by ‘modernity’: the rapid expansion of capitalism, the emergence of modern individualism, the growing success of scientific method in manipulating nature for human ends, the decline of traditional, theologically legitimated authorities, and the appearance, together with aesthetics as a branch of philosophy, of ‘aesthetic autonomy’, the idea that works of art entail freely produced rules which do not apply to any other natural object or human product. From being a part of philosophy concerned with the senses, and not necessarily with beauty – the word derives from the Greek ‘aisthánesthai’, ‘perceive sensuously’ – the new subject of ‘aesthetics’ now focuses on the significance of natural beauty and of art. Reflection on aesthetics does not, though, just involve a revival of Plato’s thoughts about beauty as the symbol of the good. The crucial new departure lies in the way aesthetics is connected to the emergence of subjectivity as the central issue in modern philosophy, and this is where the relevance of this topic to contemporary concerns becomes apparent."

 

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

Let's get some things straight: 

- space and time are NOT forms of human sensibility

- the mind certainly alters the structure of human experience, but we have other ways to figure out what's happening, has happened, and what will happen

 

I'd ask a couple of my friends with PhDs in philosophy for more of the cant, but they are too busy doing secretarial work...

[crenca]

46 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

Well, I did a little digging and found a few things, some familiar, some new to me. I do think they are relevant to the discussion, albeit somewhat circuitously at times with lots of labor involved. Here are just 3 examples. There are plenty of others.

 

Kant's Radical Subjectivism: Perspectives on the Transcendental Deduction

Dennis Schulting

 

 

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/

 

This also raises the interesting issue of "epistemic humility", which one could simply define this way: "If our knowledge of the world is always filtered, interpreted and (in important ways) ‘constructed’ by our a priori faculties then we can never know things as they truly are and we are forced to accept a degree of humility with respect to our ‘scientific’ pronouncements."

 

German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801 

Frederick Beiser

 

 

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 complex and contradictory changes wrought by ‘modernity’: the rapid expansion of capitalism, the emergence of modern individualism, the growing success of scientific method in manipulating nature for human ends, the decline of traditional, theologically legitimated authorities, and the appearance, together with aesthetics as a branch of philosophy, of ‘aesthetic autonomy’, the idea that works of art entail freely produced rules which do not apply to any other natural object or human product. From being a part of philosophy concerned with the senses, and not necessarily with beauty – the word derives from the Greek ‘aisthánesthai’, ‘perceive sensuously’ – the new subject of ‘aesthetics’ now focuses on the significance of natural beauty and of art. Reflection on aesthetics does not, though, just involve a revival of Plato’s thoughts about beauty as the symbol of the good. The crucial new departure lies in the way aesthetics is connected to the emergence of subjectivity as the central issue in modern philosophy, and this is where the relevance of this topic to contemporary concerns becomes apparent."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting Christophe3393.  The second author has me thinking of Kant as a kind of German Plato, trying to rescue idealism from a crude perception based subjectivism.  However in the end I don't know if German idealism escapes its essential idealism.  Other words it's an intra party fight of sorts.  One that Plato and Aristotle started all that time ago...

 

 

[Allan F]

Quote

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 no 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.

 

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

[ARQuint]

A line has been crossed. Chris, don't you ban people for Radical Subjectivism? Or do they get one warning?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, ARQuint said:

A line has been crossed. Chris, don't you ban people for Radical Subjectivism? Or do they get one warning?

I'd never ban someone for a point of view. I ban people for personal attacks.

[Nordkapp]

Thanks Mr. Herb Reichert!

[james45974]

28 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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

I would call it mental masturbation. 

[Ralf11]

Don't be too hard on a guy from the mid-1700s.   The real question is why anyone would care today (except historians).

[crenca]

48 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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

 

Boy I sure did.  Herb Reichert (and all such "art and wine" reviewers) should stick with a impressionism they know...

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

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

 

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

Boy I sure did.  Herb Reichert (and all such "art and wine" reviewers) should stick with a impressionism they know...

 

As should be more than abundantly clear from the quote I replied to in my post, I was not referring to Herb Reichert. I don't appreciate my posts being quoted in this misleading fashion.

[Nordkapp]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

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

Yup...

[Nordkapp]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Boy I sure did.  Herb Reichert (and all such "art and wine" reviewers) should stick with a impressionism they know...

@Allan F was referring to the present conversation, with members showing off their intellectual and verbal skills. The one upmanship here is cra cra, like Reichert's post.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

 

As should be more than abundantly clear from the quote I replied to in my post, I was not referring to Herb Reichert. I don't appreciate my posts being quoted in this misleading fashion.

 

What you mean you have a problem with satire?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

He was referring to the present conversation, with members showing off their intellectual and verbal skills. 

 

Of course. But since he is just registering his displeasure without actually contributing anything to the subject of the thread, I thought a little nipple twist was called for ?

[Nordkapp]

Just now, crenca said:

 

Of course. But since he is just registering his displeasure without actually contributing anything to the subject of the thread, I thought a little nipple twist was called for ?

Good one!