A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

But note that my last comment means approximately zero people on this site have objective scientific evidence with regard to the existence or non-existence of the audible phenomena we discuss.  That is why I think: 

 

- Reviews by blinded listeners or panels would not be something I'd care much to see in an objective audio publication

 

 

I don't believe B follows from A as you have it here - I know you believe it however.

 

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

- Since no one can claim objective scientific knowledge, a healthy dose of humility and good humor regarding whether various phenomena exist or not would be a lovely thing to see in such a publication (and here)

 

- Curiosity and a search for relevant scientific and engineering literature, with plain language explanations by experts, would be terrific.

 

You have made this clear as well, but again these follow from your idiosyncratic beliefs about how to get from A to B.  I and many others want to see other things, believe a blinding review methodology would be a step in the right direction, etc.  

 

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

This leaves aside the problem of paid reviewers

At least for online shopping we're permitted to acknowledge the reality of this.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

approximately zero people on this site have objective scientific evidence with regard to the existence or non-existence of the audible phenomena we discuss.  

 

Interesting statement, care to explain?

 

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

- Reviews by blinded listeners or panels would not be something I'd care much to see in an objective audio publication

 

Because blind testing is not objective?

 

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

- Since no one can claim objective scientific knowledge, a healthy dose of humility and good humor regarding whether various phenomena exist or not would be a lovely thing to see in such a publication (and here)

 

That's silly. Many people can claim objective scientific knowledge. Nobody can claim absolute knowledge of the Truth, at least not here on earth. This includes every last scientist that has ever lived. But that doesn't mean scientific and/or objective knowledge is somehow impossible to achieve.

 

Maybe you should begin by defining what the word 'objective' means to you, as it appears you imbue it with a meaning that I'm not familiar with.

 

 

[lmitche]

Just now, Jud said:

But note that my last comment means approximately zero people on this site have objective scientific evidence with regard to the existence or non-existence of the audible phenomena we discuss.  That is why I think: 

 

- Reviews by blinded listeners or panels would not be something I'd care much to see in an objective audio publication

 

- Measurements would be a very nice thing, along with any explanations of how this relates to (or tends to make nonsense of) the manufacturer's stated design philosophy

 

- Since no one can claim objective scientific knowledge, a healthy dose of humility and good humor regarding whether various phenomena exist or not would be a lovely thing to see in such a publication (and here)

 

- Curiosity and a search for relevant scientific and engineering literature, with plain language explanations by experts, would be terrific

Well Jud, that's the thing, magazine and other publication formats are a dead end in the age of the internet. Steve Guttenberg, whose rise to fame happened due to his relationship with an internet review site, should know better then propose this stupid magazine idea.

 

Do you have CNET magazine in your newstand? Have you ever seen a newstand where you live?

 

Like it or not, on the internet, polling is used to collect likes and dislikes and to gain influence and power in consumer markets. There is no way to determine how people came by their endorsements.

 

I don't buy that the choice of one guy in after a dbt is more persuasive than 60 results that were collected independently especially in a group and enthusiasts and experts in a subject. Yes you need to throw out the outliers to ensure a robust sample, but I'll take, and do take, the combined expertise of many others over a dubious dbt with a sample of one.

 

[wgscott]

9 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

 

I think here, in a nutshell, is the divide in CA.

 

There is one group of folks who do not regard any anecdotal findings credible, no matter the sample size. That's OK. That's their prerogative.

 

That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what you quoted.

 

He asked if 30 or 60 anecdotal testimonials would be "persuasive."

 

They might be credible. They might not be credible.  

 

The problem is that we have no way to distinguish whether or not they are credible, unless we put it to a test that eliminates things like the power of suggestion, or expectation bias.

 

 

[look&listen]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

There is one group of folks who do not regard any anecdotal findings credible, no matter the sample size.

 

1 anecdote not data.

>1 anecdote is data.

Collect data, analyze data, maybe learn something.

Wait for DBT evidence, never learn anything    (but excuse to bitch about whatever)

 

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Well Jud, that's the thing, magazine and other publication formats are a dead end in the age of the internet. Steve Guttenberg, whose rise to fame happened due to his relationship with an internet review site, should know better then propose this stupid magazine idea.

 

Do you have CNET magazine in your newstand? Have you ever seen a newstand where you live?

 

Like it or not, on the internet, polling is used to collect likes and dislikes and to gain influence and power in consumer markets. There is no way to determine how people came by their endorsements.

 

I don't buy that the choice of one guy in after a dbt is more persuasive than 60 results that were collected independently especially in a group and enthusiasts and experts in a subject. Yes you need to throw out the outliers to ensure a robust sample, but I'll take, and do take, the combined expertise of many others over a dubious dbt with a sample of one.

 

 

If you believe truth is established by social consensus or a popularity contest, don't be surprised if you find other people who disagree.

[lmitche]

18 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

 

I think here, in a nutshell, is the divide in CA.

 

There is one group of folks who do not regard any anecdotal findings credible, no matter the sample size. That's OK. That's their prerogative.

 

There are another group of people (count Larry and me in them) who are interested in anecdotal findings. We report ours, and try those reported by others. Do we try everything? Of course not. We use our own filters to decide where to invest our time and money. But it is our time, and our money. As it is for so many others who participate in these discussions. They try things and make their own, considered, buying decisions. They are not helpless naïfs, in need of "saving" from the big, bad anecdotalists! 

 

Both sides can and should coexist, but it's best that we don't invade each other's threads, as I don't think we're going to change each other.

Well said Rajiv. Yes, we are wasting our time here. Thanks for the good advice.

 

Larry

 

[wgscott]

It is kind of amusing that the self-identified "subjectivists" are the only ones who believe that such a divide even exists.  

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what you quoted.

 

He asked if 30 or 60 anecdotal testimonials would be "persuasive."

 

They might be credible. They might not be credible.  

 

The problem is that we have no way to distinguish whether or not they are credible, unless we put it to a test that eliminates things like the power of suggestion, or expectation bias.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said. It was not my intent.

 

But here's the thing... many of us don't come here to debate and evaluate the credibility of reported findings. We come here to share our experiences, and to garner ideas to try in our own systems. If you and others set a very high bar for yourselves, in terms of what content you consider credible, and perhaps actionable, that's fine and laudable.

 

But why not let others use their own looser criteria?

 

I am enjoying a level of SQ in my system that is light years beyond what it was 2 years ago, and even a year ago. I did it by adopting a series of changes based on posted experiences that would not meet your acceptance criteria. But I don't care, because I made my own choices, took a risk with my own money, and am happy with the results.

 

Why not leave people to make their own decisions?

[Superdad]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

is lmitche same as tubelover2 on usaudiomart?

 

Oh good lord no! 

[So as not to poke the bear I’ll not say more.  

But I hope you know that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau are also two different people (though Larry is not near as handsome as the latter). ]

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, look&listen said:

1 anecdote not data.

>1 anecdote is data.

There is a saying in scientific circles that "the plural of anecdote is not data." The term "anecdata" is also used to describe rumour and legend masquerading as evidence.

[Ralf11]

criticizing mere anecdotes is not the same as preventing people from using loose criteria for their own purchases

[lmitche]

3 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Oh good lord no! 

[So as not to poke the bear I’ll not say more.  

But I hope you know that Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau are also two different people (though Larry is not near as handsome as the latter). ]

LOL, thanks and yes no one on CA is as handsome as Justin Trudeau, not even you my friend!

[jabbr]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

But note that my last comment means approximately zero people on this site have objective scientific evidence with regard to the existence or non-existence of the audible phenomena we discuss.  That is why I think: 

 

- Reviews by blinded listeners or panels would not be something I'd care much to see in an objective audio publication

 

- Measurements would be a very nice thing, along with any explanations of how this relates to (or tends to make nonsense of) the manufacturer's stated design philosophy

 

- Since no one can claim objective scientific knowledge, a healthy dose of humility and good humor regarding whether various phenomena exist or not would be a lovely thing to see in such a publication (and here)

 

 

We need to realize that the scientific method is all about persuading skeptics of a viewpoint.

 

A good scientific study will anticipate objections of critics and provide either a theoretical framework or empirical evidence directed against likely criticisms: essentially disprove the null hypothesis.

 

The believability of an anecdote whether that be one person's observation or a thousand directly relates to the degree in which the anecdotes go against known framework.

 

We have a very strong belief in the physics of electronics based on very extensive theory and experiments.

 

A observation that, for a real example, a file will be indelibly altered by transmission over the internet despite having an identical checksum, will be met with strong and appropriate skepticism regardless of the number of anecdotes.

 

We also know the very real power of the "placebo effect" and so there are literally millions of people who have reported effects due to known placebos, and hence we understand the fragility of anecdotal sensory reports of any kind.

 

I'm a bit disappointed by your first sentence as I thought you were more interested in the scientific method -- to repeat, the scientific method is ultimately a way to rationally discuss empirical observations. There are clearly more than zero people on this site who have an understanding of objective scientific methods. Humor is always good, but it goes both ways.

[wgscott]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Fair enough. I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said. It was not my intent.

 

But here's the thing... many of us don't come here to debate and evaluate the credibility of reported findings. We come here to share our experiences, and to garner ideas to try in our own systems. If you and others set a very high bar for yourselves, in terms of what content you consider credible, and perhaps actionable, that's fine and laudable.

 

But why not let others use their own looser criteria?

 

I am enjoying a level of SQ in my system that is light years beyond what it was 2 years ago, and even a year ago. I did it by adopting a series of changes based on posted experiences that would not meet your acceptance criteria. But I don't care, because I made my own choices, took a risk with my own money, and am happy with the results.

 

Why not leave people to make their own decisions?

 

It is also a deliberate mischaracterization to suggest that I give a flying rat's ass what people want to buy and stick in their audio system.

 

The question was whether a set of 30 or 60 testimonials would be "persuasive," which I took to mean "would it be enough to overcome skepticism."  The context was discussing anecdotal vs. other kinds of empirical evidence.

 

[Superdad]

4 minutes ago, lmitche said:

LOL, thanks and yes no one on CA is as handsome as Justin Trudeau, not even you my friend!

 

I was at one time, but that was about 30 years ago! ?

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Fair enough. I apologize if I mischaracterized what you said. It was not my intent.

 

But here's the thing... many of us don't come here to debate and evaluate the credibility of reported findings. We come here to share our experiences, and to garner ideas to try in our own systems. If you and others set a very high bar for yourselves, in terms of what content you consider credible, and perhaps actionable, that's fine and laudable.

 

But why not let others use their own looser criteria?

 

I am enjoying a level of SQ in my system that is light years beyond what it was 2 years ago, and even a year ago. I did it by adopting a series of changes based on posted experiences that would not meet your acceptance criteria. But I don't care, because I made my own choices, took a risk with my own money, and am happy with the results.

 

Why not leave people to make their own decisions?

 

No one "leave's people to make their own decisions" because the converse is not even possible.  No one has control or influence to do anything BUT "leave people to make their own decisions", because we live in liberal western democracies (for the most part) and not dictatorships.

So once again the fundamental way you frame the whole question is off.  Indeed in this instance I have a "what the h#$l are you talking about?!" reaction, and why are you framing it this way in a thread titled "a proposal for an objectivist audio review magazine"?

 

Your beating that dead horse again, You refuse to acknowledge the existence of, let alone understand, or frame said understanding into the general audio landscape, things like "expectation bias", testing methodology vs. anecdotal impressions/report, what constitutes evidence and objectivity in domains of human knowledge and endeavour outside of subjectised Audiophiledom, etc. etc. etc.

 

 Please, go ahead, continue on with the status quo, no one is stopping you (how could we?!)...

 

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, austinpop said:

But here's the thing... many of us don't come here to debate and evaluate the credibility of reported findings. We come here to share our experiences, and to garner ideas to try in our own systems. If you and others set a very high bar for yourselves, in terms of what content you consider credible, and perhaps actionable, that's fine and laudable.

 

But why not let others use their own looser criteria?

 

I'd never prevent anyone from exercising their freedom. That said, why not let people with stricter criteria share their knowledge?

 

 

12 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I am enjoying a level of SQ in my system that is light years beyond what it was 2 years ago, and even a year ago. I did it by adopting a series of changes based on posted experiences that would not meet your acceptance criteria. But I don't care, because I made my own choices, took a risk with my own money, and am happy with the results.

 

I have no doubt that in another two years your continued changes will continue to improve the SQ in your system by another few light years. Nothing said here should prevent that.

 

12 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Why not leave people to make their own decisions?

 

They can. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves based on the information at hand. You have the freedom to share your listening impressions. Let everyone have the same freedom to share their own experiences and opinions. You seem to be upset that someone doesn't agree? Who is preventing you from making your own decisions?

[look&listen]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

and hence we understand the fragility of anecdotal sensory reports of any kind.

And hence the royal 'we' throw baby out with bath water.

Need is to separate real effects from placebos in sensory reports, that is where data comes in.

Maybe too may EE's here, not enough DB programmers?

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I'm a bit disappointed by your first sentence as I thought you were more interested in the scientific method -- to repeat, the scientific method is ultimately a way to rationally discuss empirical observations. There are clearly more than zero people on this site who have an understanding of objective scientific methods. Humor is always good, but it goes both ways.

 

Ah, but friend @jabbr, I didn't say zero people have an understanding of how to go about obtaining evidence scientifically.  What I said was something very specific: Because only one person I know of here has conducted rigorous scientific experiments regarding audibility of any of the various phenomena that we've discussed here, approximately zero (more accurately, one) person on this forum, so far as I know, can claim to have objective scientific evidence in that regard.  Measurements, of course, are something else, but they don't give us scientific evidence of such things as audibility of various types and levels of jitter.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, look&listen said:

And hence the royal 'we' throw baby out with bath water.

Need is to separate real effects from placebos in sensory reports, that is where data comes in.

Maybe too may EE's here, not enough DB programmers?

Nah ... just understand the importance of controls

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

 

 

nvm

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

It is also a deliberate mischaracterization to suggest that I give a flying rat's ass what people want to buy and stick in their audio system.

I don't care what people decide to waste their money on. However, I do think they should have access to accurate information when making those decisions. That is not possible when challenges to outlandish anecdotes are not permitted.

[austinpop]

Thank you for venting at me. I hope you feel better now.