Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Jud]

57 minutes ago, marce said:

At the end of the day...

 

Sure.  But if someone told you your job was unskilled and easy because all the physics behind it is already known, you might not feel complimented.  Of course all the physics behind it is already known.  But there's a heck of a lot of proper implementation left to do, and there the attitude that one might not already know everything is a distinct help.

 

I personally feel there are two additional layers when we're talking about audio. 

 

One is human hearing, and as far as I'm aware there is only a single scientist working in that field who posts at all on these forums (not terribly often).  That leaves an awful lot of knowledge in this area for the other thousands of us to gain.  I see a tremendous lack of curiosity about this area from lots of people who feel they favor a scientific point of view, which to me is a bit of a contradiction, because I always thought curiosity was a fundamental for science.

 

The other is how individual pieces of equipment and their interconnections come together to form a system.  You wouldn't feel a PCB design was done once you'd selected components, perhaps with no particular specs for several of them, and put traces among them in no particular fashion.  But that's what most audio systems are - a computer, a DAC, perhaps a preamp, an amp, speakers (maybe headphones), interconnects, with perhaps a spec or two (you might have a desired processor speed for the computer, a maximum input resolution for the DAC, perhaps a desired minimum output power for the amp, perhaps a desired low end frequency response for speakers/subs), but no particular simulation or testing to tell you how they'll all operate together in your home.  No one would design a PCB or circuitry for a piece of audio equipment this way, but that's how we (don't) design our systems.

 

None of this means I don't see among the forum posts claims that I feel are almost certainly ridiculous.  But to me it does counsel a certain way of discussing things that begins with humility.  And just personally, I have always had a predilection to give far more credibility to those who evidence such humility.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The term "objectivist" is primarily deployed by "subjectivists" as a label and a term of dismissal.  It is like calling the other guy a "socialist."  You give them a label, so you don't have to take their point of view into consideration.  They become, by definition, the outsider, the gadfly, the disruptive tendency.

 

I think objectivists see it that way, and subjectivists see posts about "radical subjectivism" as the flip side of that coin.  What a surprise, eh?   

[Jud]

Just now, esldude said:

Some of the time I've posted files to listen to were exactly addressing your last paragraph above. Plus a chance for both sides to share a common experience and learn about each other from it.  Instead some subjectivists ( not all) consider any such attempt an attack upon their position and derail such activity.

 

Yes, I remember some of those threads, and the attacks were painful to watch, as are recent attempts to derail some long-running threads reporting subjective experiences.  What the hell is everyone so afraid of?  Criticism of "safe spaces" in a forum with thousands upon thousands of threads is just as ridiculous as walking into a bar across the street from Lincoln Financial Field (where the Philadelphia Eagles football team plays) and dumping on the customers for being unduly sensitive to criticism from Dallas Cowboys or New York Giants fans.  There are a million other bars where fans of the latter teams can enjoy themselves.

 

Just let folks have fun.  If you want to offer advice, do so respectfully.  This ain't hard.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your way might work for you, but for most it just leads to the status quo...

 

I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I hate to say but I do believe in some cases that's likely true. But again, those would be at the extreme. I'm just as sure that there's some subjectivists that are at the extremes. Why is so much of the focus on the extremes?

 

Why is it that the "objectivists" are the ones that seem more compelled to jump into threads and attempt to make their same points again and again? It's almost like some believe they're doing a public service, saving people from themselves. One in particular actually posted almost exactly that in a thread here recently when asked, saying something like he was providing "consumer protection". It implies a sense of superiority that the rest of us aren't capable of coming to our own equally valuable conclusions. Thinking about that, maybe that perceived superiority is on some level adding to the resentment against some of the more obvious objectivists.

 

I have seen the self-same thing happen in threads started by people of an objectivist bent, and they didn't get nearly as far as the subjectivist threads.  Almost immediately after they were started, subjectivists jumped in and started arguing, feeling that they were somehow impliedly criticized by the very existence of such threads.

 

Perhaps it's because it's an easier, lazier habit to argue than to actually engage, discuss and learn.  But IMNSHO, the latter is infinitely more rewarding for not that much more effort.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I agree with you, except one critical word, which changes everything:

 

"I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself  faith (i.e. is the truth of audio "subjective" or "objective") (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo."

 

 

As long as you grant that for some people an "objectivist" bent can also be a kind of faith (what @wgscott quoted Richard Feynman describing as "cargo cult science" when he encountered it in another forum) I fully agree.

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Blind testing should always be at the top of the list. We have to first determine if the listener can actually hear any of the artifacts he is listening for, before any determination of relevance can be made. You can't tell me that A is better than B if you can't first show the ability to determine there is really any difference between the two.  Tightly bias controlled blind testing is still the gold standard of any science.

 

Have you ever done blinded testing where there *is* in fact a difference to control for the expectation bias that there will be no difference? If not, how can you be confident blinded testing would show a difference if one exists?

 

Have your blind testing protocols sought to determine the contribution of echoic memory by using procedures that depend on memory and procedures that don't, and comparing the results?

 

There are so many factors to control for, bias and otherwise, in a truly scientific, objective test before the results can be considered potentially authoritative.  Then they must be replicable.

 

Liking the idea of being objective and scientific is great, but there's a heck of a lot of work to be done to reach the reality.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

BTW, yeah I've tested myself on echoic memory.  The difference in quick switching 10second segments and 30 second segments is huge. Yet so many insist only long term listening works. 

 

Is 4 or 5 better than 10? ? Said with a smile, but I'm also curious.  Have you had the opportunity to compare shorter periods than 10 seconds?

 

As I've said before, I'd also like to see simultaneous comparison of left and right channels using mono source to eliminate memory as a factor entirely, and put those results up against the memory dependent ones.

[Jud]

30 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes it can be very difficult (blind testing) to do right.

But in many cases it should be relatively easy.

When lasker98 tell us to listen to some very expensive USB cable and that the difference will "Blow you away".  That should be a difference that will be easily determined in a blind test, hell even one of those audiophool "wife heard it from the kitchen" proclamations.

 

You would have determined whether there was a difference great enough it couldn't possibly be ignored. But if a subjective belief that something is possible can build castles in the air, shouldn't we pay due respect to a subjective belief that it's not possible?

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Engineering is a distant something.

 

Hey, it's what you're listening to/through.  ? 

[Jud]

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Dennis, I don't get it. So long term listening unveils even more difference ?

 

I am saying this because it is the only thing which works for me. Like 5 days (unless it fails right away or at the same day).

 

Quick switching never can work because what's heard in one will be heard forever in the other.

 

OK, I guess this is off topic. But my first "normal" response to an evenly normal post. I hope.

 

 

22 minutes ago, esldude said:

In my testing for small difference, 10 seconds or less works better.  So no long term listening didn't result in discernment being better. And yes quick switching can and does work.

 

And this is in agreement with formal testing of perception. After you exceed echoic memory the direct perception is no longer available to you. Instead you are getting something like an mp3 of the sound memory.  Only one susceptible to being influenced by other non perceptual factors.

 

You can both be correct if @PeterSt is matching a pattern from long experience and @esldude is doing an immediate quick comparison.

 

Something I have been interested in for a long time is to what degree subtleties, perhaps the differences between the sounds of two amps, can be perceived in a rapid switching comparison.  That of course was the reason for my "two guitars" test, in which participants were asked which of two different acoustic guitars was playing in which channel of a musical piece.

[Jud]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

I understand. But what about the annoyance factor ? I mean, if you really are put up the task of surviving with the worst "config" (haha) ever, you'd know, would you ? that is my 5 days (or even linger these days) story.

 

Or maybe you recall  @Jud's test. I was the only one (or the best of it) that could dig out whatever it was guitar comparisons (I really forgot). One thing I will not forget: it was under a cookers hoover (hood) of more than 70dB of noise, the test music playing at ~85dB 6 meters further in the room. Key: unconsciousness. And I did that on purpose.

There have been more of these contests (Julf's Redbook vs Hires) ... I always "win" them.

How ?

Don't pay attention but observe annoyance. 

This actually can't be done with short term A-B. 5 days ? easily.

 

Sorry, Peter, in fact the vast majority of people taking the "objective" test first, as you did, identified the guitars correctly. However, the majority was sufficiently less vast on the "objective" rapid comparison test (2 seconds of guitars, 2 seconds of silence, for 30 seconds) than the "subjective" longer term listening test (30 seconds of guitars) that if the rapid switching comparison were just as good as longer term listening at distinguishing the two guitars from one another, you would expect the numbers actually obtained on the test only 6% of the time.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

So Yes. But a test I (thus) always highly reject to because I can't do that (in my own perception); It is too much explicit and too much A-B.

Still, when I am over here with an auditioner (you know, those for 1 hour which becomes 4) then the A-B surely happens, but I think that adrenaline or something takes over and I can do it after all. There has been no instance that we both would not agree (and "we both" is me and dozens, individually).

 

Jud, it can't be about patterns (for the long term) because I don't even compare with the same music/albums. It's just the general perception (and annoyance factor, or "hip-hop" factor for that matter).

 

There is something in the music that sounds "wrong" at some point (perhaps in retrospect after a change). You're comparing what you hear to some mental pattern that is being matched (for irritating sound) or isn't (for good sound or your inner notion of what reflects reality more), else how would you get the feeling you ought to go with one choice rather than another?  And I am not speaking of person-as-machine, but of a good or bad emotional response.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

So I forgot really (we had something with a Beatles album as well).

 

I liked the stereo version of "I'll Follow the Sun," you strongly preferred mono.  (In this you probably agree with the measurements, most dedicated Beatles fans, and the boys themselves.)

[Jud]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Pain ?

Please keep in mind how loud I play. If it sustains throughout (including dinner still being prepared instead of the other half jumping out to the takeaway) then all is fine.

So it is a quite physical thing. Physiological maybe - and with that mood influencing.

 

But of course this can't be about A-B. Just playing music.

 

Something else: without physical pain, all can sound the same and boring throughout. That hurts too (physiologically). So it is all not so easy ...

 

Yes. What I'm saying is that there is a pattern that is or isn't being matched which causes this strong emotional/physical response.  This is how humans make decisions. (Brain research shows that people deprived of emotional responses by injury to or disease of the relevant part of the brain have an impossible time making decisions about things as simple as what groceries to buy.)

[Jud]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

When an "objectivist" asks for measurements, he means any measurements supporting the claim, such as in a Stereophile review. Nobody is demanding that everybody perform lab grade testing themselves. That's the great thing about measurements; they are equally valid no matter who made them. I suspect this is a difficult concept for the "subjective" crowd insisting on personal experience as a prerequisite for any kind of opinion. It's as though they fail to understand that a measured result is universally valid and not merely a product of personal experience.

 

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

 @firedog also threw in that most folks can't do a lot of measurements for themselves, and @esldude helpfully responded that volume matching could be done with only a little bother.

 

But yes, folks often do respond to reports of measurements with some version of "Unless you've heard it yourself, it ain't valid." 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

People like vinyl really due to its deficiencies

 

Not the only reason. In some cases masterings are different and better. Yes, you have to "listen through" vinyl distortions to hear them, and I understand many people might not be able to abide that.

 

There are also some things I'm fond of that may never have made it to digital format.

 

So there are many different reasons. Sometimes it's easier to be dismissive than to inquire a little further.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I know it may sound like a challenge, but to me it’s just a question: if the reviewer did only sighted testing, I’ll discount most of the findings. Nothing wrong with sighted testing when doing it for yourself, but the reliability of such reports to others is pretty much impossible to judge.

 

Context is everything.  This question was issued repeatedly in threads where OPs had asked that people be free to provide their subjective opinions.  Same as if "Have you heard it?", a perfectly reasonable question on its own, was issued repeatedly in, for example, a thread about the technical side of MQA (graphs of filters, various measurements).  These questions, when issued repeatedly in these contexts, imply "Yes, but have you?  And if you have not, what you say has less validity."

 

The other side of this for me is that the blind testing many people describe lacks sufficient planning and controls to be valid itself.  Sure, I understand nearly all sighted testing may have additional large problems.  (I say "nearly all" because, for example, I might credit something Miska says about sighted listening to one of his filters since he has tremendous familiarity with them.)  So I'm not going to be putting a great deal of reliance on most folks' blind or sighted listening tests to give me data points.  What I read these reports for is the same thing you listen to friends chat about any shared hobby for: Good company, perhaps a hint about interesting avenues of inquiry if your tastes have been similar in the past.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Again, sometimes it helps to look at a concrete example.  Here is a very recent one from the mac mini thread, where it is being claimed by several people that it is necessary to modify the power supply in order to obtain "decent" sound quality:

 

 

There are several points typical of the subjectivist argument that should be addressed:

 

1.  The assertion that the opinion is true (in this case, two opinions.  The first opinion is that the sound quality of a mac mini (or a laptop) is not even "decent" out of the box, and the second is that you need to make this expensive modification (switching out the power supply).

 

2.  The assertion that someone has no right to question the above assertions unless they have tried the modification.

 

3.  The assertion that anyone questioning this point of view is "attacking" the person who is stating this point of view as fact, simply because they called it into question.

 

I just roll my eyes and move on.  I assume many folks do, and those who don't - well, I'm not the boss of them.  Best of luck to 'em.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

The problem in this case is that someone new to computer audio is being told they must make these kinds of modifications (which is why I previously raised this example in the moderation thread).

 

I suppose I figure most folks, even newbies, have either a modicum of sense, or being new, a reluctance to undertake big technical mods out of the gate.  I feel that we can wait for people to say "I'm a newbie, can you give me any hints about how to undertake this mod?" before chiming in that there are some of us who feel it's not necessary in order to get good sound.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Isn't that pretty much what the OP was doing in that thread?

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/54736-new-mac-mini-as-music-server/

 

Yes.  And he asked a more esoteric variant of the same (regarding power supply) a few hours ago.

 

I enjoyed your responses in that thread, though I wonder at what point it turns into the back-and-forth argument hijacking the thread.  For myself, I reach a point very quickly where I've said what I had to say, and if folks want to listen to someone else I consider puddingheaded, then as people with my upbringing used to say, (Yiddish accent) "They should live and be well." (/Yiddish accent)

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yet do you think for a self described newbie the response was good advice to first say what you have doesn't cut it at all until......

 

Oh heck no.

 

If I'd paid attention to the thread, which I didn't, I might have noted that many folks don't think a linear supply is necessary, but what I usually like to do in those situations is ask the OP some questions to find out what the end goal and considerations along the way are.  Would it need to be a Mac, or might a mini-PC suffice?  Will it be used for anything other than audio?  Those sorts of things.

 

That's what I meant when I said it seemed as if the argument might have hijacked the thread.  People were concentrating more on calling other folks wrong (however richly deserved) than on learning more about what the OP was after.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So if it were $2000 it's okay? Online preachers are believers too.

 

I'm a little reluctant to get back into the thread at all as it seems to have devolved somewhat (and I didn't even read whatever the disgraced Daudio sock puppet posted), but I very sincerely doubt CA has a wide following of evangelicals down to their last two grand.

[Jud]

31 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

In my other main "hobby" 2 & 4 wheel performance there is little to nothing left to subjectivism. From horsepower and torque numbers to race track timing, the numbers tell it all.

 

Yeah, no one's subjective about cars.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@agtp another person who just couldn't stick with a single username and had to come to CA under another name. Bye.

 

So much for the forum failing - it's such a draw people are trying to sneak in illegally!