Jump to content
IGNORED

Objectivists/Subjectivists


89reksal

Recommended Posts

I've on several occasions posted files for listeners to try and to show if they could hear a difference.  I get very little response on those. So I've not bothered to do more. Most of the response is from subjective oriented listeners wishing to derail the thread. Funny how that happens when people get to listen.

 

In one I was accused of only posting such files when I knew no one could hear the difference. In that particular one I'd tested myself and could pick the differences blind.  I was accused of not having good hearing too. The few who took part couldn't hear the difference. Instead of asking me how I did it most complained in all manner of ways about how blind listening didn't work. Curious all the way round.

 

So what suggestions do you have for bridging the Gap?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

It seems a lot of objectivists are more focused on the perception issue. I get that everyone has their own way of perceiving something and when it comes to spending my hard earned dollars, my perception and experience of others that I may have a level of trust in, is going to be the deciding factor. For one thing, I don't have the expertise to make an intelligent decision based on measurements. As well, what makes those specific measurements relevant or accurate? Who am I to know?

Where I believe the objectivists can make a truly valuable contribution is in actually doing the investigation based on their own actual experiences (if they really do care enough) and then providing the results. A lot seem to have the ability but not the desire. In my case I may have the desire but not the ability.

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.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

That would be my expectation. Based on my actual experience with some of the objectivists on this site, I would say it's a fantasy. I could probably count on one finger the number of times I can remember one of these "more extreme objectivists" had actually tried something for themselves when asked if they had any personal experience. So it would appear farfetched to come up with an explanation how they have done it many times and learned from it when in fact none have apparently EVER done it.

In fact none apparently EVER done it.

 

Wow straw man much?

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Why should I have more faith in your measurements then in what I hear? There's been many cases where measurements ended up being flawed. And if measurements show no difference or don't align with what I hear, then I would fall back on saying that most likely the wrong things are being measured or the relevant things aren't capable of being measured. We'll just go around in circles forever.

 

What is the most important? I'm not trying to land my stereo on Neptune. I'm trying to enjoy listening to music.

So you've found the enjoyment for you is significantly enhanced even if it's snake oil. What am I supposed to do with this if I'm trying to increase the real Fidelity for playback? It's okay if that's what you want.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

I agree with this. The ultimate goal would be to show measures and know something is transparent. We come closer to this than many realize. Next would be to measure and know how to measure and predict colorations.

 

But then someone somewhere swears they hear something.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

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. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

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.

For me it seems like it tops out around 7 to 8 seconds.

 

Could maybe arrange for some dual mono tests of some sort.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
29 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.

 

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.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Supposed you are like me (or my system) and you'd know that I can apply those same measurements *and* you'd see that there is nothing to differentiate in measurements WHILE with the flip of whatever I change the sound so drastically that that you would hear it with your ears closed (stuff-in fingers), then you'd see that with that as a base nothing can hold of the remainder of your text/findings.

Btw, perceiving differences with your ears closed is easier than doing to with ears open. Go to the hall (door of listening room closed) would imply the same. Try it.

 

 

I understand and I would agree. Still, I know (and many people know - more do than do not) that any sound of CD can be massively improved upon, be that with green pens or demagnetisers (OK, not your thang) or be that computer playback with 1000s (really) of variations and resulting different sound (for better or for worse). This tells me that there is no logic at all in anyone saying that LP will sound the same when played back from digital. I agree all right, but those telling it under these conditions I don't believe (and this is Kessler in this case - it is not about you). The logic:

- LP is LP and it does not vary with computers in the house or whatever USB cables etc.

- Digital varies with said means all over the place (too bad not for you, yet).

- Both now can not be compared really. All we could say is that the most lousy digital already can mimic LP playback (which may make Kessler be right after all).

Fables for the faithful. LP does not vary with USB cable... well how brilliant that is. It sure varies in lots of other ways. Again the massive improvement which of course shows nothing in the measurements.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I was trying to convey that digital techniques can replicate an analogue sound. You would have to characterise the target system (as per Bob Carver experiment), but once this is done, then a digital process can then give you your favourite amplifier, or turntable/arm/cartridge using a well designed amplifier etc.

 

I would envisage that in the future, we can replicate the analogue sound using a DSP processor and plugins.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

It's well along in the pro world. I've got plugins for several old classic analog bits of gear. Don't have the original gear to compare, but it sounds very similar. One outfit is supplying a microphone and you used it plus plugins to sound like expensive classic Mikes. Of those I've heard it's close but no cigar. It'll get there I think.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

You might want to try to understand the difference between your and you're.

 

Pathetic.

 

Mani.

I've had a few of those recently.  Posting from a phone and it's auto correct. So apologies for that.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

 

@lasker98 it will take time to read. But it might illustrate how high faith in subjective listening impression and data based methods don't mesh well.

 

Oh and the files aren't there to download anymore.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, manisandher said:

 

Don't flatter yourself.

Well I wasn't trying to flatter myself. Trying to illuminate the divide.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

You guys don't know me personally and yet feel that you can get away with saying things like:

 

 

Where's your evidence for this claim?

 

 

Where's your evidence for this claim?

 

As I said earlier, pathetic.

Well you at one point declined further participation. Alex said you were unhappy or upset. So no I don't know you. Trying to understand.  Since you are taking part feel free to explain. Your participation in this thread is why I brought it up. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have a bit more faith in humanity’s ability to read more information and make a decision appropriate for each individual. 

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......

 

Or something more tempered and less extreme?

 

Now as a counter example if someone has small computer speakers wishing to rock the house for a dance party saying what you have won't rock the house seems much more appropriate.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I have a brilliant suggestion.

 

Lets all book a hotel conference room, turn up at the right date, and have hundreds of custard tarts, cream cakes, and trifles delivered, and see what happens.

 

I suggest a good cable discussion to initiate proceedings.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Only if it's USB cables discussed.?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...