Popular Post Norton Posted December 29, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 29, 2018 I see little from self-declared “objectivists ” on this site by way of a positive, practical explanation as to how, say, choosing a DAC, is a different process for an objectivist than a subjectivist, or offer any practical guide to behaving as they consider “objective”. Mostly objectivism as touted on CA comes across more as a theoretical nihilist philosophy - we know what objectivists dislike but precious little about what they like and how they got there, and as such it’s a stance unlikely to win many converts - no matter how brilliant a scientist or EE you consider yourself to be, you won’t persuade by bashing people over the head. Perhaps then the objective is not to persuade - but just to blow hard? I suspect there’s also an element of hypocrisy here, a case of “do what I say, don’t say what I do”. From occasional information gleaned from posts and profiles, it looks likely that, in at least one case, a declared objectivist’s own home system falls firmly in the “art and wine” category we are continually berated about. For example, it would be hard to accept “objective” advice that cheap Chinese kit is all we need, from someone whose headphones alone retail at $4k. (declared objectivists tend to be shy about their systems, so apologies in advance if I am wrong in my understanding) Of course, true objectivity cannot exist without an understanding of the intended purpose of an item. Hi Fi exists to be listened to and to entertain, thus in choosing audio equipment we must all be subjectivists in order to be objective. 89reksal, Richard Dale, Teresa and 3 others 3 3 Link to comment
Norton Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 20 pages in and I’m still no clearer how those who describe themselves as objectivists differ in their approach to system building from everyone else. Any objectivist here prepared to detail their system and the regime of comparative physical and listening tests undertaken, and publish the resulting data underpinning their choice of that system rather than any other? Or is objectivism just about criticising other people and their systems? Teresa 1 Link to comment
Norton Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 3 hours ago, crenca said: This is a good post. Using the examples (more can and will be added of course) gives us a reference, a "continuum" in which to put ourselves. As an objectivist, I admit that most of this hobby & audio is 80, 90% "subjective". Yet, when it comes to gear and engineering I acknowledge its objective character. Using dicasters examples, I acknowledge the PHY layer, but to his logic I add both our natural capacity for bias and the industry "voodoo" factor. So while it may be "logical", I find the likelihood that much, most, of the reports of "sound" (using the usual audiophile descriptors of "fatter bass", "soundstage", "PRaT") of digital cables, digital decrapifiers, etc. to be bias, marketing, and the like. So on the continuum, I end up being farther on the "objective" side than diecaster. But again you describe youself as being further towards the “objective side” wholly in terms of being critical of what others claim or hear. You have gone to the trouble of labelling yourself as an objectivist in your signature, but I see nothing yet by way of explanation or illustration as to how you apply that objectivity in a positive form to your own audio choices. As an objectivist are you able to outline what you like and the measurements and testing that got you there? Alternatively, would “Junior Skeptic” be a more accurate self-description ? Link to comment
Recommended Posts