Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Allan F]

40 minutes ago, plissken said:

I find that subjectivists simply trust, objectivists verify.

 

Trust based on many years of experience and repeated critical listening has provided more than sufficient proof for many of us. We have neither the need nor the desire to "verify" in order to satisfy you or anyone else. We would rather spend the time enjoying music.

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, plissken said:

One DAC will have the 'HIGH END' usb cable and the other a 18" Belkin cable. Both must meet the ISO spec.

 

 Why not a 3M long Belkin USB cable. which after all complies with the USB specifications , and why not using an Audiophile Software player such as those from Miska, Peter or JRiver ?

 

[wgscott]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Subjectivists simply trust (that their ears are telling them the most important information), objectivists (attempt to) verify (that there is something measurable that is easy to correlate with significant audible changes, but usually fail).

 

Do you know of any "significant audible changes" that cannot be measured?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I like the recent cartoons by the usual suspects, here's another

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The heavy handed application of "attitude" is what disturbs many ... like in a post just above, "(forums) dedicated to group stroking of delusional hearing."

 

Yes, its designed to bait you. Some folks just like starting arguments and slinging insults. A great case for extra moderation/moderators IMO.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Do you know of any "significant audible changes" that cannot be measured?

 Depth of image is hard to measure and the illusion of HEIGHT which the better gear can also portray if present in the recordings  is probably damn  near impossible to measure using normal techniques.

 Even " The Storm" from the Chesky Surround recording can give a frighteningly real depiction of height with a very good amplifier such as  Pass 100W Class A monoblocks even when downconverted to Stereo.

 

[Ralf11]

31 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Trust based on many years of experience and repeated critical listening has provided more than sufficient proof for many of us. 

 

Try that with your doctor

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes, its designed to bait you. Some folks just like starting arguments and slinging insults. A great case for extra moderation/moderators IMO.

 

Irony meter pegged on ya

[Allan F]

20 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Do you know of any "significant audible changes" that cannot be measured?

 

FWIW, Paul McGowan of PS Audio's viewpoint: How do designers know what to engineer if it cannot be measured?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Those who it is about ask for "education" of some sort and that won't happen easily in the way it currently goes. Or maybe it *is* possible but then there's more adultry (?) required from us than the age we bear.

 

Peter, adultry [sic] hmm acting like adults for sure, not sure about adultery tho , maybe ?

[Allan F]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Peter, adultry [sic] hmm acting like adults for sure, not sure about adultery tho , maybe ?

 

Adultery is the epitome of subjectively experiencing changes.

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

FWIW, Paul McGowan of PS Audio's viewpoint: How do designers know what to engineer if it cannot be measured?

 

I think experience allows him to reduce the factor space he has to operate with to move towards a particular sonic goal.  I see this in science (and engineering and math) all the time.

 

You'll hear people say things like "nail down the boundary conditions" or "constrain the solution" etc.

 

As you know, attorneys do a similar thing all the time too.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Peter, adultry [sic] hmm acting like adults for sure, not sure about adultery tho , maybe ?

 

Your lovely wife would kill you for even thinking about it ?

 I hope that you are the one that feeds your big and VERY fast guard dog !

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Do you know of any "significant audible changes" that cannot be measured?

 

Careful use of language is required - there are no "cannots"', and a paucity of "something measurable that is easy to correlate" - the answers are there to be found, but the motivation doesn't exist to do so.

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Trust based on many years of experience and repeated critical listening has provided more than sufficient proof for many of us. We have neither the need nor the desire to "verify" in order to satisfy you or anyone else. We would rather spend the time enjoying music.

Oh No Mr Objectivist, please don't ask me to close my eyes. How will I ever know which is which? I'm not going to have my illusion bubble burst. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Your lovely wife would kill you for even thinking about it ?

 I hope that you are the one that feeds your big and VERY fast guard dog !

 

Oh, it was just a thought experiment in the name of testing Peter's hypothesis ?

[fas42]

46 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Depth of image is hard to measure and the illusion of HEIGHT which the better gear can also portray if present in the recordings  is probably damn  near impossible to measure using normal techniques.

 Even " The Storm" from the Chesky Surround recording can give a frighteningly real depiction of height with a very good amplifier such as  Pass 100W Class A monoblocks even when downconverted to Stereo.

 

 

The key one I'm interested in is the aural disappearance of the speakers - this is so abrupt in the transition, because it is subjective to its core. But it would be relatively easy to 'measure' with respect to the listener - simply hide the true location of the speaker, behind a curtain, say - and ask the audience to point to where they think the speaker is. Measuring what is so significant in the SQ to make this happen, OTOH, would be the really hard bit!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The key one I'm interested in is the aural disappearance of the speakers - this is so abrupt in the transition, because it is subjective to its core. But it would be relatively easy to 'measure' with respect to the listener - simply hide the true location of the speaker, behind a curtain, say - and ask the audience to point to where they think the speaker is. Measuring what is is so significant in the SQ to make this happen, OTOH, would be the really hard bit!

 

I would use demonstrate it rather than measure.

 

I believe most things will eventually be measurable with better tests and tools and implementations - that causally relate to a perceptual experience as shared by most of us.

[Don Hills]

5 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

  I hope it doesn't turn into blind censorship of the objective approach like has happened at headfi, WBF, and others dedicated to group stroking of delusional hearing. 

 

At least at Headfi, it's been balanced. There is a prohibition on mentioning objective testing in the cable (for example) threads, but there is also a specific area set aside for objective discussion where those who discount measurements are unwelcome.

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

At least at Headfi, it's been balanced. There is a prohibition on mentioning objective testing in the cable (for example) threads, but there is also a specific area set aside for objective discussion where those who discount measurements are unwelcome.

Works like digital apartheid. 

[wgscott]

I am beginning to think people keep arguing about this because nothing interesting has happened in this hobby (or whatever you want to call it) in a fairly long time.  (MQA was a nice try, but ...)

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Works like digital apartheid. 

 

No. At Headfi, you choose where you "live" and the rules you live by. With apartheid, you have no choice.

[wdw]

7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

I am beginning to think people keep arguing about this because nothing interesting has happened in this hobby (or whatever you want to call it) in a fairly long time.  (MQA was a nice try, but ...)

 

Couldn't agree more strongly...these endless hand-wringing sessions just go on and on to no avail !

 I simply just forget posting here any more.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

No. At Headfi, you choose where you "live" and the rules you live by. With apartheid, you have no choice.

 

like just choosing where you live to minimize break-ins and having your house trashed.

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

At least at Headfi, it's been balanced. There is a prohibition on mentioning objective testing in the cable (for example) threads, but there is also a specific area set aside for objective discussion where those who discount measurements are unwelcome.

Yea but you better walk the line there, don't threaten their little church of believers too strongly. I received warnings there sometime back when I posted the thread on the falsified AQ HDMI cable video,  they didn't like a sponsor being caught with it's pants down. Very much like the Sound Science header at WBF,  I was banned from the site for simply politely asking Steve why Amir couldn't post his measurements in a thread completely made for them?  LOL