Objectivists/Subjectivists

[NOMBEDES]

This debate is so difficult.  Our hearing (and musical preferences) are distributed on a bell curve (or other graph).  How can we state that X is better than Y?   The best can I can do is state X is different than Y.  I may like the difference, but you may not.

 

Human hearing, your listening room, recording quality, etc......how can we correlate measurements and sound quality with so many variables?  

 

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, lasker98 said:

as opposed to "I haven't heard it, but it isn't so".

 

But wasn't it so that the objectivists (I still regard myself to be one) don't need to listen because they have shown to themselves it isn't so anyway ?

 

The problem I seem to have is that I don't need to listen because what you say is true anyway. As long as you listen.

/// says the other type of objectivist ///

 

The sheer FACT that my system (and that of so many customers) improves on a monthly basis, springs from believing what OTHERS have to say from listening.

Yes, I said FACT. Prove me wrong. 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

how can we correlate measurements and sound quality with so many variables?  

 

By giving everybody the same and observe the results. Note them. Remember them.

That's science too, you know.

But somehow the objectivists never ever anywhere turn up as participants. Never. Also a FACT.

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

The sheer FACT that my system (and that of so many customers) improves on a monthly basis, springs from believing what OTHERS have to say from listening.

And a willingness to learn and try for yourself. Lucky for us.

[marce]

47 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Sure. 

 

 

Wow Jud, you have read more into my post than even I could imagine.? It was simply stating a fact. I chose that slide to illustrate the fact as it was used by some respected in the Audiophile community... 

Looking at it from the pother point of view, when someone does post some fact, they are often pulled down by the subjective side or the poster is pulled down.

Your second paragraph would make an interesting thread and is something I have thought about, looking at the pictures of some wiring in some systems, I am not surprised noise and EMC causes issues.

[crenca]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

 

Of course!  So, all "humility" rests on something - a worldview that itself is "a kind of faith".  Methodological materialism is the common ground of western society, and has been for 500+ years.  However, in odd little corners here and there, other faiths persist.  In Audiophiledom, that faith is mostly a strange form of subjectivism...

[crenca]

22 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I would expect that concept to be even more relevant for an "objectivist". I see very little interest from some of them in learning anything knew. Most seem to have the mindset that they already know everything.

 

 

This perspective and explanation of internal motives of yours is a very common one coming from subjectivists.  It's understandable, because it is "subjective".  It is wrong however, because it is "subjective". In objective, methodological materialism or "science" and engineering, there are 100, a 1000, 10,000 wrong ways to explain something for every right answer, method, explanation.  Objectivism is "boring", non-emotional, rigorous, and disciplined in a real party pooper sort of way.  Not only are objectivist interested in learning something new, they are so very very interested in it, that they have done it many times and learned that the first, second, 100th, 100th answer is usually wrong. 

 

Subjectivists on the other hand, are immediate, emotional, and even impulsive.  They go with the first explanation that pops into their head/view, maybe the second, but the 3rd 9th or 100th, or 1000th) is no fun - it takes too much work.  They would rather put hook up a "grounding box" and report, endlessly, on their subjective experiences - 99% of which are positive and fit nicely with the glass of wine in their hands and the comfortable padded chair under their arses.

 

You have it exactly backwards:  Its objectivists who really want to learn something, something real.  It is subjectivists who want to express themselves, their impressions, their feelings, and their impressions of a feedback loop of their own making...

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

Not only are objectivist interested in learning something new, they are so very very interested in it, that they have done it many times and learned that the first, second, 100th, 100th answer is usually wrong. 

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.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

 I really don't believe those posting their own experiences are doing high end marketing.

 

The people posting are influenced by the marketing of high end audio that there are advances when we area point where almost everything is incremental in audio and has been for a very long time. 

[esldude]

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?

 

[89reksal]

I really want to say I'm surprised and appreciative of the responses to this topic, especially the apparent "civility" (whatever the heck that means).

I'm gaining perspective on those damned objectivists ?

 

For some humour, I'm starting to find myself typing "objectionables" when I start typing "objectivists". ?

[Dutch]

 

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

Not only are objectivist interested in learning something new, they are so very very interested in it, that they have done it many times and learned that the first, second, 100th, 100th answer is usually wrong. 

 

Learning? Debunking, ridiculizing and dismissing seem to be their main interests, at least on an audiophile forum, like this one.

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Wow straw man much?

If I'm wrong, I apologize. Have you ever tried a high-end USB or digital cable? By high-end I'll consider >$200.00.

[Ralf11]

I do not find the spectrum of objectivist vs. subjectivist very enlightening.

 

There are really 3 areas of interest:

 

1. subjective listening impressions - these are subject to all sorts of biases, but are easy to do and can be useful if the listener is good at describing his perceptions in words (true for audio and wine, etc.).  Importantly, there is a VAST scientific literature on these biases, including quite a lot of cross-sensory work from either Oxford or Cambridge (I forget which but posted some links months ago).

 

2. subjective listening tests - here, biases are eliminated (or at least, reduced) by std. scientific protocols such as blind testing; rudimentary statistical analysis removes outcomes that are due to chance

 

3. mechanistic analyses - this is very useful for professionals designing equipment and those who may be able to work around various defects (e.g. EMI down a USB cable and use of an opto-isolator, etc. to remove it)

 

It is always good to have both 2 & 3, but I am happy just to get 2.  I do blind testing on my own gear and have had a lot of fun with wine "label whores" at parties and restaurant dinners, etc.  Most recently, I did a bucatini* test.

 

 

* bucatini is the king of long pasta

[89reksal]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I do blind testing on my own gear and have had a lot of fun with wine "label whores" at parties and restaurant dinners, etc.  Most recently, I did a bucatini* test.

I've done some blind testing on some wines but the problem I find is in the morning I don't remember the results. Maybe I'm thinking of blind drunk testing.

[Ralf11]

Could be.  BTW, I think your OP was pretty good, but got off badly with the resent part.  No one is known to have the ability to ignore sensory or perceptual bias.  Huge area with tons of research on every sensory modality.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No one is known to have the ability to ignore sensory or perceptual bias.  Huge area with tons of research on every sensory modality.

Well, what's really worse? The sensory or perceptual bias? Or the bias from flawed measurements, testing procedures or flawed understanding (both sides)?

Given the choice of bias possibly artificially improving my listening pleasure or the flawed measurements, testing procedures or flawed understanding resulting in me making a purchase or change that results in decreased enjoyment I'll take my chances with the sensory or perceptual bias every time.

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

If I'm wrong, I apologize. Have you ever tried a high-end USB or digital cable? By high-end I'll consider >$200.00.

Yes some as much as $450.  

The problem is the methodology.  Listening, switching listening is not reliable. You can seem to hear differently when there is no difference. Blind it and it disappears. This is just how human perception works. With more rigorous methodology most differences disappear. At a bare minimum levels must be matched. So you are at the same impasse. I could say more but it would be a repeat heard hundreds of times here.

[wgscott]

@esldude  Probably safer just to measure differences, so you don't waste too much effort and time trying to detect differences that don't exist.

 

To help him out, can we get a quick list of "high-end" cables that measure differently (compared to a $10 Belkin)?

[Dutch]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I could say more but it would be a repeat heard hundreds of times here.

 

Remember that thought the next time you’re entering a discussion between audiophiles. 

[crenca]

48 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.

 

Again, an subjectivist approach and understanding.  I "try" things all the time, subjectively, but I dont' report on it because I know its not very useful.  True, I don't "try" many of the things subjectivists do (i.e. around digital cables, grounding boxes, some {but not all} of the software tweaks) because I know enough about digital communication and electronics (not an EE, but I did have a career on the practical side of IT for 20 years) that what the subjectivists are "reporting" is not possible or likely.

 

Your methodology leads to...Audiophiledom and all that means.

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

Yes some as much as $450

Well, my sincere apologies. My saying that none had ever tried is unfair and wrong. I would strongly suggest you trying a Lush^2 USB or Blaxius^2 digital cable if possible. I'd be both very surprised if you weren't "blown away" and very interested in hearing your impressions. I believe there's a 30 day money back deal.

 

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Listening, switching listening is not reliable.

I agree in general. But what really is 100% reliable? I don't believe most of us have the capability of setting up a 100% reliable listening test of any kind. Look what happened when mansr and mani did the testing at mani's for the "Red and Blue Pill" thread. Even with everything that was involved in doing that, nothing was resolved. How far can we be expected to go?

[89reksal]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your methodology leads to...Audiophiledom and all that means.

Let's not forgot increased pleasure from listening to music on my system. Isn't that the bottom line?

[Sal1950]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

2. subjective listening tests - here, biases are eliminated (or at least, reduced) by std. scientific protocols such as blind testing; rudimentary statistical analysis removes outcomes that are due to chance

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.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

Even with everything that was involved in doing that, nothing was resolved. How far can we be expected to go?

 

I think it all depends on how curious you are.