Objectivists/Subjectivists

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, wgscott said:

@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)?

I agree completely. He already said he'll go with the other option.  So when you provide measures they'll retreat to faith in listening. 

 

I'll add that the tremendous majority of the time when differences are real it comes down to frequency response and level difference.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, lasker98 said:

How many popular, long running threads have we seen based solely on so-called objectivist criteria? Not many, if any I would say.

Perhaps that is because once a few measurements have been taken, little remains to be discussed.

[esldude]

23 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

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.

You're equating measures as being equally flawed compared to subjective listening impression. That is nowhere near the case.

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

So when you provide measures they'll retreat to faith in listening. 

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.

[Sal1950]

9 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I believe there's a 30 day money back deal.

That's the oldest snake-oil hook there is.

In audio very very very few will ever return a product and admit,

His hearing isn't good enough to hear a difference

His gear isn't good --------------------------------

On and on and on.

Admit you not worthy and they'll give you $

Can't believe you don't see thru that con,

It's used on every late night TV commercial made

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

You're equating measures as being equally flawed compared to subjective listening impression. That is nowhere near the case.

See last response to you. I believe there's enough of a possibility that the measurements were flawed, incomplete or biased that they're pretty much irrelevant to me in any kind of purchasing decision.

I'm listening to music, not running a lab.

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

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.

 

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?

The  problem is this isn't the first time I've been told this. I have tried things. So far a waste if time. So forgive me if I've grown tired of " no try this one it's for real."

 

Now if the difference blows me away it had to change the output signal significantly.  Show me the change in the output signal I'll give it more credence.

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps that is because once a few measurements have been taken, little remains to be discussed.

That's a possibility although I would guess it's very minor factor.

[Ralf11]

you should have no faith in measurements at all

 

if you want faith try a religion

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

The  problem is this isn't the first time I've been told this. I have tried things. So far a waste if time. So forgive me if I've grown tired of " no try this one it's for real."

Fair enough. That's your decision. I don't expect you to try because I say so ?

[crenca]

3 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.

 

 

Right!  So, where is this common ground you speak of?  On the one hand, you argue that it is pointless arguments about "extremes" that is the problem.  On the other hand, you seem to understand that there is real disagreement about the objectives, methodology - what counts and can't be counted, and how to count it - over the very basic fundamentals of Audio.  It can't be both.  Either all this is tempest in a tea cup at the extremes, or there is basic disagreement about the what and how of audio...

[esldude]

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.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

Fair enough. That's your decision. I don't expect you to try because I say so ?

 

AHHH!  But you DO!  Subjectivism is about the "trying", not about engineering.  It's like you say, your not running "a lab", your running a subjective art and wine, try it out and see how it impresses you, objectivist and objective truth be damned experiment - or rather, personal experience.

 

[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.

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps that is because once a few measurements have been taken, little remains to be discussed.

On another forum is a fair discussion about speaker distortion. That's an area that really matters and you don't need any special sauce to make it interesting. Mostly that is the only area worth pursuing for better sound quality on the playback end.

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, crenca said:

I "try" things all the time, subjectively, but I dont' report on it because I know its not very useful.

 

You really believe that, do you ?

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps that is because once a few measurements have been taken, little remains to be discussed.

 

Except for the measurements.

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Show me the change in the output signal I'll give it more credence.

 

Hearing aids.

[Ralf11]

enjoyment can be significantly enhanced even if SQ is not increased: euphonic sound, aesthetics (looks), and ergonomics are all good things

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

Right!  So, where is this common ground you speak of?  On the one hand, you argue that it is pointless arguments about "extremes" that is the problem.

Based on that it's all about winning. The winning is pointless. This isn't a debate club. It's an audio site. Most are here to some extent to enjoy listening to their system and music. I'm also here to see if I can pick up any useful tips to increase that enjoyment. Over the years, that's worked out quite well for me. That's the common ground. Some may require different approaches to get there, whether subjectivist or objectivist. Great. No need to try and convince everyone else that only your way is the right way. Make your point and move on.

[PeterSt]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Hearing aids.

 

I must retreat that.

You just don't try, instead. Still you propose an opinion.

 

Plus you anticipate we dig that.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

On another forum is a fair discussion about speaker distortion. That's an area that really matters and you don't need any special sauce to make it interesting.

 

OK, your speakers distort too much, yet, so you can't try anything else yet.

I get it.

 

Dedain (me).

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

So you've found the enjoyment for you is significantly enhanced even if it's snake oil

I honestly don't believe I've ever purchased anything I considered snake oil. Contrary to what some may believe, I'm very careful with my audio purchases. So far so good.

[esldude]

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.

[Sal1950]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

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.

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.