Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Jud]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Pain ?

Please keep in mind how loud I play. If it sustains throughout (including dinner still being prepared instead of the other half jumping out to the takeaway) then all is fine.

So it is a quite physical thing. Physiological maybe - and with that mood influencing.

 

But of course this can't be about A-B. Just playing music.

 

Something else: without physical pain, all can sound the same and boring throughout. That hurts too (physiologically). So it is all not so easy ...

 

Yes. What I'm saying is that there is a pattern that is or isn't being matched which causes this strong emotional/physical response.  This is how humans make decisions. (Brain research shows that people deprived of emotional responses by injury to or disease of the relevant part of the brain have an impossible time making decisions about things as simple as what groceries to buy.)

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

Yes. What I'm saying is that there is a pattern that is or isn't being matched which causes this strong emotional/physical response.

 

Agreed. A seemingly (is it ?) contradictory response: For me it is completely impossible to use music as a counterweight for a fight (bad mood). All what happens after 30 minutes of trying is that I shut down the music for the day.

Happened at Christmas day when we couldn't find consensus about what course of the meal should contain which (and we ended up without a main course - hahaha).

Luckily over here we have to days of Christmas (and gain weight after all).

 

Moral: For me, music can boost adrenaline, unsurpassed (like tonight, postponing dinner-ready to after 11pm), but it can't recover from the opposite. And merely: music sounds super bad in such situation.

 

So Yes, no wonder how studies and scientists and objectivists (still underlined in red) will most easily refer to this drastically endorsing exhibit of ... the subject at hand. Still there is relativeness to the same mood, same light, same wine, same woman and same prospect food ... the music being in the lead. I mean, the quality of it.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

And for @sandyk: it again bothers that me, myself and I (and Mani) were accused not to recognize canon balls from thunderstorms. No discussion which is what (singing saws) but *that* eager some people are (me).

Eh ... peace ?

Peter

 I don't know what the big deal is here.

 Peace for sure. Please check your emails

 

Regards

Alex

 

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Please check your emails

 

Alex, I did not check my emails (yet). But I already see how my message was brought wrongly:

 

Quote

it again bothers that me, myself and I (and Mani) were accused not to recognize canon balls from thunderstorms.

 

What I quite explicitly meant was: how can it have happend that we judged thunderstorms for cannonballs, while the intention clearly was cannonballs. Thus, wrong system behavior alert !

This then still in the context of cannon balls probably being singing saws. But this is not the main message. That is: we all can so easily fail (but keep up appearances).

[firedog]

5 hours 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."

 

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.

One of my issues with audiophilia is the language. “Completely different”, “veils lifted”, “dramatic” and other superlatives and extreme language.

If you aren’t talking about something involving speakers, I think these same differences, even when they do exist, are often much smaller than described. A power supply change or a digital source change may have improved your results, but it probably didn’t “totally change” the sound of your system. 
Probably many of these descriptions are dramatic b/c of expectation bias. We all want to hear differences when we buy something, and then we think we hear a much bigger one than there actually is. 

The above makes the discussion tend to extremes, as  they often aren’t credible.Let’s be honest: some of the $500 - $2000 electronic components are very close in performance to each other and even to their much more expensive brethren. In some cases, I’d bet those dramatic differences (or any differences at all) wouldn’t be heard if a non sighted comparison was made. When the measured  output of two components “null out” when tested, it’s hard to continue to argue that one sounds better than the other. 
 

On the other hand, it doesn’t do much good to constantly challenge someone’s subjective results with “did you blind test?”. Most of us can’t properly test or measure at home. We do the best comparisons we can and proceed on the basis of that.  As long as people say “this is what I heard” and not “this is what is happening”, I don’t have a big problem with their anecdotal results. 
I’m also not convinced there are some aspects of audio perception that we don’t know how to measure. I’m guessing that these have something to do with how “natural” or “relaxed” a component sounds. Some components measure well and don’t sound good to us. Now that could be because we generally prefer some kind of euphoric distortion that isn’t being measured, but I’m not convinced that’s all there is to it. Scientific investigation may yet come up with some very small aspect of reproduction that isn’t explicitly known to us but needs to be taken into account. 

[agtp]

Hi Sal,

In another forum you made numerous unscientific remarks and I asked if you could elaborate.  You never responded.  Were you “burying your head in the sand”??

[agtp]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

If I was to walk outside tomorrow and report I saw a red/purple sky with green colored clouds,  and you knew it was a typical blue sky-white gray clouds day, wouldn't you query me on what the conditions were that I had these impressions?  People can not constantly post having audible impressions that make no sense within known science and not expect to be asked to present supporting evidence.

 

If there is, how do you expect to learn anything new when you refuse to involve yourself in any testing, preferring to stick your head in the sand and say  "I heard it, so it is so"?

Hi Sal,

In another forum you made numerous unscientific remarks and I asked if you could elaborate.  You never responded.  Were you “burying your head in the sand”??

 

Sorry for repost, meant to add quote.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Both (so-called) "objectivists" and "subjectivists" are subjective until such time as conclusive evidence suggests otherwise. The biggest difference is that subjectivists admit to it, even embrace it.

 

 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

On the other hand, it doesn’t do much good to constantly challenge someone’s subjective results with “did you blind test?”. Most of us can’t properly test or measure at home. We do the best comparisons we can and proceed on the basis of that.  As long as people say “this is what I heard” and not “this is what is happening”, I don’t have a big problem with their anecdotal results. 

I agree with saying did you blind test not always being a good challenge.  And that people can't test at home usually.  The two things that come to mind are suggesting ways people can improve comparisons that are within their capacity, and sometimes supplying them with measurements they can't do themselves. 

 

The big deal with the former to me is level matching.  Sighted and informal you can do level matching.  You'll often find differences diminish in perceived magnitude by doing so.  Stick a volt meter across the speaker leads with a tone and match within 1.2% on the voltage or get as close as possible.  Level matching by ear isn't good enough. 

 

It is a bit of bother though not much.  Mostly people will argue it isn't needed.  But it very much is for any credibility. 

 

The latter will fairly often result in a reply that measurements provided don't mean anything after what was heard.  Ok, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink.  To complain you can't do measurement only listen and then refuse someone else showing you measurements doesn't strike me as very open minded.  Quite often the same people will accuse me of being close minded by using measurements as if they could tell you anything useful. 

[mansr]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

On the other hand, it doesn’t do much good to constantly challenge someone’s subjective results with “did you blind test?”. Most of us can’t properly test or measure at home. We do the best comparisons we can and proceed on the basis of that.

When an "objectivist" asks for measurements, he means any measurements supporting the claim, such as in a Stereophile review. Nobody is demanding that everybody perform lab grade testing themselves. That's the great thing about measurements; they are equally valid no matter who made them. I suspect this is a difficult concept for the "subjective" crowd insisting on personal experience as a prerequisite for any kind of opinion. It's as though they fail to understand that a measured result is universally valid and not merely a product of personal experience.

[Shadders]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

One of my issues with audiophilia is the language. “Completely different”, “veils lifted”, “dramatic” and other superlaxatives and extreme language.

TFTFY

[Norton]

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.

 

 

[Shadders]

Hi,

I am thoroughly disappointed with this thread.

 

An actual subject of objectivists versus subjectivists and 7 pages with no locking of the thread. Disgraceful.

 

Anyway :

 

35 minutes ago, Norton said:

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)

 

My kit is DIY transmission line speakers, and UK badged, Chinese manufactured equipment for pre-amplifier/processor and integrated amplifier. The preamp/processor is as cheap as you can get (for Dolby/DTS - Audiolab) and amplifier is Cambridge Audio with sufficient power and performance.

 

I have not heard any difference between cables (cheap, expensive) and specialist products such as energy absorption, cable lifters, green pens, and demagnetising CD's machines, are pure bunkum. The latter is opinion, and the former - cannot hear differences, is experience. Yet i have received insults that my system is not revealing enough, i have not paid enough for my system, that i am purposefully not hearing the differences, and one from this site - i am deaf.

 

As others have said, hifi is a religion, and we all know how that ends up with fanatics who believe.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Shadders said:

As others have said, hifi is a religion, and we all know how that ends up with fanatics who believe.

 

AND fanatics that disbelieve.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

When an "objectivist" asks for measurements, he means any measurements supporting the claim, such as in a Stereophile review. Nobody is demanding that everybody perform lab grade testing themselves.

 

I heard from reliable source that Mani is still waiting for some test results.

 

I am trying to be funny here. But to me that text does not make sense.

 

So let's not be foolish and see through the fact that what's demanded for measurements is higher grade lab stuff than anyone in there is able to perform. And if you hold on to such stances, then Mani *is* waiting for those results. And me. And a few others.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

(declared objectivists tend to be shy about their systems, so apologies in advance if I am wrong in my understanding)

 

Norton, don't be so English !

 

A declared objectivist, as you refer to, will never unveil his system. So much so (not) that for most I doubt they even have one, except for the regular iPhone.

 

Strange, eh ?

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, Shadders said:

i have not paid enough for my system, that i am purposefully not hearing the differences, and one from this site - i am deaf.

 

You shouldn't be so English too. But I'd say you should not be mocked upon because, well, you don't deserve it ?

You are also not an objectivist (I think) but very eager to learn and verify. But maybe too much theoretical ?

Stupid question: did you really try MQA yourself ?

 

(a No will lead to posts I won't post because I am sure you will know what I mean in advance)

Peter

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

such as in a Stereophile review.

 

I may actually wonder what to do with this, if it is to be a subject with value; So the serious question:

 

Most of the Stereophile reviews I coincidentally run into, rave about the product in an undoubtedly commercial fashion (that's just my idea about it). Still, most measurements that I see with it, are hurting my eyes (I said most, not all). THD all over the place and such, but still sounds the best.

 

What is the value of that ?

(and you brought it up, so you can know what your own ideas about it are)

 

 

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You shouldn't be so English too. But I'd say you should not be mocked upon because, well, you don't deserve it ?

You are also not an objectivist (I think) but very eager to learn and verify. But maybe too much theoretical ?

Stupid question: did you really try MQA yourself ?

 

(a No will lead to posts I won't post because I am sure you will know what I mean in advance)

Peter

Hi,

For me, it is the responses as to why i did not hear a difference that indicates that the other person believes that expensive means better equipment, which is distinctly not the case.

 

The Bob Carver test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver) shows how a generic, cheap, good performance amplifier can be made to sound like any other.

 

In the Hifi Critic magazine (about 6 years ago ??), Stan Curtis wrote about a plugin to a sound program where the processed sound was exactly like a reel to reel tape recorder he used to use.

 

Ken Kessler stated that a digital recording of the LP master pressed onto CD, sounded just like a vinyl from the CD.

 

What this is - is that along the path of hifi experiments etc., that we already know what makes a specific sound of system in regards to amplifiers and other equipment, and in Bob Carver's case we can imitate it for an amplifier, CD is better than vinyl since it can replicate the vinyl sound, and a computer sound plugin can imitate reel to reels.

 

All this has been done with measurements and recreation of the target system characteristics.

 

So, i am an objectivist, i am not bothered about subjectivity - but we must save them. ?

 

On the MQA question - no, have not heard it - but then, why should i purchase a new DAC which means i have to purchase other equipment to implement into my system. making it a manual switch over, when i can purchase the lossless CD anyway. The MQA AES paper was full of serious errors and an own goal. MQA is a scam.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Shadders said:

On the MQA question - no, have not heard it - but then, why should i

 

(context created by me, above - haha)

 

So why should you ? well, because despite someone like me (and who am I) sees Shadders as a seriously investigating person (far better than me), there's still something that holds you back from real progress - and that is applying the theories. This is how I asked for MQA because by now you know quite a lot of it, but it is still theory only. This places you in that camp of the others. "Bash it but don't know for real".

I don't know myself how I related this to all your green pens etc. etc. not working out, but it is characteristic for that "camp". And I say it again (with different words now): you don't deserve it. I mean, you are too thorough in working all out to deserve no result.

 

I apologise if I get sentimental, but some times I must express the opposite of all the idiocy happening in here (which in the end is what this thread is about, right ?). So I need a target for that and you came along.

 

Let me end this mood by stating that most probably you never really learned what to listen for. This is not a negative - it could just be explanatory.

In a next post(s) I will try to get into a few of your remarks. Skip in advance if you think it is inappropriate. I just have an opinion ...

 

Regards,

Peter

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, Shadders said:

All this has been done with measurements and recreation of the target system characteristics.

 

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.

 

21 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Ken Kessler stated that a digital recording of the LP master pressed onto CD, sounded just like a vinyl from the CD.

 

 

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).

[PeterSt]

26 minutes ago, Shadders said:

In the Hifi Critic magazine (about 6 years ago ??), Stan Curtis wrote about a plugin to a sound program where the processed sound was exactly like a reel to reel tape recorder he used to use.

 

Then I will bet Stan Curtis a 1000 GBP (gets easier and easier for me) that he can not be correct on it, when I show him with the same "flip-means" that his plugin sounds different at each means of the flip.

 

The logic:

See the LP story. It is exactly the same.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

(context created by me, above - haha)

 

So why should you ? well, because despite someone like me (and who am I) sees Shadders as a seriously investigating person (far better than me), there's still something that holds you back from real progress - and that is applying the theories. This is how I asked for MQA because by now you know quite a lot of it, but it is still theory only. This places you in that camp of the others. "Bash it but don't know for real".

I don't know myself how I related this to all your green pens etc. etc. not working out, but it is characteristic for that "camp". And I say it again (with different words now): you don't deserve it. I mean, you are too thorough in working all out to deserve no result.

 

I apologise if I get sentimental, but some times I must express the opposite of all the idiocy happening in here (which in the end is what this thread is about, right ?). So I need a target for that and you came along.

 

Let me end this mood by stating that most probably you never really learned what to listen for. This is not a negative - it could just be explanatory.

In a next post(s) I will try to get into a few of your remarks. Skip in advance if you think it is inappropriate. I just have an opinion ...

 

Regards,

Peter

Hi,

I do not think people are bashing MQA. They have exposed it.

 

MQA could be applied to the masters and the CD issued as a lossless CD (16bit, 44.1kHz) and we could all reap the benefits. The labels get to sell the same album, but hold on, MQA Ltd do not get to tax every part of the audio chain. Hmmm. I now see the light. ?

 

I am not sure there are camps - just people who agree. It is not a movement against MQA. The MQA AES paper - is rather bad and alludes to what it does, but the theory does not connect together - as per the errors.

 

Everyone in general, had a lot of respect for Meridian and Bob Stuart - but now, their reputation is quite ruined.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, Shadders said:

The Bob Carver test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver) shows how a generic, cheap, good performance amplifier can be made to sound like any other.

 

 

I did not read it, heard often about it, but I dare state that the noise line is not straight - which is what I personally aim for, *or* that at least the noise is at another level compared to "any other" amp.

 

The logic:

Well, heavily based on my presumption that this noise won't look the same, it is my claim (not logic) that he won't be right because the amp *will* sound different than mine. If you have it, bring it, so we can compare.

 

I know, there is no logic in this. But the point I like to make is the same: I can do everything and all to change sound which is not measurable anywhere, and so his amp story won't hold for the same reason (because Carver will show you measurement - am I right ?).

[PeterSt]

33 minutes ago, Shadders said:

CD is better than vinyl since it can replicate the vinyl sound

 

The better context (as brought by me) would be that this would be correct. OK, I am not so sure this will count for CD as well (I just don't know any more and can't try either) but if we are allowed to translate this to "digital", then yes.

 

And here we have the perfect example of proof without measurement.

Hmm ... for you and for me. But not for the 1000s of vinyl die-hards. They just believe that vinyl sounds beter.

But you know what ? they never tried the test you refer to.

 

And there we are (the actual subject of this thread).