Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Sal1950]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I know it may sound like a challenge, but to me it’s just a question: if the reviewer did only sighted testing, I’ll discount most of the findings. Nothing wrong with sighted testing when doing it for yourself, but the reliability of such reports to others is pretty much impossible to judge.

Many time asking about "blind testing" is more a bigger picture question. It asks the poster if he questions his results at all beyond a spot "sounds like" statement. Measurement and blind testing are still at the heart of investigation. The human weaknesses in perception are too large to accept unquestioned. If you "trust your ears only" you've set yourself up to be taken advantage of by people who are expert at marketing and crowd control.

Trust but Verify.

Or throw away $32,000 on a boutique power cord, it will give you blacker blacks. LOL

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I was trying to convey that digital techniques can replicate an analogue sound. You would have to characterise the target system (as per Bob Carver experiment), but once this is done, then a digital process can then give you your favourite amplifier, or turntable/arm/cartridge using a well designed amplifier etc.

 

I would envisage that in the future, we can replicate the analogue sound using a DSP processor and plugins.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

It's well along in the pro world. I've got plugins for several old classic analog bits of gear. Don't have the original gear to compare, but it sounds very similar. One outfit is supplying a microphone and you used it plus plugins to sound like expensive classic Mikes. Of those I've heard it's close but no cigar. It'll get there I think.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

 @firedog also threw in that most folks can't do a lot of measurements for themselves, and @esldude helpfully responded that volume matching could be done with only a little bother.

 

But yes, folks often do respond to reports of measurements with some version of "Unless you've heard it yourself, it ain't valid." 

Not just measurements. If you don’t have someone interested in helping you test, even a simple blind test isn’t possible in many cases. Furthermore, many systems aren’t configured in a way that enables blind testing. So you just do the best you can-long term comparisons, short term comparisons, etc. 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

Perhaps  "Did you blind test?" could be substituted with "Is there any objective, reproducible evidence for your claim, or is this a subjective impression?"

 

The latter is probably better, but it comes off as snottier and more combative (even though if you take it at face value, it is less so).

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

...

What I am saying is that I don't even know what a reasonable definition of the term "Objectivist" is, so please supply a real world one.

Well, a "true objectivist" ultimately wants scientific proof of any SQ improvement claim. This can be measurements or double blind tests. If available measurements don't warrant a relative SQ improvement and double blind tests don't show a difference, then there is no SQ improvement. And that would be a valid objective conclusion, until more tests or different measurements show the opposite is true. 

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Also why would a true "Subjectivist" engage in a technical argument or care?

Even a "true subjectivist" may be interested in the theory/technology behind an audio  product. It's always best if theory confirms subjective experience and vice versa.  

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

... I'll tell you though that my most recent major purchase was made without consideration of any measurements, so does that make me a Subjectivist?

Yes, I think so..

[crenca]

One thing that strikes me about this conversation is that generally (exceptions of course) objectivists see the objective/subjective divide as about substantial issues, understanding, and the facts around audio/high fidelity, whereas the subjectivists see this divide as....wait for it.....subjective - it's not really about reality but about how they are perceived/treated, or its about politics (of audiophiledom), and the like

 

No wonder it is in general the subjectivists who are unhappy with how this forum is moderated...

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

I'm not saying everybody must do this, but if they did, their report will carry more weight. It's that simple.

 

My experience: if the outcome of a blind test is contrary to the 'expected outcome', it's dismissed. It's that simple.

 

Our beliefs are deep-routed and not easily lodged, even (especially?) in the scientific field:

 

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

Mani.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

But yes, folks often do respond to reports of measurements with some version of "Unless you've heard it yourself, it ain't valid." 

 

True. Measurements are purely objective and cannot be challenged if done correctly. That is a fact. But that does not address the relationship between measurements and sound quality or the extent to which measurements tell the whole story. Consequently, measurements do not necessarily refute reported experiences of repeatedly hearing differences, notwithstanding the absence of measurable differences according to current standards. IMO, this is the divide between objectivists and subjectivists that cannot presently be bridged.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

My experience: if the outcome of a blind test is contrary to the 'expected outcome', it's dismissed. It's that simple.

 

Our beliefs are deep-routed and not easily lodged, even (especially?) in the scientific field:

 

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

Mani.

 

 

Your not a scientific theoretician, on to something really new, or the like.  Your a guy who did an "experiment" with results that were unexpected.  As any scientists knows, this is almost always because of poor testing design or methodology.  It is quite rare that it actually means something "new" has been shown.  Your ill equipped to do the hard work (both thought and practical) to investigate the "why" of these results.

 

As an Audiophile subjectivist however, your result is evidence of the validity of subjectivism.

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

One thing that strikes me about this conversation is that generally (exceptions of course) objectivists see the objective/subjective divide as about substantial issues, understanding, and the facts around audio/high fidelity, whereas the subjectivists see this divide as....wait for it.....subjective - it's not really about reality but about how they are perceived/treated, or its about politics (of audiophiledom), and the like

 

No wonder it is in general the subjectivists who are unhappy with how this forum is moderated...

I don't how much of what I'm taking from this is your true intention, but are you aware of the sense of superiority and I'm right/you're wrong attitude  that is just oozing off this post?

 

I'm sure you'll think I'm responding emotionally, while I would argue I'm responding reasonably to what you've written, but I have to say this would be, for me, the exact type of post that I find verging on offensive.

 

Hopefully you'll take my response as an opportunity to possibly rethink how some of your posts may be received.

[Teresa]

22 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

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

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

His (her) hearing isn't good enough to hear a difference

His (her) 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

 

I return products (not just audio) that offer no value to me and I thought everyone did! In the case of audio why pay for something that doesn’t improve my enjoyment of music. That is why I don't buy unless there is a money back guarantee. 

 

Just because I don't hear a difference in my system or that whatever the product is it makes my system sound worse does not mean my hearing isn't good enough, it just means I don't like the product in my system and I want a refund of the money I paid. My gear is good enough for me, I selected what sounded the most realistic to me in my price range. I'm a poor audiophile after all.

 

I don't see a money-back satisfaction guarantee as a con at all, but protection so I don't get stuck with something I don't like.

 

Before satisfaction guarantees were offered (before the 1990's I believe) I would loose 50% of my purchase price as I would have to return it for trade-in. The satisfaction guarantees are so much better because I get 100% of the price I paid back.

 

If people don't return what they don't like for a refund I feel sorry for them.

 

57 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Perhaps  "Did you blind test?" could be substituted with "Is there any objective, reproducible evidence for your claim, or is this a subjective impression?"

 

The latter is probably better, but it comes off as snottier and more combative (even though if you take it at face value, it is less so).

 

I automatically assume listening impressions are subjective. If someone did a blind test or any measurements it will be included in their post, especially on C.A. where so many demand such. So no need to ask any questions, if it was not mentioned it was not performed IMHO.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

I don't how much of what I'm taking from this is your true intention, but are you aware of the sense of superiority and I'm right/you're wrong attitude  that is just oozing off this post?

 

I'm sure you'll think I'm responding emotionally, while I would argue I'm responding reasonably to what you've written, but I have to say this would be, for me, the exact type of post that I find verging on offensive.

 

Hopefully you'll take my response as an opportunity to possibly rethink how some of your posts may be received.

 

It's just the opposite, and thus the subjective/objective divide.  It is not a moral observation, an observation of "right and wrong" as you put it - its just an observation, as banal as "most people report the sky is blue".

 

Your the one responding with the right wrong and emotionalism "...are your aware of the sense of superiority...".  

 

Indeed, your response is exactly the point I was making.

[89reksal]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

It's just the opposite, and thus the subjective/objective divide.  It is not a moral observation, an observation of "right and wrong" as you put it - its just an observation, as banal as "most people report the sky is blue".

 

Your the one responding with the right wrong and emotionalism "...are your aware of the sense of superiority...".  

 

Indeed, your response is exactly the point I was making.

 If you truly believe that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I hope if nothing else, you'll be a little less surprised in the future when people respond negatively to similar posts you make.

 

Also, it's "you're" not "your" ?

[Ralf11]

The real problem is that some people fly into an uncontrollable rage when they are asked how they determined if something is true or not.

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Perhaps  "Did you blind test?" could be substituted with "Is there any objective, reproducible evidence for your claim, or is this a subjective impression?"

 

The latter is probably better, but it comes off as snottier and more combative (even though if you take it at face value, it is less so).

I think the latter is much better! 

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

 If you truly believe that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I hope if nothing else, you'll be a little less surprised in the future when people respond negatively to similar posts you make.

 

I "truly" believe that, and you "truly" believe that it is not true and that you (and every other subjectivist) is being, subjectively put out by an objective world view around audio.

 

Thus, to circle back to my original observation:  Objectivists see the objective/subjective divide about reality, and subjectivists view it as about subjective opinions, behavior, and morality.  In this case, you have subjectively justified your future "negative" responses to objective observations.

[manisandher]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your not a scientific theoretician, on to something really new, or the like.  Your a guy who did an "experiment" with results that were unexpected.  As any scientists knows, this is almost always because of poor testing design or methodology.  It is quite rare that it actually means something "new" has been shown.  Your ill equipped to do the hard work (both thought and practical) to investigate the "why" of these results.

 

As an Audiophile subjectivist however, your result is evidence of the validity of subjectivism.

 

 

You might want to try to understand the difference between your and you're.

 

Pathetic.

 

Mani.

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

The real problem is that some people fly into an uncontrollable rage when they are asked how they determined if something is true or not.

Come on Ralf11. You can't honestly believe that?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

You might want to try to understand the difference between your and you're.

 

Pathetic.

 

Mani.

 

Ooops.  I will blame auto correct ?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Come on Ralf11. You can't honestly believe that?

 

Well, I think he exaggerated for effect ?

 

Still, you did tell us that you have and will react negatively to an objective world view, that it is a personal affront to you, and that your reaction is justified.

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

Thus, to circle back to my original observation:  Objectivists see the objective/subjective divide about reality, and subjectivists view it as about subjective opinions, behavior, and morality.

Maybe this would be more accurate if it was written as:

 

"Thus, to circle back to my original observation:  In my opinion, objectivists see the objective/subjective divide about reality, and subjectivists view it as about subjective opinions, behavior, and morality."

 

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

Still, you did tell us that you have and will react negatively to an objective world view, that it is a personal affront to you, and that your reaction is justified.

Are you serious here or are you also exaggerating for effect? How could you possibly come to that from what I wrote?

 

I can't see much point continuing this with you. Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Thanks.

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Come on Ralf11. You can't honestly believe that?

 

I wouldn't have believed it some years ago.  But like other scientists, I have an open mind -- i.e. it is open to new data, of which there is a great abundance on this site.  I realize you are fairly new here, but you can either read back threads or just watch the flow of output from the limbic system as it scrolls past...

[Ralf11]

morality??

[crenca]

Just now, lasker98 said:

Maybe this would be more accurate if it was written as:

 

"Thus, to circle back to my original observation:  In my opinion, objectivists see the objective/subjective divide about reality, and subjectivists view it as about subjective opinions, behavior, and morality."

 

 

Now we are getting somewhere!  No, in my objective world view my observation has the quality of an observation and is testable, repeatable - it is related to reality.  It can be right or wrong factually, but it is not a statement about moral right and wrong.

 

In your world view, my statement is a moral assertion.

 

See the difference?