Popular Post tmtomh Posted December 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, fas42 said: A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to understand that getting optimum sound is removing obstacles to the potential of the rig being realised. Translation: A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to see things the way you do. That's true - but it's also true for everyone, so it's not a terribly meaningful statement. Now, where I do agree with you, Frank, is that some of the allegedly intrinsic quality of a component is actually its interaction with other components in the system - for example, the output impedance of one component might be a great or terrible match for the input impedance of the next component in the chain. That type of thing is a source - not the only source, but one source - of some variance and disagreement among people about the sonic quality of some components. (This point of agreement should not be confused with agreement with your claim that tweaking "silly stuff" compensates for deficiencies elsewhere in a system - I don't agree with that. But I hope we can leave that for another thread since we're already a bit OT anyway.) Ralf11 and wgscott 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted December 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2019 6 hours ago, fas42 said: The OT stated "someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct" - if someone says that they used a "silly tweak" which just happened to be a workaround for some system misbehaviour, where is the "cannot possibly be correct" component in that? A tweak can correct or remedy a problem with a system. But a tweak of one problem cannot compensate for other problems in the system. And to bring this back on topic, I would say that explaining as clearly as possible what the logical flaw is in a flawed claim is an example of an acceptable response when an impossible claim is made. tapatrick, wgscott, esldude and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted December 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2019 6 hours ago, Iving said: Why do you have to say anything at all. If you really mean to engage in a spirit of respectful conversation you could say any number of things: - Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables? - Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials? - Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves? - Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups? - It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for. But that's not the general approach of the "typical" objectivist, right? I think your comment here, and the prior comment by @mansr that you are responding to, provides us with a great opportunity to discuss this issue seriously, without some of the snark and other distractions we often get into. You list five examples of things objectivists could say that you claim would be "respectful conversation," and better than "the general approach of the 'typical' objectivist." Lets take them one by one: "Are you aware of any explanation for improved SQ lifting cables?" People raise this question all the time - and the "typical subjectivists" (if we're going to generalize this way) invariably do not respond by thanking the person for their respectful engagement. Instead, they respond with some version of "I know what my ears tell me, I listen to music not measurements" - or they respond with an explanation, and then get indignant or offended when the objectivist points out that the explanation doesn't hold water. "Have you any idea why myrtlewood would be effective over other materials?" I agree with you that this would be an interesting reply - but I believe it's ultimately infeasible for two reasons. First, my opinion is that many subjectivists would immediately respond with anger because they would feel they were being trolled or mocked rather than asked an honest, good-faith question. Second, this question does not actually get to the heart of the objectivist problem with cable lifters and so even if it resulted in a calm, non-offended response, I have trouble seeing how the resulting exchange could go anywhere productive. If someone replied, "Myrtlewood has XYZ properties," the objectivist would immediately reply that other woods have similar properties and in any event there's no evidence that XYZ properties has any impact when it comes to the material of a cable lifter - and then we'd be right back to the inevitable rabbit hole detailed above in item #1. "Have you thought that salespeople and marketeers might be dishonest even if with themselves?" Now come on - perhaps the details of the tone of your example are somewhat more polite that what some objectivists say here, but the content of this is precisely the kind of thing that enrages subjectivists and leads them to accuse objectivists of being close-minded, condescending, and all manner of other negative qualities. This question, if it did not immediately generate anger and the accusation of disrespetful discourse, would simply lead a subjectivist to say something like, "I didn't buy mine from a salesperson and was not marketed to - I researched it myself and my ears tell me it works." And we're back to the rabbit hole. "Have you thought about buying myrtlewood direct rather than via audio retailers so avoiding unnecessary mark-ups?" Even moreso than your suggestion #2, this is completely irrelevant to the substance of the issue. That is not a criticism of you - I'm just saying that the objectivist doesn't care where the subjectivist gets the myrtlewood from. If the objectivist believes that cable lifters don't work, then the "overpriced" issue is irrelevant - paying $1 for myrtlewood is still too much if one believes it's snake oil. "It really bothers me that you seem to be enjoying something that I am convinced there is no justification for." This does not qualify as respectful engagement in my view because it's not a real response. Rather, it's a subjectivist's fantasy of an Objectivist Straw Man. This is what subjectivists think (or IMHO, wish) objectivists are motivated by. First off, you will be hard-pressed to find a single objectivist who is bothered by the fact that someone else enjoys something that the objectivist thinks is BS. Objectivists tend to get bothered when people promote the effectiveness of things like cable lifters, and when they argue for nonsensical technical causes or argue against measurements and technical explanations altogether in favor of individual listening impressions and Appeal to Authority claims. The core problem here, IMHO, is something mansr's comment points to, and something that @The Computer Audiophile and @crenca have recently raised in their responses to one of my comments above: How do we balance the fact that our technical knowledge is never complete with the fact that some explanations are far more plausible than others? If we declare that we know everything, we do indeed blind ourselves to the documented history of how scientific exploration has radically changed our knowledge and destroyed some ideas that we thought were "certain." But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. All we are doing in that scenario is testifying, in the religious sense of the word. mansr, Teresa, esldude and 5 others 5 3 Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted December 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Iving said: Well - yours is a thoughtful approach - obviously. Thank you My examples were more about social lubrication - keeping things inclusive and welcoming for allcomers - rather than about what subjectivists and objectivists might say. Myrtle wood isn't anything special to me - I promise you I don't own any. Anticipating adverse social responses (from no matter whom) doesn't discourage me from being polite if I am thinking straight ... which I don't all the time. I am only human like everyone else. I guess the Forum is different things to different people. I am here mostly to participate in conversations when I (very infrequently) buy something sold by sponsor - that is a major component of Forum infrastructure after all. Next it would be learning at a technical level - and for me these days the so-called objectivists have most to offer. I love reading stuff I don't already know - especially when it helps me build a knowledge-jigsaw that facilitates me manufacturing my own musical thrills. Not necessarily objectivists though. Whilst I am not one for following others as a devotee, I was very fond of Bob aka rb2013 for those who knew him. He blogged relentlessly his trial-and-error attempts to elevate SQ and developed the most idiosyncratic, subjective and unscientific SQ rating system! But it was his enthusiastic posting that got me onto ethernet instead of USB and I have never looked back. I mean it was all just so much fun. There was another guy (I forget his name) who would drop in occasionally to wind him up. That was funny sometimes - but now Bob is gone I think it maybe more regrettable than not. What can we learn from that. Next I admit I am interested in the more philosophical aspects of musical enjoyment. My posts make it clear that I wish we could progressively triangulate on subjective experiences and measurements - who knows what else - in order to understand things better. It is as plain as day that we don't have all the answers. Trained scientifically, and having taught postgraduates how to do research for decades, I am not afraid of mysteries. Quite the contrary. What use is a scientist unless she or he can help us answer questions for which we don't already have answers. For me that includes addressing the psychological and the subjective as well as the physical and the objective. Only finally do I care to remark about "snark" and so on. I don't see how the kind of triangulation I would relish can happen unless folks feel that being armed with ideas alone (as distinct from say a thick skin to boot) is a sufficient basis for their own participation. If someone says something "incorrect" can we not just ignore it - or adjust it gently. Any kind of "playing to the gallery" down a knowledge or experience gradient isn't tasteful to me. Mine is just a point of view. I don't own anybody's ass. But like everybody else I do own my own walking feet. Otherwise I have no axe to grind. I am neither objectivist nor subjectivist. I admit I find it irritating being told what I am or am not hearing by someone who possesses neither my ears nor my brain nor my emotional history. At the same time I am more than open to blind listening tests and so on. There are many factors that can influence the outcome of such investigations. The way I see things we are not likely to develop the required approach without a willingness to abandon polarised positions and the various relational ways in which we cleave to them. To me that's on topic for this thread and I'm OK if we don't get where I want to be. Thanks for your equally thoughtful reply. One theme I see in your comment here that I really agree with is the emphasis on "social lubrication" and fun/enjoyment. Every hobby, even from the more tech-oriented perspective of how we approach it here at AS, is about fun ultimately, and while for many of us learning (and arguing) about technical stuff is part of the fun, every hobby is marked by excesses of some kind and by behavior or pursuits that are, strictly speaking, irrational to some degree (or are playful, to put it more generously). And so when we come to a community like this, it's reasonable to want some degree of slack and generosity from others so we can express ourselves and enjoy. For me personally, I don't have the budget or temperament for a lot of trial and error or frequent upgrading when it comes to equipment (hence part of my interest in trying to understand measurements and technical info as best I can, with the aim of changing my equipment as wisely, economically and infrequently as possible). But I do enjoy doing that with the "software" of our hobby: I spend a good deal of time learning about different CD masterings of albums I'm really into. Spending $20 to pick up three used CDs of the same album, each with a different mastering, suits my temperament and adds to my enjoyment, whereas adding 2-3 zeroes to that figure to do the same thing with equipment would just fuel my neurosis and and keep me up at night. 🙂 But the behavior is still somewhat analogous, so I do get it. Iving and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now