Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[John Dyson]

On 3/14/2020 at 12:46 PM, Norton said:

I wasn’t sure Chris had made the right call with the recent changes, but it does look to me that it is working.

 

So much of what passed for objectivism on this site was essentially negative and reactive, objectivists ready to mock others but rather shy about their own systems and choices and how these were informed by the positive practice of objectivism.

 

Putting the objective viewpoint in a separate  area seems to have broken the cycle - because it is now necessary to take the initiative in order to express the objective viewpoint, the result is that this being expressed positively and constructively rather than as a  negative  and often unwelcome reaction to others’ viewpoints.

 

These of course may prove to be famous last words....

I am about 95% objective, but definitely avoid ever trying to hurt someone who isn't really technically minded.

There is a communication skizm going on, but not a difference in goals.

 

The objective/subjective disagreements start happening when one person doesn't understand another.   When someone (like me) must focus on technical accuracy, it is sometimes difficult & unwise to drop back to feeling/imprecision.  Likewise, when thinking in terms of experience or feeling, it is very difficult to quantify/describe  in technical terms the events impairments or needs for improvement.

 

One thing that frustrates me -- many don't really know what they know and don't know what they don't know.  Things would be much nicer if people really knew their limitations...  It need not be an ego hit to not know everything -- we can all still learn, certain ignorance can be mitgated with a little effort!!!  I am one of those people that when I find an uncomfortable blank spot in my knowledge -- I work to fill it in.  Hopefully, what I learn isn't metaphysical nonsense :-).

 

(I wrote a big-long morass of preachy pontification -- elided because I respect the time spent by those visiting the forum)

 

Too bad these differences cannot be resolved....   When I don't feel free to chat openly with parties of the whole spectrum, then I start feeling repressed because I want to be polite and hopefully kind.

 

Just seems that too often, people invest their egos in the wrong thing.   That really ruins a lot of fun.

 

John

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

52 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 John

That applies equally to both sides.

The last paragraph from Currawong in post  # 17  illustrates this very well, although many from the Objective side feel highly insulted when it is suggested that the currently accepted Science may be incomplete.

Regards

Alex

There are no real sides.  When people don't know their limits, then they don't grow, and they confuse others.  It is unfair to new people trying to learn when there are confused facts being espoused or implied.  A great example is that since 'Gibbs' wobbles and looks like sine waves, a semi-technical person will see the Gibbs as the same as ringing....   Semi-experts caon really screw up the understanding of a lot of people.  (It is possible to get it right, without telling the whole truth, and I am not talking about that situation.)   However, there is a bunch of metaphysics that comes from the GIbbs vs ringing issue, and then mixing that with minimum phase vs. linear phase effects -- it all gets muddled unless someone who REALLY knows explains this stuff.

 

We engineers (I mean qualified, actual engineers -- even though I don't practice as one anymore) understand these things naturally, and that is the kind of thing that I know I know -- but talking about how speakers work in a room environment -- all of my knowledge is theory -- and I pull back from those kinds of things.  I'll seldom make much comment about speakers unless it is about the very specific things that I know that I know.

 

This is one reason why I immediately go quiet when a discussion goes oustide of my area of competency -- but then there is an obligation to be factual when someone really does have knowledge.   There is a very strong obligation to avoid acting as an expert, when one really isn't.

 

Knowledge is so very different than having an agenda.   Offering information is not the same as pushing propganda.

Look for people who have a history of saying 'I was wrong', when they make mistakes.   It is very wrong though, to accept fault when it is KNOWN (not felt) that there isn't.

 

I hate to use the term 'integrity', because that almost has the implication that some amount of missing integrity implies deceit, but it really doesn't.  It is most important, no matter what I have blathered here -- know ones limitations, it offers the best chance to grow, and the best chance minimizing other peoples confusion...

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, Currawong said:

 

This is a very important point. It's really a few noisy people with extreme viewpoints in one direction or another who cause the most fuss. The vast majority, who are not extreme, get put off. The internet is very much like this, where people with extreme beliefs drum up the most division. Since it is tiring to make a lot of effort putting forward sensible discussion in the face of these people, most people give up. 

 

Knowing one's limits are important too. I sometimes get asked why I don't do blind tests in my reviews. I know that the person asking is just trolling, but I always make the points that many of the differences I hear between components took a lot of effort to discern, and either I doubt I'd pass a blind test on them, nor would they matter for most people. That's simply being realistic. Darko recently made a good video about what people new to hi-fi should care about, and what they shouldn't, using his own system and reviews as an example.  I think it did a great job of bridging the gap for those who don't know what is important when starting out. 

Think about my own delimma -- I am a mostly-objectivist, but have no measuring device that can fully 'measure' the results of my project.  This has been a very painful process of both chasing rabbits into rabbit holes and playing whack a mole.  Sometimes one or the other mindset just doesn't work, and it is important to take advantage of all of the various available information.

 

One shouldn't take their mindset as a religion, and keep their minds open to new ideas, but whenever possible, just measure the results -- it ends up being easier to do -- IF POSSIBLE!!!

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

17 minutes ago, Superdad said:

I think part of the schism comes from the fact that while few audiophiles have electronic measurement gear or the knowledge to use such, they do each possess a rather sensitive audio test set—their ear/brain system and some decades using it.

But the auditory sense is quite different in that we can not communally compare its output (into our brains) with each other. Contrast that to our visual sense, where we can point out to each other very fine differences, say between lenses or digital displays.

 

An audiophile/music lover who is thoughtful and trusts their ears (while being careful to avoid expectation bias) has no problem with the fact that he/she can not graphically demonstrate and point to what they are hearing. Music enjoyment and audio is often a solo pursuit anyway, though many enthusiasts do get together in real life and make comparisons and enjoy the advancement of their systems in scores of incremental steps.

 

It is the skeptics—and some engineer types—who are uncomfortable, dissatisfied, and in some cases outraged by the mostly-ears approach used by the majority.  They demand graphical your numeric proof, even though cutting-edge audio has long been at the point where the conventional suite of measurements fails to tell the whole story about how a component or system will sound and be perceived with dynamic music content.

 

I am not in the least suggesting that audio engineers cease using instrumentation to validate and advance their designs. On the contrary, I suggest that more research be ongoing to understand the what and why of the variations that so many people hear and report about when experimenting with devices and elements which on their face ought not to matter.

 

I’m really not sure why observation and research in audio has become such a contentious subject and approach. The history of the sciences—be they audio, medical, astronomical, etc.—is filled with thousands of examples of observation provoking new research and eventually leading to discovery and deeper understanding.

 

This above is the approach that @JohnSwenson and I have been taking together (and separately earlier on for decades). He designed large chips—at the microscopic level—for giant companies for decades, so he is not an amateur in any of this science. Yet as most of you reading this know, both UpTone Audio—and by extension John Swenson—get nothing but grief and outrage from those who seem to wish for the audio engineering firmament to be a fixed, 100% known, and static science.

Perhaps we would be better off doing our work in secret and not sharing details of our designs or early ideas about why this stuff audibly matters. Other companies sell “black boxes” and don’t say squat about what is in them. Nobody bothers them. Early on I decided to adopt a much more open and transparent philosophy. I did so because I thought there was too much “voodoo” in audio and that users would appreciate and enjoy it. After all, a lot of audiophiles are pretty sophisticated and jaded. And I know that when I go to the car mechanic or the doctor, they inspire more confidence and respect if they attempt to explain what their “repairs” entail.

 

I can agree with many of the sentiments, and it is sad that a few people who are over zealous with their expertise are afraid to hear what the listener says.  Also, there is too much skepticism about people who really do research & try to understand problems -- but sometimes the data taken by listening or casual measurement doesn't end up directly representing the real problem.  Misinterpreting results is so very easy for those who don't understand the whole picture of the design.  * THIS IS DIFFICULT & TRICKY STUFF...  Chips don't make things less complex, but chips do make one feel that they are.

 

There are often clear engineering explanations for problems, yet impossible metaphysics sometimes persists hanging on in the non-technical or psuedo-technical belief system.  Jitter is one of my hot spots, because measurements can easily fool someone who isn't seeing the whole technical picture. .  Everyone manifests Dunning-Kruger syndrome in one way or other -- the key is to know when it is happening.  This is part of knowing what we know!!!

 

There are problems in both pure systems (thinking all one way or another.)  However, when someone with the technical/engineering abilities can also listen to opinions from the subjectivst, then EVERYONE WINS.   This is because REAL solutions can happen, instead of continued metaphysical mumbo-jumbo or even the worst manifestation -- BAD FEELINGS..   Communications is the key, but having faith in those who do tell the truth, and don't have a profit or ego agenda would be so very helpful to EVERYONE.

 

No matter the way of thinking -- misguided ego is a major contributor to bad feelings.  Look up Dunning-Kruger, and remember this isn't meant to be directed to any one person -- we all manifest it in one way or another.  If we didn't have the syndrome, we'd probably be afraid to do anything.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Which is your "area of competency"?

Analog EE, Comp Sci (OS, realtime), and some DSP.  The DSP and analog EE go hand in hand, and have a lot of synergy.   I did my first stereo analog recordings to tape 40+yrs ago, and worked in radio as a kid -- 1st phone/signing transmitter logs, on the air/etc, realizing that the be a horrible career -- followed through with an EE, ending up at AT&T Bell Labs and Thomson/Technicolor.   I haven't been a practicing EE for many years, but am a trove of technical knowlege, often acting as a technical background/design?innovation support for the most troublesome design problems in both EE and CompSci.  I never did wires very well - I am more the person who helps the developers when they cannot figure out the design problems.    Actually, DSP is relatively new for me, but with the other backgrounds and my math abilities -- DSP is a matter of scanning a few resources, and recognizing what is going on -- and just doing what I do well...    My public CompSci stuff includes the FreeBSD OS kernel, my Bell Labs stuff is simply crazy.   Problem solve and innovate -- I live it.

Frankly, I am a little bit of a Forrest Gump in engineering/software -- often fairly close to greatness, but never making it.  That is okay, I am happy with myself.  My first boss in a technical field knew Thomas A Edison and more importantly, Edison knew him -- then it gets worse in some ways from there.

Bottom line, I like helping to solve problems -- that is my motivation in the tech world.  I live as a background design support person, but HATE wires, and HATE dependencies on product availability and production schedules...  That is the hard part of engineering, and is why I don't act as a true engineer.  Even tried managing a supervisory group at the labs -- hate that nonsense, I like the nitty gritty design stuff...

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

45 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Analog EE, Comp Sci (OS, realtime), and some DSP.  The DSP and analog EE go hand in hand, and have a lot of synergy.   I did my first stereo analog recordings to tape 40+yrs ago, and worked in radio as a kid -- 1st phone/signing transmitter logs, on the air/etc, realizing that the be a horrible career -- followed through with an EE, ending up at AT&T Bell Labs and Thomson/Technicolor.   I haven't been a practicing EE for many years, but am a trove of technical knowlege, often acting as a technical background/design?innovation support for the most troublesome design problems in both EE and CompSci.  I never did wires very well - I am more the person who helps the developers when they cannot figure out the design problems.    Actually, DSP is relatively new for me, but with the other backgrounds and my math abilities -- DSP is a matter of scanning a few resources, and recognizing what is going on -- and just doing what I do well...    My public CompSci stuff includes the FreeBSD OS kernel, my Bell Labs stuff is simply crazy.   Problem solve and innovate -- I live it.

Frankly, I am a little bit of a Forrest Gump in engineering/software -- often fairly close to greatness, but never making it.  That is okay, I am happy with myself.  My first boss in a technical field knew Thomas A Edison and more importantly, Edison knew him -- then it gets worse in some ways from there.

Bottom line, I like helping to solve problems -- that is my motivation in the tech world.  I live as a background design support person, but HATE wires, and HATE dependencies on product availability and production schedules...  That is the hard part of engineering, and is why I don't act as a true engineer.  Even tried managing a supervisory group at the labs -- hate that nonsense, I like the nitty gritty design stuff...

 

John

--fgh1 --fhh1=9000 --fgh4 --fhh4=30000

BTW -- my credentials are real -- I wish that I did more, but that is really all I did.  When commuting to the Bay area for work, I'd have a stack of problems that no-one else could solve, and within a day or two -- the problems were fixed.  Of course, these were OS issues, like with NetBSD and FreeBSD.  Since I wrote much of the original FreeBSD kernel (look at the copyright messages on FreeBSD kernel source), I knew a lot to fix the problems.   (there is even a snide comment in the IPv4 section of the Linux kernel about me -- Linus and I were NOT good friends, suffice to say.)

 

Since I am semi-retired, but still keep my personality -- I keep busy trying to do things that i have to tools to work with.  If I had a network analyzer and maybe a few meters and a good scope -- I'd be doing RF mixers/amplfiers and/or audio design.   I have big bags of parts, just cannot see them any more (parts got smaller, and my eyes got worse, and my hands shook more and more.)  BTW, I also hate wires...

Spice and reverse engineering is about as much EE as I do today, but if you count DSP -- then I do a lot.

SO far, I have invented a new anti-modulation distortion mechnaism for gain control devices...  That is in my own free time...  I just like to do things.

My DA decoder is the first ever ACCURATE software DolbyA decoder -- and it works super well.  It also has some cool anti-IMD schemes -- I thinnk that the anti-IMD scheme might be used in other designs.  The anti-MD scheme (causes that velvet background on my Crime of the Century remaster -- just did a new one) is the first ever algorithm -- it is either a trade secret somewhere, or it is a real first.

 

There are all kinds of ways for recreation -- I just prefer more intellectually challenging things that solve problems.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

I am not responding directly to anyone because I think that it would be implying that I am singling anyone out -- we are all guilty of a 'misguided attitude' from time to time.  This is NOT a war, but all it is a disagreement.  Sometimes as a matter of defen{c,s}e, it might be a protective response from hucksterism, but it is truly mostly just disagreement.  It seems like even on MQA -- which I do not like at all -- there is room for honest people to disagree.

 

It *would* be nice if snake oil happened less often (MQA isn't quite snake oil, but has simiilar characteristics), because there would be more room for actual useful innovation.  (Yes, I have my well known reasons for the attitude.)

I mean, even though the consumer cannot do much about it - the audio tape time base correction scheme is REAL,  my DA/FA decoder is REAL...  Why is MQA, which is nothing really useful, taking up so much space.  MQA should already be travelling down the toilet drain -- should have been flushed long ago.

Even if it isn't these specific two innovations, I am sure that there would be MORE if so much space wasn't taken by false remedies, solving false problems or strange sophistry (MQA is in the strange sophistry category.)

 

Nothing wrong with discussing MQA -- most of the opinions against it make sense, but by all logic, should have been died off before it started.

 

Again, it is okay to have well considered opinions that support MQA, and I actually understand some of them, but there are actually GOOD things that could happen instead.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

22 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

I start a thread based on my belief that the technical people on this site are getting the short end of things and your analysis of that is that I don’t care about the technical side? Wow.

 

For audio to make progress, we need ALL of listening, measuring (as a user), techncial measuring, hard core development and hard core research...   Through this list, these items become more and more 'technical'.  (There are probably subjects that I have skipped -- not needed for my point.)   WE NEED ALL OF THESE.   Some of us are more focused on the later parts along with listening.  Some avoid the more technical parts because IN SOME PEOPLE, hard-core thinking can indeed interfere with some kinds of emotional enjoyment.

There is room for tolerance by those of us whose involvement resides in any of these categories, even though many people whose thinking reside solely in the 'hard core' areas would often have little interest in these forums.

 

Some of us reside in all of the various categories from time to time, and it is truly difficult to separate them -- to me, because of where my mind is, all of the realms that I listed are merged together -- I cannot split them up, never could do that in any field.  People like me actually have difficulties when trying to split the aspects of audio enjoyment into different mindsets, and NEVER intend to insult people when I think and talk in a different way than they are used to dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

 

I guess though, that people can use their own focus and abilities as a weapon (see how smart I am), and that just goes no-where...  Those of us who do like to play with technical things should try to provide service/support for those who simply do not enjoy the techie part of the hobby.  I REALLY DO know that the purpose of the audio hobby is not my techie stuff, but it is the other way around.

 

It would be nice if people weren't put-off by the various personalities who are contributing to the discussions -- there is a real purpose to each of us.  I sometimes DO have to stretch myself a little bit when chatting with even other technical people, it is because even technical people have differing emphasis and different interests.

 

I am trying to say that there should be room for everyone, in almost ANY discussion.  Okay, I understand that a deep discussion whether or not someone likes early vs. late Beatles or stereo vs. mono wouldn't be helped by a reference to my latest ABBA decodes -- I get it.  But, there are interesting technical matters WRT the stereo vs mono versions of the Beatles, for example.  It all goes together!!!

 

John