Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[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

 

[Currawong]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

There are no real sides.  When people don't know their limits, then they don't grow, and they confuse others.

 

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. 

[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

 

[opus101]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 There is a big difference between helping to improve another person's technical knowledge and "educating" them as many from the Objective side have attempted to do in this forum.

 

Hi Alex - I take it that the scare quotes around the word 'educating' imply preaching rather than responding to a person's natural curiosity? In which case of course I agree.

[Superdad]

29 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

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

 

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.

[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

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

 The attitude that the most obnoxious objectivists I've encountered use is, essentially, that because "it is science" that everything they say is correct, and whenever they mention science, it invalidates any subjective impressions. It seems not to matter if an objectivist has zero qualifications, has never manufactured a product in his (I've never encountered a "her") life, or even done a science experiment outside of high school, "Science" is put forward like "It's God's will".

 

 

As I see it, the extremist Objectivist [sic} with an agenda is objective up to a point. That point appears to be where science and objectivity clashes with their faith based belief system.

 

The extremist subjectivist may reject science or reason as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing (to which I say fair enough).

 

Some objectivists, even when and IF correct, don't get that you can't use reason to argue a highly subjective person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. The same applies when extremist objectivists shift from science to sciencey, invoking science but serving up pseudoscience. You cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

 

 

Quote

 This is because scientists, engineers, and so-called science can be wrong and, most importantly, science is almost entirely incomplete. The purpose of science is to develop greater understanding. It is not to belittle people with!

 

1+

[Rt66indierock]

On 3/14/2020 at 11:14 AM, vortecjr said:

So to be fair the MQA thread should be in the Objective section and Subjective people should not be able to say they like MQA:) 

 

If it were me...I would close the MQA thread and the long stupid thread to air this place out.

 

Fortunately the OP disagrees. There are still issues to work through and I can learn a lot from some of the people that like MQA. Norton has been especially helpful.

 

I like to give people a chance to shoot themselves in the foot. And I don't recall the OP of this thread saying anything useful in the Vaporware thread. 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

And I don't recall the OP of this thread saying anything useful in the Vaporware thread. 

I’m confused. What does whether I contributed to your thread or not have to do with this thread?

[Summit]

13 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I see it, the extremist Objectivist [sic} with an agenda is objective up to a point. That point appears to be where science and objectivity clashes with their faith based belief system.

 

The extremist subjectivist may reject science or reason as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing (to which I say fair enough).

 

Some objectivists, even when and IF correct, don't get that you can't use reason to argue a highly subjective person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. The same applies when extremist objectivists shift from science to sciencey, invoking science but serving up pseudoscience. You cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

 

 

 

1+

 

Why is someone that are using their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing to be label extremist subjectivist?

 

In which way are they radical?

 

Does those that are using their ears as the most important determinant of SQ really reject science?

 

I believe the opposite, which is if someone doesn’t know that experiencing by nature is subjective, they have a lot to learn about sound quality and what quality is in general. 

[Summit]

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

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.

 

 

 

Which is your "area of competency"?

[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

 

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, daverich4 said:

I’m confused. What does whether I contributed to your thread or not have to do with this thread?

 Please reread your OP pay attention toward the end of it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 Please reread your OP pay attention toward the end of it.

How about stop being cryptic and just answer the question. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

22 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I see it, the extremist Objectivist [sic} with an agenda is objective up to a point. That point appears to be where science and objectivity clashes with their faith based belief system.

 

The extremist subjectivist may reject science or reason as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing (to which I say fair enough).

 

Some objectivists, even when and IF correct, don't get that you can't use reason to argue a highly subjective person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. The same applies when extremist objectivists shift from science to sciencey, invoking science but serving up pseudoscience. You cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

 

 

 

 

Why is someone that are using their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing to be label extremist subjectivist?

 

All subjectivists, it could be argued, use their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing.That does not make them extremist. The unwillingness to listen to or be open to science or reason, to reject it, I think better characterizes an extremist view but even then, as I said, that's still fair enough.

 

As I see it , science does not have an entrenched view one way or another. In particular it does not care one way or another. To indulge in tautology, it is what it is.The trouble IMO is that science at this stage just can't tell us what we precisely perceive or do not perceive in the experience of complex music. It is therefore a subjective pursuit (which is perfectly fine). We can however get clues by looking at indirect markers such as objective analysis of the audio signal.

 

So it is that some may be convinced they can hear things and others equally convinced they (or anyone else) cannot - when maybe both are subject to the exact same expectation bias, both fooling themselves. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" ( Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character).

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/14/2020 at 1:00 AM, daverich4 said:

Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement.

 

I disagree 🤔

 

maybe there is a time and place for *some* disagreements,  especially those old disagreements that derail most every thread.

 

IMO the subjective/objective "moat" is where a few that could not express disagreement without resorting to belittling, have sunk!

[Currawong]

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I like to give people a chance to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

While I'm an admitted hypocrite in writing what I'm about to, as I've done this myself occasionally, I think that this attitude of using the forums to make people you* disagree with look like fools, is unproductive to the conversation. I think it contributed significantly to negating much of what was discovered about MQA in the threads about it, as now people who like MQA consider anyone who posts negatively about it a troll -- on other forums too. This is the very kind of issue about the inability to separate arguments from the people arguing them that is being discussed here. 

 

*And I don't mean "you" specifically, but people in general. I'm saying that this is unproductive, not trying to point fingers at anyone specifically. 

[daverich4]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 Please reread your OP pay attention toward the end of it.

If you don’t have anything to contribute to my thread I would appreciate it if you would stay out of it. Thanks. 

[Rt66indierock]

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

How about stop being cryptic and just answer the question. 

Chris based on my interactions with daverich4 I doubt he sincerely wants to hear from the technical side especially people like me who believe in both listening and measuring.

 

On another comment, Superdad is wrong about measuring and audio research. People started noticing audio research is one sided instead looking at both sides of the topic. One sided research is marketing. That is why there is criticism.  I am open to researching what noise is audible if you push it down 116dB but Superdad hasn’t made a case worth investigating.  

[Summit]

14 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

All subjectivists, it could be argued, use their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing.That does not make them extremist. The unwillingness to listen to or be open to science or reason, to reject it, I think better characterizes an extremist view but even then, as I said, that's still fair enough.

 

As I see it , science does not have an entrenched view one way or another. In particular it does not care one way or another. To indulge in tautology, it is what it is.The trouble IMO is that science at this stage just can't tell us what we precisely perceive or do not perceive in the experience of complex music. It is therefore a subjective pursuit (which is perfectly fine). We can however get clues by looking at indirect markers such as objective analysis of the audio signal.

 

So it is that some may be convinced they can hear things and others equally convinced they (or anyone else) cannot - when maybe both are subject to the exact same expectation bias, both fooling themselves. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" ( Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character).

 

 

 

To call someone an extremist is a serious accusation IMO and should not be said without hard evidence. Please do tell who are those audiophiles here on AS which is not open to science or reason, and more important which science more precisely do they reject when share their listening impressions?

 

The unwillingness to listen to or be open to science or reason, to reject it, could be said about some of the so called objectivists that doesn’t even have to listen to a dedicated audio server, audio grade digital cable or audio switch before declaring that they are no better “sounding” than a regular PC, cable and switch.

 

IMO most audio forum objectivist and subjectivists are not really objective. The difference is one group pretend that they are while the other just tell it like they hear it, none is immune to expectation bias.

[Rt66indierock]

15 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

While I'm an admitted hypocrite in writing what I'm about to, as I've done this myself occasionally, I think that this attitude of using the forums to make people you* disagree with look like fools, is unproductive to the conversation. I think it contributed significantly to negating much of what was discovered about MQA in the threads about it, as now people who like MQA consider anyone who posts negatively about it a troll -- on other forums too. This is the very kind of issue about the inability to separate arguments from the people arguing them that is being discussed here. 

 

*And I don't mean "you" specifically, but people in general. I'm saying that this is unproductive, not trying to point fingers at anyone specifically. 

 

Allowing people look foolish is an economical use of time. Let opponents waste their time and energy promoting MQA or attacking MQA opponents on the anti MQA threads where they can be dealt with easily. Lure opponents to a place of the opponents choosing is a strategy as old as The Art War.

 

Your mistake is thinking I wanted a conversation. I wanted to convince as many people in audio as possible that MQA is a bad idea. Supporters of MQA can be convinced that MQA is not commercially viable.  Either way the opponents of MQA win. I’ve been very open about this.

 

Nothing has been negated about MQA’s issues. Any manufacturer considering MQA after 2016 knew they would face criticism if they adopted it. And how are these supporters of MQA going to listen to it? Tidal’s US revenues in 2018 declined 20%. Downloads, I wish you luck with that.

 

Finally, if all someone can do that likes MQA is call people trolls they don’t have much of an argument.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

 

To call someone an extremist is a serious accusation IMO and should not be said without hard evidence.Please do tell who are those audiophiles here on AS which is not open to science or reason, and more important which science more precisely do they reject when share their listening impressions?

 

I have not called any*one* or some*one* anything. Please point out where i did this and with "hard evidence".Nor do i intend to comply with your misguided demand to do so.

 

Quote

IMO most audio forum objectivist and subjectivists are not really objective. The difference is one group pretend that they are while the other just tell it like they hear it, none is immune to expectation bias.

 

Exactly so IMO - Edit except - the use of the word "pretend" is pejorative and in most cases this is not called for, they are simply subscribing to their own belief systems, not pretending IMO

[Richard Dale]

39 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Allowing people look foolish is an economical use of time. Let opponents waste their time and energy promoting MQA or attacking MQA opponents on the anti MQA threads where they can be dealt with easily. Lure opponents to a place of the opponents choosing is a strategy as old as The Art War.

 

Your mistake is thinking I wanted a conversation. I wanted to convince as many people in audio as possible that MQA is a bad idea. Supporters of MQA can be convinced that MQA is not commercially viable.  Either way the opponents of MQA win. I’ve been very open about this.

 

Nothing has been negated about MQA’s issues. Any manufacturer considering MQA after 2016 knew they would face criticism if they adopted it. And how are these supporters of MQA going to listen to it? Tidal’s US revenues in 2018 declined 20%. Downloads, I wish you luck with that.

 

Finally, if all someone can do that likes MQA is call people trolls they don’t have much of an argument.

You’re welcome to your opinions about MQA. But when you say things like “Allowing people look foolish is an economical use of time” as though there is supposed to be some kind of war going on, it is contrary to my idea of a fun and useful forum that I would like Audiophile Style to be. Disagreeing is fine as long as there is a mutual respect for the parties having the discussion, but “making people look foolish” doesn’t show much of a respectful attitude to me. 

[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