Misleading Measurements

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Chris, perhaps it's hard to believe, but not every objectivist is the same. We don't all think the same way and believe the same things.

 

 

And why I find this thread both pointless and insulting...

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Or ... objectivists are by instinct reductionists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism, and the human hearing system is inherently holistic in operation; subjectivists by contrast are attracted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireductionism

 

The tendency of subjectivists to reduce objectivists to a caricature is more in tune with the former philosophy rather than the latter.

[kumakuma]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For example, saying high resolution audio doesn’t matter because humans can’t hear above 20 kHz is fine with me, but then one should also say measurements below the level of human hearing don’t matter. 

 

This is unworkable because it would require everyone to agree on what this level is.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why everyone? Can’t we just used scientifically established objective data? Paul says it has existed for quite a while. 

 

If it exists, I don't know what it is. Do you?

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. Audibility thresholds. 

 

This wouldn't work for the many folks on this site who can hear things below these thresholds or hear the effects of sound waves below these thresholds on sound waves above them.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Surely objectivists can agree on a level of human hearing and below which nothing matters. 

 

Why do you believe this is possible? I've never seen any evidence suggesting that audiophiles can agree on anything.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

not how many high end setups operate - they frequently make recordings impossible to listen to; the level of distortion being added in the playback is far too unpleasant to tolerate, for any extended period.

 

So how can many here spend hours each day listening to their "setups"?

 

 

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm suggesting a pass / fail approach is much better. If you can't hear it, you shouldn't care and it can only serve to confuse consumers who have zero interest in getting an EE degree just to purchase a DAC. 

 

 

So you'd be okay with the "objective crowd" not showing you the measurements and just telling you that a device passed or failed?

[kumakuma]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Showing me text is no different from showing me a graph. 

 

Not sure what that means.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It means that I'm OK with whatever the objective crowd presents. It's more about the people conducting the measurements. If they'll fudge text that says pass or fail, they'll fudge measurements. I trust they won't do either, so I'm OK with a pass / fail. 

 

I'm not. I'd rather not rely on someone else's subjective interpretation of the data.

[kumakuma]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just don't understand the willful ignorance by objective leaning people. They refuse to admit that consumers are mislead equally by measurements as they are subjective prose. And, the objective crowd has zero interest in dealing with this fact. They seem to be ideologues who see things as they want rather than as they are.  

 

How do you know that the ignorance is "willful"? Perhaps they just need to be educated about the follies of their ways.

 

Why don't you head over to ASR to start this process?

 

I'm sure you would be welcomed just as warmly as you welcome the hard core objectivists who visit here from time to time to point out the logical fallacies that exist at the core of the subjectivist lifestyle.

[kumakuma]

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

 

David, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility.

 

Paul has generously created some free tools that some folks are finding useful.

 

Why does this bother you and Alex?

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

No hostility at all Tom, just a simple request for validity data. Just normal objective science in operation.

 

 

Doesn't feel like that to me.

[kumakuma]

Deleted

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Thanks Frank, my irony meter just exploded !!

 

As did mine.

 

I can't help but feel that if he stopped spamming the sh*t out of this site with repetitive posts, he might have the energy to actually contribute in a meaningful way. 

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

You mean, in a way that fits in with your world view, of course ... 😉.

 

No, I don't. 

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It seems to me that people like @Superdad cop a lot of flack from objectivists for using a self-satisfaction criterion based on listening. The end user hears a difference (which may be correct) and each end user "verification" adds to the anecdotal pool but they get admonished for not producing some kind of independent validation.

 

I see possible misleading measurements and a double standard emerging. If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

 

The question I have is why aren't you pestering @Superdad for his independent validation data in the same way you are pestering Paul, especially considering that @Superdad is selling commercial products while Paul is charging nothing...

 

Seems like you're the one with the double standard.  👺

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, wbh said:

The 2005 Stereophile debate with John Atkinson and Arnie Krueger is worth listening to (search YouTube). 

Atkinson's comment -- on evolving from a young objective know-it-all to an older (more mature) scientist that came to terms with the fact that there is so much that's still unknown (about science and psycho-acoustics) - -is spot on. That's the hard-reality lesson many, many hard-core objectivists can deal with ...  so they lash out with "you're guilty of falling for [this or that logical fallacy and/or cognitive bias]"

The objective crowd at hangouts like ASR and hydrogenaudio tend to be younger ... or perhaps too many BSEE's but not enough Phd EEs. Know just enough to be stupid ... but not enough to be philosophically open (the Ph in PhD). I think this is why the founders of many, many high-end audio companies are highly educated and trained. E.g., Rob Robinson (Channel D), Keith Johnson, et. al. One really does need to think outside the textbook.

 

There are three sides to everything related to this hobby: the hard-core objectivist view, the hard-core subjectivist view, and the truth which lies somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.

 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, wbh said:

 

Make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: My bottom line is to troll like a MoFo and have a good time ... at others expense ;)

 

 

<sarcasm>

 

I think you've found your new home! 

 

Chris loves folks with this approach to life...

 

</sarcasm>

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, Frank sees two plots of ground on either end of the field; one heavily populated with those who believe and who are not particularly interested in knowing, and the other with a large group who scorn those that believe - in the middle is a largely empty area, where he sits and is very much lacking in company, for those who believe what their ears tell them, and also want to know. Here, the understanding that one has to widen one's thinking, and not dismiss new or different concepts because they don't immediately appeal, is important - such understanding is not popular, and generally gets the thumbs down response, 😜.

 

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Hey, what a great discussion for an objective sub-forum -- let's bash the other site that has no-one left here to defend themselves.

 

From what I've seen so far, the main use of this sub-forum is for subjectivists to complain about objectivists.

 

Don't see a lot of folks using it for it's intended purpose. 

[kumakuma]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I agree. It frequently seems like removing the stage for objectivists to talk to subjectivists, removes their motivation to discuss things. 

 

Or perhaps they just don't spend time on this site anymore...

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

b) Be certain that the testing was stuffed up; that there had to be a 'tell' - and frantically dive into every corner, of everything, to ferret it out

 

😝

 

Like the fact that the files names Alex used telegraphed the expected results? 

 

🦄

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Yes. I wonder how many had an anonymous listen  and weren't game to report back what they heard on ideological grounds

The majority of the Objective mob simply don't want to know, because it would throw into doubt many of the other things they claim , based solely on measurements. It would open up a big can of worms.

As an I.T. person, you had every right to be sceptical, just as 2 of my Sydney E.E. friends did originally too, before hearing the differences for themselves from my supplied USB memory stick without me being present to influence them.

 The differences aren't subtle , are they ?  

 

I listened to them and didn't hear any differences between them.