Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Can you provide some reasons why you disagree with the scientific method, data, results and conclusions contained in the Toole research?  Can you tell us more about these "assumptions" and glossing over" you refer to?

 

Or are you just biased and dont want to listen? Are you sure you even have the book? 😜

 

Yep. I have no problem with the research that he has done - but he then extrapolates, and either specifically states, or implies, aspects of sound reproduction as it applies to human hearing of it, which do not follow, from what he has done. ... Lots of hand waving, in those bits, 😉.

 

24 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

I am the trainer for the UE software/hardware in which we use ultrasound to identify air, gas, electrical, and mechanical abberations that pinpoint failure before it is obvious. We analyze the .wav file if needed to further prove the bearing etc. is bad. So to answer your statement, yes, we use measurements to asses the integrity of components within the plant. In the case of the rattle, I could pinpoint it in a couple minutes. 

 

Science created a useful tool saving billions of dollars due to unseen failure. 

 

Which is exactly where it does serve a function - the problem in audio is that this is turned on its head, and used to "prove" that the reproduction is "perfectly OK" ... when it ain't, 😉.

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Yep. I have no problem with the research that he has done - but he then extrapolates, and either specifically states, or implies, aspects of sound reproduction as it applies to human hearing of it, which do not follow, from what he has done. ... Lots of hand waving, in those bits, 😉.

 

 

Be specific Frank.  You are the one that appears to be "hand waiving".  I suspect you are unable to specifically criticise anything hence your nebulous reply.

[Racerxnet]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Which is exactly where it does serve a function - the problem in audio is that this is turned on its head, and used to "prove" that the reproduction is "perfectly OK" ... when it ain't, 😉.

I'd say that if enough people were listening to the .wav file of the ultrasound, there would be a bunch of chumps subjectively providing opinion on how the file sounds. In your case, you have not proven a thing.

[March Audio]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly where it does serve a function - the problem in audio is that this is turned on its head, and used to "prove" that the reproduction is "perfectly OK" ... when it ain't, 😉.

So science and measurement works then.  Why not in audio?

 

No its not used to prove what you claim.  The paper you cited earlier stated that a listening test was required.  The Toole research I cited main purpose is to correlate subject listening test results with objective data.

 

Frank, its becoming very apparent that you have a biased, jaundiced and inaccurate view of science in audio.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

 

Be specific Frank.  You are the one that appears to be "hand waiving".  I suspect you are unable to specifically criticise anything hence your nebulous reply.

 

Ah, I forgot I have the whole text stored in my memory bank, and can retrieve any line of it, by pushing on the right part of my skull - just give me some time, while I work out the correct finger to use for this; and the precise pressure, to the milligram, to apply ...

[March Audio]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, I forgot I have the whole text stored in my memory bank, and can retrieve any line of it, by pushing on the right part of my skull - just give me some time, while I work out the correct finger to use for this; and the precise pressure, to the milligram, to apply ...

 

Well as you mentioned these alleged "issues" I would have thought you would have had at least some recollection of what they are all about.

 

You dont even have Tooles book do you?

 

Can I suggest you stop making things up.

[Racerxnet]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, I forgot I have the whole text stored in my memory bank, and can retrieve any line of it, by pushing on the right part of my skull - just give me some time, while I work out the correct finger to use for this; and the precise pressure, to the milligram, to apply ...

Don't stick your finger in the wrong hole. 😃

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I also used to work in condition monitoring.  By analysing the vibration or acoustic measurements of a piece of plant you can tell whats wrong with it such as bearing faults.  You can even tell if the bearing fault is inner or outer outer race etc when its buried in a gigantic multi shaft gearbox!  You cant tell this information by externally listening or feeling.  You need measurement, you would otherwise never know the plant is failing.

 

Right, I'll give you a scenario ... a new design emerges, and starts blowing metal bits all over the room when it fails - but people using the "correct methodology" detect nothing, before it fails ... is the answer: the new design comes from subjectivists who know how to fool those poor measurers; or that the tools used are not sensitive enough to pick up the symptoms of this new part when  in trouble ... if the latter, could a possible answer be to evolve the methodology used, to try and measure "other things" ... ? 🙂

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Don't stick your finger in the wrong hole. 😃

 

Well, I'll make sure you're not next to me, when I start ... 🙂.

[March Audio]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, I'll give you a scenario ... a new design emerges, and starts blowing metal bits all over the room when it fails - but people using the "correct methodology" detect nothing, before it fails ... is the answer: the new design comes from subjectivists who know how to fool those poor measurers; or that the tools used are not sensitive enough to pick up the symptoms of this new part when  in trouble ... if the latter, could a possible answer be to evolve the methodology used, to try and measure "other things" ... ? 🙂

...and what if the sun doesnt come up tomorrow?   Frank you are just making things up.  You are inventing imaginary scenarios to try and justify your position.

 

If condition monitoring and predictive maintenance was ineffective, industry (mining and gas plants in WA is my recent experience with aero engine reliability in the past BTW) wouldnt spend millions on implementing it.  They do so because it is effective in predicting plant failure and save them millions (and lives in aero).

 

New design doesnt matter, physics and science remains the same.  You still employ same / similar techniques and can still forsee/emerging problems before they become critical.

[opus101]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

You are the one that appears to be "hand waiving". 

 

If you were to waive your hands would you still have hands to wave?

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

If you were to waive your hands would you still have hands to wave?

Sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[opus101]

Its a joke, a play on words.

[March Audio]

9 minutes ago, opus101 said:

Its a joke, a play on words.

Well all I can say is please dont try stand up.

[opus101]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well all I can say is please dont try stand up.

 

Indeed, the joke would get lost absent the written words.

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Since the roots of our destruction were obviously planted back in those days, Socrates, Plato  et al are fully responsible for where we are today. I blame them for everything that’s happened since.

 

Since subsequent Western philosophy is to some extent a commentary on Plato, then yes, the impotence of the Western intellect can to some extent be traced back to the time of antiquity. But it does not matter, because the 'destruction' is going on quite naturally, no one is assisting and no one is in a position to stop it. One can only look around and observe. Or we can congratulate ourselves on the latest progress and triumph of science. Whichever one likes, no one makes a choice. 

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

[...] a good analogy could be those who have never drunk a truly exceptional red wine; and keep arguing the qualities of such alcoholic drinks can always be assessed by doing chemical analysis [...]

 

It's a good comparison, and to the point 🙂

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Since subsequent Western philosophy is to some extent a commentary on Plato, then yes, the impotence of the Western intellect can to some extent be traced back to the time of antiquity. But it does not matter, because the 'destruction' is going on quite naturally, no one is assisting and no one is in a position to stop it. One can only look around and observe. Or we can congratulate ourselves on the latest progress and triumph of science. Whichever one likes, no one makes a choice. 

You really need to think about what’s causing the ‘destruction’ and stop blaming things that are just a tool being used in the process. Place the blame where it really belongs: human beings being selfish, greedy, and irrational even where it comes to our own survival as a species. Science is easy to blame, but that’s the wrong place to start. Stopping scientific progress or research isn’t going to cure the real problem: human nature.

[Confused]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's really obvious which are the people, say here, who have never experienced a rig working at a high level - a good analogy could be those who have never drunk a truly exceptional red wine; and keep arguing the qualities of such alcoholic drinks can always be assessed by doing chemical analysis ... those who regularly imbibe such delights look with pity upon those who have this perspective ... 🙃.

As this is the Objective-Fi forum, this seems appropriate:

 

https://ucanr.edu/repository/fileaccess.cfm?article=93367&p=TJFFBR

 

https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/CMD/brochures/XX-72102-Wine-Analysis-XX72102-EN.pdf

 

(As an aside, I am partial to an Aussie Red, although the term "truly exceptional" is of course subjective, unless qualified by measurements)

 

Also, I have to say that it is not clear to me who on this forum might or might not "have never experienced a rig working at a high level", how would I know?

 

I know what I have experienced, but it would be a little arrogant to assume the experiences of others.  Furthermore, "working at a high level" is rather subjective and subject to different interpretations.  For example, an individual might be confident that they have "heard a rig working at a high level" and have "drunk a truly exceptional red wine", but later experiences might cause that view to be revised, if something better was encountered.

 

My rig is sounding great at the moment, by the way.  It was sounding good in the past, I found it immensely enjoyable to listen to, but my most recent "tweak" has given me the magic!  That said, I remain open minded about what I might experience in the future.

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, I'll give you a scenario ... a new design emerges, and starts blowing metal bits all over the room when it fails - but people using the "correct methodology" detect nothing, before it fails ... is the answer: the new design comes from subjectivists who know how to fool those poor measurers; or that the tools used are not sensitive enough to pick up the symptoms of this new part when  in trouble ... if the latter, could a possible answer be to evolve the methodology used, to try and measure "other things" ... ? 🙂

Condition monitoring is typically applied to established designs.

 

New designs will need to be subjected to a whole range of tests, including "real world" run test and similar.  The data from such tests might then be used in the future to establish appropriate condition monitoring systems.  And yes, if something does blow to bits, there will be a lot of analysis to work out why, and how to mitigate this in the future.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

I know what I have experienced, but it would be a little arrogant to assume the experiences of others.  Furthermore, "working at a high level" is rather subjective and subject to different interpretations.  For example, an individual might be confident that they have "heard a rig working at a high level" and have "drunk a truly exceptional red wine", but later experiences might cause that view to be revised, if something better was encountered.

 

I can think of 2 instances - in the red wine category ... what sets them apart was the sense of complete satisfaction with the experience; there was a "uniqueness" to the moment, which makes quibbling about whether it could have have been bettered somewhat meaningless ...

 

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

My rig is sounding great at the moment, by the way.  It was sounding good in the past, I found it immensely enjoyable to listen to, but my most recent "tweak" has given me the magic!  That said, I remain open minded about what I might experience in the future.

 

What might that that tweak have been, may I ask? Of course, "magic" is subjective, unless qualified by measurement, 😀.

[Confused]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What might that that tweak have been, may I ask? Of course, "magic" is subjective, unless qualified by measurement, 😀.

This:

 

https://focusfidelity.com/

 

(Which can of course produce measurable changes, as well as subjective ones)

[opus101]

28 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Stopping scientific progress or research isn’t going to cure the real problem: human nature.

 

Do you have evidence that its nature rather than nurture? Just curious.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Do you have evidence that its nature rather than nurture? Just curious.

 

Where did I say that? To me, human nature is a combination of both.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Where did I say that? To me, human nature is a combination of both.

 

Ah, to me nature and nurture are distinct. Hence my question.