Jump to content
IGNORED

Objectivity is based on subjective experience


erin

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Sorry, busy morning, so only do a quick reply for now.

 

My equipment has changed many, many times over the years. But my goal is to hear the recording, not the equipment. If the equipment is good enough, then it gets out of the way - which happened to me 30 years ago. I'm different in that I tweak a system to the point that the latter gets out of the way - and then the same recording, as familiar to me as an old friend, again emerges. It doesn't keep "getting better" in dramatic ways - because the recording is what it is ... only minor gains are ever made.

I think you're missing something you will enjoy.  Among the many discoveries to be made in revisiting recordings (and live performance of familiar pieces) that you think you know intimately is that there's so much more going on in almost every musical performance than meets the eye and ear.  A second or third violin line you never heard before will suddenly catch your ear.  One of the saxophones in Basie's band plays a weird and fascinating flatted 9th note in April in Paris that you never appreciated before.  There's the way Diana Krall's piano comping mirrors and buoys a vocal line she sings in Peel Me a Grape, the amazing bass line in Jack Mack's Hooray for the City that suddenly jumps an octave up for 2 really funky notes, the syncopated horn stabs in every Tower of Power cut ever made.......

 

There's so much more content in almost every track I own that I still discover new things even after listening to them a thousand times (which, at 74, I've done to many many recordings).  It's impossible to absorb and retain it all for 250,000+ tracks in a library - there's simply more to discover than we've identified so far.  And if your system has advanced over 30 years like the rest of ours, you should be hearing things today that you simply couldn't hear well or clearly back then because stuff is better now and so are we.  I've become more attentive to progrm details I heard but didn't fully appreciate. 

 

We listen and hear differently as we mature and learn more about what's there to discover.  Improved systems present the same program material differently, and hopefully better in some way.  Only if the audiophile and/or his or her equipment stops evolving is there nothing new to discover in our listening.  But for me and anyone else with open eyes, ears, and minds, the older I get the more I discover how much more there is for me to learn, experience, and enjoy.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, bluesman said:

I think you're missing something you will enjoy.  Among the many discoveries to be made in revisiting recordings (and live performance of familiar pieces) that you think you know intimately is that there's so much more going on in almost every musical performance than meets the eye and ear.  A second or third violin line you never heard before will suddenly catch your ear.  One of the saxophones in Basie's band plays a weird and fascinating flatted 9th note in April in Paris that you never appreciated before.  There's the way Diana Krall's piano comping mirrors and buoys a vocal line she sings in Peel Me a Grape, the amazing bass line in Jack Mack's Hooray for the City that suddenly jumps an octave up for 2 really funky notes, the syncopated horn stabs in every Tower of Power cut ever made.......

 

Agree, if you hear precisely the same information as you did before, then you will likely perceive further nuances in the performance.

 

Quote

 

There's so much more content in almost every track I own that I still discover new things even after listening to them a thousand times (which, at 74, I've done to many many recordings).  It's impossible to absorb and retain it all for 250,000+ tracks in a library - there's simply more to discover than we've identified so far.  And if your system has advanced over 30 years like the rest of ours, you should be hearing things today that you simply couldn't hear well or clearly back then because stuff is better now and so are we.  I've become more attentive to progrm details I heard but didn't fully appreciate. 

 

This is where I disagree - yes, overall stuff is better, in terms of how good it performs in a 'raw' state, but the limit will always be the data on the recording. 30 years ago my system at its best was transparent to the recording, so there was no more to be heard of the captured event, in the technical sense. What I've been doing in the interim period is to experiment with different combos of gear, to have them achieve similar capability; and to be able to do it with much greater certainty that it won't be below par.

 

Quote

We listen and hear differently as we mature and learn more about what's there to discover.  Improved systems present the same program material differently, and hopefully better in some way.  Only if the audiophile and/or his or her equipment stops evolving is there nothing new to discover in our listening.  But for me and anyone else with open eyes, ears, and minds, the older I get the more I discover how much more there is for me to learn, experience, and enjoy.

 

Disagree on improved systems presenting differently - they should always be converging to what is on the recording; anything else is just mixing a setup's signature with that of the recording ... the open minded approach, as I see it, is keep learning how that unwanted signature can intrude, and to work out ways of preventing this.

 

Link to comment
On 3/9/2021 at 5:58 PM, davide256 said:

measurements are a great tool for physical phenomena. Which music enjoyment is not, it's a complex biological phenomena impacted by heredity, physiology,

culture and education. There is a reason music is taught as an art and not a science. It's complicated and everyone's "test instrument" is different.

 


There are 3 different things at play here:

- music production (the recording of musicians playing live or in a multi-track studio mix)

- music reproduction (the playback of a recorded audio signal)

- music enjoyment (listening for pleasure)

 

The middle link is all about science.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
On 3/8/2021 at 11:09 PM, jabbr said:
On 3/7/2021 at 11:50 PM, erin said:

We could only arrive at the objective measurement from our subjective experience. Without the subjective experience the objective measurement would only be theoretical. 

 

Is English your primary language? In English we would say something like "The purpose of objective measurements is to improve subjective experience" ... is this what you mean?

 

Funny You.

English is not my primary language and I perfectly understand what Erin meant. It looks like you try to twist it to your (being a scientist) benefit ? haha

 

Funny me:

Learn from subjective experience

a. what the meaning(fulness) of measurements are;

b. what the meaningful measurements are.

 

Ad b.:

= Audio.

 

And the main fun: The objectivists try to twist this into

1. The measurements are sufficiently meaningful;

2. We should learn to not hear differences where measurements tell there aren't any.

 

Ad 2.:

Tells the non-audiophile to the audiophile.

 

There you go.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum thereafter, simply because its momentum then goes ballistic..or unpredictable.or so I understand.

So even the most objective observation will be a subjective action thereafter......

Qnap NAS (LPS) >UA ETHER REGEN (BG7TBL Master Clock) > Grimm MU1 > Mola Mola Tambaqui /Meridian 808.3> Wavac EC300B >Tannoy Canterbury SE

 

HP Rig ++ >Woo WES/ > Stax SR-009, Audeze LCD2

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, zerung said:

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum thereafter, simply because its momentum then goes ballistic..or unpredictable.or so I understand.

So even the most objective observation will be a subjective action thereafter......

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in any formal system (like Mathematics) there will always be a number of theorems that are true but can't be proven so. Does it mean that Truth is subjective?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jabbr said:

The relationship between subjective experience and measurements has been discussed for greater than a century as part of the philosophy of science, I'm rather well aware.

 

But Jonathan, it seems that you did not get my gist.

So I *am* this audiophile with "more than" experience. I hear differences anywhere from miles, blindfolded (lol). I also have those measurement tools.

The rest is history.

 

So now what ?

Am I imagining it all ?

or do I need better measurement gear ?

... It is the (subjective) former which requires the latter - and in that sequence. That's what Erin's message was (but I am not Erin). There is nothing absurd about it.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, zerung said:

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum thereafter, simply because its momentum then goes ballistic..or unpredictable.or so I understand.

So even the most objective observation will be a subjective action thereafter......

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states only that we can't know with certainty both the position and the velocity (or momentum - it's expressed both ways, and I've never seen his actual statement of it) of a subatomic particle at the same time.  What it means is that the product of uncertainties about both position and movement in particle physics has a finite minimum, and that the precision of one measurement dereases as the other becomes more precise.  It has no application beyond the physics of small particles - you can know exactly where your basketball is and how fast it's moving at the same time.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in any formal system (like Mathematics) there will always be a number of theorems that are true but can't be proven so. Does it mean that Truth is subjective?

 

Quine addressed that!

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

But Jonathan, it seems that you did not get my gist.

So I *am* this audiophile with "more than" experience. I hear differences anywhere from miles, blindfolded (lol). I also have those measurement tools.

The rest is history.

 

I am not addressing this to any person, rather the statement itself which makes no sense in English.

 

Or course you may use your subjective experiences to guide the decision about which measurements to perform. This does not mean the measurements are "based on" the subjective experiences. Einstein used thought "experiments" to guide which measurements should be done (by other scientists), you may also use thought experiments or you may use subjective listening and then you design and build a circuit, and measure in the course of doing this, and then listen again. So this is how I say this in English:

 

The measurements we perform are guided by our subjective experience.

 

In English, "guided by" and "based on" have different meanings. 

 

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

So now what ?

Am I imagining it all ?

or do I need better measurement gear ?

... It is the (subjective) former which requires the latter - and in that sequence. That's what Erin's message was (but I am not Erin). There is nothing absurd about it.

 

You and Erin can decide to use your own means of communication, you may have a shared understanding and communicate telepathically, however if you wish to communicate precisely, then the words that are used must also be precise.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, zerung said:

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum thereafter, simply because its momentum then goes ballistic..or unpredictable.or so I understand.

So even the most objective observation will be a subjective action thereafter......

 

What is a "subjective action"? You seem to be, to use an English colloquialism, mixing apples and oranges here. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discusses the limits of precision in (objective) measurements. I don't comprehend how its says anything about subjective human experiences, which are not at the quantum level.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment

Peter's in the position, as am I, of knowing that the conventional measurements are only a rough guide for predicting whether audio playback will be of an acceptable, subjective standard. We could spend our time thrashing around, trying to track down precisely what is happening to an audio signal when it crosses into the "unpleasant!" zone, say; when no normal measuring is telling us anything useful - but it's much more interesting working out ways to stop the 'badness' happening in the first place ... it's known as, priorities ... 😉.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

What is a "subjective action"? You seem to be, to use an English colloquialism, mixing apples and oranges here. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discusses the limits of precision in (objective) measurements. I don't comprehend how its says anything about subjective human experiences, which are not at the quantum level.

There is no objective observation.

The Heisenberg principles states that even an objective observation, where the location of the particle is made via objective deduction - resulting is successfully locating a particle, there after becomes unpredictable, simply as one is observing the particle.

 

Every objective view is subjective. All objective measurement via gauges, meters & the likes and measuring very well - does not mean that you get the perfect machine..I dont know what is the point of this statement? Perhaps to state that perfect measurement does not give perfect sound (In Audio).

 

Is human subjective experience not derived at a quantum level? That is one theory. Which at the best is just that. Ultimately IMHO I opine that Objective/Subjective view is a blurred position, not a binary position as many think it to be.    

 

Qnap NAS (LPS) >UA ETHER REGEN (BG7TBL Master Clock) > Grimm MU1 > Mola Mola Tambaqui /Meridian 808.3> Wavac EC300B >Tannoy Canterbury SE

 

HP Rig ++ >Woo WES/ > Stax SR-009, Audeze LCD2

Link to comment
6 hours ago, zerung said:

Is human subjective experience not derived at a quantum level? That is one theory. Which at the best is just that. Ultimately IMHO I opine that Objective/Subjective view is a blurred position, not a binary position as many think it to be.    

 

 

But people love conflict - especially when it's hyped up! The epidemic of 'reality' TV shows is testament to that - developing deeper understanding is such a boring pastime ... 🤣.

 

Step 1: Reject other people's experiences if they conflict with your own - I mean, how could they know more than you do!! 🤪

Link to comment

...perhaps what to measure can be said to be subjective (and the decision to measure at all--but almost everyone dislikes that guy), the measurement objective, and the interpretation of the measurement subjective? 
 

It's a sticky wicket, IMO, but I truly respect the engineers and scientists that have "learned the rules" and later uncovered new "rules." I married one (she has strongly advised me to stay out of this discussion, BTW). 😉
 

Honestly, if we don't take some things as at least practically objective, we'll never get the plane off the ground.


IMO that's an important underlying aspect of @jabbr's post, though I would not propose to speak for him on this or any other topic. 

I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post.10C78B47-4B41-4675-BB84-885019B72A8B.thumb.png.adc3586c8cc9851ecc7960401af05782.png

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was thinking about this. The fact that this hobby has a subjective enjoyment part and an objectively measurable component makes it fairly unique. 

Yes. In photography, although there can be equally passionate arguments between eg Leica vs Nikon vs Zeiss lense owners, the physics of the optics, sensors and publication media doesn’t seem to fall under the same dispute.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...perhaps what to measure can be said to be subjective (and the decision to measure at all--but almost everyone dislikes that guy), the measurement objective, and the interpretation of the measurement subjective? 
 

 

Oh 1000% yes
 

Quote

It's a sticky wicket, IMO, but I truly respect the engineers and scientists that have "learned the rules" and later uncovered new "rules." I married one (she has strongly advised me to stay out of this discussion, BTW). 😉

 

 

It should be obvious that a single crude measurement such a THD does not predict SQ. That said we need to, at least, understand the difference between measurements in general and subjective listening enjoyment eg SQ. Measurements might be done for marketing reasons and the objective solely to sell product. 
 

Quote


 

Honestly, if we don't take some things as at least practically objective, we'll never get the plane off the ground.


IMO that's an important underlying aspect of @jabbr's post, though I would not propose to speak for him on this or any other topic. 

 

That’s my point.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yes. In photography, although there can be equally passionate arguments between eg Leica vs Nikon vs Zeiss lense owners, the physics of the optics, sensors and publication media doesn’t seem to fall under the same dispute.

I think that’s because cameras and lenses are tool to create art.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
On 3/12/2021 at 10:45 AM, zerung said:

There is no objective observation.

Right - and that's because observation is limited in its accuracy and completeness by the powers used to observe. Those include the 5 senses plus the powers of reasoning and deduction that lead observers to color their observations.  This is why eyewitnesses to a crime offer widely varying accounts of an event they all saw in real time.

 

On 3/12/2021 at 10:45 AM, zerung said:

The Heisenberg principles states that even an objective observation, where the location of the particle is made via objective deduction - resulting is successfully locating a particle, there after becomes unpredictable, simply as one is observing the particle.

FIrst, I don't think that's what it says. It says quite simply that it's not possible to know precisely both the location and the velocity (or momentum, depending on which version you like - it's irrelevant to this discussion) of subatomic particles.  The product of the uncertainties in these two measurements is always finite.  So as one becomes more certain, the other becomes less so.  No measurement can be made without a confidence interval around it.

 

Second, it only applies to subatomic particles.  It does not extend to audio, philosophy, baseball, or the culinary arts.

 

You simply Kant (🙃) apply such science to "human subjective experience".  The objective deduction (if, by that term, you mean one of the triad that includes transcendental and subjective deductions) is a "positive attempt to establish the content of a priori knowledge".  It seems to me to have nothing at all to do with Heisenberg, particle physics, or audio design.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was thinking about this. The fact that this hobby has a subjective enjoyment part and an objectively measurable component makes it fairly unique. 

 

Hmmm ... I look at car motoring magazines - and every article has lots of measurement numbers about the vehicle; and then the seat of the pants evaluation by drivers - quite often the car with excellent numbers is not the one that gets the nod; the vehicle working as a system doesn't add up to a satisfying package, and doesn't get a subjective tick ...

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...