Trust your ears

[Iving]

Point well-taken!

imo - In SQ perception, as in life abroad, the truth may lie "in between".

e.g. #1 - Formal arguments may be presented reconciling "free will" and "determinism" - proposing that subjective experience of "control" is illusion/vanity (evolutionary advantage maybe etc) and that what actually happens is our resistance or acquiescence wrt the countless "invitations" that life throws at us moment by moment.

e.g. #2 - Women are brighter (better) than men vs. men are brighter (better) than women. Actually the average IQ is 100 in both sexes. Statistically the "normal distribution" may be flatter in men (more Mozarts, more dunces) and there are *small* differences in ability e.g. women better verbal and men better visuo-spatial.

Back to SQ. Of course we fool ourselves. "Cognitive Dissonance" is a well-recognised phenomenon in psychology. I suspect individual differences in suggestibility are in play too. Also the moral quality (good and bad) of audio kit businesses. There is much variation in the world.

What’s really interesting to me is the extent to which I may not be able to see distortion in my own perception. I am open-minded about this – yet it would going way too far to argue that my system has not changed roughly the way I think it has over big time.

You can’t resort to ABX only. ABX is convincing when it is demonstrated. But the absence of a statistically significant effect is not proof that one doesn’t exist – nor that other effects not considered may be in play. You can’t cover all bases with a single ABX challenge. You can only *develop an argument*.

Even though I spend way too much time online, I don’t think I have ever read about a single actual large scale study convincing enough to settle things in favour of “audiophools” on the one hand or sceptics on the other. As in science proper – even when a statistical effect is absent *or* present – the protagonists carry on arguing over the Research Question, the Design, the Method and the logic/rigour of Conclusions.

The *real* problem here is a human / relational one. It arises when someone (on either side) just gotta be right. Cause of all wars etc.

:-)

P.S. Just say we are terribly deluded about SQ - just as in your vignette. It makes me wonder how mastering engineers ever cut their mustard. “I tweaked this or that - but how may I know it is better or worse?” ABX we reply? For goodness’ sake!

[Iving]

The Thread Title (and possibly intent) is bait.

 

You can't debate both sides of "Trust your ears" harnessing empirical data. It's implicit in "Trust your ears" that empirical data are overridden.

 

In Objective-Fi, the Thread as launched ("omg i thought i could hear a difference, but i hadn't even changed input source - geddit?") is at best an echo chamber. At worst it becomes tinder for the same old tensions.

 

The gap between soft-Objective and soft-Subjective can/should be had out as argument. But not here.

[Iving]

1 hour ago, skikirkwood said:

For the record, I've been concerned about the growing antiscience movement since 2015. And as I mentioned previously, I see a lot of commonality between the audiophile "trust your ears" subjectivist camp and the larger antiscience movement.

 

Instead of saying you are an objectivist or subjectivist, the better question is what method do you have for acquiring knowledge. And what makes you think your methodology is valid? It's clear that I am firmly in the camp of using the scientific method of acquiring knowledge. And this involves careful observation, rigorous skepticism about what you observe, formulating hypotheses based upon observations and experimental and measurement-based testing.

 

So I guess that makes me an objectivist, however who does not subscribe to the scientific method? I see the whole "Trust your ears" camp as being the antithesis of the scientific method. No double-blind testing, no measurements, and even worse, long-term listening, where you are relying on long-term memory of audio tracks.

 

Getting back to my example of the Audience power cables website page. Let's say these $1000 power cables really did make a difference in sound. Transformational even. Ok, then if I was the CMO of Audience I would gather a bunch of industry pundits - reviewers for Stereophile, TAS, and others, and have them do a double-blind test of their cables in a controlled experiment. Should the majority of reviewers be able to reliably tell the difference in sound in these tests you would be able to build a hugely successful marketing campaign for your cables. No need to advertise on audiobacon's blog anymore. Hell, even I would consider trying one out. 

 

But that's never happened, and it never will happen, because Audience knows there is absolutely no merit to their products, other than they look cool.

 

imo it makes sense to divorce the macro from the micro.

 

At the macro level, perhaps it's legitimate to argue an "antiscience" (or similar) case wrt big business. I understand that people might want to grind an axe regards deception and rip-offs. This would be a quasi-political endeavour. I think if you're going to take a pejorative view of a particular business you should be willing to defend your position - because of the potential harm done if your position is faulty or unfair.

 

At the micro level, I have been a career academic scientist, yet have no trouble (let's say cognitive dissonance) building my system without recourse to blind tests etc. I think I should be able to share my experiences socially on this Forum free of demand for proof. If I am wrong about something, there's no harm done except to myself. I read other people's experiences with a pinch of salt. We are adults and can do that. If we hobbyists are fooled by each other, well then we deserve our mugging.

 

About "ears". I've said the like before. There's a twilight zone in which knowledge and understandings have not yet been established but *could* be - invoking the scientific method that is. It's such a disappointment that polar positions are resumed as soon as conversations begin. There's so much unexploited diverse talent and expertise here. For example, I'd like to see, in Objective-Fi, folks posting an interesting and answerable research question accompanied by a proposed method for addressing it. There would only be any point in doing so if a positive, conspiratorial debate ensued culminating in an actual experiment. That's why I don't do it!

 

Never mind. It is a fun hobby. And this *is* a fun place!

[Iving]

16 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

You omitted to mention the individuals who interact with you who are simply incredulous that anyone could take themselves as seriously as you do. So they're here for the entertainment factor.

 

Indeed the entertainment factor is awesome - at times. Better than TV.

But I suspect it does render most of the AS "family" spectators rather than participants. It's the other side of the same coin.

Nothing wrong with a bit of excitement. Even better to foster inclusivity imho.

[Iving]

23 minutes ago, Confused said:

most people are not interested in a bar fight ...  it only takes two to start a bar fight ... HiFi Wigwam forum ... has a public bar area where (much like in a UK pub), anything can be discussed.  It also has a pub car park area ... for those that just want to fight can go and have the said fight, while the normal folk remain in the bar having a civilised chat.  There might be something to learn here.

 

A little birdie told me that ASR used to have a "Fight Club". Doesn't exist anymore. Lesson learned there? In Amir's own words, "I don't know how to keep it civilized and have its value be above the damage it causes to relationship between members. It is as if many people become different folks the moment they participate in these discussions. Sigh."

 

I admit I find a little disruption (in ordinary non-Fight Club Threads) entertaining. But the far more important issue is that "bar fights" keep the regulars out ... imo the quality of Thread content is compromised in exact proportion wrt the low-grade relational crap that goes on within it.

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Confused said:

Personally I would go for an "Oi you, car park now" option

 

lol ... me too