Trust your ears

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that many subjectivists want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

They want to be able to freely share their opinions on the rest of the forum without being "harassed" by objectivists AND come into this sub-forum to attack those with a more objectivist view of the world.

 

 

 

I encourage people to report this when it happens in either subjective or objective forums. It ain't right. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

What ain't right is the atmosphere here.

 

I suppose my previous post got NOT deleted by accident ?

This is the objective sub-forum. If your comment isn't objective, it doesn't belong. We have plenty of other areas to discuss subjective items. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, PeterSt said:

It was objective. I asked to proved something which should make the thread subject legit.

So, move the thread then ?

 

Some people seem to think it is still fun in here.

It is not. Not at all.

 

Mind you, the same people bash at everyone by now. I can do too, until I'm banned. But I'd sincerely hope you ban the others first. After that it may be a better world, again. And again for a while maybe.

Really ...

 

Peter, if you don't have fun here, I highly recommend you take some time away. 

 

It's also not lost on me that @March Audio seems to find his way into every argumentative thread. 

 

People bashing isn't allowed. If you see it, report it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

I don't think the subject of the thread is all that controversial. The definition of "ears" in "Trust your ears" might be 😎

 

As an objectively-minded person, I fully trust my ears. I trust my ears to tell me if I prefer something, if I enjoy something, or if I can hear differences, and also if I cannot. To me "my ears" means just that -- my ears and my brain. No other senses should exert an influence, not any preconceived notions, opinions of others, no reviews, or even measurements. 

 

Since I have no way to block all these external influences out of my mind, a good double-blind test is the only way I know to determine what I'm actually hearing. The only way to exclude all the superfluous influences that have nothing to do with sound. It's not that I like taking blind tests, or that I think they are a fun way to spend the time. It's that I've been fooled enough times in sighted/non-blinded tests to know that it is an unreliable way to judge. So, I can fully agree with the subject of the thread, if we can only make a tiny change:  Trust only your ears.

 

 

 

Well said.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Let's not forgot the folks that seem to follow him from thread to thread, nipping at his heels...

Yes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes 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.

 

I don't think there is a commonality "between the audiophile "trust your ears" subjectivist camp and the larger antiscience movement." 

 

I see the larger anti-science movement as much more political, religious, and involving perceived freedom. I see the audiophile "trust your ears" camp as people who have disposable income (a lot or a little) and find this stuff enjoyable. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, skikirkwood said:

 

It's interesting Chris, I actually first made this point back in 2015 to, of all people, Michael Lavorgna, when he was the editor of Audiostream. I posted a comment on an article of his, questioning whether he was being objective or catering to his advertisers and he went ballistic. He emailed me with a really obnoxious message, threatened to ban me on Audiostream should I ever question his intentions again, etc. This was the year before Trump won the presidential election. 

 

I told ML I thought what I observed in much of high-end audio was similar to what I was seeing in the political world. That was six years ago. So yes, except for people being careless when upgrading fuses, nothing in the subjective audio world will kill people. However, I think the thought processes and approaches to knowledge formulation that I see in much of the subjectivist audiophile world do have a potential of cross-over into other domains.

 

I certainly hear you. I can only go by what I know from experience. I've met audiophiles all over the world, including three this past week in Los Angeles. They are all very smart people who understand science as well as anyone. However, audio is an escape for them and they'd rather not get involved with double blind tests, graphs, charts, etc... They understand measurements and numbers can be used the same way as statistics are used in their own businesses (potentially deceptively), and they just elect to have fun doing whatever they please in audio. Fun for them doesn't involve anything we discuss in the objective-fi sub-forum. 

 

I like both camps and find value in both. As long as discussions remain civil, I find value in all of them. That's just me though. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, skikirkwood said:

 

As you can see from my profile, I don't post a lot here. And I don't post on any other audiophile forum. So when I'm not listening to music I try to do something useful for the community at large. I spent many hours nights and weekends creating Volumio's Spotify plug-in a few years ago. It was a lot of work, and my first major project coding in Node.js. But it was a lot of fun and it feels good to know that many of the 400,000 active Volumio users are enjoying listening to Spotify with the code I wrote.

 

And as for my original post here, it itself was bit of an experiment. I was curious what range of reactions the post would elicit, and wanted to see how quickly somebody would personally insult me. It didn't take that long. That's why I don't usually post stuff here.

Where’s the personal insult? I will take action. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

I need to upgrade my 22 year old Bryston Amp. I need to upgrade my Modi's to Yggy's. No, I don't, I am happy as is. And when someone tells me I need to do an expensive upgrade to achieve better sound quality, but it won't, I challenge them to prove it to me with a simple bet. Nobody has ever taken me up on this.

Given this is the objective sub forum, do you know how your 22 year old amp measures compared to the day it was released? Would be really interesting to see how well it has held up, given there are parts that age within the amp. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I will clean up this thread, but it's a real soup sandwich. I'm about to record a podcast and will get to it later today. 

 

If people can't help themselves, I'll just lock it. 

 

Remember, use the IGNORE feature for people you don't get along with. Nobody at home is keeping score. You don't have to respond to everything.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@PeterSt and @manueljenkin stay out of this thread. Start your own if you want to talk about anything related to this thread. 
 

It just doesn’t work to have you guys commenting on this thread. I hate to say it, but it’s true. Fortunately, you’re free to say what you’d like in another thread. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

That’s what I’m saying I believe I recall: Toole and/or Olive referring to an orientation given listeners they characterized as untrained, and when I tracked down the orientation, it did indeed talk about how to listen for flatter frequency response.

Let’s ask @Tonmeister (Sean Olive). 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, skikirkwood said:

I like brands that back their stuff.

Absolutely. This is extremely important to me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, skikirkwood said:

 

I have no idea, but that certainly would be interesting to find out. I believe when I sent the amp for the frayed chord  back to Bryston they "tuned up" everything, perhaps upgrading some capacitors and other things. And I know they did do measurements on it before they sent it back to me.

 

If I could get my hands on some Schiit Aegirs and Vidars I would love to A/B them compared to the Bryston. But I'm not confident enough that I will hear a difference to risk having to pay for the restocking fees.

 

This would be a really cool topic for another thread. How well does equipment measure long after the date it's put in use. We talk-up components that last a long time, but I've never seen measurements of such component. Do they turn on and produce music for a long time or do they measure within the window of acceptable change once they are 20+ years old. Interesting stuff. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

 

It was several years ago, but I remember when I talked to the Bryston tech on the phone he mentioned how they fully measure/test every piece of equipment sent to them for repair and ensure the product meets their measurement criteria before shipping it back to you. I thought that was really interesting. I think Bryston tech repair in the U.S. is one dude working in Vermont. If it's the same one, he's very friendly, and would probably tell you in more detail what their process is here. 

Bryston is a great company. If you missed my interview with James for the podcast, here's a link -