Trust your ears

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I care even less about arguing with anyone else

 

 

Your posts to this thread and others is strong evidence that this isn't true.

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

You have not, it is not possible. But, no worry, I've stopped arguing within my head, and I care even less about arguing with anyone else. Have a nice day.

How do you know it’s not possible? Have you been to my mind? Anything’s possible here, I think on the scale of infinitely many universes and can see all reality as it really is. Prove that this is not true. You can’t do it, because you gave up too early.

[AnotherSpin]

46 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

How do you know it’s not possible? Have you been to my mind? Anything’s possible here, I think on the scale of infinitely many universes and can see all reality as it really is. Prove that this is not true. You can’t do it, because you gave up too early.

 

You know about these many universes? They are in your knowing? Do you know about all reality you see?

[skikirkwood]

Back when Michael Lavorgna was the editor of Audiostream, I found his commentary to be among the most obnoxious "Trust you ears" reviewer out there. Although not a day job for him, Jay Luong of audiobacon.com has now taken over. Check out his posting on the 27 Best Audiophile Power Cables: https://audiobacon.net/2019/08/17/27-audiophile-power-cables-reviewed/

 

So of course he could never distinguish any of these cables in a blind test, so he needs up front to deflect this:

 

Quote

Blind tests are pointless for the same reason why the skeptics request them – your mind is always playing tricks on you. – Audio Bacon

 

Read the comment thread and audiobacon describing objectivists as "measurement morons". Even Lavorgna was never this acerbic. It gets better as people ask audiobacon's opinion on the best matching power cable with their system. And audiobacon talks about power chords that are warm, cool... It's totally crazy stuff, and some of his readers obviously believe him.

 

Now let's take a look who is advertising on his site. Audience cables. What a surprise. So let's click on the ad abd go to the Power Chords part of the site: https://audience-av.com/powerchord/

 

$1000 power chords. Is there anything on the site that backs up Audience's claim of not only an improvement in sound, but one that is "nothing short of transformational". No, instead, there is the standard questioning of "conventional science" and "existing test procedures".

 

Quote

Not all electronic phenomena are understood by conventional science or revealed through existing test procedures. The superior sonic enhancement of a good high performance audio/video power cord is no exception. While aftermarket power cords are a most controversial subject, the improvements they offer are also the most easily demonstrated. In many systems going from a stock power cord to a high quality cord designed for audio/video playback can be nothing short of transformational.

 

So science can't explain it, existing test procedures can't measure it, but you are going to hear a difference that is transformational. Did I read that right? I've read similar things in interviews with Bob Stuart on MQA. This almost mystical like thing that science just can't explain it all, so that's why you should trust and believe in him.

 

I don't see a very big difference between the Qanon crowd believing that Trump was fighting a cabal of Satanic cannibalistic pedophiles that ran a global sex trafficking ring and the people following audiobacon's every word about $1000 dollar power, USB and ethernet cables. 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

Back when Michael Lavorgna was the editor of Audiostream, I found his commentary to be among the most obnoxious "Trust you ears" reviewer out there. Although not a day job for him, Jay Luong of audiobacon.com has now taken over. Check out his posting on the 27 Best Audiophile Power Cables: https://audiobacon.net/2019/08/17/27-audiophile-power-cables-reviewed/

 

I thought ML was bad but this guy takes the gold in the Wanker Olympics.

 

[skikirkwood]

16 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Surely, you are not seriously suggesting that people can't hear the difference between lossy formats such as MP3 and lossless Red Book standard audio. And despite your opinion to the contrary, the issue under discussion is very much a matter of opinion based, in the case of subjectivists, on repeatable experience. Accordingly, I see no point in carrying on this "debate" any further. Bye!

 

When Archimago tried to determine whether people could hear the difference between lossy and lossless formats he determined some could. And especially for those with higher-end systems, they actually preferred lossy MP3 over lossless:

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your posts to this thread and others is strong evidence that this isn't true.

 

I'm not arguing, just suggesting to see for yourselves what's actual. It doesn't matter what I know, it matters what you know. If anyone knows an example of an object that exists without the knowing subject, please share, it would be very interesting 🙃

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

If anyone knows an example of an object that exists without the knowing subject, please share, it would be very interesting 🙃

 

I'm sure there are an almost infinite number of objects that exist without my knowledge of their existence.

 

Asking someone to identify an object that they know nothing about though is similar to asking questions like "Did you forget something?" or "Are you asleep?"

 

By the way, how do we "see for ourselves what's actual"?

 

 

[AnotherSpin]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm sure there are an almost infinite number of objects that exist without my knowledge of their existence.

 

Asking someone to identify an object that they know nothing about though is similar to asking questions like "Did you forget something?" or "Are you asleep?"

 

By the way, how do we "see for ourselves what's actual"?

 

 

 

Do you know they exist without your knowledge?

 

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Do you know they exist without your knowledge?

 

 

Yes, because I am constantly discovering new things that I never knew existed before.

[AnotherSpin]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Yes, because I am constantly discovering new things that I never existed before.

 

If you know an object, it exists for you. If you don't know the object yet, it does not exist for you. You, as knowing subject exist before, during and after you know any object, old or new.

 

If that's hard to understand, ok, no problem, you win! And I'll go back to watching Netflix.

[idiot_savant]

Erm, is it just me, but is this really appropriate for this forum?

 

I think we can all agree philosophy is not objective?

 

Any Douglas Adams stuff always welcome

 

 

Your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

Any Douglas Adams stuff always welcome

Was he an objectivist?

[idiot_savant]

He was very funny - a tragic loss, there can be no argument about that? Understood ( mostly ) the science

 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[pkane2001]

Just now, idiot_savant said:

He was very funny - a tragic loss, there can be no argument about that? Understood ( mostly ) the science

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

So, objectively funny, then.

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

If you know an object, it exists for you. If you don't know the object yet, it does not exist for you. You, as knowing subject exist before, during and after you know any object, old or new.

 

If that's hard to understand, ok, no problem, you win! And I'll go back to watching Netflix.

 

No, you win.

 

You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread with your metaphysical musings.

[idiot_savant]

@pkane2001 - funnily enough, I was collating evidence and proof he was funny, but I accidentally triggered my infinite improbability drive and all was lost…

 

 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@pkane2001 - funnily enough, I was collating evidence and proof he was funny, but I accidentally triggered my infinite improbability drive and all was lost…

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

They don’t make these drives like they used to! Not recoverable, is it?

[idiot_savant]

Ah, that’s the thing - I believe a drive can be recoverable but not infinitely improbably recoverable. Or something. 
 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Asking someone to identify an object that they know nothing about though is similar to asking questions like "Did you forget something?"...

 

Or, perhaps better still IMO, "What did you forget?" Or, when you are trying to find a lost object, "Where did you put it?" 🙂

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Or, when you are trying to find a lost object, "Where did you put it?" 🙂

 

Isn't it amazing that lost objects are always in the last place you look?

[skikirkwood]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Isn't it amazing that lost objects are always in the last place you look?

 

And don't forget, no matter where you go, there you are.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

People might sometimes believe that they have accurate and reliable hearing, but I doubt it.   Is is only by chance and not from an assumed fact that hearing might be consistent.   A set of measurements from day to day for some amount of time might give a baseline.   This variability might get worse as we get older, but my assumptions of consistency have been totally wrong.

 

Everyone who can tell the difference between a hifi system, and live music making, sight unseen, has hearing that's accurate enough, 🙂.

 

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

 I am GREAT at detecting defects in audio, but have NO tells regarding frequency response in my hearing, and no difference 'feeling'.   I can detect modulation distortion, almost any kind of distortion,within my ability to hear, MILES away, but cannot know the frequency range of my hearing unless I do a direct comparison of something that I heard before.  If listening to material that I don't know, my ability to describe the spectrum above about 5kHz is incredibly unreliable.  It takes a reference comparison to make any judgements at all.

 

Very similar here ... it's why I can't abide nearly all high end audio rigs, because their defects are far too obvious, 😉 - and FR changes I find matter less and less the better the system - it's trivially obvious with a cheap car radio when you fiddle with the treble control; but that's because you're adjusting the level of the treble distortion, which many people are very sensitive to.

 

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

Bottom line, our egos will tell us that subjective measurements are accurate, but not necessarily representing reality.  SOME subjective measurements might be useful, but still, not to trust if one's life is dependent on it.  Also, with my engineering background, have also found some strange, parametric effects that might actually vary the spectral sensitivity based upon the coincedental material.   That is, one signal might actually pump the sensitivity at another frequency.  This should be investigated, because static frequency range experiments have been done over and over again.

'

So long as what you hear matches live sound very closely then the subjective measurements have the right sort of accuracy - if one's hearing, no matter how twisted it may happen to be, hears a real piano, and then a reproduced one, then they should match. If the sounds are miles apart, in the things that matter, then one of those sounds are wrong ... perhaps the real piano, 🤪 ?

 

IOW, your human hearing mangling of what enters the ears matters not at all - so long as the sounds correlate, that's all that matters ... for you 🙂.

 

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

The hearing sensitivity and various aspects of hearing acuity are interesting subjects, but except in the youngest individuals who probably havent' been trained well to detect anything but 'tones', I doubt that there is much reliability when trying to do measurements by hearing.

 

As someone who has been abused by subjective measurements, please please, for your own sanity, try the objective methods first!!!   'Hearing' isn't all that reliable for measurment.

 

 

 

I couldn't care less what a person with with instrumentation perfect ears hears ... that's completely irrelevant - to my world, 😁.

[kumakuma]

39 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

 

And don't forget, no matter where you go, there you are.

 

Yeah, it feels like deja vu all over again.

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

No, you win.

 

You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread with your metaphysical musings.

Just report his posting.  Chris has already rebuked him once for trolling.  He is just spamming multiple threads with this metaphysical BS. Hopefully he can be removed.