Jump to content

Is it worth it?


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Sorry to have such a kind of almost suicidal title here, but…

 

from my recent experiences on this forum, being objective gets you nowhere. I’ve tried explaining pretty basic stuff until I’m blue in the face, but because someone “believes” something, that is more important. If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed. 
 

I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky - I believed so hard a bit of poo came out, but I was still somehow still on the ground?

 

Are we wasting our time here? Does it matter?

 

*edit* this might actually be a subjective piece ;)

 

*edit of the edit* - I’m here as I don’t like stupid mad things posted as “fact” in a subject I’m interested in - there is genuine innovation going on by various players with graphs and everything, and I don’t like it being confused with swapping out one kind of voodoo for another

 

your friendly ( as always ) neighbourhood idiot 

 

My experiences of this forum, is that almost none of the threads are objective or even aiming on being objective. Just read the name of the topics and first post and you can see that they are not objective at all.

 

Objective means based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings. Sound and sound quality can only be determined by using at least one of our sense, our hearing. More senses can/are often used together IRL.

 

FYI: The human sense of hearing is subjective and depends on how electrical signals from the ear are interpreted by the brain. Psycho-acoustics is a discipline that studies this area and it turns out that in addition to purely technical factors, there are several aspects that affect how we perceive it to sound.

 

If something is truly objective, then it’s completely independent of the subject. Objective realities are not open to subjective opinions, they are facts. Music and sound quality are subjective no matter how much you want it to objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, idiot_savant said:

@PeterSt - you see, this is where we aren’t going to see eye to eye - if I do something, and something changes I didn’t expect, I need to know *why* - otherwise how can I be sure I don’t undo it next time? Maybe there is an easier way? This whole trying things at random then trying to come up with plausible explanations isn’t engineering…

 

I’m all for people trying things out, but that can be dangerous - let’s imagine we think replacing a fuse with a bit of wire sounds better? 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

It's not about trying at random it's about doing observations. Without confirmed observations, everything are just hypotheses. I wish that you would know just how many inventions and theories that are based on things that happen in the natur and that we humans just copy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

In an objective forum, why are the subjective opinions allowed to continually spam away without any factual basis. Your audio equipment does not function on subjective engineering. I wouldn't want to stifle the ideas people present, but the theory should be presented in an objective manner with some actual testing and trial to either prove or dispel the idea. 

 

There is only one way to determine sound quality and that is to use our hearing. But even then consider that not everyone wants it to sound the same IRL, so one should not think so just because we debate playback equipment. Some people think that Gibson Les Paul has the best electric guitar sound while others prefer Stratocaster and some do not like the sound of electric guitars and prefer acoustic guitars like Martin D-28. Is one objectively better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@Summit - you are, of course correct in saying that many advances in science often happen by accident, but the key thing is understanding what that accident meant. 
 

As for guitars, they are musical instruments so will have a character. My problem is that if we start thinking of hifi in this way, we are surely moving away from the “fi” bit - surely we are trying to reproduce whatever the artist intended, rather than mucking about with it?

 

think of it this way - I might enjoy a bit of “warmth” that 2nd harmonics give us, but what if there were already lots in the original, and then my CD player and my amp also add more 2nds? There’s going to be way too much?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

Its not really what I meant. Am talking about objective observations and evolution. The theory of evolution is one of our most comprehensive scientific theories, and applications of the theory are used in many areas of society. The theory of evolution is an overarching main theory that sheds light on all biological sub-sciences, such as genetics, biochemistry, physiology, behavioral science, etc. The theory is supported in return by all these sub-sciences. There are also a huge number of different branches of science that, both together and individually, confirm that an evolution has taken place and is taking place.

 

Yes all musical instruments have a character, a sound. The fundamental fact is that we all have preference for how *it* should taste, feel and sound like. If one believe that all people have the same food/beverage taste they would be laughed at. We all have bias. Bais as liking a type of sound or character. Which is objective?

 

Yes exactly, many studies show that most people prefer a little bit extra 2nd harmonics. The question is whether these tests are done on High End systems with really good recordings, or on more mediocre audio systems where a little harmonic distortion can actually sound  more lifelike.

 

I have said what I wanted to say and leave it to the rest of you to debate this and other things of interest further. Here's a little more about how I look at objectivity and subjectivity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 2:00 AM, fas42 said:

It's pretty clear that most people haven't experienced a setup that is so 'transparent' that it becomes easy to hear the individual tracks that were laid down in a complex mix - the acoustic of each of say a dozen different sound elements sits in the space in front of you, all on top of each other; completely different, individual, unique - but easily identifiable and standing out clearly from the others. Almost certainly not what the mastering engineer wanted - but that's what's there, on the recording ... and that's one of the signatures, of accuracy ...  🙂.

 

Only you have experienced a transparent setup. We get it, but don't buy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 4:09 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. The Objective-Fi sub forum exists for this reason. 

 

I have no problem with that. It's the lack of showed correlation between what's measured att the output of DAC or amp and actually SQ that's rarely presented objectively in those so called objective threads, IME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...