Jump to content

pkane2001

  • Content Count

    2323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pkane2001

  • Rank
    Galactic Wanderer

Recent Profile Visitors

2835 profile views
  1. That looks great! Can you post one with a wider frequency range, say 20-20KHz?
  2. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    No need. I stated my definition, which is derived entirely from my own experience. As you said, the only tenable position is that of being an epistemological solipsist. So, in accepting your philosophy, I have no proof of your existence. Since I'm the only one that I can be certain to exist, I set all the rules. It is a logical conclusion that I must always be right, since I can't trust opinions expressed by others who may or may not be real
  3. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Have you been reading this forum? This is expressed on a daily basis as the reason measurements and controlled testing cannot be taken seriously. Because what a golden ear audiophile hears cannot be measured, since we don't know how to measure it, or our equipment or understanding of audio is not good enough. So, what makes you a subjectivist?
  4. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    I'm not sure I understand. But if you are saying that Ockham's Razor should not be applied to audio because we don't have all the facts and research, I think that's incorrect. It can be applied at any stage of inquiry. As you dig deeper into a subject, you may find new data that invalidates your previously 'simplest' explanation. Then it's time to come up with a new one. Current state of our understanding of electronics, audio, sound, is such that we know a whole lot more than we don't know. And the reports from golden ear audiophiles doing uncontrolled listening tests does not rise anywhere close to a level of invalidating established theories and design. This is because there is a much simpler explanation for these reports: uncontrolled bias and variable perception.
  5. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    I like how you subtly try to put words in my mouth, Jud I also didn’t say anything about prevailing, just about simplest explanation being preferred.
  6. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    It depends on the context. Toole, et al, performed subjective testing using double-blind tests. This is because he was doing objective testing of subjective preferences. This is a perfectly valid, scientific method when used with proper controls and reported with proper statistical analysis. In fact, Toole was extremely adamant about the need for blind tests in such subjective testing. Audiophile subjectivism is a belief in the infallibility of human hearing and perception. That's completely different than having subjective preferences, which all of us do. Same word, different meaning.
  7. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Note that I didn't say "simple", I said "simplest". That's significant.
  8. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    There is no justification needed to use a pure sine wave to measure some properties of a system. All the more complex signals, from square waves to music can be decomposed into some combination of sine waves. If your point is that a single sine wave is not sufficient to completely characterize an audio component or system, then I agree. But, the argument that you can only measure equipment with real music is the one that needs justification, as it is contrary to science and mathematics. IMHO, it only exists to justify the 'golden ear' audiophile myth. That said, I tend to measure equipment with a single sine, multiple fixed frequency sines, sine sweeps, and music recordings.
  9. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    I do agree with you on this.
  10. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    Unfortunately, that's part of the standard "subjectivist" platform to accuse all objectivists of this straw man argument. While I consider myself an objectivist, I'm open to learn and to find things that don't fit into my world-view. I'm more than curious about these, I seek them out and try to prove or disprove them, try to analyze them, try to understand them. There are many others here that do the same. Not that I'm a working scientist, but scientists live for an opportunity to find something yet unexplained by existing theories, something that can result in a new theory and maybe even help overturn an old one. That's what moves science forward. But there is no evidence in an uncontrolled audiophile test for a scientist to even become mildly interested in getting involved. On the other hand, I'm all for it. I love audio, I love music, I've been an audiophile for most of my life. Prove it to me. Or give me enough reason to believe you. Or describe what you are doing in detail so I can repeat the experiment and prove it to myself. Or just state that this is your uncontrolled, subjective experience and has nothing to do with science and engineering. All of these are valid. What's not valid is to insist that science is wrong or somehow deficient on the basis of sighted listening tests alone. This kind of evidence will not be accepted in any scientific community and for a good reason: there's already a good explanation for these differences. It's called human perception.
  11. pkane2001

    Subjective / Objective , Philosophy of Science

    You forgot one other, very likely explanation: maybe what we hear is not measurable because it is not part of the electronic audio reproduction chain, but rather created by our own perception. In science, the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is the one that is preferred. And our perception is the simplest explanation for most of these 'unmeasurable' differences.
  12. pkane2001

    The flaws of blind listening tests

    Was it at least linear to 20 sips? That's about the limit of all existing wine linearity.
  13. pkane2001

    The flaws of blind listening tests

    Apparently I forgot to include the sarcasm emoji. Apologies.
  14. pkane2001

    The flaws of blind listening tests

    flat-earther = trust your open eyes
  15. pkane2001

    The flaws of blind listening tests

    Or like a flat-earther, who can tell that the earth is flat by just looking. All measurements of curvature are wrong, it's plainly obvious to anyone only willing to open their eyes.
×