Ex-subjectivists on ASR

[mhardy6647]

As Gorgonzola you have no choice. Maybe if frozen?

Cheesy -- but good.

 

[mhardy6647]

I used to be a subjectivist makes me think of DC's own -- the late, great* Root Boy Slim.

_________________
* I cannot think of a better adjective.

 

[tuga]

I believe everything sounds the same, therefore I am.

 

[Music1969]

Why not a "hard" objectivist today?

This is a good question for me to think about too.

I'm very happy today with listening to music on my headphones system today - everything ticks the objective boxes.

But the most happy headphones system years ago was when I wasn't so focused on measurements and with a DAC and headamp that measured very averagely here on ASR

Granted while the DAC and amp years ago were average, the headphones (makes the biggest difference) was the HD800S (good).

Since I was most happy back then, maybe ignorance is bliss?

Maybe I just really miss the HD800S from back then and need to get them back LOL

 

[Axo1989]

But what if I have no explanation of my stance?

That's one way to avoid incoherence.

 

[Zgrado1970]

Unobjective crying duly noted

Travis was right. You managed to both miss the point and come across as pedantic (about Ayn Rand no less, lol) at the same time.

 

[Axo1989]

As Gorgonzola you have no choice. Maybe if frozen?

Mmm soft cheese and dry wine correlate with my preferences. I'll put vodka in the freezer sometimes ...

 

[Multicore]

I don't accept the frame. I have always been more interested in equipment's real measurable performance and engineering, to the extent available, when it comes to choosing the audio gear I spend my money on, since the 80s. But I consider myself a subjectivist because that's what matters. Technical understanding certainly helps but in the end we choose the gear we want for the entertainment we seek.

 

[Axo1989]

That's because Matt et al can't discern false dichotomies. An Objectivist is a follower of Ayn Rand.
Everyone is a Subjectivist, myself and Floyd Toole et al included.
The difference/real dichotomy, is that most people on audio forums falsely equate "Subjective" with "uncontrolled".
Everyone of us subjectively evaluates sound etc, etc, etc on a daily basis. Toole's tests were almost entirely subjective evaluations, as are most listening tests.
The only difference, is blind/controlled vs sighted/uncontrolled. All subjective.
THAT is the only dichotomy.

I traced this one back from @Zgrado1970 here (despite ignore settings) and I'd agree entirely (initial mild insult aside). I'd like it too but that might be taken as general encouragement. If you would filter your insights from the too frequent agro I reckon your posts/perspectives would be pretty interesting, fwiw.

 

[pablolie]

how is Ayn Rand (a total fraud, intellectually) in any way related to making any sort of objectivist point? her idiotic seat of the pants philosophy was never based on science.

 

[Axo1989]

Anyway on the topic I'm not a converted subjectivist and was ok with the soft objectivist category for the thread's purposes. There may be a tendency for former subjectivists to do the reformed smoker/alcoholic thing and rail against their former vices.

I've found acoustics interesting for a fair while and that's hard to do without measuring. Living in different places did give some insight into how we experience/adjust to our environment/culture/architecture. An old Japanese timber and paper house is pretty different from a modern concrete apartment.

I was also interested in a recent thread where some hard objectivists (again accepting this threads terms) weren't able to reliably differentiate recordings of a tube amp that measured poorly. Things that are measurable—but perhaps not immediately obvious—like THD profile and masking came into play (along with listening skill I expect). So when the link between audibility and measurement isn't obvious it likely means there are complexities not taken into account, more than actually magic. But music is somewhat magical, subjectively speaking.

 

[raif71]

Before coming to this site, I had never heard of objectivist/subjectivist camp. Read about the NwAvGuy which led me to ASR. That was about 4 years ago. Initially I wanted to be in the objectivist camp but after doing the whole blind test...I'm in the middle position hence the soft objectivist camp. Yes, when doing blind test I will fail and cannot detect any differences between DACs but after listening actively/practically... and not blindly, there are differences, nuances in sound and the fact that playing with amp's volume... how the sound changes and respond will differ with different DACs. It is this differences in user experience with audio gears that make me in the middle. Objectively I will pick audio gears that measure well but also take into account anecdotal views and demo the gears before buying them. Best of both worlds eh?

 

[kemmler3D]

how is Ayn Rand (a total fraud, intellectually) in any way related to making any sort of objectivist point?

I agree with your assessment of Rand (and then some) but she called her political philosophy "objectivism"... which for anyone with their head screwed on straight, is the first of many huge red flags.

 

[Keith_W]

I like to think that anyone who has a STEM background would also have an objective view on audio technology.

I am a physician by training, which means I have read a lot of medical journals, seen a lot of patients, and ordered a lot of tests. Here are a few random observations about tests and academic journals:

1. The test, or measurement, or data is objective, but interpretation of the test is subjective.
2. Even laboratory and diagnostic tests are fallible and the result has to be interpreted in context of the clinical picture.
3. In academic journals, how the data has been collected plays a huge role in how meaningful or applicable it is.
4. Double blind placebo controlled trials are the gold standard, but it is easy to achieve a null result if you do not perform your experiment properly.
5. What is published in the journals may not be applicable to the patient sitting in front of you. In fact, it probably isn't.

So I am more skeptical than most when it comes to measurements and double blind trials. A lot of physicians pay attention to the studies, but also rely on their own experience and intuition when their questions aren't answered by published evidence.

This kind of mindset can go either way with audio. When I was a subjectivist, I divided interventions in audio into three bands: (1) it is complete snake oil and there is no way I would consider it, (2) there may be a very small audible difference, and the theory is plausible so I might buy it if it's not too expensive, and (3) there is a definite audible difference, and the difference is measurable, so I will definitely be pursuing it. Since "transitioning" I have gotten rid of (2) and I only spend time and money pursuing interventions that are definitely audible and measurable.

 

[kemmler3D]

I am a physician by training, which means I have read a lot of medical journals, seen a lot of patients, and ordered a lot of tests. Here are a few random observations about tests and academic journals:

1. The test, or measurement, or data is objective, but interpretation of the test is subjective.
2. Even laboratory and diagnostic tests are fallible and the result has to be interpreted in context of the clinical picture.
3. In academic journals, how the data has been collected plays a huge role in how meaningful or applicable it is.
4. Double blind placebo controlled trials are the gold standard, but it is easy to achieve a null result if you do not perform your experiment properly.
5. What is published in the journals may not be applicable to the patient sitting in front of you. In fact, it probably isn't.

So I am more skeptical than most when it comes to measurements and double blind trials. A lot of physicians pay attention to the studies, but also rely on their own experience and intuition when their questions aren't answered by published evidence.

This kind of mindset can go either way with audio. When I was a subjectivist, I divided interventions in audio into three bands: (1) it is complete snake oil and there is no way I would consider it, (2) there may be a very small audible difference, and the theory is plausible so I might buy it if it's not too expensive, and (3) there is a definite audible difference, and the difference is measurable, so I will definitely be pursuing it. Since "transitioning" I have gotten rid of (2) and I only spend time and money pursuing interventions that are definitely audible and measurable.

I think audio measurement and testing is a lot simpler than medical testing and experimentation. All we're really trying to do is reproduce a simple time-amplitude signal accurately. No need to do something as complex as cure cancer or even baldness. So I guess the nice outcome of that is even relatively advanced discussions in the field are understandable by clever, engaged laypeople. I would not necessarily say the same thing about the forefront of medicine.

That said, I get what you're saying. Some of these preference rules are based on a few dozen people, with error bars long enough to pitch a tent with, but there are many who flog the Olive / Toole work as if there were no questions worth asking anymore. Certainly those studies are the best we have to work with, but they don't comprise what I'd call a real settled science.

 

[Axo1989]

how is Ayn Rand (a total fraud, intellectually) in any way related to making any sort of objectivist point? her idiotic seat of the pants philosophy was never based on science.

Her basic description/formulation of objectivism is congruent—that reality exists independently of consciousness, that we have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that we can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic.

Consensus is that she loses the plot when she postulates moral purpose from those basic tenets (into laissez-faire capitalism, libertarianism, etc mostly outside scope for discussion here).

Applying objectivism here however, we start from the same basic tenets, but also consider controls for sense perception and cognitive biases to be important. Inductive logic should be based on valid perceptions, not misapprehensions of objective reality. But the starting point is the same.

 

[Axo1989]

with error bars long enough to pitch a tent with

The first time I saw error bars, the world (and science) made more sense.

 

[Petevid]

I am a physician by training, which means I have read a lot of medical journals, seen a lot of patients, and ordered a lot of tests. Here are a few random observations about tests and academic journals:

1. The test, or measurement, or data is objective, but interpretation of the test is subjective.
2. Even laboratory and diagnostic tests are fallible and the result has to be interpreted in context of the clinical picture.
3. In academic journals, how the data has been collected plays a huge role in how meaningful or applicable it is.
4. Double blind placebo controlled trials are the gold standard, but it is easy to achieve a null result if you do not perform your experiment properly.
5. What is published in the journals may not be applicable to the patient sitting in front of you. In fact, it probably isn't.

So I am more skeptical than most when it comes to measurements and double blind trials. A lot of physicians pay attention to the studies, but also rely on their own experience and intuition when their questions aren't answered by published evidence.

This kind of mindset can go either way with audio. When I was a subjectivist, I divided interventions in audio into three bands: (1) it is complete snake oil and there is no way I would consider it, (2) there may be a very small audible difference, and the theory is plausible so I might buy it if it's not too expensive, and (3) there is a definite audible difference, and the difference is measurable, so I will definitely be pursuing it. Since "transitioning" I have gotten rid of (2) and I only spend time and money pursuing interventions that are definitely audible and measurable.

I was thinking more in terms of how sound waves can be sampled and digitised, how that data can be transmitted, bit streams error corrected and perfectly preserved and that digital data recreated as an analogue signal again and how amplification of that signal without audible distortion is possible. Speakers and room acoustics is where the reproduction process becomes imperfect but up until that point source components and amplification can be measurably and audibly transparent.

 

[OldHvyMec]

I was raised by a 20+ year military father that was part of MMAG and retired from SAC in 1969. MMAG. Military, Maintenance, Advisory, Group.
There are facts and then there are updates on facts. You are only as good as the facts you have access to.
There is one way to do things. It is written in the manual how to do it. The only option is left or right handed, BUT it will reference if your left/right
hand is the only way to do it. I've written a lot of field notes that were were implemented into shop repairs. Shops like Greyhound, UPS and quit a
few others literally wrote the book on "how to proceed (inspect and measure) or fix"

Flat rate manuals are used for a purpose in the field and it's usually not to charge a customer. It's to see if field vs shop vs Emob is the wiser/safer choice

Subjective opinions have their place but normally about food, partners or pets.
I suppose color choice between Jaguar Red or Batmobile black is subjective. Not to Batman or course. LOL

Regards.

 

[computer-audiophile]

... Objectively I will pick audio gears that measure well but also take into account anecdotal views and demo the gears before buying them.

That's pretty much how I see it, too.