The pain of being a member of ASR

[Anton D]

Haha yeah I wouldn't lose friends over audio. That's audio foolish.

That would be an Audio Science Rainman.

 

[Multicore]

Funny thing is that when I brought the last point up in another forum the subjectivist went bonkers, "BOOM! So you are a fake objectivist after all".

That made me laugh out loud. Wonderful.

And I would of course retort that yes, if you ever claimed to be an objectivist, you must be faking something because in the end we are all subjectivists. All we can expect from science is use the objectivity it can afford to inform us. In this I am much influenced by Bruno Latour. We make our choices subjectively whether we use objective information or not.

 

[Multicore]

Edit. I am not disagreeing with you. I take issue with the words objective and subjective, as if these are two distinct camps. They are not.

I agree. I think that dividing us in these camps represents a category error. (See my reply above a few moments ago.) But some people pursue this categorization of people into these opposing camps and seem happy with it over the long term despite all arguments, pleas and evidence. So it seems obvious to me that they profit somehow from doing so. I'm not sure what it is. A sense of identity, belonging, purpose, superiority? I don't know. This is what really interests me: the psychology behind the motivation of this oppositional behavior. It might be the same reward mechanism as loyalty to a sports team, for all I know.

 

[Noske]

Technically speaking, you are (possibly) correct.

Technically speaking, we are dying the moment we are born. That doesn't mean that we put newborns in hospice care .... because in the end, we are all practical.

Jim

I do not understand that at all. How else is @Multicore (possibly) correct or not correct? It is just common sense and a careful understanding of defining words and concepts carefully and correctly.

So, I disagree - technically, I am not dying. I am alive. Always have been, since conception, not since birth. Or whatever your concept may be. It is an on-off thing. Binary.. That is a scientific fact.

On the other hand, I think that who-ever coined this objective/subjective duality shares a narrative that is blatantly simplistic and deliberately misleading. There are many shades and it would be a good idea for someone to actually define things from time to time.

 

[droid2000]

looks like i've stepped into the battle of the dorks

 

[droid2000]

 

[Noske]

I agree. I think that dividing us in these camps represents a category error. (See my reply above a few moments ago.) But some people pursue this categorization of people into these opposing camps and seem happy with it over the long term despite all arguments, pleas and evidence. So it seems obvious to me that they profit somehow from doing so. I'm not sure what it is. A sense of identity, belonging, purpose, superiority? I don't know. This is what really interests me: the psychology behind the motivation of this oppositional behavior. It might be the same reward mechanism as loyalty to a sports team, for all I know.

You mention sports - yeah, I can never figure that out, either.

An objective and a subjective are chatting about tubes/valve amplification versus class D in the kitchen.

By accident, one of them knocks a sharp and heavy steak knife off the table landing right in the objective's foot.

The objective yells at the subjective, asking him why he didn’t catch the knife.

“You know that subjectives don’t catch falling knives - any possibility of a cut or abrasion may cause damage to my ears”.

He in turn asks the objective why he didn’t move his foot out of the way.

The objective responds, “I calculated that it could not go that low and so fast with that much precision".

Edit - in the interests of disclosure, this is adapted from a joke in another different but similar context.

 

[DonR]

You mention sports - yeah, I can never figure that out, either.

An objective and a subjective are chatting about tubes/valve amplification versus class D in the kitchen.

By accident, one of them knocks a sharp and heavy steak knife off the table landing right in the objective's foot.

The objective yells at the subjective, asking him why he didn’t catch the knife.

“You know that subjectives don’t catch falling knives - any possibility of a cut or abrasion may cause damage to my ears”.

He in turn asks the objective why he didn’t move his foot out of the way.

The objective responds, “I calculated that it could not go that low and so fast with that much precision".

Edit - in the interests of disclosure, this is adapted from a joke in another different but similar context.

The objectivist sees a sharp knife. The subjectivist sees a way of cutting a boring conversation short.

 

[Geert]

I am not disagreeing with you. I take issue with the words objective and subjective, as if these are two distinct camps. They are not.

They are psychological preferences, and people can have mild or extreme preferences.

 

[Geert]

This is what really interests me: the psychology behind the motivation of this oppositional behavior.

If it really interests you, Google on Myers Briggs. You might learn that a lot of disagreement on various audio related topics has nothing to do with audio, and why you can't convince certain people with facts and figures.

 

[Noske]

They are psychological preferences, and people can have mild or extreme preferences.

I disagree. There is no such thing as "mild" or "extreme" psychological preferences. Just preferences. Some may enjoy being told what to enjoy, no matter what is right. Others enjoy exploring what is right for them and ignore what they are told. It is a multi-dimensional continuous process, and clever folk in maths or intuition have explored this issue.

The manner in which many good folk wish to convey their preferences may be categorised in terms psychologists may be familiar with and to this extent I agree with your words in post 131. Nevertheless, I know that this is superficial and that two people with identical MB profiles will respond differently depending on their many cultural differences, eg, Dutch vs American vs Australian.

 

[Shadrach]

I've tried many of the tweaks and componant changes many here on ASR deride. I've built amplifiers, loudspeakers, made cables. Most made difference to my listening pleasure. Part of the fun of the hobby is trying out new ideas and new equipment.
Many years ago a reality seeped into my consciousness, not through reading journals, or forum posts, or even listening to other peoples system. This reality came as a question, well two questions really.
1) why does every tweak or componant change make my system sound better, or at least not worse,
and
2) How is it that on Monday the music sounds lush and on Wednesday I can hardly bear to listen to music at all it sounds so rough, when I have made absolutely no system changes.

Listening to music through whatever system one has is a subjective experience.
The actual performance of the system is measurable and should be objective.

How one reconciles the two when it comes to the hobby is up to the individual. Sometimes magic is far more enjoyable even though we may not believe in it than stark reality.

Those who still believe in magic may well get more enjoyment from their systems and the hobby than those who have accepted reality. I haven't enjoyed the hobby for many years now and am probably worse off in the enjoyment stakes than I was. The stereo system has become a tool and unless one is particulalry strange, tools are pretty dull by and large.

I don't berate my audiophile friends who still believe in magic and perhaps I am a little jealous that they gain something from the system changes that I no longer do, or believe in.

A large percentage of the posters here on ASR are still subjectivists and if they believe in magic only their own experience is likely to change this. Many here have in the past bought and been delighted with various componants they've purchased whether the science says they'll make no audible difference or not.
Let them be I say.

 

[Phorize]

Despite ASR has gained big popularity over the years, the world we live in is still full of audiophools. Many of them are, sadly, our friends. It's not enough to unfriend them over their belief in things that we believe are non senses/snake oils, but it's sometimes painful to see what they do or hear what they say about audio.
Today a friend of mine reach out and told me that he got a new silver USB C to USB C, and claimed it brings a lot of clarity to the sound. the harshness he had before was gone.
If I hadn't been on ASR, it was probably fine for me. But now it is so painful to read what he says

It was never a better time for this gif
View attachment 330903

Take heart from the fact that 99.9 % of people have no interest in audio at all, and audiophiles are in fact a tiny, tiny slice of society.

 

[Geert]

I disagree. There is no such thing as "mild" or "extreme" psychological preferences. Just preferences.

People have a different preference, or taste, for certain things. They can have a strong preference for something, or they couldn't care less. What is there to disagree?

I know that this is superficial and that two people with identical MB profiles will respond differently depending on their many cultural differences, eg, Dutch vs American vs Australian.

I never said MB is all there is, and that it completely describes human behaviour. That's why I said to Google it and learn.

 

[Sokel]

Problem is not when comes to measured stuff.
Problem comes with taste and preferences.

There are some indicators that points to what people prefer most.But that's not a bible and clearly the success (in sales) shows other ways too.

It would be boring to like the same stuff, (warning,analogy coming) people like all shorts of rides,other go with 250 mph,others (like me) want a YZ490 (vintage) which goes where no other vehicle can and it's fun!

This hobby is about friends,gatherings,etc.That's the essence of it.Can't think of it any other way.
Yes,is also nice to sit and listen by yourself to a great play on some decent gear.But my limited experience shows that in the end the great differentiator is size.

There's something that magnifies things exponentially as size doubles or triples,or,or...
And it's not about SLP.That's where this big rigs shine.Tonality and stuff comes after if you have a lifelike presentation.

How to argue about it?

 

[Mart68]

I don't berate my audiophile friends who still believe in magic and perhaps I am a little jealous that they gain something from the system changes that I no longer do, or believe in.

God no I don't feel jealous - I actually feel a bit sorry for them.

I know they will get to the point where they no longer enjoy listening to music because they cannot escape from the habit formed of listening for differences instead.

It's hard to go back from that.

 

[Noske]

People have a different preference, or taste, for certain things. They can have a strong preference for something, or they couldn't care less. What is there to disagree?

I notice your careful qualification "for certain things". I cannot respond in a meaningful manner with that little black swan in the discussion, because it is obvious. Everyone can think of "certain things" about which they have binary preferences. Either yes please or no thanks. I have no wish to discuss such trivial observations.

 

[bodhi]

If we simplify what an objectivist is then for most cases it's somebody who acknowledges that biases can have huge effect of what we think we hear and that there is now way to hear past these biases, no matter how experienced listener or seasoned true audiophile you are. If one accepts that then their career as power cable aficionado is over forever.

Whatever one might hear from any component, they always know that they cannot be sure if it's the component or their brain, only way to find out is controlled testing. They still have the choice of not finding out or not caring and continue tweaking forever. But there is no more argument.

Most sane people accept what effect biases can have in general, but the subjectivist thinks it either happens to other people or that the difference is so evident that it cannot be imagined. So I think the fine line is between "I know what I hear is true" and "I don't trust what I think I hear is true".

 

[Geert]

I notice your careful qualification "for certain things". I cannot respond in a meaningful manner with that little black swan in the discussion, because it is obvious. Everyone can think of "certain things" about which they have binary preferences. Either yes please or no thanks. I have no wish to discuss such trivial observations.

There is no black swan; we were discussing objectivity and subjectivity. These are amongst the things people can have a preference for. If you prefer to research facts and figures you're clearly have a stronger preference for objectivity than someone who just jumps to conclusions. MB explains a lot of that (including the drive to convince others of your believes).

I have no wish to discuss such trivial observations.

Maybe ask for clarification instead of shouting you disagree.

 

[Waxx]

Snake oil hifi is like religion or polit(r)ic(k)s. I, an agnost, have friends that are very religious, from different religions or fractions of religion and some are quiet fanatic in that, and we get along as we respect the personal choice of each other. I even had very religious partners, where religion was not what seperated us as we respected each other opinion. The same with politics. I have family members that are active politicians (maire of a city and member of the parlement in Belgium) that have totally opposite id's as I have, but we get along because we don't discuss politics at family reunions and respect each other opinion.

The same applies to hifi and what works and what not. I don't discuss things if they don't ask, and when I discuss, it's always polite and fact based, but with respect for their freedom of opinion. But i will never bend mine becasue of theirs.