Audiofools turned objectivists or vice-versa?

[gsp1971]

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying it isn't quite so simple. Eventually you get fed up with people writing cheques that can't be cashed.

Example - the other day I noticed someone on a forum stating that if you place your electronics on glass shelves it will make the sound 'cold and hard.' Because glass is cold and hard. Whereas wooden shelves will make the sound 'warm and organic' because etc.

Clearly nonsense, but to him it's a fact. This is the gulf you've got to bridge and IME it's pretty much impossible.

If you put a fleece blanket under the component on the wooden shelf, it sounds even warmer.

 

[Mart68]

If you put a fleece blanket under the component on the wooden shelf, it sounds even warmer.

or would it start sounding 'woolly'? You don't want to go too far.

Seriously it is actually an entire pseudo-science and it's referred to as 'tuning'.

 

[gsp1971]

or would it start sounding 'woolly'? You don't want to go too far.

Seriously it is actually an entire pseudo-science and it's referred to as 'tuning'.

Mind you, in a hi-fi show I saw a demo room where the rather large floor-standing speakers were positioned well into the room, so there was some distance between the speakers and the electronics rack. There were some sort of absorbers on the floor and the 3-4m speaker cables were placed on them so that they would not touch the carpet at all.

 

[Mart68]

Rare that I have seen a show system in the last ten years or so that didn't employ some form of 'cable lifter'.

The dealers are there to flog as much tat as possible so it does make sense from that point of view.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Believing that the science of audio perception is as settled as the laws of thermodynamics shows little awareness of science and the limitations of human knowledge.

You have a valid point. But somehow I don't think the last 60 or 80 years of psychoacoustics will be up ended and reversed by research to come. I'd be happy to be made aware of any scientific research that demonstrates echoic memory longer than 2 to 4 seconds.

 

[Martin]

NO we are for sure talking about two different shows. the one i am talking about is all real in the streets magic

Sure it is.

 

[BluesDaddy]

You have a valid point. But somehow I don't think the last 60 or 80 years of psychoacoustics will be up ended and reversed by research to come. I'd be happy to be made aware of any scientific research that demonstrates echoic memory longer than 2 to 4 seconds.

I would also note that while my statement was hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally as an argument that psychoacoustics is as settled as the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that the argument "there is no scientific evidence for my position but I am hanging my hat on future research that proves the current research wrong or woefully lacking in basic understanding" not the best. But I do suppose "Ghost Hunters" existed (does it still exist?) for a reason as well.

 

[Mystical Boar]

Almost anything containing a psychological element can be undermined as there’s no way to look into our minds with test equipment. Personally, I find it fascinating how our psyche can alter our perception and I don’t try to play against it. If I don’t like something, for whatever reason, I just don’t buy it. For example, I don’t like audio hardware with ugly design or too many extra stuff, it just gives me psychological discomfort no matter how good it measures.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Almost anything containing a psychological element can be undermined as there’s no way to look into our minds with test equipment. Personally, I find it fascinating how our psyche can alter our perception and I don’t try to play against it. If I don’t like something, for whatever reason, I just don’t buy it. For example, I don’t like audio hardware with ugly design or too many extra stuff, it just gives me psychological discomfort no matter how good it measures.

But if you control for it you can obviate the biases. Seriously, people think they're coming up with new "gotchas" that haven't already been accounted for.

 

[Mystical Boar]

But if you control for it you can obviate the biases.

I don't think you can. There are things in your subconsciousness you are absolutely not aware of. I just don't buy untested equipment that measures poorly anymore and I think it's the best I can do.

 

[ahofer]

How dare all you engineers question my lived experience.

 

[gsp1971]

How dare all you engineers question my lived experience.

Is there experience that is non-lived?

 

[ahofer]

Is there experience that is non-lived?

I've often wondered that myself, although I think there are those that argue they suffer from the trauma inflicted on their ancestors.. Perhaps Shirley MacLaine can fill us in. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...326898-d90e-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html

 

[raistlin65]

Is there experience that is non-lived?

Dream memory?

 

[Angsty]

Is there experience that is non-lived?

That's what subjective reviewers eat off of - when you don't have a lived experience with a product, they substitute theirs.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I don't think you can. There are things in your subconsciousness you are absolutely not aware of. I just don't buy untested equipment that measures poorly anymore and I think it's the best I can do.

Well, your beliefs certainly trump all the scientific evidence and practices to the contrary and that it is the "subconscious" that is specifically controlled for. Enjoy.

 

[Mystical Boar]

all the scientific evidence and practices to the contrary

Citation needed. AFAIK there are activities that allow one to enter and expand their awareness of the subconscious, but not totally control it. Of course, an average person does not even exercise such control, Zen master.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Citation needed. AFAIK there are activities that allow one to enter and expand their awareness of the subconscious, but not totally control it. Of course, an average person does not even exercise such control, Zen master.

I'll tell you what, I'll do the work for you and come up with citations if you can provide a rational explanation of how your subconscious bias regarding the look of equipment or it having "too many extra stuff" can influence your "liking" the sound of one piece of equipment vs. another in a double blind listening session where you don't know what either piece of equipment is.

Edit: Also, if the bias is "subconscious" how would you know you have it? The examples of bias you have is obviously not "subconscious" or you wouldn't be aware of it.

 

[Mystical Boar]

if you can provide a rational explanation of how your subconscious bias regarding the look of equipment or it having "too many extra stuff" can influence your "liking" the sound of one piece of equipment vs. another in a double blind listening session

It can influence my liking of one piece of audio equipment as a whole, not necessarily its sound, and given that I don't buy new audio hardware very often I may end up staring at it for years. That's why I don't like having speakers that look like two cheap pieces of plastic - it is a factor especially if you have a wife.

I don't have the equipment or dedicated space to do a competent double blind test - as probably a majority of the users. Even if I had, normally my sight is not impaired.

Edit: For someone educated you seem to lack basic understanding of the subconscious. Just because your are aware of your bias doesn't stop it from working on the subconscious level - this would render double blind tests redundant in case of trained people who taught themselves to be objective.

 

[Spkrdctr]

After reading 22 pages in this thread, all I have to say is "Phooey"! It can easily be summed up as subjectivists are basically uneducated nut jobs and objectivists are educated geeks. So, do you want equipment tested by educated geeks or uneducated not jobs? It is a simple decision to make whichever way you pick.

I love the broad brush afforded to me by the internet!