Subjectivists EVERYWHERE!!!!

[Doodski]

I have said this too many times before. If one can't, won't, doesn't know how to, won't learn to, or simply rejects mathematics and physics, they are going to be shaken, offended, and marginalized in the face of science. It was that way in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, and that's a point of great anxiety for many. I'm sorry for these folk, but I cannot rescue them from superstition, folklore, and hucksters. They want to believe something, and truth is not a qualification.

And, as in other misinformation scenarios, you have a substantial group of pundits who earn their livelihood spreading misinformation and faith-based hifi opinion to a huge population of the unknowing. And all those unknowing folk have a bunch of money they can spend. You cannot take [insert first name of a YouTube pundit here] and send [him] back to school to learn the calculus, differential equations, transforms, and the physics of materials and motion. For [him], that train left the station at age 28 or 30 years. [He] cannot, will not, and doesn't care about the AES and real research through science. {He] probably cannot read and digest the literature of Toole. [He] cannot understand the proven theories of nonlinear systems generating sidebands, heterodynes, and aliases. Instead [he] will tout the number of speakers he's heard, amplifiers he's hooked up, and fancy cables (that just HAVE to be better than less costly ones).

[He] is the 'faith healer' of the superstitious. He has followers, who believe. And [he] will attack and attempt to discredit anyone else who suggests his ignorance. [Insert lots of historical anecdotal evidence of events like the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, the Reformation, and the Holocaust, etc.]

We have people around YT, print, and other social media WHO EARN THEIR LIVING OFF PREACHING TO THE UNKNOWING. What exactly does one expect? For them to go back to department store sales?

I see what you are getting at although I know a guy with a bachelors of science degree and he still thinks cable risers, interconnects and other stuff makes for better synergy. I gave up even trying to discuss the stuff.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

That is the difference between knowledge and feelings.

Bravo! Jim

 

[JJB70]

Something worth keeping in mind is that just because something is published in a technical paper does not make it correct. I read lots of technical papers and some are real howlers. Unfortunately there is a cottage industry of publishers and conferences serving a need from academic types to meet KPIs by being published. Indeed one of life's simple pleasures is attending conferences and watching petty cat fights over stuff.

 

[tmtomh]

Something worth keeping in mind is that just because something is published in a technical paper does not make it correct. I read lots of technical papers and some are real howlers. Unfortunately there is a cottage industry of publishers and conferences serving a need from academic types to meet KPIs by being published. Indeed one of life's simple pleasures is attending conferences and watching petty cat fights over stuff.

Agreed - peer review is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for taking research and scholarship seriously.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I'm regarded as an arch objectivist on certain subjectivist based audio sites in the UK and an arch subjectivist on other sites and maybe here as well...

Yeah, me too.

There are stereotypes floating around for subjectivists that just aren't justified: no all spend thousands on AC cord nor agonize over the sound nuances of interconnects nor, for that matter, imagine that the $50k amplifier necessarily sound better than the $1000 amp. Granted, hardcore subjectivists usually insist that they have no interest in measurements.

So I know one gent on another site who never pays any heed to measurements but whose SQ impressions I respect. He has owned many dozens of amps and DACs: his impressions are not only self-consistent but consistent in general with those of other audiophiles. For this reason I take his opinions into account allowing for the fact his SQ preference are different from mine.

Objectivists are also are, too some extend, also stereotyped. For example, they rely only on measurements, (usually only the simplest like THD+noise), never listen to anything, and mock anyone who claims to heard differences or attempts to characterize them.

To me the proper audiophile listens and attempts to correlate his subjective impressions with objective measurement rather than simply dismissing the former as biases.

 

[ahofer]

To me the proper audiophile listens and attempts to correlate his subjective impressions with objective measurement rather than simply dismissing the former as biases.

I think the main things I do that are "objectivist" are

1)Using measurements to triage the search time to find a decent component. If the measurements suggest a large deviation from transparency, I won't bother. I'm not really interested in electronics without measurements. Search costs are something we don't talk about enough. Subjectivists are always like "you have to try it". No I don't. I value my time, so if it measures badly or makes no sense at all, I'm not going to bother. I'd rather stay home and listen to something cool.

2) I'm very interested in what I can hear unsighted vs sighted. I just find it fascinating that our minds create differences where none exist at the source. I have a bias (somewhat unsupported belief) that the inventions in my mind are very unstable and I should therefore try to weed them out of purchasing decisions, for long-term satisfaction reasons. I think the published evidence and blind tests on electronics and wire are pretty convincing.

That being said, my speakers (Harbeth) are widely derided here for uneven dispersion but I have really enjoyed them for more than two years now. I find my current system subjectively immersive and non-fatiguing.

THAT being said, the most cost effective (by FAR) way to have an ecstatic listening session on any half-decent setup is a light dose of marijuana in your chosen form, increasingly cheap and legal. You'll be sounding like an Absolute Sound reviewer in no time and even enjoying music you never gave time to before. Not exactly an objective state.

 

[syn08]

...one gent on another site who never pays any heed to measurements but whose SQ impressions I respect.

May I ask why?

 

[syn08]

I know a guy with a bachelors of science degree and he still thinks cable risers, interconnects and other stuff makes for better synergy.

So a guy who doesn't even have the benefit of ignorance, that's IMO the worst use case of subjectivism. Is he by chance working in the audio industry (what's left of it) or sales?

 

[Gorgonzola]

...rdcore subjectivists usually insist that they have no interest in measurements.

So I know one gent on another site who never pays any heed to measurements but whose SQ impressions I respect. He has owned many dozens of amps and DACs: his impressions are not only self-consistent but consistent in general with those of other audiophiles. For this reason I take his opinions into account allowing for the fact his SQ preference are different from mine.
...

May I ask why?

I think I've already answered that: it's mostly consistency. He likes a certain sound which he usually described as full-bodied with layered imaging. The equipment he likes best have these qualities -- I hate so say it, but is usually but not always tube equipment. What it is consistently is equipment with higher than ideal distortion, invariably with highish 2nd and/or 3rd order HD. My own preference don't lean so far to those qualities as his do, but when he says he likes something, I know why.

 

[Wes]

May I ask who?

 

[syn08]

I think I've already answered that: it's mostly consistency. He likes a certain sound which he usually described as full-bodied with layered imaging. The equipment he likes best have these qualities -- I hate so say it, but is usually but not always tube equipment. What it is consistently is equipment with higher than ideal distortion, invariably with highish 2nd and/or 3rd order HD. My own preference don't lean so far to those qualities as his do, but when he says he likes something, I know why.

So his consistency is your reason for respect, even if you don't share the same values. That's an interesting criteria for respect, I know I don't have much respect for flat earthers or QAnon supporters.

 

[rdenney]

Should I take down the photo of Amir that's hanging on my wall?

No. Just mark over the halo with a sharpie. Draw a mustache while you are at it.

Actually, I don't really think ASR demonstrates many of those supposed cult characteristics, especially compared to some other audio forums. If ASR demonstrates slavish devotion to Amir, it sure has a combative way of expressing.

Perhaps that was your point.

But I also don't think all other audio forums do, either. I don't get that sense from AK, though I get more appeal to authority and superior attitude from a very few folks there than really from anyone here. And a much lower signal/noise ratio, which, truth to tell, many there probably think I worsen with my contributions. There is less Male Answer Syndrome here than there, it seems to me.

But then there are the others...

Rick "any hobby, from restoring B17's to collecting fruit flies, has its obsessives" Denney

 

[Gorgonzola]

So his consistency is your reason for respect, even if you don't share the same values. That's an interesting criteria for respect, I know I don't have much respect for flat earthers or QAnon supporters.

Well Flat Earthers and QAnon are full of poopoo where as this gentleman is not. Of course, you are free to believe it's all his imagination but I don't.

 

[egellings]

Science is not an entity that "knows" things. It's a process.

 

[pjug]

Perhaps that was your point.

That makes it sound like I was doing something like critical thinking. I was just joking around on a Friday.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Science is not an entity that "knows" things. It's a process.

I agree with that 100% agree with that. Many people incorrectly believe that "science" is a collection of established facts. Actual science is a process it aims to systematically discover what is not already known and, indeed, to disprove what we now think we know.

 

[AdamG]

When you look at this Division it’s funny in a tragic way. We should as a group of Music lovers come together to enjoy and celebrate our mutual interest. Human nature is a fickle mess and we seem far more concerned with finding differences rather than enriching each other’s mucical pleasure. Reflecting on my own behavior in this respect makes me attentive for ways to bridge the gap, rather than widen it.

 

[rdenney]

"feelings."

I get what you mean when you use the word here. But it strikes me as a bit odd and imprecise term. "Feeling" is more commonly associated with emotion. And typically we want to distinguish between "feeling" and "reality."

So it seems odd to use a term "feeling" in conjunction with trusting something as veridical even "my feelings were verified by data."


Wouldn't it be clearer to say something like "There are those whose perception I trust?" (being verified by data). Or perhaps "whose descriptions or subjective REPORTS I trust?" Or "discernment" maybe?

I mean, if I were describing a speaker's sound, I wouldn't say "this is how I felt" or "I feel it sounds..." nor does Amir or most people talk in that manner. We talk in terms of...well...how it sounds. We are perceiving it's sound. Our perception can be more or less accurate, correlated to measurements. But I personally don't look to anyone's "feelings." We could agree on the perceived sound of a speaker, that we both are hearing the same characteristics, but you may "feel" differently about the speaker than I do in terms of your emotions, your likes or dislikes.

- Matt *sorry for being pedantic* Hooper.

No, I stick with feelings as at term. But feelings are not antithetical to reality at all. They are sometimes (not always!) poorly correlated to it, but presenting them as endpoints on a single axis is wrong.

A lack of data does not result in the wrong conclusion, it just results in an unreliable conclusion. So, the axis of feelings<-->data vectors differently than good<-->bad or accurate<-->inaccurate, and it's especially different than true<-->false.

I'd much rather use the term "impression" than "perception". Perception is a physical process, while impression is an opinion resulting from perception, or a heuristic/intuitive integration of a range of perceptions, not all of which are defined. This messes us up--we argue that perceptions are biased when what we are arguing about is really an impression that may be poorly correlated to the perception on which it is supposedly based. I am not, however, saying that perceptions can't be biased, I'm saying that when a perception is biased, it's usually simply erroneous as a result, or misleading. But an impression is orthogonal to right<-->wrong.

Your speaker example works for me as a good example: If I'm describing a speaker's sound, I might say (and have done so): This speaker really sounds musical. That can only mean that when I listen to music played through it, I get all the emotional bennies I expect from listening to music. If that isn't about feelings, I don't know what is. We don't have to say "I feel..." for our opinion to be driven by feelings. For most people feelings are their reality, and it takes some effort of will to transcend feelings--moreso when those feelings are strong. But if I'm talking about what I perceive from a speaker, I am limited to descriptions of what I consider to be objective characteristics. I perceive that the midrange is forward, or the bass is muffled, or the treble lacks clarity or transparency, or is harsh (warm, cold, deep-frozen, crispy-fried, even fatiguing--whatever), or that a veil was lifted. Those are fuzzy words devoid of precision (or often even meaning), but they aren't about feelings and are very much intended as described characteristics. Perceptions are about what we think is there, even if mistaken. Feelings are about what effect that has on our emotional state, and that is a very different thing.

But I'm assuming the feelings-driven and data-driven audio enthusiasts in my dichotomy still have the same overall goal: Transcendent musical experiences that result from perfected reproduction. I'm leaving off those who buy fancy stuff as a display of wealth (or opposition thereto) or coolness, which can be a primary motivation in any camp.

Rick "Pet Ant" Denney

 

[Doodski]

So a guy who doesn't even have the benefit of ignorance, that's IMO the worst use case of subjectivism. Is he by chance working in the audio industry (what's left of it) or sales?

When I worked home audio sales many years ago he was a workmate. He was never really good at sales and mostly hung about, snagged the laydowns and the odd customer that he connected with. He was a nice guy just not salesperson material.

 

[syn08]

When I worked home audio sales many years ago he was a workmate. He was never really good at sales and mostly hung about, snagged the laydowns and the odd customer that he connected with. He was a nice guy just not salesperson material.

Got it.