A safe place for "experts."

[wgscott]

Despite being a fairly hard-core right-wing "objectivist" (and a scientist by profession), I found HA a bit restrictive and unpleasant. Many of the most interesting hypotheses that one can test (with objective measurements, etc) are dreamed up in a very "subjectivist"/creative way. There has to be some room for discussions that involve refinement of initially subjective, ill-defined ideas to bring them to the point where they can be tested properly. I think where one runs into trouble is when subjective impressionism is allowed to trump well-defined, objective measurements and that sort of thing, and a self-appointed thought-police force reacts by enforcing what they (often wrongly) perceive to be the aims and methodologies of the physical sciences.

Edit: Great to see you, Julf!

 

[Julf]

Despite being a fairly hard-core right-wing "objectivist" (and a scientist by profession), I found HA a bit restrictive and unpleasant.

Sure - I don't think HA should be held as the ideal vision of "objectivism". It is primarily a forum for people developing codecs and software - and from that perspective, I can understand why they have a very low tolerance for "it is so because I know I can hear it".

Edit: Great to see you, Julf!

Thanks!

 

[wgscott]

The problem is that by definition, nothing anybody else says can change the mind of a subjectivist.

I think that is the distinguishing feature that separates the "scientific method" from metaphysics/religion/subjectivism, whatever you want to call it. The idea is that you should be able to state under what circumstances you would consider your idea or hypothesis to be refuted. (I think it comes down to basic intellectual humility.)

 

[amirm]

First warm welcome for joining us Julf!

On what you state, it is obviously true. In practice though, I have had extremist "forum objectivists" who are hard liner and don't change their mind even with a mountain of data given to them from another objectivists.

Expanding, my view of excellence is that we need to have a safety margin above what we can prove by listening tests. If distortions below 70 db in a blind test don't show reliable differentiation, I don't go advocating the same device. I still like to see excellence in engineering and transparency we can mathematically prove. Relying on one or two listening tests doesn't give us that assurance across the board.

 

[amirm]

Another warm welcome to wgscott! Good to see you here too .

 

[Julf]

I think that is the distinguishing feature that separates the "scientific method" from metaphysics/religion/subjectivism, whatever you want to call it. The idea is that you should be able to state under what circumstances you would consider your idea or hypothesis to be refuted. (I think it comes down to basic intellectual humility.)

Are you saying you should know your Popper?

 

[Sal1950]

As an objectivsit I welcome reports based on sighted listening, but when claims are made regarding accuracy I start to require substantiating proof from a scientific method. "Sounds Good" doesn't quite cut it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But the important distinction is that an "objectivist" generally believes in the scientific method, so actual evidence is all it takes to silence him/her. The problem is that by definition, nothing anybody else says can change the mind of a subjectivist.

You can't argue fiction with the facts.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As an objectivsit I welcome reports based on sighted listening, but when claims are made regarding accuracy I start to require substantiating proof from a scientific method. "Sounds Good" doesn't quite cut it.

Yep.

Tim

 

[Blumlein 88]

Okay this is a sighted Popper test. Which Popper is the right Popper?

 

[Blumlein 88]

For extra credit, what restroom would Popper choose in a modern university setting, and under what conditions would he decide he has made the wrong choice?

 

[wgscott]

The left one is Sir Karl. So the left is right. I met him once when he gave a talk at Berkeley shortly before he died.

 

[wgscott]

For extra credit, what restroom would Popper choose in a modern university setting, and under what conditions would he decide he has made the wrong choice?

He would be flush with embarrassment.

 

[Julf]

First warm welcome for joining us Julf!

Thanks, Amir!

Expanding, my view of excellence is that we need to have a safety margin above what we can prove by listening tests.

And I totally understand your view, and agree to a large degree, but I think it is important to acknowledge that it is just something we prefer as prudent engineering - it is not something we "need". If equipment A has 0.1% distortion, and equipment B 0.01%, it is clear that B is better engineered - but it might not make the slightest difference to our enjoyment of music.

I still like to see excellence in engineering and transparency we can mathematically prove. Relying on one or two listening tests doesn't give us that assurance across the board.

No, that takes a lot of listening tests. Unfortunately our hearing system incorporates that tricky piece called "the brain" that makes any absolute standard of transparency rather hard to prove mathematically.

 

[Julf]

There has to be some room for discussions that involve refinement of initially subjective, ill-defined ideas to bring them to the point where they can be tested properly.

Indeed. Unfortunately most audiophile forums tend to be filled by arguments about why audio is special and magical and can not be properly tested in any meaningful way (except by "experiencing" it).

 

[Purité Audio]

View attachment 81 View attachment 82 View attachment 83 View attachment 84

Okay this is a sighted Popper test. Which Popper is the right Popper?

If his penguins were with him it would be easier.
Keith

 

[March Audio]

Indeed. Unfortunately most audiophile forums tend to be filled by arguments about why audio is special and magical and can not be properly tested in any meaningful way (except by "experiencing" it).

Yes, this is my take on hifi at the moment. I don't remember it always being this way but there appears to be a large community that seem to think audio reproduction is not engineering and that it is beyond science.

 

[Julf]

there appears to be a large community that seem to think audio reproduction is not engineering and that it is beyond science.

I guess it depends on whether you view psychology a science or not...

 

[Julf]

there appears to be a large community that seem to think audio reproduction is not engineering and that it is beyond science.

"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" (The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.)

 

[Vincent Kars]

Let's hope this forum will be "objectivism with a human face"