Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

[SIY]

So many words and yet still drowning in fuzz.

 

[MattHooper]

So many words and yet still drowning in fuzz.

Yet you don't actually point out where I was wrong. Just another off-handed diss.

It seems at some point you decided to disagree with whatever I write, at any cost, even when I'm agreeing with you. And to instead take pot-shots rather than engage in conversation.

Fine if you don't agree. But it's too bad there is a dismissive streak in some members, where they leap to replying with insults, disparagement and pot shots. It seems to be particularly prevalent in threads when anything that smacks of "sighted uncontrolled listening" are discussed. This is where some of the complaints about this forum come from, unfortunately.

 

[JP]

Or I could just avoid the obvious flashpoint threads like this one. See I don’t disagree with the motivation here but when it gets to an ideological struggle I tap out. It’s hard to get it across that some of us know the faults in how we go about this stuff but don’t care because we’re doing things in a way that brings us enjoyment.

Does it? You strike me as someone who may be rather frustrated with the hobby.

That doesn’t make me a “subjectivist” it just means that the rigor and discipline of being totally objective about this stuff isn’t something I’d enjoy. That doesn’t mean that I deny or am not aware of how incorrect, in a provable sense, many of my choices are. And that’s where I take offense. Having that perspective suddenly means I’m listening to shakti stones.

I don't recall seeing you engaged in any conversation like that here. Regardless, that seems like one hell of a jump, essentially equating "subjectivist" to something like "sucker". I don't think anyone here navigates with only controlled listening, and I rarely see anyone take issue with preference. It may be a broad brush, but it's not necessarily something to take as an offense.

 

[SIY]

Yet you don't actually point out where I was wrong. Just another off-handed diss.

It seems at some point you decided to disagree with whatever I write, at any cost, even when I'm agreeing with you. And to instead take pot-shots rather than engage in conversation.

Fine if you don't agree. But it's too bad there is a dismissive streak in some members, where they leap to replying with insults, disparagement and pot shots. It seems to be particularly prevalent in threads when anything that smacks of "sighted uncontrolled listening" are discussed. This is where some of the complaints about this forum come from, unfortunately.

Horrors, a science forum where basic experimental controls are expected to support extraordinary claims! You should write a strongly worded letter to The Times.

 

[JohnVF]

Does it? You strike me as someone who may be rather frustrated with the hobby.



I don't recall seeing you engaged in any conversation like that here. Regardless, that seems like one hell of a jump, essentially equating "subjectivist" to something like "sucker". I don't think anyone here navigates with only controlled listening, and I rarely see anyone take issue with preference. It may be a broad brush, but it's not necessarily something to take as an offense.

To the first part, I'm only frustrated with the hobby online. I'm very happy with my setups now. It seems I can only find the two extremes of opinion when in person, its far more relaxed and nuanced. The nature of social media. Its more anti-social than social.

To the second it was from some remarks in either this or other threads. I certainly don't adhere to the efficacy of many tweaks, at least not the more mystical ones. I'm fairly logic based but also I use this hobby to relax, so I don't sweat the details as much as I probably should.

 

[krabapple]

To the first part, I'm only frustrated with the hobby online. I'm very happy with my setups now. It seems I can only find the two extremes of opinion when in person, its far more relaxed and nuanced. The nature of social media. Its more anti-social than social.

I've sat in an auditorium full of such purportedly relaxed, nuanced Joe Audiophiles meeting in person...who were hissing at an 'objectivist' onstage.
That was fun.

(RIP, Arny)

 

[MattHooper]

Horrors, a science forum where basic experimental controls are expected to support extraordinary claims! You should write a strongly worded letter to The Times.

In other words, literally what I have argued, explicitly, not only in many other threads but in this very thread.

I just repeated this today in this thread:

"My view is, as I've said, that when you want to really be sure, when you want to raise your confidence levels, objective verification and controlled listening tests are the gold standard. That's why it's great when researchers apply science to audio. Though it's unfortunately impractical to be able to apply scientific rigor all the time in this hobby. But we ought to feel more motivated to require more rigorous evidence as the implausibility of a claim rises ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence").

And here you sarcastically responding as if I am saying otherwise.

Again, it seems you gave up real interaction with whatever I write in favor of sarcasm and taking lazy pot shots. Too bad, as it doesn't help the tenor of this forum.

 

[JP]

To the first part, I'm only frustrated with the hobby online. I'm very happy with my setups now. It seems I can only find the two extremes of opinion when in person, its far more relaxed and nuanced. The nature of social media. Its more anti-social than social.

To the second it was from some remarks in either this or other threads. I certainly don't adhere to the efficacy of many tweaks, at least not the more mystical ones. I'm fairly logic based but also I use this hobby to relax, so I don't sweat the details as much as I probably should.

I don't think you'd have much trouble were you to genuinely engage directly. You came in to this thread guns blazing, and for the most part were treated with courtesy. Far more than I've been treated with on other forums we're both members of, for far less. When and if you're up for it, give it an honest try, but understand that this place is full of people and therefore will never be online panacea.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't think you'd have much trouble were you to genuinely engage directly. You came in to this thread guns blazing, and for the most part were treated with courtesy. Far more than I've been treated with on other forums we're both members of, for far less. When and if you're up for it, give it an honest try, but understand that this place is full of people and therefore will never be online panacea.

Speaking of all that...

JP, I see you upvoted SIY's sarcastic reply:

"So many words and yet still drowning in fuzz."

And since I can't expect fruitful interaction with SIY at this point, can you explain to me why you agree with SIY's insult?

The post he responded to is here:

Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

I can do what I did before - read and not participate. I agree there’s a lot of knowledgable folks here and very useful information. It’s just coated in a layer of good vs evil that I don’t like inserting into my hobby. I’m not out to save humanity from big bad opinions about something with no...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'd written both that the term "subjective" does benefit from clarification or a more specific substitution (e.g. "uncontrolled listening"), but also that most people here will generally understand how "subjective" is being used in a given context. Where was I unclear or wrong? Thanks.

 

[tuga]

In other words, literally what I have argued, explicitly, not only in many other threads but in this very thread.

I just repeated this today in this thread:

"My view is, as I've said, that when you want to really be sure, when you want to raise your confidence levels, objective verification and controlled listening tests are the gold standard. That's why it's great when researchers apply science to audio. Though it's unfortunately impractical to be able to apply scientific rigor all the time in this hobby. But we ought to feel more motivated to require more rigorous evidence as the implausibility of a claim rises ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence").

And here you sarcastically responding as if I am saying otherwise.

Again, it seems you gave up real interaction with whatever I write in favor of sarcasm and taking lazy pot shots. Too bad, as it doesn't help the tenor of this forum.

Extremism? In a Science forum? Naa...

 

[Killingbeans]

No ism is immune to extremity...

 

[krabapple]

what about extremism?

 

[JP]

Speaking of all that...

JP, I see you upvoted SIY's sarcastic reply:

"So many words and yet still drowning in fuzz."

And since I can't expect fruitful interaction with SIY at this point, can you explain to me why you agree with SIY's insult?

The post he responded to is here:

Can useful knowledge be gained via subjectivity?

I can do what I did before - read and not participate. I agree there’s a lot of knowledgable folks here and very useful information. It’s just coated in a layer of good vs evil that I don’t like inserting into my hobby. I’m not out to save humanity from big bad opinions about something with no...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'd written both that the term "subjective" does benefit from clarification or a more specific substitution (e.g. "uncontrolled listening"), but also that most people here will generally understand how "subjective" is being used in a given context. Where was I unclear or wrong? Thanks.

I can see how it may be received as insulting but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was intended as such. I agreed with his sentiment as I find that you tend to write walls of text that say very little. I can't answer the latter as I didn't read it.

 

[Killingbeans]

what about extremism?

Guess you could say that it isn't really an ism. The same way (sort of... ) that black and white aren't really colors.

 

[MattHooper]

I can see how it may be received as insulting but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was intended as such. I agreed with his sentiment as I find that you tend to write walls of text that say very little. I can't answer the latter as I didn't read it.

Ok, that's disappointing.

If I were going to claim you wrote replies that "say very little" I'd want to have the integrity to at least explain, with some examples, how that is the case. Otherwise it's just a lazy insult.

But...since you didn't bother read the post in question, up-voted a sarcastic response anyway and piled on with more disparagement...

...well...thanks anyway.

 

[JP]

Ok, that's disappointing.

If I were going to claim you wrote replies that "say very little" I'd want to have the integrity to at least explain, with some examples, how that is the case. Otherwise it's just a lazy insult.

But...since you didn't bother read the post in question, up-voted a sarcastic response anyway and piled on with more disparagement...

...well...thanks anyway.

Would you have preferred I disrespected you with a dishonest answer, or is it that your question wasn't sincere?

 

[pkane]

Sorry, as I just replied to SIY in my recent post: I was referring to a previous conversation over the terms "subjectivist" and "objectivist" - whether those terms were meaningful or not, and SIY had made the distinction between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" listening. I argued for why that didn't adequately address the problem of a term trying to identify different camps of thought in the hobby.

As I think we already discussed (you and I), I agree with SIY on this definition. Here's my take, expanding a little on what I said before:

Subjectivist = one accepting the validity of uncontrolled listening despite the known problems: lack of repeatability, well known and demonstrated biases and confounding variables, undefined, and often, random process of discovery, and lack of desire for (and even an aversion to) any kind of controlled testing. Subjectivists often exhibit the desire to improve audio reproduction chain without resorting to scientific knowledge or process, most lack engineering skills, and yet claim to be able to improve on complex electronics and transducer designs by swapping parts, re-soldering connections, or using "improved" power cords, to name a few common, mostly futile attempts. Most subjectivists attempt to solve problems that cannot be detected with advanced modern equipment, but fail to realize that, by Occam's razor, it's not because the equipment isn't sensitive enough, it's that the problem doesn't exist.

 

[MattHooper]

Would you have preferred I disrespected you with a dishonest answer, or is it that your question wasn't sincere?

I'd prefer you honestly interact with what I'd written (the post for which you up-voted a sarcastic reply). You could use that as a handy example showing how I was wrong, unclear or "saying very little." It was a sincere question as I wondered what you disagreed with in the post.

In the context of a forum like this, one way of disrespecting someone comes when you imply they are not even worth reading or responding to, wouldn't you agree?

(And...btw...it's not so much personal insults bother me as I view that more of a reflection of the one making such comments. It's more that it's disapointing to see the tenor of conversation in a forum lowered this way, and I'd just prefer reasoned responses rather than sarcasm).

*(Also: I definitely agree I write too much and too long, too often. Though I wouldn't agree that necessarily equates to saying very little of meaning)

 

[MattHooper]

As I think we already discussed (you and I), I agree with SIY on this definition. Here's my take, expanding a little on what I said before:

Subjectivist = one accepting the validity of uncontrolled listening despite the known problems: lack of repeatability, well known and demonstrated biases and confounding variables, undefined, and often, random process of discovery, and lack of desire for (and even an aversion to) any kind of controlled testing. Subjectivists often exhibit the desire to improve audio reproduction chain without resorting to scientific knowledge or process, most lack engineering skills, and yet claim to be able to improve on complex electronics and transducer designs by swapping parts, re-soldering connections, or using "improved" power cords, to name a few common, mostly futile attempts. Most subjectivists attempt to solve problems that cannot be detected with advanced modern equipment, but fail to realize that, by Occam's razor, it's not because the equipment isn't sensitive enough, it's that the problem doesn't exist.

Thanks pkane! That makes a lot of sense to me. I make similar arguments to "subjectivists" (i.e. those who value their uncontrolled listening impressions as the most reliable form of knowledge) all the time.

 

[Raindog123]

To me, a “subjectivist“ is the one unwilling to accept the concept of “cognitive bias” and to work toward eliminating/controlling it (in evaluation/analysis). Everything else follows…