- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 2,410
- Likes
- 4,176
It is hard to pick up a fight with you.I say:
[with a tip of the hat and bows slightly in respect]
'You aren't wrong.'
It is hard to pick up a fight with you.I say:
[with a tip of the hat and bows slightly in respect]
'You aren't wrong.'
You guys really just need to agree to agree.It is hard to pick up a fight with you.
I beg to concur.You guys really just need to agree to agree.
You guys really just need to agree to agree.
Well ... I would advocate for stricter definitions still:
Objective = a description of an object, done in a universal, repeatable and falsifiable manner.
Subjective = your perception of that object.
Thus "controlled" -vs- "lacking controls" are two flavors of subjective perception. Controlled tends to be more valuable, although in practice most industrial development is done non-blind.
And most of our science is a perfect blend of the two. E.g., randomly, equal loudness contour ... begun objectively, with known frequencies at repeatable levels, and then a huge number of test subjects being asked, "Can you hear it now? Can you hear it now?" (Just like the Verizon commercial.) If enough subjects are tested, we can assume solid conclusions, and the matter becomes settled science. But perception is absolutely 50% of, and crucial to, the eventual conclusion.
Rembrandt used to photograph all his paintings so they would look more realisticWhat!? Reference the post at the bottom.
Do they not realize that instruments can 'see' far more than the human eye?
Spectrometers
Telescopes
Microscopes
Imaging technology
IR imaging
Someone may like a painting of a subject more than a photo of it, but the photo is still more accurate, higher 'fidelity'.
I honestly think it comes down to a lack of knowledge and understanding, so they compensate with impression. They 'hear things', OK, but everybody hears differently, they are not calibrated or a reference standard. If they like it, fine, but that does not mean measurements showing it to be lo-fi or inaccurate are wrong. They question reality. They think electronics are magic, music has hidden signals/parameters (depth, air, soundstage, etc.) and engineering is 'fake science'. The old trope 'everything can't be measured' is mantra.
In the audio realm, if audible, it can be measured.
Case in point: a 50 page thread about power supply fuses started by a new member on his first day, of which 20 pages are his 'contributions'.
From another forum about ASR:
That's why they need measurements, they have no trained ears...it's like blind people judging colours
Arguably there are very few true objectivists on this site. If there were the only products that would be talked about would be those that measure at the pinnacle at each price point for each use case. 2nd best means you’re already accepting a compromise. Clearly other criteria come into the decision such as aesthetics/prejudice against a brand and the fact that the buyer simply feels that the products have “thing” - that essential element that makes you want to drop the cash on them.As a graduate of university Electrical Engineering program with masters in comp. science, I laughed my rear off, while reading many posts from 'subjectivist' crowd ... the funniest thread on hi-fi I have ever read ... thanks Amir for unleashing the storm !
Arguably there are very few true objectivists on this site. If there were the only products that would be talked about would be those that measure at the pinnacle at each price point for each use case.
So by definition nobody can be a true objectivist because at some point we all compromise on the holy grail criteria and bring other elements into the decision. Your last statement justifies my position.Wrong. Measurement are not infinitely correlated with sonic improvement. So even if your paradigm existed, your 'true' objectivists would only talk about products that measure 'well enough'. Beyond that would purely be a matter of non-audible tastes. And it would apply less to transducers, which are not a 'solved' technology.
But in reality sound is one factor among several that , quite legitimately, drive a purchase.
I say this because I know damned well I’m going to upgrade at some point from my e50:l50 combo even though I’m fairly certain I’m not capable of hearing any improvements but there’s just the tiniest chance I might and we’ll that new kit is sexy and and and … I’ll be that much more certain that I’m not missing anything. You gotta laugh.So by definition nobody can be a true objectivist because at some point we all compromise on the holy grail criteria and bring other elements into the decision. Your last statement justifies my position.
My feeling is I’m an objectivist to the point where things become good enough. I also do t take myself too seriously on objectivism.
I don’t think I was misusing the term. My point is that whilst I fully understand that an objectivist uses hard facts. In reality there is likely to be a compromise rendering true objectivity moot. Can an objectivist always put aside all the psychological aspects that try to sway us from the path of righteousness. So you’ve go the good enough item (e.g. you can’t tell the difference in a blind ab test but new equipment envy comes along and you start to hear flaws or convince yourself that you absolutely need the newer item because.Oh boy, yet another private definition of a misused term!
Lots of people say that. And yet they do.I don’t think I was misusing the term.
Yea they do. Going off the hard facts to put together a short list and the selecting for your use case ultimately makes you a hard objectivist if not other factors come into it other than those provable measurable factors which contribute to an objective optimal fit for your use case. Most normal people got somewhere in the middle. I am definitely into finding a set of well designed products (which this site helps with). I then let other factors dictate my choice from that short list. I don’t claim to be a hard objectivist. I don’t see that I am misusing the term.Lots of people say that. And yet they do.
Most don't. You're far from the only one.I don’t see that I am misusing the term.
Yea they do. Going off the hard facts to put together a short list and the selecting for your use case ultimately makes you a hard objectivist if not other factors come into it other than those provable measurable factors which contribute...
just think of the comfort it might give me if it is substantially better that if I did have a golden bear I might be able to justify it.