Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Doodski]

I hope I didn't sound to snobby or what. I didn't mean to act superior or something. I confess I am not very comfortable with the "smart/intelligent" categorisation for people. I tend to think ideas/propositions are more or less complex and, more importantly, more or less useful/relevant.

The issue with this thinking for a objectivist is that laws of physics and quantum mechanics apply and to call them propositions and relevancy is unreasonable for starters.

 

[Doodski]

One fun question that can be derived from that is just : why care about the measurements at all?

Why not just evaluate loudspeakers in the actual use case: sighted listening?
If ultimately, your perception is a combination of the sound and whatever other biases you bring or experience, then why appeal to measurements derived from blind listening, which ignores the real world influences you will be experiencing? Just purchase the loudspeakers that please your perception in sighted listening, because you’ll never get “ past” that perception (to the thing as it is), so your sighted perception IS the reality of how you will perceive the sound.

For speakers I agree and have chosen in the past speakers that to me sound fantastic and do not have flat frequency response and I don't really care because they for me where the best choice out of dozens of other speakers while some where subjectively better and I bypassed those for a colored sound that I prefer.

 

[Doodski]

It's pretty much like alternative medicine, isn't it? Yes, there are charlatans. And yes the science doesn't support X or Y therapy. But as long as you know all that... if it does make you feel better, isn't it the only thing that really matters?

If a patient is receiving the wrong care for the illness and it is a placebo that simply makes them feel better but not actually better then that is a bit messed up and shorts the patient on what is possible while they rely on the alternative medicine per say and are expensed for that.

 

[pkane]

exactly! why not ruse with our biased brain to make the best experience possible?

Fooling your biased brain with expensive audio equipment seems to be such a random and arduous way to the best possible experience, doesn't it? Let's just take the direct and quickest route to achieving it: recreational drugs. A direct chemical hit on the brain, and no need to philosophize or argue about a possible placebo effect. Seems that would fit your philosophy, based on the quote?

 

[polocolo]

I think you’ve read a lot more into my answer than was intended. We are discussing audio equipment here, not life in general. That was the context. Physical world confined to music reproduction equipment.

I'm sorry if I have. You really wrote that you weren't interesting in philosophy if it didn't back up the method for the prediction of physical reality.

We're on a forum dedicated to audio gear which ultimate goal is the reproduction of an art form and its experience by human ears. So, I figured the topic wasn't limited to signal and electronics.

 

[polocolo]

The problem is, with audio, most people don’t know, don’t even believe you when you tell them!

I agree that it's a problem if you don't know.
and so I understand why ASR members would tell that to any subjectivists claiming whatever without knowing. What I don't understand is why this position is not limited to telling people who don't know.

Does it matter if some company scams you out of $ 10000 of your life savings for a DAC just so you can feel better in your ignorance? I’m sure there are other ways to also feel better, and not spend that money.

It does matter if a company scams you out of your life savings. I never implied otherwise. Though I believe the vast majority of the debates here do not revolve around people spending their life savings on a DAC. Does that happen? maybe. Is it the general rule? I don't believe so.

 

[polocolo]

Because in some instances the subjectivists look dumb and uninformed while denying and using analogies that don't fit or apply misplaced engineering. ...

Ahahah, for that reason, I understand!

and... I really like your picture of the shroomZ.

Thank you! it's a picture of Roger Heim, a French botanist!

 

[polocolo]

The issue with this thinking for a objectivist is that laws of physics and quantum mechanics apply and to call them propositions and relevancy is unreasonable for starters.

Of course. That's why I wasn't talking about laws.

Lemme put it some other way:
there is description ("what things are" and that's the field of science) and there is prescription ("what things should be" and that's axiology).
Two different areas of life.
If ASR were pure description, there wouldn't be any issue and there wouldn't be a Master thread of 700 pages with a question that has broad axiological implications.

 

[polocolo]

If a patient is receiving the wrong care for the illness and it is a placebo that simply makes them feel better but not actually better then that is a bit messed up and shorts the patient on what is possible while they rely on the alternative medicine per say and are expensed for that.

Of course! Why the need to rely on the worst case scenario?

If I have a mild condition and I pay a normal amount of money for someone who makes me feel better even tho they're not backed up by science, is it okay?

because we are, indeed, talking hi-fi, here, not life or death situations.

Sometimes, the "hunt for snake oil" seems to overestimate its own importance. Unless someone puts their family in danger buying 10k cables, the moral gravity of someone spending so much on something supposedly useless is very low in the general list of social issues/injustices. I'm not saying you disagree with that.

And yes, within the limits of this audio community, snake oil scams are amongst the biggest problems.

But honestly: I've read pages and pages of this thread, and I don't feel that the majority applies to snake oil scams/informing ignorant people. The last 15 have been about the reliability of speaker testings whether blinded or sighted. I'm just asking: why isn't the finality more explicit? why does it feel like the stakes are the Absolute Truth of Audio and not "how to get the best of my records"?

 

[polocolo]

Fooling your biased brain with expensive audio equipment seems to be such a random and arduous way to the best possible experience, doesn't it? Let's just take the direct and quickest route to achieving it: recreational drugs. A direct chemical hit on the brain, and no need to philosophize or argue about a possible placebo effect. Seems that would fit your philosophy, based on the quote?

How random is it, since apparently, TONS of people do it all the time? Isn't Audiogon a place filled with people doing this semi-subconsciously?

Drugs, fiction, faith... lots of means... none of them are exclusive to one another!

 

[Galliardist]

That’s the spirit!

Although, sorry I can’t help but point out: the rationale for improving your subjective perception of the system seems fairly obvious. But the rationale for improving the the objective performance of your system seems less obvious.

Why improve the objective performance?

(unless of course that improves the perceived subjective performance in sighted listening)

May I butt in?

As a hardcore objectivist when it comes to the recording, I prefer my system to tell me something close to the truth. If it's a "bad recording" of good music, I can still appreciate the good music. That is a rationale for improving the objective performance of my system.

There are also objective properties other than those related to the sound of the system - ergonomics, quality of build, that may influence choice.

And if a recording really stinks, then whoever was responsible probably didn't really want me to listen. Their loss, and the things that would make it really stink would probably survive any subjective differences in the playback system (unless that system actually stank worse than the recording, anyway).

In practice, I've generally made a subjectively influenced choice from components that are suited to my circumstances, and that I know will give objective equivalence or improvement. On occasion I've heard an unexpected difference between electronic components that should sound the same. I heard that with my current electronics in store, and yet when run within their capabilities, I heard no difference worth anything - blind or sighted - between what I have now and the predecessor amp or an alternative disc spinner (my previous player died) when testing, using equivalent filters at the source. Generally, I am more concerned about other aspects of the sighted experience, like "how does it work?"

 

[JiiPee]

Of course. That's why I wasn't talking about laws.

Lemme put it some other way: there is description ("what things are" and that's the field of science) and there is prescription ("what things should be"). Two different areas of life. If ASR were pure description, there wouldn't be any issue and there wouldn't be a Master thread of 700 pages with a question that has broad axiological implications.

I have to disagree with this. ASR is pretty much just about "description" i.e evaluating recorded music reproduction equipment using scientifically valid methods. What people do with the published results of these evaluations is up to them. ASR does not order people to do something (i.e. it does not provide a "prescription").

 

[pkane]

How random is it, since apparently, TONS of people do it all the time? Isn't Audiogon a place filled with people doing this semi-subconsciously?

Yes, of course, and not even semi-subconsciously. Most audiophile "subjectivists" are completely unaware or refuse to even consider the possibility that they are not actually hearing what they think they are. It's a blue pill vs. red pill scenario, and we all know how this ends up for poor Neo.

 

[polocolo]

I have to disagree with this. ASR is pretty much just about "description" i.e evaluating recorded music reproduction equipment using scientifically valid methods. What people do with the published results of these evaluations is up to them. ASR does not order people to do something (i.e. it does not provide a "prescription").

Thank you for your reply.

I guess we have to distinguish what was intended and what is really happening.
Prescription doesn't start with "ordering people to do something". An advice can be a prescription.

All Amir's reviews end up with a "recommend/don't recommend" conclusion. I'm not saying it's a clear prescription but there is ambivalence and I believe the general tone here is: "we recommend the gear that is the most truthful to the signal".

Also, as I was saying: "are measurements everything?" is a question that goes beyond description.

 

[polocolo]

Yes, of course, and not even semi-subconsciously. Most audiophile "subjectivists" are completely unaware or refuse to even consider the possibility that they are not actually hearing what they think they are. It's a blue pill vs. red pill scenario, and we all know how this ends up for poor Neo.

Clearly.
I just had the feeling that some positions (like Matthooper's) don't fall in that category and yet are discarded just because they open the door to some subjectivist bias.
Are we so traumatised by audio-esoaerism that we become reductionists?

 

[pkane]

believe the general tone here being: "we recommend the gear that is the most truthful to the signal".

Is that really a problem? Considering audio equipment is created for the purpose of audio reproduction and not to address love, emotions, or ethics...

 

[ZCD]

If it sounds good it sounds good ... suum cuique what is needed for this status and feeling good .

 

[voodooless]

I agree that it's a problem if you don't know.

This is the primary reason ASR even exists..

and so I understand why ASR members would tell that to any subjectivists claiming whatever without knowing. What I don't understand is why this position is not limited to telling people who don't know.

Can you elaborate on this?

It does matter if a company scams you out of your life savings. I never implied otherwise. Though I believe the vast majority of the debates here do not revolve around people spending their life savings on a DAC. Does that happen? maybe. Is it the general rule? I don't believe so.

The audio industry has been (legally) scamming people for decades. We generally have no idea how much of a monetary dent people’s purchases made, but I’m sure it is much more common than you think. Just look at those the pictures posted on some of those audiophile forums. Many people spend way more on (nonsense) audio than in other things in their houses. Obviously not everyone does. Never mind the peer pressure that comes along with it, carefully cultivated by the industry over many decades.

 

[polocolo]

Is that really a problem? Considering audio equipment is created for the purpose of audio reproduction and not to address love, emotions, or ethics...

Didn't mean to point it out as a problem in itself.

The problem is not the position one stands for. The problem is the confusion of positions.

I was just replying to a comment saying ASR was not advising anything. I believe ASR does "prescribe" and I don't see any issue in that.

 

[polocolo]

This is the primary reason ASR even exists..

Can you elaborate on this?

The audio industry has been (legally) scamming people for decades. We generally have no idea how much of a monetary dent people’s purchases made, but I’m sure it is much more common than you think. Just look at those the pictures posted on some of those audiophile forums. Many people spend way more on (nonsense) audio than in other things in their houses. Obviously not everyone does. Never mind the peer pressure that comes along with it, carefully cultivated by the industry over many decades.

Ok ok! sorry, I wasn't clear enough (English is not my first language – not an excuse, just an explanation).

I'm gonna try to put it differently:

1) it's great that ASR is here to counterbalance all the audio-BS (I agree that the BS is the dominant culture of Hi-fi – in that regards, ASR is "resisting")
2) it's true that people get scammed all the time and it's a shame and we should fight it.
3) some people here are not getting scammed, they are well informed, and yet, when they admit to making (knowingly) a choice that is very likely biased, a number of members mock their position–almost as if they were going full audiogon.

In other words: I agree that we should be as objectivists as we can be in front of a crowd of subjectivists... but why be absolutely objectivists when conversing with objectivists who happen to be okay with a little subjectivism?