Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Geert]

I could suggest different books (and I already did on multiple occasions), but what's the chance that people struggling with rational thinking or going to read these books? Very often that weakness creates a blind spot so they don't even realize how poor their rational thinking skills are. We have hundreds of pages in threads like this that show this issue. So you need an approach that's tailored to the target audience. And even then lots of people will argue that related experiments are non conclusive because you need 'slow listening' in condititions that are familiar and without stress to identify differences.

 

[DSJR]

When it comes to speaker design and final 'voicing,' I'd suggest that a good listening session is still needed to fine-tune an otherwise competent basic design.

 

[voodooless]

And even then lots of people will argue that related experiments are non conclusive because you need 'slow listening' in condititions that are familiar and without stress to identify differences.

You can't argue with people who can't argue...

 

[Liberal Democracy]

The current discussion speaks again the idea that we should be making sure people are taught some basic level of scientific literacy.
Not just knowledge derived by science, but the reasons for the scientific method.

And I think this should include direct encounters with our biases.

Even in the realm of audio gear, anybody who has engaged in blind testing in which their own bias effect is exposed - feeling like you’re really hearing a difference in uncontrolled conditions that vanishes in blinded conditions - learns I think a deep and lifelong lesson.

Personal Experience is always more effective than being taught the theory.
It leaves a mark.

I think it would be amazing if there were some
widespread curriculum on critical thinking and scientific reasoning that made clear the problem of human biases which included experiments that let people experience the effects themselves.

I took psychology courses in university (along with my major) and I found learning about bias effects to be among the most engaging and fascinating parts of the course.

Undeniably ' true ' , our brains work via a system reliant on all sorts of assumptions, narrowing of focus, learned norms etc. It kinda works , we are all still here .

It's always amused me when folks would say they were ' objectivists ' pure objectivity and the human condition are not compatible or even remotely possible . It's just another call to authority imo .

Ah well .. , one can't be expert in all areas of life , one can find the smartest to be the dumbest and vice versa , depending on what part of their life's one looks at. Life's great contrasts .

 

[Geert]

pure objectivity and the human condition are not compatible or even remotely possible

Your brain initialy processes info using 'System 1 thinking', being near-instantaneous thinking which allows you to respond very fast. It's everything but objective, full of beliefs and biases which allow you to run on auto pilot. Rational thinking takes an extra step. Refered to as 'System 2' thinking, here thinking becomes more objective. Slower, but more reliable. So it all depends on how much effort people want to spend in 'System 2' thinking, knowing it can be very uncomfortable.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought" (John F. Kennedy)

 

[pkane]

It's always amused me when folks would say they were ' objectivists ' pure objectivity and the human condition are not compatible or even remotely possible . It's just another call to authority imo .

It's not an appeal to authority, objectivism is an attempt to remove as many biases as possible from influencing a decision or an explanation. It's a hard row to hoe, so we humans take many shortcuts, even the so called 'objectivists'. We wouldn't survive as a species if we attempted to make every decision in life 'objective'.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

It's not an appeal to authority, objectivism is an attempt to remove as many biases as possible from influencing a decision or an explanation. It's a hard row to hoe, so we humans take many shortcuts, even the so called 'objectivists'. We wouldn't survive as a species if we attempted to make every decision in life 'objective'.

It's the self identification that makes it amusing, to me anyhow. Its neither logical or objective to claim to identify as objectivist.
In the context of audio forums it definitely is used as a kind of appeal to authority/superiority.

 

[pkane]

It's the self identification that makes it amusing, to me anyhow. Its neither logical or objective to claim to identify as objectivist.
In the context of audio forums it definitely is used as a kind of appeal to authority/superiority.

It's a useful identity on the forums, but only so far as it makes it easier to identify the opposing group, the "subjectivists"

 

[Liberal Democracy]

It's a useful identity on the forums, but only so far as it makes it easier to identify the opposing group, the "subjectivists"

And therein lay the amusement, we are all a product of subjective experience.

I'd be on board with ..,

I'm inclined to think critically examine myself, vs. I'm inclined to trust my instincts and intuition.

The whole subjectivists vs objectivists is hilarious.., to me .

 

[danadam]

Your brain initialy processes info using 'System 1 thinking', being near-instantaneous thinking which allows you to respond very fast. It's everything but objective, full of beliefs and biases which allow you to run on auto pilot. Rational thinking takes an extra step. Refered to as 'System 2' thinking, here thinking becomes more objective. Slower, but more reliable. So it all depends on how much effort people want to spend in 'System 2' thinking, knowing it can be very uncomfortable.

That's what it reminded me of:

"First Thoughts are the everyday thoughts. Everyone has those. Second Thoughts are the thoughts you think about the way you think. People who enjoy thinking have those. Third Thoughts are thoughts that watch the world and think all by themselves. They’re rare, and often troublesome. Listening to them is part of witchcraft." (Terry Pratchett - A Hat Full of Sky)

 

[Mart68]

And therein lay the amusement, we are all a product of subjective experience.

I'd be on board with ..,

I'm inclined to think critically examine myself, vs. I'm inclined to trust my instincts and intuition.

The whole subjectivists vs objectivists is hilarious.., to me .

I wasn't even aware of it until I discovered internet audio forums.

Really it just distinguishes between 'I perceived it so it must be real even if physics says it's impossible' and 'I perceived it but physics says it's impossible so it must be in my head.'

As you say, ultimately we are all subjectivist.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

It all depends on the context but let's assume we have Bob that just loves buying hifi and is perfectly happy with his Zu speakers and £100k tube amplifier, listening to LPs through his Michell GyroDec engraved by the ghost of Charlie Parker ..,

Measurements mean nothing here , he's perfectly happy and enjoying his subjective experience. Hell he even believes in ghosts. Fair play to Bob , I bet he's having a blast.

Should Bob ever want to understand why he likes it so much or try and claim it to be ' better ' than Joe's Topping stack and Revel speakers then Measurements , self examination and Psycho-acoustics will be not only required but a absolute necessity, in order to reach a conclusion of actual value .

Who knows what factors influenced Bob but let's recognise that Joe might be Quasi religious in his ' belief ' in measurements. Believing his setup to be superior based on the belief in a higher power, in this case possibly a SINAD chart or some other ' objective ' value , a Internet personality/Guru even , Possibly living in the Seattle area.

Bob and Joe may not be so different, both possibly taking comfort in the reassurance provided by each of their belief systems and experiences. It may well be that Bob has a more balanced life , is generally more self critical and even dare i say objective in his day to day life , he's just into what he's into, remembering his dads hifi , who knows . While it's perfectly possible Joe is a maladjusted obsessive, ruled by anxiety and fear who has little to no perspective at all let alone objectivity.

And then all the possibilities in-between..

So Measurements, all or nothing .. maybe a daft question but if it keeps the arguments contained, keeping review threads cleaner its a rather good thread to have all the same. We used to have fight club for that ., this here is a better solution.

 

[Geert]

I'm inclined to think critically examine myself, vs. I'm inclined to trust my instincts and intuition.

The whole subjectivists vs objectivists is hilarious.., to me .

Hilariuous, altough your first statement explains why the subjectivists vs objectivists stance is real. It's about preferred behavior ('Jungian psychotherapy' related to personality and learning styles).

 

[Liberal Democracy]

Hilariuous, altough your first statement explains why the subjectivists vs objectivists stance is real. It's about preferred behavior ('Jungian psychotherapy' related to personality and learning styles).

That red book has everything in it .., as dose 16 44.1 , the red book a standard for all things it seems .

 

[Mart68]

It all depends on the context but let's assume we have Bob that just loves buying hifi and is perfectly happy with his Zu speakers and £100k tube amplifier, listening to LPs through his Michell GyroDec engraved by the ghost of Charlie Parker ..,

Measurements mean nothing here , he's perfectly happy and enjoying his subjective experience. Hell he even believes in ghosts. Fair play to Bob , I bet he's having a blast.

Should Bob ever want to understand why he likes it so much or try and claim it to be ' better ' than Joe's Topping stack and Revel speakers then Measurements , self examination and Psycho-acoustics will be not only required but a absolute necessity, in order to reach a conclusion of actual value .

Who knows what factors influenced Bob but let's recognise that Joe might be Quasi religious in his ' belief ' in measurements. Believing his setup to be superior based on the belief in a higher power, in this case possibly a SINAD chart or some other ' objective ' value , a Internet personality/Guru even , Possibly living in the Seattle area.

Bob and Joe may not be so different, both possibly taking comfort in the reassurance provided by each of their belief systems and experiences. It may well be that Bob has a more balanced life , is generally more self critical and even dare i say objective in his day to day life , he's just into what he's into, remembering his dads hifi , who knows . While it's perfectly possible Joe is a maladjusted obsessive, ruled by anxiety and fear who has little to no perspective at all let alone objectivity.

And then all the possibilities in-between..

So Measurements, all or nothing .. maybe a daft question but if it keeps the arguments contained, keeping review threads cleaner its a rather good thread to have all the same. We used to have fight club for that ., this here is a better solution.

It really isn't about 'whose set up is better' and it's rare to see that particular argument - most enthusiasts tend to acknowledge personal preference and most are not snobby about how much or how little has been spent.

There was never really a problem until internet forums. When foo started to get reviewed in the magazines, late 1980s, there were some 'Letters To The Editor' from disgruntled readers who advised they were cancelling their subscriptions due to the nonsense. These were ignored as cable companies and suchlike had big profits and could advertise a lot.

However, once forums started you would then get Bob posting about how wonderful the improvements were from his new £1K power cables. Then Joe, alarmed that fellow enthusiasts were being given bad advice, would post to contradict that, and so it began in earnest.

Prior to that the twain would never meet and were happy in their own worlds.

 

[Sernyl]

@Geert,
The book I refered to is just an example.
(Hard to read, but I have done it ;-)
There are also more hifi related books, like Toole's.
Anyway, believers are believers...

 

[MattHooper]

It's always amused me when folks would say they were ' objectivists ' pure objectivity and the human condition are not compatible or even remotely possible . It's just another call to authority imo .

It depends what one means by objectivist.

I identify as an objectivist. To me, it is an epistemic stance. Instead of imputing some form of objective truth or certainty to my beliefs it’s exactly the opposite: it’s a recognition of my and everybody else’s fallibility and propensity for bias. And therefore the objectivist recognizes methods which take human bias seriously as a variable are going to be more reliable - scientific testing, controlling for bias, using measurement devices that don’t suffer bias and holding to the relevance of measurements, etc.

However, in my view that does not commit me or anyone to becoming scientists, or treating our purchases as a science experiment, or even caring about measurements when buying gear. There’s all sorts of different reasons and ways to engage in the hobby. But being an objectivist is a way of trying to keep honest about the nature of bias and what type of inquiry actually yields the most reliable information. Uncontrolled subjective experience does not yield the most reliable information.

It’s no problem for the objectivist even indulging in a bias effect … but part of being in objectivist is being cognizant that it is or may be a bias effect. Rather than holding some unjustifiably strong confidence levels in one’s subjective perception.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

It depends what one means by objectivist.

I identify as an objectivist. To me, it is an epistemic stance. Instead of imputing some form of objective truth or certainty to my beliefs it’s exactly the opposite: it’s a recognition of my and everybody else’s fallibility and propensity for bias. And therefore the objectivist recognizes methods which take human bias seriously as a variable are going to be more reliable - scientific testing, controlling for bias, using measurement devices that don’t suffer bias and holding to the relevance of measurements, etc.

However, in my view that does not commit me or anyone to becoming scientists, or treating our purchases as a science experiment, or even caring about measurements when buying gear. There’s all sorts of different reasons and ways to engage in the hobby. But being an objectivist is a way of trying to keep honest about the nature of bias and what type of inquiry actually yields the most reliable information. Uncontrolled subjective experience does not yield the most reliable information.

It’s no problem for the objectivist even indulging in a bias effect … but part of being in objectivist is being cognizant that it is or may be a bias effect. Rather than holding some unjustifiably strong confidence levels in one’s subjective perception.

Recognisable values for sure , I certainly can relate to that iv just never felt the need to turn it into a ' identity ' in the sense of ' I am a objectivists ' . Then iv never felt the need to label myself in any way whatsoever . I personally find self labling and much of what seems to me to be a rapidly increasing need for self definition through labeling, interesting but ultimately a source of some hilarity while also rather worrying when seen in a larger context.

As definitions go , you're definition of ' objectivist' is a admirable one . ' I'm human ' , that's about as far as I go with all that.

 

[solderdude]

Even objectivists have certain beliefs (often more than they care to admit) and there are plenty subjectivists that still value measurements.

I consider myself an inbetweenivist leaning towards the more objective side.

My suspicion is that there are far more 'pure' subjectivists around than 'hardcore' objectisvists simply because people want to believe, which is more of an subjective thing.
And ... not only in audio.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Recognisable values for sure , I certainly can relate to that iv just never felt the need to turn it into a ' identity ' in the sense of ' I am a objectivists ' . Then iv never felt the need to label myself in any way whatsoever . I personally find self labling and much of what seems to me to be a rapidly increasing need for self definition through labeling, interesting but ultimately a source of some hilarity while also rather worrying when seen in a larger context.

As definitions go , you're definition of ' objectivist' is a admirable one . ' I'm human ' , that's about as far as I go with all that.

At different times I known or read of situations where people would describe some trajectory of learning something and at some point say something like, "it was here I entered the culture of..........". It became as you say a self definition. It was also an indication to them and others they now had certain levels of knowledge. Often the cultures weren't really very good knowledge. Didn't keep the culture from being real. People feel much more comfortable in a culture. The culture can become much more important than the truth or reality. The efficacy of the culture must meet certain minimums to sustain itself, but beyond those minimums the culture need not accomplish all that much other than make humans feel a part of something.

You might be born and grow up in a certain part of the world and you are maybe in the culture of Germany or some other place. You also end up in other sub-cultures. Almost everything ends up working this way. You may be in the culture of fly fishermen, motorcycle riders, musicians, audiophiles, woodworkers, hunters or any number of other things. Humans readily form up in groups and create cultures or latch onto cultures that already exist. As a social phenomenon cultures tend to be self sustaining.