Objectivists vs. Subjectivists, one more time

[Gabs]

Distorsion.

 

[Jakob1863]

No, not in my definition.
Transparency would refer to a device such as an amplifiers ability to be simply a straight wire with gain. Anything that makes an audible change to the input signal in the process of accomplishing it's mission would subtract from it's transparency. That would include freq response changes, various harmonic distortions, phase errors, timing, etc etc. Whether a device is transparent, or deviates in some way, we would all hear the same.

The term neutrality IMO mainly refers to a adherence, or deviation from, a flat frequency response.

I´m sorry Sal1950, but if you argue with "anything that makes audible change...." why do you object my assertion that the term "transparency" is related to human perception?

@Gabs ,

this discussion illustrates why it is so important to synchronize/match the vocabulary (i.e. the meaning of the words) if talking using terms where either no definition exists or the definitions can be/are different in different fields.

IMO objectivism is just "being aware of bias". And this is important ! The rest...

Of course it´s important, but objectivists should be aware of _every_ bias and should try to minimize the impact.
But quite often people (although claiming to be an objectivist) are only aware of possible bias effects if something is described that they don´t believe in.

If something fits their personal beliefs they are often far more willing to accept it although a lot of possible bias effect could had have an impact.

That´s human; Laplace already described around ~1830 (and most probably the ancient greeks already noticed it too) that humans tend to develop a belief about something first/ad hoc and then sort of confirmation bias kicks in that leads to processing information in favour of those informations that support the belief.

 

[Gabs]

I´m sorry Sal1950, but if you argue with "anything that makes audible change...." why do you object my assertion that the term "transparency" is related to human perception?

@Gabs ,

this discussion illustrates why it is so important to synchronize/match the vocabulary (i.e. the meaning of the words) if talking using terms where either no definition exists or the definitions can be/are different in different fields.



Of course it´s important, but objectivists should be aware of _every_ bias and should try to minimize the impact.
But quite often people often (although claiming to be an objectivist) are only aware of possible bias effects if something is described that they don´t believe in.

If something fits their personal beliefs they are often far more willing to accept it although a lot of possible bias effect could had have an impact.

That´s human; Laplace already described around ~1830 (and most probably the ancient greeks already noticed it too) that humans tend to develop a belief about something first/ad hoc and then sort of confirmation bias kicks in that leads to processing information in favour of those informations that support the belief.

Yes it's certainly that. I mean, vocabulary. Definitions are too fluctuating.
And about objectivism, still IMO, it does not exist. (almost) Everything in science is a bias that one day will me resolved.
The other problem I suspect is that a lot of people (and andiophiles) confound science and objectivism. IMO objectivism is kind of a plague to science. Science is organisation, not objectivism. And the ones (like maybe Mr. Reichert) seems to reject the science whereas objectivity is the problem.

 

[Cosmik]

As I just commented in another thread, why would anyone want to be able to emulate a $100 oscilloscope or USB sound card with their ears? If distortion, frequency response, SNR, phase, etc. are nothing to do with music, what possible advantage can there be in being able to quantify them with your ears?

Maybe if you work at the coal face of audio, it might be a slight advantage to be able to spot gross problems without using test equipment, but if you are just listening for pleasure then being trained as a human spectrum analyser can only be a curse.

But this doesn't mean I agree with the so-called 'subjectivists'. As is commonly meant by the term in audio forums, 'subjectivists' are merely substituting their own homebrew 'pseudo-objective' criteria, like "PRaT" in place of 'real' objective criteria.

 

[Gabs]

As I just commented in another thread, why would anyone want to be able to emulate a $100 oscilloscope or USB sound card with their ears? If distortion, frequency response, SNR, phase, etc. are nothing to do with music, what possible advantage can there be in being able to quantify them with your ears?

Maybe if you work at the coal face of audio, it might be a slight advantage to be able to spot gross problems without using test equipment, but if you are just listening for pleasure then being trained as a human spectrum analyser can only be a curse.

But this doesn't mean I agree with the so-called 'subjectivists'. As is commonly meant by the term in audio forums, 'subjectivists' are merely substituting their own homebrew 'objective' criteria, like "PRaT" in place of 'real' objective criteria.

Hi, because bias and psychoacoustics.
Personnaly I trust the frequency response curve more than my ears. And on the other side I can understand what I hear thanks to the frequency response measurements. It's what Archimago calls "maintaining a balance".

EDIT : it's a Mulder and Scully thing !

 

[Jakob1863]

Yes it's certainly that. I mean, vocabulary. Definitions are too fluctuating.
And about objectivism, still IMO, it does not exist. (almost) Everything in science is a bias that one day will me resolved.
The other problem I suspect is that a lot of people (and andiophiles) confound science and objectivism. IMO objectivism is kind of a plague to science. Science is organisation, not objectivism. And the ones (like maybe Mr. Reichert) seems to reject the science whereas objectivity is the problem.

Scientific work is afair considered to be scientific if the accepted scientific "toolbox" is used, which of course is recursive/selfreferrencing insofar, yes it is about organisation. But the goal of scientific work is to find the _real_ cause and effect relation (of course simplification, it often might only be to find a degree of approximation, enhancing of models although knowing that overall they are incorrect) which is an objectiv goal, so i don´t understand why objectivism could be "a plague to science" ?

 

[Cosmik]

I can understand what I hear thanks to the frequency response measurements.

I'll bet I could design a system that had a flat frequency response (as measured conventionally), but produced an output that you definitely couldn't understand...

 

[Gabs]

Scientific work is afair considered to be scientific if the accepted scientific "toolbox" is used, which of course is recursive/selfreferrencing insofar, yes it is about organisation. But the goal of scientific work is to find the _real_ cause and effect relation (of course simplification, it often might only be to find a degree of approximation, enhancing of models although knowing that overall they are incorrect) which is an objectiv goal, so i don´t understand why objectivism could be "a plague to science" ?

Cause and effect is just a part of science. Complex systems are another thing. Science may only evolve thanks to "doubt". And objectivity is something that want no "doubt".

EDIT : maybe someday I will change my mind but for know I think that objectivism is a very dangerous religion.
EDIT 2 : I also thing that subjectivism is obviously full of bias.

 

[Gabs]

 

[Gabs]