• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Our Beliefs and Attacking Ignorance

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
From my perspective, the problem with audio is that it is a technological method which is attempting to recreate a very subjective experience, i.e. music.

Yes, and not just subjective, but emotional, too. Think of the intense joy and euphoria we get from music. It's absolutely natural to want more and better, and then even more and even better. Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll ... there's a reason they go together. Thus the craving is entirely legitimate and understandable.

Added to which, the hi-fi business carries with it its own baked-in history, which is that for many decades upgrades were entirely real. One thing was better than another thing. The price ladder was rational. Spend double, and you got a demonstrably better result.

So what we're selling here is that in many areas we've reached the "end of history" ... electronics have gotten about as good as they're ever going to get, etc, etc, which is a dull message for a new enthusiast. I'm not surprised there's turbulence. We need to emphasize that there are avenues still to explore - the higher-hanging fruit like rooms, etc - and make new members feel part of that exciting new progress.
 

JustJones

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
1,745
Likes
2,462
I was always under the impression High Fidelity meant " reproduce the original recorded signal as accurately as possible" perhaps that's my problem if it is a problem.
 

Shimei

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
24
Likes
34
This is really interesting. I started out in audio nearly 50 years ago. This is before digital, decent sounding cassette decks were just starting to appear. I heard reel-to-reel, but that wasn't really something I heard a lot of. So, when I started, LPs were the best thing going. I bought LPs constantly, understood that some companies [Philips, DGG] had good pressings, good surfaces, others did not. So, when I first got involved with digital, I was working from the assumption that there was something wrong with the sound of anything digital. My mind was looking for things to tear apart. When CDs first appeared, the High-End publications I was reading told me that CDs were inferior, so my personal prejudices were being reinforced.

It wasn't until about ten years ago that my personal affective filters of sound could clearly hear the faults of LP playback. That had a boomerang effect---it's always harder to unlearn something than to learn it. Making needledrops for others, where I had to listen to music I disliked, so all I could really hear were the faults of reproduction, pushed that change in my 'hearing' much further. I wouldn't go back to LPs if you gave me a fully loaded brand new Technics 1200 with all the trimmings for free. But for years I "knew" LPs were better because that was the set of assumptions I had when comparing LPs to [then] CDs. And maybe for a few years [1983-1993 or so] LPs had a few [potential] sonic advantages over CDs. But If I was born in 1970 and got interested in audio in 1985, it probably would have gone the other way.

Is science "evolving"? I mean let's take Newton's law for example. Perfectly adequate to predict an object's future behavior by past behavior until the discovery of Mercury. The object Mercury wasn't able to be predicted. Something about the object's orbit was always off. Along comes Einstein and wallaa Mercury's orbit can be predicted. Not only was Newton slightly off but his whole theory was wrong according to Einstein. One paradigm replaced by another.

Ya know in other areas or studies of life at certain times in history when someone was that off that'd prove fallibility and less credibility. I mean, if I hear another false prophet or teacher claim the sky is falling again! You'd think by now such so and so theological camp would lose all credibility by now.

In the area of science ..... based on the information I gave it shows that there are fallible factors in science - man and his nature. Can science take man out of the equation? Suggest that man and his fallible nature isn't a factor in science and you've just established a presupposition ........ a belief held beforehand that'll undoubtedly affect the findings of any evidence. Man is corruptible whether scientist or not and everything he touches is subject to his corruption - theology 101.

We've seen this in science not only in the area of audio but recently pertaining to the pandemic. The scientific method as a reminder is observation, testability, and repeatability. Think about that..... regarding Amir's measurements, a manufacturers specs, even the scientist claims on origins. If something can't be observed, tested, and repeated - this is nothing more than a narrative and not science. Slap a label of science on something [identity politics] and everyone has "faith" in the authority, credibility, of such and such label.

Far from scientific .... repeating the same mistakes as even the Catholic church had historically. Back to Newton - if we don't learn from history then we'll repeat the same mistake.

Man can't change his nature and part of the nature of man is self-deception. If ya lie and keep repeating it eventually you'll believe your own lie.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
5,023
Likes
9,073
Location
New York City
Just by way of comparison, if you have registered for the Harbeth Forum, Alan Shaw made a table of types of questions asked by visitors, with his estimate of their projected satisfaction with the answer. Kind of amusing. I've reproduced it below. Shaw is a bit cantankerous and tends to delete any discussion of certain aspects of design (directivity) or, for instance, the review on this site. So he isn't the most welcoming, and his commitment to measured transparency is far from complete, IMO. But I love that he's one of the few audio manufacturers that will take on a lot of the industry myths.

1616179807114.png


1616179876215.png

1616179921642.png


1616179953862.png
 
Last edited:

bryanl9581

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
14
Likes
19
We need to emphasize that there [I said:
are[/I] avenues still to explore - the higher-hanging fruit like rooms, etc - and make new members feel part of that exciting new progress.

I am all about that fruit. What else is fruity other than rooms and speakers?
 

JustJones

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
1,745
Likes
2,462
I think some get to involved with the technology that brings the music and confuse the two. I see posts where people say we're humans not robots we can't measure the subjective experience of music. While that may be true we can measure the equipment that reproduces the music. It's like, if you question their choice of equipment as not measuring well, and the higher the price the more defensive they get, you're questioning their experience of music.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,269
Likes
7,699
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I think some get to involved with the technology that brings the music and confuse the two. I see posts where people say we're humans not robots we can't measure the subjective experience of music. While that may be true we can measure the equipment that reproduces the music. It's like, if you question their choice of equipment as not measuring well, and the higher the price the more defensive they get, you're questioning their experience of music.
I can tell you from experience that if you're being forced to listen to music you really dislike, you'll be hearing the equipment, mostly. By virtue of attempting to tune out the signal, you'll hear a lot more of the noise. If you love the music, you can listen around the noise.
 

Shimei

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
24
Likes
34
I can tell you from experience that if you're being forced to listen to music you really dislike, you'll be hearing the equipment, mostly. By virtue of attempting to tune out the signal, you'll hear a lot more of the noise. If you love the music, you can listen around the noise.

No equipment can make gansta rap etc sound good.
Not disagreeing w/ you just sharing my conclusion.
No matter how much I've tried to filter out horrible lyrics under the guise of music....
The equipment never made it sound better ;)
And that's my message :p
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,288
Likes
12,193
This is known as presuppositional apologetics in both philosophy, apologetics and theology.

Egads. If I could just get back some of the time I spent debating presuppositional apologetics over the last couple of decades....:)

One of the useful outcomes though is understanding the need for being ready to question your assumptions and understand if they are defensible and to what degree. But that of course doesn't take presup apologetics specifically; it's the meat of philosophy.



What a person believes beforehand really matters. So many in every area of life deny this.

Certainly true. As to people denying it, I'd say more like being unaware of it.

Which leads to a post I'll likely include re-iterating those ideas.
 

Shimei

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
24
Likes
34
Egads. If I could just get back some of the time I spent debating presuppositional apologetics over the last couple of decades....:)

One of the useful outcomes though is understanding the need for being ready to question your assumptions and understand if they are defensible and to what degree. But that of course doesn't take presup apologetics specifically; it's the meat of philosophy.





Certainly true. As to people denying it, I'd say more like being unaware of it.

Which leads to a post I'll likely include re-iterating those ideas.

Just adding an edit: Not only does "what" one believes but "who" one believes matters. I say this in a time of "selfism and relativism".
 
Last edited:

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,268
Likes
3,972
...Does this mean that the enjoyment audio hobbyist gets from DACs is totally based on measurement? Is the experience of owning and using a Topping D10 superior to the experience one gets from an SPL Phonitor X because the D10 measures better? If that's true, then going forward the primary utility of DAC reviews here is to spot the dwindling few DACs that measure poorly. That is not sufficient in itself for me to make buying decisions. I love measurement....but I like hearing about the functions, technology, brand story, build quality, and yes, subjective listening impressions too. In the real world all of these factors impact our own listening experiences. If you are into gear, my guess is that the experience of owning and using an SPL Phonitor is more fun than a D10. At least until you see the measurements;)

My point is that how much science and measurement matter to audio hobbyists is disputed and rejecting that is not objective. If you believe the only goal of audio gear is to reproduce the original recorded signal as accurately as possible, then science is #1. If you believe that subjective enjoyment of your system and the music is most important, then we should be open to the concept that science may not be the only valid methodology. I think you can put value in both approaches.

I agree. The placebo drug may work despite having no active ingredient, and I derive satisfaction from buying stuff "experts" regarded highly even if their impressions don't hold up. That does not undermine my faith in measurements, though to some here it seems like cognitive dissonance. I bought a Musical Fidelity V90 DAC on the basis of Sam Tellig's positive review (I had not found this site) and because I could afford it and it had the controls I needed for its application. It does not measure as well as some cheaper alternatives, but it's easier to use and it's still audibly transparent.

So, I compared it to the internal Burr-Brown DAC in my old Tascam CD player, and I couldn't hear any difference, switching back and forth between the analog outputs and the digital outputs of the player. I played it loud, soft, in speakers, in headphones--nope, I could not detect any difference. So, instead of my biases confirming a difference, I trusted my ears which hear no difference, and, as Amir has said, started to science it. And the simple result is that both DACs are audibly transparent, even if they measure differently. It's not how they measure, but where our thresholds of detection are.

But the reason I bought that particular DAC is so that I could tell people what DAC I had bought and not have to justify it. It would be accepted as decent for the money by the staunchest subjectivist. But I'm glad I did--there is no display to crap out, and the switches are real physical rocker switches of that type that I can buy at Digikey. So, what of the people who would say that the analog output of my Tascam player is "harsh" and would benefit from being run through the external DAC? Personally, I don't think they are trusting their ears, because if they did, the notion of a blind test wouldn't be abhorrent to them (even if they are too lazy to test their assertions, which I think is usually the case).

Same for my Benchmark ADC. It does mean something to me that the stuff I have bought were favorably reviewed by the subjective press, at least once upon a time. The fact is that when buying vintage stuff, it doesn't really matter all that much to the price, but it does contribute to pride of ownership to know that I have stuff that was favorably reviewed and that also measures well.

When I first introduced myself here, one regular responded and said I had really nice older stuff--I just about printed that out and hung it on the wall. That is the validation that hobbyists enjoy. I bet I spent a lot less than most people, and still didn't feel the need to rebel against subjective reviews in addition to measurements.

Rick "it's a hobby" Denney
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,269
Likes
7,699
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
No equipment can make gansta rap etc sound good.
Not disagreeing w/ you just sharing my conclusion.
No matter how much I've tried to filter out horrible lyrics under the guise of music....
The equipment never made it sound better ;)
And that's my message :p
Different strokes. No, I'm not a fan of Gangster Rap, though there's a fair amount of Rap by ex-gangsters I actively like. Goes back to original impressions, first heard "The Last Poets" in 1974.

My audio bête noire turned out to be white gospel. This goes back to your original post: my first exposure to "Church Music" was black gospel, happened to have my earliest experiences in a black church in South Central---"This is the way it's supposed to sound". So, when I had to transfer 20 or so LPs [ok shape, little wear, the usual off-center records] from Fresno's Cross Church [? not sure of the name right now, but very North Fresno], my mind could just not take it in. Go back as far as the Carter Family, I'm ok, Statler Brothers had plenty of musical talent, but this was really amateur, out of tune stuff. I had to listen all the way through to note skips [I could attempt another pass after adjusting anti-skate or figure out a way to edit around a skip, insert a passage from another part of the same song], which happened more often than they should have with these old records.
 
Last edited:

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,268
Likes
3,972
Is science "evolving"? I mean let's take Newton's law for example. Perfectly adequate to predict an object's future behavior by past behavior until the discovery of Pluto. The object Pluto wasn't able to be predicted. Something about the object's orbit was always off. Along comes Einstein and wallaa Pluto's orbit can be predicted. Not only was Newton slightly off but his whole theory was wrong according to Einstein. One paradigm replaced by another. Or was Newton? I mean today some are contending Pluto isn't even a planet...
All models are false, even if some are useful. One is led astray describing Newton's physics as "laws". They are really a model of behavior that works in the physical world pretty well for most important things.

Einstein came up with another relationship that provided a different model that worked at a scale Newton's model did not. He didn't negate Newton, and we still use Newton for most physics and engineering. He placed Newton inside a larger context where Newton isn't enough to model what we needed to know.

If this must be theological, what are the true "laws"--the self-existent laws from which all our science is but a projection? Whose laws are they? Do we think quantum mechanics is as far as we need to go with physics? Of course not--there will be new paradigm shifts, but they won't negate the current paradigms, they will just work in more cases. Every time we think we have a bead on the true laws, we learn something or observe something the current model doesn't describe.

There is always a question of what is "settled" science. This is dangerous, because the term assumes there is a canon to which scientists subscribe, and if there is a canon, there has to be someone responsible for canonization. The canon always elevates the latest accepted model, and eschews any later upstarts until they push past the canonizers. Settled science is at best a consensus among scientists, but often the canon (or how it is described) is not fully in responsible hands. It becomes an argument about who has a right to define the canon of settled audio science. That said, I go back to nobody applying Einsteinian physics to, say, investigating a car crash or designing a building structure. Newton works well enough. This is really what we are saying--what we know of audio science is good enough to model its accuracy or transparency in terms of what we can hear, and those who claim otherwise have to have the science to push past the canon of settled audio science. Assertions, however honestly or vigorously held, are not good enough. And if those assertions are based on perceptions, it's not too much to ask if the perceptions hold up to controlled testing.

In the digital photography world, I can't tell you how many times I have heard "the laws of physics dictate..." followed by some assertion that has since been completely overcome by advancing technology. My only conclusion is that a person has to earn the right to assert the laws of physics. A Ph.D. doesn't seem too much to ask. (I don't have one and I'm an engineer, not a physicist, but then I avoid assertions based on the "laws of physics", because there always seems to be a physicist in the room whose first name is "Doctor").

Rick "the more I know, the less confidence I have in mere knowledge" Denney
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,701
Location
Chicago
I wasn't sure where to post this, so apologies if it's in the wrong place. Also, I realize that a philosophical statement might be distasteful to some, so I invite the mods to delete this if they see fit.

I've been a member of this forum for a couple of years now. In the past few months as it has grown, I see a lot of new members both accusing and being accused of everything from being a troll to a shill to an idiot (frequently using those terms). Certainly there are some language barriers and cultural differences that we've always made room for, but I think there is also something else going on.

Humans have a tendency to identify with their beliefs. That is, their beliefs shape how they see themselves as people. Seems obvious, right? When someone's beliefs (and therefore identity) is threatened, they fight back, lash out, become defensive, etc. If a person's identity is (in part) that, "cables make no difference in the sound of an audio system," and someone comes along and says, "I just read this article where someone proves cables make a difference," that sets off an emotional response.

I'll admit to rolling my eyes when I see posts by new members asking for recommendations and then detailing their entire system including power conditioners, expensive cables and interconnects, power cords, etc. so we can make an informed recommendation with appropriate "synergy" (that's what's expected on most audio forums, after all). My eye rolling compulsion is an automatic response that isn't really under my control. I just have to be aware of it and act accordingly. It's tempting sometimes to make a smart-ass remark that is sure to get a dozen "likes" from like-minded members, but I've managed to control myself for the most part.

When we inform people that they are wrong (and we should), sometimes it will cause them to dig in their heels and defend themselves because even well-intentioned rebuttals can come across as attacks. This is inevitable, of course, and knowing why this happens should help us understand how to diffuse a situation that becomes tense. Unfortunately, sometimes those who should simply say nothing go a step further with snarky, rude, or insulting replies. Some visitors or new members who might have been genuinely curious at first are just going to go back to their old audiophile forums and talk about what a bunch of jerks they found.

Many people haven't had any exposure to the ASR way of thinking about audio. Most of the information available on audio equipment is extraordinarily subjective, and there is SO much of it that it becomes hard to believe that ALL these sources of information must be mistaken. Many visitors here are venturing into a whole new world (I can relate to that experience to some extent). We may not change someone's way of thinking with a single forum post, no matter how well reasoned or how much data we provide--it may take some time. If we chase them away with rude or snide comments, they won't hang around long enough to get anything out of this forum. There is a lot to be learned here and a lot of really smart, thoughtful, and knowledgeable people to learn from, so the more people that stick around the better.
An official Community Guidelines and Mission Statement will go a long way to addressing these issues, otherwise it will keep happening as ASR continues to grow.
 

HiFidFan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
723
Likes
906
Location
U.S.A
Egads. If I could just get back some of the time I spent debating presuppositional apologetics over the last couple of decades....:)

Are you familiar with Sam Harris?

I love a good debate.
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,309
Likes
1,475
Top Bottom