Subjectivists EVERYWHERE!!!!

[syn08]

Well Flat Earthers and QAnon are full of poopoo where as this gentleman is not.

Great, based on what? Credentials, education, anything that is beyond opinions and could be somehow quantified by the unwashed masses?

 

[Wes]

That makes it sound like I was doing something like critical thinking. I was just joking around on a Friday.

just joking around on a Friday has led to many law review articles relating to Critical Legal Studies

or maybe it was the psychedelics

 

[Wes]

No, I stick with feelings as at term.

I think we should all follow out hearts when purchasing a DAC.

or our gall bladders, whatevah

 

[Jim Shaw]

Something worth keeping in mind is that just because something is published in a technical paper does not make it correct. I read lots of technical papers and some are real howlers. Unfortunately there is a cottage industry of publishers and conferences serving a need from academic types to meet KPIs by being published. Indeed one of life's simple pleasures is attending conferences and watching petty cat fights over stuff.

TWO WORDS: Peer reviewed. Anyone can write anything, but getting peer approval is a good test of wisdom.
THREE WORDS: Don't read dolts. See TWO WORDS, above.

 

[Raindog123]

Many people incorrectly believe that "science" is a collection of established facts. Actual science is a process it aims to systematically discover what is not already known and, indeed, to disprove what we now think we know.

Some would argue that science itself is nothing but a hobby….

 

[JJB70]

TWO WORDS: Peer reviewed. Anyone can write anything, but getting peer approval is a good test of wisdom.
THREE WORDS: Don't read dolts. See TWO WORDS, above.

Peer review isn't a guarantee of a paper being correct.

 

[Raindog123]

We should as a group of Music lovers come together to enjoy and celebrate our mutual interest. Human nature is a fickle mess and we seem far more concerned with finding differences rather than enriching each other’s mucical pleasure. Reflecting on my own behavior in this respect makes me attentive for ways to bridge the gap, rather than widen it.

True... Yet anyone has only so much patience...

 

[Doodski]

True... Yet anyone has only so much patience...

Some peeps here say we can't use the terms subjective and objective because they sound derogatory or something like that. Then how are we supposed to differentiate the 2 trains of thought. Words are meant to be used if used properly and those 2 words sum up the methods and beliefs well. Anything else requires so much wording that yes, I do lose my patience and avoid the thread(s).

 

[dc655321]

Some would argue that science itself is nothing but a hobby….

View attachment 145842

This is also the same guy that said, "physics is to math what sex is to masturbation".
So... there's that...

 

[Raindog123]

Peer review isn't a guarantee of a paper being correct.

In my experience, peer-reviews are not as much for the correctness of the published as they are for validation of the approach being used. Eg, in my own reviews, I would never [recommend to] reject a paper if its conclusions/findings disagree with my position (thus "incorrect"). However, I would definitely flag it down if I think the "method" - whether collecting the paper's data or interpreting it - is seriously flawed.

And this is exactly the heart of our objectivist-vs-subjectivist discussion here.

 

[garbulky]

An objective superb DAC and amplifier costs about the same as what a lot of subjective audiophiles spend on cabling alone. There's often not that much of an additional cost to buy good measuring equipment. Boutique audio stuff on the other hand ...

I think it;s great that very low distortion amps and dacs are in the reach of regular people. But... that doesn't change that you can get something equally as good for significantly less! Like for instance, your phone can be both your dac and amp for most headphones. Done.
Just because it's less than *subjectivists* like to spend (and keep in mind there are tons of budget subjectivists), doesn't mean that it's any less dubious.

 

[JJB70]

In my experience, peer-reviews are not as much for the correctness of the published, as they are for validation of the approach being used. Eg, in my own reviews, I would never [recommend to] reject a paper if its conclusions/findings disagree with my position (thus "incorrect"). However, I would definitely flag it down if I think the "method" - whether collecting the paper's data or interpreting it - is seriously flawed.

And this is exactly the heart of our objectivist-vs-subjectivist discussion here.

Which is why a certain degree of technical knowledge is necessary when reading papers. A problem with peer review is the time needed to do a full and proper review, particularly analytical papers heavy on math (it's not uncommon for errors to get through the peer review process). There is often opacity in details if using a model. Scattering references through a paper, how many reviewers follow up on all those references? And then there's the false consensus phenomenon in which countless papers all rely on one paper which published actual experimental data. A few years ago I was tasked with reviewing a matter by a government safety regulator because new research questioned established orthodoxy supported by a library of published papers. What I found was that every one of those papers (and I do mean every one) relied on a single set of experiments done in the 1950's and that the paper putting people's noses out of joint was the first new actual primary research on the matter in over 60 years. Understanding underpinning assumptions is crucial. None of which is to question the importance of technical papers, but it is to say a degree of questioning is required when reading them and there are some howlers out there. When a paper gets through a peer review which doesn't understand what changing a value in the denominator of a calculation it is disappointing to say the least (to use just an example).

 

[rdenney]

I think we should all follow out hearts when purchasing a DAC.

or our gall bladders, whatevah

That’s why I am an objectivist. No gall bladder.

Rick “correlation, and all that” Denney

 

[JackStraw5877]

Oh great... yet another “us” (most excellent, scientific, educated, informed objectivists) vs. “them” (subjective, uneducated audiophools) thread filled with comments of the usual self-congratulatory and condescending nature.

As someone new (and excited) to the measurement-based, scientific approach in audio I signed up here to have fun, observe, listen, and learn; yet, threads such as this, threads DEDICATED to “is ______ talking about Amir/ASR in this YouTube video?!”, and threads of a generally derisive, divisive, frankly paranoid nature seem to be increasing in frequency.

Is this the best, most inclusive strategy for educating folks like me who simply may never have been exposed to a more objective and scientific approach to audio? Does the “us” vs. “them” vibe I so often stumble into here help move the industry away from the hyperbole-drenched, transparency lacking, story-driven approach we all would like to see fade away?

~ just my $0.02 ~

 

[ahofer]

Oh great... yet another “us” (most excellent, scientific, educated, informed objectivists) vs. “them” (subjective, uneducated audiophools) thread filled with comments of the usual self-congratulatory and condescending nature.

As someone new (and excited) to the measurement-based, scientific approach in audio I signed up here to have fun, observe, listen, and learn; yet, threads such as this, threads DEDICATED to “is ______ talking about Amir/ASR in this YouTube video?!”, and threads of a generally derisive, divisive, frankly paranoid nature seem to be increasing in frequency.

The question is thusly begged: Is this the best, most inclusive strategy for educating folks like me who simply may never have been exposed to a more objective and scientific approach to audio? Does the “us” vs. “them” vibe I so often stumble into here help move the industry away from the hyperbole-drenched, transparency lacking, story-driven approach we all would like to see fade away?

~ just my $0.02 ~

You’ve only been here a few days, maybe have a look around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[Doodski]

Oh great... yet another “us” (most excellent, scientific, educated, informed objectivists) vs. “them” (subjective, uneducated audiophools) thread filled with comments of the usual self-congratulatory and condescending nature.

As someone new (and excited) to the measurement-based, scientific approach in audio I signed up here to have fun, observe, listen, and learn; yet, threads such as this, threads DEDICATED to “is ______ talking about Amir/ASR in this YouTube video?!”, and threads of a generally derisive, divisive, frankly paranoid nature seem to be increasing in frequency.

The question is thusly begged: Is this the best, most inclusive strategy for educating folks like me who simply may never have been exposed to a more objective and scientific approach to audio? Does the “us” vs. “them” vibe I so often stumble into here help move the industry away from the hyperbole-drenched, transparency lacking, story-driven approach we all would like to see fade away?

~ just my $0.02 ~

The situation for some is that the subjectivist types come here sometimes with good intention and sometimes to wank around and play with us as if we are toys. Peeps get frustrated with this because it's oftentimes the same subject matter over and over rehashing the same arguments for them in effort to convert them over to objectivism and join the ASR group. I know I get frustrated with the reoccurring stuff and I avoid certain forum posts. Normally things are pretty relaxed around here, claims are backed up with science and we have some fun too.

 

[JackStraw5877]

You’ve only been here a few days, maybe have a look around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I think my point was clear.

 

[JackStraw5877]

The situation for some is that the subjectivist types come here sometimes with good intention and sometimes to wank around and play with us as if we are toys. Peeps get frustrated with this because it's oftentimes the same subject matter over and over rehashing the same arguments for them in effort to convert them over to objectivism and join the ASR group. I know I get frustrated with the reoccurring stuff and I avoid certain forum posts. Normally things are pretty relaxed around here, claims are backed up with science and we have some fun too.

Fair point, but perhaps the remedy for “some” is a thicker skin.

 

[AdamG]

Thread closed. Beating a dead horse will never revive it and negativity is contagious.