• 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!

Synergistic Research apparently at "war" against Gene from Audioholics

Status
Not open for further replies.

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,656
Likes
5,819
Location
US East
Anybody can pretty much get a patent in the US if he/she has enough money to hire the right lawyer. An example is Eddie Van Halen. He wanted one and he got one. (Image source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/3e/7c/300417d86ab10a/US4656917-drawings-page-2.png)

US4656917-drawings-page-2.png
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,808
I didn't do any science after 'O' level but I still don't waste money on products that do nothing. I don't think this is a question of lack of education.

You can talk to people who buy this stuff. You can explain why it can't change the sound. You can point them to blind tests where no-one is able to tell the difference. They will tell you that regardless they have heard the difference, So you point them to 100 years of research into psycho-acoustics and explain that we can and often will perceive a difference when in fact there is no change.

None of this will make any difference. They will reject everything you tell them out of hand and then - if this exchange takes place on the internet - become personally insulting.

Correct.

That describes my long experience discussing these issues on audio forums with audiophiles on the far end of the subjective spectrum. The "Trust Only Your Ears" crowd.

To these groups, anyone who voices skepticism of a claim, and who invoke things like measurements or controlled listening, or who even suggest that science has anything to say about audio, are decried as dogmatic, mean muckrakers who want to impose their view on others and ruin everyone's good time.

I have been doing my best in these forums to point out how that "subjectivist" reaction itself arises from it's own dogmatism and blindness to it's own bias.

An audiophile, of the sort that most of us are here, may be skeptical of a certain claim, but we do so on the basis that we could be wrong, and that we accept ways in which we can be shown to be wrong or right, ways in which our minds can be changed, our beliefs updated. The appeal to measurable, objective evidence and/or listening tests controlling for well known biases, are just such mechanisms. If I'm skeptical of the claim an amplifier or cable changes the signal AT ALL then in principle you can show me measurable differences to change my mind. And if I still ask whether those measurable changes are audible, there can be controlled listening tests (blinded) that give evidence for or against this.

The point being that this is essentially acknowledging a scientific mindset (even if one is not a scientist or strictly doing science): it incorporates in to it's very approach that humans are often in error, I'm human, I may well be in error - may be wrong - so how can I learn when I'm wrong? (or right?). And then it takes steps to account for human error and in principle offers two dissenting opinions a way of converging - "Well, it turns out I was wrong and you were right."

The pure subjectivist paradigm simply does not allow for this. It has no such mechanism for uncovering if you are wrong or right, or for settling any disputes of opinions or facts. If I believe and say I heard a difference...end of story. I reject any measurements that might contradict my belief, and reject the relevance of bias-controlled testing. So, I heard it, that's it. You can't even use the subjective paradigm to dispute this fact, for instance "Ok, if our our hearing is the ultimate arbiter, I'll listen to that cable to see if you are right. Well, I just listened, and I heard no difference, so my subjective test just disproved your claim there is a difference." The subjectivist simply replies "Sorry, but that only shows you haven't the acuity to hear the difference. I know this because, you see, I hear a difference and you can't prove otherwise."

One can claim and believe to hear angels singing in the background when they replace the footers under their CD, and there is no mechanism whatsoever to vet that claim, for or against, in audio subjectivism.

There was an infamous telling moment in the debate between "Science Guy" Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham, where the moderate asked each "What if anything would change your mind." To paraphrase, Nye answered "evidence" and Ham answered "nothing" (no would could change his mind about his fundamental presupposition).

I have asked a similar question of subjectivists many times: First I explain how it could be determined that any of my beliefs can be shown to be wrong, and how my skepticism of a claim can be overturned. Then I ask: How would you determined your subjectively-derived belief was wrong? To date not one single subjectivist has answered this question, except to say "There is no way that I'm wrong about this."

And yet they cast the skeptic as the close-minded dogmatist!

And the problems that arise from this aren't only that they have a fallible method that is dogmatically closed to disconfirmation. It's that in offering no way to settle disputes, it's subjectivism like this that actually balkanizes epistemology and foments dispute! Once you have taken your own experience as inviolable and true, and once you have endorsed just that method to others, while simultaneously disavowing methods that calm adults could use to settle matters, all you have left are personal feelings and personal honour, where skepticism of your experience is taken as an insult, and lacking objective tools, all you have left are ad hominem insults to sling back at someone.

This is why things like cable threads inevitably lead to acrimony and insults. And if you notice, the majority of this actually comes from the subjectivists doing their turf-honor-protecting. They will call the skeptics insulting, while turning a blind eye to every subjectivist making derisive insults "you must have crappy gear, or crappy ears!" because it supports their own convictions.

I keep pointing this out to the hard-core subjectivists in forums and, while of course it doesn't sink in to the most dogmatic, it's clear that challenging these dogmas and attitudes are hitting home with plenty of those who aren't so close minded. For instance I notice when I challenge this stuff over at the Steve Hoffman forum many of my posts get high numbers of "likes" e.g. 30, 45 etc, vs very few for the subjectivist, and I get PMs from people saying they are happy to see someone speaking up for their view.

I think we need to keep reminding the audio world that audiophiles come in all ranges of approaches, and that no, a purely subjective paradigm should NOT be presumed as the default, and dissenters painted as meanies and trolls. This forum and it's growth only helps show the diversity of views.



*(And of course people who appeal to measurements etc don't disavow the subjective aspect of audio. That's one of the common misunderstandings we so often see when the criticism comes "All they care about are measurements, I care about how it SOUNDs."
No, the reason anyone cares about measurements is due to how those measurements have been CORRELATED TO HOW THINGS SOUND.
That's the piece of the puzzle so often ignored).
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY

MarkS

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Messages
1,062
Likes
1,502
My argument is "Trust your ears, not your eyes."

Which means: listen without knowing which cable (or amp, or whatever) is installed in your system. Then decide how it sounds.

IMO, we objectivists do ourselves no favors by emphasizing measurements and level-matched ABX testing. These are both short-cuts to the truth for those who are open to these methodologies, but neither is necessary.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,808
My argument is "Trust your ears, not your eyes."

Which means: listen without knowing which cable (or amp, or whatever) is installed in your system. Then decide how it sounds.

IMO, we objectivists do ourselves no favors by emphasizing measurements and level-matched ABX testing. These are both short-cuts to the truth for those who are open to these methodologies, but neither is necessary.

I'm confused by your post.

Small differences in volume are well known to skew the perception of sound quality, usually to the louder signal as 'better' (even if it's literally the same signal). If someone actually wanted to understand what was going on, whether X alters a signal in an audible way, why wouldn't they want to control for that variable?

Take two people trying to determine if there is an audible difference between two amplifiers in his system:

1. Person A controls for the loudness variable, by strictly matching volume, and his blind testing indicates no audible difference.

2. Person B doesn't control for loudness variable, leaving one signal louder, and in his blind testing finds he prefers the louder signal, and thus misattributes this to the amplifier altering the sound, instead of recognizing it was due to a volume mismatch.

How does it make sense to say that "person A found a short cut to the truth" but person B...what?...found a long way to the truth? But if they have come to opposite conclusions, how can that contradiction make sense?

So, again, I'm confused about your point.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,213
Likes
24,173
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom