Why do some Objectivists fear Psychoacousitics?
- Thread starter cjfrbw
- Start date
We'll Carl, if your thread is as long and convoluted as the other one started by Jeff we will all be growing slightly older by the time it is done 
Hi
I am not sure any objectivist would or should be afraid of Psychoacoustics .. Its definition is "Psychoacoustics is the study of the perception of sound." .... This as objective a discipline as they come.
Very interesting subject as a matter of fact. it is gaining some funding in several universities ni Europe, Canada and I think in the USA, mainly in California.. There is a very interesting book that I recommend to anyone interested in the subject (although this book approach would be called neurological rather than purely psychological): "This is your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin
I am not sure any objectivist would or should be afraid of Psychoacoustics .. Its definition is "Psychoacoustics is the study of the perception of sound." .... This as objective a discipline as they come.
Very interesting subject as a matter of fact. it is gaining some funding in several universities ni Europe, Canada and I think in the USA, mainly in California.. There is a very interesting book that I recommend to anyone interested in the subject (although this book approach would be called neurological rather than purely psychological): "This is your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin
Well, since I started this, I will throw out a few postulates.
Objectivists are vested in the idea that measurements mean everything, that all measurements that are meaningful already exist and explain everything meaningful about audio. Objectivists are terrified at the prospect of a world that contains unexplained phenomena, and they close their world off into a corner that makes them feel comfortable with their measured phenomena.
Neurologists estimate that perception involves about 10 or 20 percent data accumulation from the outside world, and that the rest of perception is based on the massive computing power of the brain, which makes assumptions, directs attention, patches in incomplete information to literally "create" the perception, which is often only partially related to the outside world.
Much of these brain phenomena are only poorly understood. It always makes me laugh when I hear a designer claim a "proprietary" model of human hearing that makes his product unique, when there are laboratories filled with struggling Phd's who are humbled by the task of understanding and elucidating even small details of perception and brain function.
So I would sate that Objectivists fear psychoacoustics because 1. It is poorly understood 2. It relegates their "measurements" to less than 20 percent of the significant events that actually occur in perception.
This so shakes their world view of controlled measurements that they refuse to even acknowledge the importance of psychoacoustics because it gives the "fluffy" subjectivists too much wiggle room and basically just freaks them out.
Now if that isn't a great troll, I don't know what is.
Objectivists are vested in the idea that measurements mean everything, that all measurements that are meaningful already exist and explain everything meaningful about audio. Objectivists are terrified at the prospect of a world that contains unexplained phenomena, and they close their world off into a corner that makes them feel comfortable with their measured phenomena.
Neurologists estimate that perception involves about 10 or 20 percent data accumulation from the outside world, and that the rest of perception is based on the massive computing power of the brain, which makes assumptions, directs attention, patches in incomplete information to literally "create" the perception, which is often only partially related to the outside world.
Much of these brain phenomena are only poorly understood. It always makes me laugh when I hear a designer claim a "proprietary" model of human hearing that makes his product unique, when there are laboratories filled with struggling Phd's who are humbled by the task of understanding and elucidating even small details of perception and brain function.
So I would sate that Objectivists fear psychoacoustics because 1. It is poorly understood 2. It relegates their "measurements" to less than 20 percent of the significant events that actually occur in perception.
This so shakes their world view of controlled measurements that they refuse to even acknowledge the importance of psychoacoustics because it gives the "fluffy" subjectivists too much wiggle room and basically just freaks them out.
Now if that isn't a great troll, I don't know what is.
I am very disappointed actually. I saw the thread title, (answered in much the same manner as ron in me 'ead 'DO we???') and find nothing of substance at all in the OP.
Other than an acknowledgement that it was simply trolling.
Heck, not even a definition of the term.
If I m truthful, it is the golden ears in the hobby that also fear psychoacoustics. When have *we* ever said that what goes in in the persons head is unimportant when it comes to audio perception???
It is the single most overriding factor there is in my view. How that translates to *us* fearing that area I have absolutely no idea.
Why not do a poll. See who falls into which camp.
'Do your ears ever fool you, can you rely on completely non rigorous sighted testing'.
I know where my money would be.
Other than an acknowledgement that it was simply trolling.
Heck, not even a definition of the term.
If I m truthful, it is the golden ears in the hobby that also fear psychoacoustics. When have *we* ever said that what goes in in the persons head is unimportant when it comes to audio perception???
It is the single most overriding factor there is in my view. How that translates to *us* fearing that area I have absolutely no idea.
Why not do a poll. See who falls into which camp.
'Do your ears ever fool you, can you rely on completely non rigorous sighted testing'.
I know where my money would be.
then of course, whilst answering cjfrbw posts again and makes my post redundant!! ain't it always the way?
Ok, at least some meat on the bone now, makes for something to chew on.
Well, not really actually. Just a bit of mumbo jumbo. Fear finding out new facts about the physical universe?? C'mon, who finds out facts about the universe, objective scientific types or fluffy feel goody people who fall for gumph about quantum tunneling in cables. Mingpo discs, putting a photo in the freezer.
Now, for those subjectivists who do swear by those tweaks, THEY are the ones who deny anything within the head.
Aacchh, I'm not even gonna bother with such a stupid statement, it's already wasted enough of my life.
Ok, at least some meat on the bone now, makes for something to chew on.
Well, not really actually. Just a bit of mumbo jumbo. Fear finding out new facts about the physical universe?? C'mon, who finds out facts about the universe, objective scientific types or fluffy feel goody people who fall for gumph about quantum tunneling in cables. Mingpo discs, putting a photo in the freezer.
Now, for those subjectivists who do swear by those tweaks, THEY are the ones who deny anything within the head.
Aacchh, I'm not even gonna bother with such a stupid statement, it's already wasted enough of my life.
Ron, it just has to be better than the standard, An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, by Moore. Best used as a soporific.
Carl, on this one you're just wrong. The scientific method demands the study of psychoacoustics. It is not subjectivists who are studying psychoacoustics. Take a trip over to hydrogenaudio, where only rationalism is permitted. You will find tons of threads about psychoacoustics.
Heck, who do you think invented MP3? Who invented DTS? And on what basis were these lossy codecs created? Some Audiophiles reject MP3 outright, while rationalists understand that in many instances 320 MP3 and a wav file are virtually indistinguishable.
By contrast, subjectivists by definition reject the scientific method. It is they who believe perception cannot be studied. It is they who espouse an irrational view of the physical world. I'm sorry, but on this one you're just wrong.
Heck, who do you think invented MP3? Who invented DTS? And on what basis were these lossy codecs created? Some Audiophiles reject MP3 outright, while rationalists understand that in many instances 320 MP3 and a wav file are virtually indistinguishable.
By contrast, subjectivists by definition reject the scientific method. It is they who believe perception cannot be studied. It is they who espouse an irrational view of the physical world. I'm sorry, but on this one you're just wrong.
Fear? I don't know anyone that fears it. I have heard countless audiophiles describe to me how psychoacoustics don't apply to them because they've spent many hours listening to their systems. It seems many people don't understand that numbers of listening hours doesn't equate to circumventing human frailties. It would be like saying, "I've spent countless hours looking at pictures and drawings, so optical illusions won't work on me." Understanding human frailty doesn't equate to overcoming them, it only serves to make us aware of them and try to take them into account. When you can train yourself to see past optical illusions then experience might be relevant, until then everyone is subject to the same limitations, period.
Definition of objectivist from the source: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged"
I would say that your straw man (or is it troll) fails to satisfy the basic definition of "objectivist".
Hey! I think John deserves special kudos for being the first one in our new forum to incorporate Ayn Rand into an audio discussion. Grade: A+
I understand charts, mechanics, materials, discrete electronics, some laws of physics and of course new technology above average, none of these has served me well to the extent of anticipate how an audio component will sound prior using my ears to extend an opinion on such device. I would hope it could be that simple.
I followed Jeff's thread and all of your inputs and learned quite a bit. Now following this one I'd just like to make three quick observations. First that none of us are totally objectivist nor subjectivist, we just vary (and not actually by much) somewhere in the "in-between". Ultimately, we go with what satisfies us.
Second is the word "fear". This is a general statement not directed at posters here and in the other thread. Over the decades, the only ones who I've seen dread measurements or psychoacoustic interpretations are those that use one, the other or even both as crutches. Strong as opinions (and personalities ) are over here, I see no such dependency even among those with the most extreme positions.
Last is on the subject of psychoacoustics vs. subjectivity itself. The collective output of Psychoacoustics is the understanding of our hearing as a species rather than a focus on any one individual. While at rare instances electrical measurements and psychoacoustic studies may appear diametrically opposed, even in these rare instances they may appear to, only if measurements or psychoacoustic studies are interpreted too broadly or assigned by the interpreter a greater weight than it deserves. The opposite also applies.
Second is the word "fear". This is a general statement not directed at posters here and in the other thread. Over the decades, the only ones who I've seen dread measurements or psychoacoustic interpretations are those that use one, the other or even both as crutches. Strong as opinions (and personalities
) are over here, I see no such dependency even among those with the most extreme positions.Last is on the subject of psychoacoustics vs. subjectivity itself. The collective output of Psychoacoustics is the understanding of our hearing as a species rather than a focus on any one individual. While at rare instances electrical measurements and psychoacoustic studies may appear diametrically opposed, even in these rare instances they may appear to, only if measurements or psychoacoustic studies are interpreted too broadly or assigned by the interpreter a greater weight than it deserves. The opposite also applies.
Be careful. The term "Objectivist" with a capitalized O refers to those who adhere to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. In case you may wonder, I am one myself.
As Objectivists, those of my persuasion only fear the non-rational, mystical person, such as a despot dictator, or a raving lunatic tribal ape. Measurements are certainly not mystical; my kind welcome and indeed live by them.
I thought Ayn Rand was the antithesis of objective, rational, or even reasonable behavior in her own life, and that her "philosophy" was a kind of shill for justifying narcissistic, self aggrandizing behavior.
"Finally, there was the cult surrounding Rand that developed during the 1960s. Reasoned discourse with Rand became impossible unless you began by accepting her pronouncements about everything—then you could argue the logic of your position. What had been lively back-and-forth explorations of ideas in the early 1950s became sessions at which the students sat at the feet of the master, "shivering, scared children who dared not say the wrong thing lest they incur her wrath," in the words of John Hospers. The lifelong aspect of Rand's personality that had fueled the brilliance of her novels, the capacity to imagine the world as she wanted it to be rather than the world as it is, had taken over real life. She had constructed a reality in which, if she so decreed, A was Z, and she lived within it for the rest of her life."
Heh, Heh, I guess I am getting what an "objectivist" is now.
"Finally, there was the cult surrounding Rand that developed during the 1960s. Reasoned discourse with Rand became impossible unless you began by accepting her pronouncements about everything—then you could argue the logic of your position. What had been lively back-and-forth explorations of ideas in the early 1950s became sessions at which the students sat at the feet of the master, "shivering, scared children who dared not say the wrong thing lest they incur her wrath," in the words of John Hospers. The lifelong aspect of Rand's personality that had fueled the brilliance of her novels, the capacity to imagine the world as she wanted it to be rather than the world as it is, had taken over real life. She had constructed a reality in which, if she so decreed, A was Z, and she lived within it for the rest of her life."
Heh, Heh, I guess I am getting what an "objectivist" is now.
A large part of the argument that Objectivists use when they here the term " Trust Your Ears" stems from the fact that Sighted Bias exists and is tied into the ear brain connection. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they see Psychoacoustics in a negative light. Looks to me like it supports their position.
Rob
Rob
A large part of the argument that Objectivists use when they here the term " Trust Your Ears" stems from the fact that Sighted Bias exists and is tied into the ear brain connection. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they see Psychoacoustics in a negative light. Looks to me like it supports their position.
Rob
Psychoacoustics are critical to the audiophile "objectivist" opinion. Denying their existence is at the heart of many "subjectivist" arguments, Ayn Rand was a nutcase.
P
Looks like Objectivists are not afraid of Psychoacoustics unless the term is re-defined to suit the assertion ..
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Rumpole
- admin1959
- b345t
- MarkusBarkus
- Tlay
- kasin
- shawnf
- DLS
- Dogberry
- ationg
- Swisstrips
- Mamon
- 3rdRock
- morricab
- viola
- Bobvin
- hogen
- leyenda
- hopkins
- pkaemmerer
- dan31
- af428
- George47
- Thorens 2018
- joaovieira
- bonzo75
- RCanelas
- zebo67
- thekong
- treitz3
- dans6959
- cmchan
- Aries Cerat
- Michael S.
- Sharok
- soarsz
- Reg19
- PhP
- octaviars
- oldvinyl
- mtemur
- trekpilot
- Dierkx1
- Hiroshi
- Nirlin
- Ackcheng
- kabrio69
- VPN
- kimurastanley
- sapirg
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |