Objectivists - what REALLY makes your blood boil?

I don't know that I count as an objectivist, but my default state is certainly sceptical. I'm generally happy to let people on with whatever makes them happy, I'm no longer interested in arguments about hifi, either online or otherwise, as I think we're a small enough group as it is without unnecessary schisms.

That said...

My blood simmers somewhat when I hear the rallying cry of the hardcore subjectivist: "just use your ears". The reason it annoys me is because that's exactly the advice the extremist-subjectivists won't take themselves. JUST use your ears. This is great advice. DON'T let your brain make decisions based on other factors. In fact, let's try to rule out as many other factors as we can and trust ONLY OUR EARS. Which leads us directly to "blind" listening tests.

Now that I think of it, there may be one or two other things that make my blood boil. I'd better stop now!

spiritofmusic said:

Diapson, what apparently unreasonable/inexplicable changes have you made, that defy logic, but not the pleasure centres of your brain?

Click to expand...

Cables probably aren't too contentious here, but I suppose in some circles they'd tick that box, and I also have all my components on Cereballs. I'm not sure whether I believe they make a difference, but I sleep easier in my bed knowing they're there!

spiritofmusic said:

Guys, I realise I'm risking opening the proverbial hornets' nest, but Hell, that can really be fun!
It seems like there are quite a few things that really divide us, setting off major arguments, often in the subjectivist "tweak" realm. I'll leave high end uber pricing for another day.
From my POV, I feel I sit right on the borderline of the objective-subjective divide. In my history of auditioning stuff I remain unmoved and turn away as much stuff (many tube amps, many SS amps, Lessloss Blackbodies, BSG QOL unit, Steinmusic Harmonisers, Pete Belt tin foil etc from the 80's etc) as I end up being bowled over and buying (some spectacular tubes e.g. Elrog 845s, Westwick balanced power transformer, Entreq grounding, semi-exotic Sablon power cords, Symposium isolation etc).
I realise esp my devotion to Entreq grounding is anathema to the pure objectivist crowd, but like a lot of us here, it really appears the Real Deal.
But even I struggle w/my views (irrational?) re Synergistic Research, esp the new ambience generator. I wouldn't say no to hearing it, but products like this get my hackles involuntarily up. I do feel there is a certain genuineness to components like Entreq and Troy that is missing w/SR.

So, this thread is to ask esp the arch objectivists like Gary Protein etc (and everyone else, incl the arch-subjectivists) to list those items that are just so beyond contempt, and those that have worked for them despite there being no easy reason to explain how they work.
For me, Entreq grounding is hard to fully explain, although there are some pretty reasonable theories put fwd, and this is my personally biggest example of sitting sceptically w/my arms folded to begin with, and 20mins later being speechless in praise.
Blackbodies, Harmonisers etc - I still have my arms folded .

Click to expand...

You can't choose your poison. You are either a guy who values everything that can be measured, or you trust your ears. The fact that you have rejected some things on either side doesn't make you borderline. Note that I am neither calling you an objectivist nor a subjectivist, because not sure who's who. Unfortunately some people who masquerade as intellectuals based on the fact that they trust only their limited knowledge of science and hifi are called objectivists, but not sure I agree with that.

bonzo75 said:

You can't choose your poison. You are either a guy who values everything that can be measured, or you trust your ears.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. As a designer, you HAVE to start with objective measurements, physics and mathematics using a computer and instruments. Then you continue with subjective psychoacoustics and that's where the listeners brain gets involved. Iterate as required.

garylkoh said:

I disagree with this. As a designer, you HAVE to start with objective measurements, physics and mathematics using a computer and instruments. Then you continue with subjective psychoacoustics and that's where the listeners brain gets involved. Iterate as required.

Click to expand...

So you agree - you are not saying it is pure measurements, which is what a lot of 'objectivists' like Keith seem to say

Most folks know what the "hot button" issues are. They've been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

IMHO, this type of thread serves little purpose within the context of providing "new" information and / or perspectives.

And this type of thread has a high probability of going down in flames, like many in the past.

Have fun.

spiritofmusic said:

Guys, I realise I'm risking opening the proverbial hornets' nest, but Hell, that can really be fun!
It seems like there are quite a few things that really divide us, setting off major arguments, often in the subjectivist "tweak" realm. I'll leave high end uber pricing for another day.
From my POV, I feel I sit right on the borderline of the objective-subjective divide. In my history of auditioning stuff I remain unmoved and turn away as much stuff (many tube amps, many SS amps, Lessloss Blackbodies, BSG QOL unit, Steinmusic Harmonisers, Pete Belt tin foil etc from the 80's etc) as I end up being bowled over and buying (some spectacular tubes e.g. Elrog 845s, Westwick balanced power transformer, Entreq grounding, semi-exotic Sablon power cords, Symposium isolation etc).
I realise esp my devotion to Entreq grounding is anathema to the pure objectivist crowd, but like a lot of us here, it really appears the Real Deal.
But even I struggle w/my views (irrational?) re Synergistic Research, esp the new ambience generator. I wouldn't say no to hearing it, but products like this get my hackles involuntarily up. I do feel there is a certain genuineness to components like Entreq and Troy that is missing w/SR.

So, this thread is to ask esp the arch objectivists like Gary Protein etc (and everyone else, incl the arch-subjectivists) to list those items that are just so beyond contempt, and those that have worked for them despite there being no easy reason to explain how they work.
For me, Entreq grounding is hard to fully explain, although there are some pretty reasonable theories put fwd, and this is my personally biggest example of sitting sceptically w/my arms folded to begin with, and 20mins later being speechless in praise.
Blackbodies, Harmonisers etc - I still have my arms folded .

Click to expand...

..anything marketed by SR

I'm done boiling over any of it; I've more important things to boil over. But, FWIW, I don't believe everything can be measured; never did, and I wouldn't know how to measure it if it could be. What annoyed me was positions taken, even pseudo-scientific language created and/or misappropriated to declare the superiority of things that showed absolutely no measurable evidence of superiority. When someone does that, they're basically saying that their opinion is superior to yours and if science doesn't support their opinion, then the science is wrong.

It's arrogant. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest. Ok...maybe I have a bit of boil for this left after all...

Tim

Hi Tim,

I hope you are enjoying your retirement. I trust you are. Elevated blood pressure is not a good thing.

I'm OK with the "O" crowd having an "opinion" not stated or implied as fact. I'm OK with the "S" crowd assuming they recognize that measurements, DBT, ABX, etc. are not the "absolute / end all" for determining sonic quality or perceived audible differences.

Like most things, the "truth" is likely somewhere in the middle.

Best.

thedudeabides said:

Like most things, the "truth" is likely somewhere in the middle.

Best.

Click to expand...

+1

Forget consumer electronics. What REALLY makes my blood boil is Ayn Rand's objectivism - a completely insane philosophical principle, embraced by assorted nutcases, with often catastrophic consequences (think Alan Greenspan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

The only commonality between Ayn Rand's objectivism and objectivism on audiophile fora is the word objectivism. Rand's is a philosophy concerning human conduct/action in relation to others. I have read many of her works. I don't recall her ever talking about scientific measurement versus subjective experience.

It's obvious you never read Atlas Shrugged not just because you support your argument with a wiki page link. Did you know that Dagney was an audiophile/music lover? Obviously the individual pleasure experience plays a key role in Rand's form of Objectivism. You just have your words confused here.

Michael.

edorr said:

Forget consumer electronics. What REALLY makes my blood boil is Ayn Rand's objectivism - a completely insane philosophical principle, embraced by assorted nutcases, with often catastrophic consequences (think Alan Greenspan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Click to expand...

This thread was destined to not pass Go and head straight into insult valley. Any discussion of objective vs subjective is inevitably going to boil someone's panties and lead to a problematic "discussion". But that's not news to anyone who has perused an audio forum for any length of time.

Best to just avoid these things all together. In fact, why am I even posting on this thread?

dallasjustice said:

The only commonality between Ayn Rand's objectivism and objectivism on audiophile fora is the word objectivism. Rand's is a philosophy concerning human conduct/action in relation to others. I have read many of her works. I don't recall her ever talking about scientific measurement versus subjective experience.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of this. I just jumped on the term objectivism to make a light hearted comment on Rand's philosophy.

dallasjustice said:

It's obvious you never read Atlas Shrugged not just because you support your argument with a wiki page link.

Michael.

Click to expand...

Actually I did. I would not have made the comment without having read the book.

What does Alan Greenspan's career as Fed Chairman have to do with Rand's objectivism? Just because Greenspan was in Rand's circle back in the day, doesn't mean he became an Objectivist thinker later in his life. Greenspan totally abandoned Rand and her philosophy many decades ago and his career as a stock market pumping monetary boom/bust "maestro" will be his legacy.

edorr said:

I'm well aware of this. I just jumped on the term objectivism to make a light hearted comment on Rand's philosophy.



Actually I did. I would not have made the comment without having read the book.

Click to expand...

thedudeabides said:

Hi Tim,

I hope you are enjoying your retirement. I trust you are. Elevated blood pressure is not a good thing.

I'm OK with the "O" crowd having an "opinion" not stated or implied as fact. I'm OK with the "S" crowd assuming they recognize that measurements, DBT, ABX, etc. are not the "absolute / end all" for determining sonic quality or perceived audible differences.

Like most things, the "truth" is likely somewhere in the middle.

Best.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dude. Retirement is busy and terrific and my BP is fine. Retirement
leaves little room for boiling the blood over such nonsense.

Tim

spiritofmusic said:

I realise esp my devotion to Entreq grounding is anathema to the pure objectivist crowd, but like a lot of us here, it really appears the Real Deal.
.

Click to expand...

I did a little study regarding these things. They work (and admit this is the case in the user guide) only if your equipment has grounding problems to begin with. If your gear is properly grounded (which is a design issue) then it won't have any effect.

What has really bothered me is when so-called objectivists (and I regard myself as being square in the middle between objective and subjective, I feel that if I hear something I should be able to measure why I can) that have harangued certain ideas or products (a classic is after-market high end power cords) and then don't have the measurements to back them up.

I got tired of hearing power cords make a very audible difference so I got about a DVM and did some simple measurements and found the reason right away. But I still find that I have to argue with 'Objectivists' about this issue; the irony of course being that in these cases I am the one with the actual measurements and they are the ones without. This puts them in a poor position- not only are they not objective, they don't have a subjective experience either! When I encounter this, I regard the behavior as simple trolling/no idea what they are talking about/etc; I use the word 'skoftic' as such are neither skeptical or objective, which is why I put quotes around the word above.

garylkoh said:

I disagree with this. As a designer, you HAVE to start with objective measurements, physics and mathematics using a computer and instruments. Then you continue with subjective psychoacoustics and that's where the listeners brain gets involved. Iterate as required.

Click to expand...

+1

The physics, math, simulations should all be regarded in the light of human perceptual rules, not the other way around. We can change our approach to design, but we can't do anything to change our ears except damage them. The human ear is the most important aspect of audio, and one routinely ignored by 'objectivists' that have not studied the results of human physiological research that has gone on in the last 30-40 years. When I encounter the attitude that we know everything there is to know about audio and engineering, I have to breath deeply and count to 10... the fact is that while we do know a lot on the engineering side, our knowledge of the human brain and how it processes sound information coming from the ear is so poor as to be vestigial- But it is evident that using our engineering, the more we make the designs work with our perceptual rules the better the systems sound.

An excellent example of this is the new Zephrin loudspeaker made by Audiokinesis. It takes advantage of the way the ear/brain system works to localize sound sources. The ear hears a sound, the brain makes a copy and looks for similar sounds in near-time (a few milliseconds at most); if it finds similar sounds it uses the differences to help pinpoint the location. We didn't know this even 20 years ago but we do now.

dallasjustice said:

What does Alan Greenspan's career as Fed Chairman have to do with Rand's objectivism? Just because Greenspan was in Rand's circle back in the day, doesn't mean he became an Objectivist thinker later in his life. Greenspan totally abandoned Rand and her philosophy many decades ago and his career as a stock market pumping monetary boom/bust "maestro" will be his legacy.

Click to expand...

He is a Rand inspired libertarian, and his disastrous decision to support the gramm leach bliley and more importantly the Commodity Futures Modernization led directly to the financial crisis. This decision was inspired by Randian free market fundamentalism, and the insane assumption that markets always know best and self-regulate. He admitted as much (his mistake) himself.

We're drifting very far off toipic here though. Better declare a truce and call it quits.