Cliché ' Claims of Each Side

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
In another thread, someone asked me what the standard claims of objectivsts where. So I created one for them. I thought it would be fun to have such an "official" list just for fun. Let me repeat again: this is for fun! Do NOT argue the points. Just vote as to what should or should not be in the list.

Help me create the arguments for the other side:

Objectivist claims:

1. All competently designed equipment sounds the same.

2. No one has proven there is a difference between, you pick the component, and another brand.

3. Unless your testing is ABX, and statistically valid and perfect, your evaluation is useless.

4. Digital audio is perfect. If the audio gets to the other side of the link, it will sound the same no matter what.

5. Digital cables make no difference. It is all ones and zeros so doesn't matter what the cable does if the data gets to the other side.

6. LP is full of distortion and there is now way it could ever sound as good let alone better than digital.

7. You have to be a bat to hear the improvement from higher sampling and resolution than CD.

8. THD is king. If it is very small, then you are assured that your system is 100% transparent to the source.

9. We love measurements (see #8). But some measurements are too good. They measure things that are not audible. So we must ignore them.

10. I don't care what you have said, IT IS ALL WRONG! You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

11. ABX tests have proven everything we need to know. There is nothing unknown about audibility of equipment.

12. You are stupid if you think paying more gets you more quality.

13. What you subjectivists prefer is actually coloration, not increased fidelity.

14. Your cables are tone control if you think they are improving your sound.

15. [I have never designed any hardware but] I am confident that they work this way, and not the way you think.

16. Ethan's favorite: there are only 3 (?) things you need to know about an audio system and once you know that, you know everything.

17. And for debater in the camp who has run out of technical arguments: That's a straw-man argument, you are playing victim, I dare you to answer that, etc., etc.

18. High-end vendors are all thieves and cheats, out to rip off simple-minded audiophiles.

19. [pointing to an exposed view of a high-end box]: It has nothing in it that would cost $X. And some of what it has is not high-end at all. I know, I design RF circuits for a living and I know that is wrong.

20. If it is published/presented at AES, it must be true: "it was peer reviewed."

21. Prove to me it is audible or I won't let you say anything else.

22. It is all very simple to do. That you say it can't be done in a cheap box means you don't know what you are talking about.

23. And this latest one: Let's get JJ to come and set you straight.

24. You don't need much power in your amplifier. Average music is just 1 or 2 watts [put your favorite numbers in there].

25. Negative feedback is great. The people who don't use it when designing amps don't know what they are doing.

26. Audiophile magazines are shills for high-end companies.

27. The audiophile reviewers are crooks, always searching for the next loaner piece of equipment. Don't believe anything they have to say.

I will edit this post and keep it current.

Again, this is meant to have fun. If you at all feel angst, do not post. I will delete the thread if folks create a food fight :).
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I like how you think!!! Reminds of the personality tests where you get assigned four alphabet letters that describe you.
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
I think # 24 exists in both camps. Some subjectivists posit this as well. Witness the number of people using low powered tube amplification.

OTOH, could it be stated that the need for high powered amps exists in both camps? I do know for sure some rationalists argue that one needs a ton of power for sufficient headroom to handle high crest factors, particularly with less than efficient speakers.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I think most here would call me an objectivist, yet the majority of those points strike me as exaggerated and provocative. I get the attempt at humor, but I think it will not draw "yes/no" answers, but counterpoint as provocative as the current list if not more so, as these things just tend to escalate. I believe I'd go ahead and delete it now and avoid the trouble.

Tim
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

I am with Tomelex, I am a midjective. with a strong subjective bent and newfound objective tendencies
 

Jay_S

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
309
5
16
San Francisco - East Bay
This could save bandwidth and endless repetition of arguments. Threads can now consist of a series of numbers from each list. Whoops, based on Amir's list, I probably could just have said "4" right now!
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I think most here would call me an objectivist, yet the majority of those points strike me as exaggerated and provocative. I get the attempt at humor, but I think it will not draw "yes/no" answers, but counterpoint as provocative as the current list if not more so, as these things just tend to escalate. I believe I'd go ahead and delete it now and avoid the trouble.

Tim
The original post was created in a hostile situation so there are a lot of sharp jabs in it by design :). That said, I have seen all of them used by the camp.

I am open to having the right list. As was noted, being able to say, "let's not argue that that. It is item #x on the list and we can move on" might be a useful thing.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
I guess I missed the original post.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
That explains why I missed it. I'm not a member on any other forums unless you include Audiogon.
 

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
A famous one attributed to Sean Adams, founder of SlimDevices

You claim that an

( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

( ) upsampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) existentialism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2011
3,210
1,738
1,260
Alpharetta, Georgia
I just want people to know I read this list while listening to an LP played back on a tubed phono stage. Sounds great. :)
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
The original post was created in a hostile situation so there are a lot of sharp jabs in it by design :). hat said, I have seen all of them used by the camp.

I am open to having the right list. As was noted, being able to say, "let's not argue that that. It is item #x on the list and we can move on" might be a useful thing.

If every one of those points has been used by the objectivist camp, then even I am not an objectivists. There are very few of them that don't look like overstatement to me.

Upon review, let me revise my statement above. Every one of those points looks like overstatement to me. I guess I'm midjective too.

Tim
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
A famous one attributed to Sean Adams, founder of SlimDevices

You claim that an

( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

( ) upsampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) existentialism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips

SUPERB !!! :D

I especially like the reference to Q-tips lol ... hilarious ! :D
 

Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2011
3,210
1,738
1,260
Alpharetta, Georgia
Yes, Vincent's post was right on the money. LOL!
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Sean Adams is my new hero, though honestly, I thought he wrote Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Tim
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Nice list Amir. I now believe your read all our posts!

But I think the list should stay as you wrote . Everyone sees is is an humorous exaggeration of some of our debates - but once you start editing, it will loose this distinguishing trait.
Waiting anxiously for the Subjectivist claims!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing