Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
We all are. To a monist like myself everyone and every thing is an aspect of the 'supreme being' because there is nothing else.
---But I thought that it was the Fifth Element;
Leeloo (Leeloominai Lekatariba Lamina-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat).
Leeloo (Leeloominai Lekatariba Lamina-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat).
Yes Leelou was totally gorgeous - I was in raptures over her when I first saw the movie. Dream woman indeed 
Wherever did you get the idea that the two are mutually exclusive? Here's some reading material for you: http://www.amazon.com/Passionate-En..._B000APOCUY_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347072500&sr=1-1
I have begged MF dozens of times to let me visit him in person so he can show me that he really can identify blind a CD before and after being "demagnetized." His reply every single time included foul language, followed by "No" plus endless excuses. MF has zero credibility.
--Ethan
---That is very interesting Ethan, as for me, personally, I got similar vibes from Mr. Michael Fremer.
...But I always laugh (in a good way), and take the funny side of life when reading him. :b
...But I always laugh (in a good way), and take the funny side of life when reading him. :b
This sort of thing occurs all the time with many types of devices.
Extremely few people (possibly close to none) are so sure of himself that he is willing to do a blind test in front of an audience with devices that have been given rave reviews that probably have no real effect on sound.
The only "audience" would be me. But "devices that ... probably have no real effect on sound" is certainly the real issue.
--Ethan
--Ethan
I suppose this is why I likened this debate to a boxing challenger seeking a title bout with the champ. There may be any number of reason why the champ refuses to fight. It is likely he is afraid of losing. There's always the possibilitynof a lucky punch. More liklely is that the challenger is not worthy, or the fight revenue is insufficient, and or there is nothing to prove. Of course the challenger always claims it's because the champ knows he will lose. Often the challenger concludes his effort with a borish public fist fight after having located the champ at some public venue. Some time the tactic often succeeds.
I doubt whether Mr. Fremer will ever give the challenger a return match at the title. Rather than accept my representations see for yourself. http://www.stereophile.com/content/visit-mikeys-amp-furutech-demag-3
Greg
I doubt whether Mr. Fremer will ever give the challenger a return match at the title. Rather than accept my representations see for yourself. http://www.stereophile.com/content/visit-mikeys-amp-furutech-demag-3
Greg
"Originally Posted by Gregadd
The above referenced post has stood without a response for 24 hours from a single so-called suubjectivist. This provides substantive proof that subjectivists are willing to live and let live. OTOH objectivists have droned on for 85 pages."
All perception is subjective. But does that mean we can't try to measure the limits of perception or what technical factors in a sound system make one sound perceptively different from another or if it even is perceptively different? After all this is an industry where advertising hyperbole rises to new heights and people with a 5 cent wooden knob for a potentiometer will ask $500 telling you it will improve your sound system. Is it unreasonable to ask them to prove it by demonstrating in some convincing way that it's true?
You don't need measuring equipment to know that sound reproduced from audio equipment no matter which ones or what combination doesn't sound like real music. All you need is a pair of ears in good working condition and a concert ticket. Next time you go to a concert, close your eyes and ask yourself, could I imagine hearing this sound at home from my audio system? Betcha if you're honest the answer is a sharp no. And the best part is that for all their science, the people who are called "objectivists" haven't the slightest clue why. Their science simply isn't good enough yet and so they are not measuring all the right things, among them some of the ones that really matter. That's why they're at odds with the subjectivists. But if subjectivists had any better answers, why would they keep swapping very expensive equipment faster than some people by a new pair of shoes?
The above referenced post has stood without a response for 24 hours from a single so-called suubjectivist. This provides substantive proof that subjectivists are willing to live and let live. OTOH objectivists have droned on for 85 pages."
All perception is subjective. But does that mean we can't try to measure the limits of perception or what technical factors in a sound system make one sound perceptively different from another or if it even is perceptively different? After all this is an industry where advertising hyperbole rises to new heights and people with a 5 cent wooden knob for a potentiometer will ask $500 telling you it will improve your sound system. Is it unreasonable to ask them to prove it by demonstrating in some convincing way that it's true?
You don't need measuring equipment to know that sound reproduced from audio equipment no matter which ones or what combination doesn't sound like real music. All you need is a pair of ears in good working condition and a concert ticket. Next time you go to a concert, close your eyes and ask yourself, could I imagine hearing this sound at home from my audio system? Betcha if you're honest the answer is a sharp no. And the best part is that for all their science, the people who are called "objectivists" haven't the slightest clue why. Their science simply isn't good enough yet and so they are not measuring all the right things, among them some of the ones that really matter. That's why they're at odds with the subjectivists. But if subjectivists had any better answers, why would they keep swapping very expensive equipment faster than some people by a new pair of shoes?
Electrical signals have only two dimensions, amplitude and time. Sound adds three spatial dimensions. These are not measured. What's more the sound on your recording is not what you hear live. They never put the microphones where you sit. If they did and you played it through speakers it would sound like it was coming out of a tunnel. Play it though headphones and its sounds like it's coming from inside your head. It's not just the equipment that's wrong, it's the whole idea. It can't work no matter how much they try to perfect it. If they don't come up with something much better there's no point in shopping anymore. They know they've been beaten by the problem. The proof is they don't even pretend they can duplicate live sound because they know even someone with normal hearing who doesn't care one whit will know right away they can't. So they do the only thing left, they redefine what they're trying to do by changing it to what they can do. Problem, compared to the beautiful sound of live acoustic music well performed, recordings suck.
(and some from your earlier post too)
Re the eternal lament 'it does not sound like the real thing'...who cares??
Let's leave aside whether it does or does not, or how close we can realistically approach it.
Does it matter?
Prob worth it's own thread.
I don't get why everyone twists themselves into knots on this issue, surely it is far more important that you derive pleasure and enjoyment from listening to your favorite music?
Is it only audiophiles who wear this hair shirt I wonder. I mean, get on a photography forum, sure (I guess) they'd have their own set of things to argue about, but would one of those things be the constant lament that a photo is not the same as the real scene?? Or a movie buff forum...hey, the movies are not like real life (and thankgod for that, they're usually boring enough as it is!)
Paintings..reckon they duplicate the real thing? Expressionism etc etc. Heck, they even have exhibitions of black and white photography...no-one is trying to say that is as real as the real scene do they?
Why this constant moan about not being real, I don't understand it. We accept the journey, the altered state of mind of tv shows, movies, books and photos, but when it comes to audio...
Even if we could exactly duplicate a real concert, would you want to? Why NOT have a different event, then you can have the real concert for all the benefits that brings, and a substitute yet enjoyable alternative, the recorded session in the home. You don't get the pinpoint imaging at a concert you can achieve at home, so why deny that there can be very real different pleasures from a recording.
Celebrate it, stop whinging is my approach.
Better yet, have very real impact and slam (etc etc) approaching at least what is available from the real concert, without all the kiddies with their stupid damned mobile phones held in front of them, the light from which goes straight back into your eyes. Why they have to experience life via a mobile is beyond me (look, LOOK, your 'hero' is there, in real life, just in front of you. It's called a stage. Why watch him live via a screen? may as well stay at home and watch on tv)
AND, from home with all the (different) realities a recording can give that the live cannot, I can just reach my hand out and grab the next beer, roll a cig and play at the vol I want, with the sound I have set up for my tastes and not be at the mercy of some half deaf engineer with an atrocious PA system.
Man, instead of whining about what it can't do, flip the coin and celebrate what it CAN do that the live cannot. Embrace the different but equally valid artistic event in front of you.
Been busy. FWIW I pretty much agree with Tomelex that electronics are measurable, and a great place to pursue accuracy, and I'd add that I believe they are, for the most part, accurate and consistent. Plain old stereo can't reproduce realistic live sound? No, neither can binaural or multi channel. And unlike electronics we don't have to blame the shortfall on some mystery as of yet unmeasured. It is very easy to understand. Look at a band or orchestra. Look at your speakers. It should require no further explanation, but people will believe what they want. People who believe they bring the concert hall into their listening room? Excellent suspension of disbelief. I'm happy for them.
Tim
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |