Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[microstrip]

Yes but what we fill in is based on memory and prior experience. Consequently, each individual may perceive a different experience when presented with the same input data.

Yes. At last we are arriving to the point where some knowledge of statistics and an open mind is needed. People should understand that the equations of Physics per se are not enough, they must go into Statistical Physics. We need Boltzmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann

PS - please do not take it too seriously!

 

[jkeny]

What you actually said, Tim, was:

And If I run it up to the mid -40s dB range, it is surprisingly full for having defeated everything but the 1k slider. Not sure I get the "sing along" thing.

What did I learn? That a whole lot more of the content of jazz and rock recordings is in a very narrow midrange band, and that I can hear 1k pretty good, in spite of my advancing years.

I believe this is what I claimed you said in a paraphrased way!
You said nothing about how the sound was corrupted or unrealistic, in fact you said the opposite to me!
Could this be part of your problem you expressed with audiophile's descriptions?
Did you find my description of what I heard exaggerated in any way?

What Tim actually said is that he was surprised there was that much of the information in the 1k band, John, though I understand that reality doesn't serve your argument as well as your distortions. This is why I haven't been in this thread today. Remember yesterday when I said I was still amused but knew that eventually this would get annoying? We got there last night.

Tim

So would you like to correct this or explain it? Again, either you use English in a way that puzzles me or I have the problem that you are identifying, my distortions. I'll let readers decide for themselves!
What has your amusement or annoyance got to do with anything? BTW, talking about yourself in the third person is a sign of something, I forget what, maybe someone can remind me?

 

[Mosin]

Mosin

Oh yes we care if it sounds bad we will not buy it and you made usre of correlating the sound that is enjoyable with the reality of numbers ... Then you will tune it to where you and your market/customers like it and this is ongoing ... We care implicitly or explicitly about numbers ... And the numbers somewhere bring the new product. You choose the material according to numbers then you hear them to see if you like what the sound says. You don't roll a dice nd you don't , can't start by listening to all available material ... You don't to repeat myself roll a dice ...

This is true. It's also true that the numbers are never a consideration for many people, manufacturers and consumers alike. There are those out there who throw crap on the wall to see if it sells, and often it does. That's the tricky part about this hobby.

Here's food for thought...

A manufacturer starts a company with a product that is truly marvelous. Twenty-five years later, he is still around, and has a hundred products under his belt. Does that mean they are all successively better than the ones that preceded them? I say not, but it keeps the "flavor of the month" guys happy.

Next, there is the guy who offers upgrades every couple of months. When did he really design all those upgrades? It begs the question...How much effort went into his product initially? Or, how many products come to market before they are ready? Should you trust them? Was the objective study done beforehand?

How much innovation is really out there?

 

[jkeny]

Yes but what we fill in is based on memory and prior experience. Consequently, each individual may perceive a different experience when presented with the same input data.

Yes & no! I believe that we all form pretty much the same pattern recognition about the real world & how the real world sounds (within our own cultural & geographic area). This is the fill-in that I'm talking about i.e the recognition of what physical element that the sound is emanating from, it's characteristics, etc. The emotional impact of the sounds is another matter & individualistic.

 

[rbbert]

I find it interesting that even with the knowledgable, dedicated group of enthusiasts we have here there appears to be no consensus on relative importance of different variables on the ultimate system sound; i.e., speakers-room-source, source-electronics-room-speakers, etc.

I also find it somewhat surprising that some of our attorney members place their primary audiophile faith in perception, given the wealth of data frequently used by attorneys to show how fallible and inconsistent perception is.

 

[Bill Hart]

I find it interesting that even with the knowledgable, dedicated group of enthusiasts we have here there appears to be no consensus on relative importance of different variables on the ultimate system sound; i.e., speakers-room-source, source-electronics-room-speakers, etc.

I also find it somewhat surprising that some of our attorney members place their primary audiophile faith in perception, given the wealth of data frequently used by attorneys to show how fallible and inconsistent perception is.

Truth is where you find it.

 

[Mosin]

Truth is where you find it.

....and when that isn't convenient, there is always the standard escape route....

"I would like to take this opportunity to exercise my Fifth Amendment Privilege."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let me see if I can help you with this, John...

I said --

And If I run it up to the mid -40s dB range, it is surprisingly full for having defeated everything but the 1k slider.

That could either mean that the "1K" band in iTunes EQ is wider than I expected it to be, or that more of the information of those recordings fell into that band than I expected, or both. You "paraphrased" it to I said it sounded "good." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being argumentative, not just thick.

It also explains Tim's issue with audiophile's reporting of the differences that they hear - to the man in the street there is not much difference if he listened to Jack's experiment, to me there was a huge difference in the songs I played with which I am familiar & the 1KHz band replay.Tim

Just found this. Of course there was a huge difference between the 1K band in iTunes by itself and the full bandwidth of the system.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

That could either mean that the "1K" band in iTunes EQ is wider than I expected it to be, or that more of the information of those recordings fell into that band than I expected, or both. You "paraphrased" it to I said it sounded "good." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being argumentative, not just thick.



Just found this. Of course there was a huge difference between the 1K band in iTunes by itself and the full bandwidth of the system. But that wasn't Jack's game. Did you respond to the challenge? Did you rank the samples?

Tim

Tim, again, I'll let the readers decide what the impression they got from your initial post which you now seem to be revising.
Jackd asked for impressions so I presume that is what you provided. You now provide this new impression "there was a huge difference between the 1K band in iTunes by itself and the full bandwidth of the system." which you didn't provide initially apparently because "that wasn't Jack's game."

What was Jack's game?

Edit: Tim, the fact of the matter is I said the fullness was gone from the sound; you said it sounded surprisingly full. Diametrically opposite impressions - whatever way you try to revise it now. I'm just wondering if this is at the root of things - that we listen in totally different ways?

No need to get defensive & aggressive about my understanding or lack of - your words speak for themselves!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No need to get defensive & aggressive about my understanding or lack of - your words speak for themselves!

John if you'd let my words speak for themselves in the first place we'd have no disagreement. But you misinterpreted a remark about a midband in a digital eq sounding surprisingly full to mean I thought it sounded "good," then used that misinterpretation of my words to make your point. Do let my words speak for themselves, always. You're interpretations of them are inaccurate and self-serving. If you want to respond to me, quote me. I would appreciate that courtesy.

"Jack's game" was an error. I mixed up Jack's test with Ethan's for a moment. It get's hard to keep up, even with my own posts, when I keep seeing them re-written.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Yes, Tim, let the readers decide - I'm happy with that - you considered it full sounding, I didn't!
Whart, who was the third participant, said:

On Shelby, I got the most from listening at 1khz band
On Janis, at 1khz you got her voice and the strings/rhythm, but no chorus/background voices
on 'ramble on' you could clearly hear the reverb on Plant's voice, the tabla or whatever the drums are, and the upper reaches of the bass;

I think, if I'm interpreting this correctly that his impression is that there is something missing at 1KHz.
I don't think any fullness could be interpreted from his word although he does say Shelby is the best sounding, I believe?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes & no! I believe that we all form pretty much the same pattern recognition about the real world & how the real world sounds (within our own cultural & geographic area). This is the fill-in that I'm talking about i.e the recognition of what physical element that the sound is emanating from, it's characteristics, etc. The emotional impact of the sounds is another matter & individualistic.

Certainly. The more data there is, the more complete the information and the less likely that it will be perceived differently. However, the emotional impact is even more dependent on individual, often subliminal, experience. and

 

[Mosin]

...A hardcore subjectivist claims all amps sound different even if they measure the same, and that is based on hearing alone, and only the proof of a personal opinion which we know is unassailable...

But, is it?

A friend of mine, Dave Slagel, winds transformers. On a trip to the Beltway, he was asked if he listened to the direction of the wire before he started winding. "Of course, not." His response was challenged with a test. He would send samples where only he knew the direction. He took them up on the bet, and wound several small spools in one direction, and a remaining one in the other direction. All this wire came from a large spool, and very fine wire was used, so that visual cheating was impossible. Then, he sent all the spools to a neutral supervisor. Later, they were returned with notations indicating the direction of each wire, and they were all correctly marked. I cannot hear the direction of wire, and neither can Dave, but we accept that some people can.

Some people don't believe in stylus drag, even when empirical evidence exists. All this tells me that our measuring devices aren't as advanced as our ears, or we are measuring the wrong things some of the time.

Steinway & Sons has three identical listening rooms for a reason. They realize each piano has its own character. What a lot of people in audio don't realize is that our equipment are instruments, too. No one can truly define neutral.

...A hardcore objectivists claims all amps that measure the same (and this means more than just THD or driving a standard resistive load...because a technical ojectivist knows electronics and the interactions of circuits) will sound the same, and that is based on repeatable universally understood measurements all traced back to a world calibration standard...

If that's the case, why didn't we keep all those old Japanese receivers from the Seventies? They measured great!


Summary: Measurements are a valuable point of departure, but it doesn't stop there. If it did, audio would have been perfected long ago, and we would all have the same system.

 

[jkeny]

Mosin.
Interesting report! I have posted on Dave's forum a number of times & bought a pair of his transformers - excellent product!

 

[Mosin]

Mosin.
Interesting report! I have posted on Dave's forum a number of times & bought a pair of his transformers - excellent product!

Yes, they are. His story only confuses matters, however. It may even change the definitions. Who is the objective one, and who is the subjective one? Could it be that those who listen and measure without a predisposed opinion are really the objective ones? Could it be that the textbook following guy with the oscilloscope would be as well served with a kaleidoscope due to his rigid mindset? Maybe he is the subjective one after all because he is quite often hell-bent on ignoring alternate possibilities.

 

[jkeny]

Yes, they are. His story only confuses matters, however. It may even change the definitions. Who is the objective one, and who is the subjective one? Could it be that those who listen and measure without a predisposed opinion are really the objective ones? Could it be that the textbook following guy with the oscilloscope would be as well served with a kaleidoscope due to his rigid mindset? Maybe he is the subjective one after all because he is quite often hell-bent on ignoring alternate possibilities.

His story is his story & I'm glad you told it. Doesn't matter if it doesn't fit into the stock viewpoints - we all need to keep an open mind & assimilate new information in order to have some hope of building a realistic model of the real world!

 

[audioarcher]

Yes, they are. His story only confuses matters, however. It may even change the definitions. Who is the objective one, and who is the subjective one? Could it be that those who listen and measure without a predisposed opinion are really the objective ones? Could it be that the textbook following guy with the oscilloscope would be as well served with a kaleidoscope due to his rigid mindset? Maybe he is the subjective one after all because he is quite often hell-bent on ignoring alternate possibilities.

Well said. It does pay to keep an open mind. No progress can be made without it.

 

[JackD201]

A true objectivist will continue searching for answers using inductive logic. Those that believe they have all the answers are no more objective than those they seek to discredit.

 

[mep]

A true objectivist will continue searching for answers using inductive logic. Those that believe they have all the answers are no more objective than those they seek to discredit.

Two sentences that I find to be profound in their logic.

 

[terryj]

Frantz,
(text taken from the Burmester site)


Measurements are able to make a statement about the technical and mechanic quality of the piece of equipment. They cannot, however, predict the actual sound. Proof is given by the fact that it is possible to build two devices, which have exactly the same technical data but a completely different sound.

Maybe this is where the trouble starts?

This is being put forward as some sort of proof, yet is obviously nothing more than marketing blurb. It is written in a specific way for a specific audience, so that it will be swallowed without inspection or question. Very much like the original article.

Note the subjective slant, IDENTICAL measurements give COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sound. Well, should not be hard to pick blind then.

But no, that will never happen. No backing evidence, no data at all put forward to explain, pure unadulturated marketing.

Hook, line and sinker.

[/I]The musicality Dieter Burmester is demanding (!!!) from his components is that they process the unaltered signal from the source to the speakers. This results in the unequalled reproduction, which is characteristic for all Burmester appliances.

In order to achieve the extraordinary Burmester sound, we use the latest technologies and finest electronic components in combination with the results of longstanding research and developments added by our uncompromising quality requirements.

Finally, apart from technological perfection, the human ear is still the most crucial criteria. Only when a newly developed device has passed the last authority – the skilled ears of our staff – the undiluted listening pleasure is guaranteed.[/I]

Technological perfection? Is it not the subjective argument that no bit of kit is perfect?

Listening pleasure guaranteed? I thought that was the 'objective' realm, subjective is that all flavours are different and so individual. More proof that this is nothing more than marketing ("Congratulations, you have just purchased the finest bit of equipment money can buy" blah blah blah)

Wow, and this is the standard of argument??