Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

I believe you are wrong Frantz, "like" & "more real" are two very different criteria - one has a reference point (reality).
Now why they "like" it might be worth investigating but it's not the same thing.
I often have musicians judging my devices by how a piano is rendered or whatever instrument they are most familiar with. People will often be able to pick out the model of bass guitar or piano or violin or whatever. This is nothing to do with "like", it is all to do with which they consider better (when comparing to another device) because it gives them a "better", more realistic window into the sound field & they judge this based on their familiarity with how a particular instrument or whatever sounds.

Now they might end up saying they "like" it but it is based on more than just the vagaries of mood, psychology, "unreliable perception" - in fact I would say it's "reliable perception"

Edit: The same "more real" criteria are regularly applied to all audio devices !

 

[JackD201]

Guys, I think we can agree that measuring devices are at the point where they are more accurate than our ears. That however is not the problem. Frantz said the magic word, STATISTICAL. While it is possible to map out anything you care to map out both electronically and acoustically, what has not been mapped out is the population's preference matrix the product of which would be a psychoacoustic model that would fit that of the general population having a vanishingly small alpha.

One look at the much debated Harman thread shows just how much of a work in progress this is. When folks asked about the procedures and statistics behind that study, these folks were accused of attacking science. Why should that be the case? The conclusion can only be sound if the process is sound and the conclusion can only be accepted if the process is accepted. This is a communication problem not a logic problem. Take the flip side where a listener or group of listeners observe something then someone not present says it is impossible because it does not fit in with his expert model. It could also be a communication problem or it could be something that the model had not accounted for. A true believer in science would never discount the possibility of the latter. He could highly doubt it but never discount it.

So here are caricatures of the extremes. Note that there are three and not two.

1. I have the best because it sounds the best to me and nothing else matters, the rest of you are fools.

2. I have the best because it measures best , the rest of you are fools.

3. I have good enough because measurements beat audibility metrics, the rest of you are fools.

Are any of us any of these three?

 

[terryj]

That looks about right to me from where I see you from. I'm the same I think but I get set off by other things. Mainly that would be people who want other people to believe that all there needs to be known is known. Why? They've stopped asking questions and instead demand proof from others as if proof were needed for an observation. Worse still are those that use the lack thereof as proof in itself for the infallibility of their self constructed paradigms. To many women died at the stake with that kind of thinking. No thanks. If these people want to get stuck in their own personal dark ages, I don't really care. Just stop bugging the people that still want to learn more deeply.

We have never said that we know everything there is that needs to be known, that surely is not the stance of science. Agreed? Would you then further agree that knowledge of gaps in our understanding come about when things come along that seem anomolous?

Some backyard inventor says 'I have discovered antigravity, and it is based on flaws in our understanding of gravity either in the Newtonian or Einsteinian sense'. A few things could happen, it would most likely be ignored buy mainstream science (thereby leading giving proof that there is an agenda in science, many conspiracies abound) or at the most perhaps a vague interest like 'well, let's see the evidence first'. (na, tbh not even that but let's go with it anyway).

Is the backyard guy going to show us and prove this antigravity machine? Maybe it will not work due to technical reasons at the demo....the whole point reduced to it's simplicity is that we don't go and investigate every claim ever made simply because a claim is made. Most times because it has already been disproven by earlier investigations which has led us to current knowledge. Do we really have to investigate that the earth is round nowadays?

So to be completely honest, I unlike you do not think it is some sort of flaw in character or reasoning to ask for some level of proof of a claim made, nor do I think that exposes some sort of flaw in MY understanding. You then claim that absence of forthcoming proof demonstrates that I use it to bolster a self constructed paradigm of mine? Boy. What if there IS no proof? That the antigravity machine (which runs on water btw even tho it is claimed to have megawatt output) simply does not work? What if the backyard guy was so sloppy in how measurements (most don't even make them) that his calculations were out by many factors of ten? He used the meter on a dc setting not taking into account power factor of ac?

But no, if he can't prove the machine works it is a character flaw of mine in that I smugly use it to prop up my self created paradigm??? How about 'it simply does not work, never would and never did' as an explanation?

IF the people wanted to learn more deeply...show me their investigations. What controls (analogous to the measurements of the backyard guy above) have they put in place? Level matching? How, because they want to learn more deeply, have they analysed the set up so they can identify then account for ANY thing that might skew the results ('does this unit sound different than the other, if so THEN does it sound better?'). they after all are on a quest for knowledge in your exposition, so the truthseeker is after truth surely. Not false indications.

Sooo, who is going to step up to the plate and firstly SHOW these differences? Not just say, not speculate, not continually over and over tell us they exist, demonstrate they exist. THEN maybe it would have been shown worthy of further investigation.

I see now where you are possibly coming from now, Tim.


Big long detailed explanation.

Tom

Great story, thanks Tom. It does help to get the personal accounts, thanks. I wanted to say that as a setting for the comment to follow, so hopefully it does not come across as complete rejection of the story. The thing that stood out for me was that once you explained in detail what you heard others could hear it too. Yes, I can see that but hopefully you can also see that there is a thing called suggestion and group dynamics. It is possible that, even tho they were sure they heard it too, it is nothing more than suggestion. You know, the jury effect.

I guess the way to test if it were true (it aligns with the 'being trained' concept, you teach the people to hear codec artifacts, THEN you test them) would be after your education, then test it blind and see if they still heard it.

Thanks for the tale.

But, Tim, this is the logic I can't fathom!
You talk about "opposing the available science with...well nothing," but you mistake incomplete measurements as science! It's certainly not the scientific methodology that I have learned. Incomplete measurements that claim anything would be laughed at in any "real science". So maybe it gives you an idea for why some people are very dubious & incredulous of the measurements that are often presented in audio - their relevance is questionable. Do you then wonder why people rely on what they hear instead?

Measurements are valuable when complete & of a quality that can be relied upon to tell us something of value, something that we don't realise already! If they do not meet this criteria then they are simply of entertainment value. Unfortunately, many seem to give a credence to sets of measurements (or single measurements) that is little deserved & it boils down to a "blind-belief" in measurements - a subjectivism based on just belief!

Your entire point is constructed on your untested hypothesis..that we can hear these differences. You refuse to test that, call it strawmen, yet always come back to just sayin it is true. Because you tell us you can hear 'it', REFUSE to test that, yet run off saying you have built an antigravity machine. That proves 'science' is wrong.

There is NO doubt in your mind that you are correct, which is cool, then why is it so hard for you to show it to be true? THEN you would have some right to say our understanding is correct. As a construct I doubt any of us would have a problem with that, it is logical yada yada. Just show us WHY we should investigate it.

I don't understand

Because you seem unable to examine your own stance.

Again, it's a circular argument - Audiophiles hear something is better & you insist on them providing measurements to support this?

You were not just recently demanding Tom use measurements to explain YOUR perceptions? If it was fine for you, why cry foul with us? We are after only ONE measurement...if you can hear it or not. We don't get why we are continually being asked to chase what might be chimera.

And make no mistake, hearing IS a measurement, a measurement of the state of a system. 'This system is currently using unit A'.

Again I fail to see the logic? They hear A is better than B, you insist that they are wrong because B "measures" worse than A but you are only using a simple set of measurements. You insist that they "support" (I used prove before, sorry) their observation using your simplistic measurements.

Do you not see the problem?

SHOW us they are simplistic. PROVE your argument. Don't just keep telling us over and over again.

The position ready to be falsified is that current measurements are sufficient. Agreed? You can falsify that position (we can never show it to be completely true, the best we can say is 'to date...')

Wanna falsify it? Once you have done that then we can agree with you and move on. Why you always miss that step (and claim you don't understand).........

No, it's not the crux of the argument. Everybody would live happily in two separate worlds - one of measurements & one of hearing BUT the measurements people always insist the "hearing" people to test, support, prove their choice. That's the crux!

Oh, so you railed then against the pressure on Tom?? Or is it simply that what we do is ok when we do it, but not those other blokes. You wanted tom to use measurements to explain your perceptions, but when we say 'show us' it is wrong.

The argument arises when that person is told "no, it couldn't sound better, measurements show that" Well your measurements are incomplete & therefore that's a fallacious argument to use. Similarly, the arguments that "it's just your preference" or "you like the sound of distortion" are fallacious because you have only partial measurements!

SHOW us we have partial measurements. After all, "no, it couldn't sound better, measurements show that" IS the position that is ready to be falsified. Falsify it.

 

[JackD201]

Hit a nerve terry? It was not directed at you or anybody in particular. That you have never claimed to know everything or acted as such has kept you out of my personal sh!t list to begin with. You do make some very good points. No we do not go investigating every single claim and yes that is the job of the claimant. The burden of proof is his. Do note however that I said OBSERVATIONS. Those are very different from a claims.

Since you and Keny seem to be having a go, lets use DACs as an example. Supposing we start seeing a significant number of observations out on the field about a certain DAC. In this case let's make it a negative one. Let's say the observation is that it sounds sharp. As the maker of the DAC you could say, the hell with you my baby is perfect. My test unit measures perfectly ergo yours should too. We know this would be foolish because it suffers from availability bias. He could say show me a measurement to prove it. The guy gives him a snapshot of an RTA that shows a peak at 2k. The DAC maker says it could be anything else in the chain. That is indeed a possibility after all. The customer says his old DAC didn't have the peak and shows him an RTA of that. The DAC maker demands more proof and asks that the measurements be taken at the outputs. At this point the customer says FU and demands a refund. Problem is, like the vast majority of consumers his customer doesn't have a measuring suite and all he's got is an app or a radioshack SPL meter.

Questions:

Would the inability to provide proof remove the possibility that the unit observed really might have caused the 2k peak? Like for example that quite a number of the units shipped out actually suffered from defects while the in house unit did not?

A claim is one thing. An observation is another. An observation will most likely be a qualitative and not quantitative one. The burden of proof shifts in this instance.

 

[opus111]

Your entire point is constructed on your untested hypothesis..that we can hear these differences.

No, this is patently false. When a person hears something and describes the nature of what they hear, this is an observation. Not a hypothesis.

You refuse to test that, call it strawmen, yet always come back to just sayin it is true.

Of course he refuses to 'test' his observation - he trusts his senses. What we observe counts as evidence and therefore is 'truth'. But I'm sure he does cross-reference his observations - by listening under different circumstances, with different source material. And by comparing notes about what's heard with other listeners.

Because you tell us you can hear 'it', REFUSE to test that, yet run off saying you have built an antigravity machine. That proves 'science' is wrong.

Cannot follow - too many false premises.

There is NO doubt in your mind that you are correct, which is cool, then why is it so hard for you to show it to be true?

Because there's no need to. If you want to be convinced, do your own experiments - that's how science has always worked.

THEN you would have some right to say our understanding is correct.

I look forward to your links to peer reviewed scientific papers on the extant research into 'rights'. I've seen none myself so please help me out here. What does 'some right' mean?

 

[FrantzM]

Jkeny


I like the modifier , you "believe" that I am wrong. You didn't prove me wrong though...


Reality, do we perceive it correctly? NO! We don't. We can't separate two sounds 1 Hz apart, they sound the same to us.. We can't discern 0.1dB , at a single frequency the levels is the same to us .. So reality being there, we fail to perceive it correctly and that .. excuse the pun, reliably, consistently, repetitively. We are fooled ... We can't measure temperature with our skin with any semblance of reliability .. SO reality is there to be perceived so unreliably by our senses thus the use of instruments ... I don't think I need to go further ..

Jack you read me right

I am of the opinion that our current protocols of measurements do not account for the perceived difference we hear between components. We need to find a way to ascertain those differences and correlate them to a set of measurements that would help design better equipment. I sincerely believe there is a commonality of perceptions between audiophiles. There are certain attributes of equipment that I think are universally accepted by audiophiles. I do not yet know what they are but there, Statistics could help us. Statistics and a comprehensive attempt to remove the maximum amount of biases. Let's not get to the childish: You can't remove all biases, we knew that, so the more we remove the better... Than these can be correlated to measurements to, new protocols of measurements that would help up better predict how a component will be evaluated/received or accepted.

 

[JackD201]

Ideed Frantz we see perfectly eye to eye on that. My problem is only with those that have closed the door on further study and enjoin others to do the same. I have absolutely no problem with people with observations that are diametrically opposed to my own. That I find not just interesting but stimulating.

 

[opus111]

No we do not go investigating every single claim and yes that is the job of the claimant.

Yes - claims are opinions and have no role whatsoever in science.

The burden of proof is his. Do note however that I said OBSERVATIONS. Those are very different from a claims.

Yes - claims and observations are poles apart. However you don't seem to distinguish between them because....

... observations out on the field about a certain DAC. In this case let's make it a negative one. Let's say the observation is that it sounds sharp.

This is obviously a claim, not an observation. How do I know this? Firstly because you already said its a negative one. Observations just
are, they're neither negative nor positive. Also its non-falsifiable because nobody knows what 'sharp' means. It needs a description which
can be falsified to count as an observation.

 

[jkeny]

-snip-
Your entire point is constructed on your untested hypothesis..that we can hear these differences. You refuse to test that, call it strawmen, yet always come back to just sayin it is true. Because you tell us you can hear 'it', REFUSE to test that, yet run off saying you have built an antigravity machine. That proves 'science' is wrong.

You mean blind test? I have no problem in blind testing two devices which I know I can differentiate & have done so many times. Please don't ask for write-ups of set-up, statistical analysis, etc. I didn't do the tests for a paper submission to AES, I did them to check my "unreliable perceptions"

There is NO doubt in your mind that you are correct, which is cool, then why is it so hard for you to show it to be true? THEN you would have some right to say our understanding is correct. As a construct I doubt any of us would have a problem with that, it is logical yada yada. Just show us WHY we should investigate it.

It's up to you whether you investigate it or not, I don't really care. It just bugs me to be told that it's not true or it's just my preference, etc.

-snip-

You were not just recently demanding Tom use measurements to explain YOUR perceptions? If it was fine for you, why cry foul with us? We are after only ONE measurement...if you can hear it or not. We don't get why we are continually being asked to chase what might be chimera.

No I don't want TOM to explain my perceptions but if he disagrees with my perceptions & uses measurements as his support evidence then I can examine his support & point out where they might be flawed, incomplete, incompetent, etc. Mind you, I would expect that I didn't have to do this because if you are so sure of your measurements to use them as support then I expect you might have examined these factors already, no!

-snip-

SHOW us we have partial measurements. After all, "no, it couldn't sound better, measurements show that" IS the position that is ready to be falsified. Falsify it.

If you don't agree that the list of measurements I gave is a stab at the measurements needed to characterise an amplifier then you are welcome to state what should be used. My follow-up question after that measurement list was - how many times have you seen a complete list of measurements done on an amplifier which would characterise it's performance

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here's what you just quoted me saying, John:

Any of the Audiophiles claiming their preferences are superior are more than welcome to present any measurements they have to support their claims. That has never been an issue."

It was said in response to this statement of yours:

No, again you are missing the point - I'm saying that you are not measuring all the metrics that matter so if you did you might find out why hearing shows that some "inferior measuring" device sounds better than another.

So...you said I was not measuring all the metrics that matter to hear what some Audiophiles hear. I responded that anyone is welcome to present the metrics you referred to that I seemed to be missing.

Here's how you interpreted my words a few posts above:

Again, it's a circular argument - Audiophiles hear something is better & you insist on them providing measurements to support this?

It went from more than welcome to present the mystery measurements that you brought up to my insisting that everything audiophiles hear be backed up with measurements. Your the one arguing in circles, John. You're the one talking about measurements you say I'm missing but you can't seem to come up with yourself. I'm sorry if my last post came off as condescending, but I really do feel like I'm trapped in a dialogue with someone who can't follow the simplest line of the conversation. Of course it could be that you know exactly what I mean but prefer to twist it just to be argumentative. When I implied you were having a hard time keeping up, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are now going on ignore. I would really appreciate the courtesy of you doing the same, and not commenting on my posts any more. I don't expect it, but I would appreciate it.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Opus

Nope. A claim is an assertion (with or without proof) an observation is not. The latter is a comment confined to a specific instance or set of instances.

claim - Eddie is a messy haired guy

observation - Eddie's hair looks messy

claim - the DAC is sharp

observation - the DAC sounds sharp

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I will also quickly add that I find there are differences between components and that I have under certain conditions heard these differences. No great shakes scientifically conducted tests.. With knowledge removed I was in some casual tests able to recognize my own amplifers and preamp even with level matched at 1 Khz within a dB or so... with the most accurate SPL meter ever the Radio Shack .. ... DAC to me sound very different and I very much like the M2Tech and it sounds starkly diffferent (and to me better) from/than the Benchmark DAC on the same material, just like my observation tells me that a Spectral and a Krell sound very different .. My observation, qualitative and personal, etc ...
So there remains things to know. A lot more and that is the way of Science .. Show that is it reliably and consistently perceived then try to explain the phenomenon or its occurrence. But if this becomes amoving target: "Well!! I think I heard but now I can't unless I flip a coin", you can understand the skepticism and the rejection... especially when you continue claiming extraordinary perceptive abilities that disappear completely once knowledge, of the Device Under Test, is removed.

 

[jkeny]

Jkeny


I like the modifier , you "believe" that I am wrong. You didn't prove me wrong though...

Yep, not everything is up for proof

Reality, do we perceive it correctly? NO! We don't. We can't separate two sounds 1 Hz apart, they sound the same to us.. We can't discern 0.1dB , at a single frequency the levels is the same to us .. So reality being there, we fail to perceive it correctly and that .. excuse the pun, reliably, consistently, repetitively. We are fooled ... We can't measure temperature with our skin with any semblance of reliability .. SO reality is there to be perceived so unreliably by our senses thus the use of instruments ... I don't think I need to go further ..

Ah, my instrument is bigger/more sensitive/more shiny.... than yours argument. Fact of the matter is my hearing allows me to handle the world as my species have evolved to do. It has provided me & my species with sufficient sensitivity & selectivity to deal with the world. I expect my audio playback device to also provide this level of detail & sensitivity, no more, no less. Couldn't care less about you better instruments, I'll stick with my ears & brain, thanks!

 

[opus111]

Nope. A claim is an assertion an observation is not.

You say 'nope' implying that you disagree yet what you write in support of your 'nope' is fine. So what gives? Must be a crossed wire somewhere.

The latter is a comment confined to a specific instance or set of instances.

Nope, an observation has the character of a description, not just a comment. And the description is only a description if its also falsifiable.

 

[JackD201]

Dude the comment in this instance is the description. Look at a dictionary for goodness sakes. My statement follows the syntax for an observation not a claim hence the nope.

I said this about the hypothetical situation

"Let's say the observation is that it sounds sharp."

We good here?

 

[jkeny]

-snip- I would really appreciate the courtesy of you doing the same, and not commenting on my posts any more. I don't expect it, but I would appreciate it.

Tim

Great! Done, Tim!

 

[opus111]

claim - Eddie is a messy haired guy

Yes - because 'messy' is just an opinion.

observation - Eddie's hair looks messy

Nope, its still an opinion because 'messy' hasn't been given a falsifiable description.

claim - the DAC is sharp

Yep. But this is ambiguous because is it talking about the edges of the casing being sharp?

observation - the DAC sounds sharp

Nope, see above.

 

[FrantzM]

So I suppose you use no instruments in designing/building your gears? All by ears ? Interesting

 

[jkeny]

So I suppose you use no instruments in designing/building your gears? All by ears ? Interesting

Ah, now an attack on my products & how I build them which of course you know nothing about - I'll take that as an ad hom attack then - please desist!

Edit: Really, Frantz, uncalled for & unnecessary as well as untrue!

If this is not what you meant then I apologise but it really does seem like you are demeaning my approach.

I'll answer you thus:
Of course I use measurements but do those measurements translate into audible differences, not always, sometimes. Do some changes/tests show an audible difference in sound that I can't measure? Yes! Do I think I need more measurements or am I of the opinion that it's going to take a lot of equipment, time & energy to correlate the measurement with the audible change? I'll let you work out which way I decide to go!

Bottom line, measurements give me guidelines & directions but I would never use them to decide which was going to sound closer to real instruments, voice, etc.

 

[JackD201]

Yes - because 'messy' is just an opinion.



Nope, its still an opinion because 'messy' hasn't been given a falsifiable description.



Yep. But this is ambiguous because is it talking about the edges of the casing being sharp?



Nope, see above.

Look. If you want to play word games then fine. Play word games but do get a dictionary before you start. Replace messy with "hair that is not groomed" or "hair left at random positions" or "no x subsets of hair aligned no less than y degrees from one another". Have a ball man, the logic stays the same.

Now you expect the DAC owner to talk in Hertz like the designer would? My whole point is, if you actually read the series of posts, is the problems in communication between perspectives. Thank you for providing a very clear case for this.