Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The Objectivist Audio Forum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Objectivist Audio Forum - Page 4

post #46 of 180
8/10/08 at 10:40am
Quote:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about whether the division is between cable believers and non-believers, or whether the division is between simply stating an opinion and arguing a differing opinion.
I've got real-world commitments today, am late already, and can't spend any time back-and-forth posting, but I'll get back to you about this.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #47 of 180
8/10/08 at 3:26pm
This entire thread seems to have missed the point of the first post, which I took as this:

Seeing as the staff has already decided that separate forums are necessary, why is it that the objectivist forum is expressed in a decidedly negative tone and is as a less visible "sub-forum" of the subjectivist forum instead of them being on equal levels?
Reply
post #48 of 180
8/10/08 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by acidbasement View Post
I think it's a great idea for giving an individual an idea of whether a particular piece of gear is an upgrade, downgrade, or sidestep. ... We would still want to hear it for ourselves, and some of us (statistical aberrations we may be) would argue vehemently and probably truthfully that we heard something the rest of the pack did not. So, I think it would be interesting and informative to do, but I don't think it would make debates go away - and why should we want it to?
Great post! Indeed, we would preserve the individual results, not aggregate them. The statistics is in the design, not the analysis.

By by doing this single blind, and by throwing in false comparisons (a cheap piece of gear not part of the official test, or repeating a unit, mis-calling "A" as "B", etc.) we get to see if we ourselves can really hear the difference. It is single blind to protect the listener from himself!!

In a blind test between silver and copper line-out cables I learned a lot about my own ears. Had the test not been blind I would have cheated (subconsciously).

I think blindfolding people and putting them on the hot seat will be a blast! We could even offer a prize for the person who can most reliably tell cables apart. There are lots of cool tricks to keep the listener honest when the tester is not blind (you fiddle with the volume to see if they are cheating on levels, etc.).

Fun! And real. And meaningful. And if we don't do it, no one else will. We have the people, the ears, the venues, the gear, the knowlede, and the desire.
Reply
post #49 of 180
8/10/08 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
This entire thread seems to have missed the point of the first post, which I took as this:

Seeing as the staff has already decided that separate forums are necessary, why is it that the objectivist forum is expressed in a decidedly negative tone and is as a less visible "sub-forum" of the subjectivist forum instead of them being on equal levels?
Maybe there's nothing more than possible readership to it: it won't certainly be the most read forum. Maybe it gets some posts, maybe it gets moved. Maybe not. Don't make a fly look a bull. (Eh).
Reply
post #50 of 180
8/10/08 at 5:40pm
Potential lack of readership could justify the sub-forum claim (if it's a valid argument - if the objectivists are crapping "every thread" you'd think it'd be the more active forum) but cannot justify the negative tone.
Reply
post #51 of 180
8/10/08 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbriant View Post
I've got real-world commitments today, am late already, and can't spend any time back-and-forth posting, but I'll get back to you about this.
Thanks! No rush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
Seeing as the staff has already decided that separate forums are necessary, why is it that the objectivist forum is expressed in a decidedly negative tone and is as a less visible "sub-forum" of the subjectivist forum instead of them being on equal levels?
I'm guessing that the subforum will be primarily intended as a banishment location to move threads that don't follow the mods' intent for how threads should play out. By the flippant description in the menu, I don't imagine they intend anyone to actually use the forum.

But if it's honestly intended as an objectivist forum, it could be used to discuss other aspects of audio in an objective way- not just cables... "veils" in headphones, anecdotal experience with high bitrate audio, jitter, etc. If that's the use, it shouldn't be a subgroup under cables, it should be a separate new category under the Misc Categories forum.

Is there a way to hook up a "reply to" choice, so if we are replying to a post in one forum and thread, we could reply to it in a new thread in the objectivist forum? That would be very handy. Will the objectivist forum have an objectivist moderator? I nominate Nick Charles.

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #52 of 180
8/10/08 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
I'm guessing that the subforum will be primarily intended as a banishment location to move threads that don't follow the mods' intent for how threads should play out. By the flippant description in the menu, I don't imagine they intend anyone to actually use the forum.

But if it's honestly intended as an objectivist forum, it could be used to discuss other aspects of audio in an objective way- not just cables... "veils" in headphones, anecdotal experience with high bitrate audio, jitter, etc. If that's the use, it shouldn't be a subgroup under cables, it should be a separate new category under the Misc Categories forum.

Is there a way to hook up a "reply to" choice, so if we are replying to a post in one forum and thread, we could reply to it in a new thread in the objectivist forum? That would be very handy. Will the objectivist forum have an objectivist moderator? I nominate Nick Charles.

See ya
Steve
I'm not an objectivist by any strech of the meaning, but I think you have some pretty valid points here.
Reply
post #53 of 180
8/10/08 at 7:56pm
Thread Starter 




The Full Text

From the FDA:

"Patent medicines have had a long and ignominious history in the U. S., reaching their zenith in the late 19th century. As the population became more urban and somewhat more capitalized, a ripe target emerged for some post-industrial entrepeneurs, entrepreneurs who would thrive in a marketplace best characterized by the dictum, 'caveat emptor'...

Quacks developed successful marketing techniques,but they also promoted their interests in more surreptitious ways. For example, they subdued any curiosity in the press with their economic strength. By the 1890s, patent medicine manufacturers used so-called "red clauses" in the their advertising contracts with newspapers and magazines. These muzzle clauses voided the contract if a state law regulating nostrums were passed. Thus, not only were many editorials silent on the need for such laws, they actively campaigned against them....

But quacks and their trade associations were not able to stifle the entire fourth estate. A few muckraking journalists helped expose the red clauses, the false testimonials, the nostrums laden with harmful ingredients, the unfounded cures for cancer, tuberculosis, syphilis, narcotic addiction, and a host of other serious as well as self-limited diseases...."

[I thought this might be interesting...]

USG
Reply
post #54 of 180
8/10/08 at 11:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Thanks! No rush.



I'm guessing that the subforum will be primarily intended as a banishment location to move threads that don't follow the mods' intent for how threads should play out. By the flippant description in the menu, I don't imagine they intend anyone to actually use the forum.

But if it's honestly intended as an objectivist forum, it could be used to discuss other aspects of audio in an objective way- not just cables... "veils" in headphones, anecdotal experience with high bitrate audio, jitter, etc. If that's the use, it shouldn't be a subgroup under cables, it should be a separate new category under the Misc Categories forum.

Is there a way to hook up a "reply to" choice, so if we are replying to a post in one forum and thread, we could reply to it in a new thread in the objectivist forum? That would be very handy. Will the objectivist forum have an objectivist moderator? I nominate Nick Charles.

See ya
Steve
Since we are going to be banished there anyway, maybe we can turn it into a clubhouse for scientific reason?

USG
Reply
post #55 of 180
8/11/08 at 12:01am
Thread Starter 
Just For Fun:

100 years ago------------- Here's the link

Coughs:

Put some cow dung in water and bring it to a boil. Gargle the water three times a day and your cough will be gone.

Croup:

Pack sheep droppings into a tobacco sack and soak in warm water. Apply the sack to your neck and wear it until the choking spell is over.

Fever:

Gather a supply of rabbit dung and make a strong tea of the dung in hot water. Strain and drink the tea every half hour until the sweating stops.

Freckles:

To remove freckles or skin spots — take a small flatfish fresh from the sea and hold it firmly against the skin until the fish dies. This will also cure the whooping cough.

Today----------------------

Cables:

To make cables sound better..... dip them in liquid nitrogen. This also works for vacuum tubes.

USG
Reply
post #56 of 180
8/11/08 at 10:02am
People need to understand two concepts: reductionism and emergence. Far too many DBT-loving folks are reductionists at heart, fine, be that way. However, it is not the only source of knowledge and in fact is often very near sighted as is clearly evident by people who stare at numbers and plots all day long vs. those listening to music.

Are there people half baked in both camps? Certainly. Are there sufficient testing methods to accurately distinguish one person's perception of sound and another's? At this point, no. We are able to understand that no two people interpret sound exactly the same but we can't identify exactly why and how. Nor can we isolate the differences and reproduce them nor accurately describe them.

The best we can hope for on a site like this is for people of like minds to associate with each other. Those that tend to prefer one type of sound are able to communicat; those that prefer another type are likewise able to communicate. In this way, one might be able to "trust" another person's ears enough to make a blind purchase and feel confident enough that it wasn't a waste of time and money.

Does this reduce science and engineering to the back room? No. If product A has specific technical requirements, associated gear must be able meet or exceed them. Otherwise, let your ears decide!
Reply
post #57 of 180
8/11/08 at 10:06am
The thing is though, differences in perception only matter when there is an actual difference to perceive.
Reply
post #58 of 180
8/11/08 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanth View Post
People need to understand two concepts: reductionism and emergence. Far too many DBT-loving folks are reductionists at heart, fine, be that way. However, it is not the only source of knowledge and in fact is often very near sighted as is clearly evident by people who stare at numbers and plots all day long vs. those listening to music.

Are there people half baked in both camps? Certainly. Are there sufficient testing methods to accurately distinguish one person's perception of sound and another's? At this point, no. We are able to understand that no two people interpret sound exactly the same but we can't identify exactly why and how. Nor can we isolate the differences and reproduce them nor accurately describe them.

The best we can hope for on a site like this is for people of like minds to associate with each other. Those that tend to prefer one type of sound are able to communicat; those that prefer another type are likewise able to communicate. In this way, one might be able to "trust" another person's ears enough to make a blind purchase and feel confident enough that it wasn't a waste of time and money.

Does this reduce science and engineering to the back room? No. If product A has specific technical requirements, associated gear must be able meet or exceed them. Otherwise, let your ears decide!
You make some very good points about perception of sound being different, and a lot of the time, it does seem as if some of the arguments from the pro-DBT camp center on "I can't hear it, so nobody else can.", BUT, the point of DBT is that if person X is claiming to be able to hear a difference, the difference can only be proven to be a real difference through elimination of the subjective (and therefore placebo) elements of the equation. The only way that we currently have to perform that (although admittedly in audio it is not an entirely perfect test method for picking up the subtle differences) is some form of blind trialling.

I think some of the more over-zealous objectivists would be less evangelical about it if some of the disputed exotic gear (and disputed exotic ears) were shown to be able to hear the differences.
Reply
post #59 of 180
8/11/08 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek View Post
The thing is though, differences in perception only matter when there is an actual difference to perceive.
Which we are unable at this present time to understand fully. Look, it's quite simple, science NEVER knows everything about anything. At best, old theories are thrown out when new theories seem to fit better. By fitting better this means that they are broad, specific and answer more questions than the previous theory.

We are in the VERY early stages of understanding the mind. The mind plays the largest role in perception of sound. We have a very large body of data (experiential, otherwise known as phenomenology) regarding differences between pieces of gear that according to modern testing equipment shouldn't exist. Yet they seem to because very smart people continue to spend money, sometimes small sometimes very large, on said items that shouldn't make a difference. This ought to push engineers into designing better testing equipment, not in dismissing all experiential data. This is the problem. Objectivists automatically assume that if THEY can't hear something (which could very well be bias) and current day testing measurements can't resolve the differences, there mustn't be any. This is erroneous thinking and has no place in a scientific discussion.
Reply
post #60 of 180
8/11/08 at 10:20am
Quote:

Just For Fun:

100 years ago------------- Here's the link

Coughs:

Put some cow dung in water and bring it to a boil. Gargle the water three times a day and your cough will be gone.

Croup:

Pack sheep droppings into a tobacco sack and soak in warm water. Apply the sack to your neck and wear it until the choking spell is over.

Fever:

Gather a supply of rabbit dung and make a strong tea of the dung in hot water. Strain and drink the tea every half hour until the sweating stops.

Freckles:

To remove freckles or skin spots — take a small flatfish fresh from the sea and hold it firmly against the skin until the fish dies. This will also cure the whooping cough.

Today----------------------

Cables:

To make cables sound better..... dip them in liquid nitrogen. This also works for vacuum tubes.
This is the perfect example of the over-zearlous objectivist behaviour I've been speaking about, and why we've decided to separate the two sides. That post, starting with "just for fun" is not about the new sub-forum which the title of this thread and the ensuing discussion clearly identifies ..... It's yet again another repeat of the same old objectivist argument and an off-topic, sarcastic poke at subjectivists which inevitably once again insults and baits others into the never-ending argument .... derailing the thread in the process...."Just for fun."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The Objectivist Audio Forum