Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You will get sick of head-fi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You will get sick of head-fi - Page 8

post #106 of 215

I will never get sick of Head-Fi:

 

post #107 of 215

Still here.

post #108 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens View Post

Still here.

I would hope so. tongue.gif

post #109 of 215

Thanks to all for expanding their views. Honestly, I have a much better understanding of the positions (and you) now. 

 

My concerns were that the objections raised were based on the tone some people were using. It seemed (to me) incongruent

to portray others as being dismissive and intolerant while at the same time being (to me) dismissive and intolerant. I do think that

the further expansion of everyone's position has shown that it's a much more complex issue with wider ranging issues.

 

Maybe a Newton Nietzsche's quote could sum up where I was trying to come from:

"Careful when pointing at monsters because three fingers are pointing back at you."

 

I do think that, at this point, the sound science forum is simply misnamed. 

 

@obosovich

The constructivist notion of science in contrast to scientism as an "internal critique" is an interesting point. Normally I've seen

Scientism used to describe a position that science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge, and this is usually

at the expense of other methods of inquiry. 

 

*EDIT: Maybe, I should note that in my perspective, all we can hope for in engaging others with fundamentally different view points on

complex issues is better understanding and clarification of the issue and concerns in question.  Unfortunately, when we get into, what

on first blush is, a simple question can quickly turn and throw into question the nature of truth, belief, knowledge. 


Edited by JadeEast - 10/27/12 at 12:13pm
post #110 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


The idea of "truth with a capital T" is what I'm getting at - absolutes. They don't exist, empirically. Science deals with "small truths" as a result. It's very much a philosophical argument, I know, but it's a distinction that I see a lot of people fail to make when talking about science. A great anecdote for this appears in Men In Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_m8LJ2Z3no
There is no "irrefutable Truth" unless we're talking about religious faith, which is called faith for a reason.
That's empiricism, that's science.
That's scientism.
The difference is fundamental - one side is simply the construction of a philosophy of structured inquiry to observe and describe the physical world around us. The other rejects the ability of that philosophy to change, wants to carve it into stone, and says all problems stem from human flaw or failure (and because I don't know what your frame of reference is with respect to religion, this is VERY similar to Abrahamic tradition of accepting God as static perfection, and all flaw stemming from original sin and human failure).
In other words, science DOES change, that's part of the point. It's self-correcting and self-improving, you take what you knew yesterday and use it to try and explain why you're seeing today, in order to understand what might happen tomorrow. The "constant and unchanging" bit doesn't work at all - if that were the case, there'd be no scientific innovation, or engineering at all. It doesn't deal in absolutes, it deals in theory and law, both of which are fickle and transitive.
Sure, but this isn't the same as "unchanging and constant" and it doesn't set-up an absolute. You never prove anything, you just support or refute a hypothesis with evidence. For example, what happens if someone DOES say that the AD700 is bassier? You can't pre-suppose the outcome, it's bad experimental design and you've already shot yourself in the foot.
You don't "prove" you only "support" or "refute" - there is no "prove." You can postulate that a headphone capable of reproducing the signal with the least amount of deviation or distortion is more accurate, and then objectively measure a few headphones and find the one that has the least deviation in its results, which shows that it comes closest to meeting your original criteria. But you haven't "proven" anything. You can then take that and go talk to the perceptual and behavioral guys, and set-up your HSR to get an idea of what people actually like, testing the headphone you found to be least deviant against other options, and see what you get. And then crunch the math on the returned data and figure out if there's a strong correlation or preference, and what kind of confidence you have, and then present your findings as support or refutation of your original hypothesis. But you still have not "proven" anything. And any research design that sets out from day 1 to "prove" something is inherently flawed.
Again, see above. There is no "prove" there is only description, demonstration, observation, and so on. There is no Truth seeking here.
No, it's not. It's something else. Science isn't about "prove" or Truth, it's about description, observation, postulation, theory formation, and so on. And you don't ever stop that process just because your field-work is done, or your lab-work is done, there's interpretation, peer-review, revision, theory testing, and so on. External controls and regulation. It goes on and on and on. Some guy sitting in his basement with an oscope telling the world "how it is" is far from science.
The bit on opinion feels too heavily influenced by modern Western scholarship too - truly unfortunate that. Unfortunately there's a MASSIVE misunderstanding and general ignorance towards what actually constitutes objective or subjective, qualitative or quantitative, inductive or deductive, etc and the words get thrown around willy-nilly by a lot of people as meaning something they aren't. And it's from the rise of scientism (has anyone actually gone and looked this up as a philosophy? as in, can I assume that people actually know exactly what I'm talking about here? or do I need to provide more explanation?) in my view - not to keep hitting movies up for quotes, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHGHkGmOmD4
And I see that as sort of the "trend" recently (without the dinosaurs (FUN SIDE NOTE: obobs has met one of the people who designed the animatronics for that movie)); a re-construction of the supernatural through "science" and "irrefutable natural law" (Natural Law being an Enlightenment era concept). It's unfortunate, because it does a dis-service to what science truly is, and I think leaves a lot of bad taste in its wake, where you get people who have no formal experience with science coming out of it with this vision as science as "yet another religion" and the scientismists (yes I know this isn't grammatical, but "scientist" and "scientologist" are both unrelated demonyms) thinking they're doing "God's work" (for lack of a better phrase) in proving Truth and showing the heathen-savages how wrong they really are (this being a hallmark of Western civilization for the last 500 years, at least).
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Regarding whether or not I'm condemning the Sound Science board - I really don't care either way (I'm not "for" or "against" (well, I'm "for" inasmuch as it hopefully prevents board-wide drama)). There are plenty of bright people who post there, and some of their posts are very informative and interesting, but the whole "DBT as religion" and "science proves you wrong" kind of thing is where I really have to draw the line and say "no thank you." redface.gif If it took a more scientific tack, and was more interested in description, analysis, and interpretation - not prescription, prediction, and argumentation - it would be a far better resource imho. And that kind of information already sort of exists elsewhere on Head-Fi. The parts of Sound Science that are based on discussing science news or people talking about published findings are usually interesting though, but I see that as a minority of the content there.
AiDee -
Just saw your most recent post. Very insightful indeed, and I think you've probably hit it on the head. Online fora (like any other form of social interaction) have an associated schema, and accepted speech/image acts (lets see if I can for the hat-trick and mix a third discipline's concepts into one sentence, shall we!) - and that's where you see a lot of formulaic and structured interaction (BA-ZING!). It becomes routine.
Personally I agree to some extent - I can talk philosophy and theory all day, and it doesn't really bore me, but it doesn't excite me either. I like talking audio gear, and that's basically why I'm here, but I don't see any reason for that to spill into "haves" and "have nots" (be it knowledge, gear, money, whatever); I just like talking gear.
On a broader note, the social issues you're touching on are impossible to even characterize in a global manner (sure, the behavioral neuroscientists *say* they can do it, but fMRIs are expensive and that field is very much an infant), but within a properly framed lens, solution-focused applied projects happen all the time, but they're always one-offs. There is no universal "fix all" - and historically speaking everything that has purported to be such at best is just wishful thinking, and at worst usually results in atrocities being committed at some point (usually sooner than later). But I'm glad other people are thinking about these kinds of things.

As in proof i mean "provide evidence to uphold that argument". However, for the most part, i totally agree with you. The purpose of my example is to show that we CAN demonstrate that the XB700 is bassier than the AD700 from an objective viewpoint, and i think it is important to use that kind of objective data as a reference in this hobby, on any equipment. I also think DBT's have a purpose in this hobby. For example if i say that i hear no difference between 320k and lossless, i can take two audio files, one compressed at 320kbps, and one uncompressed or lossless, and do a DBT and provide evidence to myself that i cannot hear a difference between the two. Perhaps someone else can, but if they say they can hear a massive difference, but fail to find a difference in a DBT, then they aren't able to uphold that argument. That's all i'm getting at.


Edited by yepimonfire - 10/27/12 at 10:46am
post #111 of 215

What about the seemingly complete lack of acknowledgement for the good topics in the sound science forum.

Isn't it simply too easy to focus on the bad... I feel as a whole the sound science forum just got a bad name. And that's wrong. 

post #112 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

 

Maybe a Newton Nietzsche's quote could sum up where I was trying to come from:

"Careful when pointing at monsters because three fingers are pointing back at you."

 

biggrin.gif Awwww he was the king of one liners! (twas a shame about his brother Friedrich Isaac though wink_face.gif)

 

beerchug.gif

post #113 of 215

I got sick about after a week. These people peddling $500 RCA cables and $2000 power conditioners need to get a -expletive- grip. The only reason I'm still here is for buying/selling/trading and advice from people that aren't completely full of crap.

 

 

Cancer ridden or not it was funny. Thank you Tyll


Edited by BLACKENEDPLAGUE - 10/27/12 at 1:35pm
post #114 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

biggrin.gif  Awwww he was the king of one liners! (twas a shame about his brother Friedrich Isaac though wink_face.gif )

beerchug.gif

lol.
post #115 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

biggrin.gif Awwww he was the king of one liners! (twas a shame about his brother Friedrich Isaac though wink_face.gif)

 

beerchug.gif


“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

post #116 of 215
I dunno. My reservations about this place extend to any audio forum or even professional reviews. I mean I've read professional pieces about which CDRs have the best sound quality, or which cables to buy, even mains leads that somehow affect the sound after miles of unknown power delivery.

Yes there are flavours of the month, screwy logic, and tireless recommendations for junk, and so be it. In fact, I'd kind of enjoy a conversation about magic pebbles and carefully re-calibrated Casio clocks that affect your listening room.
post #117 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBS View Post

I dunno. My reservations about this place extend to any audio forum or even professional reviews. I mean I've read professional pieces about which CDRs have the best sound quality, or which cables to buy, even mains leads that somehow affect the sound after miles of unknown power delivery.
Yes there are flavours of the month, screwy logic, and tireless recommendations for junk, and so be it. In fact, I'd kind of enjoy a conversation about magic pebbles and carefully re-calibrated Casio clocks that affect your listening room.

 

Tice Clocks and Machina Dynamica stuff FTW!

 

I guess we don't hear about those pebbles around here because they wouldn't be much use for headphones. On the other hand, the Teleportation Tweak might be applicable.

 

Though I guess it's all equally applicable to both speakers and headphones, considering that it doesn't do anything at all. biggrin.gif

post #118 of 215
Don't make assumptions. Just because mortal science hasn't caught up with these tweaks, doesn't mean he's not a wizard or timelord of some kind. I am sure balancing magic quartz on your head and carrying pocketfuls of magical devices doesn't mean you're insane. No. Far from it. And check those testimonials: they don't appear to crazy at all, and I'm sure they're not all written by the same person.

Honest to god: he would be better advertising things you smoke or eat that improve music. At least buying some suspicious synthetic cannabinoids would alter the music.
post #119 of 215

I'll say that he does a phenomenal job of making the whole thing sound even keeled, as though he wasn't cracking up the whole time he was writing it, which I would have been doing.

 

What astounds me even more is that I once read a review from somebody who actually tried the thing that was supposed to improve your CDs and said that it worked. I can't find the article I read, but here's apparently another one by the same people:

 

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/photoncannons/photoncannons.html

post #120 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The idea of "truth with a capital T" is what I'm getting at - absolutes. They don't exist, empirically. Science deals with "small truths" as a result. It's very much a philosophical argument, I know, but it's a distinction that I see a lot of people fail to make when talking about science. A great anecdote for this appears in Men In Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_m8LJ2Z3no
There is no "irrefutable Truth" unless we're talking about religious faith, which is called faith for a reason.
That's empiricism, that's science.
That's scientism.
The difference is fundamental - one side is simply the construction of a philosophy of structured inquiry to observe and describe the physical world around us. The other rejects the ability of that philosophy to change, wants to carve it into stone, and says all problems stem from human flaw or failure (and because I don't know what your frame of reference is with respect to religion, this is VERY similar to Abrahamic tradition of accepting God as static perfection, and all flaw stemming from original sin and human failure).
In other words, science DOES change, that's part of the point. It's self-correcting and self-improving, you take what you knew yesterday and use it to try and explain why you're seeing today, in order to understand what might happen tomorrow. The "constant and unchanging" bit doesn't work at all - if that were the case, there'd be no scientific innovation, or engineering at all. It doesn't deal in absolutes, it deals in theory and law, both of which are fickle and transitive.
Sure, but this isn't the same as "unchanging and constant" and it doesn't set-up an absolute. You never prove anything, you just support or refute a hypothesis with evidence. For example, what happens if someone DOES say that the AD700 is bassier? You can't pre-suppose the outcome, it's bad experimental design and you've already shot yourself in the foot.
You don't "prove" you only "support" or "refute" - there is no "prove." You can postulate that a headphone capable of reproducing the signal with the least amount of deviation or distortion is more accurate, and then objectively measure a few headphones and find the one that has the least deviation in its results, which shows that it comes closest to meeting your original criteria. But you haven't "proven" anything. You can then take that and go talk to the perceptual and behavioral guys, and set-up your HSR to get an idea of what people actually like, testing the headphone you found to be least deviant against other options, and see what you get. And then crunch the math on the returned data and figure out if there's a strong correlation or preference, and what kind of confidence you have, and then present your findings as support or refutation of your original hypothesis. But you still have not "proven" anything. And any research design that sets out from day 1 to "prove" something is inherently flawed.
Again, see above. There is no "prove" there is only description, demonstration, observation, and so on. There is no Truth seeking here.
No, it's not. It's something else. Science isn't about "prove" or Truth, it's about description, observation, postulation, theory formation, and so on. And you don't ever stop that process just because your field-work is done, or your lab-work is done, there's interpretation, peer-review, revision, theory testing, and so on. External controls and regulation. It goes on and on and on. Some guy sitting in his basement with an oscope telling the world "how it is" is far from science.
The bit on opinion feels too heavily influenced by modern Western scholarship too - truly unfortunate that. Unfortunately there's a MASSIVE misunderstanding and general ignorance towards what actually constitutes objective or subjective, qualitative or quantitative, inductive or deductive, etc and the words get thrown around willy-nilly by a lot of people as meaning something they aren't. And it's from the rise of scientism (has anyone actually gone and looked this up as a philosophy? as in, can I assume that people actually know exactly what I'm talking about here? or do I need to provide more explanation?) in my view - not to keep hitting movies up for quotes, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHGHkGmOmD4
And I see that as sort of the "trend" recently (without the dinosaurs (FUN SIDE NOTE: obobs has met one of the people who designed the animatronics for that movie)); a re-construction of the supernatural through "science" and "irrefutable natural law" (Natural Law being an Enlightenment era concept). It's unfortunate, because it does a dis-service to what science truly is, and I think leaves a lot of bad taste in its wake, where you get people who have no formal experience with science coming out of it with this vision as science as "yet another religion" and the scientismists (yes I know this isn't grammatical, but "scientist" and "scientologist" are both unrelated demonyms) thinking they're doing "God's work" (for lack of a better phrase) in proving Truth and showing the heathen-savages how wrong they really are (this being a hallmark of Western civilization for the last 500 years, at least).
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Regarding whether or not I'm condemning the Sound Science board - I really don't care either way (I'm not "for" or "against" (well, I'm "for" inasmuch as it hopefully prevents board-wide drama)). There are plenty of bright people who post there, and some of their posts are very informative and interesting, but the whole "DBT as religion" and "science proves you wrong" kind of thing is where I really have to draw the line and say "no thank you." redface.gif If it took a more scientific tack, and was more interested in description, analysis, and interpretation - not prescription, prediction, and argumentation - it would be a far better resource imho. And that kind of information already sort of exists elsewhere on Head-Fi. The parts of Sound Science that are based on discussing science news or people talking about published findings are usually interesting though, but I see that as a minority of the content there.
AiDee -
Just saw your most recent post. Very insightful indeed, and I think you've probably hit it on the head. Online fora (like any other form of social interaction) have an associated schema, and accepted speech/image acts (lets see if I can for the hat-trick and mix a third discipline's concepts into one sentence, shall we!) - and that's where you see a lot of formulaic and structured interaction (BA-ZING!). It becomes routine.
Personally I agree to some extent - I can talk philosophy and theory all day, and it doesn't really bore me, but it doesn't excite me either. I like talking audio gear, and that's basically why I'm here, but I don't see any reason for that to spill into "haves" and "have nots" (be it knowledge, gear, money, whatever); I just like talking gear.
On a broader note, the social issues you're touching on are impossible to even characterize in a global manner (sure, the behavioral neuroscientists *say* they can do it, but fMRIs are expensive and that field is very much an infant), but within a properly framed lens, solution-focused applied projects happen all the time, but they're always one-offs. There is no universal "fix all" - and historically speaking everything that has purported to be such at best is just wishful thinking, and at worst usually results in atrocities being committed at some point (usually sooner than later). But I'm glad other people are thinking about these kinds of things.

 

Good post obobs.

I'm a tube amp guy(but I can appreciate a nice SS amp too).

I have always raised an eyebrow when I entered a "solidstate vs. tube" thread.

I would see the "solidstate being superior to tube" posts and of course ensuing arguments and think "superior to who? superior in what way?".

Personal audio is subjective. That's what makes it personal. 

Are tube amps as accurate as solidstate? No, but that's why I like them. I like the distortion. It doesn't make me right or wrong. It's my personal taste.

I like warm headphones. Does that mean I'm not hearing the music as intended by the studio? Yes, but I don't care. I like a warm sound.

I can appreciate the passion the objective guys have for this hobby, but I like what I like and this is my hobby.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You will get sick of head-fi