Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community - Page 3  

post #31 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

What's lacking in the audiophile community is skepticism.


Couldn't agree more.

post #32 of 170

the sooner this sub-forum gets shut the better... complete waste of good bandwidth.

post #33 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

the sooner this sub-forum gets shut the better... complete waste of good bandwidth.

There are entire forums that are a lot stricter as to posting nonsense, unfounded claims, ... so you should be happy about this place - the isle of reason.

 

But I would understand that someone lacking reason felt upset or even threatened by this sub-forum, or someone that has shown anti-science attitude. rolleyes.gif


Edited by xnor - 6/10/13 at 5:40am
post #34 of 170

 I wish people would examine their own views with as much intensity as they apply to the views of others. 

post #35 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

the sooner this sub-forum gets shut the better... complete waste of good bandwidth.

Visiting a forum, a sub-forum, or specific thread is a choice made by the reader.  

 

It would be great if forums in general presented balanced viewpoints, but since the content is posts by individuals, then regulated by individuals functioning as moderators with their own rules, this won't ever be the case.  

 

It makes more sense to avoid a forum or thread you don't like or agree with that to expect someone else to have the same sensitivities as you and squelch an undesired opinion.

post #36 of 170
If they close down Sound Science, we'll just go out into the other forums and terrorize the townfolk. Best to keep us bottled up in our own banishment group.
post #37 of 170
The intent is noble and the logic is to be admired, the methods are somewhat condescending. That brings the snarksnake out. wink.gif

Besides, since this place has become a marketing site for vendors, there is little room for caling them out.
Edited by Happy Camper - 6/10/13 at 10:36am
post #38 of 170

I disagree. I'm a pure subjectivist when it comes to enjoying music. 

The main problem is when these subjectivist come into Sound Science and start arguments, trying to back up claims with anecdotes.

 

Objectivity is the entire focus on this forum, so it seems condescending to other's when facts are thrown at them 

that may differ from their experiences.

 

I quite enjoy reading through Sound Science and do appreciate the wealth of knowledge and experience all of you share.

post #39 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

The main problem is when these subjectivist come into Sound Science and start arguments, trying to back up claims with anecdotes.

 

 

But they're not subjectivists, nor should they be called subjectivists.

 

se

post #40 of 170

that's my reason for the "naive subjectivist" label for those that apparently have no clue about human perception, the easily "distorted" link between physical stimulus and conscious subjective experience

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post

people don't really seem to have an appreciation of how secondary, filtered and delayed our "conscious" experience of the world is

 

our brains are deeply hardwired to filter, censor, edit every piece of sensory input to manage our "awareness" to reinforce our egos, confirm our pre-existing bias/world views, secure our position in our social groups

 

this is absolutely beyond our conscious control - not a matter of "simple honesty", little affected by contrary experience once we have formed "workable" opinions, particularly after we determine that there is social reinforcement for these beliefs

 

 

these insights are a staple of modern perceptual psychology, specific to audio we have over a century of psychoacoustic perceptual research using the Scientific Method

 

read perceptual psychology studies, books, procedures - admit you are also human, also subject to these reasoning, perceptual errors, illusions

 

start using controls,level matching, Blinding in your listening evaluations - then report back to us what you "really" perceive


Edited by jcx - 6/10/13 at 12:37pm
post #41 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by gikigill View Post

The amplifier/dac are his last laugh.
For all our debate, he put his money where his mouth was.
Even if it isn't perfect, it matches his intentions.
Personally as someone interested in science and the scientific method, I don't hold any sacred cows.

Susskind challenged Hawking and made him revise his paper/theory. I admire him for that and similarly if there is objectivism in audio and that proves my long held beliefs wrong, well science doesn't care if you agree or not with the result.
 

 

This is exactly what a good scientist does. When we realise we're wrong we're supposed to be the loudest voice saying "Hey guys, ignore what I said. It's rubbish, look here's why".

Sadly out in the real world this sort of action isn't seen in the same way. People most often refuse to admit it if they got it totally wrong, and cling desperately to any shred of evidence that they didn't. It's sad, and the community really does suffer for it.

 

In reality it is often lacking in the scientific community too.


Edited by yblad - 6/10/13 at 1:28pm
post #42 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

But they're not subjectivists, nor should they be called subjectivists.

 

se

And why is that?

post #43 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

Visiting a forum, a sub-forum, or specific thread is a choice made by the reader.  

 

It would be great if forums in general presented balanced viewpoints, but since the content is posts by individuals, then regulated by individuals functioning as moderators with their own rules, this won't ever be the case.  

 

It makes more sense to avoid a forum or thread you don't like or agree with that to expect someone else to have the same sensitivities as you and squelch an undesired opinion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean... but, the Internet is an open space. you could start your own forum, make your own rules, then gather the rest of the disciples here and talk about anything you want. why don't you do that?

post #44 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

the sooner this sub-forum gets shut the better... complete waste of good bandwidth.

 

It is always a disappointment when people conclude that positions other than those they hold are simply noise.

 

I am usually curious as to the reasoning process that led to the position. Disagreement leads to discovery, after all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

I'm not quite sure what you mean... but, the Internet is an open space. you could start your own forum, make your own rules, then gather the rest of the disciples here and talk about anything you want. why don't you do that?

 

This forum is a honey pot. Just don't read it if it bothers you that much.

post #45 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

But they're not subjectivists, nor should they be called subjectivists.

 

Apparently now there's a forum rule against calling them by their name!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Peer groups, self selection, the breadth of the audiophile community