or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › why I'm a subjectivist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

why I'm a subjectivist - Page 4  

post #46 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

 sounds like your first impulse is always to protect advertisers. 

 

The amount I get paid to be here: $0. (I don't own the site.)

 

The amount I get as a result of anything whatsoever to do with sponsors on the site: $0

 

The effect of any company becoming a sponsor on anything I do on the site beyond enforcing the rules: Zero.

 

The involvement I have in the organisation of sponsors: Zero.

 

The amount I care about whether or not a company is a sponsor as a result: Zero*.

 

*Excepting if the sponsor has been involved in undisputed dishonesty on Head-Fi, such as shilling.

 

To be brutal, the manufacturers I've spent time talking to (sponsor or otherwise) I'd say are more honest. They can't afford not to be.

 

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't like it, and make all the excuses you want as to why what I say isn't true, but I call it as I see it and have experienced things. 


Edited by Currawong - 1/12/14 at 4:43am
post #47 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

[...]

I really wish that genuine science and learning could happen here, but that requires a lot of effort and it would require the help of manufacturers too. The problem is, I fear, is the same thing would happen as did to Dan Lavry and others who attempted to discuss the complexities of audio electronics -- they were shouted off the forums by people only interested in trashing manufacturers of expensive products and perpetuate the "hate club" mentality that has developed around the discussion of science.

Such discussions do take place on my home forum. It's a venue aimed at extreme performance and it attracts a certain type of individual, regardless of his audio-political position. The threads are long, very long, and they rarely evolve into flame wars, if ever. Why?

1. The population is older and much better educated. I'm the kid of the group at 50. Roughly speaking, at least 50% hold post-grad degrees and ~20% post-doc. Many are scientists. Real scientists, not the internet kind. As such, the idea of naive specs existing as Gospel does not float.

2. The forum membership is much more experienced. We're talking 20-40 years in the hobby with a good number who work in the industry, itself.

3. IMHE, ranging from Usenet to Internet forums that cater to the "great unwashed," objectivist positions are often derived as a way for the have-nots to harass the haves. Most everyone is a have, there, objectivists included.
post #48 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

[...]

I really wish that genuine science and learning could happen here, but that requires a lot of effort and it would require the help of manufacturers too. The problem is, I fear, is the same thing would happen as did to Dan Lavry and others who attempted to discuss the complexities of audio electronics -- they were shouted off the forums by people only interested in trashing manufacturers of expensive products and perpetuate the "hate club" mentality that has developed around the discussion of science.

Such discussions do take place on my home forum. It's a venue aimed at extreme performance and it attracts a certain type of individual, regardless of his audio-political position. The threads are long, very long, and they rarely evolve into flame wars, if ever. Why?

1. The population is older and much better educated. I'm the kid of the group at 50. Roughly speaking, at least 50% hold post-grad degrees and ~20% post-doc. Many are scientists. Real scientists, not the internet kind. As such, the idea of naive specs existing as Gospel does not float.

2. The forum membership is much more experienced. We're talking 20-40 years in the hobby with a good number who work in the industry, itself.

3. IMHE, ranging from Usenet to Internet forums that cater to the "great unwashed," objectivist positions are often derived as a way for the have-nots to harass the haves. Most everyone is a have, there, objectivists included.

 

Can we migrate your forum to here? :wink_face:

 

Reminds me a bit of a Zits cartoon (about a teenage boy and his middle-aged parents). Some or other problem with the father's smart phone comes up and the son solves it quickly and easily. Afterwards, we see the son thinking "I know everything." and the father is thinking "I don't know anything."


Edited by Currawong - 1/12/14 at 6:08am
post #49 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Can we migrate your forum to here? wink_face.gif

Heh, you'd have to confine the population to ~50 participating members and a couple of hundred occasionals, if you will. Not exactly thrilling in every sense. Why do you think I hang out here? It's fun; a youthful perspective does have its advantages.
Quote:
Reminds me a bit of a Zits cartoon (about a teenage boy and his middle-aged parents). Some or other problem with the father's smart phone comes up and the son solves it quickly and easily. Afterwards, we see the son thinking "I know everything." and the father is thinking "I don't know anything."

smily_headphones1.gif
post #50 of 188

Why is this thread not locked yet? Its already strayed far off topic and whatever discussion is left isn't exactly productive and healthy.

post #51 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post
 
3. IMHE, ranging from Usenet to Internet forums that cater to the "great unwashed," objectivist positions are often derived as a way for the have-nots to harass the haves. Most everyone is a have, there, objectivists included.


I get this sense as well. But it's not limited to the objectivist types -- there are always exceptions, but it seems like the people who are interested in trashing a given piece of gear for whatever reason usually can't afford it in the first place. 

post #52 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbear View Post
 


I get this sense as well. But it's not limited to the objectivist types -- there are always exceptions, but it seems like the people who are interested in trashing a given piece of gear for whatever reason usually can't afford it in the first place. 

I do not recall anyone trashing any particular amp, headphone etc other than the "accessory" type of product like LP/CD demagnetizing, cable lifter etc. There are plenty of cable appreciation thread that nobody bothered to trash. The question is really what is trashing, what is propaganda and what is a comment. My impression is unless you are a manufacturer, you do not have the credential or scientific enough to post  I have yet to see any manufacturer come into this section to explain cable, or any audio myth. In the mean time, some people believed most on this board are not qualified to discuss science. However, if you are a subjectivist, you can make any claim you want without evidence because they don't need science.

 

In a way, this is like religion. Many believe earth is only 7000 years old and there is not enough science to prove otherwise.

post #53 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by raddle View Post
 

Bigshot, you haven't answered my question. How do you know that nonlinearities in speakers are inconsequential? Why is it all about FR.

 

For that matter, you are overlooking polar radiation patterns, and as far as "measuring a room" that would require characterizing the 3D wavefront arriving at a listener's position, not something you appear to have had in mind.

 

Because I've built a killer 5:1 speaker system in my home. I'm talking about where the rubber meets the road here, not abstract theory. As long as the speakers are able to produce sound at the volume level you need without clipping and with a bit of headroom, they can be made to work well. Even midrange speakers. Human hearing is much more forgiving of distortion than it is frequency response. Speakers have much higher distortion than headphones, yet they sound better anyway. The reason for that is the sound pressure in the space of the room. When speakers don't sound as good as headphones, it's almost always related to response... imbalances, or inadequate frequency extension.

 

Getting speakers that can go loud enough AND maintain a balanced response throughout the range of human hearing is the most difficult part of setting up a speaker rig.

 

Room acoustics are directly related to frequency response. You treat the room as much as you can and still have a livable space, then you EQ for your listening position, then you re-EQ to make compromises for listeners in the rest of the room. Striking that balance well is a LOT of work.

 

Once you have a balanced response, the overall sound is natural. Lower distortion levels are good, especially in upper mids and high frequencies, but overall balance is the key.

post #54 of 188

I just want to learn how stuff work, I guess I'm a little more curious than your average Joe so I tend to look into things with my not so high level of scientific education, and even lower memory of it as I learned it almost 20years ago. that's how I ended up in the sound science catacombs.

 

 

objectivists or subjectivsts, in the end what they're called doesn't matter, there is a pretty simple thing about all this. people who know more about something are usually closer to the truth on that particular subject. we all agree on this, but in here people listening to music seem to believe that listener's experience is all it takes to know all there is to know about acoustic and electronic. this is silly.

the fact that I listened to a 100 headphones didn't infuse me with knowledge about how sound works, the same way listening to piano all my life didn't make me into a pianist. if this so simple truth was widely admitted, half of our audio cat fights wouldn't exist.

 

 

we all agree that there is a limit to nowadays science and some stuff are not yet explained. 50 years ago smocking was OK, 100years ago cleaning yourself with water was dangerous, one day placing food into plastic will be considered crazy. that's how it is, we learn new stuff everyday (thanks to science).  my problem here is that this argument of finite knowledge serves as an excuse to justify all and everything. it doesn't work like that and never did. it's not science it's reason!

 I know I mustn't judge people, but every single time I see a guy spitting on science as an all to make his point, I can't help but think this guy is an ignorant imbecile.

there is a huge difference between saying a frequency graph doesn't give enough intel for this or that, and saying measurements are useless. or better, saying that measurements are dangerous as I've been told several times now. this drives me mad as it doesn't just let us stagnant learning nothing, it drags us into wishful ignorance. it's a clear equivalent of burning books for me.

talking about the limits of a technique is interesting and I'm all for it. every time this happens, I learn a little more about the technique itself and become more aware of its limitations as people will bring them to the debate.

but talking about how what makes a plane fly is full of errors and inferior to your gut feelings? that is plain wrong and a little egomaniac.

the limit of humanity's knowledge has nothing to do with one's personal limit, and not trying to learn isn't the right way to impose one's idea onto others.

 

 

 

my absolute truth (100% backed up by zero science):

 

science is not enough= why not let's talk about where it is and where is isn't.

science is wrong because my ears told me so= lol stop being a kid, at best one measurement was erroneous.

objectivists actually have ears and happen to use them too. I know it's hard to believe. I've even heard of a guy once who looked at a graph while listening to music! crazy stuff.

learning a thing or 2 about how measurements are done and what they mean won't make your ears to fall off your head. but it does take time and effort so pretend they're useless is an easy way out.

there is no such thing as knowing too much.

 

 

 

that's my take on the objectivist vs subjectivist war, where as always those with the bigger voice don't talk for the majority.

post #55 of 188
If I may ask, why don't many of the objectivist forum members have their systems listed in their respective profiles? I mean, every time I see someone citing "science" and try to look at his gear, there's nothing there.

Too, can the objectivists please list their scientific credentials? FWIW, my post-grad is in a mathematical field. Undergrad, I must have spent at least a year in a lab helping with medical studies. You know, doing real DBTs. How about you guys? Just curious, given the unfaltering righteousness expressed throughout.
post #56 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post

If I may ask, why don't many of the objectivist forum members have their systems listed in their respective profiles? I mean, every time I see someone citing "science" and try to look at his gear, there's nothing there.

Too, can the objectivists please list their scientific credentials? FWIW, my post-grad is in a mathematical field. Undergrad, I must have spent at least a year in a lab helping with medical studies. You know, doing real DBTs. How about you guys? Just curious, given the unfaltering righteousness expressed throughout.


Asking for real-world credentials in an anonymous setting is a recipe for disaster. What's to stop people from completely making stuff up, unless they want to give away their real identities? I for one have no interest in backing up statements about myself that can only be verified by sacrificing anonymity. Just to give you an example.... In high school, I won third place in an international physics competition. I'm not trolling; that's really true, but do you believe me? If not, LOL, because I'm not telling everyone who I am....

It doesn't matter anyway. Only morons try to make arguments from authority in a context like this. If someone knows what they are talking about, it will shine through in the substance of their statements. The unfortunate part is that the people capable of recognizing expertise usually aren't the people who need convincing. 

post #57 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbear View Post


Asking for real-world credentials in an anonymous setting is a recipe for disaster. What's to stop people from completely making stuff up, unless they want to give away their real identities? I for one have no interest in backing up statements about myself that can only be verified by sacrificing anonymity. Just to give you an example.... In high school, I won third place in an international physics competition. I'm not trolling; that's really true, but do you believe me? If not, LOL, because I'm not telling everyone who I am....


It doesn't matter anyway. Only morons try to make arguments from authority in a context like this. If someone knows what they are talking about, it will shine through in the substance of their statements. The unfortunate part is that the people capable of recognizing expertise usually aren't the people who need convincing. 

I asked, because the discussions take place on a rather simplistic level. Audio is complicated, really complicated, but here one can always get a quick answer. lol

Edit: I just noticed that you don't have your info listed in your profile, a concept cited in my previous post. If you don't mind my asking, how come?
Edited by Shaffer - 1/12/14 at 3:28pm
post #58 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post

If I may ask, why don't many of the objectivist forum members have their systems listed in their respective profiles? I mean, every time I see someone citing "science" and try to look at his gear, there's nothing there.

Too, can the objectivists please list their scientific credentials? FWIW, my post-grad is in a mathematical field. Undergrad, I must have spent at least a year in a lab helping with medical studies. You know, doing real DBTs. How about you guys? Just curious, given the unfaltering righteousness expressed throughout.

 

I list all my current kit in my profile but there is a certain amount of "so what" about it. It actually does not matter what I own or have owned when it comes to a discussion of the science of audio. I try to use peer reviewed journal and/or conference articles as much as possible if I am discussing an issue, it is of course no guarantee of scientific rigor but is better than the sloppily controlled anedcotal evidence presented in most other subforums as fact but I am happy to critique papers (and my own research) that demonstrate badly conceived or implemented research or dubious conclusions, part of my day job is to review academic papers. But the fact that I own(ed) X or Y is pretty irrelevant and will not alter the results of somebody else's research. Only a subjectivist would even ask that question :wink:. It almost looks like you are erring towards the unless you have owned expensive kit you know nothing stance ?

 

 

My stance is that the key to everything is in well controlled listening tests that aim to expose if there are or are not audible differences between X and Y. Preference is bollocks if there is no difference. Two items might measure very differently yet still be normally indistinguishable. Much of what is presented as canonical in Audio circles is never properly evaluated. I want better evidence than I hear a difference when I know what I am listening to


Edited by nick_charles - 1/12/14 at 3:26pm
post #59 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

I list all my current kit in my profile but there is a certain amount of "so what" about it. It actually does not matter what I own or have owned when it comes to a discussion of the science of audio. I try to use peer reviewed journal and/or conference articles as much as possible if I am discussing an issue, it is of course no guarantee of scientific rigor but is better than the sloppily controlled anedcotal evidence presented in most other subforums as fact but I am happy to critique papers (and my own research) that demonstrate badly conceived or implemented research or dubious conclusions, part of my day job is to review academic papers. But the fact that I own(ed) X or Y is pretty irrelevant and will not alter the results of somebody else's research. Only a subjectivist would even ask that question wink.gif . It almost looks like you are erring towards the unless you have owned expensive kit you know nothing stance ?

Forgive me, isn't the first step in the Scientific Method called observation? Science is funny like that.

Quote:
My stance is that the key to everything is in well controlled listening tests that aim to expose if there are or are not audible differences between X and Y. Preference is bollocks if there is no difference. Two items might measure very differently yet still be normally indistinguishable. Much of what is presented as canonical in Audio circles is never properly evaluated. I want better evidence than I hear a difference when I know what I am listening to

How do you resolve a lack of relevant listener training? Please refer to Jim Johnston's research regarding this topic.

Edit: text
Edited by Shaffer - 1/12/14 at 3:42pm
post #60 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post

Edit: I just noticed that you don't have your info listed in your profile, a concept cited in my previous post. If you don't mind my asking, how come?


My equipment is in my signature. I haven't filled out my profile because I'm lazy and don't care. :p

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 › why I'm a subjectivist