[Willakan]

Please see post 7 for a clarification of what I refer to - this is not about cables per say.
 
Okay, please take my signature in good humour, I'm not here to scream "CABLES DIFFERENCES ARE IMAGINARY" - well, not today anyway.
In fact, for the rest of this post, I'm going to assume that subjectivists are in fact correct in their beliefs in order to pose my question. Here goes:
As a subjectivist, you are of the opinion that there are audible differences that are not shown by the measurements often touted by objectivists to naysay your claims. Assuming these differences you hear are not placebo/cognitive bias or something similar, what is your opinion as to the nature of these differences? To clarify the obvious opinions people could hold here:
 
1) People are simply taking the wrong measurements. The measurements that show differences are not mentioned and cast aside by objectivists, although they have already been discovered.
 
2) There are real physical differences in the behaviour of components that simply have not yet been discovered by science - my beliefs will be vindicated when the differences are finally measurable.
 
3) The differences in cables are of a nature which means that they will never become measurable by conventional science.
 
 
Again, please only participate in the poll if you believe that audio equipment that measures the same (or both pieces measuring so well that the differences would be considered inaudible by science) can sound different.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willakan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
As a subjectivist, you are of the opinion that there are audible differences that are not shown by the measurements often touted by objectivists to naysay your claims.

No true subjectivist would be of such an opinion as such an opinion would be decidedly objective in nature.
 
This whole subjectivist vs. objectivist meme is erroneous. There can be no legitimate debate between true subjectivists and objectivists. The debate is ultimately between what I call pseudo-objectivists and objectivists.
 
If you go around professing actual audible differences, or that your subjective experiences are anything more than that, you're simply not a subjectivist. End of story.
 
se
 
 

 

[Willakan]

Yes, but subjectivists and objectivists are what they are commonly referred to as. Picking at semantics wasn't why I posed this question. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that the placebo effect is not the correct term to use when referring to the idea that perceived differences are due entirely to the listener rather than the product, but it's commonly used and everyone knows what it means.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Yes, but subjectivists and objectivists are what they are commonly referred to as. Picking at semantics wasn't why I posed this question. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that the placebo effect is not the correct term to use when referring to the idea that perceived differences are due entirely to the listener rather than the product, but it's commonly used and everyone knows what it means.

 
And if everyone was jumping off bridges would you...
 
Oh never mind. Knock yourself out. Just another reason for the broader society to view this hobby and industry as a bunch of ignorant yahoos.
 
se
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[Willakan]

Oh for...composes self...If I am trying to pose a question to a group of people, it is probably a good idea to couch it in commonly used terms, so I don't spend the entire thread trying to explain what I mean...
 
You are right, congratulations. Would you like some kind of reward?
Yes, I am irrationally annoyed by your snobby "jumping off bridges" example. I am trying to ask people something, and yes,from a philosophy of perception viewpoint, using the terms subjectivist and objectivist in this context makes bugger all sense - I am familiar with that.
 
However, if I said "A question for all pseudo-objectivists" the best that could happen is that this turns into a debate about philosophy or the meanings of words - it is even more likely that no-one from whom I specifically wanted to obtain answers to my question would have/give a flying screw what I was talking about.
 
Please don't assume that I'm an idiot.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Is this about cable, aka wire?  Wire is wire.  "Wire" you asking?  This has been covered ad nauseum.  The connection trumps the wire every time.  I refuse to do the poll.

 

[Willakan]

No, this is not about wire. This is about the cases where people say that they hear a difference, whether it's with amps, DACs or indeed cables, despite measurements stating that there is no difference. The poll is asking people to speculate as to the nature of those differences - whether they will ever be proven by science, for example. I already have my opinion on the nature of the differences, but that's got precious little to do with it.

 

[Lazarus Short]

OK, not about cable.  In that case, I think the so-called measurements either measure the wrong thing, measure the right thing wrongly, lack sufficient resolution, or are irrelevant.  The gross, easy-to-measure things are mostly alright, but the ear/brain combo is light-years ahead of any lab's instruments.  Mind you, on most music, it does not matter!

 

[Willakan]

Thank you, that is exactly what I'm looking for. Please vote if you haven't already done so - or are you the person that has already voted option 4 as you thought it was about cables? Will clarify that in beginning post.

 

[Albedo]

Much of this DBTing I find not so objective as some claim it to be, IMHO they are in fact begging the question -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
 
DBTing constantly assumes that which he purports to prove, namely, that a emotionless process of mechanic is the cause of everything, including “subjective feelings”. Although a DBTer claims that he will “show” the subjectivist evidence for this belief, he fails to deliver. Just a repition of DBT is capturing all sensory input, it seems that a DBTer are unaware that he is making the same kind of unsupported faith commitment which he otherwise finds so inimical. In other words, the foundation of DBT is not facts or evidence, but a reductionistic faith in materialism.

In DBT our thoughts need not be “true,” only “useful” and the reward is money saved. But there’s no way to know which ideas are most useful at any given time. Only later will it be revealed which ideas “survive.” People are reduced to random metabolic units which receive and emit random sensory input. Although others might find this view dismal and dehumanizing, DBTer claims to find it “liberating” and “emancipating”. When they are so transparent about their dislike for old technology as for example a NOS DAC, they open themself to the charge of their own subconsciousness that is, a fear of actually being wrong.

Human beings have a tendency to "suppress" unpleasant truths, that CNV -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_negative_variation  is not observed with an exhausting round of DBT as the link clearly states: "attention to the imperative stimulus is important for the development of the CNV and increased task difficulties distract the attention".

 One can argue that we "project" our "wishes" for personal freedom and supremacy by "creating" (an imaginary) kingdom of our own, cutting completely of the subconciousness and thereafter designing an Head-Fi setup only by those parameters. Disregarding that "many theories have been posited to account for cognitive processes underlying the CNV component. Walter and colleagues suggested that CNV amplitude varies directly with subjective probability or expectancy of the imperative stimuli. Other researchers suggested that the CNV amplitude varies with the intention to perform an act. Another theory is that CNV varies with the motivation of the subject to complete the task. Tecce suggests that the CNV is related to both attention and arousal level".
 
DBTers insist that their system must be taken as an a priori factual truth. Experience and observation of CNV are of no importance to radical empiricism as those experiences do not agree completely with the theoretical framework of DBT and thereby considered a fluke at best.
 
Just like in the writings of the 17th century philosopher John Locke. that later culminated in logical positivism at the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[Willakan]

Ah cr**, you mentioned DBT - there goes the thread (lock incoming) 

 

[Lazarus Short]

OK, I voted - big statistical sample there. 

 

[Willakan]

As much as it pains me to quote a Tesco's advert: "Every little helps"

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I voted none of the above.
 
So far all the science presented by hifi makers is known. They work with all the basics many of which were discovered in the 19th century. No hifi maker has an endorsement from a recognised authority for finding something new about electrical engineering. None of them even submit their 'evidence' on how certain parts of the hifi chain (primarily cables) work to improve sound for peer review.
 
So all we need to know about how hifi works, we already know and the hifi makers know that

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Oh for...composes self...If I am trying to pose a question to a group of people, it is probably a good idea to couch it in commonly used terms, so I don't spend the entire thread trying to explain what I mean...
 
You are right, congratulations. Would you like some kind of reward?
Yes, I am irrationally annoyed by your snobby "jumping off bridges" example. I am trying to ask people something, and yes,from a philosophy of perception viewpoint, using the terms subjectivist and objectivist in this context makes bugger all sense - I am familiar with that.
 
However, if I said "A question for all pseudo-objectivists" the best that could happen is that this turns into a debate about philosophy or the meanings of words - it is even more likely that no-one from whom I specifically wanted to obtain answers to my question would have/give a flying screw what I was talking about.
 
Please don't assume that I'm an idiot.

 
Look, here's the problem.
 
There are true subjectivists out there.
 
When you refer to pseudo-objectivists as "subjectivists," then you effectively lump all true subjectivists in with those who are decidedly NOT subjectivists, in which case the term "subjectivist" ceases to have any meaning in any meaningful sense. It's akin to lumping Christians, Muslims and Jews in with "atheists."
 
I'm just saying that as a true subjectivist myself (when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music), that I don't care to see the term "subjectivist" co-opted and applied to those who are not subjectivists.
 
If you want to put a question to subjectivists, then put it to subjectivists. If you want to put a question to pseudo-objectivists, then put it to pseudo-objectivists.
 
Just my opinion. I won't trouble your thread any further.
 
se