[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
The reason why it gets ripe for flame wars, is those on the subjective side (for lack of better term) - do not accept the science. They believe otherwise, regardless of a complete lack of evidence to support their position - and in direct conflict with evidence that contradicts it. Not that the science does not have an answer. It just doesn't have the answer they want.

The better term in my opinion is "pseudo objectivist." A true subjectivist believes in nothing but their own subjective experience and never attempts to pass it off as anything else, whereas the pseudo objectivists attempt to pass off their subjective experience as an unerring reflection of objective reality.
 
se
 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

The better term in my opinion is "pseudo objectivist." A true subjectivist believes in nothing but their own subjective experience and never attempts to pass it off as anything else, whereas the pseudo objectivists attempt to pass off their subjective experience as an unerring reflection of objective reality.
 
se

There's far, far more pseudo-objectivists around here than true subjectivists, and it's easier to call them subjective. How about we call the true subjectivists "true subjectivists" instead 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

There's far, far more pseudo-objectivists around here than true subjectivists, and it's easier to call them subjective. How about we call the true subjectivists "true subjectivists" instead 

As one of the few true subjectivists, I would take issue with that. I think the pseudo objectivists should be called what they are; pseudo objectivists. It's high time they stop being confused with true subjectivists who should simply be called subjectivists. I shouldn't have to qualify my subjectivism just because a bunch of others chose to misuse the term.
 
Just sayin'...
 
se
 
 

 

[pigmode]

Science is useful--its a tool. You use it, and put it back in the box when through. In the end listening to music, even recorded music is an art. (ducks)

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Science is useful--its a tool. You use it, and put it back in the box when through. In the end listening to music, even recorded music is an art. (ducks)

And subjectivity is fine, as long as you don't use it to sell cables to noobs, or to try to "fix" others' systems.

 

[pigmode]

^ I basically leave enforcement to the enforcers, and caveat emptor to the buyers. But yeah, nothing wrong with having a cause, I guess.

 

[Willakan]

Quote:

Those that notice a clear difference between cables after swapping them back and forth may not be able to provide proof, but they are not loons getting tricked by their brain or influenced by adds. That's condescending and insults intelligent people. 

 
Why do you take your humanity as an insult? The fact that our senses are easily deluded is a fact of life, whether you're a professional mastering engineer with a trained ear or somebody who thinks the HD800s sound the same as their iBuds.
 
 

 

[robm321]

So, if I see an eagle it could really be a hawk because my senses are deluded? Pretty big stretch you make. If people hear a difference, then there is a difference. It's simple really.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

So, if I see an eagle it could really be a hawk because my senses are deluded? Pretty big stretch you make. If people hear a difference, then there is a difference. It's simple really.

 
Flawed analogy, but I'll play.
 
Yes - especially if it is too far away to make a clear identification, or it was immature and the colors were not what you were expecting, or a guide on your tour pointed it out to you but you didn't really see it but everyone else was talking about how amazing it was and on reflection you end up agreeing (and over time you end up believing you saw it too) or any other number of factors could lead you to believe you had seen an eagle, when it was really a hawk (or not there at all).
 
And No. There are a LOT of reasons people can hear a difference, when there really was no difference. 

 

[robm321]

You'd have to almost be schizophrenic to have that experience you mentioned above. Audio differences are real and they are consistent among different recordings, components, and yes, various ICs. And eagles are eagles whether someone says look at that amazing it looks or not... 

 your trying to make make it complicated. Like I said, it's very simple. 

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

So, if I see an eagle it could really be a hawk because my senses are deluded? Pretty big stretch you make. If people hear a difference, then there is a difference. It's simple really.

McGurk effect? Try it. 

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

You'd have to almost be schizophrenic to have that experience you mentioned above. Audio differences are real and they are consistent among different recordings, components, and yes, various ICs. And eagles are eagles whether someone says look at that amazing it looks or not... 

 your trying to make make it complicated. Like I said, it's very simple. 

Not necessarily, auditive and visual illusions don't require the subject to be delusional or schizophrenic, they just show that your senses are fallible, it's just a sign of being human, no one should take it personally.
For an interesting auditive illusion directly induced by a visual stimulus, look up the McGurk effect.
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

You'd have to almost be schizophrenic to have that experience you mentioned above. Audio differences are real and they are consistent among different recordings, components, and yes, various ICs. And eagles are eagles whether someone says look at that amazing it looks or not... 

 your trying to make make it complicated. Like I said, it's very simple. 

Yes, because our senses are certainly not fallible by any means. That's why these lines clearly appear parallel:

 
I highly recommend anyone of college age (or older!) take a course in psychology. Social psychology is especially interesting. It's amazing how often we function on auto-pilot.

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

 

Mindblown. 
 
But then again, if they don't appear parallel to us... then how are we for certain that they are indeed parallel.....  
 
Ok I just confused myself. ><

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Mindblown. 
 
But then again, if they don't appear parallel to us... then how are we for certain that they are indeed parallel.....  
 
Ok I just confused myself. ><

Simple. Check with an unbiased tool, like an image editing program. Just like you check cables with unbiased measuring tools to see what they really do.