[xnor]

I really start to think that one needs to define almost every single term to "outsiders" in order to avoid misunderstandings. But sometimes it's just the heat of the discussion that leads to well, let's say, not so smart replies even if definitions were clear.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Very true. People consider it offensive, as if you're insulting their personal ability as a human being. Rather than the scientific phenomena which effects everyone that it is. Even stubborn and cynical gits like can and do fall pray. Personally I am more than happy to admit that my ears may well lie to me at any given moment in time for any reason.

 
Yes. Vanity and ego can be very powerful forces to overcome.
 
se

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

I really start to think that one needs to define almost every single term to "outsiders" in order to avoid misunderstandings. But sometimes it's just the heat of the discussion that leads to well, let's say, not so smart replies even if definitions were clear.

 
I agree, defining terms is important in almost any scenario where people disagree.
 
I find the ways in which audiophiles are socialized, and moreover the social construction of the listening experience to be fascinating. Too bad that isn't the kind of stuff I do - I'd love to read an ethnography of the audiophile, though.
 
It is hard to have a discussion about those sorts of things without ruffling feathers. Quite the shame -I think the dichotomy between those that trust their senses above even well-calibrated instrumentation and those that don't trust their senses under any circumstances without corroboration (admittedly two far extremes) is what it all boils down to. This dichotomy goes far beyond audio, of course.

 

[yblad]

Quote:

 
I agree, defining terms is important in almost any scenario where people disagree.
 
I find the ways in which audiophiles are socialized, and moreover the social construction of the listening experience to be fascinating. Too bad that isn't the kind of stuff I do - I'd love to read an ethnography of the audiophile, though.
 
It is hard to have a discussion about those sorts of things without ruffling feathers. Quite the shame -I think the dichotomy between those that trust their senses above even well-calibrated instrumentation and those that don't trust their senses under any circumstances without corroboration (admittedly two far extremes) is what it all boils down to. This dichotomy goes far beyond audio, of course.

I have to admit I do fall rather far towards the latter. I can hear when something is "bad" and trace the fault. I consider myself to be a moderately "advanced" listener, but I'm just far too aware of the fatal flaws in my brain. I trust my ears so far as what I like and what I don't, but I couldn't write a review based entirely on my own personal sound experience. Deciding what I personally enjoy to hear is one thing, telling other people in detail my perceptions in such a way that it might lead them to discard something they would love (or buy something they would hate) is another. Just don't trust my ears that much. Yes I may love a certain bit of kit, but that could be because my brain likes the way it looks and decides it sounds nice based on that. I don't think it does, but I have to go with general evidence and say actually yes it very well could do. Generally speaking I try to rely on good science as much as I can. That's my two cents anyway.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

It is hard to have a discussion about those sorts of things without ruffling feathers. Quite the shame -I think the dichotomy between those that trust their senses above even well-calibrated instrumentation and those that don't trust their senses under any circumstances without corroboration (admittedly two far extremes) is what it all boils down to. This dichotomy goes far beyond audio, of course.

Extreme indeed, the former anyway. I've seen this a couple of times but those people didn't necessarily "trust their senses above even well-calibrated instrumentation", at least they didn't put it that way.
 
Instead they just say or imply there's
a) something supernatural going on (you can always blame it on supernatural but using the supernatural is a non-explanation), or
b) the measurements are missing something that would explain the "heard" differences (I guess people would still use this point even if the measurements are complete), or
c) a mix of both, or
d) they just dismiss measurements or science for whatever weird reasons, so all they are left with are purely subjective experiences, getting sucked into the audiophile downward spiral of wasting money.
 
Anyway, what they tend to overlook is that you don't need your eyes to hear differences that are actually there, just like you don't need your ears to see differences in color.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Quote:

What kind of engineers were we talking about?

 
The kind who have a vested interest in high end audio gear? Just a guess.

 
se

 
Nope. 

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Extreme indeed, the former anyway. I've seen this a couple of times but those people didn't necessarily "trust their senses above even well-calibrated instrumentation", at least they didn't put it that way.
 
Instead they just say or imply there's
a) something supernatural going on (you can always blame it on supernatural but using the supernatural is a non-explanation), or
b) the measurements are missing something that would explain the "heard" differences (I guess people would still use this point even if the measurements are complete), or
c) a mix of both, or
d) they just dismiss measurements or science for whatever weird reasons, so all they are left with are purely subjective experiences, getting sucked into the audiophile downward spiral of wasting money.
 
Anyway, what they tend to overlook is that you don't need your eyes to hear differences that are actually there, just like you don't need your ears to see differences in color.

Some people naturally may be "saving the phenomenon". Any explanation or hypothesis needs, when saving the phenomenon, to incorporate all of the information available. An observation would need to be explained and not just said to be wrong. 
 
One of the strongest "subjective" stances one could take is accept one's experience and resist making claims about truth and reality: I hear X, it may or may not be "real".  

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Some people naturally may be "saving the phenomenon". Any explanation or hypothesis needs, when saving the phenomenon, to incorporate all of the information available. An observation would need to be explained and not just said to be wrong. 
 
One of the strongest "subjective" stances one could take is accept one's experience and resist making claims about truth and reality: I hear X, it may or may not be "real".  

Do they apply the same idea to claims like Bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy, psychic abilities, miracles, spiritual healing, magnet therapy, astrology, past lives, a young Earth, ghosts, ESP, Ouija boards, alien abductions, leprechauns and so on?
 
To all of these you can say there is not all information available, so they all "would need to be explained and not just said to be wrong. They all may be real." Imo this also points in the direction of agnosticism, which I find to be the weakest possible position to take.
 
The strongest subjective stance is obviously and definitely solipsism. When somebody says: "what I hear may or may not be real", that person better fits on the objective "side" of things. Because how to check if what you heard was real? Answer: for example by doing an ABX test. If the result is statistically significant you can be fairly certain the difference heard was real. Want to be extra sure? Repeat the test, do more trials, or raise the confidence level to above 95%. Ask others if there are flaws in your test. Ask them to repeat it.

 

[leogodoy]

Maybe offtopic (and repetitive), but what I don't like is the fact that threads are closed here because they make fun of products/other sub forum/other users etc. but I don't see the same happening when people ridicule Sound Science elsewhere here on head-fi. More than once I have tumbled in posts like these and nope, nothing happens. Here you throw the word "placebo" at someone, or links to a search of "lifted veil site:head-fi.org" and BAM. 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Maybe offtopic (and repetitive), but what I don't like is the fact that threads are closed here because they make fun of products/other sub forum/other users etc. but I don't see the same happening when people ridicule Sound Science elsewhere here on head-fi. More than once I have tumbled in posts like these and nope, nothing happens. Here you throw the word "placebo" at someone, or links to a search of "lifted veil site:head-fi.org" and BAM. 

Not surprised to see Hutnicks there, lol!

 

[mikeaj]

I don't care too much about a little ribbing or even derogatory comments either way, except maybe when a moderator is involved in making them (which has happened in the past), but it's probably better to keep those to a minimum anyway. Sound science is smaller and easier to police. I wouldn't think too much of it.

 

[leogodoy]

I wouldn't mind either if there was some equality, but yeah, small issue in fact.

 

[Greenleaf7]

Quote:

Maybe offtopic (and repetitive), but what I don't like is the fact that threads are closed here because they make fun of products/other sub forum/other users etc. but I don't see the same happening when people ridicule Sound Science elsewhere here on head-fi. More than once I have tumbled in posts like these and nope, nothing happens. Here you throw the word "placebo" at someone, or links to a search of "lifted veil site:head-fi.org" and BAM. 

I agree. The fact that the same set of rules are enforced much more at Sound Science in contrast to the rest of head fi is quite disturbing. What is the reason behind such leniency outside Sound Science?

 

[bigshot]

Aren't there different admins for different forums?

 

[Greenleaf7]

Quote:

Aren't there different admins for different forums?

Probably. But don't you agree that there should be better standardization for how the rules are enforced around here?