[bigshot]

I read that post.

 

[gregorio]

Welcome, very good but immediately followed with an assumption
General rule ? followed by the practically indefinable …

Yes, it’s just guidance, it’s not a definitive, comprehensive list of what is acceptable to science and/or this subforum. Such a list would at least be impractical, if not impossible, and:

Clarification constructed around "doesn't mean" followed by something that sounds like a kangaroo court
Reference to Wikipedia ?

IMHO, some clarification, even just some rather vague or somewhat ambiguous clarification, is better than no clarification whatsoever. And, the fallacy section is important because the use of fallacies is common in usual speech, and rife in the audiophile world. The guidance introduces the concept of logically valid/invalid reasoning, which may help somewhat in many cases because discussions/arguments often degenerate into total anarchy due to the impasse that is reached when we try to reason logically with someone being illogical/irrational. EG. It’s all very well pointing out that an argument is irrational/illogical but what difference does that make unless both sides know that irrational/illogical is invalid?

Evidence, troll food, this says call for evidence at every conceivable point in the debate

No, it does not say “call for evidence at every conceivable point”. It specifically says that evidence can be requested in the case of a claim or assertion which contradicts established science. You might say, “What difference will that make? Trolls will just say at every conceivable point in the debate that our assertions contradict established science and demand reliable evidence.” - To which I would say: Yep, that’s very likely, the guidance is not magically going to stop trolls from trolling. However, it might deter some trolls and even when it doesn’t, the argument is now framed as “What is the established science and what is the reliable evidence?”, which is pretty much the ideal framing of an argument/discussion IMHO, given the name of this subforum. Sure, it’s not always going to work but hopefully it will help, at least occasionally.

G

 

[Blanchot]

Lastly, I think your statement about reputation is inverted. It’s not good for the reputation of all the other forums that they have banned any mention of the most reliable methods of audio testing and the discussion of actual scientific facts, while it’s good for the reputation of this subforum that it has a different charter where these things are actually encouraged rather than banned!

And they function well because they ban discussion of scientific facts/testing. That’s why they banned it, because the other subforums didn’t function so well. That’s obvious if you think about it, a forum is obviously going to function well/better if you eradicate any knowledge/facts which contradicts the prevailing beliefs of most of its members.

That’s because the only two things they care about is having a nice argument free atmosphere and not upsetting their sponsors/advertisers.

Its regrettable that you are not allowed to post science stuff in the other sections of Head-Fi but its also understandable. I think the whole forum would quickly deteriorate to a neverending flamewar between subjectivists and objectivists. It would be like attending a meeting in the Stalin Society and tell them that historical revisionism is bad: it would do no good and you would be chased away.

I also think that the sponsor/advertiser argument is sometimes drawn to far. Yes sponsors are vital to Head-Fi and that can explain a lot of what's going one here but there is also alot of discussion about smaller brands, particularly in the IEM/earbuds world who don't have the financial means to become sponsors, but that doesn't have any impact on moderation policies from what I can tell.

 

[gregorio]

Its regrettable that you are not allowed to post science stuff in the other sections of Head-Fi but its also understandable. I think the whole forum would quickly deteriorate to a neverending flamewar between subjectivists and objectivists.

Probably true, although the Subjectivist vs Objectivist categorisation is itself largely a fallacy.

I also think that the sponsor/advertiser argument is sometimes drawn too far.

Possibly but I’m not so sure. For example, if Head-Fi were not reliant on sponsorship and advertising revenue and it needed to eliminate one side of the argument, would it still eliminate the scientific/factual side?

there is also alot of discussion about smaller brands, particularly in the IEM/earbuds world who don't have the financial means to become sponsors, but that doesn't have any impact on moderation policies from what I can tell.

Yes but typically the smaller brands are making the same types of claims and assertions as those who do provide revenue. So in many cases, contradicting the smaller brands’ claims would also be detrimental to the larger brands. And, those smaller brands may one day grow and become a source of advertising revenue or sponsorship. So I think it does, at least sometimes, have an impact on moderation policies in other forums.

G

 

[Blanchot]

Probably true, although the Subjectivist vs Objectivist categorisation is itself largely a fallacy.

May I ask you to elaborate on this? Its not clear to me what you mean.

 

[gregorio]

May I ask you to elaborate on this?

Sure. I, for example, would clearly be categorised as an objectivist by the audiophile community. But the vast majority of my professional work with sound and music is subjective, clients employ me for my subjective ability and when I’m home listening to audio/music for entertainment, I listen to what I like, to what gives me pleasure and that I find entertaining. I don’t see how any of this makes me an objectivist and I presume from their posts, most others here labelled as objectivists listen to recordings primarily subjectively and for subjectivist reasons.

I know a fair bit about sound/audio and about the human perception of it but that doesn’t make me an objectivist, it just makes me somewhat educated on the subject. Of course though, those who popularised these terms were audiophiles (or those marketing to audiophiles) so they were never going to use a categorisation with a negative connotation for audiophiles (such as “uneducated”) especially as the whole purpose was to present the conflict as two different but equally valid view points, rather than what it really is: Ignorant vs educated (although I’m not using “ignorant” in it’s pejorative sense).

G

 

[bigshot]

That is an important point. Objectivists don't say that there is no place for subjectivity. They just say that it belongs in creative decision making, not technical. Buying a stereo system for your home is a matter of objective fidelity, while choosing the music to listen to on it is a subjective preference. But audiophiles often get the two mixed up and attribute their enjoyment of a musical performance or sound mix to the equipment. Waxing poetic about a black box that is full of transistors and wires isn't really very accurate or useful.

It is possible to speak about creative products like music through an objective lens however. That is what critics, artists and academics do all the time. A lot of audiophiles surrender to the subjectivity with the argument "we can't know everything, so we can't know anything." They feel that if they don't have to think at all about their preferences, that feelings are all that matter. That is a pretty random way to go through life, and it doesn't lead to any sort of higher understanding. It's always good to keep your brain switched on.

 

[Steve999]

In blending the subjective and objective (and further demonstrating it is a false dichotomy) there is the wrinkle that with transducers (headphones and speakers) a lot of the groundbreaking research to improve sound quality in the home was done by recording the subjective preferences for, say, speakers, of a decent number of people in a well-controlled double-blind setting, to get to some sort of significant sample size and figure out what people with normal healthy hearing actually tend to prefer. So statistical analyses of reported subjective preferences upon double-blind testing were used in developing the modern school of thought as to what is best sounding profile for speakers and headphones to be used in the home. In other words, some of the most influential speaker and headphone research was really based on subjective preferences, but under double-blind conditions for speakers, or, in the case of headphones, the closest to double blind as they could figure (since headphone comparisons are never really double-blind since people can feel the differences on their heads, etc.). Thus, you have stuff like the Harmon curves, for example, coming out of that line of research.

Floyd Toole has written extensively about this, for example in his book,

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 3rd Edition​

which is available on, for example, Amazon.

If I understand correctly, IMHO, subject to my fallible memory and understanding, & etc.

 

[gregorio]

Objectivists don't say that there is no place for subjectivity.

It is possible to speak about creative products like music through an objective lens however. That is what critics, artists and academics do all the time.

That’s not really correct. It’s incorrect because there are two meanings to the term “objective” (similarly to how there are two meanings to the term “theory”), and you’re confusing them.

“Objective” in science and engineering usually means “no subjective (human perception/judgement) involvement”. So for example, if I say “this piece of music peaks at -1dB”, that’s objective, there’s no subjective/human perception involved. But if I say “this piece of music sounds good”, then even if I’m using some objective measurements to help reach that determination, it requires the involvement of human perception/judgement, so it’s subjective. Of course, humans don’t have to only do one or the other, we are capable of both and I can say “this music peaks at -1dB and it sounds good”.

The other use of “objective” is common amongst artists. It actually still means entirely “subjective” but from an independent or third party perspective. For example, I could say “I think that sounds good but objectively, the audience will perceive it as unpleasant.” - I’m still talking entirely subjectively, just not about my personal subjectivity.

G

 

[bigshot]

Maybe instead of the word "objective" to describe analysis of creative works, the term "rational" would be better. Because analyzing music or art or literature involves reasoning.

In your example... “I think that sounds good but objectively, the audience will perceive it as unpleasant.” you would be able to articulate the specific things the audience would find unpleasant, the reasons why the audience would find it unpleasant and the changes that could be made to make it more pleasant. That is reasoned analysis, not just a pure preference.

It probably could be safely be said that a hardline objectivist would incorporate elements of subjectivity more than a hardline subjectivist would incorporate objectivity. At least with the extreme cases we encounter here on occasion!

It sure has been nicer around here lately. We've had more useful discussions in the past few days than in the last couple of months. It's amazing how much of a difference removing one bad apple can have.

 

[Bytor123]

Why not just ask people to post their views backed up by evidence? That evidence can then be scrutinized.

 

[gregorio]

In your example... “I think that sounds good but objectively, the audience will perceive it as unpleasant.” you would be able to articulate the specific things the audience would find unpleasant, the reasons why the audience would find it unpleasant and the changes that could be made to make it more pleasant.

True but it’s still just a subjective opinion, someone else could rationally say they don’t agree, the audience wouldn’t perceive it as unpleasant for some other reason/s. At the end of the day it’s a judgement call, it will be true for some of the audience but not others and it would be a disagreement about which will be the majority.

There’s no simple solution to this problem, we really need a new, different word, just as we do with the word “theory” but it’s easier (though occasionally confusing) the way it is and not likely to happen.

G

 

[bigshot]

Right, but it is still a *rational* subjective choice based on analysis and evidence. Differences in opinion would depend on the criteria the individual person prioritized. That's involved with sound science as well. We offset technical specs beyond human hearing for considerations of cost or convenience.

Whatever word you want to use for this is fine with me. "Rational subjectivism"? "Analytical subjectivism?"

 

[Bytor123]

Isn't this about what goes in 'sound science'? If one's got a claim then back it up with evidence based on the scientific method. What's so difficult?

 

[gregorio]

Isn't this about what goes in 'sound science'? If one's got a claim then back it up with evidence based on the scientific method. What's so difficult?

What’s so difficult is that it’s impractical, this forum would grind to a halt and so would science itself. Science works on the principle of “axioms”, science that is established/accepted or self-evident and doesn’t need to be backed up with evidence. It would be impossible to write most scientific or mathematical papers without this principle. A mathematical paper for example would probably have to start with the proof that 1+1=2, include proofs for many/most of the mathematical discoveries of the last 1,000 years, be about 20,000 pages long and take more than a lifetime to write. Likewise, most of my explanations and refutations are based on self-evident or established science and therefore not backed up with evidence. If I had to do so, it would take weeks to write responses and I simply wouldn’t bother, because I commonly can’t remember which specific paper, text book or other reliable source my knowledge originated. Readers have the choice of just accepting what I state, cross-referencing it with reliable evidence or asking for a reference in specific cases (and I’ll try and locate it).

And because of the above, such a rule would provide trolls with an ideal trolling weapon.

G