[Shike]

Quote:

Point is in the eye of the beholder

True, but intent is inherent to the one making the point.  As such, your sophomore psuedo-philisophical ramblings and trolling will infinitely say more about you than any one of us in particular.
 
 
Quote:

, mr. bring measuring tools when shopping for headphones. 

 
If I only paid attention to measurements I wouldn't own a good chunk of the headphones I do (SR-60 with 80 pads, ATH-AD700, Stax SR-5, Super.Fi 3, Triple.Fi 10, etc).  I just tend to value a more accurate sound most of the time and am of the belief every person should have at least heard a true reference (very accurate to signal) headphone a few times.  
 
Ultimately though, usually one headphone will be more accurate than another - what one enjoys is a different question entirely.  As such the "this headphone is in a higher tier than this one" is ultimately a futile joke without an objective stance - and if going by taste than a pair of SC's could be preferred over a much more expensive set entirely for example.
 
Keep missing though.
 
Quote:

I have no interest because most of you guys don't have the attention span to get what I'm saying.

 
 
We don't have time for obtuse ego driven ramblings that ultimately end in not having enough interest of what you yourself are saying.  Cut the garbage and get to the core of your argument or don't whine when no one will put up with it.  That simple really.
 
PS:
 
You still have yet to answer what "measurements" your suggesting be done with the ear.  Still, I really don't care to know unless you're able to add something particularly constructive in lieu to your earlier posts.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Quote:

Point is in the eye of the beholder

True, but intent is inherent to the one making the point.  As such, your sophomore psuedo-philisophical ramblings and trolling will infinitely say more about you than any one of us in particular.
 
 
Quote:

, mr. bring measuring tools when shopping for headphones. 

 
If I only paid attention to measurements I wouldn't own a good chunk of the headphones I do (SR-60 with 80 pads, ATH-AD700, Stax SR-5, Super.Fi 3, Triple.Fi 10, etc).  I just tend to value a more accurate sound most of the time and am of the belief every person should have at least heard a true reference (very accurate to signal) headphone a few times.  
 
Ultimately though, usually one headphone will be more accurate than another - what one enjoys is a different question entirely.  As such the "this headphone is in a higher tier than this one" is ultimately a futile joke without an objective stance - and if going by taste than a pair of SC's could be preferred over a much more expensive set entirely for example.
 
Keep missing though.
 
Quote:

I have no interest because most of you guys don't have the attention span to get what I'm saying.

 
 
We don't have time for obtuse ego driven ramblings that ultimately end in not having enough interest of what you yourself are saying.  Cut the garbage and get to the core of your argument or don't whine when no one will put up with it.  That simple really.
 
PS:
 
You still have yet to answer what "measurements" your suggesting be done with the ear.  Still, I really don't care to know unless you're able to add something particularly constructive in lieu to your earlier posts.

 
You haven't been paying attention to this thread if you have to ask me what measurements I am referring to. There is really no reason for me to talk with you guys except I keep giving you guys a chance to think coherently. And if you keep going the wrong direction I am actually just wasting my time and making your situation worse.
 
All your points are attacking strawmen. You accuse me of pseudo philosophical rambling, but it is because you don't have the attention span to realize I am just fending off people who want to misinterpret and smear my correction of Pio2001's use of the terms subjectivist and objectivist. If he didn't make his erroneous descriptions I would've just stopped participating in this thread after making fun of the idea that there is a "right" upgrade path for audio equipment. And if you guys didn't keep misinterpreting me I wouldn't have to elucidate over and over again.
 
Then you talk about headphones and personal preferences, obviously I am not talking about it. But in the name of misinterpreting and smearing me you bring it up. Thanks.
 
The core of my argument is that people like you should stop resorting to personal attacks and smearing. There's no place for such behavior if you are truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

You haven't been paying attention to this thread if you have to ask me what measurements I am referring to. 

I have, but all you seem to be banging the drum on is perception and measuring perception (sensory studies).  That's not what this thread is about - this thread is about actual measurements of the devices in question to find out which is "better" - classified as for reproduction I imagine since it was moved to sound science.
 
Feel free to point to the quote with the specific measurement you're asking for if this isn't it though.  I've been through this whole thread and that's all I've found you mention.
 
Quote:

There is really no reason for me to talk with you guys except I keep giving you guys a chance to think coherently. 

 
Yes, this isn't a personal swing at anyone 

 
Quote:

 
And if you keep going the wrong direction I am actually just wasting my time and making your situation worse.

 
"Wrong direction" which you won't define or place any real attachment to in regards to your argument.
 
 
Quote:

All your points are attacking strawmen. You accuse me of pseudo philosophical rambling, but it is because you don't have the attention span to realize I am just fending off people who want to misinterpret and smear my correction of Pio2001's use of the terms subjectivist and objectivist.

 
Because your argument is faulty on multiple levels.  You argue that subjectivists know the limit of their perception, yet without being tested they really don't.  Furthermore you made the argument that subjectivists don't consider placebo a part of the experience, but if you look in the "convince cables DO NOT make a difference" thread you'll find some people DO consider it a part.
 
As for the definitions - there are indeed true subjectivists upon us.  "You have no experience with X, Y, or Z - don't talk about X, Y, or Z even though fact A, B, and C has been established which I will ignore".
 
I stress measurements or quantifiable data over personal experience - yet do not fully disregard it if I believe some merit to it.
 
Quote:

 
If he didn't make his erroneous descriptions I would've just stopped participating in this thread after making fun of the idea that there is a "right" upgrade path for audio equipment. And if you guys didn't keep misinterpreting me I wouldn't have to elucidate over and over again.

 
Woah, speaking of strawmen.  Who here, besides the OP, has said anything about a "right" upgrade path for audio here?
 
 
Quote:

 
Then you talk about headphones and personal preferences, obviously I am not talking about it. But in the name of misinterpreting and smearing me you bring it up. Thanks.

 
You made the premise that I only pick out headphones based on quality of measurements.  There would be no need to respond to it had you not brought it up, and more importantly name dropped me and tried to use ME to prove YOUR point that you can't even seem to convey yourself (probably because there isn't one, thanks to your self-admission of trolling).
 
 
 
Quote:

 
The core of my argument is that people like you should stop resorting to personal attacks and smearing. There's no place for such behavior if you are truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

 
You attacked and smeared me first, and name dropped me as an example to pull me into this thread.  If you're whole argument in this thread was "play nicely" then you sure made it difficult for absolutely no reason that's beneficial to most of the members here.
 
Besides, you've attacked and misrepresented me first:
 
Quotes from your post before this one:
 
 
Quote:

 mr. bring measuring tools when shopping for headphones.

 
Quote:

most of you guys don't have the attention span

 
Right there you accused me of: not being able to pick headphones based on anything but measurements and suffering from ADD.  
 
You've made various snide remarks in this thread that are contradictory to the gist of your "core argument" listed above.  You claim we drive off pro-cablers by being "irritating naysayers", by asking for proof of their claims.  I fail to see how that's unreasonable.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

I have, but all you seem to be banging the drum on is perception and measuring perception (sensory studies).  That's not what this thread is about - this thread is about actual measurements of the devices in question to find out which is "better" - classified as for reproduction I imagine since it was moved to sound science.
 
Feel free to point to the quote with the specific measurement you're asking for if this isn't it though.  I've been through this whole thread and that's all I've found you mention.

 
Listen carefully. I was defining objectivism and subjectivism. To describe objectivism I said they have the tendency to rely on external measuring tools over subjective perception when feasible. Your personal preference thing is irrelevant.
 
 
Quote:

Yes, this isn't a personal swing at anyone 

 
I speak bluntly, it's the only way to get anywhere when people are being irrational.
 
 
Quote:

"Wrong direction" which you won't define or place any real attachment to in regards to your argument.

 
Self-deception. Stop taking things so literally and learn to think abstractly.
 
 
Quote:

Because your argument is faulty on multiple levels.  You argue that subjectivists know the limit of their perception, yet without being tested they really don't.

 
A real subjectivist tests and learns about the limits of sensory perception, thus he tends to have a better understanding of its limits than objectivists.
 
 
Quote:

Furthermore you made the argument that subjectivists don't consider placebo a part of the experience, but if you look in the "convince cables DO NOT make a difference" thread you'll find some people DO consider it a part.

 
 
Quote:

As for the definitions - there are indeed true subjectivists upon us.  "You have no experience with X, Y, or Z - don't talk about X, Y, or Z even though fact A, B, and C has been established which I will ignore".

 
Placebo is an illusion. A subjectivist does not deliberately say an illusion is real, neither does he turn a blind eye to reality. Someone who does is neither subjectivist nor objectivist.
 
 
Quote:

I stress measurements or quantifiable data over personal experience - yet do not fully disregard it if I believe some merit to it.

 
No subjectivist totally disregards objective data. No objectivist totally disregards subjective data. I have explained already that these are just different paths to solving questions, and some people may be categorized in one, both, or none.
 
 
Quote:

Woah, speaking of strawmen.  Who here, besides the OP, has said anything about a "right" upgrade path for audio here?

 
When the OP says you can't make a $5000 DAC sound as good as a $1000 DAC playing 24/96 files... sigh, you connect the dots.
 
 
Quote:

You made the premise that I only pick out headphones based on quality of measurements.  There would be no need to respond to it had you not brought it up, and more importantly name dropped me and tried to use ME to prove YOUR point that you can't even seem to convey yourself (probably because there isn't one, thanks to your self-admission of trolling).

 
Quote:

You attacked and smeared me first, and name dropped me as an example to pull me into this thread.  If you're whole argument in this thread was "play nicely" then you sure made it difficult for absolutely no reason that's beneficial to most of the members here.
 
Besides, you've attacked and misrepresented me first:

 
 
Quote:

Right there you accused me of: not being able to pick headphones based on anything but measurements and suffering from ADD. 

 
Don't be pissed if someone uses you as an example. The fact of the matter is, you care more about objective data than subjective data, probably in all areas other than personal preference. You are a textbook case of what I was describing. If there's anything you should be pissed about it is that you can't see what I'm trying to say, don't blame me for constantly repeating myself while you aren't following and go on tantrums.
 
Quote:

You've made various snide remarks in this thread that are contradictory to the gist of your "core argument" listed above.  You claim we drive off pro-cablers by being "irritating naysayers", by asking for proof of their claims.  I fail to see how that's unreasonable.

 
There's many ways to skin a cat. If I see someone abusing someone, how can I stop him? Sometimes the best way is to abuse him in turn so he knows how cruel he is. When I see people claiming to be objective when all they are doing is running around totally oblivious to the inefficacy of their campaigns against audiophiles I can't help but try to point them in the right direction. And what do you mean by you "fail to see how that's unreasonable" to drive off pro-cablers? This is an audio hobby forum, not a science lab with you as the lab administrator.

 

[The Monkey]

 

[leeperry]

yeah the trolling OP is blossoming into some meaningless personal attacks

 

[Shike]

I had a bunch typed out, but I want to clarify something.  This is the part of the debate that lead up to name dropping me.
 
You:
 
 
Quote:

It is the objectivist who is most often wrong, as he only goes so far as to say human senses are flawed (and removes it entirely) and relies on measuring tools, and because of his disdain for human perception has the tendency to underestimate the possibility of false positives or false negatives when trying to test subjective experience with objective measuring tools, ie the oh so common flawed DBT. Objectivism, or the belief that everything can be measured with tools instead of sensory interpretation, is a pretty recent philosophical paradigm that was more an assumption than proven fact at the time. I think the assumption is absolutely correct, but not when people ignore the possibility of false interpretation.

 
Jack:


Quote:

I think you have a flawed perception of what you call "objectivists". I've been discussing Hi-Fi audio related matters on the Intarweb since about '94 and other than trolls, I have never seen any of the so called "objectivists" claim that everything an be measured with tools or that human senses should be removed entirely from a comparison process.  

 
 
You:
 
Quote:

You're surrounded by this kind of people in this subforum. They almost always say measuring tools are better than our ears and many show a total disregard for the difficulty in gauging human perception.

 

Quote:

Proof is in the pudding. Send a pm to Shike and ask her opinion about testing with the ears.

 
You seem to have a hard time making concise points and references so I'm going to make this simple.  Were you directing the first one towards my character, or just the fact that I prefer technical measurements over perception?
 
(note on this:  It's because human perception is so hard to gauge and measure that I take this stance - I'm fully aware of the difficulty which is why I find it best to avoid it unless necessary).
 
 
One last thing I think is important to address - even before that's answered:
 
 
Quote:

And what do you mean by you "fail to see how that's unreasonable" to drive off pro-cablers?

 
I meant it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence - and if that drives them off then so be it.  Having a hundred people make the same claim isn't going to change anything - having one with actual evidence does.  For something to actually be considered a contribution it must offer something new to help the cause.  Basically, we have a group of users that scream they hear a difference but won't do anything besides that - I fail to see it as a beneficial contribution after so long.  Maybe you have a reason as to why it is?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

You seem to have a hard time making concise points and references so I'm going to make this simple.  Were you directing the first one towards my character, or just the fact that I prefer technical measurements over perception?
 
(note on this:  It's because human perception is so hard to gauge and measure that I take this stance - I'm fully aware of the difficulty which is why I find it best to avoid it unless necessary).

 
The first one was describing the archetype of objectivism to help separate it from subjectivism, no one can actually fit that description perfectly. I was only saying you like measurements a lot because some people didn't believe this forum had such people. Awareness of the difficulty of accurately testing sensory response is not where subjectivism and objectivism split, but the subjectivist tries to learn how to compensate and still use the senses, whereas the objectivist tries to resort to other means.
 
 
Quote:

I meant it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence - and if that drives them off then so be it.  Having a hundred people make the same claim isn't going to change anything - having one with actual evidence does.  For something to actually be considered a contribution it must offer something new to help the cause.  Basically, we have a group of users that scream they hear a difference but won't do anything besides that - I fail to see it as a beneficial contribution after so long.  Maybe you have a reason as to why it is?

 
Certainly there are audiophiles who think fallible subjective data qualifies as objective proof, I don't support that. The reason I think people should lay off asking for proof is that when audiophiles are sharing subjective impressions and not asked to provide objective proof, they are less likely to rationalize their opinions into "objective truth", usually out of fear that their opinions may be wrong. Simply, I don't think your average audiophile (including myself) is qualified to provide proof of the big unanswerable questions in audio, I hardly think we bear the "burden of proof" as some may think. Someone claiming their subjective data is objective has the burden of proof, or if he's someone who has the technical expertise it may be fair to ask him to try to provide proof. Hobbyists may do questionable blind tests or measure random things but such research should be done by people who know what they're doing.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
The first one was describing the archetype of objectivism to help separate it from subjectivism, no one can actually fit that description perfectly. I was only saying you like measurements a lot because some people didn't believe this forum had such people. Awareness of the difficulty of accurately testing sensory response is not where subjectivism and objectivism split, but the subjectivist tries to learn how to compensate and still use the senses, whereas the objectivist tries to resort to other means.

I question whether the subjectivist really tries to learn to compensate, and to what ability they are actually able to do so myself.  It's not a requirement by definition, thus a subjectivist that's only heard ibuds is still a subjectivist as long as there's some level of experience as a gauge unfortunately.
 
 
Quote:

 
Certainly there are audiophiles who think fallible subjective data qualifies as objective proof, I don't support that. The reason I think people should lay off asking for proof is that when audiophiles are sharing subjective impressions and not asked to provide objective proof, they are less likely to rationalize their opinions into "objective truth", usually out of fear that their opinions may be wrong. Simply, I don't think your average audiophile (including myself) is qualified to provide proof of the big unanswerable questions in audio, I hardly think we bear the "burden of proof" as some may think. Someone claiming their subjective data is objective has the burden of proof, or if he's someone who has the technical expertise it may be fair to ask him to try to provide proof. Hobbyists may do questionable blind tests or measure random things but such research should be done by people who know what they're doing.

 
Burden of proof is a well established requirement for findings from scientific inquiry.  While I agree most people here are not capable of performing the level of rigorous tests some here would like it really doesn't matter.  There have been rigorous tests, small tests, hobbyist tests, and measurement tests.  Nothing yet shows a difference between cables that should be audible (and in many cases DACs or amps at a certain level of reproductive quality).  I'm much more inclined to trust measurements, but even with the human element we have yet to see a difference unless there's potential of bias.
 
Regardless, we're going to ask for evidence here - it's the only place we can really do so.  It's not a subjective impressions if someone comes in here and says "cable x, y, or z" made a difference.  We don't (or at least I don't) troll the cable/tweaks section asking for evidence of impressions.  And that's the thing, so many people come in here and say cables do make a difference but with no evidence.  It's not the place for impressions, there's a sub-forum for that with a wonderful gag order.

 

[chesebert]

 
Somewhere along the line the original idea of cost/benefit of good music vs DAC has been lost.

 

[haloxt]

Sound science forum is not the place for impressions, that's true, and you can rightly tell off people talking about impressions here, but don't call them subjectivists when they're just being kooky and jumping to conclusions. Not directing this to chesebert or others sharing their impressions here, it was fine but quickly fell apart when people started asking for proof, and got worse when it was moved to the sound science forum .
 
When measuring something like cables or testing the audibility of cables, you should be testing the extremes if you really want to be certain about it, ie analog and digital cables at or near their specification limits, then some cables that are super-overbuilt or hardwired at the minimal length, and in both extreme conditions and unrealistic laboratory conditions. I could go on and on about how tests done could've been improved, but I doubt anyone has the time, resources, and patience to finally reconcile the huge body of audiophile anecdotal experience with science.
 
I'm going to quit posting on this thread, sorry to everyone for going on and on about the same thing.

 

[High_Q]