[Sonic Defender]

I agree with the above, but please don't use a term 'subjectivist' vs. 'objectivist'. These terms had been deployed by those who believe that measurements do deliver objective results. It is not true. Measuring equipment is not able to measure things we can hear and in reverse. In the result measurements are only objective for the machine. we are not machines, right? For our ears these results are subjective if not confirmed by our hearing.

I'm sorry, but measurements do deliver objective, valid and reliable data. Where are you getting the scientific evidence to back up your claims? I am sorry, but it does seem that you are simply saying what you believe as opposed to what you can reasonably consider as knowledge. Our brains are machines, they just aren't mechanical. Here is part of the definition of a machine from Wikipedia "A machine is any physical system with ordered structural and functional properties.". That is your brain.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Stiil it is better to not use the other camp terms. There were created for your psychological discomfort, placing you in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth.

Not at all. You are making rather large assumptions that likely stem from how you feel and you are erroneously projecting this outward onto others. Who created these for psychological discomfort? Would you kindly provide some evidence to back up your claims. A claim without evidence is an opinion. If you want to simply state your opinion, please feel free to do so, but would you kindly consider using a qualifier in your writing such as in my opinion ...

 

[sajunky]

I'm sorry, but measurements do deliver objective, valid and reliable data. Where are you getting the scientific evidence to back up your claims? I am sorry, but it does seem that you are simply saying what you believe as opposed to what you can reasonably consider as knowledge. Our brains are machines, they just aren't mechanical.

Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.

 

[castleofargh]

I really don't get it. Is your previous comment on how NOS sounds not coming from a sighted impression?

A fact is a fact because it has been demonstrated.
If a friend comes telling you that his neighbor is a space lizard, I expect you to ask for evidence before you start making plans to hunt it down.
But come to an audiophile forum, and feelings under sighted conditions become the gold standard of truth? No.
Ideas, feelings, facts, they deserve to be different words. Under sighted conditions, I may get the feeling that my latest DAC rolls off the treble. I may get some idea about why that design could cause treble roll off. But do I have facts about treble roll off or its cause? I do not, and if I act like I do on a forum, I’m kind of a fraud.
If I don't care, fine. But if I do care, and wish for the truth about treble or my actual ability to hear it, then I will need some controlled experiment to gather actual facts.

 

[castleofargh]

Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.

 

[sajunky]

A fact is a fact because it has been demonstrated.
If a friend comes telling you that his neighbor is a space lizard, I expect you to ask for evidence before you start making plans to hunt it down.
But come to an audiophile forum, and feelings under sighted conditions become the gold standard of truth? No.
Ideas, feelings, facts, they deserve to be different words. Under sighted conditions, I may get the feeling that my latest DAC rolls off the treble. I may get some idea about why that design could cause treble roll off. But do I have facts about treble roll off or its cause? I do not, and if I act like I do on a forum, I’m kind of a fraud.
If I don't care, fine. But if I do care, and wish for the truth about treble or my actual ability to hear it, then I will need some controlled experiment to gather actual facts.

You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of Marxism-Leninism ideologies.

Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.

 

[castleofargh]

You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of Marxism-Leninism ideologies.

Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.

It's my turn to have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[GearMe]

OK...so this kind of dialogue is the stuff that seems to be a tremendous waste of time at least to my way of thinking!

Each side (person really) has their unique frame of reference. A subjectivist's frame of reference may be primarily based on sighted listening while an objectivist's is grounded on data, abx testing, etc.

Each person's experience is real to them and it's a fool's errand for someone to insist that the other side acquiesce to their terms, methodologies (or lack thereof), etc. Seems more reasonable to live and let live...



I say these things with an educational and work background in engineering, business, and more recently analytics...hence my leanings toward spending less on electronic gear and more on transducers.

Regardless, if someone with a different frame of reference from me is enjoying their audio experience, I'm happy for them and feel no need to convince them that their path is wrong...it's just different!



I took some philosophy classes at university as electives while studying engineering. They were interesting and opened my mind up to thinking about things more broadly.

One simple example that a professor brought up in class was regarding our perceptions and could we really trust them...the Brian in a Vat. Of course, the dialogue that ensued was varied and spirited. But in the end, it hopefully made us think more deeply and consider alternatives.

I often read these subjectivist vs objectivist discussions and think that the whole lot of us from the most ardent subjectivist to the die-hard objectivist are nothing more than a perfect illustration of...

The Blind Men and the Elephant.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.

I'm welcome in any thread that I wish to be in here. I don't need your permission mate. I don't promote any community, generally speaking, but I do speak highly of head-fi at ASR and here I speak highly of ASR because both communities are great and are valid. I get it that backing up opinion is hard, hence my suggestion that stating that something is an opinion is not a bad way forward. I could say to you stop polluting this thread with nonsense, but I didn't, nor would I.

I still think that being responsible or careful with your claims is part of good forum etiquette and the most respected, full-on subjectivist members that have been around here for years are very good at stating when they are offering opinion versus something they believe to be fact.

 

[Sonic Defender]

You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of Marxism-Leninism ideologies.

Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.

You may want to consider how you're presenting yourself. You may feel that your making other people laugh at me, but I would bet that many people are wondering why you are being so rude. I am not saying that my posts were warm and fuzzy towards your expressed opinions, but I don't think that they were rude, nor did I intentionally insult you. I did call on you to consider how you present your opinions here, you didn't like it, I get that, I offered you a valid suggestion and you seem to have decided to make it personal. Shame, at first you seemed very reasonable.

 

[Sonic Defender]

...

I often read these subjectivist vs objectivist discussions and think that the whole lot of us from the most ardent subjectivist to the die-hard objectivist are nothing more than a perfect illustration of...


The Blind Men and the Elephant.

Fair enough, but if you had to try to save the life of your child with medication developed by instinct and feeling, no evidence for efficacy or safety versus a medication with rigorous scientifically derived evidence, which would you rather gamble on? There are levels of blindness after all.

 

[Maxx134]

You can't hear jitter unless the DAC is very poorly engineered.

I like to give my perspective.
I do not think jitter is only what you hear, but what you don't hear.

I can believe a NOS dac can sound just beautiful and musical.
I don't think the "clocks" are simply just for jitter, because I have experience another observation which I believe is due to the clocks.

The difference I have observed, is how believable the presentation was.
Some dacs have a more real sensation
of "being there" presence, which I am (naively) holding the clocks responsible for.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

I like this subjective/objective pic better:

 

[GearMe]

Fair enough, but if you had to try to save the life of your child with medication developed by instinct and feeling, no evidence for efficacy or safety versus a medication with rigorous scientifically derived evidence, which would you rather gamble on? There are levels of blindness after all.

Hmmm -- listening to tunes vs a life/death choice -- not really apples to apples...wouldn't you agree?

This actually seems to illustrate my point in a weird way. Many on both sides (although more so the objectivists...imo) seem to be far too serious about what is nothing more than a fun hobby / nice diversion from the real world and all of it's very real challenges/problems/etc.



Again...I'm a guy with a data/engineering background that doesn't believe in spending a lot of coin on electronic gear (dacs/amps/sources/cables/etc.) for little to no incremental return...a closet objectivist I guess.

That said, I definitely don't believe in validating the intense desire that many on the either side of this 'debate' exhibit to be 'right'.



You know, as I spend time in various threads from the overly subjective to the fanatically objective, I'm beginning to think the subjectivists 'won' this argument years ago for the simple reason that they seem to enjoy themselves a lot more in this hobby than the objectivists do! Purely my opinion of course

So -- Ignorance is Bliss, Expectation Bias, Snake Oil...whatever it is, I don't see the need to keep tilting at this windmill.

 

[Sonic Defender]

@GearMe you do raise a really good point about what "winning" in these situations really means, enjoyment. You can certainly make a strong argument that the person who goes wild over the newest OpAmp they swapped in (even though the previous one was audibly transparent) is getting more from the hobby than the crusty old objectivist who believes audible transparency has already been reached so why bother?

You have certainly remained cool as a cucumber which is admirable. As hard as it may be to believe, I actually do enjoy reading from those who post with enthusiasm and excitement about their subjective experience. I do have a problem with those who are so hostile and contrary to evidence such that they speak with such force of conviction as if their perception is proof for all and need not be examined. That does not sound like fun though, so point taken. Cheers.

 

[sajunky]

You can certainly make a strong argument that the person who goes wild over the newest OpAmp they swapped in (even though the previous one was audibly transparent) is getting more from the hobby than the crusty old objectivist who believes audible transparency has already been reached so why bother?

There are no crusty old objectivists. They call themselves such way and they are very vocal, but none of them really are.

And as a matter of fact, there is no transparency with high gain opamps. No matter how fast large signal slew rate is claimed. I agree on this point and I do not call myself an 'objectivist'.