1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

why I'm a subjectivist

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by raddle, Jan 4, 2014.
First
 
Back
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  1. raddle
    I'm sure you are qualified to produce recordings that are good by your standards, but with your attitude I would never hire you. Sorry!
     
  2. proton007
     
    With your attitude I doubt anyone will even let you near technical equipment. Sorry!
     
  3. bigshot
     
    How many producers have you hired in the past ten years? Perhaps you aren't qualified to hire me.
     
  4. dvw
     
    There you go again making up new term with no definition. What is subjective accuracy refer to? A perceived reality?
     
    Please cite the scientists that ignore "subjective accuracy". This time you got one thing right. subjective accuracy is not repeatable and thus not accurate since the data is not reliable. The scientist do want to know the discrepancy. That's why we have pyscho-acoustic study. This is why Harman has a study on preference.
     
  5. bigshot
    Subjective accuracy seems like the realm of Psychologists and Psychiatrists.
     
    I'm going to cut to the chase... Is all this theoretical philosophy designed to justify the purchase of a specific piece of equipment? Cables? Tube amp? Headphones that measure poorly?
     
  6. manbear

    Introducing more complexity into the situation doesn't change anything. We only need to increase the precision of person A and B's language to match. 

    I'm curious, is there ever a point where we would say that person A or person B is just wrong? Does your notion of subjective accuracy include observers with brain damage, mental disorders, misuse of terminology, or other idiosyncrasies? It's easy to think up some absurd examples of where this would lead us. On the other hand, if we are ever able to say than an observer is just wrong, we have the beginnings of an objective notion of accuracy. 
     
  7. dvw
     
    Okay, let's try this again. Assuming the subjective accuracy is accuracy by subjectivity.
     
    Stereophile has a review of Harmonic Technology's Cyberlight. It was done by mike Fremer, a trained "audiophile". This is his comment; quote "CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system". This cable has unfortunately a 10% distortion. Is this a supportive evidence of subjective accuracy? If you believe Mike is correct, I think we should just lock this thread and we don't need to discuss this further.
     
    xnor, manbear and L0SLobos like this.
  8. bigshot
    It seems to me that it's running out of gas on its own accord.
     
First
 
Back
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Share This Page