[raddle]

  I'm a professional producer, not an "armchair expert". I've supervised many many recording sessions and sound mixes. I don't think you are a particularly good judge of whether I am qualified to do that or not. Sorry!
 
 

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!

 

[proton007]

  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!

 
With your attitude I doubt anyone will even let you near technical equipment. Sorry!

 

[bigshot]

  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!

 
How many producers have you hired in the past ten years? Perhaps you aren't qualified to hire me.

 

[dvw]

   
It doesn't really matter what's artistic and what's technical.. there is an original event and a final result, and that result can be judged by its accuracy to the original.
 
You are describing a process which ignores subjective accuracy. That's fine, but I certainly wouldn't trust you to produce a recording that gets musical details right.

 
There you go again making up new term with no definition. What is subjective accuracy refer to? A perceived reality?

   
Here's the major problem in audio. When person's A and B disagree about which audio system is most accurate, some scientists response by saying they have different preferences. With that kind of attitude, the necessary investigation will never take place. These scientists don't even acknowledge the validity of "subjective accuracy" so how the hell are they going to care to investigate it?

 
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.

 

[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?

 

[manbear]

 
You can only make this point because the example is so simple. Note that we could never make the objective statement about "color reproduction" or "shape reproduction" without investigating the situation. We would have to come to some understanding of how perception works for each person A and B, and we would have to acknowledge the differences. We would have to be able to precisely characterize the differences and correlate those with measurements of the camera's reproductions.
 
You may be underestimating the difficulty in measuring shape reproduction and color reproduction, reducing them to two numbers that can be compared. How do we determine how much one 2D shape deviates from another? There are unlimited possibilities. Which possibility corresponds most closely to person A's perception? Can we characterize person A while at the same time acknowledging the differences between person A and B? Or would our test methods involve experiments that treat test subjects all the same?
 
Here's the major problem in audio. When person's A and B disagree about which audio system is most accurate, some scientists response by saying they have different preferences. With that kind of attitude, the necessary investigation will never take place. These scientists don't even acknowledge the validity of "subjective accuracy" so how the hell are they going to care to investigate it?

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. 

 

[dvw]

   
 
Here's the major problem in audio. When person's A and B disagree about which audio system is most accurate, some scientists response by saying they have different preferences. With that kind of attitude, the necessary investigation will never take place. These scientists don't even acknowledge the validity of "subjective accuracy" so how the hell are they going to care to investigate it?

 
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.

 

[bigshot]

It seems to me that it's running out of gas on its own accord.