| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
|
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
S888Wheel wrote:
The real difference is that we also don't pay much attention to subjective impressions that we know could be imaginary. Really? How do you choose speakers then? Are most objectivists conducting bias controled auditions of speakers? I think not. Which is why, in the very next sentence--which you snipped--I excluded speakers. But you raise a valid point--or at least a half-valid one. Speakers unquestionably sound different, but we're still subject to biases when we listen to them--based on such prior knowledge as reviews we've read or the general reputation of the manufacturer. So when we decide that one speaker is preferable to another, we can't be sure that our preference is based solely on the--unquestionably--audible differences between them. But it is reasonable to assume that our preference is based at least partly on real audible differences, something we objectivists wouldn't say about amps in most cases (insert the usual caveats here). There's also a practical matter: Amateurs really can't do blind comparisons of speakers. I suppose you could walk into a store and ask the sales clerk to play you a speaker in your price range without telling you what speaker it is (though you probably know what lines he carries). But eventually you have to take it home, and move it around to find the best location in your listening room. Doing that blind could be dangerous! I would say both extremes are caricatures. This one sure is: An extreme "objectivist" would never feel the need to actually listen to a sound system before purchase since the specification and measurements would say enough - but would be fully willing to hire a lab to determine if a piece of equipment is suitable. It may be the extreme but it seems to be the reality for the extreme and not just a caricature. No, it really is just a caricature. No objectivist--not even Nousaine, who's probably as geeky as it gets in this field--buys a speaker system (an essential part of a "sound system") without listening to it. You've made a good point about our pointless tendency to caricature each other. Please don't spoil it by committing the same sin. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 5/21/2004 11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: zGrrc.91693$xw3.5201568@attbi_s04 On Fri, 21 May 2004 04:29:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 5/20/2004 3:09 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B0arc.87227$xw3.4878918@attbi_s04 Individual preferences have never been unrespected except by subjectivists. Balony. Some objectivists here on RAHE have been quite disrespectful towards subjectivists preferences. The gist of most comments are that subjectivists are free to have inferior preferences if they like. The words have usually been carefully selected to follow the forum rules but the disrespect has been crystal clear. I note that you carefully skate around the gross insults which are common among the subjectivists, generally claiming that those who don't agree with their own pet preferences *must* either have inferior hearing, or inferior equipment. I didn't skate around anything. I addressed something that I believe clearly is in correct. Excuse me for being on point. They are what they are. At least objectivists wrap opinions around data and items that can be demonstrated and verified. We don't invent unspecified and undefined terms like Musicality to embrace mystical ideas. Instead you build straw men like these false claims of mysticism to attack the subjectivist POV. Hardly a false claim - how else would you describe claims which have no physically existant basis? Cite a specific claim and then I will offer a description. You can wrap your opinions around data and pretend that makes them more valid all you want. Clearly, it does. Balony. It may make some people feel better about their purchase decisions but not every person.In audio the fruits of the hobby are in the listening experience given the *fact* that audio is an experience based hobby. Some people get excited about specs and that is fine. For them. There enjoyment is no more valid than any other audiophile's. We can wrap our opinions around our experience and live quite happily with that. Like it or not. Unfortunately, you seem reluctant to experience controlled listening tests, and truly *trust* your ears - even though that is a common subjectivist battle cry....................... Complete nonsense given the fact that I have made it clear that I have used bias controls in my own auditions quite often. If you want to be "objective" you might want to start with better observations. |
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:gaqrc.4801$Ly.565060@attbi_s51... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 5/20/2004 9:39 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: _Jfrc.1950$JC5.259524@attbi_s54 Bromo wrote: Actually - an "objectivist" (the non-Ayn Rand type) and "subjectivist" tend to resemble each other in many ways.Ã, Both are interested in having good sounding systems - and both have a method (trial and error or measurement) of achieving this.Ã, They BOTH tend to have systems that sound good. I suspect that objectivists in practice pay a lot less attention to measurements than you think we do. I suspect that varies from person to person. Nousaine just posted that measurements are the primary criteria for his decisions. I doubt that Nousaine is typical of people who believe that measurements tell the whole story. Most people I know listen to some sort of comparison involving components they are considering for purchase. The real difference is that we also don't pay much attention to subjective impressions that we know could be imaginary. Really? How do you choose speakers then? Are most objectivists conducting bias controled auditions of speakers? I think not. There's no reason to, unless you are comparing 2 identical sets of speakers. Differences in speakers are large enough to be heard easily. I would say both extremes are caricatures. This one sure is: An extreme "objectivist" would never feel the need to actually listen to a sound system before purchase since the specification and measurements would say enough - but would be fully willing to hire a lab to determine if a piece of equipment is suitable. It may be the extreme but it seems to be the reality for the extreme and not just a caricature. But the same is true for the subjectivists. The extreme does exist and is every bit as wacky. Agreed. |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
chung wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote: The "controlled listening tests" obviously involve the listeners determining whether the DUT's sound the same or different. This is a form of measurement, although on a dichotomous basis rather than an interval scale. Every data point recorded in an ABX test or even in a more simple A/B comparison is obviously a measurement of the observer's ability to differentiate or not differentiate between the the 2 components being evaluated. That's got to be one of the most convoluted explanations (should I say excuses?) I have ever seen. This has to be one of the most misleading comments that I've ever seen. To begin with, you've lifted my statement out-of-context. It was direct response to Mr. Pinkerton's apparent claim that DBT's don't involve measurement. Obviously they do. So when you listen to two pieces of equipment, A and B, and you decide A is better, have you made a measurement? According to your definition, you have, since the fact that you prefer A over B is obviously a measurement of your ability to differentiate between A and B. That's what I said. If it were as convoluted as you claim, you would not have been able to agree with me. And it certainly was not an excuse, since I feel no need to make any. Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not an objectivist? I see legitimate uses for both objective measurements and subjective impressions. I also think that given repeated demonstrations and repetitions on RAHE, most of the discussions between the 2 camps are nonproductive. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
S888Wheel wrote:
Of course these definintions of subjectivist positions were defined by a self-proclaimed objectivist. You know it is rarely flatering when an objectivist speaks for a subjectivist or visa versa. So, given that you frequent this newsgroup, is there anything in Self's definition you deem inaccurate? Yes. At least for me each one is either inaccurate or skewed to imply a misleading meaning. Herein lies the problem. You are assuming that you are the typical subjectivist. The fact that you find those descriptions not accurate in your case simply means that you are less of a subjectivist than you might think. Welcome to the light side; no doubt this newsgroup has helped you make the transition  .Lets take the first one. IMO if one amplifier measures with less distortion than another but the amp with higher distortion sounds better in a given system then the one that sounds better is the prefered amp. The implication though is that the subjectivist disregard the measurements all together. And you don't agree that that's what subjectivists would do? Have you seen the measurements of SET's? You think subjectivists pay any attention to cable measurements? Well, I hope the designers are paying attention to the relevant measurements and how they relate to sonic impressions and moving forward with their designs from there. But as it stands it is a misleading statement about subjectivists. Why? It may not be an accurate statement *in your case*, but it is dangerous to set yourself up as the prototype subjectivist. I have not read anything from you dismissing the validity of controlled testing, or stating that you could not function as a listener once you have to choose between A and B, so you are not as far out there as the others .It would be just as misleading to say that objectivists will prefer equipment based on measurements despite how it might *actually* sound. It is misleading because many of the objectivists on this newsgroup have stated otherwise, ad nauseum. I think the truth is that objectivists are more interested in the measurements than the subjectivists but that does not mean that measurments are being dismissed all together. Self did not say that. Self said that when listening impressions disagree with measurements, the latter can be discarded by subjectivists. The second point. First off I'm not sure what is meant by "engineering science." Well, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and science would be the popular answer. But I do believe there is nothing magical about audio and that all parameters of audio that can be heard can also be measured. See, you may not be the typical subjectivist then. I'm sure you have seen posts and posts about how imaging cannot be measured. as for the third point, it simply does not apply to me at all. So you are again saying that you are less of a subjectivist than others. I know my limitations when it comes to technology and I know better than to ascribe hypothetical cause and effects to various designs of audio components. My hypothesis of any cause and effect are usually born of trial and error while carefully allowing one variable in my trials. Some subjectivists' hypothesis is simply what they are told by boutique companies. Witness cable burn-in, and CD magic pen. Here is something that was said about all objectivists in a Stereophile article: "For an objectivist, the musical experience begins with the compression and rarefaction of the local atmosphere by a musical instrument and ends with the decay of hydraulic pressure waves in the listener's cochlea; " Have you met an objectivist that behaves in such a way? I have interacted with some that at first blush seemed to but upon further converstation did not. OK, so we all agree that the definition does not merit further debate. My point was that the misrepresentations go in both directions. I guess you agree that this was one of those misrepresentations of an objectivist by a subjectivist. I don't know and you don't know that this author has never meat an objectivist who actually meets this description. the real problem is with the single universal description for a broad group of people with diverse opinions. So there are various shades of subjectivism. But by and large Doug Self did a good job summarizing it. |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
Bromo wrote in message ...
On 5/20/04 6:55 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: Now when you said measurements are not objective, you have totally lost me and, I'm sure, others. Measurements are repeatable, based on instruments, and are not subjective. For instance, you run a frequency response measurement, and the results are what the instruments measure. If someone else use the same instrument and run the same test, the results are the same. So how are measurements not objective? I agree that data is objective - and measurements (be they ears or electrical traces on an oscilloscope) are, too. The conclusions and interpretation of raw data is where subjectivism (real subjective and judgement) can and usually do creep in. ....as well as when deciding which measurements to take in the first place. While there is certainly a general consensus as to which measurements are important, there is no industry consensus as to which is *most* important. |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
chung wrote: Bruce J. Richman wrote: The "controlled listening tests" obviously involve the listeners determining whether the DUT's sound the same or different. This is a form of measurement, although on a dichotomous basis rather than an interval scale. Every data point recorded in an ABX test or even in a more simple A/B comparison is obviously a measurement of the observer's ability to differentiate or not differentiate between the the 2 components being evaluated. That's got to be one of the most convoluted explanations (should I say excuses?) I have ever seen. This has to be one of the most misleading comments that I've ever seen. To begin with, you've lifted my statement out-of-context. It was direct response to Mr. Pinkerton's apparent claim that DBT's don't involve measurement. Obviously they do. Well, I was careful in quoting what you said. I left the whole paragraph in. There was nothing out of context. I understand you said that a DBT is a measurement. The explanation you provided for why a DBT is a measurement is one ot the most convoluted things I have seen since, well, I read the Cable Break-In article by a high-end cable maker. So when you listen to two pieces of equipment, A and B, and you decide A is better, have you made a measurement? According to your definition, you have, since the fact that you prefer A over B is obviously a measurement of your ability to differentiate between A and B. That's what I said. If it were as convoluted as you claim, you would not have been able to agree with me. And it certainly was not an excuse, since I feel no need to make any. I was extended your explanation to come up with a claim that every listening comparison that results in a perceived, subjective, difference is a "measurement". Obviously the ludicrousness of the claim escapes you .Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not an objectivist? I see legitimate uses for both objective measurements and subjective impressions. I also think that given repeated demonstrations and repetitions on RAHE, most of the discussions between the 2 camps are nonproductive. It's amazing, however, to see someone equate a subjective impression with a measurement... Bruce J. Richman |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Tom Nousaine wrote:
(Bruce J. Richman) ...large snips...... Tom Nousaine wrote: I've often considered the objectivist viewpoint that "all competent amplifiers operating within their power ranges with appropriate speakers sound the same", etc. possibly true *for the measurable variables that they are interested in*, but nonetheless possibly not true - nor measurable by a-b or a-b-x tests - for the sound qualities that subjectivists are interested in. In the Sunshine trials no measurements were ever made. The closest to measurements were level matching at 100,1000 1nd 10,000 Hz. Yet the subject was unable to reliably his Pass Aleph monoblocks from a modest Yamaha integrated amplifier when even the most modest of bias controls were implemented (cloths placed over I/O terminals) using his personally selected programs in his reference system. Measurements take many forms, including the decision to select either "A" or :"B" as being dissimilar either to a reference or each other. Binary meassurements *are* involved in comparative evaluations whether conducted blind or sighted. All your cited results indicate per se was that Steve Zipser could not make the discriminations between the DUT's that he claimed he could. As for other results you will no doubt cite, as you have always done, to support your position, various posters (not myself) have frequently questioned the validity of the type of testing you support. Pardom me for forgetting that all attempts at validating or confirming claims are considered measurements when they fail to confirm. While it is true that some ardent subjectivists "question" the methods used for verifying sound quality assessments and claims it seems to me that when the basis for judgements are confined to sound quality and sound quality alone and subjectivists still cannot verify the identity of amplifiers and wires of which they have intimate familiarity they should be producing more credible evidence to support their case. But instead they'll just continue to 'debate.' No doubt I'll be challenged on this view, but let me explain. When one reads a subjective review, or perhaps does one's own review either in a showroom or in one's home, one *might* be perceiving sonic qualities either not measured nor easily defined by the usual objectivist standards. For example, Harry has used the word "musicality". And I might use the same term, and others might make refernce to the imaging, soundstaging or *depth of field" qualities associated with a particular piece of equiopment. Still others may simply say "this sounds more realistic me" (than another component being compared). While it may be perfectly acceptable to the objectivists to consider only variables that can be measured in terms of frequency response or various kinds of distortion, I would be reluctant - as I think would be most subjectivists - to attribute the various variables I've mentioned above to specific, capable of replication, measurements to measure these things. So? Who cares? If you cannot tell them apart with your eyes closed who cares what measurements are or what "variables" you are listening for? Obviously, you don't - that's a given. And perhaps you represent the objectivists that don't respect individual preferences derived from perceptions of certain qualities that you derogate and minimize. Individual preferences have never been unrespected except by subjectivists. An opinion you get to have, but one not supported by any scientific data. Of course, unsupported claims made by objectivists, I suppose, don't have to meet the same verification criteria demanded by those objectivists that regularly ridicule those on the other side of the fence. I'm sure nobody will hold their breath while a list of those subjectivists whom you claim don't respect individual preferences is presented. They are what they are. At least objectivists wrap opinions around data and items that can be demonstrated and verified. We don't invent unspecified and undefined terms like Musicality to embrace mystical ideas. There is no evidence to suggest that terms like "musical" are mystical, but then again, there is also no evidence to suggest that subjectivsts don't respect individual preferences. There is, however, plenty of evidence, it would seem, for obhjectivists on RAHE frequently disparaging subjective opinions that don't automatically involve technical measurements or meet their notions of universal meaning. Again, the frames-of-reference of the 2 camps are so disparate as to make conversations basically useless. Agreed. Subjectivists need to put their beliefs into experiments that verify the claims. There is no automatic requirement that subjectivists validate their opinions via scientific experiments any more than there is a requirement for subjectivists to validate their opinions about their preferences for any other type of product, for example, music, automobilies, wines, etc. The "prove it" mentality which some objectivists tend to demonstrate whenever individual preferences are mentioned is, of course, simply an attempt to deny an individual's right to prefer one product over another. The 'debates' will be endless because the camp without any credible supporting evidence has no other resort except "debate" including hypothesizing long, expensive experiments that will never be done. Au contraire, the debates will contninue because of some irrational need on the party of some from the other camp to try and convert audiophiles who prefer to make their audio equipment decisions in ways of their own choosing. Strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting that audiophiles should or should not buy amplifiers (or whatever) based on whatever basis they feel necessary. No strawman article at all. The validity of this claim is proven by the OP's attempts to require that all preferences be backed up by scientific experimentation, as he has demanded above. What they need to stop doing is claiming that their asmplifiers have special sound quality attributes based on acoustical characteristics that cannot be identified when a figurative blindfold is produced. And they should cease recommending these products to neophytes and newbies based on these attributes that have never been shown to exist. Or they should stop carping over the extant evidence and produce some credible evidence of their own to support their claims. None of this says that you shouldn't be happy with any decision you've made about any gear you've acquired or tweaks or modifications you've made. No, of course not . It is just a rather transparent attempt to eliminate allpublications, internet reviews, etc. in which audiophiles, reviewers, and others given their subjective impressions of components they have heard and/or used. It also represents an attempt to prevent newbies and others from getting information from a variety of sources, including subjective reviews, to use a guide in narrowing down the large number of products under consideration. No doubt that anti-preference frame of reference would also favor all decisions being made, therefore, on the basis of printed specifications. After all, why even bother to audition products? All these dogmatic statements illustrate is the central point I've been making - Dialogue between the 2 camps is as useless ad tryinj to convert others. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of those who favor personal auditions and listening over blind faith based on measurements alone - and at that, -probably a carefully selected *set* of measurements often designed to minimize differences, are ready to abandon their right to evaluate and perceive products as they see fit. Note that I am not disparaging or even disagreeing with the use of bias-controlled testing by those who consider the sine qua non for making their own decisions, or even as a legitimate research tool in product development. However, attempts to deny an individual the right to use whatever terms they choose to use in describing their own individual experience in hearing a product - which usually will *not* involve taking measurements - is simply an extreme example of censorship applied in an effort to discourage individual preferrences and subjective opinions. It should also be noted that the proposal of complex experiments has (a) not been proposed by myself, and (b) should not be opposed at any rate if the objective is to obtain further information that might be useful. I strongly urge that the prosposer of that experiment take every effort to move on with it. Validation of his open-ended evaluation approach (which unlike he claims is not widely used among audiophiles) is a good idea and should be validated. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
From: chung Date: 5/21/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Of course these definintions of subjectivist positions were defined by a self-proclaimed objectivist. You know it is rarely flatering when an objectivist speaks for a subjectivist or visa versa. So, given that you frequent this newsgroup, is there anything in Self's definition you deem inaccurate? Yes. At least for me each one is either inaccurate or skewed to imply a misleading meaning. Herein lies the problem. You are assuming that you are the typical subjectivist. No, I am assuming nothing. I chose to speak strictly for myself as a subjectivist. The fact that you find those descriptions not accurate in your case simply means that you are less of a subjectivist than you might think. I am every bit the subjectivist that *I* think *I* am. I guess this idea of mine that people should speak for their own thoughts and beliefs just isn't going over very well with you. " Welcome to the light side; no doubt this newsgroup has helped you make the transition ."OK fine. My tube electronics and turntable are still my weapons of choice based on listening despite what the measurements may or may not say. Lets take the first one. IMO if one amplifier measures with less distortion than another but the amp with higher distortion sounds better in a given system then the one that sounds better is the prefered amp. The implication though is that the subjectivist disregard the measurements all together. And you don't agree that that's what subjectivists would do? No. I think when a subjectivist such as myself prefers one piece of equipment over another even when some objectivists insist the specs prove that choice to be inferior, I, as a subjectivist, opt for what my ears tell me rather than what the specs tell me for my personal use. I don't suggest that specs be ignored by designers and researchers though. I don't suggest they be "dismissed." I don't know any other subjectivists that have said that specs should be dismissed thus. There may very well be such people but not *all* subjectivists or any I personally know have expressed this belief to me. Have you seen the measurements of SET's? No I haven't but I have heard stories about them. You think subjectivists pay any attention to cable measurements? I cannot speak for all subjectivists. Cable measurements don't seem to come up so much. I suspect that most are not aware of them. I never looked into it. That does not mean that all subjectivists dismiss all specs of all components though. Well, I hope the designers are paying attention to the relevant measurements and how they relate to sonic impressions and moving forward with their designs from there. But as it stands it is a misleading statement about subjectivists. Why? It may not be an accurate statement *in your case*, but it is dangerous to set yourself up as the prototype subjectivist. I'm not setiing myself up as anything. You still haven't apparently got the message that "subjectivists" are a wdely diversified group of audiophiles with many different beliefs on many different audio related subjects. When you get past the all subjectivists are the same (irony alert) assumption you will possibly better understand that I am speaking for myself as a subjectivist and that is a wise choice. I have not read anything from you dismissing the validity of controlled testing, or stating that you could not function as a listener once you have to choose between A and B, so you are not as far out there as the others .I probably am less extreme than many subjectivists. It would be just as misleading to say that objectivists will prefer equipment based on measurements despite how it might *actually* sound. It is misleading because many of the objectivists on this newsgroup have stated otherwise, ad nauseum. Than consider learning from my example and avoid making such prejudicial claims about an entire group of people with diverse opinions. I think the truth is that objectivists are more interested in the measurements than the subjectivists but that does not mean that measurments are being dismissed all together. Self did not say that. Self said that when listening impressions disagree with measurements, the latter can be discarded by subjectivists. I knew which measurements we were talking about. Dismissed is still dismissed. He did say "dismiss." The second point. First off I'm not sure what is meant by "engineering science." Well, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and science would be the popular answer. I think it wise to keep them seperate. I have seen many branches of science, Physics, Biology, etc. I have never seen a branch called engineering science. Maybe I missed something? But I do believe there is nothing magical about audio and that all parameters of audio that can be heard can also be measured. See, you may not be the typical subjectivist then. Or, maybe, you don't really know what many subjectivists are thinking. I'm sure you have seen posts and posts about how imaging cannot be measured. I have seen many claiming the right things *aren't* being measured. I have seen a few claiming they *can't* be measured. You really ought to consider the diversity of opinions amoung subjectivists. as for the third point, it simply does not apply to me at all. So you are again saying that you are less of a subjectivist than others. No, you are simply trying to stereotype a diverse group of people. I still rely on the old ears for my evaluations. I know my limitations when it comes to technology and I know better than to ascribe hypothetical cause and effects to various designs of audio components. My hypothesis of any cause and effect are usually born of trial and error while carefully allowing one variable in my trials. Some subjectivists' hypothesis is simply what they are told by boutique companies. Witness cable burn-in, and CD magic pen. You said some, Maybe you are getting it. That is good. Yes some people buy whatever line they are fed by those they look up to. I think that goes both ways. How many objectivists are really doing thier own extensive bias controled testing and how many are accepting what has been reported by other objectivists at face value? I'm confident there are plenty of both. Here is something that was said about all objectivists in a Stereophile article: "For an objectivist, the musical experience begins with the compression and rarefaction of the local atmosphere by a musical instrument and ends with the decay of hydraulic pressure waves in the listener's cochlea; " Have you met an objectivist that behaves in such a way? I have interacted with some that at first blush seemed to but upon further converstation did not. OK, so we all agree that the definition does not merit further debate. There was never any debate. I presented it as an example of a subjectivist misrepresenting objectivists. My point was that the misrepresentations go in both directions. I guess you agree that this was one of those misrepresentations of an objectivist by a subjectivist. I don't know and you don't know that this author has never meat an objectivist who actually meets this description. the real problem is with the single universal description for a broad group of people with diverse opinions. So there are various shades of subjectivism. But by and large Doug Self did a good job summarizing it. We disagree. |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 5/22/04 11:51 AM, in article 9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote: Again, the frames-of-reference of the 2 camps are so disparate as to make conversations basically useless. Agreed. Subjectivists need to put their beliefs into experiments that verify the claims. There is no automatic requirement that subjectivists validate their opinions via scientific experiments any more than there is a requirement for subjectivists to validate their opinions about their preferences for any other type of product, for example, music, automobilies, wines, etc. The "prove it" mentality which some objectivists tend to demonstrate whenever individual preferences are mentioned is, of course, simply an attempt to deny an individual's right to prefer one product over another. Kind of like declaring "I like vanilla ice cream" and having a bunch of people descend upon you and claim that your testing methods are flawed and that you prove that vanilla is superior to all the other flavors - and in certain blind tests - vanilla ice cream did not distinguish itself as a clearly superior ice cream to all others! And doing a test based upn the temperature and containers used to transport the ice cream as proof - since the flavor cannot be used as there would be biases! :-) :-) Its about the music, guys! :-) |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 5/22/04 11:51 AM, in article 9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote: It also represents an attempt to prevent newbies and others from getting information from a variety of sources, including subjective reviews, to use a guide in narrowing down the large number of products under consideration. No doubt that anti-preference frame of reference would also favor all decisions being made, therefore, on the basis of printed specifications. After all, why even bother to audition products? Keep in mind that a marketing department would *love* for just the data sheet to be used as a purchase point for most components - since that is the easiest thing to manipulate. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 5/21/2004 8:46 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: T2Arc.20372$zw.18534@attbi_s01 "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:gaqrc.4801$Ly.565060@attbi_s51... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 5/20/2004 9:39 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: _Jfrc.1950$JC5.259524@attbi_s54 Bromo wrote: Actually - an "objectivist" (the non-Ayn Rand type) and "subjectivist" tend to resemble each other in many ways.Ã, Both are interested in having good sounding systems - and both have a method (trial and error or measurement) of achieving this.Ã, They BOTH tend to have systems that sound good. I suspect that objectivists in practice pay a lot less attention to measurements than you think we do. I suspect that varies from person to person. Nousaine just posted that measurements are the primary criteria for his decisions. I doubt that Nousaine is typical of people who believe that measurements tell the whole story. Most people I know listen to some sort of comparison involving components they are considering for purchase. I never claimed Nousaine is typical of anything. IMO he represents the extreme from the objectivist camp. The real difference is that we also don't pay much attention to subjective impressions that we know could be imaginary. Really? How do you choose speakers then? Are most objectivists conducting bias controled auditions of speakers? I think not. There's no reason to, unless you are comparing 2 identical sets of speakers. Differences in speakers are large enough to be heard easily. So you think sighted bias does not affect one's perception of speaker performance? The evidence strongly suggests it does. Quite profoundly. I would say both extremes are caricatures. This one sure is: An extreme "objectivist" would never feel the need to actually listen to a sound system before purchase since the specification and measurements would say enough - but would be fully willing to hire a lab to determine if a piece of equipment is suitable. It may be the extreme but it seems to be the reality for the extreme and not just a caricature. But the same is true for the subjectivists. The extreme does exist and is every bit as wacky. Agreed. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
news:T2Arc.20372$zw.18534@attbi_s01... "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:gaqrc.4801$Ly.565060@attbi_s51... Really? How do you choose speakers then? Are most objectivists conducting bias controled auditions of speakers? I think not. There's no reason to, unless you are comparing 2 identical sets of speakers. Differences in speakers are large enough to be heard easily. Be careful. Just because differences in speakers are large enough to be easily heard does not mean that audio experts are willing to evaluate them blind. Pros are rarely willing to make firm judgments of speakers whose identity is not known to them. They have too much to lose. Norm Strong |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 10:15 AM, in article , "chung" wrote: Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not an objectivist? I see legitimate uses for both objective measurements and subjective impressions. I also think that given repeated demonstrations and repetitions on RAHE, most of the discussions between the 2 camps are nonproductive. It's amazing, however, to see someone equate a subjective impression with a measurement... But it *is* a measurement of sorts - and data and datasheets can be influenced by marketing departments. The logic of that sentence escapes me. Are you saying that since data and data sheets are influenced by marketing departments, then subjective impressions are measurements? When you go to your favorite audio store, listen to a couple of amps, form some kind of opinion, have you made a measurement? If the answer is yes, then why are we making a distinction between subjective impressions and measurements? As in the frequent claim that "objectivists rely on measurements, not their ears"? There is no one method that is clean of the ability to pile on the baloney. Rest is snipped, since it has nothing to do with measurement vs subjective impression. |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 11:51 AM, in article 9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04, "Bruce J. Richman" wrote: It also represents an attempt to prevent newbies and others from getting information from a variety of sources, including subjective reviews, to use a guide in narrowing down the large number of products under consideration. No doubt that anti-preference frame of reference would also favor all decisions being made, therefore, on the basis of printed specifications. After all, why even bother to audition products? Keep in mind that a marketing department would *love* for just the data sheet to be used as a purchase point for most components - since that is the easiest thing to manipulate. I fully agree with your very valid point. Needless to say, manufacturers are going to present technical specifications that present their products in as favorable a manner as possible. I can remember a time, and perhaps you can as well, when power ratings of amplifiers, for example, were not given in RMS terms, but were given by less standardized means to "puff up" the apparent power ratings of their products. Hopefully, most audiophiles will have the common sense and good judgment to use *both* manufacturer descriptions and personal listening auditions before making any significant purchase decisions. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
|
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 10:15 AM, in article , "chung" wrote: Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not an objectivist? I see legitimate uses for both objective measurements and subjective impressions. I also think that given repeated demonstrations and repetitions on RAHE, most of the discussions between the 2 camps are nonproductive. It's amazing, however, to see someone equate a subjective impression with a measurement... But it *is* a measurement of sorts - and data and datasheets can be influenced by marketing departments. Agreed. And more to the point, when subjective impressions are given in a double blind test, in which the results are tabulated, there is no question but that the results are stated in measurement form. As stated previously, not all measurements follow an interval or ratio scale. Statistical procedures such as the chi square test and others have recognized nominal measurements for a long time. .There is no one method that is clean of the ability to pile on the baloney. This is why it is important to listen to the equipment you are planning to purchase in addition to all the other stuff. I have been known to integrate large systems whose subcomponents have been specified and designed to that spec. They pass the spec - but since a specification and measurement - however detailed - is always a subset of the actual capabilities and limitations of a piece of equipment - when integrated into the larger system, sometimes unexpected results are achieved. A good system integrator will have to work through the interactions and determine the root cause, corrective action, and select the right subcomponent for the final builds, a reviewer and consumer should not be expected to do that - and indeed amongst a number of "objectivists" they will chalk many things up to "imagination" when they have failed to be sufficiently rigorous for that kind of title. If I understand you correctly, you're making the valid point that even the most rigorously controlled test results of specific products per se, does not necessarily deal with what statisticians might call "interaction effects" (see, for example, analysis of variance procedures in which the significance of individual variables is *not* the only thing being measured). For instance - when using 40' of 20 cheap speaker wire to drive Martin Logan speakers might give slightly different results than a thicker wire due to the impedance changes and highly capacitive load at 20kHz, as might two different amps. Forgive me for smiling here, but are you psychic? It just so happens thatmy system contains (a) Martin Logan speakers (CLS IIs), (b) not a 40' but 25" runs of fairly thick speaker wire (StraightWire Encore), and (c) a definitely "different" amplifier (a tubed CJ Premier 11A). The "integration" of this system was done, IMHO, slowly, carefully, with ample attention to both objective data presented by the manufacturers and extensive personal listening auditions in which many comparisons were made. And in my judgment, and that of several peers (whom I deliberately selected with llittle prior knowledge about audio gear), the results were pretty conclusive - and different!!!! Rigor and science would make drive down to what is different that might make the sound different - a mistake would be to declare that you have measured each component and there is no difference therefore the differences are in your imagination. While I might appear to many on this NG to be a "subjectivist" I am not - nor do I feel comfortable with "objectivist" as the title because I will not discount what I hear as imagination - since that feels like a substitute for rigor and thought. I think we polarize ourselves and end up being just a rigid, and just as blind by ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Agreed. A true approach that would end up with shedding a lot of light on the subject would be looking at the whole sound rig as a system integration problem and not get so wrapped up as a "cable X does/doesn't" make a difference. And for heaven's sake - leave the marketing departments of those companies out of it! They are neither subjectivists or objectivists - they just want to move their product! Bruce J. Richman |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 1:59 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's amazing, however, to see someone equate a subjective impression with a measurement... But it *is* a measurement of sorts - and data and datasheets can be influenced by marketing departments. The logic of that sentence escapes me. Are you saying that since data and data sheets are influenced by marketing departments, then subjective impressions are measurements? How data is reported on a datasheet has as much input from the marketing department as does it from the engineering department. The marketing department will try to present the data in such a way to highlight (even to the point of distortion) the desirability of the product Case in point - power for amplifiers. Regardless of what you think the effects of higher or lower power are on your speaker system - you will purchase a receiver or amplifier with some knowledge of power. One vendor may say it has 200W - neglecting to mention that it is at 1kHz CW, and both channels together - and that number will be achieved by only the top 10% of the amplifiers. Another one might say 100Wpc and say 1KHz. Neglecting to mention that this is a typical number - and actual values can be +/-10% from that for instance. Another one will take a conservative approach and specify the least you will ever see - 100Wpc - but you will always see about 110Wpc. But in this case they neglect to mention that it is 1kHz CW as well. Another one might say 100Wpc, and it is the minimum, with both channels driven 20-20kHz pink noise, but fail to mention that without loading the power supply - a single channel could do 130Wpc. All these results have examples in the audio industry - and all of these data sheets aren't clear on how you can compare them as a consumer. If you try to compare the data sheets to form an opinion - you are likely to make a mistake - and fall prey to whether the people that published the sheet are conservative, typical or wildly optimistic. They also will play games on HOW the data is measured as well. Basic point being - save from investing twice as much as the component you want to buy in measurements - you will rely upon the data sheets, and advice from the salesperson. If you want to "hear it for yourself" as well - you will be listening to music, pink noise or whatever you like to use to see which one works for you the best. I read all of that (honestly!), and I still do not see that you answered my question. Which was: are you saying that the fact marketing has an influence on data sheers implies that subjective impressions are measurements? When you go to your favorite audio store, listen to a couple of amps, form some kind of opinion, have you made a measurement? You have done so with your ears. Hmmm, so every time you listen, you are making a measurement. You said that you are an RF engineer. How do you make measurements on anything in RF? Do you use instruments? Are your results expressed in numbers? If another engineer makes those measurements with the same equipment, would they get different answers? And listening to the music through the reproduction equipment is important whether you use data sheets or not. No one said otherwise. If the answer is yes, then why are we making a distinction between subjective impressions and measurements? As in the frequent claim that "objectivists rely on measurements, not their ears"? When you form an opinion, you have passed subjective judgement. When you listen, measure, or whatever, you are gathering data. I do not think there are any "pure objectivists" in reality as well as there are no "pure subjectivists" either. I think you have to both trust data from reliable sources (*if* you understand what the data means) as well as your senses in order to make a decision for buying the equipment. So have you answered the question, which is "why are we making a distinction between subjective impression and measurements as in the frequenct claim that objectivists rely on measurements and not their ears"? You know, it is awfully hard to continue a thread when you wander all over and not respond to the questions raised... Chung, if I might be so bold as to ask - what is the rough process you follow when you decide to buy a particular piece of equipment? Which particular piece of equipment are you talking about? There is big difference between buying speakers and buying cables. |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
From: chung Date: 5/21/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Of course these definintions of subjectivist positions were defined by a self-proclaimed objectivist. You know it is rarely flatering when an objectivist speaks for a subjectivist or visa versa. So, given that you frequent this newsgroup, is there anything in Self's definition you deem inaccurate? Yes. At least for me each one is either inaccurate or skewed to imply a misleading meaning. Herein lies the problem. You are assuming that you are the typical subjectivist. No, I am assuming nothing. I chose to speak strictly for myself as a subjectivist. The fact that you find those descriptions not accurate in your case simply means that you are less of a subjectivist than you might think. I am every bit the subjectivist that *I* think *I* am. I guess this idea of mine that people should speak for their own thoughts and beliefs just isn't going over very well with you. " Welcome to the light side; no doubt this newsgroup has helped you make the transition ."OK fine. My tube electronics and turntable are still my weapons of choice based on listening despite what the measurements may or may not say. Lets take the first one. IMO if one amplifier measures with less distortion than another but the amp with higher distortion sounds better in a given system then the one that sounds better is the prefered amp. The implication though is that the subjectivist disregard the measurements all together. And you don't agree that that's what subjectivists would do? No. I think when a subjectivist such as myself prefers one piece of equipment over another even when some objectivists insist the specs prove that choice to be inferior, I, as a subjectivist, opt for what my ears tell me rather than what the specs tell me for my personal use. I don't suggest that specs be ignored by designers and researchers though. I don't suggest they be "dismissed." I don't know any other subjectivists that have said that specs should be dismissed thus. There may very well be such people but not *all* subjectivists or any I personally know have expressed this belief to me. Have you seen the measurements of SET's? No I haven't but I have heard stories about them. You think subjectivists pay any attention to cable measurements? I cannot speak for all subjectivists. Cable measurements don't seem to come up so much. I suspect that most are not aware of them. I never looked into it. That does not mean that all subjectivists dismiss all specs of all components though. Well, I hope the designers are paying attention to the relevant measurements and how they relate to sonic impressions and moving forward with their designs from there. But as it stands it is a misleading statement about subjectivists. Why? It may not be an accurate statement *in your case*, but it is dangerous to set yourself up as the prototype subjectivist. I'm not setiing myself up as anything. You still haven't apparently got the message that "subjectivists" are a wdely diversified group of audiophiles with many different beliefs on many different audio related subjects. When you get past the all subjectivists are the same (irony alert) assumption you will possibly better understand that I am speaking for myself as a subjectivist and that is a wise choice. I have not read anything from you dismissing the validity of controlled testing, or stating that you could not function as a listener once you have to choose between A and B, so you are not as far out there as the others .I probably am less extreme than many subjectivists. It would be just as misleading to say that objectivists will prefer equipment based on measurements despite how it might *actually* sound. It is misleading because many of the objectivists on this newsgroup have stated otherwise, ad nauseum. Than consider learning from my example and avoid making such prejudicial claims about an entire group of people with diverse opinions. I think the truth is that objectivists are more interested in the measurements than the subjectivists but that does not mean that measurments are being dismissed all together. Self did not say that. Self said that when listening impressions disagree with measurements, the latter can be discarded by subjectivists. I knew which measurements we were talking about. Dismissed is still dismissed. He did say "dismiss." The second point. First off I'm not sure what is meant by "engineering science." Well, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and science would be the popular answer. I think it wise to keep them seperate. I have seen many branches of science, Physics, Biology, etc. I have never seen a branch called engineering science. Maybe I missed something? But I do believe there is nothing magical about audio and that all parameters of audio that can be heard can also be measured. See, you may not be the typical subjectivist then. Or, maybe, you don't really know what many subjectivists are thinking. I'm sure you have seen posts and posts about how imaging cannot be measured. I have seen many claiming the right things *aren't* being measured. I have seen a few claiming they *can't* be measured. You really ought to consider the diversity of opinions amoung subjectivists. as for the third point, it simply does not apply to me at all. So you are again saying that you are less of a subjectivist than others. No, you are simply trying to stereotype a diverse group of people. I still rely on the old ears for my evaluations. I know my limitations when it comes to technology and I know better than to ascribe hypothetical cause and effects to various designs of audio components. My hypothesis of any cause and effect are usually born of trial and error while carefully allowing one variable in my trials. Some subjectivists' hypothesis is simply what they are told by boutique companies. Witness cable burn-in, and CD magic pen. You said some, Maybe you are getting it. That is good. Yes some people buy whatever line they are fed by those they look up to. I think that goes both ways. How many objectivists are really doing thier own extensive bias controled testing and how many are accepting what has been reported by other objectivists at face value? I'm confident there are plenty of both. Here is something that was said about all objectivists in a Stereophile article: "For an objectivist, the musical experience begins with the compression and rarefaction of the local atmosphere by a musical instrument and ends with the decay of hydraulic pressure waves in the listener's cochlea; " Have you met an objectivist that behaves in such a way? I have interacted with some that at first blush seemed to but upon further converstation did not. OK, so we all agree that the definition does not merit further debate. There was never any debate. I presented it as an example of a subjectivist misrepresenting objectivists. My point was that the misrepresentations go in both directions. I guess you agree that this was one of those misrepresentations of an objectivist by a subjectivist. I don't know and you don't know that this author has never meat an objectivist who actually meets this description. the real problem is with the single universal description for a broad group of people with diverse opinions. So there are various shades of subjectivism. But by and large Doug Self did a good job summarizing it. We disagree. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 5/23/04 10:26 AM, in article , "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote: (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message news:9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04... The main criticism I would make against 'objectivists' is that there is no 'objectivity' in measurement either. It is a false claim. It would be like measuring two wines' specific gravity, and declaring the one with higher specific gravity as 'better'. Of course, they could say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and y. I'm sure oenologists use specific gravity measurements in their work of creating fine wines...but....the purpose of wine is to be drunk, and the only basis for evaluating them is taste. Likewise with audio equipment. The design engineer measures, the customer listens.. Well put - in the final analysis - does the equipment reproduce sound in a manner pleasing to the customer? If so, then there is success. |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 5/22/04 11:47 PM, in article OJUrc.24834$zw.15558@attbi_s01, "Bruce J.
Richman" wrote: Bromo wrote: On 5/22/04 10:15 AM, in article , "chung" wrote: Seems to me that you, being a subjectivist, based on selections/preferences on measurements, too! You're sure you're not an objectivist? I see legitimate uses for both objective measurements and subjective impressions. I also think that given repeated demonstrations and repetitions on RAHE, most of the discussions between the 2 camps are nonproductive. It's amazing, however, to see someone equate a subjective impression with a measurement... But it *is* a measurement of sorts - and data and datasheets can be influenced by marketing departments. Agreed. And more to the point, when subjective impressions are given in a double blind test, in which the results are tabulated, there is no question but that the results are stated in measurement form. As stated previously, not all measurements follow an interval or ratio scale. Statistical procedures such as the chi square test and others have recognized nominal measurements for a long time. .I have been known to integrate large systems whose subcomponents have been specified and designed to that spec. They pass the spec - but since a specification and measurement - however detailed - is always a subset of the actual capabilities and limitations of a piece of equipment - when integrated into the larger system, sometimes unexpected results are achieved. A good system integrator will have to work through the interactions and determine the root cause, corrective action, and select the right subcomponent for the final builds, a reviewer and consumer should not be expected to do that - and indeed amongst a number of "objectivists" they will chalk many things up to "imagination" when they have failed to be sufficiently rigorous for that kind of title. If I understand you correctly, you're making the valid point that even the most rigorously controlled test results of specific products per se, does not necessarily deal with what statisticians might call "interaction effects" (see, for example, analysis of variance procedures in which the significance of individual variables is *not* the only thing being measured). Yes - that is exactly my point. The differences likely to be measured, and a mistake made in many reviewers (T$S, TAS, Stereophile, etc.) is that a component's "sonic attributes" may only have validity in _that_ system. And people who may notice a difference, may boil down to the system as a whole. I have spent the lions share of my career in understanding subsystem interactions - and it is not a trivial matter, and one not be be ignored without generating trouble. It makes me think that the Subjectivist/Objectivist camps spring from a lack of understanding on both sides of system integration. Objectivists chalk it up to imagination, Subjectivists throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps there is a new pole in this debate "Realists" or "Pragmatists?" For instance - when using 40' of 20 cheap speaker wire to drive Martin Logan speakers might give slightly different results than a thicker wire due to the impedance changes and highly capacitive load at 20kHz, as might two different amps. Forgive me for smiling here, but are you psychic? Nope - just that would be the toughest integration I could think of that would lead one down the Sub/Obj path... It just so happens that my system contains (a) Martin Logan speakers (CLS IIs), (b) not a 40' but 25" runs of fairly thick speaker wire (StraightWire Encore), and (c) a definitely "different" amplifier (a tubed CJ Premier 11A). The "integration" of this system was done, IMHO, slowly, carefully, with ample attention to both objective data presented by the manufacturers and extensive personal listening auditions in which many comparisons were made. And in my judgment, and that of several peers (whom I deliberately selected with llittle prior knowledge about audio gear), the results were pretty conclusive - and different!!!! Yes! Not surprised - and if you did a listening test with cables, amps and Klipschhorns you would find the noise floor of the amp too high and the 40' of speaker wire to be totally adequate! ML's are excellent speakers, BTW - I didn't get instead getting Thiels because the WAF was not satisfied as they would dominate the relatively small room. Color my jealous!! :-) |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Bob Marcus wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote: I've often considered the objectivist viewpoint that "all competent amplifiers operating within their power ranges with appropriate speakers sound the same", etc. possibly true *for the measurable variables that they are interested in*, but nonetheless possibly not true - nor measurable by a-b or a-b-x tests - for the sound qualities that subjectivists are interested in. The fallacy here is the assumption that "the sound qualities that subjectivists are interested in" have causes beyond what measurements or ABX tests can detect. There is no evidence that this is true. There is no fallacy because there is no statement that measurements per se can not account for various perceptual phenomena experienced by subjectivists who attribute sonic differences to certain pieces of equipment. However, unlike the omniscient objectivists who consider the subject closed and not subject to debate, This is quite disgraceful, sir. If you want to have a debate, the least you can do is not start out by slandering your opponents. And you, sir, are guilty of character assassination. Nobody has been slandered, nor do you speak for others than yourself. I don't consider those with whom I disagree as "opponents", since unlike yourself, apparently, I have no need to engage in ad hominem attacks by throwing around legal terms like "slander" inappropriately. I'd recommend you consult an attorney to learn how slander is defined. Your opening comments come a lot closer to meeting any legal definition than anything I've said in this post, IMHO. I suspect that many subjectivists would consider the possibility that certain variables routinely named in reviews (see myh original post) may have measurement correlates. Indeed, one of the points of John Atkinson's measurements, for example, which accompany his Stereophile reviews, is to, when evident, point out certain correlates between various frequency, distortion or other technical measurements and subjective impressions obtained by reviewers. Of course, ABX tests are irrelevant in this regard. Once an objectivist has, of course, ruled out any and all possible measurement variations as posibly accounting for any perceived differences, the futility of debating those with different frames of reference becomes even more evident. If you want futility, try debating someone who makes no effort even to understand what you are saying, and merely repeats misstatements about your positions. As your opening comments illustrate, and as you comments throughout this post indicate, you are describing your own behavior. No doubt I'll be challenged on this view, but let me explain. When one reads a subjective review, or perhaps does one's own review either in a showroom or in one's home, one *might* be perceiving sonic qualities either not measured nor easily defined by the usual objectivist standards. For example, Harry has used the word "musicality". A term with no clear definition. Nor is there any evidence that it means the same thing to different audiophiles. Nor was there a claim made that it did have a clear definition or the same thing to di9fferent audiophiles. That said, one can certainly ask audiophiles to describe more specifically what they mean when they use such terms, or more precise ones such as "lean", "more body", etc., and then determine empirically to what extent there is agreement or disagreement amongst different observers. For subjectivists, I would suspect that what would be a more relevant = and practical = question would be the extent to which a given component is "preferred" to another for the same reason by a group of listeners. For example, if 75% of a group preferred component A to component B, and when asked, were able to reasonably attribute the same approximate reason for their preference - in terms of some sonic qualities, this would, of course, never meet oobjectivist standards in which only measurements currently accepted by that group are of importance, Again, a bald-faced misrepresentation. Have you no shame? This is an outrageous false claim which appoaches the criteria for slander that you have used in ad hominem attacks directed at those with whom you have disagreed. This is not the first time that you have engaged in character assassination against this poster, as the Google record clearly indicates. Are you incapable of rational conversation without resorting to blatant falsehoods about other people's statements and/or motivations? but they might well be relevant to subjectivists who place greater value on listening experiences in a natural environment than on argument purely by specifications. Also, unless one is willing to assume that all possible measurements have already been discovered and enshrined as all there is to know, And yet again. Another ridiculous exaggeration and demonstrated inability to either comprehend or accurately interpret what has been said. it would seem reasonable to assume that some subjective qualities could be correlated to some extent with specific measurements yet to be tried. And I might use the same term, and others might make refernce to the imaging, soundstaging or *depth of field" qualities associated with a particular piece of equiopment. Are these "qualities associated with a particular piece of equiopment"? These are all mental constructs. On the contrary, these are descriptions of how music is actually experienced by many listeners. Of course, perceptions are involved, but these perceptions are influenced by the methods used in recording the music and reproducing it through the audio system. Obviously. Agreement noted. The imaging isn't "real"--the sound is being produced at only two points. Our brains construct these images based on sounds reaching our ears from all directions, as a result of the interaction between the speakers and the room. The audio system's contribution to this process is the direct sound--simply changes in air pressure--radiating from the speakers. And that sound can be fully measured. After all, beyond frequency and amplitude, what else is there coming out of a speaker? It would seem obvious that the ability of a given component to replicate the intentions of the recording team in producing a given set of instrumentation and/or vocals in which instruments and vocalists appear to the listener to appear in different places in the soundfield is *not* as simplistic as you claim. But you’re about to demonstrate just how simple it is… Unfortunately, since you have demonstrated a tendency to misrepresent what I've actually said as "slander", and also have failed, it would seem, to accurately comprehend what I have written and drawn erroneous conclusions from my post, the need for a more concrete and specific example appears necessary. It is not intended for other objectivists who may disagree with my views, or those who may agree with them. For those able to engage in civilized disagreement, it would probably not be necessary. More specifically, it goes without saying that the proportion of the amplitude Note that word: Amplitude. That’s something we can measure. And it’s something we can detect differences in using DBTs. So just what is it about imaging that you think objectivists don’t understand? Again, you're misrepresenting my position and attempting to put words in my mouth. I have not claimed that objectivists don't understand imaging. However, "imaging" per se, seems to be a term that appears much more frequently in subjective reviews of equipment. of a given instrument, for example, assigned to the 2 channels after mixdown in the recording will, by design, attempt to "locate" the instrument in the sound field (e.g. strings on the left, woodwinds in the center, double basses and cellos on the right in a typical symphony setup). It does not seem beyond the realm of possiblity that some components might be more precise or accurate (pick whatever adjective you prefer) at transferring the recording engineer's intentions to the listening room of a subjectivist who appreciates things such as "imaging" ability. Of course it’s not beyond the realm of possibility for two components to differ in their ability to accurately reproduce amplitude differences between channels. But we can measure those differences, and we can detect them in DBTs. So just what is it about imaging that you think objectivists don’t understand? See my comments above Repetition of false misrepresentations about what I've actually said will not make them true. That's why objectivists don't buy the notion that there are things they can't measure, or things that ABX tests can't detect. We don't have to "measure imaging"; all we have to do is to measure the things that cause our brains to "image." There was no claim made that certain things can't be measured - just that the variables sometimes discussed by subjectivists are not usually subject to any *attempt* to measure them. Why should we bother to measure them? You seem to think that measurements are important here. They aren’t. What we can hear is important. So is sorting out what we truly hear from what we only imagine that we hear. But of course, if you can’t mischaracterize objectivists as people obsessed with measurement, then you haven’t got a case. Your attempts to misrepresent my comments are based on your own prejudices and nothing that I have said. If anything, you've proven my main thesis, at least as far as your misdirecfted attempts to falsify my position are concerned. The frames-of-reference and subjects of interest to the 2 camps are largely, although not entirely, orthogonal. You're not qualified by either training or experience to evaluate the personality characteristics or alleged flaws of others. I am. Therefore, your use of words such as "obsessed" when describing the behavior of another poster is inaccurate, misapplied, unscientific and inappropriate. .. Just as various audio phenomena can be measured, obsessive behavior can be and has been measured numerous times in empirical experiments widely reported in peer-reviewed Psychology journals. Your use of the term, unfortunately, is totally lacking in substantive evidence, and in the eyes of a psychologist, *might*, as the saying goes, tell us more about the person making the statement than the intended target. But this is just an hypothesis, of course. It might well be possibld, for example, to measure "imaging" if one could measure the relative amplitude of certain single instruments, or a vocalist's voice, at the speaker sources. One would expect, for example, that a singer centered between the speakers, would have roughly equal amplitudes coming from both left and right speakers. Other instruments in the orchestral or band mix would presumably have different proportions from left and right depending on their locations. And what makes you think we can’t measure this? Where have I claimed that *you* (not "we") can't measure this? . There is no evidence provided by you that I have made this claim, other than the repetitive assertion of your illogical assumption about my views on imaging. My choice to discuss imaging, as opposed, for example, to frequency, distortion, or amplitude, was done purely to illustrate the point that there are variables of importance to subjectivists, such as imaging, that are not typically discussed or from what I can see, addressed, by most objectivists. There is nothing in this observation that implies or states that imaging cannot be measured (Before anyone jumps on the point, I'll concede that radiation patterns of loudspeakers and room interactions are extremely complex and certainly not reduceable to simple measurements. On this point we agree. But loudspeakers aren't part of the obj/subj debate. Of course not. However, since loudspeaker are used by both camps to make their judgments, I would think that their interaction with the compoents under test could certainly be a relevant factor in determining test results. I’m not much interested in what you *think*. I’m interested in whether you have any evidence that an amplifier or cable can affect imaging, other than through easily measured effects on amplitude and frequency response. And I'm not interested in your continuous, and rather predictable, attempts to erect strawmen by assuming I've made statements nowhere in evidence so that you can then engage in further inappropriate ad hominem attacks. Since you are demanding evidence of others, I would be interested in seeing any evidence you have that I have stated in this thread that imaging can't be measured. You keep repeating this false claim about what I have said as if redundant misrepresentations of my position will somehow cause them to be believed by others. Many reviewers have commented on the relative synergy or lack of synergy between a certain product, for example, and a certain speaker. Now, as an objectivist, you may not accept this line of reasoning, but consider, as you've mentioned, the variation in radiation patterns, and I'll add in other speaker complexities such as resistance curves (said as the owner of electrostatics that have wild resistance swings and definitely *don't* sound the same with every amplifier or preamplifier), sensitivities, possible crossover effects, etc. What is it that you don’t think I’ve considered? Why should I give any credence to anyone who talks about “synergyâ€� between speakers and other components and doesn’t’ even offer a coherent definition of the term? All “synergyâ€� appears to mean is that this speaker sounds better with this amp than with that amp. Fine. Then you should be able to tell the two amps apart blind, when driving that speaker. Show me that you can, and I’ll believe that this “synergyâ€� is real. (Please note: There is no mention of measurement in this paragraph. That’s your hang-up, not mine.) I have no hangup with measurements, and favor their use in many situations. You not qualified to evaluate "hang-ups", but continue to engage in ad hominem attacks. So who really has the hangups? And components ahead of the speakers have no impact on these radiation patterns--which is why it's so funny to read reviewers who talk about certain cables "opening up the sound.") One can always find extremes to ridicule. I lose very little sleep over the hyperbole of many cable manufacturers. But I don't think they are reified by too many subjectivists. Are you joking? Loads of them buy it hook, line, and sinker. Just read any high-end discussion site other than this one. As a former poster to RAHE would say, I've been there and done that. Discussing sonic qualities in a subjective review forum does not, in empirical terms, indicate that all the hype is embraced. Audio Asylum, with its many subdivisions, for example, is a very highly utilized hgih-end discussion site. The percentage of posts even dealing with high-end cables there is quite small. Other sites in wich I have participated, including www.martinloganowners.com and www.stevehoffman.tv are also decent examples of discussion sites in which many equipment (and music) subjects are discussed, but little attention is devoted to discussion of cables. Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews, nor do their letter columns or websites give the subject of cable evaluations a very prominent place in comparison with the attention devoted to other classes of equipment. Still others may simply say "this sounds more realistic me" (than another component being compared). While it may be perfectly acceptable to the objectivists to consider only variables that can be measured in terms of frequency response or various kinds of distortion, I would be reluctant - as I think would be most subjectivists - to attribute the various variables I've mentioned above to specific, capable of replication, measurements to measure these things. What else is there to attribute them to? Sound really is just frequency and amplitude. Every effect must have a cause, and those are the only possible causes. See my comments above re. imaging. Amplitude differerences may be responsible in some cases. They are also measurable. They are also detectable in DBTs. So what are objectivists missing? See my comments above. No claim has been made by this poster that imaging can not be measured. In fact, examples gtiven by me suggest the opposite position re. measurement of imaging. Also, what I had in mind in making my comments was not to disagree with your argument re. frequency and amplitude as the only salient measurements, but in *how* they might be measured by an objectivist - or perhaps more typically, on a specification sheet, Whoa--who said spec sheets were the be-all and end-all of measurements? in which, for example, a frequency range with plus and minus db points is given, but little attention is paid to how that "range" actually operates into a given speaker load, or how it might actually vary at different points along the response curve. It would certainly seem possible that there could be some peaks and valleys in this curve, for example, that might interact with a given speakers *own* set of technical characteristics, to produce a certain "character", if you will. I apologize for using a real life, subjective term .So objectivists can’t measure everything because some measurements don’t appear on the typical spec sheet? What kind of argument is this? Again, you've fallen into the inappropraite habit of misrepresenting what I've actually said. No claim has been made that objectivists can't measure whatever they care to measure. All that's been suggested is that perhaps a more complete set of measurements would be of value in explaining why a given component *might* sound different to some people than another under comparison. Also, how often, even within the frequency response realm, are complete graphs presented that *might* account for a particular component being perceived as relatively analytical, dark, or lean - all terms frequently used by subjectivists? I don't know. How often? (And what's your point?) See comments above. What is your purpose in continuously assuming that I have made statements or have motives that are not in evidence? The question was rhetorical. And the point, as illustrated above, is self-evident, If it were self-evident, I’d have understood it. I have absolutely no idea what your point was here. except to those that might assume that all questions have been answered and are not debatable. You’ve run out of arguments again, so you’re back to this slander. As demonstrated earlier, the only person possibly guilty of slander in this post, and I'd be perfectly happy to let an attorney decide this, is yourself. You've made numerous false claims about what I've actually said. You have had the unmitigated chutzpah to misinterpret and pretend to divine my motives, and you've seen fit to toss around terms like "obsessed" and "hangups" which you are clearly unqualified to either evaluate or use in any rational discussion. This licensed psychologist, however, is, and tries to not engage in character assassination via the despicable misuse of psychological terminology. Again, more evidence of the total waste of time in trying to talk about extreme objectivist - subjectivist differences. This is one of the reasons that I feel the 2 "camps" are really operating from almost totally different frames-of-reference and the endless challenges and disputes about the value of double blind testing, are, in practical terms, unlikely to convince anybody of anything they don't already strongly believe. Can't argue with that! Really? That's a surprise. On practically everything else, Irecommend we agree to disagree. But given your agreement with my final paragraph, why monopolize RAHE, to a large extent, with endless discussions of this old argument? Who’s monopolizing anything? And isn’t the pot calling the kettle black here? I don't think so, at least as concerns the number of posts that I've made to RAHE over the years. Even the most casual glance at the topic list of RAHE on any given day seems to indicate that, unfortunately, IMHO, the objectivist-subjectivist arguments have almost totally (but not completely) dominated the discussions here. And most of the post have come from the objectivist camp, not the subjectivist camp. The moderators have even, at times, chosen, to limit discussion of certain topics such as double blind testing, I suspect, for the same reason. To answer the more general point, I’m arguing with you not because I think you are remotely convincible, but because I know there are others reading this newsgroup whose minds are not made up. Not to respond to your misrepresentations of the objectivist position would, I fear, lead them to conclude that your characterizations of us were accurate. You've constatnly misrepresented what I've said, assumed that I've made claims that are *nowhere* supported by anything I've actually said, and have then attempted to attack the very strawmen you've created. It is the height of irony that in the course of making the same false claim repeatedly - namely, that I have claimed imaging can't be measured by objectivists - all you've done is to demonstrate your lack of scientific rigor. In your self-proclaimed efforts to represent the objectiit position (by presuming uou speak for other objectivists as well as yourself) , all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you have the ability to repeat a false claim over and over again. Nowhere in anything I've said is there even the slightest scintilla of evidence that I've claimed that imaging can not be measured - which is the mantra that you seem determined to repeat. In so doing you've done those reading this post a favor. You've succeeded in demonstrating that a person who claims to be representing all objectivists on RAHE by his silly use of the pronoun "we" (despite no evidence that anybody has appointed him as their spokesman) has no hesitance in misrepresenting over and over again what another person with whom he disagrees *has actually said*. If this is the type of "scientific approach" that you are attempting to demonstrate on behalf of objectivists (and it is you, not I, that think you represent all objectivists), then you, sir, are indeed doing them a disservice. I feel confident in stating that I probably have a much more healthy respect (and have been fully trained) in scientific methodology than you do. I plead guilty to injecting my comments here, but generally speaking, I usually steer clear of entering this endless cycle of retorts. I recommend that you steer clear until you’ve made some effort at least to understand what we are saying. There has been no evidence to support your assertions that your constant, repetitive misrepresentations of what I've actually stated are supported by other objectivists. There is no evidence to indicate your election or designation as their spokesman, AFAIK. Therefore, your use of the pronoun "we" appears to be a rather disingenuous attempt to bolster and/or lend credibility to your demonstrably false claims about my position on measurements and more specifically, imaging. Unlike yourself, I prefer to take the high moral ground and readily acknowledge that my views may or may not represent those of other subjectivists. (And in reality, I'm probably a lot more of an objectivist in many respects - due to my fairly rigorous scientific training in experimental design, statistics, etc.) then you have any reason to suspector can even begin to fathom). I recommend that you learn how to engage in rational, civilized discourse before you further attempt to discuss issues with those whose views you oppose. I further recommend that you refrain from using terms such as "we" unless you have some evidence that you've been elected to speak for other objectivists. I'd also suggest that you perhaps consider some training in reading comprehension so that you no longer engage in making erroneous statements, interpretations, and/or concluisions about what others have actually said in print.Until these modifications are made, I'd suggest that you take your own advice (and tramsparent attempt at censorship) about staying away. bob Bruce J. Richman Bruce J. Richman |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 22 May 2004 16:24:27 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 11:51 AM, in article 9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04, "Bruce J. Richman" wrote: The "prove it" mentality which some objectivists tend to demonstrate whenever individual preferences are mentioned is, of course, simply an attempt to deny an individual's right to prefer one product over another. Kind of like declaring "I like vanilla ice cream" and having a bunch of people descend upon you and claim that your testing methods are flawed and that you prove that vanilla is superior to all the other flavors - and in certain blind tests - vanilla ice cream did not distinguish itself as a clearly superior ice cream to all others! Unfortunately, the above is just another typical strawman, one of an army which Richman seems determined to create. Objectivists only say 'prove it' when someone claims that one wire *sounds* different from another. This is not a matter of 'preference', it is a claim of *difference*, and no such claim has *ever* been substantiated. Prefer fat yellow wires to skinny blue wires all you like, but don't try to tell us that they *sound* different - because that just ain't so! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
On 5/22/04 10:59 PM, in article CsUrc.13301$JC5.1249911@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote: Bromo wrote: On 5/22/04 12:21 PM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: I think the truth is that objectivists are more interested in the measurements than the subjectivists but that does not mean that measurments are being dismissed all together. Self did not say that. Self said that when listening impressions disagree with measurements, the latter can be discarded by subjectivists. I knew which measurements we were talking about. Dismissed is still dismissed. He did say "dismiss." Despite some decent technical writing, Self tends to create a straw-man extreme subjectivist and knock it down. He did claim that "subjectivists" dismiss data. While it is not safe to speak for a wide variety of people, if faced with a situation where a data sheet pointed out that A is better than B yet when examined, finding the opposite to appear to be true, you can draw a few conclusions: 1. The data sheet is wrong somehow (marketing hype influencing numbers - typical games being specifying minimum, typical or maximum) 2. The things that make one "superior" to another is not important for the testing you are performing through listening. 3. It is all in your head and you are hallucinating (popular amoungst the extreme "objectivist" crowd) 4. There are other unspecified items that are influencing the sound in a way that you don't like. 5. There is some system interaction issue that is causing the data sheet "winner" to sound less good than it should! Have you confused data, as in a data sheet or spec sheet, with measurements? Nope - but the basic assumption is that 99% of the self titles "objectivists" will not have the required equipment and lab settings in order to make the required measurements - as well as doing a sufficiently rigorous system analysis to be able to have a good set of measurements to be able to judge the sound system without having to resort to "subjectivist" listening. There is also a fair amount of skill in test and metrology that is required in order to get the correct measurements in an objective manner - again, I do not think that most people who fancy themselves "objectivists" and would chalk up perceived sonic differences to imagination, may not be capable of measuring the items properly even if the equipment were available. Those "objectivists" would have to rely upon others to tell them the stats and explain what those stats would mean. Additionally, if this is not available, then the decision to purchase will boil down to examining and comparing specification sheets. In both cases as an "objectivist," at least 99% of them, will be placing their faith in marketing departments of the equipment they are purchasing, and faith in others who are "experts" in the test and measurements. I for one, rely upon data sheets to a fair degree, but I am going to listen to the equipment as the final arbiter. |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 5/23/04 2:08 PM, in article EM5sc.100462$iF6.9325934@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Prefer fat yellow wires to skinny blue wires all you like, but don't try to tell us that they *sound* different - because that just ain't so! Stewart, Are you sure? I certainly have noticed a difference, and if the topic comes up, I will state my observation. I will concede that the cable *by itself* makes no real difference. But I will stand by the fact that it is in context of the entire system that a difference can be found with some amplifiers driving some speakers. |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
The main criticism I would make against 'objectivists' is that there is no 'objectivity' in measurement either. Of course there is. No matter how many times you take the measurement (assuming you do it properly) you get the same result. That's pretty much the scientific definition of objective. It is a false claim. It would be like measuring two wines' specific gravity, and declaring the one with higher specific gravity as 'better'. But that has nothing to do with the measurement of specific gravity. That has to do with the interpretation of the measurement. Depending on what you wanted to do with the wine, the one with higher specific gravity might well be better. :-) But specific gravity, unlike taste preference, is objective. If your argument is that you can't use objective measurements to determine subjective preferences, I would agree 100%. But you've hardly identified a failing of objectivists if the objectivists start agreeing with you. Besides, your analogy to audio objectivists seems to me to be 180 degrees off. Objectivists don't claim that one amp is better than another because it has lower THD, for example. We usually claim that the two sound the same! (SETs excluded, of course.) Of course, they could say, any 'competent' wine must have a specific gravity between x and y. I'm sure oenologists use specific gravity measurements in their work of creating fine wines...but....the purpose of wine is to be drunk, and the only basis for evaluating them is taste. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the only basis for evaluating automobiles is road feel. Likewise with audio equipment. The design engineer measures, the customer listens.. Well, let's hope that design engineer used objective measurements! bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
chung wrote in message ...
2. Degradation effects MAY exist in amplifiers that are unknown to engineering science, which are not revealed by the usual measurements. [Reasoning: Complex waveforms may behave in ways that are not entirely described by the usual methods.] I would not agree with point #3. I would also disagree with the adjective 'objective' (measurements) in point 1. There is no basis for claiming measurements are 'objective'. Now you are trying to justify why you yourself are a subjectivist. I don't see anything you wrote conflicting with Doug Self's description. Doug stated the symptoms, and you are trying to justify those symptoms. Now when you said measurements are not objective, you have totally lost me and, I'm sure, others. Measurements are repeatable, based on instruments, and are not subjective. For instance, you run a frequency response measurement, and the results are what the instruments measure. If someone else use the same instrument and run the same test, the results are the same. So how are measurements not objective? They are not related in any direct way to what we perceive. Did you not read the example of the wine's specific gravity? 'Objective' must also be 'relevant'. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 5/20/2004 9:39 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: _Jfrc.1950$JC5.259524@attbi_s54 Bromo wrote: Actually - an "objectivist" (the non-Ayn Rand type) and "subjectivist" tend to resemble each other in many ways.ÀšÃ‚Â* Both are interested in having good sounding systems - and both have a method (trial and error or measurement) of achieving this.ÀšÃ‚Â* They BOTH tend to have systems that sound good. I suspect that objectivists in practice pay a lot less attention to measurements than you think we do. I suspect that varies from person to person. Nousaine just posted that measurements are the primary criteria for his decisions. I beg your pardon. Why not refer to what I said. Were not price, features, size and power capability mentioned as my criteria for amplifiers? Where was measurements mentioned? It is true that I chose my speakers based on measured (and audible) performance. How about subwoofers? Performance. The real difference is that we also don't pay much attention to subjective impressions that we know could be imaginary. Really? How do you choose speakers then? Are most objectivists conducting bias controled auditions of speakers? I think not. I use whatever bias controls are feasible for all evaluative listening. With speakers this includes obvious bias-reducers (like common program material, audio obstacle programs) that subjectivists either don't understand or apparently never even consider I would say both extremes are caricatures. This one sure is: An extreme "objectivist" would never feel the need to actually listen to a sound system before purchase since the specification and measurements would say enough - but would be fully willing to hire a lab to determine if a piece of equipment is suitable. I don't need to hire a lab. I own one. It may be the extreme but it seems to be the reality for the extreme and not just a caricature. But the same is true for the subjectivists. The extreme does exist and is every bit as wacky. I am an extreme subjectivist. I attempt to listen to ONLY acoustical performance. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:
|
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:EM5sc.100462$iF6.9325934@attbi_s02...
On 22 May 2004 16:24:27 GMT, Bromo wrote: On 5/22/04 11:51 AM, in article 9GKrc.96267$xw3.5522754@attbi_s04, "Bruce J. Richman" wrote: The "prove it" mentality which some objectivists tend to demonstrate whenever individual preferences are mentioned is, of course, simply an attempt to deny an individual's right to prefer one product over another. Kind of like declaring "I like vanilla ice cream" and having a bunch of people descend upon you and claim that your testing methods are flawed and that you prove that vanilla is superior to all the other flavors - and in certain blind tests - vanilla ice cream did not distinguish itself as a clearly superior ice cream to all others! Unfortunately, the above is just another typical strawman, one of an army which Richman seems determined to create. This statement is patently false and illustrates, in my judgment, the lengths to which Pinkerton will go to spread disinformation about this poster. It is significant to observe that Pinkerton has presented no empirical evidence to support the ridiculous and misleading statement he has made about my intentions or actual behavior re. strawmen. Where are the statistics to support his inflammatory claim? And as for my motivations, he is obviously unqualified to evaluate them. It is indeed ironic that Pinkerton would complain about strawmen erected by this poster, especially since quite recently, in this very thread, he attempted to erect his own in connection with one of my posts. More specifically, in discussing DBT's, he attempted to argue that these do not involve measurements as opposed to my indication that they do. I'm ready to cite the Google reference for this exchange if it is needed to verify my claim. Needless to say, it was quite easy to destroy his strawman by simply pointing out that DBT's are *not* simply subjective impressions, as he tried to assert in his argument, but quite clearly *both* subjective impressions *and* measurements of a testee's ability to discriminate between 2 stimuli presented under bias-controlled conditions. If they were not designed to elicit measurements, why conduct DBT's? Objectivists only say 'prove it' when someone claims that one wire *sounds* different from another. This is not a matter of 'preference', it is a claim of *difference*, and no such claim has *ever* been substantiated. Prefer fat yellow wires to skinny blue wires all you like, but don't try to tell us that they *sound* different - because that just ain't so! Pinkerton can speak for himself, but it would not appear reasonable for him to speak for other objectivists. As with subjectivists, there would appear to be many "flavors", with different perceptionss and/or responses to the same questions. Pinkerton also has neglected to observe that in making my observation, I deliberately used the term "some objectivists" and did not make a blanket statement about objectivists. Be that as it may, it is indeed ironic that one of the first to complain about lack of evidence for assertions made by others, has not provided any evidence to support his own assertions. Again, he has presented no evidence, nor can he, to support his exaggerated and false claim that I have presented an "army of strawman" and am "determined to create" them. To substantiate his first irresponsible statement, he would need to supply statistical evidence. He has not and can not. To substantiate his second claim, he would have to be able to read my mind, and/or evaluate my motives. He can do neither. It appears that he has failed to meet several criteria often demanded by SOME objectivists of others. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
However, unlike the omniscient objectivists who consider the subject closed and not subject to debate, This is quite disgraceful, sir. If you want to have a debate, the least you can do is not start out by slandering your opponents. And you, sir, are guilty of character assassination.Â* Nobody has been Â* slandered, Ahem. "...the omniscient objectivists who consider the subject closed and not subject to debate..." is what I meant by slander. It isn't true, and someone who's been reading this newsgroup as long as you have ought to know that it isn't true. We "omniscients" have repeatedly asked for counterevidence, and invited people to try controlled experiments that would prove that their perceptions are real. Indeed, Tom Nousaine has even offered to help conduct such experiments. That's hardly the behavior of people who think a subject is closed to debate. Your recent posts have been peppered with insinuations about objectivists--that we want to close off debate, that we do nothing but look at measurements, even that we intentionally only do measurements that will make components look the same. These are false, and, as one of the obvious objects of these insinuations, I find them derogatory. False and derogatory comes pretty close to the legal definition of slander. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
Tom Nousaine wrote: What they need to stop doing is claiming that their asmplifiers have special sound quality attributes based on acoustical characteristics that cannot be identified when a figurative blindfold is produced. And they should cease recommending these products to neophytes and newbies based on these attributes that have never been shown to exist. Or they should stop carping over the extant evidence and produce some credible evidence of their own to support their claims. None of this says that you shouldn't be happy with any decision you've made about any gear you've acquired or tweaks or modifications you've made. No, of course not .Â* It is just a rather transparent attempt to eliminateall publications, internet reviews, etc. in which audiophiles, reviewers, and others given their subjective impressions of components they have heard and/or used. Do you really believe this? That we're in the censorship business? It also represents an attempt to prevent newbies and others from getting information from a variety of sources, including subjective reviews, to use a guide in narrowing down the large number of products under consideration.Â* No doubt that anti-preference frame of reference would also favor all decisions being made, therefore, on the basis of printed specifications.Â* After all, why even bother to audition products? Where do you get this stuff??? You seem to live in some alternative sphere where your own freedom to choose audio components for whatever reason you like is being taken away from you by some hypothetical group of people idiotic enough to make all their purchasing decisions "on the basis of printed specifications." (There's that strawman again.) Nobody's stopping you from buying anything you like. And nobody's stopping TAS from writing anything they like. The OP's point was that people who wax poetic on the subject of amp sound ought at least to demonstrate that they can tell two amps apart by sound alone. Do you think that's unreasonable? All these dogmatic statements illustrate is the central point I've been making - Dialogue between the 2 camps is as useless ad tryinj to convert others. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of those who favor personal auditions and listening over blind faith based on measurements Once again, no one puts blind faith in measurements--see Nousaine's response to you. Will you now desist in this canard? alone - and at that, -probably a carefully selected *set* of measurements often designed to minimize differences, are ready to abandon their right to evaluate and perceive products as they see fit. "...probably a carefully selected *set* of measurements often designed to minimize differences..." Are you serious? Do you think engineers invented THD to try to pull the wool over your eyes? Note that I am not disparaging or even disagreeing with the use of bias-controlled testing by those who consider the sine qua non for making their own decisions, or even as a legitimate research tool in product development. However, attempts to deny an individual the right to use whatever terms they choose to use in describing their own individual experience in hearing a product Since you object to my earlier accusation of slander, let me challenge you to quote--directly--one case of an "[attempt] to deny an individual the *right* [emph added] to use whatever terms they choose to use in describing their own individual experience in hearing a product." Just one. Or else admit that you made this up out of whole cloth. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life from MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ALL amps are equal?? | Car Audio | |||
| Light weight system challenge | Car Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
| Southeast Invitational Sound Challenge | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
