Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the need
itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read about,
that attempted to establish something on an objective level, seemed to be
designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences operate."
is not


In the most basic of tests the connection of gear is covered by a cloth,
choice of sound source and length of listening is open ended. All
attempts
to determine a difference above the level of chance have failed. Wherein
does this disturb that you assert in your claim? Agreeing that testing can
reveal the validity of a truth claim is indeed the source of the problem.
It is the old "don't confuse me with the facts" better not to know
subjective view.

The subjective enterprise is a sub culture wherein the internal rewards
are
not in the validity of it's truth claims but in it's self reinforcing
claims of individual abilities above the swarming masses using gear they
can't even afford to have or are too ignorant to appreciate.

  #563   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.


I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.

Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


You obviously don't get it. We are not 'doing science', but chosing
(and evaluating) equipment. That is not to say that we believe that
what we hear is imaginary. In other words, we don't think that what we
claim VIOLATES any scientific principles or even the principle of
parsimony. We believe that there are differences in the products
themselves, however subtle they may be. Speaking for myself, I don't
care what causes those differences, but so long as they correlate with
the presence of the product in my system, my money is bet on the
difference being located in the product. (If we were 'doing science',
we would be involved in that investigation. But we're not 'doing
science'.)

It strains anyone's credulity to believe that my brain can create,
flawlessly and conistently, a whole panorama of sonic differences among
seven amplifiers. To insist that these things are 'all in my head' is
therefore to be dismissed without even the merest consideration. It's
absurd. You don't have a detailed case for 'all in my head' and you
know it.


bob


  #565   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Chung
wrote:

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read
about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level,
seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences
operate.

Mike


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5c9b8c?dmode=s
ource


Interesting. I see it more this way:
Subjectivist: On a certain recording through various audio systems, the
trumpets sound nothing like trumpets I've ever heard live.

Objectivist: There is no indication from my measuring devices that
indicate that those trumpets sound less like real trumpets, therefore
there is no proof of your statement, therefore your statement is false.



  #566   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.


And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read
about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level,
seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences
operate.

Mike


IIRC, you used to have a Caltech email address and claimed that you
studied there. I am frankly shocked to find a graduate from Caltech
making the above statement. I am also very surprised that you posted
this statement:

***
"More and more I get the feeling that you, and Stewart, and Chung simply
*can't* hear the differences between components. While I'm sure they
enjoy music very much, it would seem that their listening lacks layers
and depth--lacks the sorts of experiences that stimulate one to reflect
on the nature of the act of listening."
***

When called upon, you then stated that it was simply "a suggestion that
some people are more sensitive than others". You made a clear attack of
the hearing ability of specifically those who disagree with some of your
views, and tried to explain it away as a "simple fact of nature". It is
amazing that someone who went to Caltech could not understand a general
statement from a personal attack, or did not have the intellectual
honesty to admit having made such an attack. I would also add that I am
very disappointed to see a Caltech graduate debating here with less
skills and rigor than a middle school student.

  #567   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:


Excuse me, but you have been engaging others in this torturous
discussion for way too long ...



This is one of the differences between the "camps"-- this sort of
discussion may be torture for you, but to me it is interesting and very
relevant. I'm enjoying Mark's posts. I get the feeling that rahe is for
you, a turf you would like to protect from claims of things you
disagree with.


I don't share your feeling at all. I like a lively debate of opposing
ideas as much as anyone else, but in this case, we are going over the
same points, since, oh, the middle of June, or so. And Mark still wants
to "debate" what it means when two things sound the same, or if there
are no differences between them. It takes someone with a lot more
scientific curiosity than I have to find this particular point worth
further elaboration after almost three months.


You just don't like the way the conversation has gone. Much of the
initial effort on this thread was concerned with differentiating the
implications of "identification" tests from those of "discrimination"
tests (it was eventually agreed that the latter are the standard tests,
and the results of the former are questionable).

What was the origin of this? In large part, it was your suggestion, in
the "will sound improve with a sacd player?" thread, to "let someone
else change the player so that you don't know whether it is playing the
CD or the SACD layer. Then you try to guess which layer is being
played" (May 25, 7:57 pm), which is to recommend an identification
test.

If you don't have the patience to follow through on the implications of
your ideas, and the considerable advice you give in this group, no one
says you have to, but don't complain if others examine those ideas and,
sometimes, criticize them.

Mark

  #568   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 21:16:25 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:


Begs the question, which is what is the basis of the inference from (1)
the listener not detecting a difference in quick switching to (2) the
perceptual effects of 5-minute stretches being the same.


Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that the threshold of audibility is
the same in each case. What is being said is that if a difference is
not heard *in either case*, then *by definition* there is no audible
difference, regardless of the test conditions.


p.s. Again, what you say here blurs the distinction between (a) whether
the perceptual effects of two 5-minute stretches are the same, and (b)
whether the listener can reliably judge, after hearing the two
stretches in succession, that they are the same (or different). If you
want to *define* the term "audible difference" along the lines of (b),
then nothing stops you, but it's still possible for there to be a
relevant difference in perceptual effects, along the lines of (a),
without the *perception of a difference*. No "definition" will make
those things the same.

If I understand you right, you're assuming that if there is a relevant
difference between perceptions A and B, then it has to be reflected in
discrimination behavior, in the perception *of* a difference. That is
precisely the assumption I call into question (as others, earlier, have
done as well, Harry among them I believe).

Mark

  #569   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read
about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level,
seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences
operate.

Mike


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...c?dmode=source



Well, Chung, what you have written is a parody but not an accurate
statement of the subjectivist position.

First of all, I make no claim that it is somehow inherently impossible
to prove that correctly functioning amps and cd players (CFAACP) sound
different. It may well be possible to prove.

Secondly, it does sound funny when someone tries to claim that bringing
the cameras and recorders somehow makes it impossible to see pink
elephants. Because pink elephants fly in the objective, physical world,
and generally things in the physical world aren't affected by what's
observing them.

Things in the quantuum world ARE affected by the observer. But that may
be neither here nor there.

What is relevant is that the subjective world operates differently than
the objective world, with regards to observers and feelings. For
example, all of the following are DISTINCT phemonoma:

- listening to music, and noticing, "The mids are so sweet."

- listening to music, but specifically to the midrange, and noticing,
"The mids are so sweet."

- asking oneself whether the mids are sweet and deciding yes

All of these experiences get communicated by the same language, which
is "the mids are sweet." However, they arise in different contexts, and
they are absolutely not equivalent experiences. For example, if I
notice that the mids are sweet, and then later ask myself if the mids
are sweet, there is no reason I should come up with the same answer to
that question. What is noticed spontaneously is different than what is
queried.

The fact that these are different experiences is evident from
self-observation. What is also evident is that you can move through the
world just fine *without* recognizing these distinctions. However, the
world becomes a less subtle place. From your use of language, it
appears you do not recognize these distinctions. That's fine--your
reality, then, is consistent, coherent, and can be supported by
experiments *which themselves fail to make the same distinctions.*

However, I make no claim that observations of subtle emotional
experiences are impossible. I claim only that the DBT's I've read about
are like a clumsy giant attempting to walk daintily through a china
shop.

Mike

  #570   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray.


Then again, it can lead to things like...the computer you typed your
reply on. You know, the products of science and technology 'n
stuff like that.



The context you imply here would seem to be a false dichotomy. Either
science is always right or science is always wrong.

Of course science and engineering are successful at predicting and
controlling the behavior of the objective world.

But activities practiced by pyscho-acousticians are not necessarily
successful at predicting and controlling the subjective world.

I know you've mentioned before that science is employed in the design
of audiophile equipment--as though there were some inherent
contradiction in enjoying that equipment while "rejecting the science."

Of course it is employed. Audio components exist simultaneously on the
objective and subjective level--they are objective objects, but they
are also the target of subjective observation. Naturally, ideas from
both levels contribute to their design.

Mike



  #571   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 21:16:25 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree.

You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more
real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a
simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the
listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener."
mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are
right.

But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim:
"If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources
*must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true?
Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here?

If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the
claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore
sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it?


I hadn't thought so, but for a counterexample to your claim please see
my post of Aug. 24, 8:09 pm.


No. If you have something to say, then *quote* it. However, you appear
to have expended several thousand lines saying nothing up to this
point, so perhaps this is a lost cause.


Only if you think that saying something *other* than "sighted testing
is unreliable," which surely you and others have repeated considerably
more often than anything I have said, is saying nothing.

Would you agree that, for most if not all cases in which a person hears
a sound, there is a certain degree of loudness that, on that occasion,
the listener perceives the sound as having? Suppose then that a
listener hears sound A, followed by a certain amount of time and/or
noise, then sound B. Suppose he is unable to judge which, if either,
was louder. There is a degree of loudness the listener heard A, on
that occasion, as having; call it x. There is a degree of loudness the
listener heard B, on that occasion, as having; call it y. (I've
changed the notation slightly from what was in my earlier post.)

Would you say now, given the information so far, and given everything
we know about hearing, that it *must* be the case that x = y? Or is it
possible, given this information and everything we know about hearing,
that x and y might be different?

Mark

  #572   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.


I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.

Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


You obviously don't get it. We are not 'doing science', but chosing
(and evaluating) equipment.


And then making public statements about said equipment based on those
evaluations. Which apparently you expect to be
accepted either with universal agreement, approval, or polite silence,
here.

That is not to say that we believe that
what we hear is imaginary.


Though it might be. Why can't you say that? It's a reasonable
possibility.

In other words, we don't think that what we
claim VIOLATES any scientific principles or even the principle of
parsimony.


Well, I'm afraid some here may disagree. Especially if you make an
explicit claim ABOUT your claim, like this.

We believe that there are differences in the products
themselves, however subtle they may be. Speaking for myself, I don't
care what causes those differences,


Apparently you do, given your claim above about them not being
imaginary. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be so definite
about that.

but so long as they correlate with
the presence of the product in my system, my money is bet on the
difference being located in the product. (If we were 'doing science',
we would be involved in that investigation. But we're not 'doing
science'.)


But you just categorically ruled out a possible cause of difference, above.
Based on a simply perceiving a difference. You're right, that's not science.
It's not good reasoning, either. It's more akin to blind faith.

It strains anyone's credulity to believe that my brain can create,
flawlessly and conistently, a whole panorama of sonic differences among
seven amplifiers.


That's called an argument from incredulity, btw. One of several
classical modes of faulty reasoning.

To insist that these things are 'all in my head' is
therefore to be dismissed without even the merest consideration. It's
absurd. You don't have a detailed case for 'all in my head' and you
know it.


I'm afraid the scientific literature.... which you claim isn't relevant
to the discussion anyway....contradicts you there.



--

-S

  #573   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:


wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.


I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.


So true, just as I can't prove that I prefer yellow mustard to brown; I
just believe that I do.


A simple statement of preference like that is pretty much inviolate on
its face. (Though actually it could be tested whether you *really*
tend to prefer yellow to brown for its *taste*, or color, or some other
attribute you might claim as the reason)

Underlying it is an implicit claim of real gustatory difference between the
two kinds of mustard. That claim is quite reasonable , given what we
know about mustard and the sensation of taste.

Contrast this with a claim of audible difference between two cables
of similar electrical characteristics.

Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


I'm afraid that this approach doesn't work. Several times now, when
describing why I enjoy the sound of X vs. Y, without getting into any
"science", I am in effect told that my opinion is silly because I can't
prove that I hear what I hear.


People naturally think in cause-and-effect terms. So they naturally
come up with personal 'reasons' why something is the way it is.
But *reasons* people give for why they prefer any X to Y -- or even
why they think X and Y are different -- aren't necessarily based on
sound *reasoning*. And therefore can be wrong. An example would
be someone insisting that they preferred A to B because A tastes
better than B, but in fact preferring B to A when the brand names
weren't known to them, so that the *only* information they had was
taste.






--

-S

  #574   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray.


Then again, it can lead to things like...the computer you typed your
reply on. You know, the products of science and technology 'n
stuff like that.



The context you imply here would seem to be a false dichotomy. Either
science is always right or science is always wrong.


I certainly don't imply that, nor would I ever intentionally do so.

The need to *explain* seems to be natural in Homo sap. The explanation
can be led astray by faulty reasoning. The instinct to explain, to apply
reason, has produced all our religions as well as our science and
technology.

Of course science and engineering are successful at predicting and
controlling the behavior of the objective world.


But activities practiced by pyscho-acousticians are not necessarily
successful at predicting and controlling the subjective world.


Certainly psychoacoustics strives to be *predictive* as well as
*descriptive*, as does any science. Certainly psychoacoustics
has achieved some predictive successes. Are you aware of them?

I know you've mentioned before that science is employed in the design
of audiophile equipment


not always consistently, alas.

--as though there were some inherent
contradiction in enjoying that equipment while "rejecting the science."


There is a certain self-blinkering going on when someone enjoys the
fruits of scientific method while insisting that it doesn't apply
to *them*.

Of course it is employed. Audio components exist simultaneously on the
objective and subjective level--they are objective objects, but they
are also the target of subjective observation. Naturally, ideas from
both levels contribute to their design.


I'm not talking about aesthetic appreciation of equipment.

I am talking about how we come to conclusions about *why* we heard
what we heard.

These conclusions can be based on sound chains of reasoning, or bad ones.


--

-S

  #575   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:

p.s. Again, what you say here blurs the distinction between (a) whether
the perceptual effects of two 5-minute stretches are the same, and (b)
whether the listener can reliably judge, after hearing the two
stretches in succession, that they are the same (or different).


That's because there is no distinction. And THAT'S because there is no
such thing as a "perceptual effect."

If you
want to *define* the term "audible difference" along the lines of (b),
then nothing stops you, but it's still possible for there to be a
relevant difference in perceptual effects, along the lines of (a),
without the *perception of a difference*. No "definition" will make
those things the same.


Again, there is no such thing as a perceptual effect, independent of
perception. The only possible evidence that two things are perceivably
different is that they are perceived differently.

You are merely playing at semantics here.

bob



  #576   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:

Interesting. I see it more this way:
Subjectivist: On a certain recording through various audio systems, the
trumpets sound nothing like trumpets I've ever heard live.


No objectivist would ever quarrel with a statement like this.

If the statement were "The trumpets sound more real on this CD player
than that one," however, we might question whether you can really
distinguish between the two. But that is an entirely different
proposition.

Objectivist: There is no indication from my measuring devices that
indicate that those trumpets sound less like real trumpets, therefore
there is no proof of your statement, therefore your statement is false.


Nor would an objectivist ever say this. We don't have measurements that
can tell us that something *sounds* more or less real.

We do have measurements that allow us to predict whether you could
really distinguish between two CD players, however. And that would tell
us whether the observation that "The trumpets sound more real on this
CD player than that one" was based on the actual physical sound or some
other factor.

That is part of what makes audio objectivism scientific--the ability to
make testable hypotheses by correlating measurements with perceptions.
Subjectivists have no theory from which to derive testable hypotheses.

bob

  #577   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.


I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.


So true, just as I can't prove that I prefer yellow mustard to brown; I
just believe that I do.


You don't just believe you prefer it. You actually DO prefer it. (But
do you really? Yecch.)

OTOH, you could use a blind comparison to determine whether you prefer
it because of the color or because of the taste. Perhaps that's what
you meant by "believe." Now, nothing requires you to do this test. But
if you don't do it, then you have no basis for asserting (were you wont
to) that you prefer yellow for its taste, not its color.

Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


I'm afraid that this approach doesn't work. Several times now, when
describing why I enjoy the sound of X vs. Y, without getting into any
"science", I am in effect told that my opinion is silly because I can't
prove that I hear what I hear.


But that's because you're posting in a thread specifically on the
question of audio tests, and how we know what we know. In that context,
what would otherwise be a simple and unassailable statement of
preference will inevitably (and, I think, rightly) be taken as
something more than that.

bob

  #578   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9 Sep 2005 02:42:45 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5c9b8c?dmode=s
ource


Interesting. I see it more this way:
Subjectivist: On a certain recording through various audio systems, the
trumpets sound nothing like trumpets I've ever heard live.

Objectivist: There is no indication from my measuring devices that
indicate that those trumpets sound less like real trumpets, therefore
there is no proof of your statement, therefore your statement is false.


That is a typical 'subjectivist' strawman.

Objectivist: When the speakers and the trumpeter stand before you,
behind a thin gauze curtain, can you still tell which is playing? If
not, then your statement is false.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #579   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9 Sep 2005 02:44:16 GMT, Chung wrote:

wrote:


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read
about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level,
seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences
operate.


IIRC, you used to have a Caltech email address and claimed that you
studied there. I am frankly shocked to find a graduate from Caltech
making the above statement.


Maintaining the objectivist position - where's the evidence that he
graduated? :-)

You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #580   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.


I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true; and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.


So true, just as I can't prove that I prefer yellow mustard to brown; I
just believe that I do.


Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone. Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


I'm afraid that this approach doesn't work. Several times now, when
describing why I enjoy the sound of X vs. Y, without getting into any
"science", I am in effect told that my opinion is silly because I can't
prove that I hear what I hear.


A partial answer ... some would say that science gives us a simple
criterion that will tell us when there *can't* be a difference between
X and Y that's relevant to perception, so it must all be in your head.
If it makes you feel any better, no one here has convinced me that they
have a clear understanding of how science purportedly shows this.

Mark



  #581   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is, I believe, the product I am currently using:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

I no longer have the previous Monster Cable that was replaced by this.

This cable is far from the most expensive on the market, and I believe
it is a good buy.

I make no claims about the product other than I am highly satisfied
with my purchase, and would buy it again.

  #583   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...


snip prior discussion between Jenn and Steven




People naturally think in cause-and-effect terms. So they naturally
come up with personal 'reasons' why something is the way it is.
But *reasons* people give for why they prefer any X to Y -- or even
why they think X and Y are different -- aren't necessarily based on
sound *reasoning*. And therefore can be wrong. An example would
be someone insisting that they preferred A to B because A tastes
better than B, but in fact preferring B to A when the brand names
weren't known to them, so that the *only* information they had was
taste.


Let's take the big, bad bogie of brands that you refer to above.

The well known case of Pepsi and Coke is a case in point, and may be what
you have in mind. You are talking about a brand that has had hundreds of
millions of dollars spent behind it to establish itself as an American icon.
That is more the exception than the rule. I doubt a taste test between
Fanta and A&W would show the same results. Moreover, the products do taste
different, and who is to say that Coke's "taste" in combination with it's
image is an invalid preference to Pepsi's taste in combination with it's
"image". As a company I would want to be able to separate the two; but as a
consumer if I am happy buying Coke versus Pepsi, what's the big deal. Is
Coke a charlatan because of its commitment to meaningful (to the consumer)
advertising for many years?

In the Audio field, perhaps ARC, Levinson, and MacIntosh have achieved a
somewhat similar standing, and many mid-fi brands perhaps a negative image
(some deservedly so). Many of the smaller and esoteric high-end brands,
even if well thought of, are explored by audiophiles usually with an
inquisitive mindset and are much less prone to an overwhelming brand bias.
And anybody who buys a brand just because of a review, a "look", or a
salesman's "gush" is a fool soon parted from his money. The much-maligned
Stereophile makes a big point, well know to it's readers, about how to use
its ratings guidelines only as a tool. And most Stereophile readers in
comments written here and elsewhere show they know how to "use" reviewers to
align with or run counter to their own perceptions. My guess is that in the
audio field, brands are no more, and perhaps less, important than in other
consumer product fields. A decent review by a reviewer trusted by the
buyer, a quality demo, good feelings about the dealer, and longevity and
support by the manufacturer probably have more impact in determining what
one "brings home". After that, trial in one's own system usually makes the
final call.

Now, in the home, does the combination of above factors influence results?
In some cases, I am sure it does. But it may also be that the equipment
under test *in the system* corrects a perceived deficiency exactly the way
the buyer wanted. And in some cases, the buyer will perceive that the
difference, if any, is so slight as to not make it worthwhile. So the unit
is returned.

This is how high-end audio equipment generally is bought. Not too different
from how reasonably affluent people buy other big-ticket items....cars, home
appliances, cameras, etc. Some research each aspect of the choice
thoroughly, some take a lot on faith. And all without an ABX "difference"
test. Imagine that.


  #585   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
This is, I believe, the product I am currently using:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

I no longer have the previous Monster Cable that was replaced by this.


The pricing is rather interesting. The 1st 0.5m costs $75. Adding a
quarter of a meter, making it 0.75m, adds only $5 to the price. But adding
yet another quarter of a meter costs $20! The next 4 quarters of a meter
costs $7.50 ea. I wonder if there's an error in the website.

Norm Strong




  #586   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote in message
...
This is, I believe, the product I am currently using:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

I no longer have the previous Monster Cable that was replaced by this.


The pricing is rather interesting. The 1st 0.5m costs $75. Adding a
quarter of a meter, making it 0.75m, adds only $5 to the price. But adding
yet another quarter of a meter costs $20! The next 4 quarters of a meter
costs $7.50 ea. I wonder if there's an error in the website.


Or perhaps their math is as bad as their science.

bob

  #587   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The much-maligned Stereophile makes a big point, well know to it's
readers,
about how to useits ratings guidelines only as a tool. And most
Stereophile readers in comments written here and elsewhere show they know
how to "use" reviewers to align with or run counter to their own
perceptions."

One of the most oft repeated cliches in "reviews" and elsewhere is that
even a small change in the system can make a huge difference in sound.
Which means by definition that by this very same criteria any reviewer's
opinion is not useful for others to consider because they don't have the
exact same system in the same context as was that in the review. This is
made even more problematical when it is also oft reported that various
bits
of swapped gear was used during the review period. "Reviewing" is part of
marketing the ethos of the subjective enterprise and the entertainment and
self reinforcement value therein.

  #588   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:

p.s. Again, what you say here blurs the distinction between (a) whether
the perceptual effects of two 5-minute stretches are the same, and (b)
whether the listener can reliably judge, after hearing the two
stretches in succession, that they are the same (or different).


That's because there is no distinction. And THAT'S because there is no
such thing as a "perceptual effect."

If you
want to *define* the term "audible difference" along the lines of (b),
then nothing stops you, but it's still possible for there to be a
relevant difference in perceptual effects, along the lines of (a),
without the *perception of a difference*. No "definition" will make
those things the same.


Again, there is no such thing as a perceptual effect, independent of
perception. The only possible evidence that two things are perceivably
different is that they are perceived differently.


One way to put the issue is, are two perceptions different in respect
of what properties we perceive the things in question to have? (I.e.,
we perceive A as having property P, and do not perceive B as having
property P.) I think you too quickly paraphrase this in terms of
whether things are "perceivably different," meaning that we perceive a
difference; I think that's begging the question.

If you are saying: the only possible evidence that perceptions differ
in respect of properties perceived is that the things are actually
discriminated from one another, then why should we think that?
Psychoacoustics can and does furnish a theoretical basis on which there
can be evidence of a less direct sort. For instance, we could have
reason to think that a subject hears sound A as having a certain
loudness x, and later hears sound B as having a certain loudness y.
Suppose the subject never actually compares them; still, there will be
a fact of the matter about whether x and y are the same or different.
In a case where our theory predicts, for example, that x and y will be
different, we'd have evidence that the perceptions are different (in
respect of what properties we perceive the sounds to have), even though
the subject doesn't actually discriminate the sounds.


You are merely playing at semantics here.


No. It's a point about perception that's relevant to everything on
this thread, and to many of the claims people make on the group.

Mark

  #590   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray.

Then again, it can lead to things like...the computer you typed your
reply on. You know, the products of science and technology 'n
stuff like that.



The context you imply here would seem to be a false dichotomy. Either
science is always right or science is always wrong.


I certainly don't imply that, nor would I ever intentionally do so.

The need to *explain* seems to be natural in Homo sap. The explanation
can be led astray by faulty reasoning. The instinct to explain, to apply
reason, has produced all our religions as well as our science and
technology.

Of course science and engineering are successful at predicting and
controlling the behavior of the objective world.


But activities practiced by pyscho-acousticians are not necessarily
successful at predicting and controlling the subjective world.


Certainly psychoacoustics strives to be *predictive* as well as
*descriptive*, as does any science. Certainly psychoacoustics
has achieved some predictive successes. Are you aware of them?

I know you've mentioned before that science is employed in the design
of audiophile equipment


not always consistently, alas.

--as though there were some inherent
contradiction in enjoying that equipment while "rejecting the science."


There is a certain self-blinkering going on when someone enjoys the
fruits of scientific method while insisting that it doesn't apply
to *them*.


I don't agree with this. This would only be true if the scientific
method were first of all, something perfectly defined and universal,
and second of all the best way to study everything. But to clarify my
own perspective, I don't think the scientific method is a single,
well-defined thing. Usually it invovles people working with falsifiable
theories, empirical data, mathematic models, logic and so on. But I
don't think that someone doing all the those things is necessarily on
the right track.

There is nothing in my own theories that prevents me from constructing
falsifiable theories, gathering empirical data, and so on. I could do
this, if I had enough time and money. I would start from a different
place than the psycho-acoustics you describe; different emphasis,
different starting assumptions.

Anyway, I think it is misleading to say that the activities which led
to understanding of electronic components are fundamentally the same
activities which led to your description of psycho-acoustical
knowledge.




Of course it is employed. Audio components exist simultaneously on the
objective and subjective level--they are objective objects, but they
are also the target of subjective observation. Naturally, ideas from
both levels contribute to their design.


I'm not talking about aesthetic appreciation of equipment.

I am talking about how we come to conclusions about *why* we heard
what we heard.

These conclusions can be based on sound chains of reasoning, or bad ones.


I would agree that it would be an unsound chain of reasoning to say
that a difference in the sound existed, as a result of hearing a
difference in a sighted test.

However, sometimes it might happen to be true that a difference
existed.

In other words, it may be illogical to insist that a differenece
existed. While at the same time, maybe one did.

Mike



  #592   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 02:42:45 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5c9b8c?dmode=s
ource


Interesting. I see it more this way:
Subjectivist: On a certain recording through various audio systems, the
trumpets sound nothing like trumpets I've ever heard live.

Objectivist: There is no indication from my measuring devices that
indicate that those trumpets sound less like real trumpets, therefore
there is no proof of your statement, therefore your statement is false.


That is a typical 'subjectivist' strawman.

Objectivist: When the speakers and the trumpeter stand before you,
behind a thin gauze curtain, can you still tell which is playing? If
not, then your statement is false.


I took what Jenn wrote to be something like this: that between two
sounds A & B, both of which are not exactly like a trumpet and can
easily be distinguished from a real trumpet and from each other, which
one is closest to a real trumpet? Which is definitely a matter of
opinion and perspective.

Mike

  #593   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 03:37:14 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims.

I truly appreciate the essential honesty of this statement. Maybe
it's time for all the subjectivists out there to just admit that: 1)
they can't prove that their beliefs are true;


What 'beliefs' are you talking about?


Your belief that you hear differences among cables.

and 2) they don't
care that they can't prove that their beliefs are true. They just
believe them.


We are also aware that you cannot disprove that we can hear the
differences between cables in a familiar environment and under normal
conditions.


Sure we can - but you guys refuse to be tested, even though there's
ahealthy cash prize.


I don't refuse to be tested. I would like to do some more blind
experiments to learn more about the condtions under which I'm most
sensitive. Since I live alone and don't have any audiophile buddies,
this is not likely to happen any time soon, but if it does, and if I
think I have sufficient sensitivity to tell the differences between
cables, I'm willing to be tested.

Actually, I believe that amps & cd players sound quite different, but
I'm not sure about cables.


Once you're past that, you can start all the threads you want talking
about what amps and cables sound like to you, and which ones you bought
and why. Chung, Stewart, Sully and I will leave you alone.


No, you won't.


Sure we will, because then you won't be making false claims.

Just leave
out the part where you try to explain WHY things sound the way they
sound to you. If you don't want to do science, stop playing at it.


Exactly.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #594   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:

p.s. Again, what you say here blurs the distinction between (a) whether
the perceptual effects of two 5-minute stretches are the same, and (b)
whether the listener can reliably judge, after hearing the two
stretches in succession, that they are the same (or different).


That's because there is no distinction. And THAT'S because there is no
such thing as a "perceptual effect."

If you
want to *define* the term "audible difference" along the lines of (b),
then nothing stops you, but it's still possible for there to be a
relevant difference in perceptual effects, along the lines of (a),
without the *perception of a difference*. No "definition" will make
those things the same.


Again, there is no such thing as a perceptual effect, independent of
perception. The only possible evidence that two things are perceivably
different is that they are perceived differently.


One way to put the issue is, are two perceptions different in respect
of what properties we perceive the things in question to have? (I.e.,
we perceive A as having property P, and do not perceive B as having
property P.) I think you too quickly paraphrase this in terms of
whether things are "perceivably different," meaning that we perceive a
difference; I think that's begging the question.

If you are saying: the only possible evidence that perceptions differ
in respect of properties perceived is that the things are actually
discriminated from one another, then why should we think that?
Psychoacoustics can and does furnish a theoretical basis on which there
can be evidence of a less direct sort. For instance, we could have
reason to think that a subject hears sound A as having a certain
loudness x, and later hears sound B as having a certain loudness y.
Suppose the subject never actually compares them; still, there will be
a fact of the matter about whether x and y are the same or different.
In a case where our theory predicts, for example, that x and y will be
different, we'd have evidence that the perceptions are different (in
respect of what properties we perceive the sounds to have), even though
the subject doesn't actually discriminate the sounds.


I think that an objectivist might ask, what if conscious perception
depends on many factors other than the attributes of the sound? For
example the perception of the loudness of A depends on what kind of
mood you're in, what you ate for dinner, and what other sounds you just
heard before it. Same with B.

Perhaps this is why the emphasis of the objectivist on comparing A to B
under controlled conditions: because no reliable or predictable
subjective effect exists for a single sound taken in isolation, in
their view.

Mike



You are merely playing at semantics here.


No. It's a point about perception that's relevant to everything on
this thread, and to many of the claims people make on the group.

Mark


  #596   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Just an experience I had this morning ... the timer beeped on my
microwave
and I let it run. It was the same short-long over and over (physically
unchanging in any perceivable respect, I assume). And could I hear it
differently, all sorts of ways! Different groupings, different quality to
the silences, etc. I mention it because it's probably easy for anybody to
replicate."

Fine, let's do another mind experiment. We take your alarm audio source,
record it and make another recording of it where an obvious change in
duration or some other factor is made. The difference is so obvious,ie.
rising above human threshold for that factor, that you can identify it in
all comparisons even when not knowing which is the original and which the
modified signal. We change that factor in steps back toward the original
until we find the level of difference which falls below the threshold.
Even
though the difference is still there and your perceptual experience can
vary as above, you still are unable to distinguish the two signals amongst
that ever changing perception field of experiences. What have we learned
about the role of perception and variations therein and how it applies
more
generally to any listening alone test using any source?

  #597   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
But activities practiced by pyscho-acousticians are not necessarily
successful at predicting and controlling the subjective world.


Certainly psychoacoustics strives to be *predictive* as well as
*descriptive*, as does any science. Certainly psychoacoustics
has achieved some predictive successes. Are you aware of them?

I know you've mentioned before that science is employed in the design
of audiophile equipment


not always consistently, alas.

--as though there were some inherent
contradiction in enjoying that equipment while "rejecting the science."


There is a certain self-blinkering going on when someone enjoys the
fruits of scientific method while insisting that it doesn't apply
to *them*.


I don't agree with this. This would only be true if the scientific
method were first of all, something perfectly defined and universal,
and second of all the best way to study everything. But to clarify my
own perspective, I don't think the scientific method is a single,
well-defined thing. Usually it invovles people working with falsifiable
theories, empirical data, mathematic models, logic and so on. But I
don't think that someone doing all the those things is necessarily on
the right track.


Yes, yes, we know you think this. The problem is, you have no
independent evidence that your beliefs are *true*. Worse, can you even
devise a way to show that they are *false*?

These conclusions can be based on sound chains of reasoning, or bad ones.


I would agree that it would be an unsound chain of reasoning to say
that a difference in the sound existed, as a result of hearing a
difference in a sighted test.


However, sometimes it might happen to be true that a difference
existed.


In other words, it may be illogical to insist that a differenece
existed. While at the same time, maybe one did.


Well, given that this is exactly the 'objectivist' view, I'd hardly
disagree.

Now, how would you go about demonstrating that the difference was
real?


--

-S

  #599   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Sep 2005 02:45:43 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 02:42:45 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5c9b8c?dmode=s
ource

Interesting. I see it more this way:
Subjectivist: On a certain recording through various audio systems, the
trumpets sound nothing like trumpets I've ever heard live.

Objectivist: There is no indication from my measuring devices that
indicate that those trumpets sound less like real trumpets, therefore
there is no proof of your statement, therefore your statement is false.


That is a typical 'subjectivist' strawman.

Objectivist: When the speakers and the trumpeter stand before you,
behind a thin gauze curtain, can you still tell which is playing? If
not, then your statement is false.


I took what Jenn wrote to be something like this: that between two
sounds A & B, both of which are not exactly like a trumpet and can
easily be distinguished from a real trumpet and from each other, which
one is closest to a real trumpet? Which is definitely a matter of
opinion and perspective.


The point is that Jenn claimed the *objectivist* position to be
related only to measurements, which is plainly not the case. A DBT is
a *listening* test, and in that sense subjective - but it is *reliably
and repeatably* subjective.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Topic Police Steve Jorgensen Pro Audio 85 July 9th 04 11:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"