Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative? If the controlled testing is so flawed, as claimed to rationalize results disturbing to dearly held beliefs, then the "audition" silliness done by the hifi mags must be a couple of orders of magnitude so completely useless as to ignore them is the only charitable thing to do. Let's face it, the subjective enterprise folk haven't a leg to stand on, that is the bottom line until or unless evidence to the contrary can be provided to the current benchmark that reported differences during listening alone blind tests don't rise above random guessing. It is quickly becoming apparent that this is rejected not for reasons of validity used in all areas of human research, but because the outcomes are painful and because to some there are no conditions under which it can be confirmed to them. It is a suspension of belief that such can be known and/or the flip of that coin that like esp and astrology we know it is true because one chooses it to be so. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
... "Jenn" wrote in message As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. They don't care to. Their interest (and hobby) is to make the music SOUND good or at its best. Perhaps when and if they ever reach satisfaction with the performance of their systems, they do sit back and enjoy the music for a short while at least. Soon some new piece of equipment or tweak comes along and they are back to fine tuning their systems and probably get equal or bigger kicks doing so. You might have to be careful to not catch the bug yourself as I understand some musicians do get infected. The very fact that musicians, including yourself, are reading here appears to prove that this is true. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
... "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. They don't care to. Their interest (and hobby) is to make the music SOUND good or at its best. Perhaps when and if they ever reach satisfaction with the performance of their systems, they do sit back and enjoy the music for a short while at least. Soon some new piece of equipment or tweak comes along and they are back to fine tuning their systems and probably get equal or bigger kicks doing so. You might have to be careful to not catch the bug yourself as I understand some musicians do get infected. The very fact that musicians, including yourself, are reading here appears to prove that this is true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a high quality audio system to enjoy music. And frankly, you are simply speculating that people who are "into" the hobby are constant, hopeless upgraders. Many of us love music, and stick with equipment for many years if it is musically satisfying. Speaking personally, before I upgraded to five channel three years ago, I lived with a system that had a 20+ year old arm, cartridge and turntable, a 25 year old preamp, an 8 year old power amp (and a 15 year old one before that), a 10 year old CD system, a 20 year old tuner, and 13 year old speakers. I remained an avid, interested audiophile as well as music lover despite the lack of upgrades....primarily because I had used and trusted my sense of "musicality" when I had made previous choices and was very, very happy with the sound. I suspect there are many other audiophiles out there in situations similar to this. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 19:14:14 GMT, wrote: That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. Not at all. A few good listening sessions with real high end equipment cured me of my religious beliefs in the objectivist mantras. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. You seem confused. I was willing to face reality, that is why I gave up the objectivist mantras. I did just use my ears. I have been reaping the benefits ever since, What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. if they were just like me they wouldn't make up their minds about what sounds good before actually listening. Note also that *real* objectivists just roll about the floor laughing at what goes on in these newsgroups.................... I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. Scott |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :
That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a religious conversion. At one time you believed that differences you perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute FAITH in this method of comparing components. Ludovic, Randy, Harry and others have FOR YEARS made logical, well reasoned arguments for a healthy skepticism in ABX (in particular) results. For example, it has been shown that some people are simply incapable of resolving small (but not necessarily unimportant) audible differences under ABX conditions. Have you considered that you may just not be very good at it? Clearly not, as you routinely assert, for example, amplifiers - even those you have not heard - sound the same. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Signal wrote:
You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a religious conversion. At one time you believed that differences you perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute FAITH in this method of comparing components. Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. Ludovic, Randy, Harry and others have FOR YEARS made logical, well reasoned arguments for a healthy skepticism in ABX (in particular) results. There is nothing logical or well-reasoned about assertions that have no evidence to back them up. Such as the following... For example, it has been shown that some people are simply incapable of resolving small (but not necessarily unimportant) audible differences under ABX conditions. Have you considered that you may just not be very good at it? Clearly not, as you routinely assert, for example, amplifiers - even those you have not heard - sound the same. Maybe he can't hear a difference. But you still haven't come up with anybody that can. bob |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Signal" wrote in message
... "Stewart Pinkerton" emitted : That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a religious conversion. I think most of us would consider it as simply facing the facts. At one time you believed that differences you perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute FAITH in this method of comparing components. It's not faith. Ludovic, Randy, Harry and others have FOR YEARS made logical, well reasoned arguments for a healthy skepticism in ABX (in particular) results. They have made arguments that have been consistently blown out of the water, and have consistently mistated, or misrepresented certain facts in order to try and discredit a methodology that has earned a respected place in audio research. For example, it has been shown that some people are simply incapable of resolving small (but not necessarily unimportant) audible differences under ABX conditions. What differences might those be? Have you considered that you may just not be very good at it? Clearly not, as you routinely assert, for example, amplifiers - even those you have not heard - sound the same. And now you are misrepresenting what has been consistently said. It's that amplifiers that are close enough in their response will not be distinguishable. One assumes that measurements are honest and if so then, differences less than of.1dB or less are not audible. This also assumes amps not driven to clipping and capable of driving the speakers the speakers they are connected to. The other thing is, where are the people who CAN hear those differences that you think we might not be able to hear, since routinely, the ones who think they can hear them seem to fail. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. They don't care to. Their interest (and hobby) is to make the music SOUND good or at its best. Perhaps when and if they ever reach satisfaction with the performance of their systems, they do sit back and enjoy the music for a short while at least. Soon some new piece of equipment or tweak comes along and they are back to fine tuning their systems and probably get equal or bigger kicks doing so. You might have to be careful to not catch the bug yourself as I understand some musicians do get infected. The very fact that musicians, including yourself, are reading here appears to prove that this is true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a high quality audio system to enjoy music. The shouldn't the be upgrading speakers, since that's what the evidence clearly shows is the weakest area and the one that makes the biggest and probably only difference, along with room EQ? And frankly, you are simply speculating that people who are "into" the hobby are constant, hopeless upgraders. My experience with people who buy into the high end mythology is that they ARE hopeless upgraders. Many of us love music, and stick with equipment for many years if it is musically satisfying. Glad to hear it. Speaking personally, before I upgraded to five channel three years ago, I lived with a system that had a 20+ year old arm, cartridge and turntable, a 25 year old preamp, an 8 year old power amp (and a 15 year old one before that), a 10 year old CD system, a 20 year old tuner, and 13 year old speakers. I remained an avid, interested audiophile as well as music lover despite the lack of upgrades....primarily because I had used and trusted my sense of "musicality" when I had made previous choices and was very, very happy with the sound. I suspect there are many other audiophiles out there in situations similar to this. Perhaps there are more of you than we know, but there certiabnly are those endless tweakers and the mission of the high end magazines seems to be that there is always something better coming down the pike, even though evidence of better is sorely lacking. Perhaps if more people spent some time reading the research that has been done inot what is audible and invested in some digital EQ, there'd be a lot less criticism of the high end and a lot more happy audiophiles. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Oct 2005 21:28:08 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Oct 2005 19:14:14 GMT, wrote: That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. Not at all. A few good listening sessions with real high end equipment cured me of my religious beliefs in the objectivist mantras. There are no objectivist mantras, and we all accept the existence of top-class speakers and vinyl rigs. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. You seem confused. I was willing to face reality, that is why I gave up the objectivist mantras. I did just use my ears. I have been reaping the benefits ever since, No, you insist on using your eyes as well. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. if they were just like me they wouldn't make up their minds about what sounds good before actually listening. Ah, but you do - whereas we insist on not *knowing* what we're listening to until *after* we've made up our minds. Note also that *real* objectivists just roll about the floor laughing at what goes on in these newsgroups.................... I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. Actually, it's the subjectivists who do the attacking, and this is just another attempt to get the objectivists to shut up. My room sounds just fine, as does my equipment, so I have all the time in the world for debubking sujectivist myths. I already have the best mastered versions of all my favourite music, that doesn't take much time at all. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Oct 2005 21:29:38 GMT, Signal wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted : That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a religious conversion. Certainly, 'the scales fell from my eyes'..... :-) At one time you believed that differences you perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute FAITH in this method of comparing components. I do, but this faith is based on evidence, and hence is not religious faith. Ludovic, Randy, Harry and others have FOR YEARS made logical, well reasoned arguments for a healthy skepticism in ABX (in particular) results. No, they have merely huffed and puffed. I see no logic or reason whatever in their arguments, and it's undeniable that they have provide *zero* evidence in support. For example, it has been shown that some people are simply incapable of resolving small (but not necessarily unimportant) audible differences under ABX conditions. Have you considered that you may just not be very good at it? I'm 57 years old, of course my hearing is not as good as that of a teenage girl (who hasn't been attending lots of raves!). *My* hearing ability is not in question - I know of *no one*, and most especially none of you subjectivists who love to slip in this snide accusation of deafness, who have *ever* demonstrated possession of 'Golden Ears' when they didn't *know* what was playing. You see Dave, I'm not claiming good hearing, I'm saying that *you* don't have the ability to hear 'cable sound'. Furthermore, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. It's very noticeable that, despite all the claims of certainty from the subjectivist camp, not one of you guys has stepped up to the plate, and most definitely not one has offered to make it a bet instead of a prize. I find this a telling argument. Clearly not, as you routinely assert, for example, amplifiers - even those you have not heard - sound the same. A false argument, typical of your desperation. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. They don't care to. Their interest (and hobby) is to make the music SOUND good or at its best. Perhaps when and if they ever reach satisfaction with the performance of their systems, they do sit back and enjoy the music for a short while at least. Soon some new piece of equipment or tweak comes along and they are back to fine tuning their systems and probably get equal or bigger kicks doing so. You might have to be careful to not catch the bug yourself as I understand some musicians do get infected. The very fact that musicians, including yourself, are reading here appears to prove that this is true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a high quality audio system to enjoy music. The shouldn't the be upgrading speakers, since that's what the evidence clearly shows is the weakest area and the one that makes the biggest and probably only difference, along with room EQ? I assume you mean they *should* be upgrading speakers. See my comments below. And frankly, you are simply speculating that people who are "into" the hobby are constant, hopeless upgraders. My experience with people who buy into the high end mythology is that they ARE hopeless upgraders. And what about people who don't view the high end as a mythology, but rather just a collection of gear, some very expensive and some not so expensive, that as hobbyists they assemble into a music *system* within their means that they find gives great pleasure? Did it ever occur to you that there are times in assembling a system when replacing a component makes sense? And that there are times in one's learning curve or income level or audio goals when replacing one or more components in a system might make sense? This is the way hobbies tend to work. Toy railroads. Amateur photography. etc. Many of us love music, and stick with equipment for many years if it is musically satisfying. Glad to hear it. Speaking personally, before I upgraded to five channel three years ago, I lived with a system that had a 20+ year old arm, cartridge and turntable, a 25 year old preamp, an 8 year old power amp (and a 15 year old one before that), a 10 year old CD system, a 20 year old tuner, and 13 year old speakers. I remained an avid, interested audiophile as well as music lover despite the lack of upgrades....primarily because I had used and trusted my sense of "musicality" when I had made previous choices and was very, very happy with the sound. I suspect there are many other audiophiles out there in situations similar to this. Perhaps there are more of you than we know, but there certiabnly are those endless tweakers and the mission of the high end magazines seems to be that there is always something better coming down the pike, even though evidence of better is sorely lacking. I rather think that is a prejudicial and cynical POV held by some here on the newsgroups who simply can't understand why other people make the choices they do, whether due to different levels of knowledge, of income, or musical taste. See my comments about magazines below. I suspect if you explore Stereophile and other magazines of the last decade, you would see that speakers more than any other category appeared in the magazines, coincident with ongoing improvements in that area in general and the rise of multi-channel sound. So what's your beef. Most of the articles extolling improvements in amplifiers and phono cartridges were in the '70's-early '80's and those improvements were real at that time. I have never felt that any magazine was "urging" me to upgrade...only the weakest and uncertain ego's would interpret a favorable review that way. They are simply presenting/evaluating what is new on the market that their editors and staff feel might be of interest to their readers. Toy Trains magazine does the same. Popular Photography does the same. It is standard hobbyist magazine practice. Furthermore, most serious hobbyist read more than one magazine, not to mention the profusion of webzines now available. So they are hardly at the mercy of one editorial point of view. Perhaps if more people spent some time reading the research that has been done inot what is audible and invested in some digital EQ, there'd be a lot less criticism of the high end and a lot more happy audiophiles. Last first. Most of the audiophiles I have run into are quite happy, thank you. What makes you think otherwise. Digital EQ is a two-edged sword. You'd probably be unhappy that there is not universal belief that the "improvements" it gives are actually improvements. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Gary Rosen" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Oct 2005 19:14:14 GMT, wrote: That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists. It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to failure. However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to accept that we had been wrong for all these years. Note also that *real* objectivists just roll about the floor laughing at what goes on in these newsgroups.................... As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. - Gary Rosen The same way we obsess over the sound of a string or a reed or a mouthpiece, or bow hair..... We enjoy obsessing about sound. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... " wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message As do musicians....... Yes. I'm a musician, and I don't see how subjectivists obsessing about barely audible (if really audible at all) differences are ever able to just sit back and enjoy the music. They don't care to. Their interest (and hobby) is to make the music SOUND good or at its best. Perhaps when and if they ever reach satisfaction with the performance of their systems, they do sit back and enjoy the music for a short while at least. Soon some new piece of equipment or tweak comes along and they are back to fine tuning their systems and probably get equal or bigger kicks doing so. You might have to be careful to not catch the bug yourself as I understand some musicians do get infected. The very fact that musicians, including yourself, are reading here appears to prove that this is true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a high quality audio system to enjoy music. Then shouldn't they be upgrading speakers, since that's what the evidence clearly shows is the weakest area and the one that makes the biggest and probably only difference, along with room EQ? I assume you mean they *should* be upgrading speakers. See my comments below. And frankly, you are simply speculating that people who are "into" the hobby are constant, hopeless upgraders. My experience with people who buy into the high end mythology is that they ARE hopeless upgraders. And what about people who don't view the high end as a mythology, but rather just a collection of gear, some very expensive and some not so expensive, that as hobbyists they assemble into a music *system* within their means that they find gives great pleasure? They appear to me to be few and far between, and they are not nearly as vocal as the other kind. Did it ever occur to you that there are times in assembling a system when replacing a component makes sense? Of course, if something is broken and not worth fixing would surely qualify. And that there are times in one's learning curve or income level or audio goals when replacing one or more components in a system might make sense? This is the way hobbies tend to work. Toy railroads. Amateur photography. etc. Not so much. Unless you are upgrading a turntable or a preamp to add more functions, such as HT applications. Many of us love music, and stick with equipment for many years if it is musically satisfying. Glad to hear it. Speaking personally, before I upgraded to five channel three years ago, I lived with a system that had a 20+ year old arm, cartridge and turntable, a 25 year old preamp, an 8 year old power amp (and a 15 year old one before that), a 10 year old CD system, a 20 year old tuner, and 13 year old speakers. I remained an avid, interested audiophile as well as music lover despite the lack of upgrades....primarily because I had used and trusted my sense of "musicality" when I had made previous choices and was very, very happy with the sound. I have never understood the term musicality as it relates to audio equipment. The electronics are essentially perfected and the only musicality would be in the performance and possibly loudspeakers. I suspect there are many other audiophiles out there in situations similar to this. I agree, but for different reasons. Perhaps there are more of you than we know, but there certiabnly are those endless tweakers and the mission of the high end magazines seems to be that there is always something better coming down the pike, even though evidence of better is sorely lacking. And they are the ones who seem to yell the loudest and are the most snobbish, IME. I rather think that is a prejudicial and cynical POV held by some here on the newsgroups who simply can't understand why other people make the choices they do, whether due to different levels of knowledge, of income, or musical taste. See my comments about magazines below. I don't think it's anything other than a reaction to the vocal and sometimes nasty people who don't quite get that audio is science. I suspect if you explore Stereophile and other magazines of the last decade, you would see that speakers more than any other category appeared in the magazines, coincident with ongoing improvements in that area in general and the rise of multi-channel sound. So what's your beef. You really don't want to get me stared on my beef with audio magazines like SP. The short version: Snake Oil. Most of the articles extolling improvements in amplifiers and phono cartridges were in the '70's-early '80's and those improvements were real at that time. And why haven't they disappeared? I have never felt that any magazine was "urging" me to upgrade...only the weakest and uncertain ego's would interpret a favorable review that way. Then I don't know what you're reading, since that seems to clearly be the aim of virtually all of them in my view. They are simply presenting/evaluating what is new on the market that their editors and staff feel might be of interest to their readers. Perhaps if more people spent some time reading the research that has been done about what is audible and invested in some digital EQ, there'd be a lot less criticism of the high end and a lot more happy audiophiles. Last first. Most of the audiophiles I have run into are quite happy, thank you. What makes you think otherwise. Because they complain so much and because they think they are upgraidng simply because they bought something new and more expensive. Digital EQ is a two-edged sword. You'd probably be unhappy that there is not universal belief that the "improvements" it gives are actually improvements. Not unhappy, many people seem not to like accurate sound, hence SET amps, etc. It's true that you can't have all the adjustment one could possibly need, but, I have yet to hear a system that has been properly EQ'd both actively and through passive means, that did not sound better, to me. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. - Gary Rosen |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims," they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been investigated, you might learn something new. We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain. And all of the "hypotheses" proffered so far strike me as more wishful thinking than anything else. When you find such a condition, then and only then will we have learned something., bob |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims," they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been investigated, you might learn something new. We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain. Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions. Of course you don't have anything you can't explain! Mike |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Scott |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. - Gary Rosen |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims," they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been investigated, you might learn something new. We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain. Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. I find the above statement to be quite astonishing. Clearly we could not explain certain phemonema, such as the photoelectric effect, if we were to investigate light as a wave. It was this "troublesome" observation that led to the theory that light has to be considered as particles also. Similarly, treating light as particles also leads to very troublesome observations that cannot be explained by the particle theory alone. This is freshman physics stuff, no? You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions. Of course you don't have anything you can't explain! Mike In other words, if you were to look for flying elephants, you have to investigate other *possible* ways to observe flying elephants, not simply with your eyes or with optical instruments. There is that eye/brain interaction that you cannot overlook! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. That makes absolutely no sense. Say light behaves like a wave in Situation A, which is where you've done all your experimentation and observation so far. Now you wish to investigate Situation B, where it will actually behave like a particle. But you don't know that yet! Even if you go into B with the assumption that light will still behave like a wave, you'll still come out with observations which contradict the assumption. Reply to Tim: Point 1, it makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics does. And Point 2, the objectivists have never done Experiment B. Furthermore they seem to think it is the responsibility of those with no research money or resources to do so. You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions. Of course you don't have anything you can't explain! One thing which you don't appear to understand is that (just like relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics) even if some different domain exists, it isn't likely to be all that different from the known domain, unless conditions are really extraordinary. Point 1, this is merely your opinion and you have no way to prove that the universe *always* behaves like this. Point 2, Einstein and Newton predict very different things about the limits and possibilities in the universe. Point 3, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about the ear; just that it might behave differently than we expect in a situation that has never before been investigated. For example, you can do a pretty decent job of simulating the orbital dynamics of the Solar System using Newton's laws. GR does a better job, but as far as I know many space missions are planned using plain old Newton. Wrong. GR is integral to converting between time frames. Objects in the Solar System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate a great deal from Newton. The sun is a big enough mass though, and actually when you measure time on the order of nanoseconds things do move fast enough to notice. To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much. Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? Exactly, Harry. Conventional testing uses a superficial model because a whole-person response to music is too complex, and too much influenced by context, for the objectivists to understand. Mike |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out. Do tell. Scott |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Chung wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims," they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been investigated, you might learn something new. We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain. Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. I find the above statement to be quite astonishing. Clearly we could not explain certain phemonema, such as the photoelectric effect, if we were to investigate light as a wave. It was this "troublesome" observation that led to the theory that light has to be considered as particles also. Similarly, treating light as particles also leads to very troublesome observations that cannot be explained by the particle theory alone. This is freshman physics stuff, no? Point 1, it seems like you haven't come to terms with the paradox of quantum mechanics. Point 2, Yes, observing light in many different contexts led to some difficult observations that required the wider theory to explain. However, point 2A, the brain is *much* more complicated than a photon; point 2B, it has *not* been investigated in a wide set of contexts. It has been investigated in *one* context for all practical purposes. You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions. Of course you don't have anything you can't explain! Mike In other words, if you were to look for flying elephants, you have to investigate other *possible* ways to observe flying elephants, not simply with your eyes or with optical instruments. There is that eye/brain interaction that you cannot overlook! You sure do like to bring in the "flying elephants." Let's say we have a hypothetical creature X and we really don't know if it can fly or not. Let's say that we attempt to decide this question solely on the basis of *one* experiment: pushing it off a 30 foot cliff and checking if it survives. That would not be a comprehensive observation of creature X. And yet, the objectivist claims about the ear are based on *one* kind of listening! Mike |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? What place should emotion play in audio testing? Audio is science, music is art as Stewart like to say. This is in fact the truth, but how your emotion work on hearing music that science has allowed to passed on to you is your affair. The science is to get what the artist and the recording engineers decided was the way they thought would convey the art to best effect. The audio scientists do their very best to make sure that they are able to do that with the utmost fidelity to the master that the artist and engineers decided upon. For me, as an audiophile and a music lover, I have striven to own a system that is faithful to their intention. I see no reason to re-engineer their vision. This would be like going to a concert and insisting they perform in accordance with My wishes rather than those who create the music. As audiophiles we have the ability to construct a system that conforms to our vision or to the artist and engineer's. I have to much respect for art to try and rearrange it. It is my view that they have been able to this within the limitations of the medium, although, that medium is improving by virtue of more channels and digital recording which allows us to get every single nuance of the master agreed on by the artist and the engineer. The science has given us them the ability to preserve it on media that is vastly easier to store, to archive, and to maintain. Shouldn't we out of respect for all that work try our level best not to screw it up with equipment that distorts or alters what they spent their time trying to communicate? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
Chung wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Do you know the difference between faith and science? Science has predictive power. So do we. You don't. I don't contradict the predictive abilities of your theory. I think you understand very well how the ear/brain behaves---under one set of conditions. Despite the attempt by objectivists to paint our suggestions as "faith", "blind belief," and "extraordinary claims," they amount to one thing: the rather ordinary suggestion that if you investigate the ear/brain under conditions that have never before been investigated, you might learn something new. We can always learn something new. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that there are any such conditions under which our ear/brain model fails to explain what it now claims to explain. Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one could explain with conventional physics. I get that. However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a particle. I find the above statement to be quite astonishing. Clearly we could not explain certain phemonema, such as the photoelectric effect, if we were to investigate light as a wave. It was this "troublesome" observation that led to the theory that light has to be considered as particles also. Similarly, treating light as particles also leads to very troublesome observations that cannot be explained by the particle theory alone. This is freshman physics stuff, no? Point 1, it seems like you haven't come to terms with the paradox of quantum mechanics. It seems like you still don't understand that if you only treat light as a wave, there will be troublesome observations that cannot be explained. The theory of light being a wave only cannot explain certain phenomena, and the wave/particle duality was then advanced as a theory to explain these phenomena. Now can you share with us what troublesome audio phenomena cannot be explained by our present theories? Point 2, Yes, observing light in many different contexts led to some difficult observations that required the wider theory to explain. However, point 2A, the brain is *much* more complicated than a photon; point 2B, it has *not* been investigated in a wide set of contexts. It has been investigated in *one* context for all practical purposes. As we had explained to you many times, and obviously unsuccessully, how the brain interprets the sound is a complex issue, but deciding whether two sounds are different based on hearing alone is a simple one. As another poster once said, you are simply wandering in the dark hallways of your mind, and you want someone to follow you. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory. And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account? What place should emotion play in audio testing? Audio is science, music is art as Stewart like to say. This is in fact the truth, but how your emotion work on hearing music that science has allowed to passed on to you is your affair. The science is to get what the artist and the recording engineers decided was the way they thought would convey the art to best effect. You are confusing emotional response to the music with emotional response to the music *as reproduced", which is where audio design and engineering come in. Equipment that grows more and more irritating, or less or less involving over time is triggering this reaction at an emotional level. On a short term comparative basis it will not be operational. And yet this is one of the most universally cited reasons for distrusting the comparative test, because the phenomenon if not universal is at least widely experienced among audiophiles at one time or another in their lives. It is this type of experience that John Atkinson, among others, cites as his reason for turning away from quick-snippet, comparative testing in favor of extended listening tests. Shouldn't we out of respect for all that work try our level best not to screw it up with equipment that distorts or alters what they spent their time trying to communicate? We certainly should...but such respect means paying attention to long term emotional satisfaction in the reproduction of music, not just in short term "scientific" tests that may very well (and I believe do) miss this aspect completely. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote in message
... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out. Do tell. The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one. Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. At least some of their songs have different versions. - Gary Rosen |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote: Point 1, it seems like you haven't come to terms with the paradox of quantum mechanics. Clearly, *you* have not understood it. See below... Point 2, Yes, observing light in many different contexts led to some difficult observations that required the wider theory to explain. The crux of the quantum uncertainty / duality issue is well illustrated by Heisenbergs' uncertainty principle. At the quantum level, the *act* of observation does not change our *perception* of reality, it actually changes *reality*. If one measures the position of an electron, for e.g., the physical intrusiveness of the measurement affects its nature to a degree such that its velocity cannot be ascertained. Same situation for photonic observations re. particle/wave duality. However, point 2A, the brain is *much* more complicated than a photon; A statement whose lack of profundity is exceeded only by its irrelevancy. point 2B, it has *not* been investigated in a wide set of contexts. It has been investigated in *one* context for all practical purposes. For this whole analogy to have any relevance, you would have to be asserting that the *act* of listening changes, not perception, but the physical construction or configuration of the sound waves hitting your eardrum. Is this your assertion? As an objectivist is wont to do, you are narrowing the focus too much and not seeing the big picture. You look merely at the "observer observing the sound." In the bigger picture, an audio test is an "observer A observing the observer B observing the sound." The context set up by A (the perceptual scientist) in order to observe the behavior of B (the subject) most definitely influences the behavior of B. This analogy to quantum mechanics is not an assertion that there is some equivalent "audio uncertainty principle" that somehow prevents us from learning what we need to learn (i.e., Pinkerton's interpretation as "mysterious force"). It is an analogy I make in order to show that the influence of the context of listening has been wholesale ignored by the objectivists---and the so-called "lack of troublesome observations" means nothing. That would not be a comprehensive observation of creature X. And yet, the objectivist claims about the ear are based on *one* kind of listening! Mike Ok Mike, tell us this: 1) *Exactly* how many "kinds of listening" are there? You don't know? OK then, 2) pray tell us *exactly* how can the number of different "kinds of listening" be determined and objectively defined? If you cannot answer either question, in real objectively verifiable terms, then your whole argument merely reduces to "there are infinite modes of perception, and without testing them all, we cannot know if any specific theory is correct". Or, more succinctly, unless we know everything, we know nothing. The corollary (the basis of your argument here) is, of course, "as long as we don't know *everything*, *anything* is possible, and all possibilities are equally likely". This is the very antithesis of science. To show how absurd this argument is, let's rephrase it with cooking. I point out that you have only ever cooked dishes that include beef. I claim there are other kinds of dishes. You say, "Okay then, *exactly* how many kinds of dishes are there? You can't answer this question? You're obviously a pseudoscientist who claims we know nothing." Mike |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Chung wrote:
hanics. It seems like you still don't understand that if you only treat light as a wave, there will be troublesome observations that cannot be explained. The theory of light being a wave only cannot explain certain phenomena, and the wave/particle duality was then advanced as a theory to explain these phenomena. That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts. *Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context. Also scientists can pull a little stunt with the study of consciousness that could never be pulled off with a photon. Since, as is true, people are subject to perceptual illusion, *everything* that a person perceives can be explained, or I should say, "explained away." While the specific reasons for developing a specific illusion are regarded as generally unknowable. Quite a slick move. Mike |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message ... Gary Rosen wrote: wrote in message I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking subjectivists than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance, for all the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time working on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered versions of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing Stew. I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of my favorite music before worrying about which were the best mastered. My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then his vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of course this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings. Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my subjective opinion. Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out. Do tell. The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one. Better than the Beatles version? That is a matter of opinion. Got m both. Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves. Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your concern. At least some of their songs have different versions. They certainly do. I've already found my favorites. have you? Scott |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
there's not any alternative of neve 1089 or Focusrite Red 1 | Pro Audio | |||
PS2 as a DVD alternative? | Car Audio | |||
JL 10w1 help (alternative / replace) | Car Audio | |||
Monster Capacitor Alternative | Car Audio | |||
Any alternative for Windows XP user who cant use ProTools | Pro Audio |