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

  #3   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?




The question simply lacks perspective. It all depends on who is doing
the "testing" and why. If we are talking about reviewers doing
subjective reviews or prospective buyers making purchase decisions the
alternative is obvous and widely used to the satisfaction of many
audiophiles. Just use the component in question for an extended period
in your system and decide for yourself what you think about it.



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.



1. "controlled testing" is a pretty broad catagory.
2. No one from the subjective magazines that I can see are suggesting
their subjective impressions are bullt proof or universal. I'm not sure
just how much "use" you want from a review. If you want to skip the
auditioning and just be told what to buy you will likely get as much
out as you put in for your efforts.



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.



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 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.



What outcomes would that be? Do you believe that there are really that
many DBTs being done by audiophiles and then being rejected because of
some sort of pain?



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.




Unfotunately so many objectivists never have the courage to suspend
their belief system. As someone who once bought into the findings of
the objectivist mantra I can tell you the suspension of belief can be
quite satisfying in the long run no matter how frustrating and
disturbing it may be in the short term.



Scott

  #7   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Signal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
"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.


ironiclly so do most people who have experienced 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.


It's not faith.



In mny real cases it would appear to be very much so.



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.


I don't think the often cited "research" done by certain objectivists
has earned any place of respect in real 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?



small ones.





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.



What exactly does that mean?



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.



So what were the response *curve* differences between the amps that
Stewart was able to distinguish in his dbts?




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.



I heard differneces under blind conditions between amps. Oh, that
doesn't count. You don't like those results.


Scott
  #15   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" 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   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #20   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
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.


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.

As another note: there is a difference between using a theory to
establish predictions, and using a theory to assert ultimate limits.
For example, Newton's theory of motion had very good predictive power
in known circumstances, but it put no limit on velocity. Einstein's
theory superceded Newton's, resulting in small changes to our
predictions about familiar circumstances.. but significantly changing
our thinking about the limits of motion (the speed of light being a new
ultimate limit). Furthermore, newer theories of quantum mechanics may
lift the limits on information and matter travel.

The lesson: the predictive power of a theory in ordinary circumstances
has little to do with the veracity of its limits, or its application to
unusual circumstances.

Mike



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



  #21   Report Post  
Gary Rosen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #24   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Gary Rosen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Timothy A. Seufert
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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. 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. Objects in the Solar
System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate
a great deal from Newton.

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.

--
Tim
  #27   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

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. 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. Objects in the Solar
System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate
a great deal from Newton.

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?

  #28   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Keith Hughes
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is the alternative

wrote:
Chung wrote:


snip

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.


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?


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.


Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).

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.

Keith Hughes
  #35   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is the alternative

wrote:
"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?




That is a rather vague question. Just what is "audio testing?" Are you
talking about hearing tests? Are you talking about consumer auditions
of recordings? There is far to wide a range of "audio testing" for that
claim to have any meaning.


Audio is science,
music is art as Stewart like to say.



Acyually he likes to say audio is engineering. Engineering is not
science by the way.


This is in fact the truth,



In fact it is not. Most of what we consider to be "audio" that being
the recording and playback of music is designed and executed completely
ouside the relm o scientific study. that is a fact. scientists have
little involvement as scientists in audio.



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.



Wrong again. That would again be the job of audio pros very few of
which were ever what one would call a scientist. They are audio
engineers and they are craftsmen. their jobs have been creative in
nature and they could quite easily be looked upon as artisans
themselves.




The audio scientists



Please name these alleged "audio scientists." I think you are just
making this tem up and you on't actually know of any such persons.



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.



Now you are going way out on a limb. Given the fact that a master
(recording) has no sound of it's own this would be a meaningless
endevour. in the end fidelity is highly interpretive in this business.



For me, as an audiophile and a music lover, I have striven to own a
system that is faithful to their intention.



how would you even know wht their intention was?



I see no reason to
re-engineer their vision.




It is inevitable. You have done it whether you want to believe it or
not.



This would be like going to a concert and
insisting they perform in accordance with My wishes rather than those
who create the music.



That analogy makes no sense. it is simply impossible to recreate the
experience every recording engineer had when recording all the
different itles you or any other audiophile would want to listen to.
But that is their reference. in many cases what that engineer heard is
quite far from what the artists and the engineer had in mind as a final
product. Unfortunately audio simply isn't as simple as some people
would like it to be. Fortunately the great recording and mastering
engineers understood what tgheir product would be used for and how it
would be used to that goal.




As audiophiles we have the ability to construct a system that conforms
to our vision or to the artist and engineer's.



Given the multitude of recording engineers and the variety of equipment
including studio monitors and levles of playback and studio monitoring
rooms we really do not have that ability nor is it really desireable in
most cases.


I have to much respect
for art to try and rearrange it.



You may have respect for it but it seems you don't have much
understanding of it. have you ever really heard a recording engineer of
merit say that their monitoring of a recording is the reference by
which audiophiles should judge the fidelity of their own systems when
listening to that recording?




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.



your view is not shared by many of te best recording and mastering
engineers. Now digital has come a long way and used by the best
recording and mastering engineers along with analog but it wasn;t
always that way. The best recording and mastering engineers knew that.



The science has given us them the ability to preserve it on media that
is vastly easier to store, to archive, and to maintain.



Only time will tell on that.




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?



No. We as the consumers should always do what we want to do with the
music that is sold to us. you are free to listen to music played back
quite poorly on mediocre electronics and poorly mastered CDs all you
want. you are even free to say it is SOTA. Don't you like being free to
make those choices?




Scott
  #37   Report Post  
Gary Rosen
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
there's not any alternative of neve 1089 or Focusrite Red 1 bj Pro Audio 8 February 5th 05 01:48 AM
PS2 as a DVD alternative? Silver Car Audio 4 July 6th 04 12:32 AM
JL 10w1 help (alternative / replace) englewood Car Audio 2 February 3rd 04 09:56 PM
Monster Capacitor Alternative Chall70 Car Audio 9 January 9th 04 08:41 PM
Any alternative for Windows XP user who cant use ProTools Bubba Pro Audio 44 October 8th 03 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 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"