Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stupie Sillyborg on audio purchases
Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you aren't really relying on your ears. This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price. I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you aren't really relying on your ears. This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price. I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg. This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction. Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms, then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity, again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true, proof etc". Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual persuit. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway. How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me. All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance. Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if we want it to agree with such observations. So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never going to win this argument. Gareth. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis said: So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never going to win this argument. My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a hypocrite. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
Gareth Magennis said: So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never going to win this argument. My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a hypocrite. For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features? That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison. Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you. -- -S |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sillyborg stuttered: My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a hypocrite. For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features? Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the limit of your understanding. That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison. This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness. Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you. Yes, do. Pull my wings off. I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can: 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge. 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your pecuniousness and/or penury. 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the density of your ossified mind) 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue? Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
Sillyborg stuttered: My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a hypocrite. For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features? Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the limit of your understanding. Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just to be getting the attention. That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison. This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness. It's not hypocritical, though. Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you. Yes, do. Pull my wings off. I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can: Oh goody. 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge. Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can ever understand and accept their rationale. I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg. Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you haven't personally experienced yourself, George? Like, say, sexual intercourse? 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your pecuniousness and/or penury. I certainly do care about the quality of my system. That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features that I specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined to, good sound. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price, processing, connectivity. Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even one objective reason why it *wouldn't*? Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best, A/V receiver on the market today." N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness' marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced) of audiophool species: the price snob. 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the density of your ossified mind) These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance *is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The technology is mature, even if you aren't. If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test. And so would you. But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I. You, because you believe you can depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically different from another. I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me, I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know, have a grasp on reality. 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue? Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg. Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average. They also want generally believe they'll live forever, to think they're beautiful/handsome/popular, to think they are successful and smart (including smart in their audio buying). High-end marketing is happy to encourage them on all those counts except perhaps price. Now, what is the relation of what people *believe* about what they buy, to the truth about what they buy? Is it always a one-to-one correspondence? How do we know when it isn't? 'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding just the same than what they bought. But some of them might appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase. -- -S |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech Gareth Magennis wrote:
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears. But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you aren't really relying on your ears. This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price. I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg. This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction. er..scientists *are* objectivists Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms, then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity, again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true, proof etc". Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual persuit. Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it 'feels' right, is the right one. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway. Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true. Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far. It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe* is true. How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me. Apparently. All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance. And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere? Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if we want it to agree with such observations. Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't require revision of current models to explain -- it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models. So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never going to win this argument. Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale for the 'objectivist' skepticism. -- -S |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction. er..scientists *are* objectivists My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms, then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity, again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true, proof etc". Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual persuit. Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it 'feels' right, is the right one. My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions "wrong". Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true", except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such concepts. Gareth.. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway. Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true. Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far. It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe* is true. How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me. Apparently. All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance. And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere? Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if we want it to agree with such observations. Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't require revision of current models to explain -- it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models. So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never going to win this argument. Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale for the 'objectivist' skepticism. -- -S |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Gareth,
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as .... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now. Gareth. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all. I mean, by Gareth's logic. Try to keep an open mind, will you? ; |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Denis Sbragion wrote: Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- . I agree with you. The web exchange of off- the- top- of- the= head speculations has little to do with audio. But my reasons for saying it are diametrically different. It is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the brain. Do you? Quite, quite, sound means waves that enter the ear. From then on the labyrinth and the cochlea and the acoustic nerve and the acoustic brain centres in the temporal lobe cortex and the countless synapses to the frontal cortex and other connexions we have yet to learn about get to work on it.. And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes? There is more complexity under the heavens than your textbooks had an inkling of. Ludovic Mirabel |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it 'feels' right, is the right one. My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional. All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the current explanation is the wrong one. Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions "wrong". This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely to be wrong (or right). Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have NO technology, for one thing. Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true", except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such concepts. You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person who repeats the observation under the same conditions. That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific facts in India versus Canada versus the US. Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something. It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another form of model building. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to back your opinion. That's how science works................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to back your opinion. That's how science works................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. Gareth. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction. This is especially true since most audiophiles who throw these terms around don't seem to know what the generally accepted meanings of these words are. I pointed this out in pretty good detail and by citing some pretty fair references as part of my opening remarks at the HE2005 debate with John Atkinson. While I didn't quite come right out and say it, Atkinson tortured these words in the style of Saddam Hussein in his publicity blurb for the debate. Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms, then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity, again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true, proof etc". That would be sheerist BS. Scientists have literally centuries of experience dealing with things that they can't fully explain.One of the most if not the most fundamental rules of science is that any particular explanation is provisional, and only valid until it is falsified. The falsification of long-standing beliefs is very common in Science. Furthermore, beliefs that are in essence falsified continue to have valid applications in broad areas of scientific endeavor. Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual persuit. This would also be sheerist BS. So-called audio objectivists are just people who are more comfortable applying a fairly small and simple requirements to their observations and beliefs. For example most so-called objectivists affirm the validity of bias-controlled listening tests. The whole idea of bias-controlled listening tests is simple and common-sense. The basic idea of bias controlled listening tests is that relevant influences that are not directly related to hearing be managed in a reasoanble way during the listening test. Furthermore, a listening test is kind of a subjective evaluation, and if objectivists were really the narrow fools that certain people like to make them out to be, they should have no interest in subjective evaluations of *any* kind. But these so-called objectivists are quite interested and involved in subjective evaluations, which brings the very fact that they are called *objectivists* by some into question. Why are these *objectivists* so interested and involved in *subjective* evaluations? Perhaps they are not *objectivists* at all but some kind of *subjectivist* after all? It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the present. As I explained just a few paragraphs back this is a straw man argument based on Gareth's poor understanding of audio objectivists and science itself. How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me. Well, now we get down to Gareth's *real* problem. He doesn't really believe in anything at all. He seems to doubt that anybody can believe anything. All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance. This ignores the converse possibility that an observation can agree with a model or hypothesis. In the real world, as opposed to Gerth's world of constant disagrement, observations may or may not agree with a hypothesis. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |