Sean Fulop wrote in message news:1nK8c.8786$gA5.120693@attbi_s03...
Except that it isn't just "my methodology." It's a methodology that's
been tested and validated as a means of determining audible
differences, by people who are competent to do so (and challenged by
people who are not so competent). That's why it's not circular.
It is frequently impossible to validate an index (i.e. a measurable
quantity), that is, to prove beyond a doubt that it in fact serves as an
index of what you would like it to. This is a basic tenet of all
science, unfortunately. It is impossible to validate, independently and
in a scientific manner, something as simple as the "fact" that the
temperature of something (a measurable quantity) serves as an index of
our perception of "how hot it is." It is simply our repeated experience
that leads us to accept this notion without debate.

The crux of the subjectivist position, as it could be made in a
scientific setting, is that discrimination tests under controlled
conditions have not (yet?) successfully replicated or accounted for all
factors in music perception that might allow reliable discrimination.
So in simpler terms, proving that I can't "name that tune in one note"
doesn't prove I don't really know the song. That's because recognizing
a song by its first note is not a good index for measuring whether or
not I know the song. The subjectivist claim is, or rather should be
since this is the only rational version of it, that the current state of
psychoacoustic testing has not found all the suitable indices that would
measure human reaction to music or ability to discriminate different
presentations of music. And the funniest thing is, it is impossible to
prove this position incorrect, just as it would be impossible to
disprove the claim that "sometimes, when nobody is around, people
actually feel cold things to be hot and vice versa."

-Sean

I wonder if the 'objectivists' really listen to high-end systems.
There is something to the notion that one has to 'learn' how to spot
differences in sound. Taking just speakers for example, as I grew
familiar with the various sets of speakers I have owned over the
years, their flaws became more and more obvious as time went on. Thus,
the upgrade bug gets hold of you. My first speakers were cheap two-way
Electro-Voice models I bought in 1972. A few years later, I bought
Yamaha NS690's, because the EV's just did not satisfy me anymore after
4 years. After a few years, the shortcomings of the Yamahas became
increasingly apparent, even though I had upgraded the power and
quality of amplification along the way. Thus, after an audition, I
purchased Rogers Studio 1 speakers in 1981, which seemed to be almost
flawless at the time...

They were, in fact, quite good, and I kept them for 20 years, until I
ran across a pair of used Yamaha NS-1000M's, which I brought home to
compare to the Rogers. The big Yamahas made the Studio 1's flaws even
more apparent.

I have also visited audio salons on a regular basis for the past 30
years, and occasionally I would bring home equipment to audition.
Having thus acquired a practiced 'ear', I now can listen critically to
high-end equipment of all kinds and hear nuances that I would never
have noticed in 1972.

It takes time and practice to be able to hear the differences between
products like cables. The quality of source and amplification, not to
mention the transducers, also matters