|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.213.92.252
Says it all.
I hope this sinks in to all you egos who primarily use this forum to practice your legalistic argumentative "skills". The topic is quite obviously a secondary inconvenience, or at best, an arena with an audience.
I feel thoroughly and properly humbled by Mr. Roberts view and mastery of it. I find the fact that even though he has "heard the difference" and as he says, "KNOWS", he still uses junk wire anyway sometimes, because who cares? .........perfect..........
Let that sink in too.
I'm sick of listening to sound consumer X telling sound consumer Y that he needs more salt on his potatoes, "how could that possibly TASTE good?"
WhatMCF#ckingever!
Follow Ups:
Rene Descarte is quoted as saying 'Cogito, ergo cogito sum.'That is said to mean, 'I think, therefore I think that I am.'
One of my favourite American cynics and humorists, Ambrose Bierce, would rather we agreed on the following as as close we can get to certainty / cpotl's pot of gold aka 'objective truth.'
'Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum'
'I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.'
You will notice that it's the first bit that's different and pointed.
Mind you I'm not at all sure about low DCR supplies myself, and not even about SE being THE path. I think capacitors, and R's, and how we use NFB or not, and quiet loudspeakers, ..., all make a difference to the music, but not $$$$$$ worth, or worth $$$$$$.
I do prefer acoustic music - live, simple recordings of for home listening and as much bandwidth as possible.
The recordings are not getting better, which is a much bigger issue. Elephant in the room sized IMO.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Edits: 09/05/12
You have pure scientific mathematical proofs on one extreme and superstitious insanity on the other.
However, if you deny physics, biology and such, you die.
Yes, happiness lies somewhere in between, unless you are Daft Punk.
Objectivity is an ancient concept, going back at least 2,500 years. Subjectivity is younger, I believe, born in the early days of empiricism, e.g., Locke, Berkeley and Hume.
As we use it, the concept of subjectivity can be traded back to Descartes, as far as I know.
Then, as among the proud objectivists here, it was framed in a suspicious light as something that could be overcome by objective rationality. The promise of the Enlightenment.
I'd avoid the word entirely except it is in vogue around the DIY forums.
The notion of a socio-cultural construct is much more multidimensional and robust, incorporating the cognitive aspects associated with the other word, plus the notions that it is shared (social) and also that a certain "objective" dimension is formed as people put these beliefs to work in the world of social action.
As one of my wisest teachers told me, "What man believes to be true, is true in its consequences."
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Thanks :)
...A heightened sense of awareness, in doing things that come naturally!
What are the consequences of a belief? William James could have just as easily titled his book about the consequences of religious beliefs as "The Varities of Audiophile Experiences".
Observe, before you think
The professor in question, M.G. Smith, was a Jamaican educated in England. Taught at University of London for a long time. Came to Yale in his pre-retirement years where I studied with him. He was a real smart guy,
He may have known about William James, but I would not count on it.
I later learned that this saying was a rephrasing of the "Thomas Theorem" which was a truism in early American sociology, but I like Professor Smith's version better. Thomas probably knew James, so your assumption could be dead on.
This quote is not shocking in any way to an anthropologist. In fact, it encapsulates huge swaths of the field in one sentence.
The pragmatic philosopher whose work is more relevant to the question of sound reproduction is C.S. Peirce. I spent years studying Peirciean semiotics and it is one of my main interests, but too hard to talk about for the tube DIY forum.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
"Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object."
I am pretty sure this comes from "how to make our ideas clear" or "the fixation of belief".
Observe, before you think
Yes, super profound.
That can be restated loosely as the meaning of something is what you use it for.
This is why the Harman ABX lab is bogus and audio testing is properly done in it's natural use context. In testing, the whole use context is different from normal listening.
This general pragmatic train of thought was picked up by Wittgenstein, who started out as the star of formal logic then rejected it and moved to a model when all truth was established by use within "language games."
So a logical system like physics was a system that perfectly mapped the world under early Wittgenstein and under late Wittgenstein it was a self-contained "game" with its own rules and language, that had only contingent reference to the exterior universe. Other games operate under other rules and you can't explain one game using the rules of another.
The technical electronics game and the music evaluation game are separate entities, different rules sets, and different goals.
So, combining the insights of these two giants of pragmatic philosophy you get J-ROB's critique of double blind testing and an intellectual blowtorch to yield against the objectivist brutes on the audio forums.
Floyd E. Toole is alright but he is not in the intellectual league of Peirce and Wittgenstein.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
C.S. Peirce was indeed the first pragmatist who made the connection between beliefs, consequences and action. He heavily influenced James, who tried to help him in his rocky professional career.
Pierce's work in the theory of signs and logic was path-breaking, but I couldn't stay awake!
If you like biographies, you might be interested in a relatively new biography of Wm. James, William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism by Robert Richardson.
Observe, before you think
> > Pierce's work in the theory of signs and logic was path-breaking, but I couldn't stay awake!
Peirce lived in pain due to neuralgia and he was usually doped up to the gills. They should give out small bottles of opium with his books.
It is the most profound and most impenetrable material I have ever encountered.
I studied it hard back in the 80s when I could still get some really good weed.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
"when I could still get some really good weed."
Even though our fine POTUS has recently sent in his Federal goons to steal it for their purposes, I still often smell skunks that aren't there.
PM for my mailing address. I'm needing to get more philosophical! ;op
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
.
For heaven's sake! We are discussing whether a bit of silver wire produces a different output voltage than a piece of copper wire. We are not discussing some profound philosophical propositions here! Just settle the issue by hooking up an oscilloscope!
It seems to me at times that the subjectivists just want to wallow in a syrup of cultural relativism, in a world where nobody can actually say anything definite and every crackpot's opinion is as valid as everybody else's.
It seems to me that the adherents of the silver wires and special power cords contingent are failing to appreciate that if they are really right, then they are saying some very surprising things about how electricity propagates along metal conductors. If this could be genuinely proven, it would be very interesting indeed.
Let us, for the sake of argument, give them the benefit of the doubt. If they want to convince the hard-nosed scientists (and maybe they don't, and that would be fine too), then they should be embracing the opportunity to carry out rigorous double-blind tests to prove the point. I am genuinely puzzled by the fact that, on the one hand, they tell us that the effects of the silver wire are so obvious that they can't fail to hear it, and yet, on the other hand, double-blind tests are valueless and cannot be trusted. Those kinds of argument are so reminiscent of the the arguments of the paranormal spoon-benders. If there is a real effect there, then please, I would be fascinated if it could be proven! I mean that sincerely. I don't expect that I would be able to hear it myself; my hearing is pretty bad these days, and I wouldn't trust myself to be able to detect subtle nuances. But as a scientist, I would be genuinely fascinated if someone who claims to be able to hear the differences could demonstrate it in rigorous, third-party controlled, double-blind tests.
As I said before, just because "musicality" is an abstract and subjective concept, it doesn't mean that there can't be an objective content to experiments testing whether somebody's discrimination between musical and unmusical sounds is reliable or not. Just like testing if someone can distinguish between blue and red, even though the conscious appreciation of blueness and redness is abstract and subjective.
Chris
> > We are not discussing some profound philosophical propositions here!
Yes, we are.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Well, you are, because you are trying to reframe an essentially scientific question of amplifier transfer characeteristics into a murky blend of philosophy and mysticism.
Chris
And wake up.
Science is not what you think it is. It's conditional, not final.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Everything I am talking about is mainstream thought among the scholars and pros. Certainly not mysticism and obfuscation, but apparently you WILL have to read a few books to catch up.Philosophy defines the knowledge conditions of inquiry. It is definitely not flaky hogwash. Have you ever actually studied philosophy of the sciences?
Listen carefully...double blind testing is B-O-G-U-S. My learned, professional opinion backed with reams of published material and
13 years at least studying these things intently in very serious schools. I am summarizing here because otherwise it would get too boring for non-specialists, but otherwise I'd say this stuff in front of any senior professor. I can hang with anybody in the field and I'm ahead of the majority of them.What exactly are your physics credentials again? Have you ever taken a course on social science research methods? Do you have any idea what the assumptions and implications of your fave "double blind" research design really are? I don't think so, otherwise you would not view my critiques as mysticism.
If you are a truly educated and thoughtful individual, you would understand the relevance of what I am saying and respond to the challenges instead of reiterating the objectivist thug call for blind testing to prove to you that what other people know they heard is "valid" on your terms.
Nobody is gonna do that for you, dude. Especially me!
Get off your duff and do the work yourself!
Actually, I already participated in a blind test with silver vs, copper transformers. I told you all about the results. I can't think of a group that knows more about audio than the people who were in that room. Everybody heard it. Everybody noticed the difference.
WHY don't you accept that? It is almost exactly what you are demanding.
I am willing to do another session for the record but you pay all expenses and my usual fee. Down with that? Probably not, right?
It might be cheaper to buy some silver and listen. Buy some AudioNote litz wire and measure and blind test it if that is your thing.. A meter is enough. I predict you will hear it but you will NOT be able to measure it.
If you don't like it, sell it on ebay. Cheap education. And you will still have some money left over for books. I suggest reading John Searle on epistemological subjectivity vs epistemological objectivity and the relevance of the distinction for the discussion at hand.
Maybe it is even on Google Books for free.
This call for scientific evidence is nothing but a cheap tactic to shut down discussions you don't like. Seen it a hundred times.
Y'all think it is foolproof but it is simply fool.
At a certain point, the burden of your personal education shifts back to you.
I just spent several years in a second graduate program in historical anthropology and archaeology at age 50, at significant opportunity cost to myself. I had a 3.8+ average in a school famed for a lack of grade inflation. I am dead serious about this material and I did and do the work.
Stop learning and growing and you might as well be dead, that is what I think.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Edits: 09/04/12 09/04/12
Since I (re)started this, admittedly with a dash of spank for the blowhard wannabe objectivists, the real point was thankfulness and relief, not only my expression of this, but for the benefit of others as well. Realizing we're all wearing cheap sunglasses to some degree, is comforting. The fight is over. I want you to see that and lean back and feel better. Your points are validish, but how much finer can we grind this powder?
I think JR's point that we may not have test equipment sensitive or advanced enough to measure differences that ARE heard (assuming..)
is something to accept (for now). Perhaps it will be you who advances measurement technique, for all to benefit from. In the meantime, some things are explained, and the rest just isn't.
"I think JR's point that we may not have test equipment sensitive or advanced enough to measure differences that ARE heard (assuming..)"That could be, logically, a possibility, and I have wondered about it myself. I'm not sure I would bet a lot on it, but still, who knows...?
I have the feeling these debates will probably get nowhere. But it could be fun to continue at some audiofest somewhere, over a few glasses of wine or beer....
Chris
Edits: 09/04/12
Word.. frustrated nerds totally uncool dudes.
Read the Ackoff article in the post below.
Objectivity as conceived by most folks and most responders in this thread simply cannot exist. Thinking we are being objective doesn't make it so.
'Objective man' doesn't exist, we can try but being value-free is impossible any-where, any-time, and a useless cul-de-sac / rat hole Western man has dug.
Trying to approach a value-rich view is the only honest and scientific way to approach any issue. As many of other's values as possible.
That the article's context is management and making policy can not in any way reduce its relevance to audio. Because it is relevant to everything humans do. Especially relevant to how we measure and what we tell ourselves about those measurements.
If you have any difficulty with the points and conclusions, your 'thinking' is the problem, the article is irrefutable.
LBNL it's by an American management consultant, Russell Ackoff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_L._Ackoff
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
> > If you have any difficulty with the points and conclusions, your 'thinking' is the problem, the article is irrefutable.
LBNL it's by an American management consultant, Russell Ackoff.
----------
That train of thinking comes from German idealism with roots in the 18th century work of Herder, through Husserl (Phenomenolgy), and in the mid 20th century best represented by Gadamer (Philosophical Hermeneutics) and Habermas, a neo-Marxist social philosopher.
Funny to see this Marxist idealist stuff handed down to "business managers" but I guess they need it more than anybody.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
32
OBJECTIVITY
Objectivity is a scientific ideal particularly sought by management scientists. Although its meaning is not clear, objectivity is generally believed to be what Winnie the Pooh called a “GOOD THING”. It is also believed to require the exclusion of ethical and moral judgements from inquiry and decision making.
Objectivity so conceived is not possible.
Most, if not all, scientific inquiry involves testing hypotheses or estimating the values of variables. These procedures necessarily entail balancing two types of error. In testing hypotheses these errors are{;) rejecting hypotheses when they are true{,} and accepting them when they are false.
Naturally we would like to minimise the probability of making them but unfortunately minimising one maximises the other. Therefore, setting these probabilities requires a judgement of the relative seriousness, hence value, of the two types of error. Researchers seldom make this judgement consciously; they usually set the probabilities at levels dictated by scientific convention. This attests not to their objectivity, but to their ignorance.
The choice of a way of estimating the value of a variable requires the evaluation of the relative importance, hence values, of underestimates and overestimates of the variable. Each estimating procedure contains a (usually implicit) judgement of the seriousness of the two possible types of error. Therefore, estimates cannot be made without a value judgement, however concealed it may be.
The most commonly used estimating procedures are said to be “unbiassed”. The estimates they yield, however, are best only when errors of the same magnitude but of opposite sign are equally serious. This is a condition that I have virtually never found in the real world.
In testing hypotheses and estimating the values of variables, science equate unconsciously equates objectivity with unconsciousness of the value judgements.
The prevailing concept of objectivity is based on a distinction between ethical-moral man – who is believed to be emotional, involved and biassed – and scientific man – who is believed to be unemotional, uninvolved, and unbiassed. Objective decision-makers are expected to take their heads - not their hearts - into the workplace.
{Laboratory, R&D team for an audio companies etc., Timbo's edit}
To assume that the heart and the head can be separated is like assuming that the head and tale of a coin can be separated because they can be discussed or looked at separately.
Objectivity does not consist of making only value-free judgements in conducting inquiries and making decisions. It consists of making only value-full judgements; the more extensive the values, the more objective the results. A determination is objective only if it holds for any values that those who can use it may have. For this reason objectivity is an ideal that can never be attained but can be continuously approached.
Objectivity cannot be approximated by an individual investigator or decision maker; it can be approached only by groups of individuals with diverse values. It is a property that cannot be approximated by individual scientists but can be by science taken as a system.
All this has an important implication for management. The values of all those affected by a decision, its stakeholders, should be taken into account in making that decision, but this cannot be done without involving them in the decision-making process. To deprive them of opportunities to participate in making decisions that affect them is to devalue them, and this, it seems to me, is immoral. {sic - amoral too}
Managers have a moral obligation to all who can be affected by their decisions, not merely to those who pay for their services
PP 123 – 125 of ‘Management in Small Doses’ _ Russel L. Ackoff.
Wiley and Sons NY 1986
ISBN 0-471-84822-0 or
0-471-61765-2 (paperback)
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I didn't even get into the notion of value-free inquiry, another fantasy deeply intertwined with fallacious models of objective science.
What this author says about conscious awareness of values leading to a more "objective" process echoes what I was saying about conscious awareness of the influences of cultural preconceptions about science serving to in a partial way at least defuse their blinding influence.
Easier said than done! I suggest to call in a trained and skillful anthropologist...here's my business card.
The only way to approach objectivity, the mythical promised land that you ain't never gonna see, is to fully embrace the ultimate subjectivity of human existence.
In the end you are still stuck in the subjective mud, but at least you'll know it and maybe understand that condition a little bit better.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Mr. Roberts decided to show up, and calmly and eloquently give at least me (and no doubt a few others) a new sense of peace about all this. More than well done. And thanks to Chris also who kept good responses going to keep him going.
I regret now having bitched about what many of us have already bitched about plenty, and to quote deathtube667, "The forum is like modern gladiator sport minus the wild beasts and bloodshed". So it is, and so it doesn't have to be, but most likely will continue to be. OK
Joe Roberts says if just one person heard the difference, then the difference must exist.
But there's a problem with that.
No human can actually hear what another hears. We really don't know what the other person or persons truly heard. We only know what they CLAIM to have heard.
Now unless somebody can find a way to tap the output of the ear before it gets to the brain - or - find a way to shut down human bias and influence, the fact that somebody claims to have heard a difference really doesn't cut it for factual purposes.
My understanding of the brain - from the best guesses I've obtained - is that it is quite good at accumulating perceptions but quite bad at processing them.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimate that the human retina can transmit visual input at about the same rate as an Ethernet connection, one of the most common local area network systems used today (roughly 10 million bits per second). They present their findings in the July issue of Current Biology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news73156830.html#jCp
I believe that for audio signals it's around 100,000 bits per second
http://www.thesoundlearningcentre.co.uk/the-cause/processing/
However, the best estimate I have for the rate of processing this input is around 100 bits per second.
http://redefinepossible.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/what-are-you-missing/
http://www.buffalostate.edu/creativity/documents/preumontf06.pdf See page 13:
"Wenger (1996), who invented Image Streaming as a form of tapping into the
subconscious mind, explains that the conscious mind is a skill with limited usefulness.
The human brain, he says, can pay attention to “only about 126 bits of information per
second… yet your minds are flooded each second by perceptions involving hundreds of
times more than 126 bits"
This is all very interesting stuff, and the simple conclusion is that we all have "golden ears" but we are absolutely crap at processing what we hear (or rather our brains are extremely clever at ignoring things).
This seems to support the general idea that a lot of people claim to "hear" things but disagree constantly about what they are hearing. An analogy is the notorious unreliability of eye witnesses. We just don't have the processing ability to deal with all the sensory data we receive.
andy
> > We have to use subjective means to determine if the objective goal is being meet but the goal, as I see it, is not subjective.
Very good point.
This is why the kind of clinical study that we see enshrined in blind testing is properly called "Behavioralism."
Psychology went that way because they realized they could not read minds but they wanted to make an empirical science out of it, so they focused on behavior....how people react, what they say in response, which button they punch, etc. in response to stimuli. these empirical behaviors can be counted, run through statistical manipulations, etc.
It is a fake rig up to make the unseen visible, like the Harman ABX lab.
In context, the discussion being about deductive logic, my point was however you want to establish that an individual heard X, say by numerous blind testing trials, it takes only one contrary result to invalidate a "covering law" argument.
My personal position is that the hearer knows and if that is good enough for her, I got to accept it because it really doesn't have anything to do with me and I can't prove it either way. It is just another bit of anecdotal data.
I can sy people say that or seem to like or whatever, but I can only KNOW if I hear myself, And I have developed the habit of trying not to generalize results for myself because no two situations are the same.
Factuality is not really native to the discussion of music aesthetics, which is my main concern.
Deduction is totally off base, as I discussed in the other thread.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
....I can say people say that or seem to like or whatever, but I can only KNOW if I hear myself, And I have developed the habit of trying not to generalize results for myself because no two situations are the same."
See previous post on the auditive processing ability of the brain. If we can hear at 100,000 bits per second but only consciously process the information at 126 bits per second, it seems to follow that individual appraisal of what is heard will vary wildly, even when the actual perception of the sound may be relatively constant. We all interpret differently not just for philosophical and psychological reasons but out of the single dumb fact that our processing ability for perceptions is really crap.
Lloyd Morgan's Canon -
"In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development."
Andy
> > it seems to follow that individual appraisal of what is heard will vary wildly, even when the actual perception of the sound may be relatively constant.
I don't know enough about processing ability of the brain to comment but I do know that something that sounds good at a certain time, certain context or on a certain song, won't necessarily work the same in a different time or place.
This is one of the things I have against formal blind tests. The situation and goals are so different from normal music listening that I think different features are brought to the fore.
Anybody who ever worked in an audio store knows that bright, borderline nasty, gear fares well in A-B tests because it stands out more and sounds more "impressive." This is especially true with non specialist shoppers but hardcore audio nerds fall into the trap also.
As always, with anything involving meaningful symbolism, context is key.
In my mind, proper evaluation and assessment of audio requires a long term investigation in the context that you plan to use it in, a long test-drive, as it were.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
I gotta tell you, all this psychology is over my head!
But, what if more than one "hears it" ? At what point is critical mass achieved? 2, 4, 10 ? Did they hear the same thing? What qualified them to be hearers in the first place? Who had more wax in their ears than the others? Who drank more coffee, or wine ?
I find both benefit and curse in my new adjusted viewpoint.
Benefit being: I'm much less concerned about what people claim as objective observations, as they're not. Curse being basically the same thing, facing the isolation this brings. Conferring with others now seems almost pointless, sad in way, as we like to "think" we're on the same page, because we're social, but it's always been and always will be an illusion.
"Dark Matters, Twisted But True"
I think you can watch it on the internet now. Look for the show and segment on "N Rays".> > Tuskegee STD, Do You See What I See?, Cold War Cold Case
Premiere: August 25 at 10PM e/p
US government experiments illegally on black men with syphilis for 40 years. N-Rays will transform physics in France, if they actually exist. 9 skiers found dead with strange injuries. Was it a quarrel, a secret Soviet weapon, or a yeti?It documents a true story of the discovery of N rays in 1903 in Paris.
What are N rays? Just watch the show. It explains a lot about what we are talking about here.
Edits: 09/04/12 09/04/12
Wouldn´t it be great if the forum could create an argument asylum for thoes who like to argue? Remember http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
“If you don't like what you're doing, you can always pick up your needle and move to another groove.” Timothy Leary
Says it all. I hope this sinks in to all you egos who primarily use this forum to practice your legalistic argumentative "skills". The topic is quite obviously a secondary inconvenience, or at best, an arena with an audience.> >This is one of the most messy concatenations of assumptions I've come across for a while.
- "Says it all" - really? Does anything say it all?
- "Egos"? what kind of assumption is this? Humans have egos, objectivity, subjectivity and various other states they vacillate between. Freud deconstructed the Self into three ego states, and later so did Eric Berne (Games People Play etc). How do you mean some people are "egos" and some are not?
- "Primarily use this forum"? People use forums for all kinds of reasons. You've jumped to the conclusion that some of us have a "primary" motivation - why?
- "Legalistic argumentative skills"? Why legalistic? What's that got to do with anything? How do you know posters who debate points are "practising skills" when they post?
- "The topic is obviously a secondary inconvenience"..... blah blah, do I even need to deconstruct this?Somewhere in all this woolly thinking there may be a point, but what it is who knows.
Frankly I think reading some elementary formal logic would be a really good idea. I'm sure you are well intentioned, but if you're going to debate issues, get some hold on how to debate!
You obviously have a great sense of humour, and I just think you could express things better if you took a bit more care.
Andy
Edits: 09/04/12 09/04/12
Because of basic deficiencies, I often use metaphors, I try to use good ones, sometimes they communicate well, other times not, and sometimes it's not my fault they are misunderstood, it's the other party's lack of imagination. It's always a crap shoot. I never intend to be vague or "woolley".
I am addressing a type of discussion here on this forum that seems to prevail and dominate the majority of it, therefore supporting my use of the term "primary use", while simultaneously not pretending or inferring whatsoever that it is the "only" use. Defined more, yes, it does seem to be an arena for semi-not-so-polite fights that are more about using legalistic tactics to take someone down than constructive efforts. If my use of the word "legalistic" can't be understood here, then I will suggest it's a lack of imagination. In almost every case, this has a high ego content, not a modest one. It's not pretty. Objectivity is often claimed, and I am saying, "forget it".
I know and admit that I have never formally studied classical logic, and therefore I couldn't possibly be super good at it, so, I intend to work on that. I still have good perception, and I'm always working on better communication of it.
Thanks GSH - I was probably a bit harsh!!
Best
Andy
Really? So no other viewpoint has merit? Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?Ponder on this for a while:
1. All audio systems distort the original source material to some degree in some way(s).
2. Therefore, since distortion is inevitable the BEST system for me is the system that creates distortion that is most pleasing to my ear.
Point #1 is TOTALLY OBJECTIVE; point #2 is totally subjective.
Discuss...
Edited because I hit Post too quick.
Edits: 09/04/12
Well yes of course.
But many here think they are being objective when discussing #2 in terms of "science".
Some might even think they are objective because they have some levels of experience in the "live event" that they can use as a comparison or reference and therefore claim they are being objective in these comparisions.
Either way, their objectivity is a subjective construction. Listening has all sorts of subjectivity rolled into it.
cheers,
Stephen
This isn't a viewpoint, it is a profound "what is".
Interpretation is up to the user.
I used the cooking metaphor (salt) just to show how similar it is.
Cooks go to school to learn the physics of the craft, then if they
intend on being a great cook, they break the rules, or at least venture into "unproven" areas with no fear, just looking for results that "taste good".
Now, do your potatoes taste better than mine? to who? when? where? under what influence? combined with what? at what temperature? etc etc....
I won't dare ask why.
No, I did not miss the point at all. You may think so because you think differently than I, but I gave you a philosophy EVERY BIT AS VALID as any other.
"I used the cooking metaphor (salt) just to show how similar it is. Cooks go to school to learn the physics of the craft, then if they intend on being a great cook, they break the rules, or at least venture into "unproven" areas with no fear, just looking for results that "taste good".
My point #1 illustrated.
"Now, do your potatoes taste better than mine? to who? when? where? under what influence? combined with what? at what temperature? etc etc...."
My point #2 EXACTLY!!
I see what you are saying now, and that you didn't miss the point to anywhere near the degree that I had first assumed. I'm really not trying to fight with anyone. I'm not "right" about anything, nor do I regret that, nor can I fix that.
But I maintain that assuming one is objective about anything is basically dangerous.
And whether stating the obvious (something not disputed at all) "proves" the validity of "objectiveness", I don't know, seems like a weak argument.
Yes, we all know and agree that distortion is an inevitable part of sound reproduction. Is that an Objective observation?
I'm not trying to fight either - and my reply to you wasn't intended to be aggressive but on re-reading I think I owe you an apology. I was too strong - in your face. MY bad!!
I'm bowing out at this point. Have at it guys...
Can I add to #2?
Therefore, since distortion is inevitable the BEST system for me is the system that creates the least distortion and what distortion it does create is of the type that is most pleasing to my ear.
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Chris, your PM is completely turned off.
I need to PM you.
Cheers W.
I do enjoy acoustic music but that's not the point.
If a person is familiar with the sound of real acoustic instruments and builds a system that reproduces the sound of real acoustic instruments well, that system should be reproducing the input signal well.
Isn't that the goal?
BTW I think HP's idea of "The Absolute Sound" has been misunderstood over the years.
I believe HP was just saying that real acoustic instruments are the best point of reference we have to try to determine if your systems are doing their jobs well but not trying to say that's the only music of value.
I could have that wrong.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It seems to me that the "subjectivists" are exploiting a sort of smokescreen of confusion around the whole topic of musicality.
I would absolutely agree that the quality of musicality is a subtle and subjective one, and that it is not something that lends itself to being characterised or measured in scientific terms.
However, the statement "Amplifier A, with silver interconnecting wires, sounds more musical to me than an identical amplifier B with copper interconnecting wires" is a statement which, if words are to have any meaning, becomes an objectively testable one. Unless the person making the statement is just indulging in sophistry and deliberate obfuscation, those words mean that there is an assertion that the A and B amplifiers can be distinguished by that particular listener.
I don't see that the situation is any different in principle from the case of a person asserting that they can tell the difference between the colour blue and the colour red. The processes by which the eyes and the brain convey the concept of blueness or redness to the consciousness of the person are profound and subtle and not objectively understood. But if the person states that they can distinguish blue from red, that becomes an objectively testable assertion. It is entirely legitimate to expect the person to be able to back up his assertion by demonstrating in controlled experiments that they can reliably answer "red" when shown a red light, and "blue" when shown a blue light.
Likewise with the musicality of the A and B amplifiers. It is entirely reasonable to test the person's claim that they can distinguish the musicality of the two, since they have made an objective assertion. The fact that the mechanism by which musicality is appreciated by the brain and the consciousness is subtle, subjective and not understood by science is immaterial to the legitimacy of expecting to be able to test the assertion.
Chris
BUT .......
I can reliably hear theoretically better capacitors as better / nicer, have been doing so since the late 1970s. Commercial quality - silver micas in cool places, MF polypropylene / polycarbonates / teflons in hot spaces.
Bulk-foil laser trimmed R's do sound better, best ROI is in NFB roles, but doubling the wattage of MF R's in a NFB valve-amp will get you close, for even less, just like well established circuit knowledge suggests.
NFB is not a 'bad thing' but it can be. Triodes are feedback devices.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
NFB is not a 'bad thing' but it can be. Triodes are feedback devices.
oh dear god... don't go there :-)
dave
> However, the statement "Amplifier A, with silver interconnecting wires, sounds more musical to me than an identical amplifier B with copper interconnecting wires" is a statement which, if words are to have any meaning, becomes an objectively testable one. Unless the person making the statement is just indulging in sophistry and deliberate obfuscation, those words mean that there is an assertion that the A and B amplifiers can be distinguished by that particular listener.
--------------------------
OK, now who is going to build two identical amplifiers except for wire and set up a scientific blind test (of questionable relevance) with impartial referees just to satisfy YOU, especially if they are already convinced?
I'll tell ya what....buy two pairs of step up trans from Slagle, one silver and one copper, send them to me and I will tell you which is which. If I am right, I get to keep the ones I like. If I am wrong, I give you both back. Dave will probably agree to a low restock fee if you don't want to keep #2.
I am sure I can reliably distinguish those two units I heard at least 95 out of 100 times but I don't see why I need to prove it. I already sorta did to/for myself.
Don't believe me?...cool. Have a nice life!
I told you about a room full of pros who did this very test, blind, at RMAF. We were all fully convinced that there was a profound difference.
Do we care if we can convince anonymous skeptics via internet posts? Not at all.
But I will say that if you were there and did not hear the difference that we ALL heard, we would think you were either playing with us or deaf. It was that magnitude of difference, like switching between two radically different speakers, not chasing tiny little tinkling sounds at certain parts of the song.
The people in that room could design and build a complete high-grade stereo from raw materials, including all transformers, turntables, arms and cartridges and speaker drivers and have done it all previously. And I could write a really badass brochure to sell it.
We all know and trust each other. We all agreed. Where is the motivation to prove our experiences to some random non-believer disincline to try for himself?
I think your answer is for YOU to do the test and see if YOU can hear the difference. Why does anyone else's preferences matter?
Or do you think everybody hears the same?
If so, prove THAT!
In any event, your raging skepticism and disbelief has no empirical foundation whatsoever, It is totally faith-based.
Quit speculating and go do some experiments, Chris!
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
I assume you are referring to this post.http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/tubediy/messages/21/210405.html
I really like it and the response by Chris.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/tubediy/messages/21/210412.html
I liked the whole exchange but I think it got off topic a bit.
"Well I think somebody like me, who has worked as a recording engineer professionally, built tons of gear, worked in audio for three decades, and hears a lot of really top notch (and expensive bad) stuff all of the time...."
It seems to me that comparing gear to gear or wire to wire is not the point.
What happened, in this conversation, to the idea of comparing gear/wire and the effect they have on the sound in light of the sound of real instruments? Not what you or I might prefer/like but the sound of real instruments.
We have to use subjective means to determine if the objective goal is being meet but the goal, as I see it, is not subjective.
Lynn Olsen said,
"Having described audio systems as a special class of Illusion Engine (like THC, psylocybin, ethyl alcohol, Vision Quest, etc), there's one group for whom the word "accuracy" actually conveys meaning: recording and broadcast organizations with ready access to professional musicians. For the last 30 years, BBC monitor speakers have been subjectively assessed by rapidly walking between the control booth and the performing hall. The short trip is a quick reality check, and the BBC and other national broadcasting organizations command the resources to have both large groups of professional musicians and the engineering talent to design high-quality monitoring loudspeakers. This is why I give special weight to the writings of D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC..."
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 09/04/12
"Similarly, the audiophile favorite of the 12AU7 loses some of its luster when a dirt-cheap surplus NOS 6SN7 has three times lower distortion and three times the drive capability. These things are audible; when you work at the device level, repeatable correlations between sonics and appropriate measurements begin to dawn. Unfortunately, as long as magazine reviewers are incapable of appreciating the functional difference between a mu-follower and a SRPP, they will never penetrate this level of insight and understanding."
Any 'shock-horror noval' 6CG7 will eat any 12AU7, yet 'rolling' 12AU7s is all the rage.
The recordings are increasingly the problem, and always have been the central issue for me. I found out about audio from recording engineers in our cathedral, way back when.
Reviewers? an example. Ken Kessler had a redeeming feature, despite his manifest ignorance, it was that he USED to write about absolute polarity. hasn't for years.
"I owe, I owe, it's off to write, I go!" eh? ;-)!
NFB has been overused, as Lynn points out, but a triode is a 'feedback device' too, isn't it? It depends.
JR's question about scale effects is important and penetrating.
AA is very NOISY too. ;-)!
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
> > We have to use subjective means to determine if the objective goal is being meet but the goal, as I see it, is not subjective.
I like that! It perfectly illustrates the internal contradictions in the subjective/objective model and embraces it at the same time.
It makes one think about it...always good.
Our evaluative systems for sound reproduction, however are learned, cultural and somewhat arbitrary.
Sound reproduction is only 100 or so years old and look how elaborate we have gotten already! We are actually very good at this sort of thing. Before that there was no need to judge reproduction...by the 1930s, ads were already proclaiming reproduction virtually indistinguishable from the original.
I think about the story where an anthropologists took a polaroid camera to a remote area of New Guinea. That is WAY remote. They took pics of locals and showed them. They couldn't recognize the images in the pictures. They never learned how to look at a picture.
I think a recording of them speaking played back might evoke the same response...or get you an arrow in the neck. It is really scary stuff when you think about it. Totally unnatural and weir to capture sounds from the flow of time..
I used to record professionally, mostly location recording of classical in Philly for WFLN, the old classical station---Phila Orchestra, Concerto Soloists, Opera company of Philly, various chamber music events.
I agree that in some small scale recordings or takes of individual instruments, I could get what I would consider very close reproduction...even with the shitty electronics were were using early 80s Neotek board with a zillion op amps, MCI and Studer decks. Junk nearfield monitors including NS-10s and Dyna A-60s.I actually got some of my most convincing orchestra recordings with an AKG stereo condenser mic plugged straight into a Revox A77.
What I never got...and what I hardly if ever hear in hifi, is realistic sense of SCALE. Tonality, dynamics....yeah we can sorta get that. Realistic scale is tough.
Why is it that scale misrepresentation is not heard as what we like to call "distortion?"
The amazing presence of the orchestra in the Academy of Music or even the huge multidimensional presence of a solo violin just never shows up in the playback. At best it is a shrunken miniature that otherwise sounds a lot like the original.
Certain big horns get closer but still not perfect.
Somehow "scale" did not make the cultural inventory for judging reproduction.
Where's the "objectivity" in that?
This is another example of the somewhat arbitrary nature of the sociocultural construction of objectivity.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
"I agree that in some small scale recordings or takes of individual instruments, I could get what I would consider very close reproduction"
If we can't get that right we have no hope of getting the rest of it right.
And yes, a lack of realistic scale is a form of distortion. I think as least part of that shortcoming IS in the recording and there's nothing we (as end users) can do about it.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It is by some, including me. I think having flat response down to 20hz is part of achieving this, and of course, the room has a huge influence.
Not that I've achieved this, but I'm working on it.
Quiet loudspeaker enclosures also don't hurt.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
GSH,
Thanks for thinking!
I'm glad somebody reads this stuff.
This is absolutely the correct forum for this discussion because DIYers straddle the technical electronics world and the universe of musical aesthetic experience that knows neither law nor necessity.
Of all audio practitioners, we are best positioned to explore the tenuous and fragile connections between the two realms of practice, art and science, that come together in making machines for musical enjoyment.
I have long been a proponent of DIY because aside from being fun, educational, and hopefully good sound, it is profoundly liberating and a path to self-knowledge...if you do it right.
I have found it important to recognize that humans created "science" and, like music, it is a cultural, hence subjective, institution, shifty and contingent as all of the rest of them.
This is not bad. It's great! Human creativity in action. We should all be proud as a species for what we have done....but let's keep it in proper perspective!
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
The forum is like modern gladiator sport minus the wild beasts and bloodshed.The mob mentality persists, so get ready for combat everytime you post.
Words become weapons in this absurd internet theatre.
But like a NASCAR event, we come for the crashes and redneck drivers fighting.
You want to read that post by Tube Wrangler, Drlowmu or whoever and work yourself up into a frenzy, then really give em' a piece of your mind.
We live for the drama and chaos or die in the nucleus of boredom.
That is just human nature, folks.
Have fun,
dt 667
Edits: 09/04/12
these guys just like to argue DT... really though, I think the debates have been top notch of late!
good stuff on both sides!
the politics can be bothersome, however, in the past I've always preferred forums that don't over-moderate. This is one of them.
keep up the debates guys! I love it. I learn a lot here! (I think)
> > The mob mentality persists, so get ready for combat everytime you post.
That is why I don't hang out on forums all that often.
Two days of this and I am drained.
I may be a fearsome redneck gladiator but I really gotta be in the mood! Maybe I need a six pack of Four Loko!
Still, there are occasionally lessons to be learned and knowledge to be shared.Some folks are looking for that insight, between wrestling bouts.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
"I have found it important to recognize that humans created "science" and, like music, it is a cultural, hence subjective, institution, shifty and contingent as all of the rest of them."
No. I completely disagree. Humans DISCOVERED science. Some science has been discovered, some has not. Humans APPLY science/scientific method - or don't.
ALL humans APPLY science (to some degree) to achieve results. Some ignore science and fail. Some choose to explore where the science isn't clear - or is as yet incomplete. Some do not.
But subjective - no, no way, not the fundamentals. No matter what you believe the fundamentals say passing 100 watts continuously through a 50 watt rated tube plate will destroy the tube; triode, pentode, or heptode - it doesn't matter. There is no escaping that - the science dictates it.
Humans created positivist science. It is not somehow embedded in the fundamental nature of reality. As we now know, even in electronics, reality is probabilistic.You can't predict off of a probability. You can only guess and hope.
In another similar thread, one engineer told the story of how Intel found that uP operation is probabilistic. Do enough operations and "unexplained nonlinearities" show up.
If I gave the power supply and tube to a tribe of wild hunter gathers, they could come up with an entirely spiritual explanation couched in terms of gods and spirits that fits observed events perfectly and has the same predictive value as our power rating.
In Nigeria, a medical anthropology study was done on traditional vs. Western methods of treating compound fractures. the local method actually had a higher success rate. What was it? Brak your leg, then go to a local healer who breaks a chickens leg and wraps yours in cloth. When the chicken's leg is healed, your leg is healed.
Another example: Advanced metallurgical work on ancient swords has shown that the traditional techniques employed by Japanese swordsmiths yields steel with a high content of carbon nanotubes. Did these traditional artisans know about carbon nanotubes or did they have a techno/religious framework for their processes?
I don't deny that "science" has proven to be an excellently practical fiction whereby we organize the social work of invention and creation, but it is a cultural overlay.
Look at all of the definitions and standards used that were established by committee. How socially constructed can you get? Compare a "low distortion" amp from 1948 with what DiyA considers "low distortion" today. What in "reality" changed over the past 60 years?
Listen, to say that science is cultural does not deny the existence of something we might call brute reality. However, man has no way of knowing or interfacing with reality directly. We only have culture and this is always symbolic, contingent, partially arbitrary, and subjective at base.
What man can do, with or without formal science, is learn via trial and error. Perform empirical experiments and take note of where they screwed up. This is the basic idea behind Popper's famous dictum that the fundamental criteria of science is falsifiability. Nothing new or unique to Western science bout that.
But be this all as it may, the main point I am making is that musical listening is not in the scientific bailiwick. There is no falsifiability, no prediction, only preferences.
I am also strongly arguing that "objectivity" does not exist. It is a Western creation of the Enlightenment era that gained a lot of purchsse but it is fundamentally a cultural construction.The closest we can get is to try to understand where our cultural beliefs come into play and then consciously correct for them, such that we don't fall into cognitive traps strictly due to habit, but in the end we are still cultural animals. It is all we have.
------------------------------
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Edits: 09/04/12
The best stuff posted around here in ages was in that thread; posts by Joe.
cheers,
Stephen
A true gift. I'm now inspired to study logic formally, for reasons having nothing to do with audio whatsoever. Thank you.
There's more quality content in that twisted rant below than I've seen
ANYWHERE
in years.
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: