In Reply to: Has anyone's mind ever been changed by a DBT debate here? posted by mkuller on December 16, 2006 at 13:50:21:
You might give it a try: tell the objective crowd what SONIC information the knowledge of the identity of the component adds to the listening experience. Why do you need to SEE the device when you are judging it by its SOUND? Curious minds want to know. C'mon, tell them.
"Their only goal is to start an arguement where they think they can show themselves to be superior."I don't think that this is the case. For what reasons should an ojectivist consider himself superior to a subjectivist, or vice versa for that matter? I think its has been clearly shown that knowledge of the DUT affects the results, unless you can convincingly demonstrate that it doesn't. Hence the only issue that is worth debating is the manner in which DBTs are conducted.
"They are only fooling themselves."Why, o why, is it that the objective crowd says exactly the same about the subjectivists?
"If they want proof, let them perform DBTs on themselves with their mid-fi equipment connected with zip cord (which they believe sounds just as good as the high end stuff)."
You seem to consider that objectivists in each and every case use "inferior" gear. You equally seem to forget that inferior is a relative term! Inferior to what (reference)? When for example I look at speaker measurements of high-end speakers, there are a lot that I would qualify as low-fi or mid-fi. Wilson comes to mind. I would not buy Wilson speakers, no way, but a lot of people do. So depending on one's personal reference Wilson speakers are low-fi and high-end at the same time. Go figure.
Re: Because we [subjectivists] hope we can change their [objectivist] minds...
What purpose do discussions serve: exchange of information, facts and opinions. All participants potentially benefit from that, having a look at all facets of an issue allows them to reconsider their position. Who is the one to say which point of view is the correct one, is it you, is it me?
Klaus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: There is no chance of winning any arguement - KlausR. 00:41:40 12/17/06 (17)
- Seeing the device.... - mkuller 12:10:18 12/17/06 (11)
- You did NOT answer my question!!! - KlausR. 01:02:26 12/18/06 (10)
- Why we need to see the components - kerr 04:31:01 12/18/06 (9)
- You have a point there! - KlausR. 08:30:05 12/18/06 (8)
- Well, there's THAT, and... - kerr 09:04:29 12/18/06 (7)
- Re: But it doesn't prove anything. - KlausR. 23:40:36 12/18/06 (6)
- Re: But it doesn't prove anything. - thetubeguy1954 13:47:05 12/19/06 (4)
- Re: But it doesn't prove anything. - KlausR. 23:52:08 12/19/06 (3)
- It Proves Everything! - thetubeguy1954 06:27:42 12/20/06 (2)
- Re: It's a very simple question so please answer it. - KlausR. 07:16:14 12/21/06 (1)
- Re: It's a very simple question so please answer it. - thetubeguy1954 07:52:38 12/21/06 (0)
- Re: But it doesn't prove anything. - kerr 04:55:49 12/19/06 (0)
- False premise. No one "need[s] to SEE the device" --- any more than one needs *not* to see it. nts - clarkjohnsen 10:42:19 12/17/06 (4)
- Re: Then why do you perform SIGHTED listening test, when there's no need to SEE ??? (nt) - KlausR. 01:04:12 12/18/06 (3)
- Because as Clark said, there's no need NOT to see! - kerr 04:48:47 12/18/06 (2)
- Good points! (And ones that I had not yet myself considered.) nt - clarkjohnsen 09:18:22 12/18/06 (1)
- It's not limited to audio and peanut butter so don't let that throw you. :) (nt) - kerr 11:33:12 12/18/06 (0)