advertisement


Can we hear anything, allowed to hear anything, or are you deaf/stupid?

If the subjectivist, likes something that makes no audible difference, atomic clocks, reclockers etc, then i dont care why they like it, their dellusion that it makes a real difference is meaningless.

The same goes for crystals and prayer cups and Peter Belt ephemera, cd pens and flashing lights and demag devices to be used on none magnetic items.

Oh, but I think I hear a difference therefore my experience of it has changed... whatever.
 
Cereal Killer said:
No contempt at all, just simply letting you know i don't need my eye to tell me they both sound massively different.
Click to expand...
You are expressing contempt even if you may be unaware of it. To see this you would need to gather some scientific knowledge about sound and sound perception. Knowing nothing about a subject doesn't put you in a good place to pass meaningful comment.

Cereal Killer said:
h.g. said:
The latter will possesses scientific knowledge if they are to be competent at their job whereas the former are often converted "audiophile subjectivists" with little to no relevant scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...
according to who?, you state this is absolute, absolute to what?
Click to expand...

Facts don't need to be accorded to anybody they are independent. It is opinions that need to be accorded to people. This distinction is important when trying to sort out disagreements over reasonably technical matters.

The amount of scientific knowledge a scientists or engineer needs to master can be determined from the content of their formal training at university and later. To recognise the presence or absence of scientific knowledge in others requires one to either possess that knowledge or to be very familiar with how those that do possess it see and go about things. This means it almost certainly isn't something you would be in a position to determine but others are.
 
If you want a classic case of "subjectivism" then look no further than "The best/my favourite snare drum sound". Drums as a whole are totally fascinating subject as, 90% of their sound is the room they are played in or, the artificial space they are set in and therefore it comes down to, in well recorded case, personal preference. That is, your favourite drum sound is wholly dependant on the sort of "room" you prefer. If you doubt this there's a vui ideo somewhere online of a hideously expensive drum kit recorded in an anechoic chamber and it sounds like someone walloping cardboard boxes with a dead member of the order of mustela.

As someone who regularly record music this is what I look for.

Classical music.... The ability to recreate the "space" the recording was made in and pinpoint the specific parts of an a orchestra in a holographic manner.

Live Jazz/Small Blues combos/Folk music Music.... Again the ability to recreate to space and atmosphere the recording was made in. The drums should be a cohesive whole and again, if done properly present a 3d holographic image of the performers.

Other music............ The ability to lay the strands of a mix out with a certain precision and if the detail is there , likewise give a 3 dimensional representation of the music recorded. Studio artifice, which covers the vast majority of the music many listen to, is a wholly different proposition to the first two. Notice also how, the first two make you almost instinctively think of "Valves" or "Class A"?

In short your regular musical choices will determine to a large degree, that you find "beguiling" soundwise. You will judge the kit you're listening to it on, primarily from your own set of likes and dislikes musically.
 
h.g. said:
To see this you would need to gather some scientific knowledge about sound and sound perception. Knowing nothing about a subject doesn't put you in a good place to pass meaningful comment
Click to expand...

Well done..... so please explain how you've come to conclusion i know nothing?!
 
You are clutching at straws. We are talking about data. Are you suggesting his measurements are erroneous or cooked up?

In any case I see nothing on the link to suggest he is bent.

And what about Archimago?
 
sq225917 said:
If the subjectivist, likes something that makes no audible difference, atomic clocks, reclockers etc, then i dont care why they like it, their dellusion that it makes a real difference is meaningless.

The same goes for crystals and prayer cups and Peter Belt ephemera, cd pens and flashing lights and demag devices to be used on none magnetic items.

Oh, but I think I hear a difference therefore my experience of it has changed... whatever.
Click to expand...
You are, of course, entitled to be offended by what you perceive as* their 'delusion' if you so choose. I find that choice difficult to understand in a world where there are so many other things to be offended by, but hey.

And your last sentence, patronising though you clearly intended it to be, is correct. If somebody perceives a difference then, self evidently, their experience has changed.

You also said
Facts don't need to be accorded to anybody they are independent. It is opinions that need to be accorded to people. This distinction is important when trying to sort out disagreements over reasonably technical matters.
Click to expand...

But the essence of subjective reporting is that it is the opinion of the listener. I can't call to mind any subjective account which would claim anything other than [in my perception]** this sounded different/better/worse. So again, you are attributing claims as to factuality, where they have not been made.

*see what I did there?

** this is often implicit in the account, it does not need to be stated. Claims of subjective experience are inherently statements of opinion, not fact.
 
Subjective opinion posts outnumber objective opinion posts on this site by a very significant proportion. So I have no idea why CK is moaning about bullying. It's the objectivists who should feel outnumbered.
 
Tw99 said:
Subjective opinion posts outnumber objective opinion posts on this site by a very significant proportion. So I have no idea why CK is moaning about bullying. It's the objectivists who should feel outnumbered.
Click to expand...
Well it's not really a question of feeling outnumbered. It's the aggressive (sometimes passive-aggressive) approach of the objectivists, who regularly and needlessly inject a sour note into threads. I don't recall any such behaviour on the part of subjectivists. Subjectivists rarely, for example, invade a thread on a technical, objective matter and say 'well, I bet it sounds rubbish' or drop into a DIY thread and say 'well, as all this stuff sounds the same and measures the same, why are you bothering?' Yet objectivists feel somehow obliged (or at least entitled) to impose themselves. I acknowledge free speech, and all that, so all comment is fair enough in principle, but really, do you need to beat the other side into submission every time? Can't you just make your point and move on?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
. I acknowledge free speech, and all that, so all comment is fair enough in principle, but really, do you need to beat the other side into submission every time? Can't you just make your point and move on?
Click to expand...

I very rarely post on PFM because it is so subjective-dominated and I can't be bothered with the discussion. Just occasionally someone posts utter nonsense about an area where I have professional expertise, and it's hard to hold back in that case.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
But the essence of subjective reporting is that it is the opinion of the listener. I can't call to mind any subjective account which would claim anything other than [in my perception]** this sounded different/better/worse. So again, you are attributing claims as to factuality, where they have not been made.
Click to expand...

Yes I saw what you did there. The topic was not subjective reporting it was hearing differences between amplifiers under blind and sighted conditions. It is a fact that under blind conditions people cannot identify audibly neutral amplifiers that are not being driven into nonlinearity by being clipped or driving a difficult load. This is not the same as perceiving a difference between amplifiers which is perfectly normal for audiophiles under sighted conditions and even under blind conditions for some although not all. These perceived differences are also a fact and are perfectly well aligned with scientific knowledge on how we can perceive the same physical sound differently.

If you don't believe the science then it is easy enough to perform an experiment to check it. Try to identify some technically competent amplifiers under blind conditions. Some boutique amplifiers do distort enough to be heard so drop those but even some valve amplifiers are well enough designed not to be distinguishable if kept well away from clipping. There have been plenty of these amplifier challenges in the past but their popularity seems to have rather waned these days. I do seem to recall someone mentioning Alan Shaw of Harbeth in connection with one fairly recently?
 
I once made a no feedback valve amp which sounded marvelous. I’m sure it distorted like mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top