Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Are we too polite to subjectivists? (Read 2599 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Subjectivists brazenly deny science and refuse to provide any evidence for their preposterous claims.  I mean, directional cables etc. Goodness gracious! Yet, we debate them as equals and rationally try to convince them of the benefits of science and factual evidence. It is clearly not working.  Should't we just brutally disparage their idiotic ideas and finally call them for what they are -- a stain on humanity's quest for truth?

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #1 –
You've obviously not acquainted yourself with this community.  I suggest you do so before authoring more topics like this one.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #2 –
So what should we do? Don't you think that the situation has become intolerable long ago?  As the late Gordon Holt himself, the founder of Stereophile, said quite some time ago:

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing."

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #3 –
Did you actually bother following through Greynol's advice in getting yourself acquainted with this community's philosophy?

Only then you'll (hopefully) see that your advocating of "doing something" is way off the mark, sounding more like we were in a crusade of sorts, tilting at windmills - which we obviously are not!

Listen to the music, not the media.

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #4 –
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #5 –
Not the philosophy, the community:  the people, the debates.
 
In previous years I'd be insulted. Now this just bores me.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #6 –
Well,

I think the #TOS is there to take care of the problems you think are present on this forum.
There are other forums out there where your post could make sense, but not on this one.

Just my 0.02

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #7 –
For many, audio is a hobby - not a profession. Hobbies involve emotions so we always will find subjective comments in these forums, like this one, which is a crappy opinion coming from a low IQ man that can't back it p with scientific evidence or A/B tests on audio professional and enthusiast random samples.

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #8 –
The thing is, opinions about differences in sound quality are not welcome unless they can be backed up with evidence in accordance with our rules (have you read our rules?).  If you don't have acceptable evidence, then don't make them.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #9 –
Those audiophiles aren't subjectivists, Floyd Toole ans Sean Olive are subjectivists.
The audiophiles are more neo-subjectivists.
Kevin Graf :: aka Speedskater

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Speedskater on
Those audiophiles aren't subjectivists, Floyd Toole ans Sean Olive are subjectivists.
The audiophiles are more neo-subjectivists.

They are pseudo-subjectivists

Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: mmrkaic on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Speedskater on
Those audiophiles aren't subjectivists, Floyd Toole ans Sean Olive are subjectivists.
The audiophiles are more neo-subjectivists.

They are pseudo-subjectivists


What does that even mean?

What does 'neo subjectivists' mean, for that matter?

Both labels get to the fact that scientists like Toole and Olive who study human aural perception are 'subjectivist' as well as 'objectivist', in that psychoacoustic science absolutely depends on subjective data (listener reports of difference or preference) as well as on objective data (measurement).   Where would their work on loudspeaker preference, for example, be without the component of *subjective* reports of what sounds better or worse?  Where would HA's own codec ratings be?

See chapter 2 of Toole's book for more. 

What self-professed audio 'subjectivists' really are, is superstitious. And they don't really trust their ears, because what a DBT does is force them to rely *only* on their ears....and that galls them.



Re: Are we too polite to subjectivists?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: mmrkaic on
What does that even mean?
Dunning-Kruger prevents them from being cognizant of word meanings, like subjectivist - not desperately needing pseudo-scientific/objective reasons to prop up their choices.
If you are on a crusade, join sites like Chris Conmans CA and DiyAudio, point out the anti-blind test characters like Jakob2 - is a high fashion audio jewlery peddling guerrilla marketer and mmerrill99 is none other than John Cuinas aka jkeny, a magic DAC peddler/shyster. Etc, etc.
You're wasting your talents here.
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018