Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle? (Read 17411 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #25 –
Well, Arny, what do you expect?  The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Mach-X on
Eh? How is bringing in somebody with no expectation bias an 'audio cliche'. I'm pretty sure including somebody without a 'horse in the race' is as objective as you can get is it not?
Most certainly not. Not having experience in a given field absolutely does not immunise one from the risk of succumbing to any accompanying placebo effect and expectation bias. More likely? Quite the opposite.

Quote from: Woodinville on
The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.
I agree, but it’s only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the former’s initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: db1989 on
Quote from: Woodinville on
The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.
I agree, but it’s only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the former’s initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.


Ah. Well, then, the title is a good summary, you say? To me that about wraps this up, but I won't blame the poster for the title, ok?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #28 –
Quote
I agree, but it’s only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the former’s initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.

It's also in the form of a question. E.g. "does the truth lie somewhere in between objective and subjective extremes?"

There's nothing wrong with questioning common wisdom, even if said wisdom has strong scientific and historical merit.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Well, then, the title is a good summary, you say?

I thought it distilled the subject matter fairly, though I believe the OP deserves the final word.  If he would like something else I will happily change it.

Because two posts ended up in the recycle bin (still publicly viewable), I want to make it clear in this thread that the OP was wrongly accused of making remarks about the general intelligence of our community. It was an entirely different member who said this.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #30 –
Thank-you, greynol. I think to clarify my original post, what I meant to imply is that on one side of things, you have those audiophile publications that drone on about the benefits of bi wiring, 24 kt gold cables, and 96khz sampling. On the other you have those obsessed with spectrum analysis graphs (those who mess with LAME's lowpass), THD tables (nobody can hear the difference between 0.05 and 0.5%), etc, etc.

The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #31 –
The problem still is that your second category is still a straw man. I think most here would fall in this "middle" you're implying, and your two "sides" actually have a lot of overlap between them. Except, of course, that then this "middle" is not the middle of anything anymore.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: andy o on
The problem still is that your second category is still a straw man. I think most here would fall in this "middle" you're implying, and your two "sides" actually have a lot of overlap between them. Except, of course, that then this "middle" is not the middle of anything anymore.

Basically It's still strawman season for Mach-X.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Mach-X on
Thank-you, greynol. I think to clarify my original post, what I meant to imply is that on one side of things, you have those audiophile publications that drone on about the benefits of bi wiring, 24 kt gold cables, and 96khz sampling. On the other you have those obsessed with spectrum analysis graphs (those who mess with LAME's lowpass), THD tables (nobody can hear the difference between 0.05 and 0.5%), etc, etc.

The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.



Many of the issues you just raised such as setting brick wall filters corner frequencies and tables of THD versus frequency are actually well enough settled among knowledgeable people that there is not much need to do more testing than has already been done.  If you need to do the tests yourself to be convinced, then by all means do it!  If you can bring yourself to believe what many knowledgeable people are saying about these things, then you save yourself a lot of time and effort.

Most of the things you read on audiophile forums are bollocks! OTOH  HA is a pretty reliable source.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #34 –
Eerrm... Isn't the conclusion in latest Mach-X posts that, *hopefully*, there are sites like hydrogenaudio?

I ask because I don't get that interpretation in the three posts after his.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Mach-X on
The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.


Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.

Yes, I've heard a few people put forth that claim, and it's kind of fun to ask them for the listening tests results that prove their claim, frankly.

A proper DBT of the right structure for the signals at hand is the thing to rely on.

Just don't forget controls, both positive and negative.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Mach-X on
The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.


Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.


As we both know, is possible to have considerable nonlinearity in a band-limited system and have both considerable audible distortion with music, but little or no measurable distortion with  a simple THD test.

Frequency response is usually the more audible and common flaw.

Electronic gear has only 3 kinds of audible flaws - linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, and noise. Making adequate measurements of all 3 is not a big mystery.

 

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.

Yes, I've heard a few people put forth that claim, and it's kind of fun to ask them for the listening tests results that prove their claim, frankly.

A proper DBT of the right structure for the signals at hand is the thing to rely on.



Hm, well. DBTs are well suited to verify that there is some kind of audible difference (if there is such one). Less well suited to falsify differences. But I guess the OP has a good point in those cases where are  differences that the ears can tell. Then the DBT procedure does not offer enough tools to tell which one is closer to truth (lack of reference), nor to describe what the differences are (lack of vocabulary). Measurements like THD are 'objective', but they do not objectively measure quality. (Rather, like you indicate, it is not that far from objective to claim that THD doesn't.)

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Hm, well. DBTs are well suited to verify that there is some kind of audible difference (if there is such one). Less well suited to falsify differences.


If by "falisfy differenences"  you mean prove that a difference does not exist, are DBTs any worse than anything else given that proving negative hypothesis is difficult or impossible?

Quote
But I guess the OP has a good point in those cases where are  differences that the ears can tell. Then the DBT procedure does not offer enough tools to tell which one is closer
to truth (lack of reference), nor to describe what the differences are (lack of vocabulary).


Which DBT procedure are you speaking of?  It's a given that ABX is not very good all by itself for characterizing differences that are known to exist. OTOH, other means exist for that and seem to be generally recognized.

Quote
Measurements like THD are 'objective', but they do not objectively measure quality. (Rather, like you indicate, it is not that far from objective to claim that THD doesn't.)


THD is an abstract quantity. It is just a means for characterizing nonlinear distortion, and one that has obvious and well-known flaws. Other means are commonly used for this purpose and they have their own strengths and weaknesses.  THD is perhaps most useful when it is known to be exceeding low, which is now common.

Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If by "falisfy differenences"  you mean prove that a difference does not exist, are DBTs any worse than anything else given that proving negative hypothesis is difficult or impossible?


Ah, there I was in my own thoughts, thinking “there is no miracle cure” and not being specific about what I wrote.