Exactly. Effective theories can be very useful, but they are not fundamental truth.
Arrogance can blind one to this.
It seems to me the answer's yes or if not, the Socratic method wouldn't work.
Hi Esperado,
Without wishing to offend you ...
What I don't like is the widening of a very tiny grey area when it comes to test and measurement. Do I know everything? No. But, as newer test equipment is developed day by day, those shadows where unknowns exist are shrinking.
The big problem as I see it is the assumption that "objective" people don't listen to music and only measure. This is of course completely untrue. We listen, we measure and we have greater understanding through the use of more tools at our disposal. Someone who only listens is the handicapped one. Now it becomes the age old battle between the "haves and have nots". A subjective only viewpoint is missing a great deal of information and knowledge. The term "objectivist" ought really be "subjective-objective" as that is the true picture.
The have not folks just want to be included, but they want more weight to their voice, and that can only happen is testing is devalued to a point where it is seen as a blind. This is the fight, dragged out into the cold hard light of day for all to see.
-Chris
Without wishing to offend you ...
What I don't like is the widening of a very tiny grey area when it comes to test and measurement. Do I know everything? No. But, as newer test equipment is developed day by day, those shadows where unknowns exist are shrinking.
The big problem as I see it is the assumption that "objective" people don't listen to music and only measure. This is of course completely untrue. We listen, we measure and we have greater understanding through the use of more tools at our disposal. Someone who only listens is the handicapped one. Now it becomes the age old battle between the "haves and have nots". A subjective only viewpoint is missing a great deal of information and knowledge. The term "objectivist" ought really be "subjective-objective" as that is the true picture.
The have not folks just want to be included, but they want more weight to their voice, and that can only happen is testing is devalued to a point where it is seen as a blind. This is the fight, dragged out into the cold hard light of day for all to see.
-Chris
Hi, Richard,
That seems a good potential example. My recollection of the Socratic method is that it's more a process of being lead to self learning or discovery. I'm uncertain as to whether such a process qualifies as a kind of unknown knowledge. You pose an interesting possibility.
Hi Ken -
My line of thinking was that normally 'knowledge' is thought of as some information. In the Socratic method that information isn't given directly rather the student is led, step by step to realize it through a series of questions. I did look for an example online which I found inspiring many years ago, so far I've not found it. I shall keep searching.
<edit> Got it - http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
My line of thinking was that normally 'knowledge' is thought of as some information. In the Socratic method that information isn't given directly rather the student is led, step by step to realize it through a series of questions. I did look for an example online which I found inspiring many years ago, so far I've not found it. I shall keep searching.
<edit> Got it - http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
Last edited:
I think the very best that can be achieved from the SOTA is still a "genuine imitation." (Yes, I'm stealing that from the Ronco-type ads in the Sunday supplement.)
How about this thought exercise...
Let's remove the weak links, the transducer-ear interface. If electrodes could be strategically placed on your scalp to provide that live aural experience, would you shave your head and get in line at the cashier?
How about this thought exercise...
Let's remove the weak links, the transducer-ear interface. If electrodes could be strategically placed on your scalp to provide that live aural experience, would you shave your head and get in line at the cashier?
This is good for a chuckle :
* For their Conductor Virtuoso model with remote, Burson finally abandoned their clunky stepper in favour of a Burr-Brown PGA2310 chip-based resistor network. About its integral op-amp output stage, "Burson’s secret sauce is setting the PGA2310’s op-amp to unity gain so it essentially acts as a purely resistive volume control. This avoids any coloration the op-amp output stage may inject."
6moons audioreviews: Supreme Sound Audio Lycan
* For their Conductor Virtuoso model with remote, Burson finally abandoned their clunky stepper in favour of a Burr-Brown PGA2310 chip-based resistor network. About its integral op-amp output stage, "Burson’s secret sauce is setting the PGA2310’s op-amp to unity gain so it essentially acts as a purely resistive volume control. This avoids any coloration the op-amp output stage may inject."
6moons audioreviews: Supreme Sound Audio Lycan
I for one wouldn't say there is anything wrong with SS devices and they do the job they are designed for. I think what is being said is that with all the latest and greatest test equipment that does not predict the quality of a sound system. It may in fact show trends and generalities but the final end result requires our ears. Yes objectivist do listen to the music when they are done, but the measured test results alone won't tell you what you are going to hear in the end, that is the unknown unknown factor that is still eluding the audio industry, the predictors that can tell you the final sound. Objectively subjective or subjectively objective you still can not say you have all the answers to the questions when you don't know what it is we are all missing.
Last edited:
Chris, You can imagine, as an audio designer, that I completely agree with this. Knowledge of laws of electricity, best knowledge as possible of components behaviors, calculations, prototype, measurements AND listening is the only way. The question is the importance we place to each of those steps. With age, I believe we are all convicted of our lack of real knowledge, if we are not blind, more we rest on our "feelings". Trying to understand, of course. It's a little like the life of a musician, if you see what I mean. From music theory to instinct.
Well, about snake oil, it is very simple. If something goes *against* the knowledge we have of physics, it is snake oil. If we can observe something we don't know, let's try to ensure it is not an illusion and, if not it is time to try to understand why. On my side, there is a lot of thinks i know they work better than others, but cannot explain exactly why.
Our thin film is typically .01% untrimmed match and 15ppm TC I guess their ignorance of reality is cultivated.
When I was 16 or so every overpass was spray painted M.E.N. (mooning every night).
Hi Esperado,
Well, with age there does come wisdom as we do more clearly see our own limitations. However, with this comes a greater understanding of the information amassed in our heads, and a perspective.
As a designer, I do know that you can look at a schematic and the part choices have have a pretty good idea of how it sounds, and why. That would be the best case because the circuit layout can certainly "break" a design. I believe that you can look at the technical information and measurements and have an extremely good idea of how it might sound. Best case of course. By looking at the measurements, I mean the various distortion numbers and spectral response for various stimulus. But you also know that great value is in look at the residual output from a THD analyzer with a spectrum analyzer. With newer equipment you can in fact resolve down to the noise floor. You already know if there are problems, and experience has taught you what these might sound like.
My feeling is any good designer and any good technician would be able to take this information and form a pretty good idea how something sounds. On average of course.
So the claim that we can not tell what something will sound like is maybe a bit pessimistic. You sure can zero in on what you heard that was wrong as well. Yes, all this takes training and experience. Of course, if a design has too many problems, describing how it would sound is fruitless. It will be a sonic mess.
Naturally we also want to have a listen to confirm what we think is true, and most often you confirm what your instruments have showed you. Plus, it's really nice to hear music through a creation that you designed. That affords us real satisfaction and pleasure. This is like having a shared experience, except you do know what is going on behind the curtains.
-Chris
Well, with age there does come wisdom as we do more clearly see our own limitations. However, with this comes a greater understanding of the information amassed in our heads, and a perspective.
As a designer, I do know that you can look at a schematic and the part choices have have a pretty good idea of how it sounds, and why. That would be the best case because the circuit layout can certainly "break" a design. I believe that you can look at the technical information and measurements and have an extremely good idea of how it might sound. Best case of course. By looking at the measurements, I mean the various distortion numbers and spectral response for various stimulus. But you also know that great value is in look at the residual output from a THD analyzer with a spectrum analyzer. With newer equipment you can in fact resolve down to the noise floor. You already know if there are problems, and experience has taught you what these might sound like.
My feeling is any good designer and any good technician would be able to take this information and form a pretty good idea how something sounds. On average of course.
So the claim that we can not tell what something will sound like is maybe a bit pessimistic. You sure can zero in on what you heard that was wrong as well. Yes, all this takes training and experience. Of course, if a design has too many problems, describing how it would sound is fruitless. It will be a sonic mess.
Naturally we also want to have a listen to confirm what we think is true, and most often you confirm what your instruments have showed you. Plus, it's really nice to hear music through a creation that you designed. That affords us real satisfaction and pleasure. This is like having a shared experience, except you do know what is going on behind the curtains.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.