In an attempt to put an end to this.
I have nothing against subjectivists or anyone else. I would think that though we all are in pursuit of better sound, it's also a hobby. We all justify our buys one way or the other. And that should be enough. Nobody should have to justify himself to anyone else.
I say it again, I only posted in response to what I saw as unfair and unjust. The whole circuitry thing looks interesting to me. But since I wouldn't know, I have no opinion about it and won't express any.
That goes for EVERYBODY. I have done my best not to single anyone out.
I have nothing against subjectivists or anyone else. I would think that though we all are in pursuit of better sound, it's also a hobby. We all justify our buys one way or the other. And that should be enough. Nobody should have to justify himself to anyone else.
I say it again, I only posted in response to what I saw as unfair and unjust. The whole circuitry thing looks interesting to me. But since I wouldn't know, I have no opinion about it and won't express any.
That goes for EVERYBODY. I have done my best not to single anyone out.
Konnichiwa,
To add:
===============================
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Ob*jec"tive\, a. [Cf.F. objectif.]
1. Of or pertaining to an object.
2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or
having the nature or position of, an object; outward;
external; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever ir
exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of
thought or feeling, and opposed to {subjective}.
In the Middle Ages, subject meant substance, and has
this sense in Descartes and Spinoza: sometimes,
also, in Reid. Subjective is used by William of
Occam to denote that which exists independent of
mind; objective, what is formed by the mind. This
shows what is meant by realitas objectiva in
Descartes. Kant and Fichte have inverted the
meanings. Subject, with them, is the mind which
knows; object, that which is known; subjective, the
varying conditions of the knowing mind; objective,
that which is in the constant nature of the thing
known. --Trendelenburg.
Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds
from, the object known, and not from the subject
knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in
opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in
nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the
thought of the individual. --Sir. W.
Hamilton.
Objective has come to mean that which has
independent exostence or authority, apart from our
experience or thought. Thus, moral law is said to
have objective authority, that is, authority
belonging to itself, and not drawn from anything in
our nature. --Calderwood
(Fleming's
Vocabulary).
3. (Gram.) Pertaining to, or designating, the case which
follows a transitive verb or a preposition, being that
case in which the direct object of the verb is placed. See
{Accusative}, n.
Note: The objective case is frequently used without a
governing word, esp. in designations of time or space,
where a preposition, as at, in, on, etc., may be
supplied.
My troublous dream [on] this night make me sad.
--Shak.
To write of victories [in or for] next year.
--Hudibras.
{Objective line} (Perspective), a line drawn on the
geometrical plane which is represented or sought to be
represented.
{Objective plane} (Perspective), any plane in the horizontal
plane that is represented.
{Objective point}, the point or result to which the
operations of an army are directed. By extension, the
point or purpose to which anything, as a journey or an
argument, is directed.
Syn: {Objective}, {Subjective}.
Usage: Objective is applied to things exterior to the mind,
and objects of its attention; subjective, to the
operations of the mind itself. Hence, an objective
motive is some outward thing awakening desire; a
subjective motive is some internal feeling or
propensity. Objective views are those governed by
outward things; subjective views are produced or
modified by internal feeling. Sir Walter Scott's
poetry is chiefly objective; that of Wordsworth is
eminently subjective.
In the philosophy of mind, subjective denotes
what is to be referred to the thinking subject,
the ego; objective what belongs to the object of
thought, the non-ego. --Sir. W.
Hamilton
=====================================
Also Please refer to Bishop Berkley and David Hume's works for further corrolaries to the points of the subjectiove and objective, then a little light Kant and Nietsche to reconcile all this and come to the conclusion as follows:
As nothing that exists, reaches the concious mind without being passed through the human senses and the filter of the interpretative parts of the (subconcious) mind it is therefore platently obvious that while objective reality in the Kantean sense may very well exist (we have no way of knowing) our perception of that postulated objective reality is clearly and obviously subjective.
Upshot, Objectivism of ANY flavour is selfdeception or deliberate, purposefull deception of others, but ABSOLUTELY and RELIABLY untrue.
Sayonara
janneman said:Pinkmouse,
Just to help you, so we know what you mean
Subjective:
(Webster's College Dictionary)
To add:
===============================
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Ob*jec"tive\, a. [Cf.F. objectif.]
1. Of or pertaining to an object.
2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or
having the nature or position of, an object; outward;
external; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever ir
exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of
thought or feeling, and opposed to {subjective}.
In the Middle Ages, subject meant substance, and has
this sense in Descartes and Spinoza: sometimes,
also, in Reid. Subjective is used by William of
Occam to denote that which exists independent of
mind; objective, what is formed by the mind. This
shows what is meant by realitas objectiva in
Descartes. Kant and Fichte have inverted the
meanings. Subject, with them, is the mind which
knows; object, that which is known; subjective, the
varying conditions of the knowing mind; objective,
that which is in the constant nature of the thing
known. --Trendelenburg.
Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds
from, the object known, and not from the subject
knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in
opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in
nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the
thought of the individual. --Sir. W.
Hamilton.
Objective has come to mean that which has
independent exostence or authority, apart from our
experience or thought. Thus, moral law is said to
have objective authority, that is, authority
belonging to itself, and not drawn from anything in
our nature. --Calderwood
(Fleming's
Vocabulary).
3. (Gram.) Pertaining to, or designating, the case which
follows a transitive verb or a preposition, being that
case in which the direct object of the verb is placed. See
{Accusative}, n.
Note: The objective case is frequently used without a
governing word, esp. in designations of time or space,
where a preposition, as at, in, on, etc., may be
supplied.
My troublous dream [on] this night make me sad.
--Shak.
To write of victories [in or for] next year.
--Hudibras.
{Objective line} (Perspective), a line drawn on the
geometrical plane which is represented or sought to be
represented.
{Objective plane} (Perspective), any plane in the horizontal
plane that is represented.
{Objective point}, the point or result to which the
operations of an army are directed. By extension, the
point or purpose to which anything, as a journey or an
argument, is directed.
Syn: {Objective}, {Subjective}.
Usage: Objective is applied to things exterior to the mind,
and objects of its attention; subjective, to the
operations of the mind itself. Hence, an objective
motive is some outward thing awakening desire; a
subjective motive is some internal feeling or
propensity. Objective views are those governed by
outward things; subjective views are produced or
modified by internal feeling. Sir Walter Scott's
poetry is chiefly objective; that of Wordsworth is
eminently subjective.
In the philosophy of mind, subjective denotes
what is to be referred to the thinking subject,
the ego; objective what belongs to the object of
thought, the non-ego. --Sir. W.
Hamilton
=====================================
Also Please refer to Bishop Berkley and David Hume's works for further corrolaries to the points of the subjectiove and objective, then a little light Kant and Nietsche to reconcile all this and come to the conclusion as follows:
As nothing that exists, reaches the concious mind without being passed through the human senses and the filter of the interpretative parts of the (subconcious) mind it is therefore platently obvious that while objective reality in the Kantean sense may very well exist (we have no way of knowing) our perception of that postulated objective reality is clearly and obviously subjective.
Upshot, Objectivism of ANY flavour is selfdeception or deliberate, purposefull deception of others, but ABSOLUTELY and RELIABLY untrue.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Thorsten,
I am most frustrated that you repeatedly make statements of ythings that you purportedly have read or, like here, observed, that are patently untrue.
It is fine to disagree and to discuss at the cutting edge, but some basic honesty would not be an unreasonable demand, now, would it.
Where or when did you observe that "The average "audio objectivist" (though one might better term that particular substrain of the common blue meanie as "audio-pelicanist") does not follow that particular logic at all, based on my observation, " ??
And the other post, where you pathetically (see, I know also adjectives) repeat ad nauseatum that statement " It cannot sound different" or words to that effect, it is simply untrue. As in "a lie".
Jan Didden
If you enable your email button, the sender won't see your email and you just have to ignore emails and when they get too many you can turn it off, my advice. Some forums reveal your address and this isn't good. I don't like it becasue it's then open for spammers.phn said:No email address?! That explains why I never got that mail I was waiting for. Me dumb.
Indeed, P-A. I realized very soon that that was my initial mistake. I should have let people do their arguing any which way they like. My bad.
I'm history.
So... if you enable your email in the CP (control panel)... you might get some email....
As you see, some people love to talk about emotions, feelings, opinions and they take themselves very seriously and the love to fight.
I think I wanted it that way when I signed up. There was no use for any email since I only signed up to be able to view the stuff you have uploaded.
And since one of my posts was left hanging on the original thread, Jan, I'm very impressed by your amps.
I think it's a bit of a shame that much of the great stuff the people on this site do end up in some ugly aluminum box. But it's nothing new. The Linux users I know do basically the same thing: write smart programs, do ugly, non-existent GUIs.
And since one of my posts was left hanging on the original thread, Jan, I'm very impressed by your amps.
I think it's a bit of a shame that much of the great stuff the people on this site do end up in some ugly aluminum box. But it's nothing new. The Linux users I know do basically the same thing: write smart programs, do ugly, non-existent GUIs.
P-A, don't misunderstand me. I have seen lots of great stuff here. Not least the speakers and turntables. Yeah, I completely forgot about the amazing woodwork by some of the guys here. And most importantly, my remark was in no way intended as criticism. I'm fully aware that an engineer may not have the same interest in design as I as a designer have. And I'm also aware that doing something like Jan Didden's amps is very expensive. So I'm not surprised that some DIYer would say, "Why should I spend hundreds of euros on a box when I can make some other audio gear for that money?" I guess it was the designer in me speaking. And the comparison to the Linux user I know isn't really fair since a GUI doesn't cost anything.
I also think my remark was somewhat out of place. I shouldn't have brought up design at all. This is a site about audio. To comment on Jan Didden's amps should have been enough. The rest just slipped out of me. As a designer I always look for stuff like that, but I have made a conscious decision not to talk about it here. There are sites out there for that. So, my mistake.
I also think my remark was somewhat out of place. I shouldn't have brought up design at all. This is a site about audio. To comment on Jan Didden's amps should have been enough. The rest just slipped out of me. As a designer I always look for stuff like that, but I have made a conscious decision not to talk about it here. There are sites out there for that. So, my mistake.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.