I am willing to be more understanding. The usual round is an S makes a statement about how X had this effect. An O says "no way that could happen". The S comes back with an explaination and we are off to the races.Steve Eddy said:
I have been as guilty of this as anyone else. I guess the real answer for me as an O is not to say "bunk, prove it". If it sounds intriguing to me then I can ask for more details and see if I can observe it for myself (assuming it doesn't involve a second morgage). Only after I can reproduce it will I worry about how it works. If it doesn't sound interesting or I can't reproduce it then end of story.
I guess part of why I let myself get drawn into these discussion is my great need to SAVE someone else from their folly
Of course I never need saving from my own folly.
Phil
haldor said:
Yes. Though that's not how I approach things.
If someone says that they tried X and their system sounded better, I've nothing to say and am glad that for whatever reason they're getting greater enjoyment out of their system. That's because I don't care HOW that enjoyment comes about. It's the ultimate result that counts.
Now if they make a claim concerning actual physics regarding doing X and it's obvious their claim is based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved, I'll address that claim. But when I do, I stick to the physics.
And sometimes people will make claims with regard to physics which are accurate, but they fail to put it into any scale. I'll attempt to put it into scale so that others may decide for themselves whether it's something they particularly want to worry about.
But what you'll never hear me say is "That can't possibly make an audible difference."
One problem is that some folks seem to be rather paranoid and defensive and assume that simply because you disagree with their claims regarding physics, that you're inherently implying things which you've neither said nor implied.
And for the more patholigical cases, nothing you can ever say will convince them otherwise. They simply cannot get their minds around such a basic concept that just because you show their pet theory is incorrect, it DOESN'T MEAN that you're dismissing the whole thing out of hand.
Unfortunately I just don't have much patience when it comes to those who don't possess elementary, logical thought processes.
se
whats the sound of ....
one subjectivist on acid?
I don't think anything my emoticon hears is based on reality, subjectively or objectively
I just caught up with this conversation, starting waaayy back in the threads where the black gate caps are doing a strip tease. What is that, only two days ago? Thats a lot of writing. Anyhow its very amusing how people look at things differently.
Steve, I understand the point you've been trying to get across, that its difficult to know how close our perceptions are to reality. Correct me if I'm wrong. Its because of issues like this that we devise double-blind tests and such, as a way of eliminating anything that might be going on in our own minds. For me, I see plain-ol-listnening tests as experimentation. But the only way to know what is happening in the real world (outside of your head) is to do a double blind test. For those who don't believe in double blind tests, I would ask the question why can't you devise a test that would clearly show your improvement while eliminating any processes of whats going on in your brain? Don't forget that you don't hear with your ears you hear with your brain. And there's lots of other stuff crammed in there that gets in the way. As an orthogonal example, it has been clearly shown that people's memories can be changed. They can clearly picture things in there memories that just weren't there. Seeing is believing?? Not always... Same would apply for hearing. Now I know, someone is gonna say that my example has to do with memory and not real-time perception, but I say that it is in fact a similar phenomenon, and I only use it to show that the brain can deceive.
Whats my point? I addressed the previous paragraph to Steve, but the mostly agreed with him for the whole thing. I wanted to address Steve's question of why people insist on stating subjective perceptions as truth. And I think that the answer is that nobody cares about the difference. I think a lot of the people on this board like to experiment and thats all there is to it. I think if you really look at it, there aren't too many points made that are in disagreement with you , but rather there are fine lines in how you interpret things. And I'm of both sides. As an engineer, I want to find objective truth, and of course I want it to sound good to me. I also want to experiment, and I want some visionaries(wackos?) to exist and pass the bounds of what we know now.
ugh, I didn't mean to post a philosophical thesis there... well maybe I did
I need a beer
lol... I love that.... been wanting to post it ever since I saw the first one.
one subjectivist on acid?
I don't think anything my emoticon hears is based on reality, subjectively or objectively I just caught up with this conversation, starting waaayy back in the threads where the black gate caps are doing a strip tease. What is that, only two days ago? Thats a lot of writing. Anyhow its very amusing how people look at things differently.
Steve, I understand the point you've been trying to get across, that its difficult to know how close our perceptions are to reality. Correct me if I'm wrong. Its because of issues like this that we devise double-blind tests and such, as a way of eliminating anything that might be going on in our own minds. For me, I see plain-ol-listnening tests as experimentation. But the only way to know what is happening in the real world (outside of your head) is to do a double blind test. For those who don't believe in double blind tests, I would ask the question why can't you devise a test that would clearly show your improvement while eliminating any processes of whats going on in your brain? Don't forget that you don't hear with your ears
you hear with your brain. And there's lots of other stuff crammed in there that gets in the way. As an orthogonal example, it has been clearly shown that people's memories can be changed. They can clearly picture things in there memories that just weren't there. Seeing is believing?? Not always... Same would apply for hearing. Now I know, someone is gonna say that my example has to do with memory and not real-time perception, but I say that it is in fact a similar phenomenon, and I only use it to show that the brain can deceive. Whats my point? I addressed the previous paragraph to Steve, but the mostly agreed with him for the whole thing. I wanted to address Steve's question of why people insist on stating subjective perceptions as truth. And I think that the answer is that nobody cares about the difference.
I think a lot of the people on this board like to experiment and thats all there is to it. I think if you really look at it, there aren't too many points made that are in disagreement with you , but rather there are fine lines in how you interpret things. And I'm of both sides. As an engineer, I want to find objective truth, and of course I want it to sound good to me. I also want to experiment, and I want some visionaries(wackos?) to exist and pass the bounds of what we know now. ugh, I didn't mean to post a philosophical thesis there... well maybe I did
I need a beer
lol... I love that.... been wanting to post it ever since I saw the first one.
Steve Eddy said:
It is unfortunate that this philosophy is overtaking our society (at least in the States). Laws, rules, and regulations are created based upon the desires/whims/fancies of a *very* small minority; and the smaller the minority, the more pushy they are, especially where religion is the topic. And Audiophilia is most definately a religious experience to some....
Testing, particularly DBT is a whole can of worms in itself.
I've heard of tests where some seemingly expensive device (amp, speaker, cables, etc) is "covertly displayed" 
to the listeners, and then NOT hooked up. The listeners overwhelmingly hear the change and agree it's a better sound, despite the fact that nothing had physically changed with the audio gear. 
I think that much strife will be avoided if (when) people stop being so hot headed
and defensive and think before they pull the trigger. 
Anyways, I think Evaas has a great
- a sounds really good right now 
.... (As long as it isn't overdone 
...) Now if I only had a cold one... 
Cheers,
Mark Broker
I am always struck by the similarities between audio
and wine. (not to mention how well they go together)
Here in Northern California, we have access to a few
people in the wine industry, and more than once I
have talked to technical and marketing wine guys who
describe the objective vs subjective argument in nearly
the same way.
The objectivist viewpoint runs along the lines of "If we
run a spectral analysis of all the compounds in a given
wine, we can characterize it in a manner which allows its
duplication by other means."
The subjectivist counters with "Let me know when you
do that. I'd like a nice '24 Chevalier Montrachet, please,
something from the southern side of the hill".
When I took enology at Davis, I was taught by the gods
of wine objectivism, Amerine and Singleton, and it seems
that they had a tremendous influence on the California
wine industry, which cranks out tanker loads of pretty good
wine, (did I mention that my ex uncle-in-law was the marketing
manager of Gallo?). So now you can get some semi-decent
wine for 6 or 7 bucks.
Nevertheless, subjectivism remains rampant, and the
boutique wineries are doing very well.
The subjectivist enjoyment of wine propels interest in
the industry at large, and everybody benefits. The
objectivists work to provide consistently decent product
that you can buy at a reasonable price.
This is the entertainment industry.
and wine. (not to mention how well they go together)
Here in Northern California, we have access to a few
people in the wine industry, and more than once I
have talked to technical and marketing wine guys who
describe the objective vs subjective argument in nearly
the same way.
The objectivist viewpoint runs along the lines of "If we
run a spectral analysis of all the compounds in a given
wine, we can characterize it in a manner which allows its
duplication by other means."
The subjectivist counters with "Let me know when you
do that. I'd like a nice '24 Chevalier Montrachet, please,
something from the southern side of the hill".
When I took enology at Davis, I was taught by the gods
of wine objectivism, Amerine and Singleton, and it seems
that they had a tremendous influence on the California
wine industry, which cranks out tanker loads of pretty good
wine, (did I mention that my ex uncle-in-law was the marketing
manager of Gallo?). So now you can get some semi-decent
wine for 6 or 7 bucks.
Nevertheless, subjectivism remains rampant, and the
boutique wineries are doing very well.
The subjectivist enjoyment of wine propels interest in
the industry at large, and everybody benefits. The
objectivists work to provide consistently decent product
that you can buy at a reasonable price.
This is the entertainment industry.
Brett said:
Not only because of that, but when you talk about ABX testing the experiment is statistically flawed, and does not prove anything. On one of the discussion lists a couple practicing statistions (sp?) showed the flaw - i remember enuff stats to follow the argument (i do have a stats degree, but most of the detail evaporated after i went into hifi, then 'puters) and it was SOLID. Don't ask me to dig this up -- i'll find it someday, it should be buried in my email archive.
dave
PS: just went back and read the posts between the one i quoted and mine. I think Steve Eddy described at least the gist of the statistical problem in one of his early posts.
Nelson Pass said:
I'm just down the hill from you here in Sacramento so I can relate on the wine issue. Though I'm more of a beer and ale fan myself.
But I don't really see quite the similarity when comparing wine to audio that you do.
Even though many in this hobby consider themselves subjectivists and openly call themselves subjectivists, and take great pains to try and make it appear that they are not objectivists, I really see very few who truly are subjectivists.
The self-professed subjectivist says that they don't care about objective specs. That THD doesn't matter. IM doesn't matter. What matters is how it SOUNDS.
Great.
But then look at how they actually pursue things.
THD doesn't matter. But the dielectric constant of the material used in capacitors and cables does. The lower the dielectric constant the better. IM doesn't matter. But the TCR of a resistor does. The lower the TCR the better.
So while they claim that they are subjectivists who don't care about objective specs, they in fact pursue objective specs with great fervor. Virtually everything is geared toward the most linear, objectively perfect performance possible. Gotta reduce skin effect. Gotta use ultra pure copper or silver conductors. Gotta worry about diodic effects in copper. Etc. Etc. Etc.
These people aren't subjectivists. In fact, they're not really objectivists either. They are in fact HYPERobjectivists.
So this whole "objectivists vs. subjectivist" schism is a straw man as far as I'm concerned. What I want to know is, where the hell are the ACTUAL SUBJECTIVISTS?
se
You make a good point. I know several "subjectivist"
designers who still keep an eye on the meter. I see
one every morning in the mirror.
What I enjoy best are the guys who have a franchise
on ONE theory to the exclusion of all else. This is
particularly special when they are also writing reviews.
We seem to have licked TIM, jitter, harmonic time
alignment, and a host of other exotic proprietary
distortions, but I don't see much real progress.
designers who still keep an eye on the meter. I see
one every morning in the mirror.
What I enjoy best are the guys who have a franchise
on ONE theory to the exclusion of all else. This is
particularly special when they are also writing reviews.
We seem to have licked TIM, jitter, harmonic time
alignment, and a host of other exotic proprietary
distortions, but I don't see much real progress.
Hi Nelson -Do you think we've reached a plateau?
It seems that the law of dimishing returns may well be applicable here.
I only stumbled ( don't know why I missed it before ) onto diyaudio a few weeks ago - prior to that I was beginning to believe that multi-amping was the most bang for the buck primarily from reading Linkwitz's site and surfing.
Coming here and visiting Passlabs site and seeing Nelson bringing an active crossover to market and realizing that "the one and only" along with several other well thought of posters are of a similar disposition, Planet 10 comes to mind - also confirmed my personal belief that this is the way to go for the foreseeable future - If for no other reason than that the speaker is the weakest link of the chain -
Maybe this area is where there is the most progress to be made until some other "breakthru" is made. NP obviously thinks something along this line or he wouldn't have brought the XVR-1 to market -
If I'm correct or in the ballpark on this, then how do we cross the hurdle of all those amps ( current draw) and heat -
As I type this I realize that usually a manufacturer does not wish to actually reveal future directions until it is appropriate.
Obviously, NP is unusual in more than one way
So instead of me asking an unanswerable question - let me ask instead - Have I evaluated this situation reasonably well or am I leaving something major out??
Ken L
As always, I wish to thank Nelson Pass for supporting this forum and contibuting to same.
It seems that the law of dimishing returns may well be applicable here.
I only stumbled ( don't know why I missed it before ) onto diyaudio a few weeks ago - prior to that I was beginning to believe that multi-amping was the most bang for the buck primarily from reading Linkwitz's site and surfing.
Coming here and visiting Passlabs site and seeing Nelson bringing an active crossover to market and realizing that "the one and only" along with several other well thought of posters are of a similar disposition, Planet 10 comes to mind - also confirmed my personal belief that this is the way to go for the foreseeable future - If for no other reason than that the speaker is the weakest link of the chain -
Maybe this area is where there is the most progress to be made until some other "breakthru" is made. NP obviously thinks something along this line or he wouldn't have brought the XVR-1 to market -
If I'm correct or in the ballpark on this, then how do we cross the hurdle of all those amps ( current draw) and heat -
As I type this I realize that usually a manufacturer does not wish to actually reveal future directions until it is appropriate.
Obviously, NP is unusual in more than one way
So instead of me asking an unanswerable question - let me ask instead - Have I evaluated this situation reasonably well or am I leaving something major out??
Ken L
As always, I wish to thank Nelson Pass for supporting this forum and contibuting to same.
Wine analology
The wine analogy is interesting. Per California newspapers a couple of years ago there was a blind testing (tasting actually) of reds in Paris. One that had been held for years with no more than passing controversy. California wines came in pretty much in top spots. The French tasters (and press) cried it that the test was flawed simply because French wines did poorly.
The logic: French wines are the best. Therefore any test that suggests otherwise is ipso facto invalid.
As a Swede told me just yesterday: Since the French have done one thing right (the metric system) we ought to adopt it.
The wine analogy is interesting. Per California newspapers a couple of years ago there was a blind testing (tasting actually) of reds in Paris. One that had been held for years with no more than passing controversy. California wines came in pretty much in top spots. The French tasters (and press) cried it that the test was flawed simply because French wines did poorly.
The logic: French wines are the best. Therefore any test that suggests otherwise is ipso facto invalid.
As a Swede told me just yesterday: Since the French have done one thing right (the metric system) we ought to adopt it.
How so??Weakest link in the chain and all that
Actually, I think the most important component is one we rarely discuss - the listening room itself.
I'm curious as to why you think speakers are least important - say compared to " wires" provided that you would consider wires a component -
If we're going to get some discussion started might as well make it no holds barred
Ken L
PS what did you think of my overall assessment
Actually, I think the most important component is one we rarely discuss - the listening room itself.
I'm curious as to why you think speakers are least important - say compared to " wires" provided that you would consider wires a component -
If we're going to get some discussion started might as well make it no holds barred
Ken L
PS what did you think of my overall assessment
Grey 
Re: Re: Re: Hi Nelson -Do you think we've reached a plateau?
true bit we all agree that you can hear a diffrence between diffrent amps. Hence even though the speakers are the weakest link of the chain, they are good enough to show that an amp (or sources) can and do have a significant 'sonic signature'
Peter Daniel said:
I think that the most important is the source component. Of course it's not worth much without good bass.
true bit we all agree that you can hear a diffrence between diffrent amps. Hence even though the speakers are the weakest link of the chain, they are good enough to show that an amp (or sources) can and do have a significant 'sonic signature'
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.