more objective vrs subjective (from snubberized GC PS thread)

[Upupa Epops]

Basic feature of Holy Inquisition : No doubt !

[ThorstenL]

Originally posted by Upupa Epops
Basic feature of Holy Inquisition : No doubt !

The Spanish Inquisition
by Monty Python

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film. This was the Spanish Inquisition...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleveland: Well what on earth does that mean?
Chapman: *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]


[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Palin] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jones] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [Gilliam] is just Cardinal Fang]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

[The Inquisition exits]

Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]


[The cardinals burst in]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ximinez: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
Biggles: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...

[Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again]

Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals enter]

Biggles: Er.... Nobody...um....
Ximinez: Expects...
Biggles: Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the Spanish...um...
Ximinez: Inquisition.
Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Ximinez: Our chief weapons are...
Biggles: Our chief weapons are...um...er...
Ximinez: Surprise...
Biggles: Surprise and --
Ximinez: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church. 'My old man said follow the--'
Biggles: That's enough.
[To Cleveland] Now, how do you plead?
Clevelnd: We're innocent.
Ximinez: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]

Biggles: We'll soon change your mind about that!

[DIABOLICAL ACTING]

Ximinez: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Cardinal -- the rack!

[Biggles produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Ximinez looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]

Ximinez: You....Right! Tie her down.

[Fang and Biggles make a pathetic attempt to tie her on to the drying rack]

Ximinez:Right! How do you plead?
Clevelnd: Innocent.
Ximinez: Ha! Right! Cardinal, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.

[Biggles stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]

Biggles: I....
Ximinez: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
Biggles: I...
Ximinez: It makes it all seem so stupid.
Biggles: Shall I...?
Ximinez: No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!

[Biggles turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack]

[Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde]

Ximinez: Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don't understand what I'm accused of.
Ximinez: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions]

Biggles: Here they are, lord.
Ximinez: Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don't know what you're talking about.
Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

[Biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture]

Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Zoom into Fang's horrified face]

Fang [terrified]: The...Comfy Chair?

[Biggles pushes in a comfy chair -- a really plush one]

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

[They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair]

Ximinez [with a cruel leer]: Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is?
Biggles: Yes, lord.
Ximinez: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess
Biggles: I confess!
Ximinez: Not you!

[phn]

Hope I don't post stuff somebody else has already posted. I just didn't have the energy to read all 50 some pages.

That is exactly the way those multi-kilo dollar cable peddlers, brilliant pebbles, magic pens, whatever, etc make their killing. They insinuate that if you can't hear the enormous improvement with their stuff, you're one of these suckers with wooden ears. And who wants to be that, right?

That gave us the IT crash as well. Anyone that questioned the idea of running companies that make no money was called stuffy and backward. That's not how you debate. That's how you kill a debate.

Lets face it. Anyone that buys a pair of Transparent speaker cables for the price of a small car is just as much a victim of the marketing departments as someone buying a T-shirt with the text, "Just Do It." And don't even try to go there. Anyone with half a brain knows that a power cord works a lot better as speaker cables than a pair of shoelaces. So yes, cables make a difference, sometimes huge. Nobody has ever contested that. End of story, forever.

And we know one other thing for sure. Kuei Yang Wang, carlosfm and demogorgon don't like the high-noise format SACD. (At least I call a digital format with higher noise level than the CD in the >10kHz range and with a noise level 2^10 times higher than DVD-A high.) I mean, you can't have it both ways.

An objectivists says "It only exists if it can be explained" and they are wrong. A subjectivist says "I can observe it and that is all that matters" and they too are wrong. The most important part, and for me the most fun part, is seeking an understanding of what I can't explain.

I though objectivism was that political fringe ideology. But, yes, the objectivists have perverted Aristotle. (I'm not an Aristotlean. But I don't like it when somebody hijacks a philosophy and perverts it to further his or her cause.) Having that said, those objective scientists you refer to have nothing to do with that. They just abide by reason and logic. The subjectivists and their bible Stereophile, on the other hand, try to convince us that all we need is faith. So, no, you can't pick both anymore than you can eat the cake and have it at the same time.

[jan.didden]

Originally posted by phn
quote:
An objectivists says "It only exists if it can be explained" and they are wrong. [snip]

No, that is not true. An objectivist will accept a phenomenon he/she cannot explain. He only likes that the phenomenon can be consistently and reliably repeated, that establishes that it exist. Explanation would be nice, but not required to accept it.

Jan Didden

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by phn
And we know one other thing for sure. Kuei Yang Wang, carlosfm and demogorgon don't like the high-noise format SACD.

I would not say I dislike SACD (or CD for that), but I feel based on what I have heard so far SACD fails to improve on CD in a musically meaningfull way. On the other hand in good recordings and implementations of hi-rez PCM (aka DVD-A) I have heard such improvements.

Originally posted by phn
I though objectivism was that political fringe ideology.

I would have thought it a fringe Ideology/Philosophy/Religion (one can often employ these three terms quite interchable).

We have of course a specific brand of objectivist, namely the Audio Objectivst, who actually has very little to do with actual objectivist ideology, he is more of a "purpose objectivist" than an actual one, he also more accuratly and precisely known the common blue meanie:



The average common blue meanie simply has problems with the moral affordability of certain concepts in (subjectivist) audio and therefore at any corner attempts to spoil others from having any fun with such things where the underlying (actual or proposed) principle run counter to deeply and dearly held (and often dearly aquired) beliefs and and prejudices.

In a way they are like the accountant who, when asked who he would invite to his ideal dinner party promply answered "30 Accountants and ONE Real Estate Agent". When prompted "WHY ON EARTH ONE Real Estate Agent?" he commented: "Well, quite frankly, if I'm not enjoying myself I don't see why a real estate agent should!".

Originally posted by janneman
No, that is not true. An objectivist will accept a phenomenon he/she cannot explain. He only likes that the phenomenon can be consistently and reliably repeated, that establishes that it exist. Explanation would be nice, but not required to accept it.

You describe an actual, real objectivist as in one holding a deeply held faith that actual reality and percieved reality reliably co-incide (BTW, NOTE - Co-Incidences aren't!) as opposed to irregulary and almost randomly intersect.

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, even within audio never mind outside.

Sayonara

[phn]

You figured me right. I don't know what "Audio Objectivist" is. But that's not my point. My snide remark about SACD was and is my point. My point is that subjectivists are unreasonable and illogical. Subjectivists are quick to use measurements when they back them up, and discard them when they don't. You cannot change the rules to fit you and then expect to be taken seriously. (Lots of scientists have tried only to have had their careers ruined.) It doesn't work that way. It can only be one or the other. But since subjectivists don't follow reason and logic, it's not possible to have a meaningful, much less intellectual, discussion with them. At least the subjectivists are consistent in one regard: the most expensive gear is always the best gear. In his review of the RS Labs RS-A1 Tonearm, Ian White almost felt he had to apologize for liking it better than the much more expensive SME V.

Just to make things perfectly clear. I'm not debating the circuitry. I know nothing about that. I'm no engineer. I know very little about electronics. It's not my field of expertise.

Having that said, I don't want this debate. The first paragraph explains why.

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by phn
My snide remark about SACD was and is my point. My point is that subjectivists are unreasonable and illogical. Subjectivists are quick to use measurements when they back them up, and discard them when they don't.

That is a very prejudiced and skewed view of the world and of audio.

Originally posted by phn
At least the subjectivists are consistent in one regard: the most expensive gear is always the best gear.

Funny. I find often enough that what you postulate is absolutely and completely wrong. If you would like to present hard data to back your case that "{To} The subjectivists the most expensive gear is always the best gear." and I mean hard data (eg a analysis of multiple preference tests with subjectivists who upon knowing the price reliably choose the most expensive gear as best sounding) I may simply refute your point as pernicous.

Originally posted by phn
In his review of the RS Labs RS-A1 Tonearm, Ian White almost felt he had to apologize for liking it better than the much more expensive SME V.

So, AT LEAST ONE subjectivist was NOT consistent them? Surely that inherently invalidates your whole point?

Originally posted by phn
Just to make things perfectly clear. I'm not debating the circuitry.

Well, I DO.

Originally posted by phn
I know nothing about that.

Well, I DO.

Originally posted by phn
I'm no engineer.

Well, I AM.

Originally posted by phn
I know very little about electronics.

Well, I know a litthe more.

Originally posted by phn
It's not my field of expertise.

Neither is it mine. I am not an expert. An expert is somone who has made all possible mistakes in a very narrow field. I prefer as much as possible learning from others mistakes to making my own.

Originally posted by phn
Having that said, I don't want this debate. The first paragraph explains why.

It does!? I must have missed the point where it does.

Or is your explanation that you simply ignore "subjectivists" as "unreasonable and illogical"? I think you are well off base and rather rude.

Many subjectivists make arguments that are perfectly reasonable and logically coherent in favour of their views and experience. You may not share the basic assumptions upon which the arguments are based, but within these basic assumptions the arguments are logical, reasonable and coherent.

There are enough people among the supposed "objectivists" whose argumentation, even if we ignore the differences in basic assumptions are neither reasonable nore logical or coherent or indeed even make the least sense whatsoever, past asserting the rule of orthodoxy and academic authority.

In fact, you may forgive me my presumption, but your first paragraph strikes me as a dogmatic and wholesale dismissal of anything you disagree with and is FAR FROM being either reasonable or logical.

Sayonara

[phn]

I went out of my way not to be rude. I don't believe in being rude. It's the easiest way to alienate people and then you have achieved nothing. At the same time I was well aware that the subjectivist wouldn't be very happy about my post. But for some reason the subjectivists think when they call others cement ears and such, we should just take it as good sports. Yeah, THAT makes sense.

This thread could have been over and done with in three posts. Instead of suggesting that somebody should bring out the calculator (I don't remember who said that, nor do I care; I'm not interested in playing some silly guilt game), the person could just have explained why. Then even the laypersons could understand enough to try it out themselves. The sonic result would speak for itself.

And my point stands. You cannot eat the cake and have it at the same time.

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by phn
At the same time I was well aware that the subjectivist wouldn't be very happy about my post.

Well, I am not sure who you call "subjectivist", I am unhappy about your post as it presents a highly inaccurate picture and is deliberalty insulting.

Originally posted by phn
But for some reason the subjectivists think when they call others cement ears and such, we should just take it as good sports. Yeah, THAT makes sense.

Actually, the berating some people got in this thread who take the purpose objectivist stance did not call them cement ears (it is obvious you did not read the thread) but suggested merely that said people should not simply reject what they cannot intellectually comprehend without at least an experiment, especially in an area where an experiment was so easy to come by.

Moreover, others (myself included) pointed out that contrary to the claims of the purpose objectivists there was a very real electrical phenomenae taking place which allowed at least in principle for a change that MAY be audible.

Now I will not have a go at people who are genuine and know what they are talking about. Even more so if when challenged to a very simple and easily performed "try it" keep chanting the mantra of:

(S = Start of thread; C = Challenge; A = Answer)

S: "Tell me why it should make a difference. It cannot make a difference!"

C: "Try it! It is as easy as soldering 4 parts into your existing circuit."

A: "It cannot make a difference!"

C: "Consider the electrical equavalent circuit and analyse it, you will see it CAN make a difference"

A: "It cannot make a difference!"

C: "Here, I have done for you the math and work, look at this - it CAN make a difference."

A: "It cannot make a difference!"

C: "Look here, I have made these measurements and this what I get. There are confditions where it can make a difference!"

A: "It cannot make a difference! And I will not try anything. And I will not listen. And I will not try to understand. It cannot make a difference!"

The above is in my view a fair condensation of the 50 or worth of pages of this thread.

Any charlatan who presents himself as authority on subjects he is obviously ingnorant is in my view "fair game", in the definition used by COS, for exposure of their ignorance and or baseless, counterfactual orgthodox believes.

Originally posted by phn
This thread could have been over and done with in three posts.

No, this thread should have never been started by anyone claiming any reasonable electronics background.

However, it is rather fortunate that the thread was started, as it was sufficiently sidetracked with excellent investigative empirical work by Joseph K (and also Jackini), covering many highly technical, but also highly relevant and interesting areas.

So, what is your problem with this thread? Thet the purpose objectivists inaccurate claims where subject to scrutiny and shown to have been false while you symphatise with the person presenting this counterfactual argumentation?

Sayonara

[carlosfm]

Originally posted by phn
The sonic result would speak for itself.

I'm modding a Pioneer DV-575 right now.
As usual, many aburd things I see on commercial gear, but that's not the point I want to make now.
After changing a nasty 4560 for an OPA2132 on the analog stage of the front channels, and still not happy with the results, I changed the low-pass filter.
After several tries around the "by-the-datasheet" recommendtions, listening, back to the bench, etc. I had to forget the "technically correct" 2nd order low-pass filter at around 100khz and do it my way.
I sounds much better now, because I always listen.
And this is still without making a dedicated analog stage for the player.