I found it quite entertaining to listen to,the major differences between the two camps are shown,and at some stage in response,atkinson can only say'um.... ok lets open the floor for questions'I wasnt surprised at all. Im an electrical student with debt,so naturally Id be an objectivist
Greed and power comes to mind, Ultimately I have no problem with people buying things to make them happy in an audio sense,but I just see greater potential for that money spent worldwide for some sort of good rather than pouring into the pockets of PT barnums.
'if all the money spent on weapons/snake oil hifi/insert expensive non essential item here was spent on the starving people in country 'x'......
All the money in the world doesnt help countries where the overnment is enforcing the poverty and abuse.
|| ramble ramble ||
Greed and power comes to mind, Ultimately I have no problem with people buying things to make them happy in an audio sense,but I just see greater potential for that money spent worldwide for some sort of good rather than pouring into the pockets of PT barnums.
'if all the money spent on weapons/snake oil hifi/insert expensive non essential item here was spent on the starving people in country 'x'......
All the money in the world doesnt help countries where the overnment is enforcing the poverty and abuse.
|| ramble ramble ||
Konnichiwa,
Funny, I have thought the EXACT SAME THING, except about Mr. Krueger. His purpose-objectivism is not even funny (neither is that displayed by some on this board), while the depply believed subjectivism of Mr. Atkinson at least amuses. The most basic concpts about reality elude Mr. Krueger so completely, one wonders what planet he is from.
The problem is that one side is what one might term "Mystics" who believe that the direct experience is greatly important and that not only is not all knowable known, but also all is not knowable. The other side are doctrinal instutionalists, who pretent to know all and purport falsely that all is knowable and that all that is worth knowing is already known by them and has been revealed by higher forces to them (in this case the specific higher force being worshipped is called ABX).
As noted, the viewpoints are entierly religious in nature, as is the debate, reason, sense and logic do not enter. If they did, both sides would shut up, as they where quite clear neither knew anything of consequence and they would go away doing their own, instead of pulling out the convertribles and aiming them at any heretics in sight.... Albingensian crusades anyone?
Sayonara
RHosch said:
Funny, I have thought the EXACT SAME THING, except about Mr. Krueger. His purpose-objectivism is not even funny (neither is that displayed by some on this board), while the depply believed subjectivism of Mr. Atkinson at least amuses. The most basic concpts about reality elude Mr. Krueger so completely, one wonders what planet he is from.
The problem is that one side is what one might term "Mystics" who believe that the direct experience is greatly important and that not only is not all knowable known, but also all is not knowable. The other side are doctrinal instutionalists, who pretent to know all and purport falsely that all is knowable and that all that is worth knowing is already known by them and has been revealed by higher forces to them (in this case the specific higher force being worshipped is called ABX).
As noted, the viewpoints are entierly religious in nature, as is the debate, reason, sense and logic do not enter. If they did, both sides would shut up, as they where quite clear neither knew anything of consequence and they would go away doing their own, instead of pulling out the convertribles and aiming them at any heretics in sight.... Albingensian crusades anyone?
Sayonara
If there were only one truth to the matter, you would think that truth would be revealed after passing of time. But, maybe there is more than only one truth in this thing... Maybe what you would think is wrong. (speaking only for myself ofcourse
not YOU ) Yes.. I am talking about "Objectivest" and "Subjectivist" views. Although one may not agree with the terms I use, I am sure everyone here knows what I am talking about.
We keep discussing on subjects we all know we will never agree on. Why? How did this contradiction begin in the first place?
Is there really as much religion in this as KYW says?
Konnichiwa,
Absolutely, however the univers seems to follow the "Matrioshka Principle" (a smaller doll in the larger, an even smaller in that, AD INFINTVM). Thus all the passage of time tends to reveal is the untruth of many deeply held convictions....
There definitly is. While the self proclaimed modern "Philosophers" still debate, I find nothing so far to invalidate Bishop Berkleys contention that objective observation is not possible and Humes corollary that percieved reality is not trustworthy. Thus the self proclaimed "objectivist" is merely a different brand of subjectivist, actually.
Your own sig gives the answer:
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies - Friedrich Nietzsche"
Some people (Mr Arny "Nightmare @ CES" Krueger being one) have aquired strong convictions (and have thus imprisoned themselves in their own heads and by the of it thrown away the key) and these clash with the percieved reality of many others, however in their own logic they are constrained to evangelise their own subjective position, attempting to throw as many into the same prison their own selves are in.
As "the opposition" is suprisingly rather lacking in similar evangelical zeal they usually come of worse in public slagging matches (on-line, off-line, in RL etc), especially with those deluded individuals who "believe" in "modern science", for a short summary (I would like to use the german term "Fortschrittsglaeubige" but it does not travel well into english I think).
Non of which stands in any relation to reality or fact, hence my contention that:
Absolutely.
Or rather, I choose to explain the differences from a viewpoint which contends that:
1) The human being is inherently religious in nature
2) The average human being prefers false certainties to true uncertainties
3) The religious mode of thinking is invariably irrational but invariably explains everything (note that materialism and atheism are clearly religious systems of thought, unprooven, irrational and in fact unprovable!)
There are of course other viewpoints, but I feel the one I present has much merit and should for the very least be considered seriously, among all the others presented here. It also has the clear benefit that adopting it suddenly everything (not just Audio ABX) makes sense, most other viewpoints leave with the deeply disturbing feeling that either there is something seriously wrong with yourself or with all others around you.
Sayonara
keyser said:
Absolutely, however the univers seems to follow the "Matrioshka Principle" (a smaller doll in the larger, an even smaller in that, AD INFINTVM). Thus all the passage of time tends to reveal is the untruth of many deeply held convictions....
keyser said:
There definitly is. While the self proclaimed modern "Philosophers" still debate, I find nothing so far to invalidate Bishop Berkleys contention that objective observation is not possible and Humes corollary that percieved reality is not trustworthy. Thus the self proclaimed "objectivist" is merely a different brand of subjectivist, actually.
keyser said:
Your own sig gives the answer:
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies - Friedrich Nietzsche"
Some people (Mr Arny "Nightmare @ CES" Krueger being one) have aquired strong convictions (and have thus imprisoned themselves in their own heads and by the of it thrown away the key) and these clash with the percieved reality of many others, however in their own logic they are constrained to evangelise their own subjective position, attempting to throw as many into the same prison their own selves are in.
As "the opposition" is suprisingly rather lacking in similar evangelical zeal they usually come of worse in public slagging matches (on-line, off-line, in RL etc), especially with those deluded individuals who "believe" in "modern science", for a short summary (I would like to use the german term "Fortschrittsglaeubige" but it does not travel well into english I think).
Non of which stands in any relation to reality or fact, hence my contention that:
keyser said:
Absolutely.
Or rather, I choose to explain the differences from a viewpoint which contends that:
1) The human being is inherently religious in nature
2) The average human being prefers false certainties to true uncertainties
3) The religious mode of thinking is invariably irrational but invariably explains everything (note that materialism and atheism are clearly religious systems of thought, unprooven, irrational and in fact unprovable!)
There are of course other viewpoints, but I feel the one I present has much merit and should for the very least be considered seriously, among all the others presented here. It also has the clear benefit that adopting it suddenly everything (not just Audio ABX) makes sense, most other viewpoints leave with the deeply disturbing feeling that either there is something seriously wrong with yourself or with all others around you.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Example of false certainty:
"All that is worth knowing is known about audio and traditional measurements actually relate to sound quality and what measures sufficiently identical must sound identical!"
Example of true uncertainties:
"We do not know systematically what makes for good sound reproduction, we do not know how traditional measurements relate to sound quality and equipment that measures identicl may differ in sound, just as drastically different measuring equipment may be indistinguishable, simply we do not know enough to to use a systematic, scientific methode for analysis, so we have to resort to teh imperfect and prejudiced listening tests!"
As to "Why is the religious mode of thinking irrational", that should be safely obvious, to draw conclusions with no reliable and logical analysable data (eg. to pronounce "G*d exists" or "G*d does not exist" or to Pronounce "Statement X is true without reliable support of scientific data as in the case of the charlatans of the ABX Mafia) must be considered irrational, as it's basis is "I believe this to be true, therefor it is true!".
Sayonara
keyser said:
Example of false certainty:
"All that is worth knowing is known about audio and traditional measurements actually relate to sound quality and what measures sufficiently identical must sound identical!"
Example of true uncertainties:
"We do not know systematically what makes for good sound reproduction, we do not know how traditional measurements relate to sound quality and equipment that measures identicl may differ in sound, just as drastically different measuring equipment may be indistinguishable, simply we do not know enough to to use a systematic, scientific methode for analysis, so we have to resort to teh imperfect and prejudiced listening tests!"
As to "Why is the religious mode of thinking irrational", that should be safely obvious, to draw conclusions with no reliable and logical analysable data (eg. to pronounce "G*d exists" or "G*d does not exist" or to Pronounce "Statement X is true without reliable support of scientific data as in the case of the charlatans of the ABX Mafia) must be considered irrational, as it's basis is "I believe this to be true, therefor it is true!".
Sayonara
"only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" Obi-Wan-Kenobi (LOL)
What you are actually saying is that there is no such thing as objective observation. Does that mean our observation are of no value if we want to learn the truth?
Are our observations during a sighted test more reliable than those during a blind test? Blind testing is about minimising subjectivity. We are directed to listening to the sound alone, and not look at the nametag on the nice brushed aluminium fascia.
We've discussed about Blind Testing and ABX several times, but I still don't really understand what is so wrong about it. You keep repeating the same arguments. Thats ok. But when for example SY or HRosch criticise some of your arguments, you don't reply.
No hard feelings ofcourse.
I don't get it.
"John, on the other hand, has participated in a large number of blind tests over the past 28 years, and has discovered that it is "extraordinarily hard to produce anything but a statistically null result."
Why is there a debate? Both "sides" seems to have found out the exact same thing.
I_F
"John, on the other hand, has participated in a large number of blind tests over the past 28 years, and has discovered that it is "extraordinarily hard to produce anything but a statistically null result."
Why is there a debate? Both "sides" seems to have found out the exact same thing.
I_F
Konnichiwa,
The debate is caused by the simple fact that Audio, ABX Mafia Style ABX testing seems inordinatly insensitive to differences (including some that would be readily agreed as being as audible) and that the ABX Mafia actually deliberatly misleads by their claims that their test results PROOVE that no audible differences exist.
And that on the other hand a number of the "subjectivists" contend that the null results are a direct result of an inaproppriate implementation of the principle ABX protocol, the list of criticisms would be well too long to print.
So both sides agree on the observation, but they disagree wholey on the interpretation.
Sayonara
I_Forgot said:
The debate is caused by the simple fact that Audio, ABX Mafia Style ABX testing seems inordinatly insensitive to differences (including some that would be readily agreed as being as audible) and that the ABX Mafia actually deliberatly misleads by their claims that their test results PROOVE that no audible differences exist.
And that on the other hand a number of the "subjectivists" contend that the null results are a direct result of an inaproppriate implementation of the principle ABX protocol, the list of criticisms would be well too long to print.
So both sides agree on the observation, but they disagree wholey on the interpretation.
Sayonara
A while back I downloaded an article from a web page that pretty well hits the nail on the head when it comes to audio (and many other subjects).
Recommended reading for all: Incompetence.
Good day.
I_F
Recommended reading for all: Incompetence.
Good day.
I_F
This was very entertaining and does shed a lot of light on such personalities as those prominent in the ABX Mafia ()including Mr. Krueger)..... Here the best summation:
quote:
From "Incompetence"
Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Thorsten,
You missed the point. Entirely. The point is that IT GOES FOR ALL OF US. You, me, Mr Krueger, Mr Atkinson. When was the last time you read your own sig?
Jan Didden
quote:
From "Incompetence"
Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Thorsten,
You missed the point. Entirely. The point is that IT GOES FOR ALL OF US. You, me, Mr Krueger, Mr Atkinson. When was the last time you read your own sig?
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
And you missed mine. Entierly.
I am not all that sure of anything, hence I advise investigation, testing and the empirical approach, simply because I could not avoid aquiring a modicum of knowledge.
People like Mr. Krueger sadly a completely misplaced confidence in their own understanding....
Sayonara
janneman said:
And you missed mine. Entierly.
I am not all that sure of anything, hence I advise investigation, testing and the empirical approach, simply because I could not avoid aquiring a modicum of knowledge.
People like Mr. Krueger sadly a completely misplaced confidence in their own understanding....
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.