As I often came up as being objective, I think it is high time I define exactly what I mean:
Firstly, it is in the field of electronics only, or in science in as much as it is applicable (why: see later).
Then, objectivism to me is checking by measurements and accepting that, or come up with proof that they are wrong! No emotion; facts!
It is strange that many "subjectivists" in this context so often end up with derogatory personal remarks. That does not constitute proof; it only reveals the speaker's mentality.
Further, hearing does not constitute scientific proof that something IS. It only proves that the person speaking likes it. I lost count of the number of times that opposite opinions were uttered about the same amplifier (to stay with only that piece of equipment). This does not indicate inferiority of the observer, it indicates natural hearing differences between individuals, a fact that has been proven to death by acousto-medical research. (Why does one have to repeat this so often?)
I only object when I am asked to believe that 3 + 5 = 11, as I often am. The fact that a speaker cannot see that that is what he is expecting of me, either reveals total bias on his side, or, with respect, ignorance of the state of the art of audio. Kindly note: Not my opinion of the state of the art, but documented experimental evidence. I often have to tolerate the remark: "that's what you think/say", when I am only the messenger of established electronic science.
When facts (per above definition) is acknowledged (as, strangely, it would appear to be in most other fields), I will and have on many occasions investigated perceived subjective differences with the same energy that I design amplifiers.
I have been around for a while, and can honestly say that I have never encountered an amplifier that, where the right measurements showed that it was in order, was not liked by most people.
This is to me where it ends. Previous posts clearly showed that subjectivist/objectivist arguments regarding other fields mainly lead to disparatory remarks.
And Phn, I object here on open thread (I hope a moderator reads this) about your categorisation of Douglas Self as a clown. I doubt that you have met the man. He is not here to defend himself. I would quote from elsewhere: "(He) has already withstood the test of time (science, in this case). He now tests those that comment about him."
With that I conclude my participation in this thread for the time, until it is back on standard. (Let me save some members the comment: I will not be sorely missed.)
Firstly, it is in the field of electronics only, or in science in as much as it is applicable (why: see later).
Then, objectivism to me is checking by measurements and accepting that, or come up with proof that they are wrong! No emotion; facts!
It is strange that many "subjectivists" in this context so often end up with derogatory personal remarks. That does not constitute proof; it only reveals the speaker's mentality.
Further, hearing does not constitute scientific proof that something IS. It only proves that the person speaking likes it. I lost count of the number of times that opposite opinions were uttered about the same amplifier (to stay with only that piece of equipment). This does not indicate inferiority of the observer, it indicates natural hearing differences between individuals, a fact that has been proven to death by acousto-medical research. (Why does one have to repeat this so often?)
I only object when I am asked to believe that 3 + 5 = 11, as I often am. The fact that a speaker cannot see that that is what he is expecting of me, either reveals total bias on his side, or, with respect, ignorance of the state of the art of audio. Kindly note: Not my opinion of the state of the art, but documented experimental evidence. I often have to tolerate the remark: "that's what you think/say", when I am only the messenger of established electronic science.
When facts (per above definition) is acknowledged (as, strangely, it would appear to be in most other fields), I will and have on many occasions investigated perceived subjective differences with the same energy that I design amplifiers.
I have been around for a while, and can honestly say that I have never encountered an amplifier that, where the right measurements showed that it was in order, was not liked by most people.
This is to me where it ends. Previous posts clearly showed that subjectivist/objectivist arguments regarding other fields mainly lead to disparatory remarks.
And Phn, I object here on open thread (I hope a moderator reads this) about your categorisation of Douglas Self as a clown. I doubt that you have met the man. He is not here to defend himself. I would quote from elsewhere: "(He) has already withstood the test of time (science, in this case). He now tests those that comment about him."
With that I conclude my participation in this thread for the time, until it is back on standard. (Let me save some members the comment: I will not be sorely missed.)
Yes, treads like this are counterproductive and will go nowhere. But here's an attempt to explain why I take strong issue with this subjectivism vs. objectivism.
I made an erroneous statement on this forum today, actually yesterday. It was quickly corrected, so no harm was done. It was something well beyond my competence. I guess I originally had gotten my info on the Internet. Somebody posting incorrect information on the Internet! Who could've guessed?
A semi-literate hack like Self can post whatever rubbish he wants on his site. He knows electronics. He knows engineering. But when he ventures outside of that, like the subject of subjectivism, he knows nothing. That Stereophile prides itself for being a subjectivist magazine changes nothing. The people at Stereophile are idiots. Since when did we start to use idiocy as framework for discourse?
Me being a "subjectivist" has nothing to do with engineering and measurements. I'm a "subjectivist" in that I consider "sound reproduction" a lie. I would prefer to call it "sound reinterpretation," though I have no hopes it will ever stick. What sounds like Muddy Waters' voice coming out of my speakers is not Muddy's voice. It's something that sounds like Muddy's voice, or an abstraction of Muddy's voice.
Then we have people who say things like, "With hi-rez formats like DVD-A and SACD, digital formats have finally surpassed vinyl." Whoa, Molly, hold your ponies! Are those people saying that vinyl has superior specs compared to the CD? Are they referring to the -25-30db channel separation of vinyl?
I like vinyl. But that doesn't mean I don't consider the electronics between the needle and the speakers as important as anyone else. I just think vinyl sounds damn good. I don't know why this flawed format sounds as good as it does. And it's not easily explained the way digital formats are.
I'm getting out on a limb here, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the people we call subjectivists are more likely to be vinyl junkies than the objectivists are. But it has nothing to do with engineering or measurements. A better, though not necessarily sufficient, explanation is that of "sound reproduction" and "sound reinterpretation." There will be no agreeing on that either. But that's an entirely different matter.
I made an erroneous statement on this forum today, actually yesterday. It was quickly corrected, so no harm was done. It was something well beyond my competence. I guess I originally had gotten my info on the Internet. Somebody posting incorrect information on the Internet! Who could've guessed?
A semi-literate hack like Self can post whatever rubbish he wants on his site. He knows electronics. He knows engineering. But when he ventures outside of that, like the subject of subjectivism, he knows nothing. That Stereophile prides itself for being a subjectivist magazine changes nothing. The people at Stereophile are idiots. Since when did we start to use idiocy as framework for discourse?
Me being a "subjectivist" has nothing to do with engineering and measurements. I'm a "subjectivist" in that I consider "sound reproduction" a lie. I would prefer to call it "sound reinterpretation," though I have no hopes it will ever stick. What sounds like Muddy Waters' voice coming out of my speakers is not Muddy's voice. It's something that sounds like Muddy's voice, or an abstraction of Muddy's voice.
Then we have people who say things like, "With hi-rez formats like DVD-A and SACD, digital formats have finally surpassed vinyl." Whoa, Molly, hold your ponies! Are those people saying that vinyl has superior specs compared to the CD? Are they referring to the -25-30db channel separation of vinyl?
I like vinyl. But that doesn't mean I don't consider the electronics between the needle and the speakers as important as anyone else. I just think vinyl sounds damn good. I don't know why this flawed format sounds as good as it does. And it's not easily explained the way digital formats are.
I'm getting out on a limb here, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the people we call subjectivists are more likely to be vinyl junkies than the objectivists are. But it has nothing to do with engineering or measurements. A better, though not necessarily sufficient, explanation is that of "sound reproduction" and "sound reinterpretation." There will be no agreeing on that either. But that's an entirely different matter.
phn said:
phn, while I may not agree with you on some things, I definitely agree that this bit of the thread is counter-productive. We're all after the same thing. It's just that we will get there by different paths in some cases and by similar paths in other cases.
After all, if Colin is happy with the changes he made (and it sounds like it) who are we to argue how he got there?
Subjectivism vs. Objectivism
Folks,
Why argue here? Some like vinyl, some like tubes, some like SS, the beat goes on..... there's no accounting for taste, that's the reason the market is so diverse.
Johan,
You wrote:
This is utterly wrong, and too personal for my liking.
No special gifts, just a highly absorbing interest with much perseverance.
No perfect designs. Never suggested such, if you read my posts. And this is, in fact, sarcasm of the highest order, the very trait you complain of in others.
Self formed a very important part of my education in this field. I use some of his topologies, and particularly like the EF Type II.
Matters I'm not sure of? Rubbish..... when you do AB tests you quickly realise differences, and you must do these tests because auditory memory is very short. You do need a very good reference.
Everyone encounters obstacles in the dark, even engineers my friend, and serendipity plays a big part in all technologies, not just audio.
You lapse into the same faults you accuse others of. I might add that you have not met Self either, nor GK, nor me, nor heard my products, nor I dare say even seen an outline block diagram of the topology.
I have enjoined a discussion here, been attacked by you and GK remorselessly, and find this whole situation typical of a couple of academics arguing. It's as ridiculous as a couple kids fighting in a playground - and what for? What you think of me is in fact not my business, but what you write in public of me is bordering on libel.
If you were the man you purport to be, you would apologise for this rubbish.
Cheers,
Hugh
Folks,
Why argue here? Some like vinyl, some like tubes, some like SS, the beat goes on..... there's no accounting for taste, that's the reason the market is so diverse.
Johan,
You wrote:
This is utterly wrong, and too personal for my liking.
No special gifts, just a highly absorbing interest with much perseverance.
No perfect designs. Never suggested such, if you read my posts. And this is, in fact, sarcasm of the highest order, the very trait you complain of in others.
Self formed a very important part of my education in this field. I use some of his topologies, and particularly like the EF Type II.
Matters I'm not sure of? Rubbish..... when you do AB tests you quickly realise differences, and you must do these tests because auditory memory is very short. You do need a very good reference.
Everyone encounters obstacles in the dark, even engineers my friend, and serendipity plays a big part in all technologies, not just audio.
You lapse into the same faults you accuse others of. I might add that you have not met Self either, nor GK, nor me, nor heard my products, nor I dare say even seen an outline block diagram of the topology.
I have enjoined a discussion here, been attacked by you and GK remorselessly, and find this whole situation typical of a couple of academics arguing. It's as ridiculous as a couple kids fighting in a playground - and what for? What you think of me is in fact not my business, but what you write in public of me is bordering on libel.
If you were the man you purport to be, you would apologise for this rubbish.
Cheers,
Hugh
phn:
Before calling someone like Self a "hack," it might be well to marshal arguments and evidence. One can disagree with his approach (I use tubes, for example), one can disagree with his conclusions (and many do), but his work is careful, thorough, and educational. Unlike many self-proclaimed gurus (hah, I made a pun!), his work is subject to verification, dispute, and correction, rather than being proclaimed from on high like so many in this field like to do.
Before calling someone like Self a "hack," it might be well to marshal arguments and evidence. One can disagree with his approach (I use tubes, for example), one can disagree with his conclusions (and many do), but his work is careful, thorough, and educational. Unlike many self-proclaimed gurus (hah, I made a pun!), his work is subject to verification, dispute, and correction, rather than being proclaimed from on high like so many in this field like to do.
SY,
I'm disappointed too - principally that the instigating remarks also argued to the man.
Until this point I have been a model subscriber.
In any event, Stuart, the argument is now a semantic one on the differences between objectivist and subjectivist, and I can add nothing that has not been said already, as doubtless neither can most others. Further, this is not an academic conference, where proof and veracity is argued to and fro, this is a public forum where people disclose only what they are comfortable with, and I've done plenty of that over the years.
I believe you realise how this started; I am not the only one here to be upbraided.
Hugh
I'm disappointed too - principally that the instigating remarks also argued to the man.
Until this point I have been a model subscriber.
In any event, Stuart, the argument is now a semantic one on the differences between objectivist and subjectivist, and I can add nothing that has not been said already, as doubtless neither can most others. Further, this is not an academic conference, where proof and veracity is argued to and fro, this is a public forum where people disclose only what they are comfortable with, and I've done plenty of that over the years.
I believe you realise how this started; I am not the only one here to be upbraided.
Hugh
So many differing camps, well mainly two. As I wonder to myself why my innocent threads always turn into a very strong viewpoints and often personal attacks on those that often arent here to defend themselves, ala self. Maybe some of you should be over here just ejoying some music and a few fine spirits with me out here in Canada to take the edge off 
..Anyways, I have whipped up a new board, similar to the original but with the revised input stage, time to drill some holes..
Colin
..Anyways, I have whipped up a new board, similar to the original but with the revised input stage, time to drill some holes..Colin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.