It's certainly interesting to see how many objectivists assess the functioning of the various parts of their system - if one element has a brilliant set of numbers, from one set of technical tests, then it is now 'transparent' - no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it, it is now effectively perfect. Therefore, if the sound coming out is 'wrong' then something else must be at fault - typically one then starts flogging the speakers, fiendishly unpleasant things they are - but, if a great deal of effort has gone into making them "good", and they are convinced that they are good enough - then, it must be the recordings !! Horrible, evil, monsters in the recording studio assemble putrid collections of bad taste and incompetence - I know my system is above that - it will show me that which is truly worthy ... 😉
If that is your definition for ego, then I wont disagree. Though it wont be clear anymore, what has been the objective of the discussion 😛
There was a discussion regarding "beliefs". You could say that without hard evidence everything is just belief (not truth). If your wife is talking to you from behind your back, you don't know if it is your wife talking, because you don't see her lips moving. You only guessing, believing that your wife is talking using her lips. You might be just deluding (or not?).
In my case quoted above, someone like you may think that I might be deluding myself thinking that I hear differences. But the truth is, you don't know how much delusion, right? But for sure you will get the idea (how much) if I say that "I will bet $10000 for your $1 if I'm wrong". Such statement is meant to show a (qualitative) level of certainty.
More a general observation - some comments in another thread just highlighted this aspect more strongly than usual - and of course it does relate to some of the thinking I see here, from where I stand.
Have you ever taken part in Blind Wine Tasting?
I have many times, and I can identify the different wines .. The wines are tasted while sighted and identified, then tasted again blind, then try to identify the right one..
Here's the strange part.. With eyes covered the differences seem to be much less.. There is pressure trying to identify, which seems to make them taste somewhat more similar than during sighted tasting.. With strong trust is ones feelings and intuition, the wine is identified.. 🙂
This test was never about, pick the wine you think is the most expensive.. I have to try that one.😎
Just say'in!
I have many times, and I can identify the different wines .. The wines are tasted while sighted and identified, then tasted again blind, then try to identify the right one..
Here's the strange part.. With eyes covered the differences seem to be much less.. There is pressure trying to identify, which seems to make them taste somewhat more similar than during sighted tasting.. With strong trust is ones feelings and intuition, the wine is identified.. 🙂
This test was never about, pick the wine you think is the most expensive.. I have to try that one.😎
Just say'in!
Last edited:
It is interesting to see how many subjectivist only use there ego to judge equipment. Why are so many afraid of double blind testing. Because deep down they know they can't tell the difference. Even double blind testing dosnt tell you what's more accurate just what's more preferable. (It dose tell you if there is actual a difference) And after years on this web site I've come to realize, what's more preferable for most "audiophiles" is some sort of distortion. It's like asking 10 different people to adjust the picture on a tv to "best". You'll get 10 different set ups. And probably very few will be right. You need both the numbers and double blind testing to keep each other in check, not one extreme or the other.
You might as well provide an example from this thread, so the culprits can at least confirm, deny or even explain. After all, you are making assumptions about how said people think.
Well, I could point to all those that say that different media players which eventually cause identical bit streams to be fed to the DAC, must sound the same, 😉 - ignoring the fact that the electrical environment of the converter and associated analogue circuitry may be subject to different levels and patterns of interference and noise while this streaming is occurring - I assume nothing is a "must", which has helped me enormously over the years, 🙂.
Exactly, BigE. Just like when you say you can hear your wife talking even without looking. You are the only one who knows the distance (between you and your wife). You are the only one who knows how loud (she's talking). You are the one who knows if there is possible anyone else in your bedroom...
Why ignorant? I think you just don't like to learn from others (especially when you think that what they say has no values). You don't put your best effort to understand what others are saying.
May be, but when we quoted someone's statement, then our statement is responding to the quoted statement in previous posts. Have you traced back these posts? Can you (even BigE) tell me without looking back, what was said in the first place (regarding the differences)? What was it all about? Then think how the "analogy" could possibly fit.
But if you mean the analogy is terrible in general term (linguistically), I can accept that 🙂
It is an ignorant analogy because it contradicts what you are talking about.
Learn this: Your analogy shows that you have confused possibility and probability.
There is a possibility that when I hear my wife speaking without seeing her, and that while knowing that we are the only two in the house, she may have been momentarily replaced by a rhinoceros that speaks with her voice. Probably not though, and I am safe in my knowledge that it is her.
In sighted listening it is possible that the difference you are hearing between two bit perfect streams is real. But probably not, and we are safe in the knowledge that no difference exists. So your analogy supports MY position, not yours.
How do we explain the delusion of difference?
Using the concept of unconscious bias. Like it or not, what you are hearing is *probably* a product of your bias and is not real.
This is a far more probable hypothesis than the confidence you have in your hearing.
Learn this: Your analogy shows that you have confused possibility and probability.
There is a possibility that when I hear my wife speaking without seeing her, and that while knowing that we are the only two in the house, she may have been momentarily replaced by a rhinoceros that speaks with her voice. Probably not though, and I am safe in my knowledge that it is her.
In sighted listening it is possible that the difference you are hearing between two bit perfect streams is real. But probably not, and we are safe in the knowledge that no difference exists. So your analogy supports MY position, not yours.
How do we explain the delusion of difference?
Using the concept of unconscious bias. Like it or not, what you are hearing is *probably* a product of your bias and is not real.
This is a far more probable hypothesis than the confidence you have in your hearing.
False dichotomy - what's the product of the bias is just as real. Presumably you didn't understand the Hoffman TED talk or didn't view it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.