Okay, I'll just note that down as: you got nothing.
You made your claim first, I think it's only right that you prove it.
You made your claim first, I think it's only right that you prove it.
I don't even understand your question though. How is a measurement anything other than objective, providing the measurement is of a known standard and done in an appropriate way.
A scientific measurement provides, by its very nature, objective data.
Why must things always be complicated and extend to some ridiculous extreme where the only discourse boils down to subjectivists playing semantic games, with the language used and trying to pick apart things that don't really matter, in an attempt to try and gain a foothold.
It's simple. We all know the positions and points of view of those involved. It's boring and age old. The subjectivists don't have any way of backing up their points of view with anything that would give it scientific merit. They try and justify this with inane attempts at discrediting the objective state of the art regardless of its proven track record with every other brach of science and technology. It's an illogical and childish. Especially coming from individuals who appear to be intelligent and also concerned with technical merit at the same time.
Objectivists don't need to provide any evidence and proof to support their position because the proof is all around us. The very chips and hifi systems we're discussing are only made possible because of the objective method.
The subjective field, on the other hand, is filled with controversy, unsubstantiated claims and attacks towards objective measurements. Measurements that aren't, apparently, able to account for what subjectivists claim they hear.
Well then, by all accounts, subjectivists please devise objective testing to explain what it is you're hearing. Objectivists, and the rest of science, are perfectly happy with what's already available. It's been shown to work time and time again. Our position is already proven and substantiated. It is up to you, subjectivists, to prove your contentious position. You're the select few, out on a limb, vs the rest of scientific progress. So please keep your subjective impressions to yourself until you can prove you can actually hear what you claim you can hear.
Don't get me wrong I'd love for their to be some secret parameter that we've yet to master when it comes to measuring it or designing a piece of equipment to possess it. A parameter that would ensure your subjective impressions are always satisfied when it comes to the listening experience. But as that experience involves the brain I'm almost certain this is impossible. At least as far as audio reproduction goes.
I could well imagine a future development, in human perception, that would ensure satisfaction from all external stimuli via, the administration of, electrical implulses or neurotransmitters. This would modulate the subjective experience in a positive fashion and ensure whatever the stimuli to be positively perceived. Then again you could just pour a glass of your preferred beverage and leave things at that.
It already exists. It's called double blind testing.
So why are they so afraid to use it??
@Naaling,
but still neither you nor one of the others from the "group" did ask Evenharmonics so far for his evidence?!
Seems to corrobate abraxilito's statement about onesided demands, doesn't it?
Wrt Thomas Kuhn, AFAIR his major unique point was the theory of paradigma change which (at least to my understanding) points to the fact that scientists are first of all humans and in the second line scientists.
The paradigmata were at a certain point in time based on hypothesises/theories and maybe even some observational evidence but the neglection of contradictionary evidence until the change of the according paradigma (and the way this change is done) is the result of human interaction and convention.
@5thelement,
I'll try to open a new thread about this OT (in this thread) discussion as I think the underlying assumptions are worth to be further examined/discussed, but being guilty of participating in highjacking this thread, I think it would be a good idea to stop it here. 🙂
but still neither you nor one of the others from the "group" did ask Evenharmonics so far for his evidence?!
Seems to corrobate abraxilito's statement about onesided demands, doesn't it?
Wrt Thomas Kuhn, AFAIR his major unique point was the theory of paradigma change which (at least to my understanding) points to the fact that scientists are first of all humans and in the second line scientists.
The paradigmata were at a certain point in time based on hypothesises/theories and maybe even some observational evidence but the neglection of contradictionary evidence until the change of the according paradigma (and the way this change is done) is the result of human interaction and convention.
@5thelement,
I'll try to open a new thread about this OT (in this thread) discussion as I think the underlying assumptions are worth to be further examined/discussed, but being guilty of participating in highjacking this thread, I think it would be a good idea to stop it here. 🙂
To my recollection, Evenharmonics never claimed anything, he "just" questions everything 🙂 - maybe thats how i "get away" with it?
//
//
Yep, much like a kid that's deliberately being annoying by asking "Why's that?" to every single thing you say.
Never tries to prove a thing, just smoke & mirrors, deflection techniques.
Edit:
And please don't take it out of context, 5th element. I think we can agree on lots of things.
Never tries to prove a thing, just smoke & mirrors, deflection techniques.
Edit:
And please don't take it out of context, 5th element. I think we can agree on lots of things.
Last edited:
So you would prefer a kid that doesn't question anything, and simply believes whatever they are told?
That's certainly the way you expect people on this forum to behave!
Merely saying that to my eyes, it seems that the two people with the strongest agenda in this thread are: you (Naaling), and Evenharmonics.
You're blaming everyone else for having an agenda, it's like a crusade. Someones coming with a bit of interesting information very relevant to the thread, clearly stating the background for everyone to see, then one or both of you jump on it and start those silly back and forth lines of very basic argumentation that serves no other purpose than agitate and provoke.
You're blaming everyone else for having an agenda, it's like a crusade. Someones coming with a bit of interesting information very relevant to the thread, clearly stating the background for everyone to see, then one or both of you jump on it and start those silly back and forth lines of very basic argumentation that serves no other purpose than agitate and provoke.
What is the objective quantifiable result of a listening test? What are the units?
What is the frame of reference? How do you calibrate the listener?
Please don't. It's all been said before. I have neither the time or inclination to add any more to what has already been said.
Divisions between sciences are rather useless... Hard, soft, social... Implying that one is more useful than another.
There is not one universal scientific method. Science matured over time, evolved if you will, and continues to do so.
Search for the truth generally is a very ambiguous claim. Search for the truth in science would be a better way to put it, since the conception of truth in scientific domain and jargon is somewhat different.
Oh... Anything would work better than mindless parroting of double blind ABX on online communities since it's not only used as an rhetoric tool to shut up disfavorable opinions. And it's also a from of naive realism.
Scientific practice(peer reviewed journals) is considerably more complicated... Look for example, how much the pain sciences have improved in last ten years since they started taking their methodologies(most notably the inclusion of the multi factorial approach) more seriously.
I am sorry as I might come out as rude, but your essay would not pass even as
an undergrad one.
Nobody has any obligations of burden of proof in their impressions of X. This is not a court room, this is not a scientific journal and if they don't engage you in discussion they owe you nothing.
Further more burden of proof has no bearing on the state of truth in the specific context.
Shape up. Use the ignore feature.
So you've tried the 4499? Which ESS chip did you compare it to?
Care to share your impressions, whatever form or format is fine. But I suspect the self-proclaimed test police here will throw a fit unless you say it's subjective, regardless of whatever background you may have. 😀
When I looked through a few pages back, I found measurement posted by Markw4 and even further back there is a measurement link posted by mountainman bob just to show couple. Maybe your internet server is malfunctioning. You should check on that.
OK, so you prefer to read about subjective listening impressions, fine. Put the non-conforming posters on your ignore list. Unless there is someone forcing you not to. Is there?
What kind of impression is "they sound VERY much better!! Which makes them VERY VERY good indeed!!!" ? "Better" and "good" mean very little in reality in this context
Do you also ask the the two questions in bold to those who post their subjective listening results?
bozoc, I'm just curious, are you in audio business or affiliated with one?
I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.
Nice to see you actually may have made some slight effort, but I'm not sure about trusting you. And especially so, since you've seemingly had a long standing agenda of hiding behind cheap comments.
Edit:
And here you are again with your one-trick pony.
Last edited:
Still no example of "it is entirely possible to get results from a set of measurements that are unobtainable in normal usage scenarios." to cite?
Usually when someone starts to make personal attacks it's because they don't have anything useful to say.
Luckily we're not participating in a university course, so your opinion on the quality of what I've written means nothing.
I don't have any problems with people making subjective comments as an afterthought. What I have a problem with are people making subjective comments with a level of authority that implies what they are saying cannot possibly be at fault. Then these subjective comments are given as advice that's supposed to be followed in order to help influence someone else's purchase.
When your subjective impressions are going to affect someone's wallet, this is where proof absolutely should be given to validate those subjective impressions.
If an objectivist came into a thread and started to give advice that was incorrect, regarding technical specifications for example, others would quickly show them to be in error. The same should hold true for subjective comments. If you cannot prove your subjective comments to be reliable by the methods in which they were acquired then they should be disregarded, or better, not made in the first place.
It's one thing when someone buys a hi-fi magazine. They are doing this because they want to read subjective reviews and expect them. When someone comes to a forum such as this and asks what's supposed to be a technical question, but then gets given some subjective nonsense from some ardent believer it's entirely misleading and can actually be harmful. Harmful not only to the person's purchasing decision but also to the direction their education goes at the start of their interest in making their own equipment.
Putting all the subjectivists on ignore does nothing to combat this problem it actually makes it worse.