It is a funny read, no? All over a plastic demagnetiserterry j said:
Very pithy observation. (and I'm not saying that with a lisp)Steve Eddy said:
Steve Eddy said:
All very true Steve. What I just simply cannot understand is that they are so rabidly anti-science. The mere mention of it (and I am not exaggerating, you gotta see it to believe it) sends them into frenzy. It is amazing (?) to watch.
Brett said:
Oh, it too is made of plastic?😀 At least we know it is demagnitized no?
The same goes for the bird who wrote the 6 moons piece. If you step back and look, you can see the argument he is making is NOT against DBT, it is really against science itself.
Hmm, if I get the energy I may make one of my infamous long rambling posts about it on sna! (have to plug on my water cooled keyboard tho, a normal keyboard would melt under such a sustained onslaught!!)
Anyway, (and remember my earlier post about the thing that fascinates me is the human behaviour aspect of these arguments) they think they are arguing against dbt (for example) but he is unbeknownst to himself actually arguing some other 'fear'.
Even as trivial a thing as that he somehow feels that being scientific means you 'have no soul' or whatever. Re-read it (with something like that in mind-and it is only an example of what it might be) and you can see how he portrays these soulless scientists who 'only listen to test tones' and do not have an aesthetic bone in their body.
No wonder the whole thing never get's resolved, he thinks he is arguing against dbt..so no matter how many times we point out the flaws in the logic to him, or explain patiently that you can listen as long as you want etc etc..it will NEVER resolve because he has this unknown thing (bias ha ha, exactly what we contend colours peoples perceptions of things) that he is reaaaaally arguing which never gets addressed, nor indeed is he even aware that it exists. (remember I am only using that as an example of what it might be, the only point being that it is something OTHER than what he consciously thinks...else it would resolve!!)
I mean it is obvious...we simply cannot get the horsepower we want out of the engine, so we replace the pistons and still no joy, new camshaft and no increase in power etc etc.
Huh! the REAL problem is that the timing is out!! Hey fix it, and we get what we want! So we can only resolve things when we know what the actual problem is.
Until someone like the twit who wrote that article gets enough self awareness to find out what his REAL beef is, around and around the argument will go.
We know that the real problem is NOT science (rather the fear/belief that embracing science means you lose your soul for example) BECAUSE he then goes to his stereo and gets his enjoyment. Even HE would never honestly deny that the very thing that gives him so much pleasure owes nothing to science.
Anyway, just a small bit of rambling (did you know blather is my middle name?? or was that my 'muddle name' ha ha) but until we are both arguing the same thing we can never resolve these things...and it happens on both sides as it is a HUMAN nature thing, not a subjectivist or objectivist thing.
No, it demagnetises plastic, like LPs and CDs.terry j said:
I know, what a git. I bet he thought the included images were really clever too, and proved his point. Made him look like an even bigger git. And now they're going to reprint that twaddle in Stereopile. Oh, puleeease.terry j said:
You should. Keith emailed me today and said he's bored.terry j said:
When I read this sort of garbage, I would like to make them read Richard Feynmans biography. A genius scientist who loved music and dancing. No soul my a**e.terry j said:
Again pertinent. I've mentioned my turbo rotary and how it beat many expensive cars. It got that quick because I measured everything, kept logs and noted every change. Boring, but I ended up winning lots of $ from the morons [(c) Romy] who merely picked parts from a catalogue and screwed them together and expected performance.terry j said:
For many, I think it's about not being able to play pseudo-reviewer. Note how much adulation is foisted upon many of them, which none of them deserve. Kal Rubinson, from his posts on other forums seems to be a reasonable and clever bloke. The exception that proves the rule maybe.terry j said:
terry j said:
Oh yes, I've seen it many times.
They call themselves "subjectivists," yet they're constantly making objective claims. Then when those objective claims are legitimately questioned and/or challenged, they get their panties in a bunch and go ape****.
They should stop calling themselves subjectivists. Short of that, at least others should stop referring to them as subjectivists. Because they simply aren't.
Allow me to coin a more appropriate term for them: Genuine Faux Objectivists, or GFOs if you'd like. 😀
Myself, I'm a true subjectivist. And a hedonist. For me, it's all about the most enjoyable subjective experience. And I really don't care how it may come about. If something "sounds" better to me simply because I might like how it looks, or the idea behind it, then all I have to say is, GIMME MORE! 😀
And to that end, I NEVER attempt to pass off my subjective experience as anything other than that.
There'd be a lot less arguing and fighting if the GFOs would be a little less insecure, a little more humble, and a LOT more subjective.
se
tinitus said:
It's one of those ethernal questions. You can ask the same about any other passive component.
It is not that difficult to create a bypass test for most parts. The ones that don't change the sound much seldom get rave reviews. I have always been amused by capacitor shootouts where the winners often sound nothing like a piece of wire. Which is probably ok, there are too many deficiencies in the recording/reproducing chain that need to be corrected that a completely transparent component is not necessarily better sounding. For most people sound enjoyment is much more important than transparency or neutrality.
It would be great if we understood why parts sound the way they do but (generally) we don't and denialism won't get us any closer to better sound.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1851111#post1851111
and the opinion applies equally to speaker cables and what they can do to the amplifier if it is badly designed or incompatible with the more extreme cable characteristics.
"Are the amplifiers that don't change the sound really the ones to prefer when we swap cables"?
and the opinion applies equally to speaker cables and what they can do to the amplifier if it is badly designed or incompatible with the more extreme cable characteristics.
the question should be:
"Are the amplifiers that don't change the sound really the ones to prefer when we swap cables"?
analog_sa said:
they amuse me too, but probably in a different way from you, but this will link in in a second ok?
If I have got this around the wrong way then apologies, and correct me please.
I assume that for you cables are a necessary part of getting closer to the sound??
Help me out here, I'm after a feel for what you believe to be the order of magnitudes at work here for you. Is it vital?, useful? way down the pecking order but when you are near perfection then you need to address this area? or does it come in way before that??
None of that was a dig, just trying to get the feel if you follow so just throwing stuff out there.
I can probably go further once you answer, but as I say I am actually curious.
Cal Weldon said:
Anyone who
s should not be a 
!!Oh! I see; this kind of troller
whilst the boat (and this thread????) wanders on - aimlessly! 😀 terry j said:
The last sentence is right on the money.
Sadly it is quite reasonable to take the "subjective line" - along with the sinker and hook! Although some of those who are in the market to BUY have a small understanding of the basic terms such as a watt being a unit of work, most have got few concerns beyond how acceptable the look/cost/loudness or socio-economic statement is to their ego/wife/finance company (often the same thing). Some actually like hearing music and own decent structured collections of recordings bought for content rather than the "sexy visual aid" type of artwork on the cover.
For those who want to keep abreast of things in the audio world and actually listen to recorded music the science behind that experience simply does not matter. Audio journals got off to a bad start and many have not recovered. Journalists were tied to key advertising account holders and had to employ whatever gobbledygook was being used by those companies. Usually it was specs. watts 'Music Power", Watts RMS, Along came the SET guys pedling a different magic....and so on!
Harry saw through this and for a long time was free of the constraints of advertisers and I believe sensibly attempted to stand aside from that rat race. THe average consumer wanted no more than for the guy in the shop from which he had just bought to come to his house - set up the system however the wife of the buyer wanted it to look visually, connect everything together and - Hey-Presto - the guy who has never been to a live performance outside a lap club has a system which he believes presses every button in the self esteem department - that is until the urge to own a further good wristwatch, camera outfit, car, designer wardrobe becomes his prime concern. But let him. He usually has had to earn the money somehow. Of course reality caught up!
The scientist - at worst - will make life a misery for everyone involved. He will have great familiarity with measuring instruments and too often none with musical instruments. He will too often forget the needs of the man in the street and that that need encapsulates so many layers of need. He will all too often forget that a measurement of say a j-fet or an op-amp is only relevant within the context in which it is being used - preferring to see it as an end in itself. I have heard a few amplifiers which perform close to perfection in the lab but sound worse in musical terms than my original Fisher 400 receiver.
terry j said:
The debacle between scientists on some of the other threads on this Forum answer that for me.....They used to say over here that there is "no bit*h like an Irishman"
but what has recently been posted makes that totally untrue.....it was just as bad as you could imagine in a fashion designer's get together in group therapy. 😀
Beat you to it my son!
The fact is that many dont have an aesthetic bone in their body.
So true, but unchangeable!
More likely the real reason is that to 'do' science even enough to pose an argument on a Forum means a lot of hard study for the guy who probably earns his living driving a truck, growing cattle, selling finance, teaching Greek, playing the oboe etc.
I am not a Scientist but did (lightly) have to study logic at Uni over 50 years ago. One of the three underlying laws of logic is that 'the same terms must have the same meaning to all parties in the argument for that argument to have value/meaning.' Most who 'pick a stance' on Forums are really arguing over terminology rather than that which they think they are scrapping over.
Steve Eddy said:
Dont forget that - I think that it was Einstein - the observer can - just by observing - influence the measurement/outcome of an experiment.
They should stop calling themselves subjectivists. Short of that, at least others should stop referring to them as subjectivists. Because they simply aren't.[/B][/QUOTE]
Although I agree that these terms are both 'absolute', we have to remember the fact that they do do well enough - when loosely used - to give a take on the users position.
I think that you have hit the nail truly and square on the head - from a subjectivist's viewpoint!! It naturally follows that one WILL (grudgingly) accept something which hits ENOUGH buttons to give ENOUGH pleasure. WE all have after all a 'cheap' side.
Yes - but it wont happen!
terry j said:
Not vital unless it's a really bad cable. I haven't changed any cables for a few years as i find it more interesting to achieve sonic variations using other means. I pay attention to cables only as far as these can obscure differences between other components. Per example i currently have several preamp prototypes and make sure they all use the same mains cables and same power transformers in order to keep comparisons meaningful.
If i was using factory made sources and amplifiers the importance of cables would be much higher and possibly vital in achieving acceptable sound. As it is i have much more flexibility so cables are not that important.
thanks analog for answering
Not sure I totally accept the bit about the scientist, yeah I get what you mean 'at worst', but I doubt that has any real actuality in the world?? (unless as a charicature, ie the 'absent minded professor', but like most charicatures they rarely have any real meaning or use)
this may be straying from the exact topic, but I do feel it fit's in. Hey I just worked out how to make it fit!
Ok, so 'most of the debate' about cables comes from the failure to 'pass dbt's'...there, made dbt fit into a cable debate, how hard was that?
Too often the argument is made from a strictly personal position (and really talking about dbt right now), along the lines of 'arrggh, I have no use for dbt in my own personal audio world'.
Ok that is fine.
BUT, and this is important, that is in NO WAY the same as making the argument that 'DBTs have no place in audio'.
get the distinction?? All too often they incorrectly extrapolate from the personal to the general.
Make it more general if you wish, 'I have no use for measurements as I trust my ears' DOES NOT equate to 'there is no place for measurements in audio'.
See what I mean?
yet another example of how and why these things never resolve as once again people are arguing the wrong things, often without knowing what underlies it all.
YOU may be happy to listen to your speakers or other component (insert whatever you want) without measuring but by crikey, I bet (unless they are the boutique expensive audio companies ha ha ha) that whatever you are using that 'does not require measurements' HAS been measured during development. And no doubt that has a great bearing on your enjoyment!
Indeed, using say harmon as an example (tho that may be the exceptional case) they rely on the use of dbt to make improvements that are real!!
So audio purely and simply only progresses due to the scientific process (or the engineering process if you prefer), NOT by denying or repudiating the place or role for 'measurements' or 'dbt's in audio!
compare and contrast to what (it seems) the subjectivist would want! 'unsighted and biased opinons' (which must by definition vary between everyone so are hardly reliable) to be the driving force for improvement.
I don't think so!
So when the pricey cable manufacturers refuse to 'prove their sales pitch'.....
it could very well be different here as a lot of cable chasers probably make their own for very little expense, but a 'normal' hi fi forum where the believers are being fleeced...
kinda what I was getting at, but with the added 'depth' that most actually do not comprehend that, AND that rather than terminology it is something deeper and unknown by the person.
brianco said:
Not sure I totally accept the bit about the scientist, yeah I get what you mean 'at worst', but I doubt that has any real actuality in the world?? (unless as a charicature, ie the 'absent minded professor', but like most charicatures they rarely have any real meaning or use)
this may be straying from the exact topic, but I do feel it fit's in. Hey I just worked out how to make it fit!
Ok, so 'most of the debate' about cables comes from the failure to 'pass dbt's'...there, made dbt fit into a cable debate, how hard was that?
Too often the argument is made from a strictly personal position (and really talking about dbt right now), along the lines of 'arrggh, I have no use for dbt in my own personal audio world'.
Ok that is fine.
BUT, and this is important, that is in NO WAY the same as making the argument that 'DBTs have no place in audio'.
get the distinction?? All too often they incorrectly extrapolate from the personal to the general.
Make it more general if you wish, 'I have no use for measurements as I trust my ears' DOES NOT equate to 'there is no place for measurements in audio'.
See what I mean?
yet another example of how and why these things never resolve as once again people are arguing the wrong things, often without knowing what underlies it all.
YOU may be happy to listen to your speakers or other component (insert whatever you want) without measuring but by crikey, I bet (unless they are the boutique expensive audio companies ha ha ha) that whatever you are using that 'does not require measurements' HAS been measured during development. And no doubt that has a great bearing on your enjoyment!
Indeed, using say harmon as an example (tho that may be the exceptional case) they rely on the use of dbt to make improvements that are real!!
So audio purely and simply only progresses due to the scientific process (or the engineering process if you prefer), NOT by denying or repudiating the place or role for 'measurements' or 'dbt's in audio!
compare and contrast to what (it seems) the subjectivist would want! 'unsighted and biased opinons' (which must by definition vary between everyone so are hardly reliable) to be the driving force for improvement.
I don't think so!
So when the pricey cable manufacturers refuse to 'prove their sales pitch'.....
it could very well be different here as a lot of cable chasers probably make their own for very little expense, but a 'normal' hi fi forum where the believers are being fleeced...
kinda what I was getting at, but with the added 'depth' that most actually do not comprehend that, AND that rather than terminology it is something deeper and unknown by the person.
Agree mostly and where I don't it would be at quibbling level...
On the broad front, my gut feeling is that the subjective stance is the better one to adopt on the basis that unless one can argue from sheer hard won deepest depth of knowledge of the sciences involved, one is going to find oneself at the loosing end when a counterclaim is made by an opposing opinion holder who does have that depth of knowledge - and uses it properly. You can always tell a subjectivist that you hold a different view and that as you are as adamant in upholding that view as he is that it would be more enlightening to talk about football, golf or even the weather....(Heaven's preserve us!)
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep..." - etc.
On the broad front, my gut feeling is that the subjective stance is the better one to adopt on the basis that unless one can argue from sheer hard won deepest depth of knowledge of the sciences involved, one is going to find oneself at the loosing end when a counterclaim is made by an opposing opinion holder who does have that depth of knowledge - and uses it properly. You can always tell a subjectivist that you hold a different view and that as you are as adamant in upholding that view as he is that it would be more enlightening to talk about football, golf or even the weather....(Heaven's preserve us!)
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep..." - etc.
brianco said:
Ok cool,.. wait! It's summer for you right now. It does get warm sometimes?
So given the earlier comments, and so we are all on the same page, maybe define subjectivist?? That way we can at least 'see' why it may or may not be the best approach to adopt.
I've been meaning to do something like this on our local forum, you know FIRST off let's see where we can all agree, and then work out where we actually move apart.
For all we know, we may have been arguing completely different arguments all this time!!
And approaching it without rancour and with integrity, well let's just say we have a better chance of actually progressing??
A subjectivest to me is a person who will give a gut feeling reaction to a presenting set of circumstances rather than making an empirical examination of those circumstances to the best of his ability and reacting according to the results of that examination. (Naturally it follows that a subjectivist may just be a lazy self centered b*st$@d.....like me! 
)
It is a truism that there is no interest like a vested interest....🙂
)It is a truism that there is no interest like a vested interest....🙂
Somewhat OT, I have to vigorously object to the characterization of scientists as lacking familiarity with the arts and humanities, musical instruments in particular. I've spent most of my career around scientists and haven't met one yet whom I could characterize this way. During my days at U of Penn, all of us postdocs would head over to a nasty little hole-in-the-wall jazz club every Friday night, where top names would show up incognito and push the boundaries.
Anecdotally, in the band I used to play in, the lead guitarist (used to give lessons to Nils Lofgren) went on to get a PhD in physics from Stanford. The singer ended up a professor of EE at Columbia. These guys, unlike me, were extremely talented and could just as easily gone pro.
And of course, here in my new home of Austin, the UT scientists I deal with have been making sure that I am adequately exposed to the right (non-tourist) clubs, where there is some astonishing music-making.
If anything, I've found scientists to be MORE knowledgeable and involved in the arts than the average Joe (or Jane).
OK, back to the discussions of the false dichotomy of objective vs, subjective. Sheesh.
Anecdotally, in the band I used to play in, the lead guitarist (used to give lessons to Nils Lofgren) went on to get a PhD in physics from Stanford. The singer ended up a professor of EE at Columbia. These guys, unlike me, were extremely talented and could just as easily gone pro.
And of course, here in my new home of Austin, the UT scientists I deal with have been making sure that I am adequately exposed to the right (non-tourist) clubs, where there is some astonishing music-making.
If anything, I've found scientists to be MORE knowledgeable and involved in the arts than the average Joe (or Jane).
OK, back to the discussions of the false dichotomy of objective vs, subjective. Sheesh.
Sy
You are one of not enough who not only keeps but demonstrates balance in his views.
I apologise fully for not being clear that not all who appeal to scientific method and have the required understanding and knowledge are soulless.
Just found a couple of cases of a rather nice Listrac - at a very sensible price. The cost:value ratio is terrific.
You are one of not enough who not only keeps but demonstrates balance in his views.
I apologise fully for not being clear that not all who appeal to scientific method and have the required understanding and knowledge are soulless.
Just found a couple of cases of a rather nice Listrac - at a very sensible price. The cost:value ratio is terrific.
SY said:
Not sure it is OT SY.
It is indeed one of the more objectionable canards that is leveled. You have said it much better than me, tho it was what I was aiming at.
It is simply yet ANOTHER thing that is not realised by those making the accusation.
Knowledge, the pursuit of it and delight in it is (usually) NOT limited to one arcane field. Someone who wants to KNOW usually wants to KNOW in a greater and greater sphere!
Look around us all in life, WHO is it that is ignorant and dismissive of learning? the down and out, the bum, the no-hoper. (and look at the 'results' of the way they live, THEY are the fodder for the National Enquirer.)
conversely, WHO are the 'makers and shakers', those that get the job done. The learned, the educated. Well, the balanced of those that is.
It is a very petty and particularly 'nasty' mind that makes those kinds of accusations.
The real scientist as you say is interested in all he observes to a greater or lesser degree. The people I criticise are those who take the 'facts and figures' approach to supporting a stance when they so often are simply not qualified to do so.
It is well described by Bernard Shaw in one of his one act plays (I do not have it in front of me so the quotation is from memory):
First man, pouring a glass of port:
"Have you seen anything of Bettina recently?"
Second Man: "They tell me that she has become something of a bluestocking and gone off to Oxford."
First Man: "Tell me, what is a bluestocking?"
Second Man: "A bluestocking is a woman given to intellectual pursuits without the benefit of one scrap of intellect."
The scientists of Sy's response are the properly trained, more fully and roundly educated people who would tend to stand aside from the sort of person I am describing.
It is well described by Bernard Shaw in one of his one act plays (I do not have it in front of me so the quotation is from memory):
First man, pouring a glass of port:
"Have you seen anything of Bettina recently?"
Second Man: "They tell me that she has become something of a bluestocking and gone off to Oxford."
First Man: "Tell me, what is a bluestocking?"
Second Man: "A bluestocking is a woman given to intellectual pursuits without the benefit of one scrap of intellect."
The scientists of Sy's response are the properly trained, more fully and roundly educated people who would tend to stand aside from the sort of person I am describing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.