Do you believe that our hobby is splitting?

TN Args said:
The above is a very weak and fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

(PART 1) Sadly, I'll have to post this in a few parts, but here goes. I'm sorry you found my POV to be very weak and fallacious, however, I could tell you are what I refer to as an Objectivist type of audiophile by the disparaging manner you choose to respond to me, i.e. "Objectivists in the above quote are what I would call True Subjectivists (or Subjectivists with Standards)" implying that I, as a Subjectivist am not a true Subjectivist and/or I have no standards! Almost EVERY Objectivist I've ever attempted to talk about the differences between Objectivism and Subjectivism has, like you, replied in a disparaging manner. Initially, I was quite surprised by this as I thought people who speak of the value of science and testing would choose to present their POV in an intelligent manner sans attacking or degrading the person they are talking to simply because they have a different POV. I have no problems with you proving I'm wrong, but I do take issue with how you speak to me when attempting to do so!​

TN Args said:
Firstly, expectation bias is not restricted to your conscious expectations or biases. Nor are all the other perception filters. So the tired old excuse, "I expected to hear no difference, but to my surprise I actually did, so it can't be expectation bias and it must be in the sound waves" is completely wrong, because the great majority of expectation bias and other biases and perceptual filters are unconscious. You can't know what they are, so you can't predict what most of your filters are going to do, in sighted listening situations. Including expectation bias.
Click to expand...

For the sake of our discussion, I'm willing to say your definition of "expectation bias" is 100% correct. That being said, I'm very curious as to why when a Subjectivist hears differences in wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Subjectivist is comparing, almost immediately the Objectivist will claim it's a result of the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminating the results of their tests. After all, the Objectivist wasn't present during the testing so how could they possibly know if the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminated the results of their tests? But again, let's give you and your fellow Objectivists the benefit of the doubt and say the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" did play some part in the results of their tests. So I question why don't Objectivists then admit that their "expectation bias" also is playing an equal part and also admit it's equally possible when comparing wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Objectivist is comparing it's the great majority of their combined unconscious "expectation bias" and other biases and perceptual filters that are preventing them from hearing the differences Subjectivists hear? Or do you really believe Objectivists are immune to this terrible "expectation bias" disease Objectivists are always accusing Subjectivists of having?​

 
TN Args said:
Secondly, most of the people being labeled as Objectivists in the above quote are what I would call True Subjectivists (or Subjectivists with Standards). They are very happy to accept the learnings from subjective listening situations, as long as the situation is controlled to eliminate non-sonic factors. That is, as long as the listening test is only about sound waves, and not open to being dominated by contextual knowledge about what is being tested, independent of the sound waves themselves.

So, you can't call the two groups Objectivists and Subjectivists, because the first group is full of subjectivists! They just happen to have standards.
Click to expand...
(PART II) My friend this is where you couldn't be more incorrect! Since an Objectivist is a person who believes in and follows the principles of Objectivism we need to go to Merriam-Webster and see how they define "Objectivism" and according to Merriam-Webster: any of various theories asserting the validity of "objective phenomena" over "subjective experience!" There doesn't seem like there's a lot of room for Subjectivists in the Objectivists group at all! Now if we return to Merriam-Webster we'll see how they define "Subjectivism" and we find that Merriam-Webster states: a: a theory that limits knowledge to "subjective experience"
b: a theory that stresses the "subjective elements" in an experience. Thus no matter how you feel or believe a "True Subjectivist" is one who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience!" However, as a "Subjectivists with Standards", which is where I place myself, while I do stress the "subjective elements" in an experience as having the primary importance, I won't limit myself as I'm always open to hearing the Objectivist, or anyone else's different POV! Why you might ask? Well, I learned a long time ago that every subject we look at is like looking at it through a diamond's many facets.

For example: I believe wires from my power cords to my ICs, my digital wire, and speaker wires all make a difference sonically. Yet I didn't always believe it and was at one time in steadfast opposition to that belief. But I only knew what I knew about wires from the two or three facets of wire diamond I looked through. As I spoke with others I was exposed to ideas they developed from looking through facets of wire diamond I had not yet examined. Until one day I finally acquiesced and allowed another audiophile/music lover to bring Audioquest wires over my home! This was back around 1985 when I lived in Connecticut and I was finally going to "look" through the listening facet of the wire diamond. I have no idea what part my "expectation bias" and other biases played, but one a time starting first with my ICs, we replaced my ICs with the Audioquest ICs and I listened to see if I heard a difference (I played the same song at the same volume --measured with a Radio Shack SPL Meter-- every time) then we put my ICs back in and we replaced my speaker wires with Audioquest speaker wires and finally we put my speaker wires back in and replaced the power cords. I don't remember exactly but IIRC yes the Audioquest ICs sounded a bit better than my Kimber PBJ ICs did. The Audioquest speaker wires blew away my multiple strands of lamp cord that were braided together and then wrapped in a left-twist spiral. Finally, I don't believe the power cord was Audioquest, but I did hear an improvement over the stock computer-type power cord I was using. Back then my system was a David Belles OCM 88 preamp, OCM 200 power amp, Nakamichi CD player (I forget the model #), and a pair of Carver Amazing (Platinum Edition) speakers!

Let's start moving up through the years from 1985 to 1999 when I moved to Florida. Because I hurt my back at UPS in 1985 on the job and finally was labeled "permanently disabled" in the year 1995. The injury to my spine was so traumatic that I developed degenerative disc disease (amongst others) and a couple of others such as spinal stenosis and spinal spondylosis! But I digress, so I've moved to Florida to get away from the Connecticut winters in 1999. Then after living here in Florida for a while I heard there would be a Central Florida Audio Society get-together at our local public tv station in the year 2000. That's where I heard my first SET amp ever. It was a nice-looking 2A3-based SET amp developed by a CFAS member, who was a professor at the University of Central Florida. When it was his turn to play his amp what I heard was literally mind-blowing for me! I just couldn't believe how realistic that little amp sounded. Based on what I heard at that public CFAS meeting I was very impressed, with SET amps. Still, as great as that little 3-watt SET amp sounded I couldn't and wouldn't base my opinion on what one SET amp sounded like. Later when I received a phone call I was invited to go over and hear Mike R.'s 2A3 SET amp! Heck yeah, I said, now I'm invited to go hear a different SET amp in a CFAS member's home, and once again I was gobsmacked at how realistic saxophones, guitars, pianos and singers, etc. sounded. This is what I've been searching for in my system's audio reproduction!!! But I just couldn't live with a 3 watt 2A3 or 5-8 watt 300B SET amp. So a few months later I purchased a $14.5K, 135 lbs, Italian, Mastersound Reference 845, SET, 40W/ch, amp/integrated amp (depending on a flick of a switch). I've had this piece for 21 years now and I've yet to find an amp I'd replace it with. Granted it doesn't measure as well as a solid-state amp does, but except for the bass (which is a place I've yet to hear a tube amp keep up with a solid-state amp) my SET amp as well as almost all SET amps I've heard blows away or beats, solid-state amps in the areas of timbre, tone, harmonics, and the ability to convey the emotional content of the music, sound staging, inner detail, note decay, etc. Basically, it just sounds more like the real thing!

As I said up above I cannot be a "True Subjectivist" who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience" because I believe measurements do matter, but just as Albert Einstein the ultimate Objectivist once said, i.e. “Not everything we count (or measure) counts (or matters). Not everything that counts (matters) can be counted, (measured)” This is why I believe although my Mastersound SET amp doesn't measure as well as most solid-state amps do, it sounds much more realistic when compared to something like a live, unamplified, acoustic instrument --(amplified instruments as well but acoustic instruments are a better standard to test against)-- and/or singer does! You see what I believe we need to learn is what and how to measure --(see TN Args I'm a Subjectivist with Standards)-- the interaction of sound and how our ears, inner ears, and brains interpret and react to the sound they hear. For example: Why would a solid-state amp measure better and yet the SET amp produces a more realistic, reproduction of instruments and singers? It would seem Albert Einstein is 100% correct and there's something we are not measuring, --(either because we don't yet know what to measure or we don't know how to measure it)-- that once discovered will reveal why an SET can measure worse and yet sound better! I believe in time these things will be discovered and we will learn how to measure them. Who knows maybe once we realize why SET amps don't measure as well as solid-state amps and yet sound better, they will be able to voice their solid-state amps to sound like an SET amp with real bass. That actually kind of excites me.
 
Last edited:
TN Args said:
The only reason the two groups of people mis-labeled in the above post are at loggerheads, is because one group demands good quality listening tests if you want to learn about what the *sound waves* sound like, and the other group is living in denial about there being any need for good quality listening tests (because they simply don't understand the truth about human perception and the way non-sonic factors have to be eliminated if we want to learn anything about what we think of the actual sound waves reaching our ears).
Click to expand...
(PART III) TN Args once again you're not only completely wrong, but you're also back to speaking to me in a demeaning manner again! The differences between Objectivists and Subjectivists and the reason(s) they are at loggerheads (as you say) is NOT because one group, who I'm positive you believe are the Objectivists, demand good quality listening tests, and the other group whom I'm equally positive you believe are Subjectivists, are living in denial about there being any need for good quality listening tests at all! The main difference(s) between Objectivists and Subjectivists that causes most of their disagreements is they completely disagree on what constitutes a good quality listening test.

On one hand, we have the Objectivists who usually proclaim DBT testing constitutes "a good quality listening test" when using an ABX Double-Blind Comparator, for the testing of audio equipment and the results usually reveal, ---listeners fail to prove they can hear the difference they state they heard in a non-controlled listening test! But here are some of the many problems with medical DBTs they true to use as the "Gold Standard" of quality listening tests that the Objectivists don't/won't tell you...

a) DBT testing was mainly developed for the medical field to test the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of new medications while attempting to remove the placebo effect, experimenter bias, and was never designed to be used to test audio equipment.
b) Typically, a DBT test consists of three groups: a control group, a placebo group, and a treatment group. The control group ---doesn't get a pill--- if they get better over time—as is often the case with depressed people, for example—their improvement sets a baseline against which to compare the other two groups. When people in the placebo group improved more than the controls, their increased improvement can be attributed to the belief that the pill works. Only when people in the treatment group improved more than those in the placebo group can that additional improvement be attributed to the medication in the pill. (Tell me how you'd set up a control group in an audio DBT Test? If the Objectivists follow the methods used in medical DBTs the control group doesn't get a pill, and so then the equivalent in an audio DBT is the control group doesn't get to listen! Yet in the medical DBT, the control group is quite necessary because it serves as the baseline against which the other two sets of results get compared.) --Thetubeguy1954
c) A DBT doesn’t reflect real-life circumstances. When a patient receives a pill after going to the doctor, they are told that the product is actual medicine intended to provide specific results. When participants receive something in a double-blind placebo study, each person gets told explicitly that the item in question might be real medicine or a placebo. That leads to a whole set of different issues such as the placebo effect and experimenter bias that can influence the results of the work in adverse ways.
d) The very fact that the people in a DBT are involved in taking a test can produce "test anxiety" which is what many of us felt in school before taking an exam! Unfortunately, there are significant problems with double-blind placebo studies that have long been known in the research world. Yet Objectivists cherry-pick what they do and don't choose to use from medical DBTs and toss aside what they don't want to use in audio DBTs! Then they have the nerve to call it the "Gold Standard" of quality listening tests and then mock the Subjectivists like myself that won't take their highly flawed audio ABX Double-Blind Comparator tests...

Now on the other hand we have "Subjectivists with Standards" like me. In fact, over the years "Subjectivists with Standards" have developed a "true quality Subjectivist listening test!" that does away with many of the problems with the Objectivist, ABX Double-Blind Comparator tests. There are no additional wires and no ABX Double-Blind Comparator box. Measures are used to help relieve the person taking the test from as much stress --as possible-- and reduce "test anxiety" down to a minimum.

a) It's suggested that the test(s) be performed in the person's home on their own audio system so they're intimately familiar with how it sounds in that room. It's also done to lessen the "test anxiety" mentioned above. The test person selects the song they want to use and the volume they choose to listen to.
b) There is NO ABX Double-Blind Comparator box! So the person leaves the room and the wire is either switched to a different, but similar cost wire or not. Then the sound volume is tested with an SPL meter using the same song to ensure it's at the exact same volume as when the test person chose to be the volume they wanted to listen to. Once that's all completed the person who either did or didn't change the wire, hides the all wires so the person being tested cannot see them and they then leave the room. Once they've left and cannot be seen by the person being tested, he re-enters the room and listens to the song when ready.
c) They can listen for as short or long as they like and when they've decided what wire they're listening to they tell a person previously selected if they believe it's the same wire or not.
d) This has to be repeated for a minimum of 10x but the more times completed the better. (It's best to do this over two or three days or weekends, but a single time with a 10x minimum exchange or no exchange of wires is acceptable.)

TN Args said:
The sad thing is, it's easy for the second group of people to learn about why subjective listening tests of sound waves need to be controlled, and to learn how to do a valid listening test of sound waves, and in fact they have already read enough stuff to have learned the why and the how, but they flatly reject it and erect a Wall of Denial. This is primarily because it means that they have to acknowledge that a whole mountain of things that they thought were true about audio gear and sound waves are actually imaginary -- in effect, the old adage about trusting your ears is only true if the test is controlled, and all the listening 'tests' they have ever done have never been controlled, so all their conclusions about the sound waves coming out of gear have been wrong all along -- and that is just too much to bear, too much to let go of. So they enter denial, and out of that denial flows all this argumentativeness, labelling, name-calling, excuse-making, counter-attacking, and all the rest of it, and it will never end until they change their mind and let go of nearly all of their knowledge base on what audio gear sounds like.
Click to expand...
This is all blatantly untrue! Both True Subjectivists and Subjectivists with Standards aren't afraid they have to acknowledge that a whole mountain of things that we believe are true about audio gear and sound waves are actually imaginary because we already know they aren't imaginary. It's the Objectivists, like yourself, who believe their highly unreputable, ABX Double-Blind Comparator box tests are a valid listening test of music (not sound waves as that just constitutes anything that's made a sound) that have problems. People like you forgot what Albert Einstein said about measuring and what matters, you simply toss or disregard aside anything about actual, medical DBTs you either don't like, don't believe, or cannot work into your misguided attempt to model your audio DBTs on. You're probably the type of Objectivist who still wants to argue that; lamp cord although it was designed to simply carry electricity to a lightbulb and was never intended to be used as speaker wire when developed, is the standard by which all speaker wires should adhere to! Oh yes, TN Args that's true audio Objectivist science at its best! And as far as people in audio entering denial, and out of that denial flows all this argumentativeness, labeling, name-calling, excuse-making, counter-attacking, that pretty much sums up how you've responded to my post a few times now. I posted my opinions, period, but you actually did what you accuse the Subjectivists of doing! I've grown used to these Objectivist tactics over the years. But as you've said it will never end until Objectivists, like yourself, change their mind and let go of nearly all of their misguided knowledge based on what their also misguided ABX Double-Blind Comparator tests that don't truly reveal that audio gear sounds like.
TN Args said:
The small piece of good news is that there is a steady trickle of movement from the second group into the first, but the big piece of bad news is that far too many are going to carry their faith in low-standard listening tests to their graves, because they have built their whole audiophile hobby on it.

cheers
Click to expand...

With this one correction of it's actually a steady trickle of movement from the first group into the second ---remember I was once one of you Objectivists--- I actually agree with the one paragraph above my final comment here. I'll end by letting you know that today my system consists of a YBA Genesis CD4 CDP/Transport --used as a transport-- a Musical Paradise MP-D2 tube DAC, a Don Sachs "Custom" SP14 tube preamp, a Mastersound Reference 845, 40W/ch, SET power amp, integrated amp --used as a power amp-- and Reference 3A Taksim speakers. I won't mention the wires I use as you'd most likely mock them or me for using them. ​

Be blessed​

 
Last edited:
Damnit, posts like this are what might cause me to finally drop some coin on another set of speakers I do not really need.

fiddlefye said:
Of the speakers I have around here these days the de capos are the ones that do the disappearing act most and furthermore seem to do it no matter where I'm sitting in the room unless I have my ear practically up against the speaker. Kinda eerie, actually, this werid sense off peering into the soundstage from different perspectives.
Click to expand...
 
@thetubeguy1954, as someone who listens with controls to ascertain sonic differences, I have to say I've never seen such a thorough misrepresentation of the approach.

I do applaud your listening test - as the item being tested can't be seen, the person doing the changes can't be seen (and I'll assume can't be heard) you've all the makings of a double-blind test. I'd have to assume no one who knows which cable is being tested can be seen or heard by the person being tested, and that they're out of the room the same amount of time for each "switch". You need to level match with tones and a DVM on the speakers though, as an SPL meter can never be accurate enough to attain the 0.1dB match needed.
 
JoeThePop said:
I would be most interested in your opinion on how these "large" bookshelf speakers compare to the plethora of vintage "bookshelf" speakers you have/had.


Did you say plethora?

Click to expand...

Yeah, we'll get to that.
They are hooked up, and I have listened to them a bit -- but I am not ready to render an opinion yet.
I really liked the L200s when I had the chance to listen for a whole afternoon in a real-world demo at a Polk forum member's house a couple of years ago -- and the R200 has gotten very good press, so I am optimistic.
 
I’ve a rare bit of free time and felt this deserved a proper response.

thetubeguy1954 said:
For the sake of our discussion, I'm willing to say your definition of "expectation bias" is 100% correct. That being said, I'm very curious as to why when a Subjectivist hears differences in wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Subjectivist is comparing, almost immediately the Objectivist will claim it's a result of the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminating the results of their tests. After all, the Objectivist wasn't present during the testing so how could they possibly know if the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminated the results of their tests? But again, let's give you and your fellow Objectivists the benefit of the doubt and say the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" did play some part in the results of their tests. So I question why don't Objectivists then admit that their "expectation bias" also is playing an equal part and also admit it's equally possible when comparing wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Objectivist is comparing it's the great majority of their combined unconscious "expectation bias" and other biases and perceptual filters that are preventing them from hearing the differences Subjectivists hear? Or do you really believe Objectivists are immune to this terrible "expectation bias" disease Objectivists are always accusing Subjectivists of having?
Click to expand...

“For the sake of our discussion, I'm willing to say your definition of "expectation bias" is 100% correct.” This usually means one doesn’t agree with a definition, though will accept it to move a discussion along. Do you feel the definition is incorrect?

If you’re human, you have biases, and you can’t control them. I’ve never seen any ears-only people argue otherwise.

Generally speaking a negative claim cannot be directly proven, so proof of impossibility or evidence of absence are typical to fulfil the burden of proof. In this context proof of impossibility would be applying physics and known thresholds of audibility to the equation. Evidence of absence cannot be used in the case you cited above, however there are other test formats where it can, such as a test where the participants have no prior knowledge of what’s being tested. We also have absence of evidence, but that is insufficient as proof of a negative claim.

This all boils down to the simple fact that the vast majority of the time it’s the affirmative claimant that has to provide the evidence, as the person who cannot hear the difference will not be able to design and execute an appropriate test that fulfills the burden of proof.

thetubeguy1954 said:
(PART II) My friend this is where you couldn't be more incorrect! Since an Objectivist is a person who believes in and follows the principles of Objectivism we need to go to Merriam-Webster and see how they define "Objectivism" and according to Merriam-Webster: any of various theories asserting the validity of "objective phenomena" over "subjective experience!" There doesn't seem like there's a lot of room for Subjectivists in the Objectivists group at all! Now if we return to Merriam-Webster we'll see how they define "Subjectivism" and we find that Merriam-Webster states: a: a theory that limits knowledge to "subjective experience"
b: a theory that stresses the "subjective elements" in an experience. Thus no matter how you feel or believe a "True Subjectivist" is one who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience!" However, as a "Subjectivists with Standards", which is where I place myself, while I do stress the "subjective elements" in an experience as having the primary importance, I won't limit myself as I'm always open to hearing the Objectivist, or anyone else's different POV! Why you might ask? Well, I learned a long time ago that every subject we look at is like looking at it through a diamond's many facets.
Click to expand...

Both @TN Args and myself have explained that objectivist vs. subjectivist is a false dichotomy, and that the labels don’t fit. Then going to dictionary definitions of terms that were already said to not fit seems argumentative for argument’s sake.

In an attempt to clarify in a concise manner, any listening test, regardless of controls, is subjective. We do listen.

thetubeguy1954 said:
For example: I believe wires from my power cords to my ICs, my digital wire, and speaker wires all make a difference sonically. Yet I didn't always believe it and was at one time in steadfast opposition to that belief. But I only knew what I knew about wires from the two or three facets of wire diamond I looked through. As I spoke with others I was exposed to ideas they developed from looking through facets of wire diamond I had not yet examined. Until one day I finally acquiesced and allowed another audiophile/music lover to bring Audioquest wires over my home! This was back around 1985 when I lived in Connecticut and I was finally going to "look" through the listening facet of the wire diamond. I have no idea what part my "expectation bias" and other biases played, but one a time starting first with my ICs, we replaced my ICs with the Audioquest ICs and I listened to see if I heard a difference (I played the same song at the same volume --measured with a Radio Shack SPL Meter-- every time) then we put my ICs back in and we replaced my speaker wires with Audioquest speaker wires and finally we put my speaker wires back in and replaced the power cords. I don't remember exactly but IIRC yes the Audioquest ICs sounded a bit better than my Kimber PBJ ICs did. The Audioquest speaker wires blew away my multiple strands of lamp cord that were braided together and then wrapped in a left-twist spiral. Finally, I don't believe the power cord was Audioquest, but I did hear an improvement over the stock computer-type power cord I was using. Back then my system was a David Belles OCM 88 preamp, OCM 200 power amp, Nakamichi CD player (I forget the model #), and a pair of Carver Amazing (Platinum Edition) speakers!

Let's start moving up through the years from 1985 to 1999 when I moved to Florida. Because I hurt my back at UPS in 1985 on the job and finally was labeled "permanently disabled" in the year 1995. The injury to my spine was so traumatic that I developed degenerative disc disease (amongst others) and a couple of others such as spinal stenosis and spinal spondylosis! But I digress, so I've moved to Florida to get away from the Connecticut winters in 1999. Then after living here in Florida for a while I heard there would be a Central Florida Audio Society get-together at our local public tv station in the year 2000. That's where I heard my first SET amp ever. It was a nice-looking 2A3-based SET amp developed by a CFAS member, who was a professor at the University of Central Florida. When it was his turn to play his amp what I heard was literally mind-blowing for me! I just couldn't believe how realistic that little amp sounded. Based on what I heard at that public CFAS meeting I was very impressed, with SET amps. Still, as great as that little 3-watt SET amp sounded I couldn't and wouldn't base my opinion on what one SET amp sounded like. Later when I received a phone call I was invited to go over and hear Mike R.'s 2A3 SET amp! Heck yeah, I said, now I'm invited to go hear a different SET amp in a CFAS member's home, and once again I was gobsmacked at how realistic saxophones, guitars, pianos and singers, etc. sounded. This is what I've been searching for in my system's audio reproduction!!! But I just couldn't live with a 3 watt 2A3 or 5-8 watt 300B SET amp. So a few months later I purchased a $14.5K, 135 lbs, Italian, Mastersound Reference 845, SET, 40W/ch, amp/integrated amp (depending on a flick of a switch). I've had this piece for 21 years now and I've yet to find an amp I'd replace it with. Granted it doesn't measure as well as a solid-state amp does, but except for the bass (which is a place I've yet to hear a tube amp keep up with a solid-state amp) my SET amp as well as almost all SET amps I've heard blows away or beats, solid-state amps in the areas of timbre, tone, harmonics, and the ability to convey the emotional content of the music, sound staging, inner detail, note decay, etc. Basically, it just sounds more like the real thing!
Click to expand...

This doesn’t appear to be at all unusual. You did a listening test without any* controls and walked away with preferences. We all do.

*As mentioned in a previous post, level matching has to be 0.1dB or better and that level of accuracy is not possible by measuring sound waves in a room.


thetubeguy1954 said:
As I said up above I cannot be a "True Subjectivist" who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience" because I believe measurements do matter, but just as Albert Einstein the ultimate Objectivist once said, i.e. “Not everything we count (or measure) counts (or matters). Not everything that counts (matters) can be counted, (measured)” This is why I believe although my Mastersound SET amp doesn't measure as well as most solid-state amps do, it sounds much more realistic when compared to something like a live, unamplified, acoustic instrument --(amplified instruments as well but acoustic instruments are a better standard to test against)-- and/or singer does! You see what I believe we need to learn is what and how to measure --(see TN Args I'm a Subjectivist with Standards)-- the interaction of sound and how our ears, inner ears, and brains interpret and react to the sound they hear. For example: Why would a solid-state amp measure better and yet the SET amp produces a more realistic, reproduction of instruments and singers? It would seem Albert Einstein is 100% correct and there's something we are not measuring, --(either because we don't yet know what to measure or we don't know how to measure it)-- that once discovered will reveal why an SET can measure worse and yet sound better! I believe in time these things will be discovered and we will learn how to measure them. Who knows maybe once we realize why SET amps don't measure as well as solid-state amps and yet sound better, they will be able to voice their solid-state amps to sound like an SET amp with real bass. That actually kind of excites me.
Click to expand...

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”.

That quote probably comes from a paper published in 1963 by William Bruce Cameron, a sociologist:

“It would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

The linkage to Einstein is tenuous at best, but a lot sexier, especially for how it’s typically misused. The aphorism simply means that not everything you can measure has value, and not everything valuable can be measured.

Still apropos as you’re suggesting that because a worse measuring component better aligns with your preferences that we don’t have the technology to accurately measure the component. This ‘missing measurement’ is you.

Your having a preference does not mean that preference equates to anything other than what it is – a personal preference. There’s no accounting for taste.
 
thetubeguy1954 said:
(PART III) TN Args once again you're not only completely wrong, but you're also back to speaking to me in a demeaning manner again! The differences between Objectivists and Subjectivists and the reason(s) they are at loggerheads (as you say) is NOT because one group, who I'm positive you believe are the Objectivists, demand good quality listening tests, and the other group whom I'm equally positive you believe are Subjectivists, are living in denial about there being any need for good quality listening tests at all! The main difference(s) between Objectivists and Subjectivists that causes most of their disagreements is they completely disagree on what constitutes a good quality listening test.

On one hand, we have the Objectivists who usually proclaim DBT testing constitutes "a good quality listening test" when using an ABX Double-Blind Comparator, for the testing of audio equipment and the results usually reveal, ---listeners fail to prove they can hear the difference they state they heard in a non-controlled listening test! But here are some of the many problems with medical DBTs they true to use as the "Gold Standard" of quality listening tests that the Objectivists don't/won't tell you...

a) DBT testing was mainly developed for the medical field to test the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of new medications while attempting to remove the placebo effect, experimenter bias, and was never designed to be used to test audio equipment.
b) Typically, a DBT test consists of three groups: a control group, a placebo group, and a treatment group. The control group ---doesn't get a pill--- if they get better over time—as is often the case with depressed people, for example—their improvement sets a baseline against which to compare the other two groups. When people in the placebo group improved more than the controls, their increased improvement can be attributed to the belief that the pill works. Only when people in the treatment group improved more than those in the placebo group can that additional improvement be attributed to the medication in the pill. (Tell me how you'd set up a control group in an audio DBT Test? If the Objectivists follow the methods used in medical DBTs the control group doesn't get a pill, and so then the equivalent in an audio DBT is the control group doesn't get to listen! Yet in the medical DBT, the control group is quite necessary because it serves as the baseline against which the other two sets of results get compared.) --Thetubeguy1954
c) A DBT doesn’t reflect real-life circumstances. When a patient receives a pill after going to the doctor, they are told that the product is actual medicine intended to provide specific results. When participants receive something in a double-blind placebo study, each person gets told explicitly that the item in question might be real medicine or a placebo. That leads to a whole set of different issues such as the placebo effect and experimenter bias that can influence the results of the work in adverse ways.
d) The very fact that the people in a DBT are involved in taking a test can produce "test anxiety" which is what many of us felt in school before taking an exam! Unfortunately, there are significant problems with double-blind placebo studies that have long been known in the research world. Yet Objectivists cherry-pick what they do and don't choose to use from medical DBTs and toss aside what they don't want to use in audio DBTs! Then they have the nerve to call it the "Gold Standard" of quality listening tests and then mock the Subjectivists like myself that won't take their highly flawed audio ABX Double-Blind Comparator tests...
Click to expand...

Double-blind is a control for experimenter bias, it is not a test format. A DBCMS (double-blind, controlled medical study) may share attributes with other controlled tests, but that does not mean that the protocols are the same, or that they should be.

Double-blind control is table-stakes for auditory testing to control for non-auditory cueing. And of note, they’re both subjective and objective – you’re doing subjective testing to ascertain an objective result. There are several formats for double-blind testing, such as ABX, triangle, paired forced choice, and sorting. It’s important to design the test for the question being asked. For instance, if I were wanting to test listener fatigue, a short ABX test wouldn’t be appropriate for doing so.

Test anxiety is often cited, and while I’m sure it does affect some people, I think the applicability here is a bit strained. We’re not talking about having to answer dozens of questions based on memory recall or cognitive ability. If something was as plainly audible as is usually claimed – night and day, veils lifted, etc. – it shouldn’t be difficult to hear those difference without peeking. Even in the most affected group for real exams it’s said to reduce their scores by ~12%.


Hopefully clearing up these misconceptions is helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Crossover Help with Altec 620A/416-8B Hybrid build
Replies
5
Views
1K
Spackler
S
Vinyl Rules!
Greetings From High in the Blue Ridge Mountains Where the Borders of NC/TN/VA Intersect
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Muddskipper
Muddskipper
S
3D printed horn experiments
2 3
Replies
40
Views
6K
Sean.m.miller1
S
Back
Top