My original post, right at the start, deals with the mistake you are IMHO making.I really expected those Heresy IVs to sound good and they didn’t. There is both expectation bias, and it’s also not a blindfold to perception.
My original post, right at the start, deals with the mistake you are IMHO making.I really expected those Heresy IVs to sound good and they didn’t. There is both expectation bias, and it’s also not a blindfold to perception.
I really expected those Heresy IVs to sound good and they didn’t. There is both expectation bias, and it’s also not a blindfold to perception. Nobody is immune to it, and yet it doesn’t affect all outcomes to an absolute degree.
it’s both possible that it influenced me and that it didn’t dictate my decision like many insinuate it would. Again, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I know what it is.This appears to infer that because your conscious expectation didn't align with your perception that expectation bias didn't play a role in your evaluation?
it’s both possible that it influenced me and that it didn’t dictate my decision like many insinuate it would. Again, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I know what it is.
Works what way?No bias works that way.
Works what way?
i thought that was what I said.We don't know what our biases are or their influence. Regardless of what we're doing there's always an expectation, hence expectation bias always exists in some form.
i thought that was what I said.
But what if it doesn’t matter? I concede I have expectation bias before listening to a new component or speaker system, but that lasts as long as the first listen. If I don’t like what I am hearing, whatever expectation bias I may have had, just disappears. Sure, I can pat myself on the back if my experience matches my expectations, but I’m sure not gonna buy anything if I don’t like what I hear.
Given the stakes here, which aren’t high unless somebody is spending beyond their means, I just think it’s one of many things to consider. Like with my Klipsch audition, there’s only so much you can do sometimes. I have no desire to bring laboratory-level care to my hobby, so I’m aware of it and actively think about it. Certainly more than I used to. But I still just really want to sit down, listen, and use my experience to make a judgment call. We’re all different and need different things to feel comfortable in a decision.
On this particular forum, I truly believe one reason we get along so well and don't typically have these kinds of deep arguments is that we are not all dead-set members of specific tribes, once and forever only in either that "first or second group" you alluded to. Those groups are not mutually exclusive, there is definitely also a third group that we seem to have a healthy number of members here belonging to. My post above that ended in "thats why they make chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry" was an attempt to illustrate that not everything needs to be so binary, and regarding the topic of this entire thread, no I don't think the hobby is splitting, not any worse than it ever was and it's probably better than it used to be.
The old analog vs. digital, or tubes vs. solid-state wars have largely ended in an armistice, surely evidence there is a middle ground to be had. The same needs to happen with regard to the objective vs. subjective debate, there is ample room for both approaches, but that requires things aren't always considered in a hard core binary fashion. Those in the third group have managed to embrace both approaches to this hobby, and have flatly rejected the idea that they wish to belong to only one tribe, follow only one mantra, or spew dogma at the expense of other's enjoyment of this hobby.
It seems to me that belonging to that third group, or simultaneously residing in both the first and second groups, and able to embrace both and reject neither, allows our members here to more easily adhere to HiFi Haven Rules #1 and 2.
I think you're right about those labels sucking, and if we do away with those labels we can also do away with the "groups" themselves. I wouldn't actually know for sure if many of the worst attack dogs who claim to be pure objectivists are truly technically knowledgable, it would seem they are, but I don't know them well enough to really know for sure just how technically competent they might be, and I'm not really the right person to make that assessment anyway.I've never seen any technically knowledgable evidentiary-oriented person (objectivist/subjectivist are BS labels, so I try not to use them) ever take issue with someone's preference.
Ternary is better than binary when that 3rd group consists of folks who can allow for either a subjective or objective assessment of something, and not feel the need to immediately question, mock, or attack either one. I'm talking about in the context of a hobby, where we're supposed to be having fun. Rigorous controlled listening tests as proof or it didn't happen aren't fun.I can't see that making the equation ternary is any better than binary, especially when the juxtaposition is charged with such resentment.
A mistake? It was a casual off the cuff audition. Which is the part of this hobby I actually enjoy. It’s a hobby. What do you really think would have changed he outcome? The speakers had an obvious cupped hands coloration in the shouty. midrange. Subjective terms for a knowingly subjective audition that told me more in a minute than in days of reading about something. I know you don’t think it told me anything … but I’m confident in having learned what I needed to learn, and how I learned it.My original post, right at the start, deals with the mistake you are IMHO making.
In regards to the subjective/objective divide, it’s not the hobby splitting. It’s different ways that people are wired. Allowing a subjective outcome really offends some brains just as other brains can’t understand the need for it at all. Most people are in the middle somewhere but this hobby appeals to aspects that excite those different brains.I was just pondering the title of the thread - is our hobby splitting? I think it has always been split, first into those for whom it is a "hobby" and those for whom it is just tools for entertainment. Then in the 60s we increasingly saw a division into good quality "higher end" and "consumer", then into SS vs tubes. It seems to be that the closest we've ever come to a sort of "continuum" from entry level to expensive was a period in the 70s when SS pretty much ruled the roost, turntables and RTR were the sources of choice. Go into an average decent stereo shop and you could find everything from entry-level to high end, often within any one line. In the 80s tubes started to make a comeback, variety of sources multiplied and things started to get more tribal. The hobby has been split for ages. If anything things are perhaps getting a bit more coherent, at least in rational circles. IMHO
A mistake? It was a casual off the cuff audition. Which is the part of this hobby I actually enjoy. It’s a hobby. What do you really think would have changed he outcome?
The speakers had an obvious cupped hands coloration in the shouty. midrange. Subjective terms for a knowingly subjective audition that told me more in a minute than in days of reading about something. I know you don’t think it told me anything … but I’m confident in having learned what I needed to learn, and how I learned it.
Why on earth would I want to bring laboratory levels of bias controls into something I do for fun? The consequences aren’t dire.
You don't seem to be getting it that I fully understand the affects of confirmation and other biases on my observations, and yet I'm perfectly happy to forgo such rigor in my hobby.Are you asking me to say the same thing a third time? Why?
Sure. “Obvious”. We have covered that. The way the mind works, the apparent sonic attributes that are not in the sound waves will be just as ‘obviously real’ as those that are.
You wouldn’t. Hey, I don’t do it. If you think that is my message, you misunderstood.
What I am suggesting that you don’t want to do, however, is come on here and describe your listening impressions as if you are certain that you are describing sound waves. The way we conduct our hobby auditions, that’s not a valid conclusion.
Also, just being a hobby doesn’t mean there is no interest in the truth. Stamp collectors want to know whether an apparently-rare stamp is real or counterfeit. They wouldn’t be satisfied with the fact that a cursory examination leaves them sure that it ‘looks like’ the real thing. Similarly, are we happy with counterfeit sound? That would make us uniquely sloppy, even among hobbyists.
What truth should we be interested in?Are you asking me to say the same thing a third time? Why?
Sure. “Obvious”. We have covered that. The way the mind works, the apparent sonic attributes that are not in the sound waves will be just as ‘obviously real’ as those that are.
You wouldn’t. Hey, I don’t do it. If you think that is my message, you misunderstood.
What I am suggesting that you don’t want to do, however, is come on here and describe your listening impressions as if you are certain that you are describing sound waves. The way we conduct our hobby auditions, that’s not a valid conclusion.
Also, just being a hobby doesn’t mean there is no interest in the truth. Stamp collectors want to know whether an apparently-rare stamp is real or counterfeit. They wouldn’t be satisfied with the fact that a cursory examination leaves them sure that it ‘looks like’ the real thing. Similarly, are we happy with counterfeit sound? That would make us uniquely sloppy, even among hobbyists.
In regards to the subjective/objective divide, it’s not the hobby splitting. It’s different ways that people are wired. Allowing a subjective outcome really offends some brains just as other brains can’t understand the need for it at all. Most people are in the middle somewhere but this hobby appeals to aspects that excite those different brains.
If large numbers of people are out there auditioning speakers in a more controlled manner, where are they? I see a lot of charges telling people to add such rigor to their exploration, but I see approximately zero instances of anybody doing it and reporting back.