View RSS Feed

The Ill-Tempered Audiophool

Are "objectivists" unwelcome?

Rate this Entry
Although I have never been called an "objectivist" before posting here, I guess my outlook is more sympathetic to that camp, given that I think it is unlikely the human ear can distinguish unmeasurable differences, and that claims to the contrary require compelling evidence to be taken seriously.

Given some of the stuff I have read recently, I am beginning to wonder whether those with "objectivist" sympathies, i.e., the "flat-earthers," the "close-minded" "malcontents", are seen as the unseemly, uninvited guests, like the atheists at a religious revival?

In short, is the CA site richer or poorer for the presence of such individuals?

Updated 05-17-2012 at 12:10 PM by The Computer Audiophile (No changes made. Just testing.)

Categories
Personal Blogs

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. One and a half's Avatar
    otherwise you end up with a dictatorship (aka Hydrogen audio) or the likes of a Jimmy Swaggart organisation.



    OK these are extremes, but both unhealthy and don't allow freedom of expression. Even though there maybe people of opposing views here on CA, it tends to balance, it's shaky, but balanced.



    Much like noise on an XLR transmission cable, the noise gets on the cable, but it's rejected by the receiver ;)
  2. Jud's Avatar
    +1



    Does that make 2 1/2?



    Mathematically, objectively, it must be so!



    OK, not content merely with agreeing, I'll add this: With the declaration of knowledge comes the responsibility to actually possess that knowledge. Example: Someone claiming to "objectively" show mathematically that the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics clearly doesn't know enough about evolution or thermodynamics to claim objectivity.



    To my mind, anyone claiming to be "objective" about audio carries a heavy burden of actually knowing enough about digital audio, audio electronic engineering, etc., to make his/her assumed title a correct one. And strangely (or not) the relatively minuscule number of people posting here who know enough to arrogate such a title to themselves (certainly Demian Martin and Gordon Rankin; perhaps Miska, PeterSt, Damien, and a handful of other software/hardware designers) are not those purporting that their positions are "objective."
  3. wappinghigh's Avatar
    Common sense is more unwelcome..



    If I was you I'd stick to all the software developments on the site... I'll call them the "practicalities" of computer audio... You know whether a file plays or not, and on what system etc..



    More and more utter nonsense is being posted on this site every day, with increasing frequency. Chris and CA, need to get their head around what to do about this IMHO..
  4. Paul R's Avatar
    The whole polarization into these two labels is part of the problem Bill.



    Substitute "Intelligent, inquisitive, inquiring, and a little extra observant" for Objectivist and "Intelligent, inquisitive, inquiring, and a little extra sensitive" for Subjectivist, and I think you come up with a much better picture.



    You notice they have the same traits, but one is a little more sensitive, meaning they perceive the world in part, by what it feels like. The other perceives the world more by use of the rational facility, or in other words, by what they observe, calculate, or engineer.



    And of course, each type of person has some measure of the traits of the other type of person.



    A very "sensitive" person can learn to use observation as a tool to better understanding. And even the most clinical of persons can learn to use how they feel to help them form a judgement about something.



    As 1.5 said, it is the balance. I firmly believe both types of people are needed here to keep that balance. And the result is pretty amazing, people all love to share the joy this hobby brings them with each other.



    It is easy peasy for either type of person to see when it gets out of balance.



    When someone comes on the system deriding how awful it is that "some people" are unwilling to put up DBT results to back up how they feel - it is out of balance.



    But also, when someone puts up how they feel as a reason to dismiss any DBT results they don't agree with, it is again just as far out of balance on the other side.



    When a group gets together and someone says, this "feels" like that, and other members of the group say "Wow! I bet you feel that way because "this thing" is happening and you are sensitive to it..." - well - magic happens.



    Not that it is ever easy.



    -Paul
  5. wgscott's Avatar
    I think I got about 5 posts in at HydrogenAudio before they decided I was no good.



    It was some discussion about double-blind tests, and I think I made two unwelcome comments:



    (1) I suggested that DBT, far from being a Gold Standard, was a mere starting point, most useful for when genuinely objective experiments and measurements couldn't actually be made, or secondarily, for determining when real measurable differences were in fact audible.



    (2) They had some sort of mutually-agreed-upon formula for what was required to "pass" a DBT, and whoever was describing this didn't seem to understand what a statistical significance test was, or what confidence limits are. I was trying to point out what they had agreed on was arbitrary, and what was fundamentally of importance was the significance test itself, not the particular implementation they happened to choose. Then I had the temerity to point out that simply accepting a rule for interpreting the outcome of a test, without understanding the basis of that rule, was essentially a subjectivist-like appeal to authority.



    I got shown the door. Funny place. It was like they slavishly ape what they (sometimes wrongly) perceive to be scientific methodology, without really thinking about things any more critically than those they (often rightly) fault for not doing so.



    I think it would be a pity if here one point of view or the other were to be curtailed.
  6. Paul R's Avatar
    It was like they slavishly ape what they (sometimes wrongly) perceive to be scientific methodology, without really thinking about things any more critically than those they (often rightly) fault for not doing so.



    No better description has ever been uttered, IMNSHO. :)

    -Paul
  7. Caner's Avatar
    That is exactly what my impression is these days too.



    I dunno, difficult to pinpoint why I feel that way.



    Caner
  8. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Hi Bill - Great question. CA is, and has always been, a place for people with every opinion under the Sun. Call it objective or subjective or whatever. I always encourage everyone to post their comments no matter where they sit on the continuum.



    Two things, at least, cause problems when people with such differing opinions leave comments: 1. Lack of professionalism or respect for others and 2. Difficulties with the written language's lack of inflection, tone, emphasis, and so on that is easily seen in person to person live conversations or even heard in phone conversations.



    P.S. possibly a third is people who take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet. Without consequences some people will simply be jerks.
  9. new_media's Avatar
    I don't post here that often, but I thought I would throw my two cents into this topic. I am in the medical field, primarily autism, and my job requires that I be skeptical by nature. I find that my thinking on audio matters is closely aligned to Bill’s observations. I particularly appreciate his reminders that DBTs aren’t particularly interesting when no one hears a difference, but could be very interesting if one person consistently heard a difference that no one else is able to.



    I do give some credence to the "trust your ears" philosophy. I accept that some people may be able to hear differences that I cannot, but I have difficulty understanding why some would object to having those abilities objectively tested. For example, I am certain that I can hear differences pretty easily between lossless and 128 kbps MP3. I'm also fairly certain that I would be able to detect those differences in double-blind testing, and if I wasn't able to, I would have to consider whether an expectation bias is involved.



    I'm not sure I have a point here other than to say, yes, Bill, some of us do appreciate your skeptic's view. I mostly stay out of these discussions because it seems the discourse is about as likely to change someone's mind as a debate on evolution.
  10. Kimo's Avatar
    Some tend to oversimplify things a bit, which tends to bore or annoy others.



    Peter Belt is now watching this thread from beyond, so be careful.
  11. Teresa's Avatar
    "given that I think it is unlikely the human ear can distinguish unmeasurable differences, and that claims to the contrary require compelling evidence to be taken seriously."



    I would say instead "currently unmeasurable differences", in addition I take more seriously what people "hear" as opposed to what they can currently measure. I care more about what music sounds like not what it "looks" like and that is why I will never in my entire life understand "objectivists", as I listen to music NOT look at it!



    As audio designer John Curl explained to me we can only measure a very small percent of what we can hear, however measurements are important as they can reveal poorly designed and faulty component parts. He has an entire room of nothing but test equipment. With parts that measure exactly the same, it is his ear that he uses to chose the one that "sounds" the best.



    If it sounds good I like it, if it sounds bad I don't like it. For me it really is that simple. Thus I am a subjectivist.
  12. wgscott's Avatar
    OK, now answer the question...
  13. wappinghigh's Avatar
    Its an age old question. The Audio industry has been up to these tricks for decades. It's part of their marketing philosophy. Making ageing baby bombers "think" they "hear" a difference, by purchasing the next "better", more "hifi" based equipment....when the only truly proven medical fact out there, is that human hearing deteriorates as one gets older....



    So it's simply a matter of selling "youth" to an ageing person..



    Like skin cream that miraculously smooths out wrinkles...
  14. souptin's Avatar
    I promise not to tell the other subjectvists (those buggers never listen anyway) but here's the thing...



    Am I correct in saying that you only listen to high resolution recordings because you have found that cd resolution does not sound good? Meaning that you check the the specification of a recording before you key in your credit card and click the download button? Dare I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that sounds suspiciously like objective behaviour. Looking for repeatable measured data that backs up your observations, why it's goddammed scientific.



    Now you may well think I'm stretching things a bit, but please understand we're getting a little desperate here in objective land and frankly we need the numbers.
  15. wappinghigh's Avatar
    Of course the industry now has a"tripple play" in motion..



    * A lot more older people

    * They are the ones with the money

    * They also "feel" younger and more "groovy" by switching to computers to play their music..



    Is it any wonder this site has so many hits... :)
  16. wdw's Avatar
    ...this site is unique and insightful exactly because of the range of opinions expressed here...and with an unusually collegial and helpful atmosphere.



    It only falls apart, in my opinion, when the comments become personal or with the use of oblique posts condemning other's opinions with comments like:



    "More and more utter nonsense is being posted on this site every day".



    WDW
  17. wappinghigh's Avatar
    As I said. This site is best for information on what is quantitative...



    And avoiding the "pseudo science"



    Google/wiki the word "Pseudoscience"....



    At least that is what I though thought the OP'er was on about..maybe I mistook him... :)
  18. Teresa's Avatar
    Actually it's not the lower resolution that turns me off of CDs, it's a uncomfortable feeling/sound I get from acoustic strings (violins especially) from CDs.



    To me CDs of orchestral music are uncomfortable to listen to, I have no idea what causes this phenomenon. But it doesn't exist on LPs, cassettes and reel to reel tapes from analog masters. Also it does not exist on most SACDs, DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads. And those SACDs, DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads that sound uncomfortable I suspect of being converted to 16/44.1kHz at some point in their production.



    It is important to note that I enjoy cassettes which, like CD don't have much frequencies above 20kHz and at 0dB only extend to 14kHz or so. That is why cassette decks are measured at -20dB.



    If avoiding CDs makes me somewhat of an objectivist I guess I will have to accept that as I really don't enjoy CDs.



    My favorite computer music files are 24/96 music files of audiophile LPs, even though I am sure pure digital 24/96 and DSD music files measure better. There is just something about a great LP I love.



    As Peter Green said "Oh, Well"
  19. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Teresa - Do not turn this thread into why you like high resolution and not CD or anything similar. You've discussed this many many many times on the site previously.
  20. wdw's Avatar
    ..."objectivists", the duller ones, seem to image we need a lesson or two and that I find hard to take. Courtesy and respect is just so cool.

    A quick look at the "what's your occupation thread" tells me the IQ quotient of our typical poster is higher than average so we don't need to be directed to google a word we all know well enough.
  21. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Hi wappinghigh - I've been fortunate enough to know many manufacturers, designers, distributors, and dealers in the industry. My experience has been very opposite to what you portray as a very seedy industry.







    Edit: I don't want to derail Bill's thread. Wap I've removed my question from my comment.
  22. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Well said wdw.



    I dislike the comments falsely attempting to teach people something when they really are statements made to bolster the ego of the person commenting.



    CA is not for the retired debate team to continue living the dream. Smart people around here can make up their own minds and contribute both objective and subjective commentary with professionalism and respect.
  23. Jud's Avatar
    I think I got about 5 posts in at HydrogenAudio before they decided I was no good.



    So you are insufficiently objective for HA and too objective for CA. You are a true moderate.



    [Deadpan]That, or you got a talent for ticking people off.[/Deadpan]
  24. wappinghigh's Avatar
    "Presbycusis is the term that is used for hearing loss as we get older, from around the age of 40 our hearing will gradually decline and we may find that we have to turn up the TV louder to hear it comfortably or we think that people are mumbling or we miss what people say and find that we have to ask them to repeat themselves more frequently. People suffering from Presbycusis will also find it harder to hear certain sounds such as water dripping from a tap and some shy away from activities that they used to enjoy socially due to their problem."



    Chris, the point I was making was presbycusis starts very early in life, and is something that is rarely mentioned in audiophile circles or by hifi manufacturer's. Despite being one of the few known facts in this whole debate on listening tests and double blind trials. I wasn't saying the industry is evil or malicious. I was just saying that it rarely points this out to prospective consumers. I was using this as an example of "objectivity" being "unwelcome".



    Cheers
  25. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Hi wap - Thanks for the reply.



    I respectfully disagree with your point that "this [i]s an example of "objectivity" being "unwelcome"."



    Presbycusis, whether by name or description, is discussed a fair amount by many in the industry. I think it's weird you mention Presbycusis is "rarely point[ed] this out to prospective consumers." Can you cite a reference for that statement. I'm willing to bet you are 100% correct that it isn't discussed but could never back that up with any facts. Still, is it really the responsibility or job of a manufacturer to tell the customer his hearing has been declining since the age of 40?



    Similarly as men age Erectile Dysfunction increases according to the [Cleveland Clinic]. Should there be a list of manufacturers of differing types of products providing this information to customers?



    Also, smoking can cause Dysgeusia a distortion in the sense of taste according to the Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Should restaurant owners be obliged to notify smoking customers seeking an expensive steak about this disorder?



    This has nothing to do with you personally wap. I'm just disagreeing with your point. That's all.
  26. wdomeika's Avatar
    I would say yes.



    Or then again, no.



    According to the principles of Objectivism, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Which suggests that if you are conscious of a difference in SQ when you place your Mac Mini upside down on a Mogambi wood block...then there is a difference. So what if you can't measure it.



    On the other hand, if the only folks allowed here were the conscious-of-something crowd, we'd never have a reason to look at those crazy coloured frequency graphs. And this would be a poorer place without them.



    Or it's a richer place with them.



    Whatever...



    Your existentially,



    Ayn





    PS I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.
  27. wdomeika's Avatar
    I would say yes.



    Or then again, no.



    According to the principles of Objectivism, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Which suggests that if you are conscious of a difference in SQ when you place your Mac Mini upside down on a Mogambi wood block...then there is a difference. So what if you can't measure it.



    On the other hand, if the only folks allowed here were the conscious-of-something crowd, we'd never have a reason to look at those crazy coloured frequency graphs. And this would be a poorer place without them.



    Or it's a richer place with them.



    Whatever...



    Your existentially,



    Ayn





    PS I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.
  28. wappinghigh's Avatar
    Chris. How many listening session do you attend, where the salesperson turns *up* the volume to demonstrate the (better) sound qualities of equipment A vs B...?



    Funny that they never turn the volume down. Now (LOL) the purists would say here.."well that's because everyone knows the problems with digital volume control..."...and the cynics would say "well it's obvious. Even though they may not know about physical hearing deterioration, they *do* know louder volume sells equipment"



    I urge you to try this little social observational experiment for yourself one day next time you audition some gear :)



    Now I'm no suggesting equipment manufacturers put a warning label on their Hi Fi like the smoking industry!! "Warning. Auditioning of this equipment will be subject to Presbycusis and lack of double blind trial". Obviously this would be ridiculous. No harm is being done here...(other than potential psuedoscientific misrepresentation, and the failure of the disclosure of the power of placebo). But there is definitely a place for objectivity in hi fi assessment, and this should be encouraged at all times. Proponent's of objectivity should not be made to feel unwelcome.



    Cheers
  29. RankStranger's Avatar
    Oh yeah, because that would be BORING!!!



    God forbid I should ever find myself in a world where everybody though the same as me. What a nightmare!



    Friction keeps us warm.



    RS
  30. Akapod's Avatar
    And, to their credit, the objectivists here acknowledge that science does not have all the answers.



    I have no problem (a) preferring hi-res and (b) acknowledging that I can't hear a damn thing above 15 kHz while (c) thinking/wondering that the increased sample rate yields benefits due to better temporal resolution.
  31. wgscott's Avatar
    I find your use of " " 's around Objectivists most provocative.



    The term appears to be used primarily by those opposed as a term of dismissal.



    It is kind of like calling someone a "socialist" (in the United States, where it is implicitly a pejorative). It prevents one from having to take the time to actually try to understand.



    "Well, of course he doesn't think the magic purple power cable with the Walmart wolf-tshirt insignia improved his soundstage. He is an objectivist."



    edit: Removed the "r" from "perjorative", although I think I like this word better than the real one.
  32. PeterSt's Avatar
    Although I have never been called an "objectivist" before posting here, I guess my outlook is more sympathetic to that camp, given that I think it is unlikely the human ear can distinguish unmeasurable differences, and that claims to the contrary require compelling evidence to be taken seriously.



    Hoping that I understood what you said ... this is suggestively telling that what can't be heard can also not be measured. So from this point on all is moot.



    Ok, why ? because nothing in the world tells that what we currently measure is all that can be measured.



    It even tells (me) that when whatever DBT points to A as the winner, it is scientifically proven that not all could be measured.



    Or am I making it too difficult now ?
  33. wgscott's Avatar
    I know of many examples where things can be measured but I at least cannot hear them.



    I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them.
  34. PeterSt's Avatar
    Well sort of ...



    I was trying to point out what they had agreed on was arbitrary



    When, in whatever observation, judgement, decision, etc., one has to make an arbitrary decision, not all has been taken into account, or couldn't be taken into account because of improperly set boundaries to the project (etc.).



    This WILL mean that the test was wrongly setup, hence the outcome is not valid.





    PS: For me this means that I keep on seeking for that sneaky little argument so the arbitrary decision becomes a logical decision, or broaden the boundaries so more data becomes available (re-iterate).
  35. PeterSt's Avatar
    I was afraid of that; your statement had just one "negative" too many in it for me to comprehend (I'm serious).



    I know of many examples where things can be measured but I at least cannot hear them.



    This makes you what ? Can IMO only be a subjectivist, with eager desire to be deaf. Or ?



    I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them



    Here too ... can't you write this in some normal form ? my small brain gets upside down from it (hey, english not being my language doesn't help here either :-).
  36. Akapod's Avatar
    "I know of no examples where differences cannot be detected by careful measurement, but nonetheless, I can hear them."



    Doesn't this assume you're measuring the right thing? I would think part of the problem is that there is some factor in play which has not been identified and is not being measured.



    For example, I did nothing at all to my system last night, but for some reason it sounded richer and fuller. Some may say that was due to the Irish whisky I was drinking, but that's not going to show up on any waveform.
  37. wgscott's Avatar
    I've never heard something that cannot be measured.



    I've seen plenty of measurable (objectively real) differences that are nonetheless inaudible.
  38. wgscott's Avatar
    For example, I did nothing at all to my system last night, but for some reason it sounded richer and fuller. Some may say that was due to the Irish whisky I was drinking, but that's not going to show up on any waveform.



    I think that is what is commonly referred to as a hallucination. Try Ardbeg.
  39. PeterSt's Avatar
    I have no problem (a) preferring hi-res and (b) acknowledging that I can't hear a damn thing above 15 kHz while (c) thinking/wondering that the increased sample rate yields benefits due to better temporal resolution.



    Then science tells (me) that "Hires" is not related to the high(er) frequency that can be in Hires, but should tell that this temporal resolution does the job (for you).



    Because this is not true for myself at all, it should tell that schience s*cks in this regard, or at least is incomplete somewhere. Which is the same as s*cks.





    Of course I now assume (because it was not in your post) that there's enough "science" around related to this subject to be able to state that science tells that Hires is better.

    A bit of a pitty it is that 90% (made up this number) of people addicted to hires "claim" that this is because of the higher frequency now being engraphed in the data - which could even have been proven by numerous DBT whatever listening tests, while at the same time at least me, myself and I can easily prove that all you listen to is to distortion in those higher frequency regions.

    So what does this tell ?



    For me, without knowing the real truth (because too hard to test), only that the higher frequency is not related at all. It would be the most safe for now to conclude just that.

    And how it this related to the topic ? Well, it is for me because personally I take nothing for granted.

    And next, because the equation about the high ferquency just fell out (per means of this funny post), one thing remains, and this is this temporal resolution.



    So, not telling any truths, but this is how I operate.
  40. Jud's Avatar
    I've never heard something that cannot be measured.



    Gordon Rankin says he hears differences that don't show up in his measurements, and I'd bet his audio measurement equipment is better than what's available to you. (He says this about USB cables, which he doesn't manufacture.)



    So either Gordon's ears are better than yours (overall unlikely due simply to age, though granted he may well have taught himself to listen for particular things), or his long experience makes him more familiar with differences in digital audio equipment than you are. I'm guessing the latter.



    That's why I occasionally put quotes around "objectivist." To me, objectivity requires a level of knowledge, or it amounts to little more than an unsubstantiated claim that one's thoughts are consonant with reality. Perhaps better for most of us who aren't audio electronics engineers or programmers of audio software to use terms like "skeptical" rather than "objective."
  41. PeterSt's Avatar
    I've never heard something that cannot be measured.



    Ok. So what does it say ? it can come down to being able to hear the difference with the mains plug in and out, while the Voltmeter proves whether voltage was fed to your amps.

    So it says nothing (IMHO).



    I've seen plenty of measurable (objectively real) differences that are nonetheless inaudible.



    ... to you at that time;

    Learning what to listen for could be the first step to the solution.

    Of course "ears" is a next subject, but I always find that the most weak to bring up. Besides that, it is not my experience with other people. Learning what to listen for (or feel), yes.
  42. PeterSt's Avatar
    Gordon Rankin says he hears differences that don't show up in his measurements



    But this is another upside down of it again. Or actually what I said in (I think) my first post in here;

    It just "proves" that not all was measured what could be (or should be) measured. That's all.

    Of course this assumes Gordon's ears to be right, but it also makes him an objectivist - seeking for the truth behind it (being knowledged and all) (instead of going in denial about your his own ears or something).
  43. PeterSt's Avatar
    or it amounts to little more than an unsubstantiated claim



    Maybe this says it all.
  44. 4est's Avatar
    Hmm,



    Does this really need to be so divided, and is there not some middle ground where both are applicable and respected? Maybe I am just silly, but I truly attempt to marry both in my decision making processes. IMO, trusting either one while ignoring the other is the act of a faith based decision.



    I have little faith in anything, attempting to walk forward seeking congruency.
  45. Jud's Avatar
    It just "proves" that not all was measured what could be (or should be) measured. That's all.



    Yes, that's what I meant. I certainly understand that everything involved in producing sound through audio equipment should be measurable. I can think of 3 reasons such measurements aren't necessarily available:



    - Intractability of chaotic situations: Bill referred a little while ago to the "3 body problem." Gordon Rankin has referred to the unpredictable ways system components interact. In these situations measurements of a single component may have reduced usefulness in predicting variations in audible effects within the system.



    - It's not yet known that the quantity to be measured is audibly significant, e.g., jitter as digital audio was being developed.



    - The quantity is known but its full significance isn't realized, so most developers and users don't go to the trouble and expense of measuring, e.g., jitter in the days of the earliest CD players.
  46. wgscott's Avatar
    I agree, and I think the labels ("objectivist", "subjectivist", "grey-beard" [the latest idiocy]) are needlessly divisive.
  47. Akapod's Avatar
    ... the labelists.
  48. barrows's Avatar
    After having worked in the audio industry for a well known manufacturer, and been peripherally involved in product development, it is clear to me that the commonly used audio measurements are not adequate for describing the actual performance of the components. We just do not know what to measure, and how to measure it, and how to correlate those measurements to actual sonic performance.

    This does not mean we should just give up, I applaud those who are constantly trying to figure out how to adequately describe sonic performance through measurements, and hope that they do succeed.

    In the mean time, it is clear that the best audio products will be developed through a rigorous process based on both measurements and subjective listening tests.



    Note, that listening to music for pleasure is an entirely subjective experience as well.



    WG, although we do not always agree, I certainly welcome your contributions to CA, and would never seek to outcast those who might term themselves objectivists. I do have little tolerance for those who may criticize the (often subjective) observations of others, and I also really do not well tolerate the closed minded.
  49. wdomeika's Avatar
    Do I feel like an unarmed swordsman when dueling with you?





    Cheers,



    Bill
  50. wappinghigh's Avatar
    "listening to music for pleasure is an entirely subjective"



    but..too many times equipment reviewers do not acknowledge this in their reviews. What that do is cloud their assessment by *trying* to hear a difference in the music (when what they should be doing is objectively assessing the difference in the sound)



    You can't subjectively assess sound. Sound is a physical property. But as you say you can subjectively assess music.



    Nor can you subjectively assess light. Light is a physical property. But you *can* subjectively assess colour.



    Saying you subjectively assess sound is like saying you feel a "warmth" from the colour of red as apposed to the colour of blue. You *see* light. (objectively). But you *feel* colour (subjective)...because a colour adds a subjective interpretation to your perception. If you touch the colour red it doesn't burn you. You don't pull your hand away....



    There is *music* (the art form) and *sound* (the physical property that is heard)



    When assessing equipment, way to may times reviewer's confuse the two....just like in the colour analogy they *add* their own subjective interpretation into the assessment. Without acknowledgment that they have done this.....
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast