Empiricist? Positivist?

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

OK, so then where are the vast majority of us, realistically and practically speaking?  Making more or less informed judgments about what ought to affect the sound.  Some of us like to inform ourselves with specs and measurements and audio engineering or  audio engineering-related experience; others of us like to inform ourselves with our ears; still others of us like to do both.  I'm in the latter category, full well realizing the potential for my ears to lead me astray.  But I like music through my system, and I bought stuff used (amp, speakers) or just cheap (DAC) so I didn't spend a fortune.  Overall I'm happy, and maybe that's the measurement to be most concerned with. 

 

Yeah the third option. That's where I am. The sensory experience of what our ears tell us is the most immediate driver of why I listen. The audio engineering of how to do it, and the need to measure at some point to guide design is, while important, not primary. If the former is more empiricist, combining both is more positivist.

 

Computer audio delves more into math of PCM vs DSD and understanding all of this is greatly aided by at least some understanding of the math behind it.

 

I don't care for either the "objectivist" nor "subjectivist" labels. Empiricist or positivist is a better description of how I approach this.

 

You?

[Ralf11]

it beats animism

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it beats animism

You mean you don't care for the Yggdrasil?

 

How do you decide what to spend your time looking into or listening to?

[rando]

[fas42]

Most certainly positivist, in the sense defined here. My ears tell me whether I've got the right result, but audio engineering guides me in designing new circuitry, or adapting current units. If I replace some part of a component I will always give you a rational explanation for why that makes sense; no "boutique" capacitors, or expensive add-ons for me.

 

That said, I never measure anything, unless something's clearly faulty and I need to track it down - to this day I have not read a single explanation by the 'objectivists' as to why I need to measure what I've got, that has any tweaking value.

[Ralf11]

I've got a Yggdrasil T-shirt.

[arglebargle]

Mystic. Trivial to brew up some magic clock type tweaks with junk from the hardware store. Step 1) procure some LSD. There is no step 2.  

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

it beats animism

 

How often do you beat your animus?

[jabbr]

 

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

How often do you beat your animus?

Sorry I thought you asked how Often I burn my witch?

[christopher3393]

Looks like we could use some philosophical support:

 

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

But seriously...I've only been serious about audio for about 6 years. I do not have the scientific chops that a number of you have. My audiophile philosophy as a young, fragile work in gradual progress. There is a good dose of pragmatism, some exploration of newly emerging and highly revised forms of radical empiricism, and, most of all, a hermeneutical bent (contemporary philosophical hermeneutics), where I have the most background. When employing the objective/subjective scheme, I'd select "intersubjective", a term that shows up a fair amount in contemporary versions of the 3 approaches to philosophy that I named. But mostly I turn on my headphone dac-amp, put on the cans, and listen.

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Looks like we could use some philosophical support:

 

 

 

 

Brilliant! I just saw these two days ago and saved them. Most appropriate here.