IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Objective and Subjective Extremes: Truth in the Middle?, Split from Topic ID #11442
Woodinville
post Aug 17 2012, 22:18
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1414
Joined: 9-January 05
From: In the kitchen
Member No.: 18957



Well, Arny, what do you expect? The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Aug 17 2012, 22:20


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Aug 17 2012, 23:03
Post #27





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (Mach-X @ Aug 12 2012, 04:56) *
Eh? How is bringing in somebody with no expectation bias an 'audio cliche'. I'm pretty sure including somebody without a 'horse in the race' is as objective as you can get is it not?
Most certainly not. Not having experience in a given field absolutely does not immunise one from the risk of succumbing to any accompanying placebo effect and expectation bias. More likely? Quite the opposite.

QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 17 2012, 22:18) *
The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.
I agree, but itís only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the formerís initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Aug 18 2012, 00:57
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 1414
Joined: 9-January 05
From: In the kitchen
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (db1989 @ Aug 17 2012, 15:03) *
QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 17 2012, 22:18) *
The thread title is the fallacy of equivocation, implying that because there are two sides, the truth has to be in the middle, instead of with the testable, verifiable side of things.
I agree, but itís only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the formerís initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.


Ah. Well, then, the title is a good summary, you say? To me that about wraps this up, but I won't blame the poster for the title, ok?


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Jones
post Aug 18 2012, 03:58
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-August 07
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 46048



QUOTE (db1989)
I agree, but itís only fair to note that this specific title was chosen not by Mach-X but by whomever split the thread from its parent, even if the formerís initial post does include the same sentiment in other words.

It's also in the form of a question. E.g. "does the truth lie somewhere in between objective and subjective extremes?"

There's nothing wrong with questioning common wisdom, even if said wisdom has strong scientific and historical merit.

This post has been edited by Ron Jones: Aug 18 2012, 03:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 18 2012, 09:51
Post #30





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 17 2012, 16:57) *
Well, then, the title is a good summary, you say?

I thought it distilled the subject matter fairly, though I believe the OP deserves the final word. If he would like something else I will happily change it. smile.gif

Because two posts ended up in the recycle bin (still publicly viewable), I want to make it clear in this thread that the OP was wrongly accused of making remarks about the general intelligence of our community. It was an entirely different member who said this.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Aug 18 2012, 12:37
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



Thank-you, greynol. I think to clarify my original post, what I meant to imply is that on one side of things, you have those audiophile publications that drone on about the benefits of bi wiring, 24 kt gold cables, and 96khz sampling. On the other you have those obsessed with spectrum analysis graphs (those who mess with LAME's lowpass), THD tables (nobody can hear the difference between 0.05 and 0.5%), etc, etc.

The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Aug 18 2012, 15:29
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



The problem still is that your second category is still a straw man. I think most here would fall in this "middle" you're implying, and your two "sides" actually have a lot of overlap between them. Except, of course, that then this "middle" is not the middle of anything anymore.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
markanini
post Aug 18 2012, 15:59
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 22-December 03
From: MalmŲ, Sweden
Member No.: 10615



QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 18 2012, 16:29) *
The problem still is that your second category is still a straw man. I think most here would fall in this "middle" you're implying, and your two "sides" actually have a lot of overlap between them. Except, of course, that then this "middle" is not the middle of anything anymore.

Basically It's still strawman season for Mach-X. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 18 2012, 16:04
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 4464
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Mach-X @ Aug 18 2012, 07:37) *
Thank-you, greynol. I think to clarify my original post, what I meant to imply is that on one side of things, you have those audiophile publications that drone on about the benefits of bi wiring, 24 kt gold cables, and 96khz sampling. On the other you have those obsessed with spectrum analysis graphs (those who mess with LAME's lowpass), THD tables (nobody can hear the difference between 0.05 and 0.5%), etc, etc.

The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.



Many of the issues you just raised such as setting brick wall filters corner frequencies and tables of THD versus frequency are actually well enough settled among knowledgeable people that there is not much need to do more testing than has already been done. If you need to do the tests yourself to be convinced, then by all means do it! If you can bring yourself to believe what many knowledgeable people are saying about these things, then you save yourself a lot of time and effort.

Most of the things you read on audiophile forums are bollocks! OTOH HA is a pretty reliable source.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Aug 18 2012, 16:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Aug 18 2012, 18:09
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 1797
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Eerrm... Isn't the conclusion in latest Mach-X posts that, *hopefully*, there are sites like hydrogenaudio?

I ask because I don't get that interpretation in the three posts after his.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Aug 18 2012, 22:08
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 1414
Joined: 9-January 05
From: In the kitchen
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (Mach-X @ Aug 18 2012, 04:37) *
The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.


Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.

Yes, I've heard a few people put forth that claim, and it's kind of fun to ask them for the listening tests results that prove their claim, frankly.

A proper DBT of the right structure for the signals at hand is the thing to rely on.

Just don't forget controls, both positive and negative.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 19 2012, 22:27
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 4464
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 18 2012, 17:08) *
QUOTE (Mach-X @ Aug 18 2012, 04:37) *
The 'middle' that I implied are those that use sane methods of testing, and human ears.


Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.


As we both know, is possible to have considerable nonlinearity in a band-limited system and have both considerable audible distortion with music, but little or no measurable distortion with a simple THD test.

Frequency response is usually the more audible and common flaw.

Electronic gear has only 3 kinds of audible flaws - linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, and noise. Making adequate measurements of all 3 is not a big mystery.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Aug 20 2012, 13:13
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 18 2012, 23:08) *
Hm, not many people insist that graphs and THD measurements tell all.

Yes, I've heard a few people put forth that claim, and it's kind of fun to ask them for the listening tests results that prove their claim, frankly.

A proper DBT of the right structure for the signals at hand is the thing to rely on.



Hm, well. DBTs are well suited to verify that there is some kind of audible difference (if there is such one). Less well suited to falsify differences. But I guess the OP has a good point in those cases where are differences that the ears can tell. Then the DBT procedure does not offer enough tools to tell which one is closer to truth (lack of reference), nor to describe what the differences are (lack of vocabulary). Measurements like THD are 'objective', but they do not objectively measure quality. (Rather, like you indicate, it is not that far from objective to claim that THD doesn't.)

This post has been edited by Porcus: Aug 20 2012, 13:14


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 20 2012, 13:57
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 4464
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Porcus @ Aug 20 2012, 08:13) *
Hm, well. DBTs are well suited to verify that there is some kind of audible difference (if there is such one). Less well suited to falsify differences.


If by "falisfy differenences" you mean prove that a difference does not exist, are DBTs any worse than anything else given that proving negative hypothesis is difficult or impossible?

QUOTE
But I guess the OP has a good point in those cases where are differences that the ears can tell. Then the DBT procedure does not offer enough tools to tell which one is closer
to truth (lack of reference), nor to describe what the differences are (lack of vocabulary).


Which DBT procedure are you speaking of? It's a given that ABX is not very good all by itself for characterizing differences that are known to exist. OTOH, other means exist for that and seem to be generally recognized.

QUOTE
Measurements like THD are 'objective', but they do not objectively measure quality. (Rather, like you indicate, it is not that far from objective to claim that THD doesn't.)


THD is an abstract quantity. It is just a means for characterizing nonlinear distortion, and one that has obvious and well-known flaws. Other means are commonly used for this purpose and they have their own strengths and weaknesses. THD is perhaps most useful when it is known to be exceeding low, which is now common.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Aug 20 2012, 14:57
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Aug 20 2012, 14:57) *
If by "falisfy differenences" you mean prove that a difference does not exist, are DBTs any worse than anything else given that proving negative hypothesis is difficult or impossible?


Ah, there I was in my own thoughts, thinking ďthere is no miracle cureĒ and not being specific about what I wrote.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 04:25