The thing about objectivists is...

The issue with digital is a fundamental one - why convert analogue, the sound we can hear, to digital.  And then back again.  Everyone knows that such conversions have unavoidable costs, such processes always impose costs.  In digital, the main downside is the need to convert a real-time event into a digital clock time-frame, and then back again.

And copies can be sent to servers all over the world and not lose any bits, nor gain any noise.

Because no analog recording format exists that does not have a myriad of far more significant issues but is that relevant to the discussion? Perhaps? Our interpretation of reality is influenced by what we choose to believe and what we chose to believe is often wrong.

Digital clocks could be superbly accurate, but that is not the issue.  The issue is their implementation as part of the DA conversion process.

The issue with digital is a fundamental one - why convert analogue, the sound we can hear, to digital.  And then back again.  Everyone knows that such conversions have unavoidable costs, such processes always impose costs.  In digital, the main downside is the need to convert a real-time event into a digital clock time-frame, and then back again.

… (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger) …

@tylermunns 

Like this ?:

@nonoise Your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending.

A couple people here at least tried to address the idea.

All you did was issue rude condescension, and then give a vague non-answer.

With a nice slice of (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger): “uhhhh, you really don’t know that? (nerdy-snicker, nerdy snicker) I thought only teenagers that don’t care about the History of Audiophilia didn’t know that! (nerdy-snort, nerdy-snort)”

To use your “description,” (very liberal use of the word ‘description’) if “it (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘it’ is ‘music emanating from speakers’) comes across more realistic, then it will have that rhythm and pace.”  
Well, there you have it!  Not vague at all, and certainly extremely meaningful language when analyzing sound quality!

If something sounds “realistic,” (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘realistic’ is ‘sounds like a live band or sounds as-close-as-possible to the sound on the master tapes) then what more is communicated by saying it has “rhythm and pace?” 

Are you able to give an actual, concrete, useful, description of what constitutes sound quality that exhibits “good rhythm and pace?” Or is it more vague, meaningless audiophile jargon that people wank away with while listening to Dark Side of the Moon and Brothers in Arms?

 

"Rhythm and Pace" is a term that’s been in use for many, many decades and how you don’t see it having any meaning in "this context" is baffling to me, unless you’re under, say, 20 years of age, and have no appreciation for what’s gone on before you.

What you say could be the factors are some of the factors in determining "rhythm and pace". If it comes across more realistically, then it will have that "rhythm and pace."

That, and the contradictions in what you describe in your scenario with one system versus another shows that one system is better at it than another and is, therefore, responsible for the difference.

"Rhythm and pace" aren’t something you can plug into a system. It’s the result of the system, in toto.

All the best,
Nonoise

I am not sure…
In term of TTs, ones that suffer from alteration of the speed when the sylus drag changes could be reflected in the output signal.

But objectively, one could actually measure that if one choose to do so.

That idea of R&P being possible, gets a bit harder to defend with digital equipment, as the clock in the DAC or iPad is pretty accurate… more accurate than a bird knowing it is 9:00 AM. 😋

"Rhythm and Pace" is a term that's been in use for many, many decades and how you don't see it having any meaning in "this context" is baffling to me, unless you're under, say, 20 years of age, and have no appreciation for what's gone on before you.

What you say could be the factors are some of the factors in determining "rhythm and pace". If it comes across more realistically, then it will have that "rhythm and pace."

That, and the contradictions in what you describe in your scenario with one system versus another shows that one system is better at it than another and is, therefore, responsible for the difference.

"Rhythm and pace" aren't something you can plug into a system. It's the result of the system, in toto.

All the best,
Nonoise

@clearthinker Thanks for the response.

People toss these words out to describe the quality of a recording, and seemingly more often to describe the music-reproduction-quality of a piece of equipment.

Maybe I’m just dim, but I still don’t see how these words have any meaning in this context.  
If I listen to a piece of music on one sound system, and then listen to the same piece on another, how could “rhythm and pace” have anything to do with the equipment?  
If my toes start tappin’ more readily with one system, it would be from a myriad of factors.  Perhaps the bass is better.  Perhaps the entirety of the frequency spectrum is more balanced.  Perhaps the soundstage is wider, taller, and deeper.  Perhaps the imaging is better.  I just can’t see how the concepts of “rhythm and pace” have anything to do with sound equipment.

It is always amazing how the same person is devoted to pouncing on the someone the first opportunity.  This is a discussion group and I thought this was a great discussion.

Clock designed by human beings. They made up the numbers on it.

Birds have no numbers, no clocks.

The nests made by birds are sometimes quite magnificent examples of engineering prowess.

Lower lifeforms may require advanced mathematical knowledge to design such a one.

@petaluman - you sound like one of those istists....😄

Clock designed by human beings. They made up the numbers on it.

Birds have no numbers, no clocks.

Is it 9am for the birds?

Maybe a coo coo clock for you and your avian types then? 🤗

I believe the next progression to this discussion is obviously the consideration of relativism.😂

The clock says that is is 9am....But a clock is quite objective and has no opinion about what time it is.

Clock designed by human beings. They made up the numbers on it.

Birds have no numbers, no clocks.

Is it 9am for the birds?

Everyone has their own perception through which they view the discussion.

Is that just your perception? Or is it a truth which is universal and beyond perception? If the latter, how did you get beyond perception and how can you be sure?

Everyone has their own perception through which they view the discussion.  All comments are welcome.

The clock says that is is 9am. Is that the truth of what the actual time is? Or just what the clock is suggesting to be the truth, which is subjective?

But a clock is quite objective and has no opinion about what time it is.

I promised to refrain myself from posting any longer on this thread. But I cannot help but laugh very hard on this extremely super stupid analogy. You “objectivists“ dudes (or is it deaf?) cannot stop cracking me up.

@djones51 

We know what time it is by the way we have decided to slice the Earth's rotation.

Exactly. Convention and consensus. We agree on what "bright" means in listening and we agree what a "minute" is in measurement. We stick to these norms and rules because we agree that sticking to them suits us. Rule making and following is a social practice.

Any -ist is a drag if they take their -ism too seriously.  I'd like to thank everyone for being different from me.

A few people have asked about the relatedness of the term objectivist as used in the heading. The heading of the post was chosen to provoke interest. It isn’t tangential, though, as inference from the subject matter of the post can be drawn by the reader regarding the heading. Hope that helps.

It's too bad we can't get the sound to show itself on the cave walls so we can debate on what is really real, the people around the fire or their shadows.

All the best,
Nonoise

We know what time it is by the way we have decided to slice the Earth's rotation.

I don't get the reason for starting off , the thing about objectivist ?  I haven't read where anyone disagrees with what we like, how we listen or what we listen to is not subjective. What's your point? 

I have not read what Kant wrote, but he seems like he could have been a cool dude to spend some time with.

The clock says that is is 9am. Is that the truth of what the actual time is? Or just what the clock is suggesting to be the truth, which is subjective?

But a clock is quite objective and has no opinion about what time it is.

Another engineered clock may register that is is fact 9.02am.

We only know what the time is from what others tell us, and that borders on what in law is known as hearsay (at the limit).

Thanks for all the replies.  It's been enjoyable reading all of them.

Best embrace your inner Newtonian self. Far easier to live with and keep ahold of sanity.

@david_ten Interesting response. Where is this Newtonian self? The Newtonian paradigm is a system of thought which is within yourself, which is subjectivity.

I think my objective toaster may burn my subjective toast this morning and now I'm upset I may not be able to tell!

I'll get back to you.

Regards,

barts

A knife is not a knife. But once thrust into your heart, well that is a sharp thing instantly and objectively measured.

This argument is much like the nature v nurture dispute. It is a little bit of both. As a mother was once admonished, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

Interesting to see folks working with these ideas. As with other terms, "subjective" and "objective" are words which do different work depending on context.

If I say, "These speakers sound good to me, subjectively" that is an objective statement about my sensory experience. It's a way of saying that I don't think I'm in an illusion about my experience, but that it's really happening to me. There might be ways of proving that to others -- with a brain scan, for example (someday) -- but you could also take my testimony as evidence, too. When a patient tells a doctor, "I'm in pain" that is taken as objective evidence by the doctor of the existence of pain, right?

If I say, "These speakers sound good, objectively" that is an objective statement about the kind of sensory experience others could be predicted to have. It's a hypothesis. It needs to be tested by others who are capable of having sensory experiences like mine. I could not ask my refrigerator to have this experience, because it's not capable.

What's the difference, then, between saying "These speakers sound good to me, subjectively" and saying, "These speakers sound good, objectively"?

The difference is merely one of confidence about my prediction. The first indicates that I am too uncertain about my experience to predict that others will have it. The second indicates a higher confidence that others will hear what I'm hearing.

That's really all I see at stake in these words.

Well well well.  Objectivity and subjectivity are not the same thing.

Wow.  I didn't know that.

@gladmo , where did you read all this?

I think that's enough masturbation for one discussion.

Rhythm and pace is the degree to which there is a life-like portrayal of those elements of the original performance.  Do you want to tap your feet or click your fingers, or bang your head?  Many say that digital finds this hard to do because of dither and clock problems.

It means the drummer of the band did a good job.

Can someone please explain what the words “rhythm and pace” mean in the context of analyzing music/sound reproduction?

Best embrace your inner Newtonian self. Far easier to live with and keep ahold of sanity.

I think I agree with this, but I’m going to have to read it a few more times.

You guys crack me up!

A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

Is that fundamental truth something you came up with subjectively?

If not, then how can you check that it’s true -- with a non-subjective source?

Hi @hilde45 , It’s an observation which is obvious. When observation can occur without the occlusion of rapid mental activities, some things are merely seen plainly. It can’t be explained in concepts because it is so extremely simple. As @nonoise mentioned, Alfred Korzybski also saw some aspect of this as plain and true when he said "the map is not the territory".

I like your commentary because it’s pointing right at the core purpose of the OP, which is twofold. Firstly, to signify that objectivity and subjectivity are two different paradigms entirely which do not traverse each other. And secondly, to talk about objectivity and the definitions contained within it as always being held within the greater context of subjectivity. Therefore, the only thing that has the capacity to give an objective description or conclusion its sense of realness is subjectivity itself. Therefore, there is no "non-subjective source".

Hey hey cey 

objectivists and objectivism dont have anything to do with audiophilia, sound, enjoyin music...ok, rush did dedicate 2112 to the fountainhead, but how bout a word that aint already taken? 

OP,

Music satisfies a subconscious need. We invoke our analytical prefrontal cortex to pursuing a system to satisfy and optimize an audio system. This is often at odds with achieving our objective because our analytical side identifies attributes easily understand… tonal balance / slam… and satisfy our analytical side, but miss the subconscious requirements… rhythm and pace… musicality. 
 

I like this guy. All of the discussions that followed remind me of Haykawa's admonition that the symbol is not the thing being symbolized, the word is not the thing, and the map is not the territory. Actually, it was Korzybski who came up with the map saying but Hayakawa is the one I read all those years ago.

Experience is a purely subjective thing. Reconciling after the act, can be done objectively if one wishes, but it's done afterwards.

All the best,
Nonoise

@gladmo Brilliant!  Wonderful writing, and salient, cogent arguments!

Great audio is the result of optimal use of objective measurements(the right ones) and subjective listening. Without the combination there is audio chaos and the inability to repeat what has been achieved. This shouldn't be a war between two sides but cooperation for a common goal. There are meaningful objective measurements that give significant clues to the final result. They just aren't only the ones that are easiest to measure and they often aren't the ones used in ads.

I am always amazed how many audiophiles spend so much time talking about music. There is only so much time to go around, may run out of time to actually listen to music. Which btw I have done for the last 4 hours. Got my bluesound NODE to sing with the new Teddy Pardo LPS. Highly recommended! Using Shunyata venom 14 pc.

That's a literary marvel right there!  (and I agree with you)

Objectivists are likely not going to dive into deity and define first then describe.

Describing without definition, as it's often done, is subjective. 

And further to the above, related to what the woman speaks of, and in the context of what the brain perceives in the frequency domain, there have been many robust studies on this matter over many decades.

These are scientific studies.  I'd call them objectivist, but I won't because that word has been bashed to death so much that nobody knows what it means anymore, or ever has - see my first post here on what is means to the OP, for example.

Tremendous clip of a gifted teacher speaking about many nuances conveyed in just a few minutes, @hilde45

I have only comment on the minute beginning at about 1.50. In common law this has been an ongoing theme for centuries, and continues to evolve. The rules of evidence today discount eye-witness accounts as being a truth, to the point of dismissing them without being corroborated.

What did you hear, what did you see, what was said, or what did you taste, are subject to some quite fastidious cross-examination to seek the truth.

While the eyes, ears and skin are receptors, this is just part one of the story - the brain is next in line.

This is well known and the media wishing for an outcome do not like it very much.

I read the OP, then immediately thought about 3-4 people who will immediately jump into this thread hurt by it. Then I read the comments: I was 100% right! Here they were ASAP!

A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

Is that fundamental truth something you came up with subjectively? 

If not, then how can you check that it's true -- with a non-subjective source?

Here's a nice 3 minute clip of a very talented philosopher discussing "subjectivity" and "objectivity" especially as influenced by Kant. 

The act of describing it always diminishes the experience.  Yes, that applies to music as well

And that is the thing with objectivists?  

Oh, wait..