Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Just waiting for this thread to start heating up with Machina Dynamica references. Perhaps also links to that H-Cat thread?

Interesting discussion. But it seems like an effort to label or create a logical construct around a set of observations that are ultimately difficult to properly frame - an exercise where words and definitions ultimately fall even shorter than our attempts to build empirical tests of ethereal and very subtle (or not) sonic differences resluting (or not) from artistic and sometimes tortured implementations of different electron paths, that most members of the "public" could not, or care not to be able decipher. For an extreme example, take the construct(s): "God gave me two ears, and I hear a difference." Verify that! Or, "Professional audio reviewer's opinions on (-add your accessory of choice HERE _______) are always correct because they know more about hifi gear than the 'Public'." Neither of these statements are verifiable, but both somewhat relevant in the context of the audiophile experience related to cables and tweaks.

Speaking of reviewers, it is interesting that this topic comes up now, since there is another thread nearby on Agon asking about the most enjoyable audio magazine. This made me think about the "Lake Wobegon Effect" as it might apply to hifi reviewing - whereby all gear that is evaluated turns out to be "above average", including the power cords, cables and the tweaks of topic here. With respect to verificationism, this makes me want to take the "Ronald Reagan Approach" and to "Trust but Verify" when it comes to shopping based on reviewer advice.

PS - I was trained as a scientist but now fall more in the camp of the "subjective empiricist."

Interesting thread.

I'd say i both am and i am not. It depends.

However we formulate our models of how things work, they are often abstracted models that typically only deal with factors that matter to each of us. Some possibly many details are omitted. But the model still works because the things that matter most to each individual are addressed sufficiently. Its a highly personalized thing. One size never fits all.

Our perceptions of sound, music and audio gear are perfect examples. Each person deecides what matters to them. If they are able to model and address the things that matter to them sufficiently, they are happy. If not, they are probably not. As long as tbe model is valid and correct and addresses the significant elements, all is well.

Some things will matter to many or most. That is how religions with large followings happen. Some things at the most abstract level may be common to most even of different faiths, though details will vary.

Regarding audio, our senses and emotions largely determine what matters most to each. We may all listen to the same thing but chances are the perception of each is different somehow.

IMO - It's all an exercise in futility, as our opinions are based on our personal experience with the equipment under a set of conditions virtually impossible, or at least unlikely for someone else to replicate. For example, in my system, because of my speakers, my amplifier and my room, I come to the conclusion that Brand X speaker cables lack midbass fullness, that's only because of the cable's interaction with my system and room. Another person, with a different system, could find the same cables to be overly bloated in the midbass. Both results could be verified by appropriate testing equipment, as frequency response in a room is scientifically verifiable. So, other than talking about this stuff because some people find it interesting, the process is otherwise without value. So I believe.

the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verificatopn of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.