can knowledge come from sense perception ??Among thousands of other examples that could be cited, my senses have given me the knowledge that fire is hot and ice is cold. I consider that knowledge to be both reliable and useful.
Regards,
-- Al
Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?
In the realms of audiophilia the word 'accuracy' is much-used. The word is problematical for me.
In optics there was once coined a descriptor known as the ' wobbly stack', signifying a number of inter-dependent variables, and I believe the term has meaning to us audiophiles.
The first wobble is the recording, obviously. How to record (there are many microphones to choose from...), what kind of room to record in (an anechoic recording studio, live environment etc), where to place the chosen microphones, how to equalize the sound,
and, without doubt, the mindsets of all involved. This is a shaky beginning. And the ears and preferences of the engineers/artists involved, and of course the equipment used to monitor the sound: these too exert a powerful front-end influence. Next comes the
mixing (possibly using a different set of speakers to monitor), again (and of course) using personal preferences to make the final adjustments. My thesis would be that many of these 'adjustments' (EQ, reverb etc) again exert a powerful influence.
Maybe not the best start for 'accuracy', but certainly all under the heading of The Creative Process....
And then the playback equipment we all have and love.....turntables, arms, cartridges, digital devices, cables, and last but never least, speakers. Most, if not all, of these pieces of equipment have a specific sonic signature, regardless of the manufacturers' claims for the Absolute Sound. Each and every choice we make is dictated by what? Four things (excluding price): our own audio preferences, our already-existing equipment, most-importantly, our favorite recordings (wobble, wobble), and perhaps aesthetics.
Things are getting pretty arbitrary by this point. The stack of variables is teetering.
And let us not forget about the room we listen in, and the signature this imposes on everything (for as long as we keep the room...)
Is there any doubt why there's so much choice in playback equipment? To read reports and opinions on equipment can leave one in a state of stupefaction; so much that is available promises 'accuracy' - and yet sounds unique?
Out there is a veritable minefield of differing recordings. I have long since come to the conclusion
that some recordings favor specific playback equipment - at least it seems so to me. The best we can do is soldier on, dealing
with this wobby stack of variables, occasionally changing a bit here and there as our tastes change (and, as our Significant Others know, how we suffer.....).
Regardless, I wouldn't change a thing - apart from avoiding the 'accuracy' word. I'm not sure if it means very much to me any more.
I've enjoyed every one of the (many, many) systems I've ever had: for each one there have been some recordings that have stood out as being
simply Very Special, and these have lodged deep in the old memory banks.
But I wonder how many of them have been Accurate........
In optics there was once coined a descriptor known as the ' wobbly stack', signifying a number of inter-dependent variables, and I believe the term has meaning to us audiophiles.
The first wobble is the recording, obviously. How to record (there are many microphones to choose from...), what kind of room to record in (an anechoic recording studio, live environment etc), where to place the chosen microphones, how to equalize the sound,
and, without doubt, the mindsets of all involved. This is a shaky beginning. And the ears and preferences of the engineers/artists involved, and of course the equipment used to monitor the sound: these too exert a powerful front-end influence. Next comes the
mixing (possibly using a different set of speakers to monitor), again (and of course) using personal preferences to make the final adjustments. My thesis would be that many of these 'adjustments' (EQ, reverb etc) again exert a powerful influence.
Maybe not the best start for 'accuracy', but certainly all under the heading of The Creative Process....
And then the playback equipment we all have and love.....turntables, arms, cartridges, digital devices, cables, and last but never least, speakers. Most, if not all, of these pieces of equipment have a specific sonic signature, regardless of the manufacturers' claims for the Absolute Sound. Each and every choice we make is dictated by what? Four things (excluding price): our own audio preferences, our already-existing equipment, most-importantly, our favorite recordings (wobble, wobble), and perhaps aesthetics.
Things are getting pretty arbitrary by this point. The stack of variables is teetering.
And let us not forget about the room we listen in, and the signature this imposes on everything (for as long as we keep the room...)
Is there any doubt why there's so much choice in playback equipment? To read reports and opinions on equipment can leave one in a state of stupefaction; so much that is available promises 'accuracy' - and yet sounds unique?
Out there is a veritable minefield of differing recordings. I have long since come to the conclusion
that some recordings favor specific playback equipment - at least it seems so to me. The best we can do is soldier on, dealing
with this wobby stack of variables, occasionally changing a bit here and there as our tastes change (and, as our Significant Others know, how we suffer.....).
Regardless, I wouldn't change a thing - apart from avoiding the 'accuracy' word. I'm not sure if it means very much to me any more.
I've enjoyed every one of the (many, many) systems I've ever had: for each one there have been some recordings that have stood out as being
simply Very Special, and these have lodged deep in the old memory banks.
But I wonder how many of them have been Accurate........
- ...
- 124 posts total
hi almarg: what you "experience" is only probably true and you have confidence that it is. yet because of the possibility that in the future you may have a different experience, there is only a high probability that what you have experienced is true. your "knowledge" that fire is hot is based upon induction. all it takes is one experience to disprove that fire is hot. of course in your life time you may always experience fire is hot , but there is a tiny probability that it may not happen. therefore it is not true that fire is hot it is only highly probable that it is . hence you don't have knowledge. without certainty, there is no knowledge. our experiences in life are uncertain. still, we base our behavior upon them, because of our confidence and high probability. |
12-26-11: Learsfool Of course I know you are joking, Learsfool, but this is actually an interesting question, and it leads to a number of observations that are relevant to the current disagreement. I think the answer is Yes, someone can be un-willfully dogmatic, if their dogmatism isnt intentional or deliberate. Here is Oxfords definition dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Willful dogmatism, in the sense I intend it, is deliberately obstructionist. But in my experience, not all dogmatism is like that. Some dogmatism is born of simple ignorance, some is born of a questionable education, and some is born of a closed mind. I mention all this because I think its relevant to a significant number of posts on Agon, in which ideas are presented as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Some of those folks seem to be deliberate obstructionists - in other words, willfully dogmatic. Others seem to be uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed. The definition of dogmatism above seems to perfectly describe MrTs posts in this thread, which regularly occur on other threads. But I honestly dont know the source of MrTs dogmatism. I accused him of being deliberately obstructionist, but maybe Im being uncharitable. Maybe MrT is uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed. Regardless of the source of dogmatism, it is probably the single most common obstacle to constructive conversation both on Audiogon and in the real world. MrTs dogmatism about what counts as knowledge is particularly unfortunate, because I happen to have a long standing interest in the subjects MrT frequently alludes to. Under different conversational conditions, I would be delighted to talk about theories of epistemology, Humes problem of induction, Verificationism, the Logical Positivists attempt to derive knowledge from sensory experience, the differences between knowledge of logic/mathematics and empirical knowledge characteristic of science. MrT is quite right in his belief that those issues are ALL relevant to issues that audiophiles care about. Just under the surface of many audiophile disagreements are important questions about sensory experience, concepts, theories, and knowledge. I think audiophiles would be surprised to learn how much their questions and debates mirror those of philosophers and scientists over the last four hundred years. There is an enormous wealth of dare I say KNOWLEDGE about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, none of that can be fruitfully discussed under conversational conditions created by dogmatism. It is a bane to audiophiles and to anyone else interested in the exploration of ideas. Bryon |
No, and no. What is "accuracy?" And to what? Accepting that accuracy is a deliriously liberating thing to an audiophile. Just go for the coloration that you like and be done with it. One of my "reference systems" is the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Another is any of the amazing misic rooms we have in Chicago. So accuracy and fidelity to thise soundsbis impossible. So now what? The sound you like. And be happy. |
hy byron: i can provide a definition of knowledge: here it is: justified true belief. justification requires proof and knowledge implies certainty. if you consider the above dogmatic, so be it. the above definition is not otiginal. i would also appreciate an instance of a statement i have made that connotes dogmatism. if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism. i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part. if you consider my statements indicative of dogmatism, i consider your position, at best, probably true and probably false, but not definitive. this is my last philosophical statement on this thread. |
- 124 posts total