The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

Bias is a personal reality. It is not transferable

Your ignorance is deafening sorry....

Culture is precisely the ingraining and transfer and "culture" of biases and elimination of differently "chosen" biases in different societies and also even in science....There exist a hierarchy of different biases and of the corresponding experiences... Ernst Cassirer called that symbolic forms...Bias are not "individual" characteristics because individuality can be distinguish from the collective but could not be separated....Bias are not a simple thing we must always eliminate, but something we must be conscious of , even if it is almost impossible or difficult like for the blind spot in vision...

Educate yourself....Learn what is culture, which science is itself only a ramification....Unseparable from the tree of culture, the science is only  a living branch; but not a separable branch like   think some  "scientism" who want to sit on a dead branch standing unattached to any biases tree trunk in the sky....

I was advising student about reading in my daily job than i recommend to you Ernst Cassirer...

You either eliminate bias or you do not

Philosophy of science is not childish game ... Are you serious? 😁

For sure you are....


Everybody favor blindtest even me.... But the reality of some effect is not always decidable automatically after a blind test.... Life is not so easy....

It is morning now.... I wish you the best day possible....

I will mute my speaking "ignorance"....Or my speaking consciousness.... Or my speaking biases ....

OP here. Putting an audio system together that is satisfying is the main point of my thread. People buy gear, but it in their system and listen to the results. When things come together (synergy) and work for that system we are moving in the right direction. Long term evaluation is how that is accomplished. You cannot fool yourself for very long if the system is not to your liking. Short term evaluation or short term testing is very unreliable. Over time and with much listening to different music an opinion can be formed. In most cases it's not a question if A is better than B but the question is do I prefer A over B. Audio is not about scientific testing of one's hearing or memory, it's about enjoying the music. 

**** The original comment wrt Strads was wrt bias something lost on you likely due to bias. ****

Not a chance.  

Effectively you are trying to use bias as a positive variable in the reproduction of sound. That is what you are writing, whether you realize it or not.

You are right in this sentence and remark for sure ... I NEVER contested that... I contest your AFFIRMATION that ALL what i perceived is ONLY deception...

What do you think, that i am NOT conscious of the deceptive powers of any bias? I am and it is for this reason that listening experiments are necessary and blind test also...

I repeat that from the beginning...Audiophiles must use their EARS...Biases included....Then how can you affirm that i am not conscious of that? For sure you think i am an idiot...But audiophiles must conduct listening experiments also even blind test if possible for some very small debatable audible change... Why not?

You are obsess by your own agenda and unable to read ANY of my post...

I never contested the fact that i have biases like all people, and i used them for sure creating my own audio system myself...It is EVIDENT fact.....Biases are not something negative to be elimated always and at all times, sometimes it is a learned useful sum of habits that created a real phenomenon of their own with different meaning for different people but anyway a real phenomenon...

My last device a mechanical equalizer is fine tuned by my BIASES and specifically structured EARS only.... Who negate this fact? not me nor anyone with a minimal I.Q. i will never pretend that this tuning will be pure objective optimal perfection for all ears others than mine.... This is precisely the gist and goal and usefulness of this no cost project...




Then if i did not contested this point what is the reason for me to argue with you?


FIRST-

It is precisely the fact , an epistemologically precise one in acoustic science, that some phenomena COULD not be studied with the elimination of ALL biases, save at the cost of erasing the phenomena under study itself, like the timbre musical perception of a playing instrument and his perception by the artist or the listener which are 2 different phenomena which may be and can be connected tough...

SECOND-

The central epistemological truth is also that you CANNOT conclude after a blind test to a POSITIVE demonstration of inexistance of some phenomena by only the absolute virtue of the blind test itself only....

Blind test are useful for eliminating biases from a tested drug in statistical studies.... NOT IN EMPIRICAL science like acoustic to prove the existence or inexistance of phenomena...The reason is simple some phenomena are discernible and experienced in some context and environment not in others...The biases here are habits in a very definite environment and the habits Are LEARNED way to navigate in this environment... Change the environment and the perceptive habits decline...Change the perceptive habits and the environment is erased... Do you understand this SUBTLE point?






Your favorite tactic in discussing is the fallacy which consist in attributing to someone an argument which is NOT his argument but your own accusation disguised... Read that 2 times, spelling it....

I am in favor of blind test, why not? Whose the fool who is not in favor of their use or against them by principle ?

I am in favor of their use NOT FOR DECIDING what is real or unreal in objective realm and in subjective realm in the absolute sense tough and this is the CRUX of the matter... Only for investigating the border between these double 2, the real and unreal in objective reality and in subjective reality also, which in acoustic like in many science is not a definite "line" but some country in itself separating the objective and the subjective and created by their interpenetration....I am opposite to their errenous conclusion, not the use of blind test, especially when these conclusions consist to negate the fundamental existence of some reality by reducing it ONLY to material measurable one...

Perhaps my thinking is a bit too complex for your "analytical superior power"... Then you may persist and going on with the false accusation that i dont want blind test or negate them.... I negate the false use and propaganda linked to blind test by scientism ... Not the blind test in their own legit range of application....

James Randi is not Einstein... And even a debunker can bunker himself easily....

Epistemological studies are not comic books illustrated by conjuring tricks and optical illusions...