objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

if someone doubt Goethe scientific value, read this:

Dennis SEPPER, as the sober historian of science close reading Newton’s 1672 letter and Goethe’s Contributions to Optics, concluded:

‘I have come to believe that Goethe has an ampler conception of science than Newton, that he has a sounder notion of what an empirical methodology requires and a firmer grasp on the epistemological and philosophical issues involved…2’

 

Mahgister and teo_audio,

You put a lot of words down on this topic, but in my opinion they do nothing to advance the debate. To me they are nothing but special pleading sans any justification of said pleading offering no concrete relevance to the discussion.  There is a another more apt but colloquial term that I will not use.

It is already accepted that personal preference is real, and absolutely will deviate from whatever measure of accuracy one may choose, and that single components or certain groupings of components can cause these deviations resulting in their being preferred.

The only question that remains is can audiophile detect changes that measurements say do not exist. That is a yes/no question. It will be very difficult to prove no, since negatives are rarely provable. However, the yes only requires showing that someone can do in some experiment that is considered reasonable. Increase the number of people and number of experiment will increase the confidence in the result.

I think almost all here would agree that given the nature of the music creation process before it is in our hands, that objective accuracy is a false notion and even if true, that does not over-rule preference for enjoyment.

If you cannot answer the question of whether audiophiles can truly detect differences that modern test gear says is not there, then all those multitudes of paragraphs are quite meaningless.

The measurement does not exist alone...

It exist with all other actual, and others possible measurements...

I never say that audiophile can rival any measuring apparatus in his precise realm

of application...

I only say that objective measures and subjective appreciation must always be CORRELATED... It is the basic of psycho-acoustic...

Sound perception is a complex phenomenon measurable only in a complex array of measuring experiments and not reducible to them even today...Because we dont have a universal accepted theory of hearing but many one with their complete sets of unsolved problems...

And any acoustician know that it is sometimes more easy and more fast to use their ears to assess an acoustic situation than to measure...Then acoustic learning bias have a value which cannot be dismiss in favor of mere tools only for many reasons...

Ears and measures are not enemies they are allied...

I am not a pure subjectivist audiophile nor an Amir disciple...

And philosophy can help to understand why technology cannot replace science, nor our measures tools replacing the ears/brain way of "measuring" for now in the actual state of our many hearing theories...

I am a promotor of listening experiments at home to learn basic acoustic fact and experience... It is not science, even if based on some science, it is a playful art and the only way to learn how to listen by the way with musical training...Then i dont promote gear brand name like many audiophiles , i promoted acoustic listening experiments...

 

The only question that remains is can audiophile detect changes that measurements say do not exist. That is a yes/no question.

Sorry but your simplification is perhaps good when we face a specific technological problem in design to solve but in science complex situation are not always reducible to what our tool ask for...

For the time being some human listener can assess and evaluate complex acoustic situation which we only begin to discover few years ago...( my article on limit of usinbg only Fourier analysis to explain hearing for example)

 

Then dismissing the value of subjective experience is simplistic psycho-acoustically speaking...

I dont speak here about the design of amplifier and the measures that make them good design with a predictible potential good S.Q. i dont negate atmasphere psycho-acoustically informed thesis about measurements at all...

I spoke about a larger perspective including also psycho-acoustic which cannot be reduced to narrower and goal oriented technological objective attitude nor reduced to a mere and anecdotal subjective taste and stance......

 

Being a scientist you dont like philosophy perhaps, but being a philosopher i dont like technological short-cut when we face a complex problem.... 😁😊

 

 

More paragraphs. More ignoring the singular issue which is not even in the least bit complex. Either the two equal measuring components can be identified as different through listening alone or not. Stop complicating a ham sandwich. This is not a philosophical question.

We never listen to a SINGLE component...

We listen to a chain of events on different scale...

Then the set of measures which can make good design sound good exist yes, i never contested that, but nobody listen to an amplifier disconnected from a room /house/ system and without his own ears biases...

Then .....

The matter under discussion here is the objective/subjective rabbit hole...

It is a rabbit hole when subjectivist and objectivist are alone each one on their side...Not so much when we try to understand why two equal measured design components can be identified different indeed by listening alone, it is then a psycho-acoustic problem not a mere electronical problem...

It can be deceptive illusion yes, or it can be a more subtle perception linked to other factors than the measured design itself , which factors that this well measured design dont encompass or dont control... Than this question is way more complex than your simplistic alternatives yes or no, which is a challenge you tailor made to subjectivist hard core audiophiles here to put them in a corner...But i am not one of them...Neither a measuring zealots negating hearing experiments value .... Measuring the right things is way more complex that usually think anyway but being a scientist you know that already and better than me...

 

I understand that you dont like my observations but they are related to the matter of this thread anyway...

But i agree about my too numerous use of many words and i apologize.... But it is an another matter...

Stop to reduce psycho-acoustic problems to tool design or to amplifier design only... 😁😊

 

My deepest respect for you....In spite of my  annoying posts...

 

More paragraphs. More ignoring the singular issue which is not even in the least bit complex. Either the two equal measuring components can be identified as different through listening alone or not. Stop complicating a ham sandwich. This is not a philosophical question