2. misc-audio
  3. 176970-142670

objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.

It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?

Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?

To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?

128x128snilf
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,190 posts
 

Planck believe God created the universe and the universe is a thinking entity so what ! You will reject Quantum mechanics because Planck creator of the field believe in God?

 

Do you think your argument so to speak is rational? Or perhaps look like a circle ?

«I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.»-MaxPlanck

To me the biggest problem with talks from people like Arthur M Young is they begin their argument with assumptions. His first assumption is humans have a spirt, the second ESP exists. It’s like discussing God with a priest, I might as well be discussing unicorns or Tea Pots orbiting Mars.

 

 

« Is it possible to talk without assumption? My wife believe she did all the time..»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

mozartfan
2,143 posts
 
claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly, w/o a objective stat, its impossible to say which is superior to another. The only criteria i consider in speaker selection is based on sensitivity. Which is why I have dual FR speaker system, FR at 92db-95db, always out performs any and all woofer/tweeter system. Higher sens makes superior fidelity. All your box speakers are below 91db. And if the manufacturer claims above 92 db, they are lying. There is no box speaker in the world above 92db. vs FR which are most all above 92db. = FR will always outperform a box speaker Every single time, Due to higher sensitivity. Took me 40 yrs to figure this out, But via resaerch and lots of $$$$$$ I got the answer. My dual FR + T's cost me $1200, vs Wilson's $$$$$$. Spending $$$$$$$ will not give you high fidelity. ONly sensitivity can make fidelity.
djones51
4,947 posts
 

Yes, it's possible to talk without assumptions. Consciousness isnt an assumption, saying consciousness is spirt or soul or a part of some God or the other is. 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

Which is why I have dual FR speaker system, FR at 92db-95db, always out performs any and all woofer/tweeter system. Higher sens makes superior fidelity.

Not to me. Active speakers using DSP crossovers and controlled directivity makes superior fidelity. There isn’t a passive speaker that can compete with the newest active speaker designs at least using superior fidelity as a goal line. 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,190 posts
 

And because you know you the difference between consciousness , soul, spirit and God, you certainly know that consciousness is not a fact but an experience, like soul, spirit and God are...

And because you are the only one to speak without any assumption you will teach us what a unicorn orbiting mars is and is not ?

The good point is you begin like me with consciousness...

The bad point is you think consciousness is a fact distinct from soul, spirit or God..

Sorry but consciousness is an interpreted experience, and the " knowing act "that is always a concrete meaningful charged intentionality is precisely the basis of phenomenology...

Then consciousness yes is different from soul, spirit, God, but if we can distinguish them we cannot separe them completely in safe drawers...Like separated words in a dictionary for example...

This is why we speak always with assumptions which we know about, or of which we are unconscious about...

The only thing we can do is becoming conscious of the meaning of our assumptions in our discourse and in our thinking...And we can try to stay coherent with our own assumptions without circling our own brain like a unicorn orbiting mars...It is called keeping an open mind...

Negating these assumptions presence and presenting our opinion like a truth without assumptions is meaningless, thinking about the assumptions behind our opinions is the beginning of thinking...

The only people who talk without assumptions are fundamentalist citing the scripture which is the absolute truth, needing not any assumptions, because coming directly from God...The only thing they assume is the fact that God speak without assumptions through them...

I can assure you that for them their experience is real as yours and has nothing to do at first sight with unicorn orbiting mars...

 

 

 

Yes, it’s possible to talk without assumptions. Consciousness isnt an assumption, saying consciousness is spirt or soul or a part of some God or the other is.

 

«There is no unicorn orbiting mars,  mars is a unicorn »-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

More to discover