What are we objectivists missing?


I have been following (with much amusement) various threads about cables and tweaks where some claim "game changing improvements" and other claim "no difference".  My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference.  If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same.  So what are your opinions on what those differences might be and what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

jtucker

You need both objective to get a base to replicate or advance from and subjective to tell if it's enjoyable since that can not be measured. Nearly all audio products built by subjectivists have parts or materials that were carefully measured and meet specifications based on advanced objective measurements. All objective products meant for humanity’s replication of art must work, feel, sound, or look good to humans and that’s all subjective.

+1 @artemus_5 I'm so glad you've made this connection and referred to it here; it's been on my mind for a good while.

... and until the people in the related physics field(s) get a grip on it, I'm going to do what someone else alluded to; I'm going to do me;

Listen to the music I love, on the gear, cables and tweaks I have chosen, as they sound different/better than others, in my system.

Can I trust my senses?; who cares!?, because their mine and they discern differences of better and/or worse in various audio products in my system. 

I couldn't give a gnats ar*e what ASR people think, or any others of their mindset; its not their money I'm spending. 

 

@artemus_5

SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and brought forth by man’s human senses

So do you trust your speedometer in your car to give you an idea of how fast you are going, or do you go by just watching the terrain go by? Have you ever tried flying an airplane when you don’t have visual reference to the horizon? It’s important to understand in advance that your senses will confuse you in that situation about something as basic as which way is up and which way is down. You can build instruments in advance that are immune to the effect and use their readout to tell you which way is up when your naked senses are disoriented. It's not about not trusting our senses. It's about knowing the limits of our senses and finding ways to augment them. 

We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."

Exactly...

Objectivist and subjectivist alike wear blinfolds that make them unable to understand a dynamic acoustic/psycho-acoustic process of correlation it seems..

😁😊

 

@asctim

Why the straw man argument when I never made an argument against machines & science? Apparently my point went straight over your head. Sometimes airplane crashes mare due to faulty equipment, NOT human error, excerpt in trusting the faulty machine. The weathermen use all kinds of equipment. Yet, how often are they wrong? let me reverse your last sentence

"It’s not about not trusting our science It’s about knowing the limits of our science and finding ways to augment them."

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best. This is scientism...and its very popular at the moment

 

@painter24 Thanks. Atttaboys are always helpful when we are generally outnumbered