or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What are the benchmarks for Objectivists?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the benchmarks for Objectivists? - Page 15  

post #421 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Schticker! You're a hi-end dealer! Why were you so afraid to come out of the closet? Did you think Pujols was gonna whack you with his bat? All those lessons from mom and pop about never trusting a dealer and look what you've become!
All I've ever supported is the client making his/her own decisions, not relying on test results without their own subjective observations.

Since when is being a dealer grounds for incrimination? Only on the 'net. :rolleyes:
post #422 of 438
You are incriminated when you disagree with people without honestly considering their ideas just because if they're right it means your job becomes a LOT harder.
post #423 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
Aww snap.

When your livelyhood depends on pseudoscience and half-truths, the last thing you want to hear is exactly what people need to know to cure their upgradeitis.
Actually it's easier than that: Carry stuff that's better, and have the customer decide.

Quote:
The reality that its impossible to attribute an "audible" difference to a device when you are allowed to use senses other than hearing to make the decision.
Where is it written that needs to be the case? We don't need people outside of our field dictating terms, unless you want to write our paychecks.

Quote:
The reality that you can't make a subjective opinion about two devices in comparison when it can't even be shown that an objective difference exists.
Direct A/B'ing suffices for most normal folks, thanks. Especially for people who's time = money, and is important to them.

Quote:
The reality that businesses (like the one Schticker works for) are out to get your money, they are not out to advance the field of audiology. (While audiology typically deals with hearing loss, the study of how and what people can hear at all is of course relevant).
That's what businesses do: Make money. We are in business to sell things (shock of all shocks) but according to you, that means we have to lie to make that happen. Air your insecurities elsewhere.

Quote:
Of course you don't want the inconvenience of reality to get in the way of your income, so muddle the truth so that people continue to buy products on prestige and other non-tangible reasons instead of buying products by what serves their purposes at the best price.
That's their decision, not mine. I do not control a household's purse strings.
post #424 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
You are incriminated you disagree with people whose ideas that, if widely accepted, would lead to a decrease in sales of the highest margin products without honestly considering the merit of their ideas.
Oh, I consider it. Surprisingly, I respect it. What I don't respect is the application of those concepts (while scientifically valid) destroying the experience that this hobby brings. The wine comparison is valid: One does not have to do anything but taste it to decide if one likes it or not. Rarely is there a "right or wrong" answer when discussing one's personal tastes. Most would take offense if you attempted to do so, which is why I suspect you only do it under the blanket of anonymity you enjoy here.

The objective differences exist; only a fool would dispute that. But, when an individals experiences differ from the tests, why bother convincing that person he/she is wrong? Why not let that person enjoy themselves? What harm could that possibly bring?
post #425 of 438
It is time to give this thread a decent burial.
post #426 of 438
Every one was right
It is much more fun to watch :D
post #427 of 438
NO. Using senses other than hearing to determine audible differences is INHERENTLY WRONG. If this sounds arrogant it is because you misunderstand the definition of audible. I don't see with my ears and I don't hear with my eyes so if I want to make a claim about what I hear I must do so without influence from irrelevant senses.

It is not a "rule of the game" like whether the fork goes on the right or on the left at the dinner table (and in such a case, there really is no "naturally correct answer" because the proper placement is just a tradition). Nobody has to write that its how you do blind tests because it is simply the definition of a blind test. Nonetheless, it is explicitly written as part of the scientific method. To determine what variable was the cause of an observed effect, you must minimize the number of variables. If you are simultaneously using your eyesight and your hearing in a case that should only be testing your hearing, no conclusion can be drawn. Consider the following word thought problem:

Bob and Joe went to the bank. The bank was robbed. Who did it? (Alternately, who "probably" did it?)

The only correct answer is "there is no answer without more information." If "Bob and Joe did it" is the obvious answer in your mind, then you don't know the definition of "proof." For all you know, Bob and Joe could have gone to the uptown bank and the downtown bank was robbed, or both of them could have been in the store at the wrong time. Its essentially a red herring.

What does this have to do with scientific testing you ask? Well, the point is, using "true" information to come to a conclusion that it can't imply is fallacious and dishonest. Its true Bob and Joe went to the bank and its true some CD players have cooler looking front bezels and more prestigious brand names, but you can not let these facts influence your decision as to whether Bob and Joe actually ROBBED the bank or whether the cd players SOUND different. Theres a difference between "not ruling out a cause" and "determining the cause." We have not DETERMINED that the cause was psychologically fabricated, but it seems that you have ruled that out entirely without further examination. We can not rule out that Bob and Joe have robbed the bank, but we can not prove that they are the perpetrators.

Use your eyes to determine visual differences, use your ears to determine audible differences. If you want to determine whether a difference is audible or visual you must test the senses separately, hence a blind test.

Anybody can visually determine which device is which but I doubt the abilities of the people who outright dismiss blind tests as "unscientific."

Anyway, though I've determined this a long time ago, I think logic is nonetheless something that can not be learned. Some people understand how it is used as a tool to determine truth (or to increase the probability of truth anyway) and some people think it is just some unfair game a bully made up so they can automatically "win" any disagreement. If you think this debate is about "winning" rather than "examining reality for what it is" and if you think logic is the tool of bullies, then you might just be one of those people who is mis-equipped to separate truth from ********.

Don't feel bad if thats the case. I am misequipped to sense the feelings of others, so I know that I don't do so well in social situations. However, if the utility of logic evades you, I request that you avoid scientific discussion. Just like people who don't sense "feelings" should avoid social situations.
post #428 of 438
"The objective differences exist; only a fool would dispute that."

Actually this is precisely the problem with everything you've said. You're assuming something to be true (and attacking those who disagree) that is PRECISELY THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE.

There must be an objective difference for there to form a subjective opinion. The reason we are denying people their subjective opinion is that the objective facts they are formed form are either A) straight up fabricated or B) GROSSLY exaggerated.

You can not ignore the science of hearing and just noticable differences and then decry that only a fool believes objective (but audible!) differences don't exist.

I mean yeah, it would be a logical nightmare to dispute that speakers do not objectively differ in sound quality, but this is the CD player forum and the entire foundation of this disagreement is the fact that objectivists claim there are no objective differences that are greater than is required to be a "just-noticable-difference."

You can even bring statistics into the mix... the reason this debate exists in novelty-cd-player land and not the speaker forum is because the "standard deviation" for speaker quality is a lot greater than for devices that don't have to actually convert electricity into sound. CD players are limited in their ability to distort the sound and typical modern CD players besides the cheapest walmart crap are generally all built "well enough" to pass the signal without adding any just-noticable-distortion. Some botique CD players may have an integral equalizer so that they DO audibly change the signal, but I (and others) believe that any CD player designed as such goes under the category of hopelessly mis-designed.

The difference between my claims and yours is that my claim is a fact waiting to be disproven, whereas your claims are opinions of no real relevance to what is being suggested.
post #429 of 438
The hobby is not all about the quality of audio, it can sometimes be more about the athstetics of a peice of gear, build quality and other perceptual factors, and in a thread entitled 'What are the benchmarks for Objectivists?' perhaps these are benchmarks.

Personally, I wouldn't want a rack full of black boxes or circuit boards pasted to the side of shelving even if it did sound better and cost less than anything else on the market. I place value on things other than pure sound quality.
post #430 of 438
You putz. No one ever said people shouldn't make up their own mind. We're giving them the means to do a fairer evaluation. You on the other hand are probably also running a naturopath business. What's your website schticker? Selling any magic trinkets there? LOL! A dealer!
post #431 of 438
Quote:
Using senses other than hearing to determine audible differences is INHERENTLY WRONG. If this sounds arrogant it is because you misunderstand the definition of audible.
Touch / feeling plays a large part in "sensing" lower frequencies.

Quote:
But, when an individuals experiences differ from the tests, why bother convincing that person he/she is wrong? Why not let that person enjoy themselves? What harm could that possibly bring?
I have no problem with people enjoying their $20k strands of copper wire. However, I do have an issue with people putting forth unsubstantiated claims about a product (increased bass, improved imaging, tighter response, etc.). All of these claims can be measured... show me a waterfall or FR plot of the increased bass. Show me a waveform of the "cleaned" power. Get an outside testing agency to substantiate your claims (most engineering and scientific endeavors do this). Once you have proved that the objects measure differently then we can argue whether or not the measured differences are audible. Putting forth completely fabricated claims does a disservice to the hobby and only serves to confuse newcomers (who think they need to set aside %50 of their budget for cables).

Quote:
The hobby is not all about the quality of audio, it can sometimes be more about the aesthetics of a piece of gear, build quality and other perceptual factors
A good point and one that is certainly an individual choice. I know some people who don't mind exposed circuit boards and I know others who want 1" milled faceplates and matching components. Just don't tell me that the 1" milled faceplate improves bass response (w/o some form of proof)...
post #432 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
NO. Using senses other than hearing to determine audible differences is INHERENTLY WRONG. If this sounds arrogant it is because you misunderstand the definition of audible. I don't see with my ears and I don't hear with my eyes so if I want to make a claim about what I hear I must do so without influence from irrelevant senses.
I'm not strictly discussing audible, unsighted differences. Seeing that we're discussing individual preference in a PURCHASE DECISION (ultimately), sighted comparisons are valid.

Quote:
It is not a "rule of the game" like whether the fork goes on the right or on the left at the dinner table (and in such a case, there really is no "naturally correct answer" because the proper placement is just a tradition). Nobody has to write that its how you do blind tests because it is simply the definition of a blind test. Nonetheless, it is explicitly written as part of the scientific method. To determine what variable was the cause of an observed effect, you must minimize the number of variables. If you are simultaneously using your eyesight and your hearing in a case that should only be testing your hearing, no conclusion can be drawn. Consider the following word thought problem:

Bob and Joe went to the bank. The bank was robbed. Who did it? (Alternately, who "probably" did it?)
Doesn't really matter, since both get prosecuted, but go on...

Quote:
The only correct answer is "there is no answer without more information." If "Bob and Joe did it" is the obvious answer in your mind, then you don't know the definition of "proof." For all you know, Bob and Joe could have gone to the uptown bank and the downtown bank was robbed, or both of them could have been in the store at the wrong time. Its essentially a red herring.
We aren't playing games here. We're simply discussing whether it's within the rights of someone to make a decision based on sighted/unsighted/audible/looks cool/bored with his current setup, etc. Stop attempting to solely apply logic to what is typically a 70% perception 30% reality purchase decision.

Quote:
What does this have to do with scientific testing you ask?
LOL - I ask what is the relevance of a scientific test in a preference situation. I know that gives you guys apopleptic fits when I say that, but if you can dispose with your overly-linear thought process for a minute, give it some consideration.

Quote:
Well, the point is, using "true" information to come to a conclusion that it can't imply is fallacious and dishonest. Its true Bob and Joe went to the bank and its true some CD players have cooler looking front bezels and more prestigious brand names, but you can not let these facts influence your decision as to whether Bob and Joe actually ROBBED the bank or whether the cd players SOUND different.
Wow. For a moment there, I thought YOU were the professional with well over a decade of experience, observing the decision making process take place in a customer's mind. I see this EVERY DAY, and although you won't believe this, sighted comparisons are the preferred way that people make these decisions. WAF, his own aesthetic, existing decor, brand name (a great indicator of whether this is a quality piece to begin with) are all relevant and foolish to overlook.

Quote:
Use your eyes to determine visual differences, use your ears to determine audible differences.
I think that's the point. Both matter to the consumer.

Quote:
Anybody can visually determine which device is which but I doubt the abilities of the people who outright dismiss blind tests as "unscientific."
I don't think anyone cares.

Quote:
Anyway, though I've determined this a long time ago, I think logic is nonetheless something that can not be learned. Some people understand how it is used as a tool to determine truth (or to increase the probability of truth anyway) and some people think it is just some unfair game a bully made up so they can automatically "win" any disagreement. If you think this debate is about "winning" rather than "examining reality for what it is" and if you think logic is the tool of bullies, then you might just be one of those people who is mis-equipped to separate truth from ********.
No, I just know when pure application of logic is the most prudent course of action. High dollar purchases inherently involve emotions; just a fact of life. I haven't the time nor the inclination to fight this undisputed fact.

Quote:
Don't feel bad if thats the case. I am misequipped to sense the feelings of others, so I know that I don't do so well in social situations. However, if the utility of logic evades you, I request that you avoid scientific discussion. Just like people who don't sense "feelings" should avoid social situations.
That's a shock. And here I always thought you to be so cordial... :rolleyes:
post #433 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
You putz. No one ever said people shouldn't make up their own mind. We're giving them the means to do a fairer evaluation. You on the other hand are probably also running a naturopath business. What's your website schticker? Selling any magic trinkets there? LOL! A dealer!
I'm not sure you automatically jump to the conclusion that I sell wooden volume control knobs and other worthless stuff, just because I happen to help propel this hobby forward.

The crazy tweaks that are out there may be fun for some, but that is most certainly NOT the realm I deal in. All I've ever questioned is why/how you think that we have time to conduct all of these tests, when:

1. The customer doesn't have time, and if he did, wouldn't care.
2. The retailer cannot possibly have the equipment, nor the extra hours in the day to take these on.

If you want to form a club in your area that demos different things unsighted, I think that would be fun for someone intellectually honest and interested enough to see those results. I would be one of those people. Challenging biases is always a fulfilling educational process. Do not confuse that with something that is always relevant to the consumer (rarely), nor necessarily relevant to the selection process. Last time I checked, we were allowed to use all of our senses.

I guarantee marriage to your wife wasn't solely based on how well she holds a conversation. ;)
post #434 of 438
Chu (and I) as well as others advised the thread originator to shut this thread down. It became apparent to me that the thread was really started just to spar with objectivists minded individuals if not to outright redicule. I am still of the opinion it should be shut down because the motivations of the thread starter (Schticker) are IMO suspect. It seems like it was started for sport rather than inquiry.
post #435 of 438
Randy, I agree with your inference, but don't for a second ignore the ridicule, disrespect, condescension, patronization, and holier than thou attitude of the objectivists. It is dripping in virtually every one of their posts herein.

---------------------------------------
Ron Party
post #436 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Party
Randy, I agree with your inference, but don't for a second ignore the ridicule, disrespect, condescension, patronization, and holier than thou attitude of the objectivists. It is dripping in virtually every one of their posts herein.

---------------------------------------
Ron Party
I am not defending or attacking anyone other than the thread originator. In my opinion, he should go to the moderators to shut it down.
post #437 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes
I am not defending or attacking anyone other than the thread originator. In my opinion, he should go to the moderators to shut it down.
Well, the thread originator is the target, so take your misguided opinions elsewhere.

BTW - I did want to know about the POV of pure objectivists. It has become clear that personal attacks and condescending attitudes dictate that POV.

To save my reputation (since it's being questioned for some reason), I'll PM someone and get this closed. Enough's enough. Clearly reason is not good enough for these people.
post #438 of 438
Thread closed at request of OP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What are the benchmarks for Objectivists?