Are you a subjective or an objective audio person?

[Satanica]

17 hours ago, Stereophilus said:

Hi Grant,

 

I like this concept, it has a lot of thought behind it.

 

I have concerns though.

Firstly, the theory underlying the Good Subjectivist and the Poor Subjectivist is that there is no change in the sound waves.  What if there is something that changes, but isn’t measurable?

 

In this scenario the Good Subjectivist is just a passive bystander.  The Poor Subjectivist, is seeking to advance our knowledge through observation... which is the first step in any scientific advancement.  The Good Objectivist is well-meaning, but shuts down the Poor Subjectivist by refuting his observation with “established fact”.  And wherever Poor Subjectivists and Good objectivists meet, well the Poor Objectivists love a showdown!  And with the Good Subjectivist standing idly by, saying nothing, opportunity is lost.

 

So, if we challenge the basic tenet underlying your summary, we find that progress through observation and debate is stifled.  Advancement of our knowledge eventually suffers.

 

There is no doubt that the underlying debate of whether sound waves change in ways that are not yet measureable is a tough pill for the Good Objectivist to swallow, but if we do slowly organise ourselves into Good Subjectivist and Good Objectivist, debate ends, forums end, passion in the industry dies and progress ceases.

 

This is a fair enough point.

 

But, as someone who considers themselves mostly objective I can't think why technical measurement with electronic instrumentation is actually required to demonstrate/illustrate a change, no.

 

Continuing in an objective manner, the ability to detect an actual change needs to be demonstrated somehow, doesn't it? I'll let you think how that could be achieved.

 

Cheers.

[sir sanders zingmore]

18 hours ago, Stereophilus said:

What if there is something that changes, but isn’t measurable?

 

do you mean that it is fundamentally not measurable or that it is measurable but we are just haven't yet worked out how to measure it?

 

[Stereophilus]

7 minutes ago, Satanica said:

 

This is a fair enough point.

 

But, as someone who considers themselves mostly objective I can't think why technical measurement with electronic instrumentation is actually required to demonstrate/illustrate a change, no.

 

Continuing in an objective manner, the ability to detect an actual change needs to be demonstrated somehow, doesn't it? I'll let you think how that could be achieved.

 

Cheers.

No huge amount of thought required.  If we follow Grant’s metaphor, it simply means “Poor Subjectivists” working together with “Good Objectivists” collaboratively.  Most importantly this collaboration requires an open minded approach from both sides.  Subjectivists will have their biases challenged.  Objectivists will need to broaden their horizons.

 

If you are referring to human based trials (blinded), then this may hold part of the way forward.  Even double blinded tests / trials have their flaws though.

[Stereophilus]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

do you mean that it is fundamentally not measurable or that it is measurable but we are just haven't yet worked out how to measure it?

 

I do not believe in magic or God... so definitely the latter.  Working out unknown variables in any field of science requires very careful observation.  This is the first step, and it is why our erroneously named “Poor Subjectivists” must work together with their “Good Objectivist” counterparts.  Most importantly, we must listen to and utilise the knowledge of individuals who are both Good Objectivists and Poor Subjectivists (like BP and NP).

[Cope]

Maybe prescriptive and descriptive are better terms than good and poor. 

 

Prescriptive Objectivist - things that sound good measure accurately

 

Descriptive Objectivist - the things you like subjectively measure like this

 

Prescriptive Subjectivist - things that sound good have the following subjective qualities

 

Descriptive Subjectivist - the things that you like have the following subjective qualities