dipping my toe into the ddk flow.....

[tima]

1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.

2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."

3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.

Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.

Meaning is not use.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Meaning is not use.

You are advancing a surprisingly weak argument. So you are conceding that your use of these words is untethered from their meanings?

 

[tima]

You are advancing a surprisingly weak argument. So you are conceding that your use of these words is untethered from their meanings?

I reviewed a few pages of posts from the 2017 discussion and then the further comments made this month.

I then re-read your post Ron where it seemed to you that "people are fencing" about issues which you thought could be better understood with the analytical rigor you would bring to the table. You then proceeded to identify what you thought were examples of a "subjective opinion" and "objective fact".

The second part of your post claimed that the word balance is a subjective term.

When I read that post of yours I saw no relation between it and prior conversation. Peter said he saw no fencing, just people making observations about their experience at Davids.

I said I saw no fencing (arguing) either ... but... sought to understand what you meant. I could not figure out to what you were applying "analytical rigor". I concluded that maybe I was missing some piece of information. I mentioned posts being deleted and thought the missing information might be there - that is posts or information that would connect your post to what came before it. I then asked of you if there were no missing posts, what are you talking about? As I put it: "Would you kindly say more?"

You claimed you did not understand the similar reactions from Peter and I. Instead of tying your post to some object of actual discussion you proceeded to tell us you were "simply" trying to "help people understand each other". You were hoping to disentangle people's misundertanding of "simple concepts." And you thought that telling people about the differences between "subjective and objective and fact from opinion" would reconcile the misunderstandings you were "simply" observing.

You then went on about the "definitional complication" in the word "balance" and how one person could think it meant one thing while another thought it mean something else.

You concluded by telling people to "restate their thoughts" in light of what you said!

None of that made any sense to me, particularly your paean to your intentions which sounded self righteous. But never mind that. As best I can tell, there was no disagreement among the participants prior to your injection of "analytical rigor". People were giving their observations about what they heard at Davids.

Steve talked about just how fine the midrange sounded. Peter talked about how he was impressed at an overall top to bottom balance of sound. I saw no argument taking place (except perhaps a weak attempt by one of Peter's friends that went nowhere) which is partly why your post did not make sense. I'm pretty sure neither Steve nor Peter nor anyone else commenting on sound at David's took what they said as anything more than their opinion, their observation of what they experienced in Utah. Only one person tried arguing about the meaning of " correct balance". No one was claiming their view was somehow true or correct.

Your response to me in all that was: read your particular preferred dictionary and compare what it said to "the inaccurate and confusing ways" certain words were used by thread participants. Telling someone to read a dictionary is not an explanation, much less helpful. After its fisking in another thread I no longer need an explanation.

...........

Here's the receipts if you want to review :

I am not re-posting anybody's particular post here because I am not seeking to criticize a particular comment.

I have no dog in this hunt.

It seems to me that people are fencing, once again, about issues which would be better understood and, maybe, reconciled, if a little bit of analytical rigor were applied.

A lifetime of experience listening to music in concert halls used to conclude that a particular audio system and room has the same perceived sonic balance observed in the concert hall is a subjective opinion. The longevity of a lifetime of experience does not make the observation any less subjective.

An audio engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the acoustics of a concert hall. That same engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the particular audio system and room in question. The measured frequency response of the concert hall and the measured frequency response of the audio system and room are objective facts. (I am assuming industry-accepted test equipment, measuring techniques and reporting results.)

Finally, a definitional complication arises regarding the term "balance." Balance does not necessarily mean ruler-flat frequency response. Balance is itself a subjective term which could mean the listener's preferred subjective balance of focusing on midrange to the exclusion of flat frequency response at the top end or the lower end of the frequency range. Proper sonic balance, to a different audiophile, could mean emphasis of the low frequencies. In other words, balance, without a definition, could mean the emphasis or the de-emphasis of certain frequency ranges each of us merely subjectively prefers.

Perhaps people may care to restate their thoughts in view of this attempt at disentanglement and illumination.

Ron, I do not see the fencing to which you refer. Steve and I shared our observations and then Steve clarified his and I expanded on mine. He and I seem to be in agreement. I don’t see any conflict or confrontation in this thread. It seems to be a very respectful commentary full of interesting observations.

I don't see the fencing either. Ron, someone told me posts were being deleted by treitz3 so I figured maybe your message was in response to something no longer visible. If that is not the case, what are you talking about? I get that there are statements labeled 'facts' and 'opinion'. This is not a criticism, I don't grasp the object of your caution. Would you kindly say more?

Respectfully to you and Peter, I don't understand each of your reactions to my modest and honest effort to help people understand each other better, rather than talk past each other unnecessarily. I simply was hoping to disentangle what I perceived to be misunderstandings about simple concepts.

I was not intending to caution; I explicitly was not intending to criticize anybody or any particular post.

I hoped simply that by attempting to disentangle in the context of the instant discussion subjective from objective and fact from opinion, and thereby suggest a crisper analytical structure, I would facilitate the discussion on this thread. I believe that a threshold effort to agree on the definitions of terms results in greater clarity and mutual understanding as a discussion progresses.

PS: Isn't fencing, as in the intellectual back-and-forth in which we engage on WBF, sometimes sharply, what we do all the time here? I simply was observing the mutual misunderstanding and talking past each other I often see here and which I feel often could be ameliorated by acceptance of common definitions as a discussion progresses.

Oh for crying out loud, Ron -- I didn't understand what the heck you were talking about, and instead of an answer, you give us this tribute to your intentions. Whatever.

1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.

2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."

3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.

Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.

 

[bazelio]

If I were to guess, I would say Peter's definition of balanced is that there was top to bottom linearity where nothing was exaggerated.

I doubt Peter would perceive flat linear in-room response as balanced. I doubt most people would.

 

[Steve williams]

I doubt Peter would perceive flat linear in-room response as balanced. I doubt most people would.

hmmm..I'd say your guess is as good as mine

 

[Steve williams]

This is what Peter stated.......

David has stated the frequency response of his system which does not seem restricted and Steve and I have both commented that we don’t feel the frequency spectrum is restricted.

Ron, I do not see the fencing to which you refer. Steve and I shared our observations and then Steve clarified his and I expanded on mine. He and I seem to be in agreement. I don’t see any conflict or confrontation in this thread. It seems to be a very respectful commentary full of interesting observations.