How much does it bother you to see people arguing on the forum. Analogists and digitalists and subcategories.

[Rensselaer]

I think that in discussions many people believe that their subjective perceptions and preferences are the objective truth. That is a problem.

Certainly, there are objective, even measurable truths out there that many use, and legitimately can use, to support their subjective preferences. Also, discussion of technical issues can be informative and fun. It can separate facts from technical misunderstandings, too.

Yet what many do not want to admit, or do not realize, is that objective truths in audio do not stand on their own.

Both:
a) the selection of objective truths and
b) the assignment of importance to them

as a tool to justify subjective preferences are -- well, subjective.

Certainly, experts like audio designers, recording engineers etc. will have deep objective knowledge in important areas, but also *their* subjective preferences and biases will always be with them and guide their work to a significant extent, as well as their private enjoyment.

This brings me to another point. Many posters cite experts using the argument from authority. Discussions then often devolve into slugfests of "I have the objective truth, because my expert is better than yours!". Of course, nobody says it that way, but that's what they really mean.

Yet again, since also experts have their own subjective perceptions and preferences, appeal to experts is no way out either. Experts can add interesting perspectives, nothing more.

The fact is that in the end, all we have left is our subjective perceptions and preferences. There is no objective truth in support of them that will allow us to impose our subjective perceptions and preferences onto others.

A little humility in recognizing this may go a long way towards civilized discussion.

Nicely put. I would only add the frequently used fallacy of logic known as a red herring.

Example, someone says they think the sound of analogue sounds more real to them than digital, then follows a red herring, that digital is “more accurate” (trying to infer that digital is more real sounding because that part of the analogue wave form that was measured into bits and bytes will be converted more or less as it was sampled from the analogue signal), thus more real?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think that in discussions many people believe that their subjective perceptions and preferences are the objective truth. That is a problem.

Certainly, there are objective, even measurable truths out there that many use, and legitimately can use, to support their subjective preferences. Also, discussion of technical issues can be informative and fun. It can separate facts from technical misunderstandings, too.

Yet what many do not want to admit, or do not realize, is that objective truths in audio do not stand on their own.

Both:
a) the selection of objective truths and
b) the assignment of importance to them

as a tool to justify subjective preferences are -- well, subjective.

Certainly, experts like audio designers, recording engineers etc. will have deep objective knowledge in important areas, but also *their* subjective preferences and biases will always be with them and guide their work to a significant extent, as well as their private enjoyment.

This brings me to another point. Many posters cite experts using the argument from authority. Discussions then often devolve into slugfests of "I have the objective truth, because my expert is better than yours!". Of course, nobody says it that way, but that's what they really mean.

Yet again, since also experts have their own subjective perceptions and preferences, appeal to experts is no way out either. Experts can add interesting perspectives, nothing more.

The fact is that in the end, all we have left is our subjective perceptions and preferences. There is no objective truth in support of them that will allow us to impose our subjective perceptions and preferences onto others.

A little humility in recognizing this may go a long way towards civilized discussion.

+1

I completely agree with this (obviously). I agree with each individual point.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Personally, in the last few days I have encountered a continuous squabble in some posts within the forum. I have no problem reading opinions that differ from mine, nor do I feel threatened by those who express thoughts diametrically opposed to my own. On the contrary, I try to read and understand the reasons for the opinions expressed by others and I always try to take them into account. Something can always come up that in my journey as an audiophile I had underestimated or had never taken into consideration. Someone very wise said that true knowledge is knowing that you don't know. If the opinions expressed by others do not convince me or I do not find confirmation of them, even simply based on my personal taste, nothing happens. I am truly tired of those who address others on the assumption that they possess the revealed truth. and who, hiding behind their superior idea, attack those who do not submit to their reasoning. Live and let live

Many of the debates and much of the talking past each other arises from not understanding that there are different objectives of high-end audio. Naturally the path to different objectives is lined with lesser-included divergent views and different predicate decisions.

Viewing these discussions through the prism of alternative (but not mutually exclusive) high-end audio objectives makes a lot of these discussions and of peoples' trains of thoughts more explicable and more predictable.

 

[Al M.]

Nicely put. I would only add the frequently used fallacy of logic known as a red herring.

Example, someone says they think the sound of analogue sounds more real to them than digital, then follows a red herring, that digital is “more accurate” (trying to infer that digital is more real sounding because that part of the analogue wave form that was measured into bits and bytes will be converted more or less as it was sampled from the analogue signal), thus more real?

Indeed, that is a red herring that I avoid and, as also in the last discussion, push back against. As I agreed with Brad there, it is not so much the quantity of distortion that matters (used to superficially judge "accuracy") but the quality. And the quality of distortion in digital is such that miniscule distortions can have a much more pernicious psychoacoustic effect than some larger distortions in analog (similar considerations of quantity vs quality of distortions hold in the tube vs solid state debate).

On the other hand, there are also red herrings brought up by the analog camp, like the favorite "analog is better because it keeps a continuous waveform throughout". It's a feelgood argument that on its surface sounds attractive, but is of little actual significance since it derives its value mostly from a misunderstanding of digital theory and process, from downplaying the distortions of the "continuous waveform" through the electromechanical process of producing and reproducing the vinyl medium, or both.

Also red herrings are about subjective cherrypicking of objective truths and assigning a relative importance to them that is subjective as well.

In the end, it's all subjective. You like analog, you like digital, or you like both. You may find one or the other to sound more real, or you think both can sound quite real.

All the objective and technical arguments in favor of one or the other won't change that. They can make you feel good about your subjective perceptions and preferences and they even may subjectively confirm them for you, but that's about it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Another element is ex post rationalization. In this context this means to me making a subjective decision, and then attempting to cloak that subjective decision with a veneer of objectivity from appeals to technical arguments or to experts or to both.

 

[KeithR]

I think that in discussions many people believe that their subjective perceptions and preferences are the objective truth. That is a problem.

Certainly, there are objective, even measurable truths out there that many use, and legitimately can use, to support their subjective preferences. Also, discussion of technical issues can be informative and fun. It can separate facts from technical misunderstandings, too.

Yet what many do not want to admit, or do not realize, is that objective truths in audio do not stand on their own.

Both:
a) the selection of objective truths and
b) the assignment of importance to them

as a tool to justify subjective preferences are -- well, subjective.

Certainly, experts like audio designers, recording engineers etc. will have deep objective knowledge in important areas, but also *their* subjective preferences and biases will always be with them and guide their work to a significant extent, as well as their private enjoyment.

This brings me to another point. Many posters cite experts using the argument from authority. Discussions then often devolve into slugfests of "I have the objective truth, because my expert is better than yours!". Of course, nobody says it that way, but that's what they really mean.

Yet again, since also experts have their own subjective perceptions and preferences, appeal to experts is no way out either. Experts can add interesting perspectives, nothing more.

The fact is that in the end, all we have left is our subjective perceptions and preferences. There is no objective truth in support of them that will allow us to impose our subjective perceptions and preferences onto others.

A little humility in recognizing this may go a long way towards civilized discussion.

This, especially "video truths" lol. Another example, B&W sells millions of speakers (and is the #1 brand in the world) and many people love the sound - even though the measurement police (see ASR) hate them. Alternatively, there is a feeling here on this forum that if you only "heard certain sound" that you'd be cured of your audio deficiencies. But that's why audio is like Baskin Robbins with 31 flavors of sound and what makes it wonderful. Just look at the variety of opinions on show reports.

Have to admit seeing yet another analog vs digital thread started recently - I felt this the forum had time warped back to 2010.

 

[Rensselaer]

Indeed, that is a red herring that I avoid and, as also in the last discussion, push back against. As I agreed with Brad there, it is not so much the quantity of distortion that matters (used to superficially judge "accuracy") but the quality. And the quality of distortion in digital is such that miniscule distortions can have a much more pernicious psychoacoustic effect than some larger distortions in analog (similar considerations of quantity vs quality of distortions hold in the tube vs solid state debate).

On the other hand, there are also red herrings brought up by the analog camp, like the favorite "analog is better because it keeps a continuous waveform throughout". It's a feelgood argument that on its surface sounds attractive, but is of little actual significance since it derives its value mostly from a misunderstanding of digital theory and process, from downplaying the distortions of the "continuous waveform" through the electromechanical process of producing and reproducing the vinyl medium, or both.

Also red herrings are about subjective cherrypicking of objective truths and assigning a relative importance to them that is subjective as well.

In the end, it's all subjective. You like analog, you like digital, or you like both. You may find one or the other to sound more real, or you think both can sound quite real.

All the objective and technical arguments in favor of one or the other won't change that. They can make you feel good about your subjective perceptions and preferences and they even may subjectively confirm them for you, but that's about it.

Cherry picking, in my opinion, is not the same as a red herring, but can be used in the fallacy of logic known as a straw man (cherry picking just negative aspects of analogue/digital and using just those to paint a greatly diminished straw man effigy of (your opponent's argument) so that you can easily knock it down.

 

[mtemur]

These arguments don’t bother me but actually there is no need to argue. Time will tell which (analog vs digital) is better as it has been with music. Most of the 60’s jazz and rock music considered to be forgotten in two years still praised today, after 60 years while many rivals considered to become classic are forgotten.

IMHO better format will not wipe but overthrow the other.

 

[Rexp]

Why do folks who are easily offended by arguments join forums like WBF?
Do they enjoy being offended or are they obsessed with telling others how to behave?

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think all

Analogists and digitalists and subcategories. etc​

should be treated equally

 

[spiritofmusic]

If you don't want to see arguing etc, go subscribe to Audio Exotics forum.

 

[Imperial]

Why do folks who are easily offended by arguments join forums like WBF?
Do they enjoy being offended or are they obsessed with telling others how to behave?

Some people ask themselves, knowing they may not be perfect, this..

Then there are others that only ask others what is wrong with them.
They know not that the thing that is wrong with themselves, all others can plainly see...

Acceptance of nonsense, is not easy, but a wize man told me that this is how to deal with the subject.
We must accept others, especially when they appear to not "behave" - But we must not learn their ways...

 

[bonzo75]

Why do folks who are easily offended by arguments join forums like WBF?
Do they enjoy being offended or are they obsessed with telling others how to behave?

Behaviour is in the eye of the beholder

 

[bonzo75]

If you don't want to see arguing etc, go subscribe to Audio Exotics forum.

What forum do you suggest for folks who want to further hone their debating skills and take it up a level from WBF. Especially on digital Vs analog, surely all this practice needs to amount to something

 

[Lagonda]

I would say digital puts you at that age in the teens where you think you know the concept, but haven’t yet experienced the real thing

Yes a few wankers in our ranks that is for sure !

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think we can settle this once and for all.

Like mister Harmonica did with Frank in 0nce upon a time in the west.
When he stepped of the train.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Analogue versus digital.

......The final chapter

.

 

[PeterA]

Why do folks who are easily offended by arguments join forums like WBF?
Do they enjoy being offended or are they obsessed with telling others how to behave?

Good question!
Yes, and yes, it seems.

And they say they will never read another analog versus digital thread. Or, system videos are nonsense. And yet, and yet, they read the threads, watch the videos, and feel compelled to comment, and then complain, all while preaching live and let live. I do not get it.

 

[audioblazer]

Ego , Ego , Ego

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Good question!
Yes, and yes, it seems.

And they say they will never read another analog versus digital thread. Or, system videos are nonsense. And yet, and yet, they read the threads, watch the videos, and feel compelled to comment, and then complain, all while preaching live and let live. I do not get it.

this is not complicated. we like to talk about our hobby and our feelings about it, and this is an effective backdrop. lots of other topics sprout from this one. sure, emotion gets stirred up from time to time, but there is passion behind our commitment to the hobby.

i think the forum would be less alive without some degree of disagreement. just a back slapping space.