Is the Measurement Forum the place for objectivists to be attacked by subjectivists?

[spazmatron]

i like the objectivists but they need to start selling some cheese.. its the cheese shop without cheese at the moment. if they interject in a subjective thread that's ok with me but bring your evidence not just dogmatic mantra. that would be great, just let the numbers speak for themselves no need to berate those who are happy just to 'trust their lug holes'.. over and over and over again. you will also have to have a little patience with guys who dont know anything about your measurements.

patients and understanding of those who know less or are less experienced, not bullying and mocking.

i know its a lot to ask...

 

[Whatmore]

i like the objectivists but they need to start selling some cheese.. its the cheese shop without cheese at the moment. if they interject in a subjective thread that's ok with me but bring your evidence not just dogmatic mantra. that would be great, just let the numbers speak for themselves no need to berate those who are happy just to 'trust their lug holes'.. over and over and over again. you will also have to have a little patience with guys who dont know anything about your measurements.

I think the cheese shop owner, despite all evidence to the contrary, really believes his shop is the finest in the district

 

[spazmatron]

I think the cheese shop owner, despite all evidence to the contrary, really believes his shop is the finest in the district

yes its funny and relevant on many levels

 

[Billy Shears]

Yeah those objectivists had it coming. In their own forum too, just asking for it, they were

As I hope you gathered from my post, me I feel your pain.
I feel your pain in virtually every thread in this forum.
So maybe we can move forward in a more constructive way by staying out of each other’s business. And if we still feel the need to jump in let’s do it in a constructive way instead of behaving like Pitbull’s...

 

[Purite Audio]

Sounds like fantasy for you

Damn I am so transparent.
Keith.

 

[spazmatron]

Damn I am so transparent.
Keith.

dont know keith, what do you mean by transparent? can we measure it??

there is a guy with a profile picture full of sheep!! exciting

 

[Purite Audio]

dont know keith, what do you mean by transparent? can we measure it??

there is a guy with a profile picture full of sheep!! exciting

Transparent would mean that you could be either in or out of the sheep and not detect a difference,
and you are certainly not going to measure anything of mine!
Keith.

 

[spazmatron]

Transparent would mean that you could be either in or out of the sheep and not detect a difference,
and you are certainly not going to measure anything of mine!
Keith.

umm, how do you train a sheep to do pelvic floor exercises..

 

[Purite Audio]

umm, how do you train a sheep to do pelvic floor exercises..

I don't know what you do with sheep , but I use them as mobile bass traps.
Keith

 

[Whatmore]

I don't know what you do with sheep , but I use them as mobile bass traps.
Keith

Do you place them in the dips?

 

[stehno]

Just wondering if the real reason the measurement forum was set up was to gather all the objectivists in one spot so that the rest of WBF could hurl insults at them?

If this ain't one of the oddest things yet I've encountered in "high-end" audio.

A forum for those whose faith depends on measurements for an industry / hobby that is 100% about what we hear?

And for the same to call themselves objectivists?

Truly, we must be living in the last days.

 

[fas42]

What one really learns to appreciate as one grows older is the great importance of being tribal for many people - being on one side, or other of the fence. The fact that "truth" lies on both sides of that divide generally gets trampled on in the rush to mount ever better defences ...

 

[amirm]

If this ain't one of the oddest things yet I've encountered in "high-end" audio.

A forum for those whose faith depends on measurements for an industry / hobby that is 100% about what we hear?

And for the same to call themselves objectivists?

Truly, we must be living in the last days.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18590-Rename-the-quot-Science-of-Audio-quot-forum

 

[Whatmore]

If this ain't one of the oddest things yet I've encountered in "high-end" audio.

A forum for those whose faith depends on measurements for an industry / hobby that is 100% about what we hear?

And for the same to call themselves objectivists?

Truly, we must be living in the last days.

What's even odder is that people feel the need to come into that forum and throw stones at the measurement crowd.
Strange days indeed

 

[stehno]

What's even odder is that people feel the need to come into that forum and throw stones at the measurement crowd.
Strange days indeed

I'm just trying to figure out which measurements have value and who said, which measurement standards are being adhered to, which measuring instruments are inferior vs superior, which measuring instruments were improperly calibrated, who's performing the measurements, what training do they have, who's compiling and translating their findings, if they take the same care and concern about their sensitive measuring instruments to absolutely minimize the distortions that cripple their precision and accuracy that some of us may take for our own sensitive playback instruments.

That's why I'm struggling with the "objectivist" label.

Not to mention that several years ago I and others engaged in some "meaningful dialogue" with Mark Levinson and John Curl. Both admitted that they routinely could hear things during R&D that their sensitive measuring instruments routinely could not pick up on. Levinson claimed to have top-of-line professional measuring instruments professionally calibrated, yet he claimed he and his colleagues routinely heard things not picked up by the measuring instruments.

I wonder if Levinson and Curl would call themselves (using this forum's definitions) objectivists or subjectivists?

Interesting.

 

[Whatmore]

I'm just trying to figure out which measurements have value and who said, which measurement standards are being adhered to, which measuring instruments are inferior vs superior, which measuring instruments were improperly calibrated, who's performing the measurements, what training do they have, who's compiling and translating their findings, if they take the same care and concern about their sensitive measuring instruments to absolutely minimize the distortions that cripple their precision and accuracy that some of us may take for our own sensitive playback instruments.

That's why I'm struggling with the "objectivist" label.

Not to mention that several years ago I and others engaged in some "meaningful dialogue" with Mark Levinson and John Curl. Both admitted that they routinely could hear things during R&D that their sensitive measuring instruments routinely could not pick up on. Levinson claimed to have top-of-line professional measuring instruments professionally calibrated, yet he claimed he and his colleagues routinely heard things not picked up by the measuring instruments.

I wonder if Levinson and Curl would call themselves (using this forum's definitions) objectivists or subjectivists?

Interesting.

It would appear that in my thread about people coming to the measurement forum to attack objectivists, you are doing just that

 

[jkeny]

What one really learns to appreciate as one grows older is the great importance of being tribal for many people - being on one side, or other of the fence. The fact that "truth" lies on both sides of that divide generally gets trampled on in the rush to mount ever better defences ...

Very wise, indeed!
It's the arrogance on both sides that is the objectionable element

 

[Jinjuku]

Levinson claimed to have top-of-line professional measuring instruments professionally calibrated, yet he claimed he and his colleagues routinely heard things not picked up by the measuring instruments.

I wonder if Levinson and Curl would call themselves (using this forum's definitions) objectivists or subjectivists?

Interesting.

If they did that blind or bias controlled they are certainly objective about it. What is so difficult to grasp about this?

Objective is simply having empirical knowledge about something. If Levinson or Curl or any other engineer believes they hear something, they can control for their own innate bias, and move on to form a hypothesis.

No objectivist is saying you didn't hear something you said you heard. As an objectivist I simply say I don't believe you when you haven't controlled for multiple bias.

In the case of 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent' I do take issue if you equivocate when it comes to some blinded testing evaluation.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If this ain't one of the oddest things yet I've encountered in "high-end" audio.

A forum for those whose faith depends on measurements for an industry / hobby that is 100% about what we hear?

And for the same to call themselves objectivists?

Truly, we must be living in the last days.

Small wonder you're confused; you've completely missed the point. First, it's not about depending on measurements, we all listen in the end, it's about respecting measurements and seeking an understanding of how they correlate to what we hear. More importantly, it's not about high end, it's about high fidelity.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Small wonder you're confused; you've completely missed the point. First, it's not about depending on measurements, we all listen in the end, it's about respecting measurements and seeking an understanding of how they correlate to what we hear. More importantly, it's not about high end, it's about high fidelity.

Tim

I can understand the confusion as it does appear to many that only high end has the ability to produce high fidelity.