3 ms·

I'm not going to disagree with you on the technical details, since I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area. But I'm going to take issue with one thing: "Scie

by dgacmu 9y ago

I'm not going to disagree with you on the technical details, since I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area. But I'm going to take issue with one thing: "Scientific, reductionist thinking is inadequate to get an accurate picture of the factors that matter to human listeners" I think you're noting the difference between good and bad science -- science is certainly capable of putting together a picture of the factors that matter to human listeners. It may not have done so, but it's not a failure of the scientific process, it's a failure of the study(ies) involved.

PatentTroll 9y ago
Yeah, OP swerves towards subjectivism there at the end, which the audio industry loves because it's not quantifiable or easy to compare.
- beat 9y ago
  I'm swinging to subjectivism not because I'm buying audio industry fluff (frankly, the self-styled objectivists are far more guilty of that), but rather because it at least covers the observed data. I'm listening with my ears. Making up important-sounding quasi-science "objective" data (like the ever-popular THD) is an industry marketing ploy. People are insecure and want the "best", so pretend-science lets them think they're buying "best", rather than actually listening and judging subjectively, which is scary and hard and full of weird biases.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    That's true too, good points. And let's face it, this whole endeavor is about entertainment and artistry, so the subjectivist viewpoint is totally valid!
  - nkozyra 9y ago
    > Making up important-sounding quasi-science "objective" data (like the ever-popular THD) is an industry marketing ploy. People are insecure and want the "best", so pretend-science lets them think they're buying "best", rather than actually listening and judging subjectively, which is scary and hard and full of weird biases. To be fair, the far more common trap is when people believe they're getting a better experience via the price-quality relationship. Or due to false authenticity. Or general brand marketing, etc. Often these things fail the sniff test, and people who swear their $500 headphones are noticeably better will pick the cheaper headphone in a blind test. The entire "audiophile" industry is more quasi-quality than quasi-science, though there's a healthy dose of whatever it takes to make the people with $ spend $.
KGIII 9y ago
The factors that matter to human listeners is likely to be subjective. It seems likely that even such things as fidelity are likely to be subjective. Which is to say, the scientific method isn't capable of answering all questions. It doesn't appear to be able to answer why I prefer this artist while disliking that artist. I'm not even sure if things like preferences for art can be quantified. I'm all ears, if you've a way to study this.
- beat 9y ago
  I think a lot of art preferences can be quantified (kind of like how frequency response is actually an okay proxy for audio quality in headphones). My gripe is taking this common-sense case and trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience. As an artist, I firmly believe we can at least quasi-objectively say "good art", or "bad art". However, this does not correlate well to personal preference. My love of White Castle sliders in no way suggests that they are actually good burgers. I can dislike a work of art and still know it's good. Popularity can be a good proxy, too. Any hit song is a good song, even if you hate it.
  - bigiain 9y ago
    Do you think the article is guilty of "trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience" anywhere? It's very specific in it's conclusions and discusses several of your objections in it's limitations section (at least from the Abstract - perhaps they're reaching much further in the full paper?)
rsync 9y ago
"I think you're noting the difference between good and bad science ..." Perhaps what he meant was "scientific thinking which is reductionist is inadequate ..." His continued responses in this thread do not sound like the same old magical-audio-snake-oil ... but then again I have no expertise (or even experience) in this area.

by dgacmu 9y ago

PatentTroll 9y ago

Yeah, OP swerves towards subjectivism there at the end, which the audio industry loves because it's not quantifiable or easy to compare.

beat 9y ago
I'm swinging to subjectivism not because I'm buying audio industry fluff (frankly, the self-styled objectivists are far more guilty of that), but rather because it at least covers the observed data. I'm listening with my ears. Making up important-sounding quasi-science "objective" data (like the ever-popular THD) is an industry marketing ploy. People are insecure and want the "best", so pretend-science lets them think they're buying "best", rather than actually listening and judging subjectively, which is scary and hard and full of weird biases.
- PatentTroll 9y ago
  That's true too, good points. And let's face it, this whole endeavor is about entertainment and artistry, so the subjectivist viewpoint is totally valid!
- nkozyra 9y ago
  > Making up important-sounding quasi-science "objective" data (like the ever-popular THD) is an industry marketing ploy. People are insecure and want the "best", so pretend-science lets them think they're buying "best", rather than actually listening and judging subjectively, which is scary and hard and full of weird biases. To be fair, the far more common trap is when people believe they're getting a better experience via the price-quality relationship. Or due to false authenticity. Or general brand marketing, etc. Often these things fail the sniff test, and people who swear their $500 headphones are noticeably better will pick the cheaper headphone in a blind test. The entire "audiophile" industry is more quasi-quality than quasi-science, though there's a healthy dose of whatever it takes to make the people with $ spend $.

KGIII 9y ago

The factors that matter to human listeners is likely to be subjective. It seems likely that even such things as fidelity are likely to be subjective. Which is to say, the scientific method isn't capable of answering all questions. It doesn't appear to be able to answer why I prefer this artist while disliking that artist. I'm not even sure if things like preferences for art can be quantified. I'm all ears, if you've a way to study this.

beat 9y ago
I think a lot of art preferences can be quantified (kind of like how frequency response is actually an okay proxy for audio quality in headphones). My gripe is taking this common-sense case and trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience. As an artist, I firmly believe we can at least quasi-objectively say "good art", or "bad art". However, this does not correlate well to personal preference. My love of White Castle sliders in no way suggests that they are actually good burgers. I can dislike a work of art and still know it's good. Popularity can be a good proxy, too. Any hit song is a good song, even if you hate it.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Do you think the article is guilty of "trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience" anywhere? It's very specific in it's conclusions and discusses several of your objections in it's limitations section (at least from the Abstract - perhaps they're reaching much further in the full paper?)

rsync 9y ago

"I think you're noting the difference between good and bad science ..." Perhaps what he meant was "scientific thinking which is reductionist is inadequate ..." His continued responses in this thread do not sound like the same old magical-audio-snake-oil ... but then again I have no expertise (or even experience) in this area.