2. misc-audio
  3. 176970-142670

objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.

It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?

Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?

To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?

128x128snilf
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,912 posts
 

I forgot to say that Whitehead rejection of the Cartesian bifurcation meet Cassirer deep symbolic forms concept coming from Goethean semiotic ( and not merely from Kant like many people erroneously think, because Cassirer meditated Goethe all his life and he used Goethe "dynamic seeing" of form to correct the self enclosed Kant so to speak)...

The meaning of meaning for Whitehead and Cassirer are symbolic forms what Goethe creating mammal and plant morphology called an archetypal phenomenon...

Goethe method in mammal morphology boogle the mind and is described in this 1,300 pages books with 1,500 figures..

Wolfgang Schad ...

http://www.adonispress.org/threefoldness.php

This morphological approach need a transformation of the observer itself, because the attention must be mobilized...

This phenomenology of the meaning of form and of the correlative form’s meaning is an antidote to a purely mechanical conception of molecular biology...

Anyway molecular biology is now discovered to be more like "music" than mechanistic...

Pure materialism is dead... But some dont have received the news...

 

 

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,912 posts
 

Planck believe God created the universe and the universe is a thinking entity so what ! You will reject Quantum mechanics because Planck creator of the field believe in God?

 

Do you think your argument so to speak is rational? Or perhaps look like a circle ?

«I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.»-MaxPlanck

To me the biggest problem with talks from people like Arthur M Young is they begin their argument with assumptions. His first assumption is humans have a spirt, the second ESP exists. It’s like discussing God with a priest, I might as well be discussing unicorns or Tea Pots orbiting Mars.

 

 

« Is it possible to talk without assumption? My wife believe she did all the time..»-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

mozartfan
2,143 posts
 
claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteri ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly, w/o a objective stat, its impossible to say which is superior to another. The only criteria i consider in speaker selection is based on sensitivity. Which is why I have dual FR speaker system, FR at 92db-95db, always out performs any and all woofer/tweeter system. Higher sens makes superior fidelity. All your box speakers are below 91db. And if the manufacturer claims above 92 db, they are lying. There is no box speaker in the world above 92db. vs FR which are most all above 92db. = FR will always outperform a box speaker Every single time, Due to higher sensitivity. Took me 40 yrs to figure this out, But via resaerch and lots of $$$$$$ I got the answer. My dual FR + T's cost me $1200, vs Wilson's $$$$$$. Spending $$$$$$$ will not give you high fidelity. ONly sensitivity can make fidelity.
djones51
4,947 posts
 

Yes, it's possible to talk without assumptions. Consciousness isnt an assumption, saying consciousness is spirt or soul or a part of some God or the other is. 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

Which is why I have dual FR speaker system, FR at 92db-95db, always out performs any and all woofer/tweeter system. Higher sens makes superior fidelity.

Not to me. Active speakers using DSP crossovers and controlled directivity makes superior fidelity. There isn’t a passive speaker that can compete with the newest active speaker designs at least using superior fidelity as a goal line. 

More to discover