Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?

...and I’m going to be totally rude and inconsiderate, ignoring all the fine (and the not-so-much) discussion and dis’ing that has occurred since pg. 2, 12/10, 8:14pm to reply to:

@2psyop , and Yes, I agree with you as well. There isn’t ever an adequate excuse for rude and inconsiderate behaviors. But there ’they’ are....🤷‍♂️

One can dial back the millennia to the one-celled organisms that started this whole morass, when 2 competed for some bit of nutrient where the ’winner’ not only got the bit from the other and consumed its’ competition in some unconscious sort of spite....

There’s been an awful lot of it, wayyyy beyond the warp and weft of this dialog...

scottwheel 149 posts 12-14-2023 at 12:23am A subjectivist judges sound quality based on their personal preferences. The same way someone would judge food or art. If one finds the sound to their liking and then declares that to be good that is subjectivism. An objectivist judges sound quality on accuracy to some reference. Maybe the recording or maybe live sound. So we had people like Harry Pearson who cared nothing about measurements or science but was an objectivist because he felt there was an objective reference, “the absolute sound” the sound of live acoustic music, against which the accuracy of audio playback could be judged. Then you have people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who strictly evaluated sound quality in their research using proper time synchronized quick switching double blind tests but are subjectivists. All of their studies were based on listener preferences. All scoring of their tests were done with subjective ratings. And yet many would label Harry Pearson as the poster child for subjectivism in audio and would consider Toole and Olive to be poster children for objectivism in audio.

Sad but true.  Be careful to whom you flip the bird.  They might  be carrying, or just plain psycho.   Especially if they are driving like one.

“A subjectivist use ONLY his ears to decide that a system is good or bad... “

listening with ONLY your ears means doing it blind. Some subjectivists do that and some don’t. 

Familiar listening condition in a relaxed mood with our biases and listening in artificial controlled conditions imposed on us trying to eliminate some biases ... In the two cases we use the ears/brain  biases blind or not...

As i said in my post ...

I am not against double blind test, this would be stupid ... But they are impractical most of the times for most people ... Simple blind test is enough ...

No objectivist pick his gear by double blind test first... They read the electrical specs first ... They did not most of the times anyway double blind testing of their choices when the electrical specs are good, they bought it ..😊

You misread my post and truncate my sentence of his context : the context was THE GEAR CHOICES PICKING UP CONDITIONS...This is what separate these two groups..Not the acceptation or not of double blind test which is only here a rhetorical and ideological posture impractical to do anyway ...

No objectivist go buying an amplifier blinding his eyes in a store to pick it up ...Do you ?

he read the electrical specs and trust that first ... He listen after ...

I think that you are an "objectivist" fanatic by the way you read my neutral and conciliating answer to you and trying to distort it for the sake of your double blind test obsession ... ...

Sorry but for me objectivism made no sense no more than subjectivist taste as the main ways to create a system room with satisfaction using acoustics basic and simple blind test and ears training in simple acoustic experiment ...

Are you here for wise discussion as your last post suggested to me or are you here to impose double blind testing as the only way to pick the gear or testing it on all people here ?

Even Toole do not pick his personal system for his living room AFTER a double blind test ...He pick it as any sane individual by listening to it , reading the specs and thinking about his room acoustic content, geometry, topology and dimensions ...

I am pretty sure that he will not come here nullifying any person testimony as meaningless if not put on double blind test ... He is a human first not a scientist doing statistical studies 24 hours on 24 hours ...

Sound qualities can be defined by parameters but in these set of parameters, they are biases coming from personal history , Toscanini biases are not on the same nature than Toole biases or mine ... We use these biases, generally not in a laboratory to define what is human hearing in a general way, but for the enjoyment in a relax way or for our work habits with our EXCEPTIONAL way each of us to hear sound , deceived or not, with all the shade of grey between reality and illusion which is the "meaning" territory ...

Eliminating all biases , which is impossible anyway, may be at the end also eliminitating meanings , the ears is not a microphone but a subjective part of ourself, not a tool ...

Why is it impossible to eliminate all biases ?

Because the way we listen is with all part of ourself, we decipher sound as meanings for us with our biases acquired from the womb till today...

Only ignorant think that it is possible to listen without biases... Eliminating one bias as sight is one thing , eliminating all internal biases is impossible by the definition of what hearing is ..

We listen with our biases...

You are obsessed by the elimination of biases... I am not... I am interested by the training of my biases... As any musicians ...Occasional simple blind test is enough ...

Keep your double blind test as obsession , i will use my simple blind test occasionnally as test , and i will enjoy my biases ...

“A subjectivist use ONLY his ears to decide that a system is good or bad... “

listening with ONLY your ears means doing it blind. Some subjectivists do that and some don’t.