@atmasphere
Thanks for both points - yes, I meant a *difference* that is objectively audible, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I too would be interested to know which amps are typically excluded and why. I agree that seems to be a gap in the discussion, and also an interesting point in general about design (would you call it optimizing knowingly inaccurate artifacts for real world listening?). I’d still be curious where the threshold of audibility is for some of these characteristics, and whether listeners can distinguish consistently between characteristics that are harder to measure. These seem like important design questions.
I definitely hear the criticism that objectivists overplay their hand. I’ve kind of felt that way since the Stereo Review blind amplifier comparison in 1987, although that was my introduction to self-doubt on the topic. At the risk of being a milquetoast "both-sides"-er, I’d say both sides should have more humility in their claims, and that might allow a more scientific approach to the truth. As it is, this looks like a "broken dialogue", per Dan Kahan: the more people learn, the more polarized they become. Climate change is the prototypical broken dialogue ( http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/5/27/climate-change-polarization-fast-and-slow.html ) It’s fascinating how new facts are assembled to be soldiers to one’s predetermined point of view. Jon Haidt (channeling Dr. Gazzaniga) draws the analogy to the rider and the elephant ( http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ ).
However you look at it, it seems to me the two camps have hunkered down in their corners. This guy gives me hope - https://archimago.blogspot.com/
@sidekick_i that’s no doubt true, but components are designed individually and contribute individually, and good experiments require controls. So in a perfect world, you’d build your system holding most of the chain constant while varying one part as you moved towards the right all-in system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the luxury of infinite time and resources!
Thanks for both points - yes, I meant a *difference* that is objectively audible, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I too would be interested to know which amps are typically excluded and why. I agree that seems to be a gap in the discussion, and also an interesting point in general about design (would you call it optimizing knowingly inaccurate artifacts for real world listening?). I’d still be curious where the threshold of audibility is for some of these characteristics, and whether listeners can distinguish consistently between characteristics that are harder to measure. These seem like important design questions.
I definitely hear the criticism that objectivists overplay their hand. I’ve kind of felt that way since the Stereo Review blind amplifier comparison in 1987, although that was my introduction to self-doubt on the topic. At the risk of being a milquetoast "both-sides"-er, I’d say both sides should have more humility in their claims, and that might allow a more scientific approach to the truth. As it is, this looks like a "broken dialogue", per Dan Kahan: the more people learn, the more polarized they become. Climate change is the prototypical broken dialogue ( http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/5/27/climate-change-polarization-fast-and-slow.html ) It’s fascinating how new facts are assembled to be soldiers to one’s predetermined point of view. Jon Haidt (channeling Dr. Gazzaniga) draws the analogy to the rider and the elephant ( http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ ).
However you look at it, it seems to me the two camps have hunkered down in their corners. This guy gives me hope - https://archimago.blogspot.com/
Over the years, I’ve written on the unnecessary "war" between "objectivism vs. subjectivism" when I’ve thought it worth addressing articles written by some members of the press and at times the strange fear of scientific methodology in high-fidelity. We’ve talked about the basics of what subjectivity and objectivity mean, and further elaborated on it. In summary, "pure subjectivism" and "pure objectivism" are both extreme positions to take. The problem I find is that for decades in the audiophile press, subjectivism has been posited as somehow more important if not the only worthy position to take to the point where the vast majority of hardware reviews available these days including online sources have lost the objective component. In the process, most reviews have also lost the power to elucidate truth among the subtleties of sonic differences. Without objectivity, sound quality cannot be adjudicated based on the ideal principle of high fidelity.
@sidekick_i that’s no doubt true, but components are designed individually and contribute individually, and good experiments require controls. So in a perfect world, you’d build your system holding most of the chain constant while varying one part as you moved towards the right all-in system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the luxury of infinite time and resources!