Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In most hobbies, claims of difference are based on
incontrovertibly visual evidence.
That's simply not true. One close to High End audio is sports cars. Everyone
has their own opinion which they prefer and a lot of it is based on 'the feel
of driving it'. I used to own a '95 Acura NSX T-top. Road and Track compared
it to the '95 Porsche Targa and '95 Ferrari F-355 convertible. 0-60mph and
skid pad specs were almost identical for the three cars. Objectivists might
say the three cars had no significant differences. Any subjectivist that drove
all three would be able to tell you the differences and which they preferred.
I'm not an auto aficionado. Are 0-60 and skid pad spec considered sufficient to
determine if two cars are *indistinguishable*? Is 'almost identical' equivalent to
*imperceptibly different* in such cases? On what bases are these beliefs founded?
If they are based on data that's as strong as those from psychoacoustics, then
the rational thing to do would be to test the subjectivists claims in some
sort of controlled protocol, where obvious differnces -- such as visual ones --
can have no effect.
snip
Your line of reasoning ends up having to assert that the audiophile hobby
isn't particularly concerned with what's true.
*Truth* has many dimensions. If you chose to look at truth through your own
filter, you may miss what's true to others...
One may believe that the earth is flat, but looking at the world through
*that* filter doesn't make the belief any more true.
We're not discussing philosophy or aesthetics or religion, Mr. Kuller. We're
not talking about the philosophy or semantics of the word 'true' -- or
at least, I refuse to go down that pointless road from this point on.
Real devices in real systems that induce real sound waves in real air
and generate real stimulus from real hair cells in real ears that result
in real brain activity that we experience as 'hearing'. That's
what we're talking about. It's an unfortunate fact that our judgement
about what we hear -- about what *really* was contained in those sound waves
-- is demosntrably fallible. Out belief does not necessarily map to
what happened. We can even believe two things are different when
they are demonstrably the same (e.g., the same component presented twice
when we are told it was switched). Our perceptual systems can
be fooled. Deny any of that, and you are denying *reality*.
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director