ASR and the rise of the intelligent idiots

[CN211276]

You can't put forward an alternative view on ASR. Someone who spoke positively about the Mscaler following the "review" was banned. He came back under another ID to point this out.

[slinger]

CAUTION: This post contains Subjectivist content, and attempts at humour.

One cannot know how something sounds without first hearing it. End of story. Isn't it?

One can theorize, and make assumptions, by looking at an oscilloscope or trawling through reams of "meter" readings, but they remain theories and assumptions until you actually hear the object in question.

The problem with Objectivists is that they seem to have confused the words objectivity and reality.

Objectivism is not even a *thing* in this context, it's actually a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand which has been appropriated and subverted by these "Objectivists."

They are as close to the doctrine of true Objectivism as the average American NRA member is to the reasoning behind the formulation of the Second Amendment.

Objectivism, REAL objectivism, holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking.

Hey, l.ook at that, Objectivists are actually Subjectivists and have been all along.

Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "Existentialism" - had already been taken. And what is Existentialism? In a nutshell, it's a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centres on the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.

One final thought, before I accept the surrender of these so-called "Objectivists,"...

What do they measure their measuring equipment with, to check its accuracy? How do they know their readings are accurate? How do they measure the equipment they use to measure their measuring equipment? Who decided what figures were good, and what figures were bad, without first hearing a sonic example of the result?

Surely, they are basing their entire pseudo-science on what, originally, someone heard, and said, "Man, that sounds like shit, I wonder what the THD of that thing is. If I measure it, then maybe I can work out what's an acceptable level, to give me something to aim at in future."

Somebody had to hear it first to know it was bad.

I have spoken. The war is over.

Objectivists are both wrong and have been unknowing Subjectivists all along. We should pity them as we accept their surrender.

No, really, I have. Spoken, that is. Look, you can see it on the page, it says "I have spoken," and I can show you the underlying code if you need further proof.

Or you could just read it and believe your eyes.

[CycleCoach]

CAUTION: This post contains Subjectivist content, and attempts at humour.

One cannot know how something sounds without first hearing it. End of story. Isn't it?

One can theorize, and make assumptions, by looking at an oscilloscope or trawling through reams of "meter" readings, but they remain theories and assumptions until you actually hear the object in question.

The problem with Objectivists is that they seem to have confused the words objectivity and reality.

Objectivism is not even a *thing* in this context, it's actually a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand which has been appropriated and subverted by these "Objectivists."

They are as close to the doctrine of true Objectivism as the average American NRA member is to the reasoning behind the formulation of the Second Amendment.

Objectivism, REAL objectivism, holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking.

Hey, l.ook at that, Objectivists are actually Subjectivists and have been all along.

Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "Existentialism" - had already been taken. And what is Existentialism? In a nutshell, it's a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centres on the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.

One final thought, before I accept the surrender of these so-called "Objectivists,"...

What do they measure their measuring equipment with, to check its accuracy? How do they know their readings are accurate? How do they measure the equipment they use to measure their measuring equipment? Who decided what figures were good, and what figures were bad, without first hearing a sonic example of the result?

Surely, they are basing their entire pseudo-science on what, originally, someone heard, and said, "Man, that sounds like shit, I wonder what the THD of that thing is. If I measure it, then maybe I can work out what's an acceptable level, to give me something to aim at in future."

Somebody had to hear it first to know it was bad.

I have spoken. The war is over.

Objectivists are both wrong and have been unknowing Subjectivists all along. We should pity them as we accept their surrender.

No, really, I have. Spoken, that is. Look, you can see it on the page, it says "I have spoken," and I can show you the underlying code if you need further proof.

Or you could just read it and believe your eyes.

If you HAVE spoken, but there's no-one there to hear it, does that count as having spoken?

[slinger]

I don't know, but the tree definitely fell over in the forest.

[valvesRus]

Hmm.

Most (if not all) measuring equipment used by professionals can be (and usually is) checked and calibrated at regular intervals. Equipment in private hands (ie hobbyists and enthusiasts mainly) may not be.

A manufacturer has to aim for a standard that will be accurate (whatever that means) and pleasing to the majority.

Ears, and therefore hearing, on the other hand, can be checked but not calibrated. We who are able to build our own kit can set up and adjust to how we hear things, which is great for us, but not necessarily to anyone else, or at least only those with the same hearing defects as ourselves.

Just saying.

[Geoff.R.G]

CAUTION: This post contains Subjectivist content, and attempts at humour.

One cannot know how something sounds without first hearing it. End of story. Isn't it?

One can theorize, and make assumptions, by looking at an oscilloscope or trawling through reams of "meter" readings, but they remain theories and assumptions until you actually hear the object in question.

The problem with Objectivists is that they seem to have confused the words objectivity and reality.

Objectivism is not even a *thing* in this context, it's actually a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand which has been appropriated and subverted by these "Objectivists."

They are as close to the doctrine of true Objectivism as the average American NRA member is to the reasoning behind the formulation of the Second Amendment.

Objectivism, REAL objectivism, holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking.

Hey, l.ook at that, Objectivists are actually Subjectivists and have been all along.

Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "Existentialism" - had already been taken. And what is Existentialism? In a nutshell, it's a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centres on the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.

One final thought, before I accept the surrender of these so-called "Objectivists,"...

What do they measure their measuring equipment with, to check its accuracy? How do they know their readings are accurate? How do they measure the equipment they use to measure their measuring equipment? Who decided what figures were good, and what figures were bad, without first hearing a sonic example of the result?

Surely, they are basing their entire pseudo-science on what, originally, someone heard, and said, "Man, that sounds like shit, I wonder what the THD of that thing is. If I measure it, then maybe I can work out what's an acceptable level, to give me something to aim at in future."

Somebody had to hear it first to know it was bad.

I have spoken. The war is over.

Objectivists are both wrong and have been unknowing Subjectivists all along. We should pity them as we accept their surrender.

No, really, I have. Spoken, that is. Look, you can see it on the page, it says "I have spoken," and I can show you the underlying code if you need further proof.

Or you could just read it and believe your eyes.

Very good!

At its best, objective measurement should be used to attempt to determine why something sounds subjectively good, or not as the case may be.

For example, we could determine subjectively that a specific model of NVA amp sounds good in a given system. If we put a different amplifier in the same system we might expect it to sound the same, in practice there are three options; it sounds less good, it sounds as good or it sounds better.

We might then postulate reasons why there is, or isn’t, a difference. From there we might devise a series of experiments to confirm our reasons, taking objective measurements. Depending on the results we might be able to create a set of objective specifications for an amplifier that “should” sound good in our system. We might then apply those specifications to an amplifier design and see if we are right.

In my opinion that would be a valid use of objective measurement. Much human endeavour has worked that way, the Wright brothers built the flyer based on subjective experiments. 100+ years on Airbus and Boeing use computers to, hopefully, get it right first time.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers haven’t yet done the experimentation to determine what constitutes a good sounding amplifier. They have instead decided that amplifiers must be idiot proof (unconditionally stable), powerful (high measured output), have a flat frequency response and, in many cases, some rudimentary equalisation capability. Their measurements tend to confirm these decisions.

The question we should be asking is, what do they do to the incoming sound? Which should prompt the next question, are the standard measurements of any value and do they tell us anything useful?

I think the fact that Paul and Tomasz rate NVA amplifiers on the power supply capacity rather than output power answers at least part of that question.

The right measurements can be useful, the wrong ones are positively misleading.

[CN211276]

Partly out of curiosity and partly for a laugh I joined ASR to post some factual information about the Mscaler which any half confident reviewer who had done his home work would be aware of. It concerned the Mscaler only being able to perform optimally with DACs with two BNC inputs. The outcome - you guessed it. I did last nearly three hours which I put down to the time difference on the other side of the pond.

ASR resembles the extreme religious cults you get in the US and has nothing to do with science. I was factual and not rude or abusive in any way, unlike the vitriol which is posted about Rob Watts which has similarities with what was posted about Richard Dunn on some forums during his time.