Jump to content

Subjetive vs. Objective - Opinions - "Facts?"


Pete B

Recommended Posts

I'm starting a new thread here since this is off topic in the other thread. Tom Barber (kaiser_soze) wrote:

From: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcbo...1269&page=#1279

>Pete,

>

>Once every couple of months or so, I take a look at this forum

>to see if there is anything interesting going on. The last

>few times that I have done this, after reading one or two of

>your posts, I decided to leave. The same thing has happened

>just now, but this time I'm going to say something before I

>leave. The thing that I don't understand, is why you think it

>appropriate for you to portray your subjective assessments of

>the way a certain speaker sounds, as equivalent to objective

>fact. That is not something that I would do. I remember that

>in the first post of yours that I read, you talked about how

>one speaker "blew away" another speaker. That sort

>of language just turns me off. I don't object to you or

>anyone else having subjective opinions about the quality of

>the sound of any particular speaker. What turns me off is

>when you portray those subjective opinions as being one and

>the same as objective fact. The reason that turns me off is

>that it absolutely implies that if my subjective opinions are

>not in agreement with yours, then as far as you are concerned,

>you are right and I am wrong. I am going to go away now for

>another couple of months, and if and when I ever do return, I

>will be pleased if perchance you have ceased the habit of

>portraying your subjective assessments of speakers in a manner

>that implies that they are the equivalent of objective fact.

I already responded to you in your first objection where you didn't even take the time to try the BSC circuit and all of your conclusions were based on a completely different model. The Title of the original thread that I posted and you objected to, included IMO. This means in my opinion in case your not aware. Yes I know that what I write is my opinion, but remember that I used a reference in A/B tests, and then measured to better understand the design. This takes a lot of time and casual dismissal is not appreciated. You obviously have an emotional investment in these speakers since you own them, but remember your model is not the same so what's all the fuss? You might have seen me suggest often, let's just agree to disagree. Why don't you drop it and just ignore my posts.

If you want to talk about "facts" and get all bent out of shape, you should think about the fact that it is questionable if there are any "facts" in life. This is the subject of Epistemology an age old subject in Philosophy and these discussions could easily digress to the question of are there any facts at all. I minored in Philosophy by the way.

I hardly have enough time to do the engineering work on these speakers, and I have no interest in selling you on my opinions. Again, let's agree to disagree, just let it be.

Pete B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kaiser_soze

Pete B:

> however there are many things that irritate me such as

> not duplicating my experiment using the same speaker

> design, or even building the circuit at all. Then

> you object when we do not agree, we're not even doing the

> same experiment and it is you who needs to do the work.

>Pete B.

When I read that, I shook my head in disbelief that anyone would actually think this way. I need to do the work? Are you serious? Do you really believe that every time that someone comes along and makes unsubstantiated claims of various sorts, that it is unfair for another person to point out the flaws in their methodology without having first gone through the work to duplicate their "experiments"? That is patently absurd, and unfortunately, it tells me more than I really wanted to know about how you think.

Aside from the fact that your methodology is, shall we say, flawed, you have a persistent habit of criticizing a speaker that you dislike, based solely on your subjective listening experience, or that of your brother, or your wife and kids, etc. It is annoying to me that you do that in a way that strongly suggests that you regard your subjective opinion as equivalent to objective fact. There is no evidence in anything that you write, that you understand or acknowledge the difference.

My major concern with your methodology, however, has to do with the way that you have applied the phenomenon of "baffle step". Many different physical phenomena can and will influence the way a speaker sounds. The phenomenon of baffle step is best placed into the same category as room effects, since the extent to which the effect is real and measurable, depends entirely on how close to the wall the speaker is placed, or whether it is set into a recess in a wall unit, etc.

But I still haven’t explained my major concern with your methodology. You could not know for a fact that baffle step is an actual source of an actual anomaly in the frequency response of any given speaker without first measuring the frequency response under controlled conditions, in an anechoic chamber, or outdoors. Even then, all that you would know for fact is that there is an anomaly in the frequency response. If your intent is to use electronic equalization to correct for the anomaly, the actual source of the anomaly is unimportant. In any case, it makes no sense whatsoever to repeatedly refer to “baffle step” as the source of the anomaly unless you have actually proven that, and that of course is predicated on your having begun the effort by first proving that there is an anomaly in the frequency response.

A few months back I wrote an analysis of the New Advent, wherein I objectively identified and explained the specific physical phenomena that are the reason why that speaker sounds dramatically different depending on where you listen along its vertical acoustic axis. Within that analysis, I largely avoided offering any opinion as to the relative quality of its sound from the basis of measurements, and certainly not based on my subjective assessment. I offered no defense of the speaker, and if anything, the inherent limitations that I identified, i.e., the limitations of the 2-way design with low-order crossover, ought to have been construed as criticism. As such, your hypothesis that I have an “emotional attachment” to that speaker and that that is my motivation for criticizing your dubious methodology and your habit of putting down a speaker because it didn’t sound right to you or your brother or your wife or your children, is more evidence of the inadequacies in your analytical thought processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest russwollman

This exchange reminds me of a quote from my favorite saint, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: "The environment is there for us to use and not to make us miserable".

There's a bit more to it, but the essence of it is that we take from the environment what is useful to us and not mind so much the things that are not useful.

You are both very technically knowlegeable and strong-minded with reference to the boundaries which knowledge can sometimes create. Those boundaries can be broken in an instant by the advent or discovery of a deeper, more profound level of understanding. Imagine yourselves back in time, discussing the arrangement of the local universe, both of you completely unaware of the coming impact of Copernicus' discovery, yet at opposite poles, both somewhat erroneous.

Pete's reference to philosophical point about the nature or existence of facts in life is valuable. It's a great reminder of the extremely changeable nature of the physical level of life. We go with the best information we have; yet we remain always open to the possibility that better information could suddenly supplant all that we know, catching us completely unaware yet making us acutely aware of the boundaries we have so carefully cultured. And then we have to let those boundaries go in order for life to expand and progress. Our buttons may be pushed in the process. But, like all proper buttons, the return action of the spring loading is always strong enough to pop the button back out again...

Man, at the deepest level of his existence, is not his opinions, his moods, his inclinations, or even the facts on which he operates. He is none of those changeable things, for he lives on through them all, never quite knowing what will come next. And that uncertainty is perhaps why we may cling to things tightly. And we all do it ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thank you Russ and Vern for your support.

As far as this person who posts as Kaiser Soze (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kaiser+soze) goes, he has contributed very little, and enters this conversation with an attack, win/loose attitude. All I can say is that he is a troll, fishing for a flame war. He is probably an ALT. I've pointed out his errors, yet he continues with false assumptions ignoring the facts that I point out. I don't like to have to repeat myself, and ignore people who act as he does. I know that these are my opinions and observations, no need to assume otherwise, it is clearly stated in my post.

This is not paying work, I don't have to prove anything to anyone, those who've tried it have reported very positive results:

-------------------------

"I had to write you to let you know the results I had with your circuit and to thank you for your good work. The results are amazing!

Since the parts were so cheap I decided to build every step from 1dB to 6dB so I could try them all. I figured this would be a good test for my hearing as well, i.e., to see if I could hear the difference in each of the steps.

What a blast. I tried them all and could tell the difference. I actually settled on the 4dB step. I guess I like a little more mid-range than you. (Perhaps Henry Kloss and I have a little mid-range deficiency in common). My system is so much more enjoyable to listen to. I truly cannot get over it. I’m listening to Van Morrison as I type and he has never sounded better."

----------------------

Pretty amazing results. I found an improved soundstage, less harshness and stridency, more delicate reproduction, and the speakers do seem to disappear.

Let's hear it for Pete, who was enormously helpful to the point where I was even able to fabricate this magic box.

Now, I have to create a second one for my second system!

This is a sllick trick in every respect. You'll get an awful lot from very little. Do try this!

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcbo...g_id=399&page=5

--------------------------

This is not a peer reviewed journal, rather it is casual conversation, I work on these systems in a casual way. I also work on others, mostly modern systems, in a much more serious way as private R&D. You would have to pay me to get access to that work.

Tom Barber erroneously makes assumptions about my methods without asking exactly what they are. His statements indicate a very shallow understanding of audio, acoustics, and electronics. Just one example is that he does not seem to recognize or understand Time Delay Spectrometry, impulse, gated sine, or MLS measurement methods. Yes, I use several of these including MLS. You also do not understand baffle step, or the useful life of electronic components. I've done reliability analysis for Military designs, and fault tolerant design - I'm not going to educate you.

I've been very generous over the years on the web, and generally give too much. I've told other professionals that we should charge our consulting rate, most are driven off of forums such as this by a few bitter wannabe's who wish they were, or could compete with, degreed professionals.

I was going to redo the New Advent XO and post the design, why should I bother with this kind of response, and having to waste my time with trolls?

I will not engage with trolls such as you, I've asked you repeatedly to drop it. Your post is deliberately offensive and based on your fabricated, false assumptions. Again, it is obvious that you are a wannabe troll. Yes, I've repeated the statement that you are a troll several times here, because you don't seem to understand what I write when I state it just once.

Pete B.

>Pete B:

>> however there are many things that irritate me such as

>> not duplicating my experiment using the same speaker

>> design, or even building the circuit at all. Then

>> you object when we do not agree, we're not even doing

>the

>> same experiment and it is you who needs to do the work.

>>Pete B.

>

>When I read that, I shook my head in disbelief that anyone

>would actually think this way. I need to do the work? Are

>you serious? Do you really believe that every time that

>someone comes along and makes unsubstantiated claims of

>various sorts, that it is unfair for another person to point

>out the flaws in their methodology without having first gone

>through the work to duplicate their "experiments"?

>That is patently absurd, and unfortunately, it tells me more

>than I really wanted to know about how you think.

>

>Aside from the fact that your methodology is, shall we say,

>flawed, you have a persistent habit of criticizing a speaker

>that you dislike, based solely on your subjective listening

>experience, or that of your brother, or your wife and kids,

>etc. It is annoying to me that you do that in a way that

>strongly suggests that you regard your subjective opinion as

>equivalent to objective fact. There is no evidence in

>anything that you write, that you understand or acknowledge

>the difference.

>

>My major concern with your methodology, however, has to do

>with the way that you have applied the phenomenon of

>"baffle step". Many different physical phenomena

>can and will influence the way a speaker sounds. The

>phenomenon of baffle step is best placed into the same

>category as room effects, since the extent to which the effect

>is real and measurable, depends entirely on how close to the

>wall the speaker is placed, or whether it is set into a recess

>in a wall unit, etc.

>

>But I still haven’t explained my major concern with your

>methodology. You could not know for a fact that baffle step

>is an actual source of an actual anomaly in the frequency

>response of any given speaker without first measuring the

>frequency response under controlled conditions, in an anechoic

>chamber, or outdoors. Even then, all that you would know for

>fact is that there is an anomaly in the frequency response.

>If your intent is to use electronic equalization to correct

>for the anomaly, the actual source of the anomaly is

>unimportant. In any case, it makes no sense whatsoever to

>repeatedly refer to “baffle step” as the source of the anomaly

>unless you have actually proven that, and that of course is

>predicated on your having begun the effort by first proving

>that there is an anomaly in the frequency response.

>

>A few months back I wrote an analysis of the New Advent,

>wherein I objectively identified and explained the specific

>physical phenomena that are the reason why that speaker sounds

>dramatically different depending on where you listen along its

>vertical acoustic axis. Within that analysis, I largely

>avoided offering any opinion as to the relative quality of its

>sound from the basis of measurements, and certainly not based

>on my subjective assessment. I offered no defense of the

>speaker, and if anything, the inherent limitations that I

>identified, i.e., the limitations of the 2-way design with

>low-order crossover, ought to have been construed as

>criticism. As such, your hypothesis that I have an “emotional

>attachment” to that speaker and that that is my motivation for

>criticizing your dubious methodology and your habit of putting

>down a speaker because it didn’t sound right to you or your

>brother or your wife or your children, is more evidence of the

>inadequacies in your analytical thought processes.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add here that no one should be offended by my criticizing a loudspeaker system as I am very particular about speakers. I dislike most speakers that I hear. Speaker design is challenging, most fall short in one way or another, usually more than one. I listen for both strengths and weaknesses in a design.

Pete B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Let me add here that no one should be offended by my

>criticizing a loudspeaker system as I am very particular about

>speakers. I dislike most speakers that I hear. Speaker

>design is challenging, most fall short in one way or another,

>usually more than one. I listen for both strengths and

>weaknesses in a design.

>

>Pete B.

Hi Pete;

I just read your previous write-up a few minutes ago.

Pretty clear and to the point, direct, it certainly doesn't leave a lot of questions to be asked.

Decades ago, J. Gordon Holt, was the hifi geru, the main man, particularly, when he reviewed the Dynaco A-25's speaker system.

He used his writing skills, which were excellent, to review his toys, and let us know what he thought of them.

Back then there was no magic cables, power conditioners or room treatments even mentioned.

He rarely ever did a mod, or even suggest a mod, to anything.

You are a very different man, you listen, if you don't like what you hear, try to analyze why and how to fix it.

There is where most of us stop, at the listening step.

Experimenting is something, that I believe most people don't have the time or inclination to do.

There will some that would like to have a hands on experience.

When you present your findings, you may come across in a strong manner, but, that is your personality.

You are obviously very technically oriented and precise.

You want everyone that reads your writings to have all the details that interest you and some other technically oriented members.

Sometimes I do get lost in the technical jargon, but, that is me.

I certainly do not want you to write at a lesser level, only your best, that you wish to share with us, please, Pete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Vern, you are a true gentleman.

I really don't enjoy this type of discussion.

You are right, I for example wondered if people who tried

the BSC circuit would hear what I heard and they did as

we can see from their comments. I find it interesting.

Thanks again,

Pete B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...