an interesting read ...........

[Mikado463]

brought this over from another group and thought it might be appreciated here as well.........

Unreasonable Audio Innovation

Keynote at the AES160th Convention Reception, Cityhall of Copenhagen,May 29th, 2026

purifi-audio.com

 

[m. zillch]

From that link (I've underline the pertinent part):

"The objectivists tribe: standard metrics are sufficient, double-blind testing is the only admissible evidence, and almost nothing is audible. "

Um, "almost nothing is audible"?! Nope, nobody in the objectivist camp I know of has ever said that or anything even remotely close to it, so I stopped reading right there. It's a straw-man argument.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Too bad he didn't mention Toole's work at the National Research Council (NRC), Canada, before Harman.

 

[jinjuku]

Say what?:

What bothers me about both tribes is not that they disagree. It’s that neither is curious. Both have found a way to stop the inquiry and call it a conclusion.

The objective side from my experience is insanely, innately, curious. Instrumentation is used to support hypothesis and ensure you aren't chasing your own tail.

My only standard for subjective claimants is that you need to use your ears only. If you can't trust your ears, well neither can I.

Offer to send subjectivist burned in and unused cables, randomly labeled. No test administrator, fully sighted, subjectivist gets to choose duration and frequency of rolling through the cables and go ahead for good measure, give them 30 days.

These dipshits absolutely will not do it. The other thing they won't do however is challenge the logic. It's one of the few logic bombs I figured out that simply shuts them down.

 

[lovinthehd]

From that link (I've underline the pertinent part):

"The objectivists tribe: standard metrics are sufficient, double-blind testing is the only admissible evidence, and almost nothing is audible. "

Um, "almost nothing is audible"?! Nope, nobody in the objectivist camp I know of has ever said that or anything even remotely close to it, so I stopped reading right there. It's a straw-man argument.

Hope you kept reading....

 

[lovinthehd]

Interesting to at least hear more from Purifi's point of view. Seems their products are well accepted based on measurements at least but I'd like to know more about some of the testing they've done on the audibility points.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Say what?:

What bothers me about both tribes is not that they disagree. It’s that neither is curious. Both have found a way to stop the inquiry and call it a conclusion.

The objective side from my experience is insanely, innately, curious. Instrumentation is used to support hypothesis and ensure you aren't chasing your own tail.

My only standard for subjective claimants is that you need to use your ears only. If you can't trust your ears, well neither can I.

Offer to send subjectivist burned in and unused cables, randomly labeled. No test administrator, fully sighted, subjectivist gets to choose duration and frequency of rolling through the cables and go ahead for good measure, give them 30 days.

These dipshits absolutely will not do it. The other thing they won't do however is challenge the logic. It's one of the few logic bombs I figured out that simply shuts them down.

Or, you could just use identical cables without burn-in, label them randomly and ask them which is burned in which is not.