The placebo effect, poverty of the English language, subjective differences, emotional distortions.........

Posted by: Consciousmess on 11 April 2012

Hi all,

I hope this thread is read and commented on as I feel prompted to write this after again reading through several posts in 'Hifi Corner'.....

My thread title captures the essence of so many proclamations of quality differences. I mean, I am aware of the law of diminishing returns but would also add that once one gets up to the audiophile level due to the expense, there is a skew in perception.

I know everyone has a different brain and therefore a different perception (to simplify it down to its quintessence) but the differences between what one person hears and what another hears astounds me!!  Or is it just the poverty of language distorted by emotion???  For instance, I read in the Hifi Corner that the CD555 sounds SO DIFFERENT to the NDS or the KDS.  Granted it might be different, but can't language be used to reflect the difference more accurately e.g. the CD555 was 47/50 but the NDS was 48/50..... although two 555PS made the CD555 48/50 not forgetting that the CDS3 was 42 out of 50......

I know I know, the subjective evaluation of quality cannot be made quantitative, but I can't help smiling when I read 'quality' interpretations!!!

Jon
Posted on: 14 April 2012 by George Fredrik

Refering to Richard Dawkins in an essay concerning anything beyond atheism should result in immediate scrapping of the essay, and expulsion from the scholastic institute!

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 15 April 2012 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:

Refering to Richard Dawkins in an essay concerning anything beyond atheism should result in immediate scrapping of the essay, and expulsion from the scholastic institute!

 

ATB from George

Quite right. My reference, if forced, would be to Dick(head) Dork(ins) and that would be sufficent to secure the full 47 marks without any comment regarding  eye v irony

 

Cheers

 

Don

 


 

Posted on: 15 April 2012 by Don Atkinson

Dear George,

 

Language is as much a human construct as numbers. It is subject to similar limitations.

 

Martin Colloms (and myself) didn't just use numbers to indicate which pieces of equipment he prefered, it was always a combination of the two, language and numbers.

 

i have three pairs of loudspeakers that I can relatively easily substitute into my system. I also have three CD playing devices that likewise I can substitute. I have in mind to try to construct a short report describing their differences, with/without the "benefit" of a scoring system.

 

At present, differences such as "detail" or "emotion" would appear to convey a sense of difference. The moment I use something like "more detail", "less emotion", "better contrast" or "best" I have this feeling of an unanswered question of "how much more detail ?", "how much better contrast ?"

 

Of course I could use "an awful lot more detail", "significantly less emotion"

 

And I still haven't mentioned the relative prices of the three loudspeakers or the three CD players.

 

I have this feeling that a few numbers could transform my short reports and render them far more meaningful.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 15 April 2012 by George Fredrik

Dear Don,

 

I think we have had quite a bit of fun probing the impossibility/possibility of precision in reviews So it being a relatively nice Sunday afternoon, I going to wish you all the best and bow out of this one!

 

Very best wishes from George

Posted on: 18 April 2012 by Consciousmess
And any insults to Richard Dawkins should be retracted and subsequently apologised about!! Even though I started this topic, Dawkins has educated more people on why we are hear (biologically) than many many others. Being an atheist is a bonus when one notes that it is morally and intellectually superior due to its praise of the intellect, to questioning and to contempt of credulity! (But that's an incidental point!) Jon
Posted on: 18 April 2012 by Don Atkinson

Jon,

 

Let's be clear, "Even though I started this thread..." doesn't corrupt the level playing field of this forum.

 

You know there won't be any retractions or apologies wrt Dawkins from this quarter.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 19 April 2012 by Consciousmess
You are totally right, Don and that is why I love this forum even though things said become moderated at times. What is the saying... refined knowledge cannot be got from one hand clapping. Jon