netchord wrote: > you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I > hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money > to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here, > there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is negligible.
And that is of course fine in a subjectivist, "everybody is right" world, and if we would be discussing the taste of chocolate or opinions about art, it would be a totally valid form of discourse. When discussing the audibility of different file formats (or cables, for that matter), your "If I hear it, I hear it" would have to be restated "If I think I hear it, I believe I hear it" to be technically valid. Reproduction of audio is an area of engineering (a form of applied science), so the rules of science apply. It's not just a bunch of subjective opinions. Let's say you take a walk along the shores of Loch Ness, and see a huge aquatic animal out in the lake. Based on the subjectivist position of "if I see it, I see it" you would accept that Nessie exists, and it might cause you to spend time and money as a result. A more scientific approach would be to admit that it is easy to be influenced about all the stories about monsters in Loch Ness, and that a lot of floating objects might look like an animal in the dusk, so independent and objective verification might be a good idea. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104227 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
