Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Interesting thread.

I'd say i both am and i am not. It depends.

However we formulate our models of how things work, they are often abstracted models that typically only deal with factors that matter to each of us. Some possibly many details are omitted. But the model still works because the things that matter most to each individual are addressed sufficiently. Its a highly personalized thing. One size never fits all.

Our perceptions of sound, music and audio gear are perfect examples. Each person deecides what matters to them. If they are able to model and address the things that matter to them sufficiently, they are happy. If not, they are probably not. As long as tbe model is valid and correct and addresses the significant elements, all is well.

Some things will matter to many or most. That is how religions with large followings happen. Some things at the most abstract level may be common to most even of different faiths, though details will vary.

Regarding audio, our senses and emotions largely determine what matters most to each. We may all listen to the same thing but chances are the perception of each is different somehow.

IMO - It's all an exercise in futility, as our opinions are based on our personal experience with the equipment under a set of conditions virtually impossible, or at least unlikely for someone else to replicate. For example, in my system, because of my speakers, my amplifier and my room, I come to the conclusion that Brand X speaker cables lack midbass fullness, that's only because of the cable's interaction with my system and room. Another person, with a different system, could find the same cables to be overly bloated in the midbass. Both results could be verified by appropriate testing equipment, as frequency response in a room is scientifically verifiable. So, other than talking about this stuff because some people find it interesting, the process is otherwise without value. So I believe.

the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verificatopn of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.

05-17-12: Mrtennis
the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verification of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.

MrT - We've had this conversation approximately 1 million times. The last time was on the Magic thread, when you said...

...I have concluded that since perception is unreliable and it is the means of interacting with our stereo system, all objective considerations, and arguments are academic.

And I said...

[That] is the conclusion you ALWAYS come to, no matter what is being discussed. It goes like this...

1. Knowledge must be certain.
2. Perception cannot be certain.
3. Therefore, perception is not knowledge.

This little syllogism, which encapsulates your Ideology of Skepticism, is presented by you so frequently here on A'gon that it is beginning to look like stereotypy.

Fire with fire, stereotypy with stereotypy.

Bryon

Say what dude!!