Version: Firmware 13.1.3 + DOS 2.2.4 Date: 2019-02-12

[David A]

Saying that there is a difference in the sound is reporting a subjective experience as you say, but you are reporting a subjective experience which should be able to be verified by objective testing.

No, there is no requirement that a subjective experience should be able to be verified by objective testing.  It may be caused by any number of factors which may or may not include objective causes.  Hearing doesn't always give the same (subjective) experience for the same (objective) stimulus.

So, once we start talking about testing in order to verify reports that say something is producing a difference in sound, we have 2 ways of verifying that statement. ...

There are problems with both of those sorts of tests...

Agreed.  I'm not arguing that such tests need to be done, because there is no need to validate a subjective experience.

Sorry for the long post but the issues aren't quite as simple as your questions seem to suggest.

That sounds a touch condescending, if you don't mind me saying.

To your points:

1- you're right that subjective experiences may not be able to be objectively verified but if your subjective experience is that there is a difference and the basis of that subjective experience is a difference in the actual sound rather than in one of the other things which can cause the subjective experience, the difference in sound should be able to be objectively verified. There's value in attempting to verify an actual difference in sound because if you can do that you've identified the reason, or one of the reasons, for the subjective experience and there are those people (not all) who demand that you do that.

2- I agree that there's no need to verify a subjective experience but the fact that there's no need to do so doesn't mean that doing it has no value or isn't worthwhile.

3- I wasn't intending to be condescending. I obviously see the issues being discussed in a different way to the way in which you see them. I was simply trying to make that point. I may not have made it in a way you liked but I wasn't trying to be condescending or to offend you, I was simply trying to state the fact that we're viewing the issues in a different way and that I was viewing them in a way which is in part due to my own experience, and I was apologising for the fact that I couldn't address the issues as I see them in a briefer manner.

At the moment we've got a lot of subjective reports and nothing concrete in the way of objective data. If we had the subjective reports and objective data which correlated well with those reports this whole discussion wouldn't be occurring, there would be nothing to talk about. That isn't the case.

Since it isn't the case there are 3 options available to each of us:

1- we can discuss what can or can't be objectively verified and we've both been doing that because I made comments on just that and you've questioned my comments, or

2- we can ignore the whole question of whether anything can be objectively verified and go with our own subjective experience to decide whether we each individually prefer RAAT or AIR and then we sit back and just listen to the one we prefer, or

3- we do both 1 and 2. There's nothing wrong with either of us deciding that RAAT is better than AIR or vice versa and just listening to the one we prefer while we think about and discuss matters about what might be able to be objectively verified and how one would go about doing that.

I've been following option 3. To the extent that you've been asking questions about my comments while saying that we don't need to objectively verify anything you've been doing the same thing and while we've both been doing that, it also is clear that we hold very different views on either or both of whether objective verification of what at least some of the things we hear is possible and on whether doing so has any value. If you want to raise questions or make observations about anything I said, that's fine and you're quite welcome to do so. I've taken the questions and observations you've made quite seriously and tried to answer them from the views I hold. I may not agree with your views but I have done my best to treat them with respect and I haven't criticised you in any way for the things you've said. I don't see that I can do any better than that.

I'm sorry if that isn't satisfactory to you but it's the best that I can do. I'm willing to keep discussing these issues and trying to clarify my views for as long as you wish to keep asking questions, and if you do ask a question or tell me I'm wrong I may choose to answer that in the best way I can. If you decide you don't want to continue the debate with me, that's fine or you can end it at any time by not responding to anything I say. I also can decide to end the debate at any time I decide not to respond to anything you say in response to me. This is a 2 way street and either of us can end it when we wish. I've been continuing it so far because I've felt that there is some value in trying to make my views clearer but perhaps we've reached a point where it's clear that we've stated our common ground is, and there is a fair amount of common ground between us, and where our differences are, and no useful purpose will be served by going over the differences. I do not mean to imply by saying that that I think you're wrong in your approach. I'm simply trying to say that this discussion is only of value to each of us for as long as what we each say gives the other something to think about and to reflect on in relation to their own views. If we're no longer saying anything that gives the other anything to think about then there's nothing more to say. We don't have to agree on every point that's been discussed and there is a time when the best thing do is just to agree to differ.

Have we reached that point? I'll let you decide.