Great post Albert and I agree Jostler, that peddling pseudo science does Audiophilia a great diservice. But as I pointed out in another thread, there is a similar diservice being done, by what I call scientific arrogance. The world abounds with phenomena which "science" has no explanation for and hence tends to ridicule them as nonexistent or vodoo or as you suggest, full of s**t. As someone said in another thread, audiophiles are generally fairly well educated and no fools. They cannot possibly all be gullible idiots, who imagine things. To me, the legitimate scientific stand would be to take seriously, what lots of people maintain they are hearing and to admit, that "science" so far has no adequate answer for this phenomenon. Without creative people, blessed with an open minded curiosity and a sense of wonderment, there would have been no scientific progress at all, just dogmatic sterility! |
Thanks Ka, but I think there's always hope (: |
Jostler, did I ever say, that I was sure, that what I hear is auditory and nothing else? I think not. We are all influenced by all sorts of factors all of the time. That's why experimental setups take such painstaking preparation, and even then often enough we cannot be sure. But you know all that much better than I do. All I ask, is to not make us out to be more stupid, than in fact we may truly well be. I don't pretend to "know" anything at all in the field of audio. All I can do, is to try to describe what I percieve and to grope for some sense in it. You however, no offense meant, strike me to be much more of a believer than I will ever be, in that you seem to maintain that science has an answer to all. Besides, how will you know what I or anybody else hears. Of course you know, what can be heard and what not, otherwise you would not come to such statements as above. But how can you be sure, that you are right? Slowly I come to the conclusion, that you and your likes - and
I do pay you probably more respect than vice versa - operate from model of reality, a model which is often close, yes almost identical with reality, but never quite so. This model is safe ground, and it will grow in scope and refinement, as science progresses. But the gap will remain. The more we know, the more questions arise, the more obvious the gap becomes. I suppose, its also a question of temperament. I feel more at home by being fascinated by what I don't understand and grappling with it. Its obvious, that I'll make a lot of mistakes and be lead up the garden path by all sorts of factors. But its fun, I don't have to know better all the time. Respectfully, |
Jostler, all points well taken, I could not agree with you more. Its an interesting question you pose at the end of your post. Let me venture a guess: Many audiophiles have no scientific training. As I tried to point out somewhere else, they are passionately on to something, which they deeply percieve but actually often know little about. They could try science, but that seems so cut and dried, so far removed from what moves them. It also takes a lot of effort. Science would always cut them down to size, which hurts, because its sonic nirvana they are after. I may sound ironic, but I am not, because its wonderful to be inspired and to be on a quest. I have nothing against that, as you probably know, because to be on a "trip" may well have a value of its own, but it sure ain't science and it will never be. You are right of course that these people are believers, but the mistake which is often being made, is the fact, that this belief does not necessarily have to be merely subjective, but psychologically objective in that sense, that it can grab a lot of people all over the place all the time, where the form and contents of this phenomena seem strangely alike in those inspired. Now what for these people is psychologically REAL, in our culture has the stigma of being subjective, its sort of "only" psychological, so how can it stand up in the "real world" of facts and figures. They don't see sufficiently, that they are in a psychological state, which is real in its own right, which they can share with others and enjoy. Unfortunatedly, and this is where the nonsense starts, this is not enough for many of them: Who wants to be merely "subjective". They are not in actual fact, but unfortunatedly, they think they are, so they venture into "their opponents hometurf", as you so aptly put it... and get torn to pieces. No wonder, they thrash science as a consequence, get ridiculed in turn and ad nauseam, ad nauseam, ad nauseam... the carussel keeps on turning ....I feel, it should take a point of view outside the fray, to try to grasp what is actually going on here. This question has fascinated me for years, also in other fields outside of audio. Do you mind if I say that I enjoy talking to you, because it helps me (subjectively (-; ) to clarify my thoughts? |
Albert, strange but from very different premisses and reasonings we both strike a similar conclusion on one and the same page. To quote: "I guess it boils down to the passion and interest level in the whole thing". |
Ain't nothing like wry female aside, to set our male heads straight. Flowers to you Liz, you put a huge grin on my face. |
Now if that was not an ad hominem remark. Cupcake indeed, but thanks for another guffaw. Thank Heavens we males are not alone here on Audiogon |
I agree with Albert, that with the inherent limitations, experimental setups generally fall under, vis a vis the complexity of the object in question, the only consistent and reliable tool is our pair of ears. Science obviously cannot help us here, because its premises will not allow as "real", what we, the "empiricists" if you like, are hearing and describing. To discount us all as selfdelusional would be just as simpleminded as to discount the vality of scientific thinking per se. It seems to me however, contrary to Jadem's opinion, an asset to our field , if someone is sceptical and questions, because audio abounds with snake oil peddlers, charlatans and wierdo theories. We are swamped with hype and clever sales talk and who can be really sure, that all that stuff will have no effect on what one "hears".
Lets face it, how can I be sure, that what I hear, is not only actually there but also really an attribute of the object under scrutiny. Not that this really bothers me as an audiophile. As such I am not after scientific truth, but after musical enjoyment. But if a person like Jostler would ask me, if I really were sure, that its the "sound" of this wire or that amp which I am hearing through my speakers, I would even in the best of cases have to admit to a residual doubt. Is there a way out of this fix? Perhaps in part: Through the years we audiophiles have developed a descriptive language, a terminology and lingua franca, which, with the most erudite amongst us, has achieved a high degree of differentiation in the description of what can be heard and under what circumstances. You may think of the mags what you like, but probably one has to admit that languagewise we all have been educated by the likes of Holt and Pearson. Now I may believe, that my Jadis stuff in my system, with all other things being equal, will sound such and such with this particular software and will form a descriptive set of that experience in my brain. If I chance on a post by say RCPrince, who also owns Jadis gear, describing some aspects of what he hears and I compare that to my findings and to those of my local peers with similar setups, I will not entirely lose my doubts about the objectivity of what I hear, but in time and listening to others, I will be able to form a fairly structured opinion of what Jadis gear can sound like. Of course that is not objectivity, only a possible approximation towards it, but with that I can live, like the most of us, quite comfortably. The "scientist" in me might be unhappy of course with that subjective tinge, which will always remain to all our describing, but I'll surely forget all about that, when I am drawn into the music. |
The only common ground, thanks Katharina by the way, I see evolving, if the "scientists" give us the benefit of the doubt and we are open to experimental verification or falsification of our hypothesising. An approach like that, would do us all a lot of good and the experimental proceedures and the maths involved should be worked out and agreed upon by both sides. The industry won't do it, the mags won't do it for obvious reasons. We the consumers should do it for our own benefit. |
Jostler, an interesting and well reasoned point. Could you give us the source(s) for your "no difference" statement. Not that I doubt you, but I want to read and find out for myself. |
Hi Craig, in the light of reading Jostler3's response to Katharina's post, what you say about him simply does not meet the facts. Sometimes it seems to me, that we on our side of the fence are just as prone to generalise in exactly the same irresponsible fashion as we accuse our adversaries of. Please lets all stay rational ( and that goes for me too). |
Ken, maybe he lives and learns, like -hopefully - all of us. |
I remember borrowing a Tice clock many years ago after having read Michael Fremer's rave review in TAS. I found the whole thing absolutely crazy and did not believe a word of it. To my surprise I did percieve, with the thing plugged in, exactly what was mentioned above: A better soundstage and tad more silence in the background. And you know, what I decided then: I truly prefered not to believe my ears, put it away as an audiosuggestion, ignored the postive comments of my female companion and gave the clock back. So here ideology won over empiricism in the sense, what CANNOT be real, simply IS not real. No, you don't have to pray to the audiogods for me. I've learnt a thing or two in the meantime. But I thought I'll bring this post, because I feel that many of the "scientists" here possibly still function the way I did then, you know: possibly golden eared, but ideologically tinned over. |
