2. tech-talk
  3. 1339342082

why do we argue?

I suppose it's human nature?

Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.

Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.

So why should the audio "family" be any different?

Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.

But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?

If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.

No one is making you.

Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.

Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.

You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.

There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.

But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.

It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!

It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.

Get the gist?

I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.

Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.

I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.

Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?

So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.

The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.

But is it?

If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?

Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.

It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.

At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.

I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
lacee

Showing 4 responses by almarg

almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Good post; good question.

I would make several points in response.

First, debates about seemingly implausible tweaks are generally not attempts to save the tweaker from him or herself, and sometimes (although perhaps all too infrequently) do not even question that the tweaker heard what he or she claims to have heard.

Most of us are here to talk about a subject of mutual interest, and to help each other chart courses of action that stand the greatest chance of maximizing the sonic returns we get on our investments of both time and money. Reports of benefits from various tweaks come from people having a wide range of backgrounds, experience, technical knowledge, thoroughness of approach, philosophical viewpoints, and intellects.

Also, it seems very clear that there are a huge number of subtle variables, both known and unknown, that can significantly affect the sonic presentation that is heard. Considering the complexity of it all, and the fact that many parts of a system require significant breakin, and that breakin or aging of parts of a system can be ongoing (with or without our knowledge) while unrelated changes are being assessed or breaking in, and that things like AC line voltages and noise conditions can change at any time, it can be very easy to attribute a perceived change to the wrong variable.

Also, if there is not a good technical understanding of how a controversial tweak works, it may be incorrectly assumed that the reported benefit has general applicability across different systems, when in fact the effect may the result of an interaction with the particular system, that would not occur in some or many other systems

Therefore, as I see it, while indeed many debates about controversial tweaks degenerate into pointless and unpleasant arguments, it does not mean that all or even most such debates are necessarily worthless, and it seems to me that without them one of the fundamental benefits of a forum such as this would be lost.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

As I see it, it should be (and sometimes is) possible to have debates about controversial tweaks that:

(a)Do not turn ugly.
(b)Give the benefit of the doubt to those reporting a difference that their perceptions were correct.
(c)Explore whether or not unrecognized extraneous variables might have caused the difference to be attributed to the wrong thing.
(d)Explore possible theories of why the effect may be occurring, that would provide insight into the likelihood that the effect will be applicable to differing systems.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
From the concluding paragraph of the article at the link NoNoise provided:
In my opinion if one believes in this phony so-called science all one needs is MP3s played on the cheapest mini-system one can find and 14 cent a foot 20 gauge speaker wire as these scientists in their quest to destroy high-end audio have proved with their AB and ABX double-blind testing protocols that everything under the sun statistically sounds the same. For example in the concluding comments of both the Stereo Review Amp and CD player tests they state that audio equipment should not be purchased based on sound quality because any differences are all imagined but by features, build quality and reliability. This is destructive bull of the worst type, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that objectivists unrealistic belief's are absurd.
Somehow I don't think that there are too many high end audiophiles who fit the author's characterization of the objectivist part of the spectrum, whether they believe in magic tweaks or not.

It's easy to make a case against those who do not share your views if you allow for only two possible positions, both of them extremist.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
A great analysis, Bryon, as usual!

I think that one especially good insight, among several that were contained in your post, is:
Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. “Can an AC outlet affect sound quality?” For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge…

6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.

7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.
Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible. Ms. Goodwin herself stated in the article that "The problems I encounter with many objectivists on the internet has to do with their mindset, they are closed-minded to anything sounding different if it cannot be measured." Which leads me to emphasize your careful use of the phrase "discoverable by science," and to note that that does not mean "has been discovered by science."

Best,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
07-05-12: Bryoncunningham
But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science....

Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not.
Great points once again, Bryon, IMO.

Re the first point, I think it is worth noting that the scientific progress you refer to occurs in part as a result of experimentation in which meticulous and disciplined efforts are made to eliminate the possibility that the results may be the consequence of unrecognized extraneous variables. And the results are then further confirmed by peer review, independent experimental corroboration, etc. Early on in this thread (in my post of 6-11-12) I referred to how easy it is for extraneous variables to produce misleading results when it comes to assessing audio products and tweaks, especially when lengthy breakin periods are required for the assessments. IMO that is one reason that reports of counter-intuitive and technically inexplicable results should be questioned. In a civil as opposed to argumentative manner, of course :-) Another reason, btw, being to discuss the system dependencies that may be involved, and the likelihood that the results will be applicable to other systems.
07-05-12: Mapman
The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value.
I'm not sure that is as true in audio as it is in most other fields of endeavor.

For one thing, my perception has been that there is a tendency for those who experiment extensively with tweaks, fuses, cables, power cords, etc. to disproportionately focus their experiments on choices that are at the upper end of the price range they can afford. Their experiments will result in a choice that works well for them, and that experience will be reported. That will in turn inspire others to try out the same or similar products, with good results in many cases. The end result being that a self-reinforcing belief system evolves.

But given that the mechanisms by which many of these products provide sonic benefits are often speculative or not understood at all, at least in a way that makes sense when analyzed quantitatively, how do we know that similarly extensive experimentation focused on choices at much lower price points would not have yielded comparably good results, and better value?

Best regards,
-- Al
More to discover