Nonoise,
Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.
Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.
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.
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.
120 responses Add your response
As Al has already pointed out, Goodwins article is a transparent case of strawmanning, i.e. misrepresenting your opponent and then attacking that misrepresentation. Goodwins Objectivist is a gross distortion of the views of actual Objectivists, both in the world of audio and in the real world. Goodwins characterization of Objectivism also reveals a nearly complete lack of understanding of the use of that term in both philosophy and science, which is this 1. An Objectivist about X believes in OBJECTIVE FACTS about X. where 2. An objective fact is a fact that is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. So, for example, an Objectivist about chemistry believes that the facts of chemistry are independent of persons. An Objectivist about biology believes that the facts of biology are independent of persons. And so on. In this sense, nearly ALL scientists are Objectivists. The one significant exception are physicists who question Objectivism on the grounds of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. But even the breakdown of Objectivism at the lowest levels of microphysics does not cast doubt on the validity of Objectivism at higher levels of science, i.e. macrophysics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, neuroscience, etc.. Objectivism is not only the prevailing view of scientific facts, it is arguably the SINE QUA NON of science. The contrast to all this is Subjectivism 3. A Subjectivist about X does NOT believe in objective facts about X. So, for example, a Subjectivist about morality does not believe in objective facts about morality. A Subjectivist about art does not believe in objective facts about art. IMO, the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism in the world of audio is very similar 4. An Objectivist about audio topic X believes in objective facts about topic X. 5. A Subjectivist about audio topic X does not believe in objective facts about topic X. With that in mind, nearly all audiophiles are BOTH Objectivist and Subjectivists, as Mapman pointed out. If the topic is How much harmonic distortion does this amplifier have? then nearly all audiophiles are Objectivists. That is, they believe that there is an objective fact about the quantity of an amplifiers harmonic distortion. If, on the other hand, the topic is Who is the best blues musician of all time? then nearly all audiophiles are Subjectivists. That is, they do NOT believe that there is an objective fact about who is the best blues musician. 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. In other words, for topics for which there are no definitive answers, audiophiles tend to split along the lines of HOW MUCH CAN BE KNOWN BY SCIENCE. The opposing views are then labelled Objectivism and Subjectivism. One last thing... As Goodwin's article illustrates, Objectivism is often falsely equated with other views: 8. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Skepticism, i.e. a default ATTITUDE OF DOUBT. Some Objectivists are Skeptics, some are not. 9. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Verificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE. Some Objectivists are Verificationists, some are not. 10. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Justificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is PROVEN WITH CERTAINTY. Some Objectivists are Justificationists, some are not. As I hope is obvious by now, Goodwins depiction of Objectivism is not only uncharitable, it is reductionistic, naïve, and facile. Objectivism is a view of far greater complexity, depth, and nuance than she presents, and probably than she understands. Bryon |
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 knowledgeObjectivists 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 |
That was a succinct clarification of the technically correct usage of Objectivist & Subjectivist Bryon. Your education is evident. When I used the terms in reference to audio "personalities," they referenced the differences between the two encampments. As you say, Objectivists believe independent, objective attributes verifiable by science are the sole determinant of why any given piece of audio gear sounds the way it does. We need a better term than Subjectivist for those who have take more nuanced or less rigid views of audio reality. As to your point #7, it's not so much that I think "whatever facts exist need not be discoverable by science" as that I'm willing to consider that science (in its current state of development) can't explain/define all the parameters that affect why something sounds the way it does. Admittedly, the rational part of my brain rebels at this. After all, many/most electrical engineers believe why a device sounds the way it does can be explained by an electrical circuit's characteristics of current, voltage, impedance, resistance, etc. People get argumentative when concepts like skin effect, eddy currents, conductivity of different metals, etc. (whose abilities to audibly affect a circuit are non-verfiable) are brought into the discussion. As your points 8,9, & 10 demonstrate, there can be different thresholds of verification or understanding before any given individual is willing to concede something is "real." |
It's quite the discipline to analyze a situation before speaking as well as Bryon and Al do. Weigh the facts, consider the angles, draw insight, analyze still more, and compare before posting. This has all been like a min-classroom in critical thinking and I feel better for it. I like to think I have feet in both camps, depending on the topic. As one physicist at CERN jokingly said about the boggs particle they found, " It's more like that godd*mned particle than the god particle". Something was there, all the time. It just took a whole lot of patience and effort to find it. I feel the same about this hobby (within reason). All the best, Nonoise |
What I find ironic is that the objectionists,or the folks who demand scientific proof ,never indulge in the true spirit of science. Which would have to be the experiemnt. The proof can only be determined if the item under scrutiny has gone under the knife as it were, and an "experiment" is performed to either validate or discredit the findings of the original theory. This is the basics of science. Yet the objectionists refuse to experiment or in our case, try the tweak that is in question. The onus is always on the person who reports that a tweak made an imporovemnt to"their" system to provide some kind of proof to the "others" who are sceptical. Isn't this a bit one sided? Why shouldn't the onus be on the objectionist to scientifically prove why the tweak in question shouldn't work? Ah, but then he would have to try the tweak himself, wouldn't he? And this is what they most always refuse to do. To try the tweak would seem like caving in,like finding enough merit in the claim to involve them with the very folks they wish to distance themselves from. They wouldn't waste their time or money doing any such thing,because they don't believe in "fairy dust", yet they do nothing to disprove it's existance. It's arrogance, plain and simple. They are the smart ones, those who believe in the fairy dust are dimwitted. And the argument continues. One side tries something and states that it made his system sound better. The other side, does not try the item and states that it can't do what the other person said it does, and continues to try and discourage anyonelse from trying the item. "Smart people don't fall for snake oil, it sounds like snake oil to me because I don't understand it, don't know much about it, and have never nor will ever try it." "I just know it won't work."Are a couple of examples of close minded thinking that we've all seen in other threads which turn into arguments. Another spin in another age was, "if God intended man to fly ,he would have given us wings". So I ask, prove to me that what I may have raved about is in fact nothing but snake oil? But, how can you do that by not trying it? This is the one sided argument I referred to earlier on in this thread. That someone, who wasn't privy to the "experiment" in my home on my system, can make a statement that something like demagging an LP can't make an improvement is someone who MS. Goodwin would call close minded. Keeping an open mind and gaining some experience with tweaks that have worked and those that haven't gives someone more insight than the person who has the closed mind and tries nothing that is out of his comfort zone. Seeing both sides of the coin and not just one side is seeing the big picture. I remember thinking that I would never like the sound of an SET low power amp, because the specs are nothing at all like that of the high powered solid state amps that I was familiar with. All it took was to try one out in a suitable system and I realized how wrong one can be when they close their mind to all the variables we have when it comes to reproducing music in our homes. But I would never argue that an SET type system is the best there is either, or that cones are better than stats, tubes better than solid state, vinyl better than cd. I could tell you what I prefer, and I have every right to, because I've actually tried the stuff. |
One is not likely to invest time and money in something they do not believe in. People believe in many things that I may not. I have no problem with that. However, I will reserve the right to believe what I will for whatever reason I chose in return. If someone believes in something, it should not matter if another does or not. Most arguments of merit will catch on over time but there will always be those who believe otherwise. Not sure what the problem is? If you know something works, why care what someone else thinks? Just state the facts and see what happens. |
Categories aside, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, once something is heard, and appreciated, and/or moves you, we all become subjectivists, don't we? :-) The objectivist might say, after hearing, that the result confirms the data without needing to verify it. I say they are overlooking the fact that the data IS not needed if the result confirms on an auditory and emotional level (here comes that placebo argument). We don't have to know the measurements, or how it works. Our ears tell us it does and, if good, our emotions respond sympathetically. Let someone else test all they want, after the fact. We do this all the time with all manner of equipment that have already been established and never give it a second thought. We swap out X for Y and it gets better or worse. Now, something wicked this way comes, and all bets are off? Just try it for yourself None of what I just said matters if the objectivist refuses to listen. All the best, Nonoise |
07-04-12: LaceeWhile there are certainly Objectivists who fit this description, I will point out that I am an Objectivist about the majority of audio topics, and here is a list of tweaks I've tried... Custom crossovers (Mundorf caps, Mills resistors, etc.) Custom power supplies Custom internal wiring Custom internal shielding Cryo'd Romex SS impedance buffer Tube impedance buffer Ultra low noise op amps Reclocker Interconnects costing more than $2K 4 different power conditioners (2 Shunyata, 2 PS Audio) 4 different AC outlets (Shunyata, Synergistic, Maestro, PS Audio) 3 different outlet covers (nylon, aluminum, non-magnetic steel) WBT Nextgen connectors 2 Audiocom Superclocks TI Shield RCA/XLR caps ERS cloth AC noise harvesters Ferrites Various viscoelastic damping compounds Outriggers Anti-diffraction felt surrounds 3 different audiophiles fuses (Hifi Tuning, Isoclean, Furutech) Sand traps Maple platforms Gingko platforms Black Diamond Racing platforms Brass damping weights Brass cones, spikes EVS Ground enhancers Progold Ayre Acoustics glide tone Copper sleeves for power cords ...and that's off the top of my head. So there are at least some Objectivists who are willing to experiment with tweaks, even highly controversial ones. I mean, 3 different outlet covers? That should demonstrate my willingness to try nearly ANYTHING. As I mentioned at the end of my last post, being an Objectivist doesn't necessarily mean that you're a Skeptic. It's true that many Skeptics attempt to JUSTIFY their skepticism on the basis of Objectivism. That may give the impression that Objectivism and Skepticism are the same thing, but they are not. If you want an example of an audiophile who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, I am it. If you want an example of a real person who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, then Nonoise has already provided it: Scientists working at the frontiers of scientific research. Scientists are almost universally Objectivists, but the pioneering scientists are almost never Skeptics. If pioneering scientists were Skeptics, they would not labor for 10 years to build a 27 kilometer tunnel designed to search for an elusive particle that remained undiscovered for over 40 years after its initial prediction. If they were Skeptics, they would have long ago said, "To Hell with it, Higgs was an idiot, and we have plenty of bosons as it is." Some scientists did say that, and it now appears they were wrong. Thankfully for us, there were more Believers than Skeptics. Bryon |
07-04-12: AlmargThis is a point worth expanding upon. The difference between "discovered" and "discoverable" reflects two different views of science. The first view is that science is... 1. Static. 2. Reductionistic. 3. Dogmatic. The second view is that science is... 1. Revisable. 2. Expansible. 3. Provisional. There is truth in both views, insofar as older scientists tend to be more entrenched in their views than younger ones, a point made famously in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The entrenchment of *some* scientists can give the impression that science is static, reductionistic, and dogmatic. 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. This is evident throughout the history of physics, which was repeatedly transformed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg to the host of scientists working on Unified Field Theory. This is just one of many examples of how science is revisable, expansible, and provisional. The revisability, expansibility, and provisionality of science is relevant to debates between Objectivists and Subjectivists. 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. Bryon |
Bryon, This may be an example of "entrenched Objectivism": http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11920006-16-year-olds-equations-set-off-buzz-over-325-year-old-physics-puzzler. It seems to have set off a firestorm as to the intent of the teenager and the relevance of his discovery. Apparently there are some big egos in the field of science. All the best, Nonoise |
Michael Berry's comment got the Newton/boy genius thing right. A good bit of hype to boost the substance in that story.... The devil is always in the details. Abstract models are always much easier to get right reliably than detailed ones. That's one reason why Newton's and other aged cornerstone principles like it stick. They are teh most reliable models to apply generally but do not account for many additional factors that exist in reality that others factor in as well over time depending on the need/application. The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value. THe more esoteric things (fancy fuses?), eh, maybe not so much. |
It would be interesting to see where our military falls on this issue. Having a simplified guidance system (thanks kid!) would make it easier to hit their target(s). Our military (Pentagon & DOD) already buys into global warming as do all the major insurers and underwriters and have contingency plans to deal with it. They looked at the science and sidestepped the hype. If they start hitting things more accurately, on a continuous basis, more power to the kid. :-) All the best, Nonoise |
Quite the perspective there, Uru975. You forgot to mention there would be no one to argue with anymore. It reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E-4d6l_7SXg/S13fSHjSQ7I/AAAAAAAAAGM/qhPZJJrbpWw/s1600-h/gahanwilson.jpg All the best, Nonoise |
07-05-12: BryoncunninghamGreat 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: MapmanI'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 |
Al, I like and agree with your first point. Externalities are always at play whether intended or not. To do something in a tightly controlled environment can negate its results in the real world where variables exist. With so much in play, in so many systems, what is claimed to work (benefit) has to be repeatable, to some degree. I also agree with your 2nd assessment and Mapmans, if that's possible. Broad applications are general in nature and degrees of improvement will vary from system to system. They would still hold true, to some degree. And your question as to whether some less expensive alternative exists, if the principle is the same but the ingredients are of lesser quality, then the benefit can escape scrutiny given the smaller nature of improvement. It could be chalked up to imagination. (there, I said it) :-) There has to be a cost/improvement relationship point at which the benefit justifies the tweak. It could be why some hear a bigger improvement from Furutech fuses compared to HiFi Tuning fuses. I wouldn't know since that's beyond my pay grade (which further backs up your point). All the best, Nonoise |
07-05-12: AlmargI agree. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy. But so is a certain amount of open-mindedness. The trick is to balance the two, which isnt easy. I will say, Al, you always strike me as achieving a good balance between the skepticism and open-mindedness. I tend to oscillate between the two extremes. As a result, I experiment with a lot of tweaks, only to conclude that many of them don't do much of anything. Which brings me to 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.This is a fair comment, IMO. Looking back at my list of tweaks, I would say that there is very little correlation between price and performance, at least in my system. Ive been starting to sense that for some time, which is why I no longer buy $2K interconnects or $1K power cables. And lately Ive been having fun experimenting with DIY tweaks, some of which have a fantastic price/performance ratio, like these --DIY anti-diffraction felt surrounds for tweeters --DIY shielding, both internal and external --DIY crossovers The materials for felt surrounds is dirt cheap, around $25. The materials for DIY shielding can be a bit more expensive than that, but still nowhere near the cost of some of the tweaks sold by manufacturers. And although crossover parts can be very expensive, you dont have to spend a fortune to get a big improvement in SQ. The point is that I agree with you, Al, that some people (myself included) spend too much on tweaks, and that the money could be used to buy better equipment, DIY alternatives, or dinner with your wife. As far as the self-reinforcing belief system surrounding the world of tweaks, I like to imagine that my periodic fits of skepticism purge my brain of hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, chicanery, and other forms of nonsense. But that itself may be a self-reinforcing belief system. :-) Bryon |
Cheap tweaks are always the best. A lot of the things I do, are DIY versions of costly tweaks that I can't afford. I like Blu Tac, I have a lot of applications for it. Here's a tweak that's cheap and although there's no night and day improvemnt, I like to wrap some of it around my IC, and power cords.A bit of the stuff can make those expensive power snakes fit more snuggly into their electrical sockets and most likel damps out some external vibrations. But I also used to think that my DIY racks and platforms were all that was needed.They were cheap,they worked, but not as good as I had thought. The inclusion of a Grand Prix audio rack is now icing on the cake. But had I not been open minded to at least go the DIY route and attempt to control vibrations, I would stll be using the cheap 30 year old stock Target rack that so many of us feel is all we need. IMOP you have to do the heavy lifting if you're going to find out what works and what doesn't. The emphasis on "you". |
