I find it interesting that the OP can ignore his own thread, but can’t ignore the naysayers.
Snake oil, fraud, confirmation bias
It is becoming increasingly apparent that many threads about legitimate topics devolve into one or more of the contributors here making claims of snake oil, fraud, or confirmation bias thereby derailing the conversation beyond the valid and relevant thread topic and this is getting ridiculous. For anyone here who honestly holds the position that there is snake oil and fraud in the world of Music Reproduction Systems I challenge them to prove their claims in court it should be an easy task based on the claims they make here in Audiogon AND they will make a fortune because in the US once proven they can file a class action suit and profit enormously from the efforts of others to deceive. These people regularly claim that "there is no evidence" that things such as cables or fuses make a difference when in actual fact Audiogon is filled with evidence that these things make very real differences in
Music Reproduction Systems of course those who claim fraud reject that evidence as "confirmation bias" but in absence of any documentation from them they are only repeating the claim they have made so many times that has been refuted many times here by those who have demonstrated to there satisfaction that they make a difference. I think in actual truth the real fraudsters here are those that repeatedly make these claims of snake oil and fraud and often they have no experience to back up there claims they simply say the claims are impossible!
- ...
- 125 posts total
Knowledge is defined as a consensus of collective observations. That said, there will be apparent anomalies within said observations. While there are laws of physics that are considered to be absolute, they themselves have been turned upside down upon occasion. One example as discussed (loosely) here relates to system synergies. While there are certain generally agreed upon "laws" of music reproduction, thinking they are found in every audio system everywhere in the same fashion is ludicrous. One "proof" of this would be that certain speakers give different results in different systems - or even two (or more) owners of the exact same systems may hear said speakers differently from the other. In another, some hold that tube based gear reacts differently with other components than solid state gear does and that within the tube based gear universe, certain tubes give different audible results than others. Yet no one credible shouts snake oil at these observations. In conclusion, we all hear music differently, due to age, experiences, quality of equipment, etc etc. For someone to make a blanket statement that someone cannot possibly hear what they hear in their system without hearing the system themselves before and after, and certainly not having the exact same ears, aural experiences etc, is laughable. A comparison would be someone claiming I couldn’t possibly have the flavor profile I experience drinking a particular wine essentially because their interpretation of it differs. Someone with more experience than myself would necessarily have different viewpoints of high end systems or expensive wines than I. Consensus might hold that their observations are more or less valid than mine. Because no two humans have exactly the same sensory apparatus, combined with differing experiences, declaring absolute right and wrong is impossible - everything is relative. |
This is not necessarily my view but it presents an interesting point of view which adds to this discussion. The whole thing is about the authors view on snake oil - so quite relevant and on topic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4 |
ethiessen1 Knowledge is defined as a consensus of collective observations. That said ... That's your definition of knowledge, perhaps. But it's not the generally accepted definition at all. Here's Merriam-Webster: "Definition of knowledge 1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding
As you can see, there's no need for a " consensus of collective observations ." |
- 125 posts total