why do we argue?

Nice thread and an interesting read. Thanks

Quotes about what matters

There is wisdom in there somewhere (I think).

Less emphasis on wisdom, more on experience.

To this day I can't understand why an enthusiastic post by someone with first hand knowledge of an upgrade has to be quizzed about his experience and provide "proof" of any kind.

In my case, whenever I post about something improving my system,it's just that, an observation of something that improved my system.

Then it's up to who ever is curious to check it out.

The act of which may or may not lead to the same conclusion that the OP posted.

People for the most part want to share positive experiences.
They don't spout the praises of things that can damage you or your gear.If they did I would understand the backlash.

So I just never could understand why some folks seem to find it their mission in life to bring rain down on the parade.

And almost always,those same individuals have no experience with the practise or device in question.

Somehow they have the "voodoo" that can spot the voodoo without even knowing much about what's going on.

Perhaps it's a jaded mind set.

Maybe they were burned years ago, and did buy snake oil.

It is out there, but to some folks it's the magic remedy and makes them happy.

What's the point in spoiling that?

If you've tried it and it didn't work in your system I would much rather hear about that then just a generalization like " I just know it can't make a difference".

I would think that all those who demand pure scientific evidence about upgrades in this hobby, should first take the empirical approach.
Do the experiment yourself and then draw your conclusion.

So am I trying to provoke an argument here?

That's not my intention.

I want less bickering and more appreciation for the folks who try things and are brave enough to come forward inspite of the attacks that will come their way.

Unwarranted and unjustified attacks, most often in packs of like minded folks on a mission to clean up the hobby rid us of snake oil and get back to the basics that "it's all about the music" and nothing else.

Well if you want just the music, then go see live events.
But even there you will be dealing with electronics and wires and who knows what kind of behind the scenes snake oil.

I've gotten to a point where I am very pleased with the fruits of my labour.My system sounds great, inspite of or because of the overpriced snake oil products and practises that I use.

Had I never been exposed to such, I doubt my system would sound so good.
Although I can't provide scientific proof thereof, I do have a number of friends who would back me up on my results.

I also have to thank the few audio mentors that helped me along the way.They weren't reluctant to share some of their findings and tips about improving my sound.
Positive, not negative re-inforcement.
If your ears like what you hear, then you're on the right track.
I can't find anything to argue about that.
This grasshopper learned much.

And the most important lesson I have learned in this journey is that exposure to as many different systems at all price points is a key to understanding what it takes to make you satisfied.

If you never know that there is better than good enough,you'll be like the person who only reads part way through a novel.
Never knowing how great the book is, because you've never gone far enough to find out.

I started in this hobby a long time ago,before it became fashionable to knock everything that costs more than what you can find at the pawn shop.

Back when audiophiles all had the same common denominator, the desire to improve the sound of the music they were listening to.

I would hazard a guess that the escalating cost of the gear created this divide.

But really, do we need to argue about the small cost upgrades that we can all afford?

At the moment we have a thread with Disappointing Albums of 2012, and another something like Best Rock Album of 2012. There are several albums that appear on both lists. It doesn't seem to make sense that we could be as far apart on the technical stuff as we are on the artistic front but it sure seems that way. Most entertaining is the latest fuse upgrade "conversation". Even most supporters would admit the effects are not the most dramatic results of upgrades they have made but the thread itself has more life than most other recent ones.

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