Hi Bryon,
Interesting question. In my case I would say that the answer is neither "yes" nor "no."
Assessing the validity of the kinds of statements you refer to, as I see it, is a matter of making reasoned judgments, taking into account the science that is involved, one's own listening experience and experiments, and anecdotal evidence that is offered by others.
The anecdotal evidence part of it in turn obviously requires considerable filtering, to a degree that varies depending on:
1)How broad the consensus seems to be about the particular tweak or other matter. Which is NOT to say that broadly held beliefs will always be correct.
2)Its degree of apparent absurdity.
3)The thoroughness and degree of discipline that seems to have gone into the reported assessments. Particularly the degree of care that seems to have gone into making sure that what is reported as having been heard is attributed to the right variable.
I am a verificationist to the extent that I believe that reason, common sense, scientific understanding, careful experimentation, and disciplined methodology are an essential part of achieving optimal results.
I am also a verificationist to the extent that I reject the notion some seem to have that there is no finite limit to the degree of absurdity of a tweak beyond which it is legitimate to reject the tweak without trying it.
I am a non-verificationist to the extent I believe that known science, and scientific methodology, cannot explain and verify all of our audio-related perceptions, and also to the extent that I recognize that the finite limit I referred to above is a wide one.
If that all sounds to some like a non-answer, my feeling is that like most things in life, audio involves making judgments and educated guesses involving shades of gray and matters of degree, not choices between black and white or yes and no.
Best regards,
-- Al
Interesting question. In my case I would say that the answer is neither "yes" nor "no."
Assessing the validity of the kinds of statements you refer to, as I see it, is a matter of making reasoned judgments, taking into account the science that is involved, one's own listening experience and experiments, and anecdotal evidence that is offered by others.
The anecdotal evidence part of it in turn obviously requires considerable filtering, to a degree that varies depending on:
1)How broad the consensus seems to be about the particular tweak or other matter. Which is NOT to say that broadly held beliefs will always be correct.
2)Its degree of apparent absurdity.
3)The thoroughness and degree of discipline that seems to have gone into the reported assessments. Particularly the degree of care that seems to have gone into making sure that what is reported as having been heard is attributed to the right variable.
I am a verificationist to the extent that I believe that reason, common sense, scientific understanding, careful experimentation, and disciplined methodology are an essential part of achieving optimal results.
I am also a verificationist to the extent that I reject the notion some seem to have that there is no finite limit to the degree of absurdity of a tweak beyond which it is legitimate to reject the tweak without trying it.
I am a non-verificationist to the extent I believe that known science, and scientific methodology, cannot explain and verify all of our audio-related perceptions, and also to the extent that I recognize that the finite limit I referred to above is a wide one.
If that all sounds to some like a non-answer, my feeling is that like most things in life, audio involves making judgments and educated guesses involving shades of gray and matters of degree, not choices between black and white or yes and no.
Best regards,
-- Al