Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

Perhaps this is becoming a case of trolls meet gnomes?😉

@willemj,

That’s all they are ~ science based arguments and they do nothing to improve the experience of enjoying music, IMO.

I have invited you to have a meaningful conversation about room acoustics couple of posters ago...still waiting on that. Why don’t you start a discussion on room acoustics instead of wasting our time with one liner meaningless posts.

Physics meets metaphysics?🤨

I wish now I had studied more metaphysics than physics. - Albert Einstein

Folks would generally be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little. - PT Barnum

Of course the science of audio reproduction is not the same as the enjoyment of listening to music. Art is not science. Does more accurate reproduction increase the enjoyment? For me, yes, and that is why I have spent quite a bit of money on it, and that is why I am interested in the science and technology behind it. But just as science can tell you little about art, art cannot tell you much about science.
Anyway, as you can see, I have opened a thread on room acoustics. I hope it will help people to make their systems sound a bit closer to what they hear in the concert hall.

@willemj 

Thank you for starting a thread on room acoustics. I believe there is lot of ambiguity in this area and not enough resources to fully understand the complexities of taming and treating the room imperfections. 

I keep an open mind in this crazy hobby and not afraid to try different things to better my experience of enjoying music. And that’s all matters to me at the end of the day! 

One can't help wondering, hmmmm, are most naysayers, tweakaphobes, skeptics and science lovers/protectors of the realm actually engineers and scientists? Or are they primarily English and History majors, or perhaps audio engineers? 

When it comes to protecting the realm, one wonders who might lead the charge for assimilation, if the Borg were on their way here, and who would resist? : )

Of course, one group would want this blindly accomplished and the real irony, which I know you will appreciate, is that it would be the ultimate tweak. : )

Just having fun with this.  Apropos for both sides of the aisle  : )

Here's the tweak:

To 'blindly' go where no man has gone before....

emphasis on 'no man'  : )

One wonders if, generally speaking, naysayers and pseudo skeptics are the same folks who are convinced they cannot be hypnotized and they can pass lie detector tests if they practice. They cannot be tricked. They’re too smart and too clever to be bamboozled. Mind-over-matter and mind-matter interaction are simply too preposterous to take seriously, you know, because they’re too smart. Next up, The Mind Lamp from Psyleron. 😳

 They cannot be tricked. They’re too smart and too clever to be bamboozled.

Ah, Geoff, seems you have created a challenge worthy of your trickery.  Those damn pesky naysayers again, and they have teamed up with the pseudo skeptics, and possibly even some (gasp!) science-lovers.  Set your clock, answer your phone, load up some crystals and get ready to rumble.....The Main Event of the Evening!
Where is the popcorn?

to improve the experience of enjoying music, the Audiofool must reject all science and engineering knowledge

don’t wanna hurt your head

kosst_amojan
Can somebody explain how taping rocks to your cables makes you enjoy music more? Or how about gluing spots to your wall? Or placing bottles or bowls around the room? I’m the screwed up one because I don’t buy any lie some fool sells me? I don’t give myself to delusional thinking? I’m the troll because I don’t give audio Scientology credit? I don’t think so! The kind of thinking that drives this snake oil industry is the same thinking that led people to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat. If it was up to these clowns we’d be bleeding people to cure them, drinking radium, and be using a medical system based on the concept of humors. That’s how stupid their snake oil is. If these folks bought into these nutty ideas in any other field society would have them committed or call them cult members.

Why hold back? Tell us what you really think. By the way, I’m afraid you’ve got it backwards. It’s the naysayers who thought the world is flat and clung to their archaic beliefs no matter what. 

On my deathbed, I expect to regret that I have spent so little time debating cables with people whose views differ from my own.

On my deathbed, I expect to regret that I have spent so little time debating cables with people whose views differ from my own.

+1....Amen Brother!!

Taken from Zen and the Art of Debunkery

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

I. SETTING THE STAGE
• Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.

• Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air certifying that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Adopting a disdainful, upper-class manner is optional but highly recommended.

• Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as “ridiculous,” “trivial,” “crackpot,” or “bunk,” in a manner that purports to carry the full force of scientific authority.

• Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will send the message that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it — and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

• By every indirect means at your disposal imply that science is powerless to police itself against fraud and misperception, and that only self-appointed vigilantism can save it from itself.

• Project your subjective opinions from beneath a cloak of ostensible objectivity. Always characterize unorthodox statements as “claims,” which are “touted,” and your own assertions as “facts,” which are “stated.”

geoff kait
machina dramatica

@geoffkait 
Do you trot that one out on every thread?
Or just cable threads?

....damn that should be included on every page of this forum....gawd that was funny and dead nuts on.... was unfortunately was drinking coffee while reading that post....oh well, was well worth it....

It is interesting that the historical significant scientists and inventors that we have documented were see at their time to be total crackpots.

 
auxinput
It is interesting that the historical significant scientists and inventors that we have documented were seen at their time to be total crackpots.

>>>>>What's perhaps even more interesting, and more to the point of this thread, is that many are seen as total crackpots TODAY. Hel-loo!

Roger Russell has been writing anti-audiophile prose sine the early 2000's.
Makes for fun reading. Happy Listening!

Yet more good stuff from Zen and the Art of Debunkery

• Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that “there is no evidence!”

• When presented with mountains of data supporting the existence of an anomaly, declare that “since the probability of its being true is zero, it would take an infinite amount of data to prove it!”

• If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that “evidence alone proves nothing!” Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove ANYthing.

• Publicly praise the debunkers who invented the “absolute proof” criterion — i.e., that ironclad proof must be attained before an unorthodox claim can gain sufficient respectability to be discussed seriously. (And a brilliant move it was, because, in practice, “proof” is a matter of mainstream scientific consensus. So a marginalized phenomenon can never actually be “proven!”)

• If presented with copious documentary evidence supporting an unorthodox claim, wave it off and declare “It’s only words on paper; no reason to take any of it seriously!”

• Imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation — particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

• Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

IMHO if you cannot hear a difference with a cable change then maybe it is time to choose a new hobby.
Of course there is no correlation between the $ per ft spent vs sound quality improvement, if any at all.
But there is an audible difference....
If somebody is quite happy to be spending hard earned $ and is happy with the results then so be it, NOBODY here will ever convince them otherwise.
Likewise the flat earthers will never concede that possibly spending more than $0.05 per ft on zip wire will garner any change at all and again that is akin to flogging a dead horse.

Its about time we all just actually LISTENED to some cool music and relaxed a little.....

Headphones on, world tuned out, peace......

For anyone having trouble hearing the difference between cables or fuses or anyone growing weary of all the quantum mechanics based tweaks and metaphysical gegaws flooding the market, etc. who might be contemplating a change of hobby, can I offer the following hobbies for your consideration?

Model railroading
Trainspotting
Book collecting
Cigarrette boat racing
Free climbing, buildings, etc.
Wingsuit gliding
Body tattooing
Hurricane hunting
Macrame 

Hey, I free climb and hear differences in cables. I even feel differences in climbing shoes. Especially when listen to music on different cables. I'm an expectation-bias-loving fool.

I even feel differences in climbing shoes.

I trust that you have done double blind testing on those climbing shoes!!
LOL!!

I really don't care that science hasn't caught up to our hobby yet. Maybe someday they will. Until then I'll keep enjoying the difference that good wire makes. BTW, what happen to the OP?

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears it was a drive by. 

This roger-russell article has been discussed on the gon several times before with very similar outcomes. Really a waste of time, you either subscribe or you don’t and no amount of bickering seems to change that.

It's become the official pastime of naysayers.

The roger-russell article is not relevant till science will be able to provide accurate tests for measuring:
Brightness
Seperation between instruments
Quality of treble and bass
Soundstage quality
Level of details
Level of transparency 
Level of refinement 

All the" scientific " tests are not relevant for cables because they didn’t found a reliable scientific tests for the human musical skills hearing.

Some naysayers will say that the waterfall graph covers the aforementioned categories but they would be wrong. That doesn't address those qualities that are easily distinguishable by ear but to them, readily rejected. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Agreed. I find waterfall graphs incredibly useful for dealing with my room acoustics. As I’ve taken more and more measurements, it had surprised me how variable they are. There are obviously way more similarities between each measurement than differences, but there are enough differences to let me know that any differences in sound due to cabling would get lost in the noise of in-room measurements. I suppose you could do hundreds of measurements before and hundreds after, then try to average them and create a before/after waterfall plot, but, unfortunately REW doesn’t generate waterfall plots from averaged measurements.

@kosst-amojan
C'mon,speak your mind, lets not beat about the Bush now!

I would like to enthusiastically expand this topic with "audiophile labs" suggestion. We all should agree that any practitioner/pro training have a firm role in people’s education but, somehow (by some type of conspiracy by some kind of audio gremlins) we all are willing to battle opinions without experiencing facts. In short, Audio Shows (like the last NYC2017, I attended, which left my puzzled by an observation how is even possible somebody can present a system which reproduces tenor sax completely differently than the real life does) or Audiophile Groups (which, alone, reveal to us basic strong points but mainly nothing controllably comparable) are not sufficient. As long as so-called "social nets of audiophiles" (or, like some call them, blood-thirsty opinion tribes) are willing to curse each other but not to experience basics (such as that analog/digital wires or passive components or component matching or other well-established factors) MAY or MAY NOT affect the specific system’s audio reproduction, then we all will continue to willingly live in an audio lalaland but will be not willing to invest in exploring the human hearing sense. Let’s face it, audio industry can be also a fake news area if we allow it.