There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.
I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.
A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.
These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Thanks. I admit I read your post pretty fast, saw the "sounds familiar" and just assumed you were referencing something else. I didn’t see your follow up post.
Nonetheless I presume in either case your quoting it meant you agreed with the quote. (A reasonable assumption...?)
Feynman was, of course, awesome. An incredibly sharp intellect and a great teacher. But even the sharpest intellects can go fuzzy outside their field, especially on religion, as I think Feynman does here (having read the expanded version). He identifies the conflicts I alluded to, but then goes a bit non-committal and mushy on whether the conflicts can be removed, even suggesting at some points they can be.
I would argue that’s wrong - there’s going to be a conflict. Certainly in the case of the classic revealed religions and accepting science and the scientific method. And Feynman was trying to keep the God Of Religions in view in his argument. As for deistic arguments with more modest scope, some of those involve teleological arguments that conflict with science, others are metaphysical/ontological arguments that are at least supposed to be "outside science" but even some of those teeter on the edge. Metaphysical/ontological arguments are fun to discuss too. (I’m a bit of a philosophy geek, no expert but I enjoy this stuff - I get all geeked when the subjects turn to ethics, free will, science, religion, epistemology etc. So your post caught my eye. It looks like you have an interest too).
But...this ain’t the place. Too bad there’s no "lounge" around here. :-)
@prof - Had you bothered to read the follow-up post(then again, perhaps you did and it didn’t register), those words were a verbatim quote, from a very well regarded physicist, Nobel laureate and lecturer’s book. That’s why I postscripted the statement with, "Sound familiar to anyone?" In case you’re unable to find that post and the reference: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 Perhaps your audio guru can help you with your situational awareness. Happy listening!
So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone?
If you'd said there was consistency between a moral view and scientific information I would have agreed.
But when you say a consistency between *religious* morality and scientific information I would disagree. Religious morality tends to incorporate historical and ontological claims that can conflict with scientific information. (Not to mention, the general conflict between faith, or religious knowledge and science itself...)
But that's a discussion for another type of forum....:-)
the OP speaks very wise words. I'll never forget the incident about 10 years ago, a self-proclaimed guru was proclaiming how great his McIntosh amp sounded. yes, it did sound good. but it didn't sound $5000 good. it actually didn't image or soundstage as well as some $500 single ended pentode systems I've heard and owned in the past. I said so and was reprimanded and warned on the website, because he was the moderator. so I put up a video of my own system playing tapes in my 14' x 28' living room, on YouTube. the videos got noticed on the site, and praised the moderator then banned me, and also reported my video to YouTube for copyright infringement, because I played a few vintage rock tapes on it- and the video was silenced by YouTube. all this because the cheap $500 system could run with and image/soundstage better, than his high dollar McIntosh setup, and he did it because he was peddling the stuff. not to say McIntosh isn't really good- but stifling and stymying information to monetary gain, is really bad. I've seen this phenom again and again, on various message boards.
@teo_audio- A couple pages back, you posted some comments that can be boiled down to(unless I’m mistaken), NEVER STOP LEARNING. Here’s a book that might interest you(et al), being very inspirational, in that regard: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 The above(regarding Science/religion) was quoted(verbatum) from it’s pages. Also: "It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely."(Though it’s been decades, since these words were written, to my knowledge, they still hold true.) His thought continues:
"That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth."
@erik_squires - That’s much harder to get away with, climbing to altitude in a crowded Cessna 182(especially, on a hot day). I’ve found, looking at the pilot, and simply saying, "DAMN!", works well though.
The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First: If I do this, what will happen? And second: Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value...of good?
Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question, any question, philosophical or other, which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment, is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.
I claim that whether you want something to happen or not: what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens, in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone?
Well, you know how it is. If you can’t fart in a crowded elevator and observe the pained attempts at normalcy, then what fun would life be?
Anyway, it can be like that. Some value normalcy over acts of open noticing of the silliness of some of the frameworks of this thing we are in, and so called space we occupy.
Fitting in and dancing the square dance of life with everyone else creates enough cohesion and stability to notice.... but too much cohesion creates a sameness that is pretty well synonymous with death.
In there somewhere is this lurching thing we call humanity, it moves like a drunken car slamming off the road barrier on one side, over to the other. If it were stable, that would just be another form of death.
Sameness is sameness in any context an it is dangerous to the growth and continuance of intelligence, but too much chaos breaks down the frameworks which intelligence attempts to create itself in.
So who’s to say in the end? Some human, or human organization... with a limited view? I don’t think so....
Wow. Last time I listened to music it was because I like music and it’s fun and nourishing of the soul. The pursuit of great or perfect sound, the hobby of playing with toys and don’t fool yourself expensive audio equipment are toys, for boys; is a massive waste of money and time. Wasting money is fine, it’s like Doritos, they’ll always make more. Time is finite. Think that when your time is done you’ll be happy to have wasted so much of it on this foolish hobby or would you want some of it back to listen to music, cuddle with your dog, love your loved ones?
Since we’ve touched on science & Buddhism, here’s an anecdote told by the Dalai Lama...
Traditional Buddhism teaches that the moon is lit from within. As a young boy, the Dalai Lama was very interested in astronomy and had his own telescope. It quickly become clear to him that the moon’s light was not from within, but reflected from the sun. His conclusion?
"When Buddhism is wrong, Buddhism must change."
Science is constantly changing as we make new discoveries, and it’s refreshing to hear someone say that religion should be just as flexible. Unless you literally ’know everything’ your beliefs and opinions should be too.
>>>I’m not sure I agree with your detective work inasmuch as Science is not really constantly changing. Science is becoming more and more a description of reality which is different from constantly changing. Science is extremely conservative and only changes very slowly and methodically. Theoretically science should change less and less quickly. Hyperbolically you could say. Name one new discovery. Religion, on the other hand, seems to change for political or self-serving reasons.
Since we've touched on science & Buddhism, here's an anecdote told by the Dalai Lama...
Traditional Buddhism teaches that the moon is lit from within. As a young boy, the Dalai Lama was very interested in astronomy and had his own telescope. It quickly become clear to him that the moon's light was not from within, but reflected from the sun. His conclusion?
"When Buddhism is wrong, Buddhism must change."
Science is constantly changing as we make new discoveries, and it's refreshing to hear someone say that religion should be just as flexible. Unless you literally 'know everything' your beliefs and opinions should be too.
Guys (and gals) please don't make this into measurement vs. listening. That's not the OP's topic.
Supertweak, get off it, man. This thread is not here for you to rant. We're sorry if Geoff hurt your feelings, but...c'mon. Let's talk audio, not troll wars.
As for me... I try only to offer advice from my personal experience with music & audio; No absolutes or pronouncements or "truths", just what I've learned from experience and what works for me. I hope that some people find my posts helpful in achieving better sound and enjoying it.
Can an atheist blaspheme, if there’s no God in their universe? Just asking(no one else is staying on topic either.....well- not everyone, to avoid absolutes, that is)!
Technically, yes. Blasphemy isn't about what you believe, but what you say or do. That's why it is so dangerous to those who hold power using religion as a claim to legitimacy.
Though there are some cases where police have had to enforce religious laws only upon the faithful, but not on others.
Can an atheist blaspheme, if there’s no God in their universe? Just asking(no one else is staying on topic either.....well- not everyone, to avoid absolutes, that is)!
Excuse me for saying so but there’s a fine line between blasphemy and just being silly. And between a blasphemer and a pseudo skeptic. Pseu-pseu-pseudio! 🕺
It’s true! Fixing new problems like ground loops, bad drivers, "does my amp need to be repaired" or "why is my remote not working" type of questions all benefit from those who have gone before.
I think the idea of a "guru" in this thread are those who promise to have a grasp on absolute truths of value, performance and experience. Those privileged to claim what is and is not hi-fi.
Goodness knows I’ve had to rely on others for all sorts of issues. :)
But overall her post is well taken. As many here may remember, I make my own speakers. I have enough measurement gear here to tell me exactly what the components are doing through the design and development phase, right up to the point I put them on a stand. But my tools don’t buy speakers. I do. Therefore I spend money which my experience, not my tools, say is worthwhile. I encourage others to do the same.
This is also the path to personal satisfaction and cost savings. Once you let go of guru's and money being at all indicative of how much musical satisfaction a product will offer, you can be an amazing audiophile on the cheap! :)
What I find interesting is how many times I’ve seen a poster come here, looking for a guru, because (as an example) they’ve tried power cable A and B and don’t know which one sounds better, so they need to come here and ask someone. Our very culture encourages us to disbelieve our own senses. If you can’t tell a difference between A and B, assuming equal reliability and safety, for goodness sakes, buy the cheaper one!
On a related note: Talking tech is a whole lot of fun, but again, it’s the experience that matters. Silk vs. ceramic dome’s, Class A vs. Class D, fun to talk about, but let’s not get caught up in it. In the end, it’s what you hear and see that should make the sale. Not the Gallium Cyanide (or whatever) transistors were just used by brand X.
There is one thing I am religious about though: Every audiophile should build their own speaker at least once in their hobby life. It is a transforming experience and our hobby will be better for it. Ready to assemble kits are inexpensive and easy to make.
Postscript: Please, don’t get me wrong. Over the years, I’ve also used a wide variety of test equipment and measurements, to confirm, set up and test whatever my senses have registered, wherever/whenever applicable/advisable. Trust, but verify!
Just needing to vent: If you don’t like it, don’t believe it can work, haven’t tried it, or can’t measure why it sounds like that(whatever the, "it" might be): DON’T tell me I can’t trust the ears that have kept me alive(in a number of scenarios), and allowed me to enhance the listening enjoyment and performances of a number of grateful music listeners and musicians, in a number of venues(home/hall/etc), while making a living(over a few decades). Not to mention: the countless hours of relaxation and enjoyment, that they(and music) have provided. I’ve tested and trust them WAY MORE than your opinions/beliefs! Your tastes and senses are not mine, and I refuse to miss anything, based on whatever narrow road you may be traveling(whoever you are). Whatever piques my interest: I’ll watch, listen, taste, touch, or smell it for myself, thank you. Happy listening!
Never trust a poster who says ‘prove it’. He’s an imposter! If you have doubt, you DISPROVE it sweetie, I’m too busy enjoying the music.
i trust my ears the way I trusted those records I co produced and mixed that went on to sell millions and allowed me to invest in hi end equipment starting me on the journey to reproduce the sound I heard in the studio and on those Records with the sound in my listening room. I wasn’t out to prove anything to anyone but myself. I just wanted to feel the joy outside of booking Abbey Road for the pleasure.
I read the mags fed on the churnalistic BS and realised eventually that I was being lied to. I was being conned by HIFI gurus who wrote extensively in these mags and often contradict led themselves all over the place.
Epiphany moment. It starts with the amp. When that fell into place I knew I was getting closer. I ended up with one of the least popular amps probably on planet hiend. Not because it isn’t amazing but more because the company have absolutely no idea how to market it. No I’m not revealing which amp because they named an edition after me due to my ( they said) uncanny ability to get more out of it than even they could. It’s one of those tweaker amps with near infinite options.
BTW I also auditioned a fuse. Yes it improved the sound. Go figure!
If anyone on here things ‘measurements’ tell the whole story using the BS argument ‘if you can’t meaure it...’ then quite frankly they aught to be made to listen to The Backstreet Boys full volume 24/7 for a month.
The good Lord gave you ears to judge. Use ‘em. And trust ‘em
The fuse does only what fuses do, they don't provide any part of the tone of any device unless they're blown, in which case they do have an effect in that things shut down so there's simply no tone at all. The "inconstant non-repeating odd order harmonic" issue isn't an actual thing, nobody needs to worry about that or shell out big bucks simply because somebody coated the fuse case with graphene or fairy dust. It's a fuse.
Objectivity is a state of mind in a purely subjective reality. Everything in this place runs through a subjectivity fundamental filter.
Objectivity is merely and agreed upon individually derived mindset. Objectivity only exists in your mind. It’s a convention. A concept. A projection. Nothing more.
Anyone who thinks objectivity is a real thing, really needs to get back to psych 101 class and get mentally slapped about and around for quite a while, until they let go of that fundamental logic error. :)
Everyone agrees on orange.
In reality there are 7 billion interpretations of orange, and not one of them is the same.
Ear/brain combinations are far worse in this respect, regarding the level of individuation of differences.
Geoff, you don’t seem to have a clue how critical thinking and consistency works.
The way you think I should operate when being skeptical is the opposite of being skeptical! No wonder you push teleportation tweaks!
I have a very heavy, expensive, delicate turntable. The isolation shelf is a major contraption. I was not able to listen to the turntable before I had my rack re-built to accommodate the turntable (which included adding the layering/isolation components).
Therefore I had no before and after to compare.
And now that I have the shelf and turntable set up, how in the world am I to do any practical back and forth testing? Listen...take disassemble the turntable taking it off the shelf, take the shelf off, put the turntable back on and listen again? Then if I want to switch back to compare...do all that again and again? That would of course be absurdly impractical, not to mention the last thing I want would be my delicate turntable risking mayhem every time I had to disassemble the system and put it back to do any such back and forth.
And what am I going to do if I wanted to blind test it; yell out to my helper "ok, I heard it with the isolation stand - now disassemble the turntable and take it off the stand!"
As I’ve said: sometimes - often even - blind testing for some differences may be impractical to impossible in a domestic setting. So in no way do I say everyone needs to be doing this, including myself.
BUT...as I wrote before...I therefore scale my claims to the level of evidence I have. I don’t have any tests or evidence that my isolation base altered the sound of my vinyl playback vs no base. So I simply don’t make the claim either way.
That you can not recognize the reasonableness of this speaks volumes.
(A lot of this changes for manufacturers, though, who could in many more practical cases produce iterations of an item - with and without tweak X - and compare them in a listener-bias- controlled fashion).
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
