Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
Cleeds, you just re-asserted a bunch of empty-sounding beefs that seem to simply ignore Amirs points. I’m thinking the problem isn’t Amir. as he says: no one needs to buy anything due to ASR. He is providing information for those who want it. I’m glad that alternative view is out there, rather than only having Golden Ear anecdotes to go on. |
If someone has designed something in a way that suggests they don’t know what they are doing, or measures something in a way that suggests they don’t know what they are doing, that is worth pointing out by Amir...or anyone else with the knowledge to do so. Funny how many ASR-averse audiophiles jump on Amir claiming "he doesn’t know what he’s doing" but...no hint of criticism about that, right?
Amir’s youtube videos are hugely popular and he generally does provide data that can stand on it’s own. IF the viewer/reader is technically literate enough. However...the point is that Amir is aware that most of his audience does NOT have the technical knowledge and gear to vet these claims, which is why Amir spends time explaining what the measurements mean, and when something isn’t doing what it claims to do.
That seems to make a lot of golden eared audiophiles salty. That’s mostly their problem IMO.
Amir and ASR get slagged on forums like this, where strawmen accusations and inaccurate claims are made about him and the site. It’s completely his right, and certainly worthwhile, for him to engage with some of this criticism to correct some of the misinformation. The thing is his critics will never cut him slack. They generally won’t show up on ASR to challenge Amir’s reviews with objective evidence. Instead you see people in forums like this sniping and criticizing, and if Amir ignores it then "Amir just ignores all the critiques of his approach and reviews!" But if Amir actually makes the effort to show up and address the critiques then it’s "Amir is so obnoxious and evangelical, he can’t just leave other audiophiles alone..." Yeesh. |
I think a member who isn’t pleased with a post can just report it, which usually results in the post being quickly deleted. Seems like it can be a petty "I’ll show them" response. So it’s not necessarily that mods are scouring the thread looking to delete. I’ve had plenty of bafflingly benign posts deleted via, I believe, this route. |
Ok, cool. Nobody is forcing audiophiles to become more educated. But it's great that Amir is testing manufacturer's claims so that knowledge is available for the many audiophiles who actually do care (but who don't have the equipment or technical know-now to vet those claims themselves).
|
Thank you for your service in terms of public health, and my condolences on the health issues you face. However...this...
...seems like a bit of a moralizing dig at Amir. "sitting around measuring bits of hifi." A suggestion that his spending time on audio gear is less noble than what your "sense of public duty" compels you to spend your time on. I don't know if you meant it that way, but that's how it comes across. If so: that same "dig" could be made about every single person in this forum and in this hobby. "Don't you have BETTER, more noble ways to spend your time/money than posting on an audio forum, or on the audio/music hobby?" You find listening to music as your getaway, your way of spending your spare time. Amir or others enjoy understanding and measuring audio equipment, and sharing that information with others who are interested. Such is the variety of life. One can just say "I'm not really interested in spending my time measuring equipment. It's not something I'm that interested in." That's pretty much the case for me. I'll leave that to others more interested and technically inclined than I am do that.
|
There certainly is a lot of absurdity, but there’s also lots of good content as well (much of it from Amir).
Who do you think is actually doing that? You know audio engineering is not the same as "music," right? Audio engineering involves quantification to understand what is going on so the engineer can take the right steps towards getting what he wants to achieve. Nobody is "objectifying" their enjoyment of music. Whatever music you enjoy is totally subjective, and no (normal) engineer would say otherwise. You may as well say "I don’t care to objectify my call to my mother on my iphone." Well of course not. But the engineering behind your iphone relies on objectively verifiable results in order for you to have that phone to enjoy conversations with your mom.
|
Translation: We'd like to be able to slag Amir and his site publicly, without any push-back or correction to any nonsense we may be spreading. Nah. If you are going to slag someone publicly, don't complain if they show up to set the record straight.
|
I find it utterly bizarre that you have actually spent much time on ASR and came away with that clearly false impression. Amir is constantly pointing out issues with measurements and gives subjective impressions, often between the component with the measured flaws, vs trying to correct them with EQ etc.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-chora-816-speaker-review.42988/ Review after review correlates measurements with audible consequences! The only way I can imagine you drew your impression was looking for reviews of gear where measurable quirks were below the threshold of audibility, hence Amir does not comment on them. In other words "Amir never comments on the different sound between my favorite cable, or DAC, or amp..."
|
Ah...the old "the problem is your gear or your ears" refrain from the Golden Ears. Really...it's the only response they have, which is why you see it over and over and over and over and..... I can hear angels singing on the Kinda Blue record. What, it's not measurable and you can't hear them? Well, it couldn't be my imagination...so it must be your gear isn't resolving enough or your hearing isn't acute enough. The cozy, unfalsifiable world of the audiophile...
|
Yes actually it can. Measurements really can tell you what you won't hear in a cable. Amir showed how the measured signal of the Nordost lined right up with that of a cheap cable. That tells you they will be audibly indistinguishable (in any likely set up). You apparently reject this because you believe whatever you think you hear. That's the problem. It's no doubt the same problem that lead you to claim:
On what basis do you conclude the Topping is not "high end?" What do you think that means? Amir actually has measurements showing the excellent performance of the Topping, with noise below our hearing threshold. It's not "high end" in being expensive...but you shouldn't judge gear based on price, but on performance! And not on manufacturer's claims either. Amir actually tests manufacturers claims. And if you simply reject the objective evidence Amir provides because your "ears" tell you, after listening to the Topping, it's not "high end" then that just brings us back to my point: it's the Golden Ear refrain. "I Know What I Hear...measurements be damned." It's not actually unfalsifiable, because you COULD put what you think you hear to blind test controlling for bias. But most audiophiles won't do that, so in their world "what they perceive" is unfalsifiable. Just like my claim to hear angels on the Miles Davis record. And since I won't be blind tested, and I reject the primacy of measurements, well...nobody can prove me wrong.
|
FWIW, my system: Joseph Audio Perspective 2 Graphene speakers Thiel 2.7 Speakers. (I’ve owned or used plenty of speakers, from MBL, to various ,Audio Physic, Von Schweikert, Waveform, Hales, Harbeth, Spendor and many others, but I’ve pruned down my collection). Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks CJ Premier 16LS2 preamp Benchmark LA4 preamp Benchmark DAC2L Bluenode music server (ripped lossless CDs/Tidal) Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable/Acoustic Solid 12" arm/Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge. JE Audio HP10 phono stage. Degritter Ultra Sonic record cleaner. Listening room was re-constructed with the input of a professional acoustician. Sounds amazing. Hope that helps your curiosity :-)
|
I’ve tried SS amps in my system over the years, most recently the Bryston 4B3, and I have always ultimately preferred my CJs. I enjoy the slightly cleaner sound of my Benchmark SS preamp sometimes vs the CJ tube preamp...but then again often prefer the CJ preamp. (I actually did a blind test between them, just out of curiosity). My view is that ultimately the level of distortion we are talking about in, say, my CJ tube amps vs a Topping or Benchmark amp, are quite low. There’s no "incredible revelation of detail" from some of the best measuring solid state amplification even compared to my old tube amps. With the tube amps it’s more of a slightly different presentation of details, vs one being "way more revealing" than another. Of course being an audiophile means obsessing over the tiniest sonic differences. That’s what makes us kooks vs the general public :-) So I use the tube amps because even if the audible difference is very subtle in the big picture, it’s a subtlety that is subjectively significant for me. But I certainly think it’s a great thing for people like Amir to get measurements out there so an audiophile who wishes to can use that information. An audiophile who is seeking accuracy isn’t going to choose my tube amps over a Topping, and knowing measurements can help ensure he knows what he’s getting.
|
I haven't defended Audioquest USB cables. This one appears to fit the definition of snake oil. Implausible claims made for the cable that, predictably, do not bear out when tested:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audioquest-pearl-usb-cable-review.36448/
|
I'm curious what point you wish to make with that anecdote. What did your friend expect from the AHB2 that he did not get? Is it possible his expectations were not realistic as to what he should hear with that amp? |
Sure, I'm aware there are all sorts of places where room treatment will be touted. Amir is going against the grain of what many people think, including likely some at gearspace. I don't know if he's right. But he does reference technical arguments and studies in support of his argument, so if someone wants to argue the other point, hopefully they can marshal stronger evidence. Rather than just "Amir is a meanie" type stuff.
|
^^^ This is as perfect a product of scientific ignorance as one would like to find. It's the life-blood of companies that sell products with dubious technical claims. You can see exactly that attitude repeated over and over from every fringe belief system showing up at your local New Age and Psychic Fair. "Only YOU can tell FOR YOURSELF if these Healing Crystals work! Trust Yourself and your perception Above All" It's basically the epistemology that ran rampant before science arose. It misses out precisely on why science had to arise: Yes, test. But, *control for known variables* (which include your ability to fool yourself). If you aren't doing that, your tests are no more rigorous than those used for bloodletting or the Power Of The Local Witchdoctor to Heal.
|
I'm curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade. It's been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker. In fact, it's often the "objectivist" who actually says "I'm open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me." It's often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can't measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don't hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn't resolving enough or your ears aren't resolving enough." That's already played out in this thread, as it *always* does. The objectivist says "like any human I'm capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn't hear what I KNOW I heard" isn't taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back. And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making 'arrogant claims,' where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it's "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it's a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum. This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up. So I'm wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?
|
And yet in the post I quoted I saw no inkling that you have taken one of Feynman’s most famous cautions to heart, when it comes to investigating reality: FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Do you understand what he was getting at there? I don’t see that you do, since the post I quoted admonished people: "IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF. " You were clearly, against Feynman’s advice, telling people to trust in themselves, to accurately understand what is going on. Not a hint of Feynman’s scientific caution that any method ought to control for the ways in which we are prone to error and misconception and bias. Just "try it and trust yourself." And of course the rest of what you’d written in that quote about science and everything else was one long strawman.
|
Ok, there I have to disagree. I think a statement like that is unhelpfully dogmatic. You could make the point that measuring will help show bass response deviations from neutral, and that these can be corrected for if you want a neutral bass response. But...one can also get a fairly smooth bass response by ear. Not as accurate as an instrument, but it is the ear, how we perceive the sound, that one can care about pleasing. Remember: there’s little point in caring about things you can’t hear. The point of addressing bass nodes is that you can hear them. Which means you can hear them without an instrument (even if not as precisely quantified). So one can experiment with speaker/listening positions, with test signals or well known tracks, to hear when a bass node or dip may be intruding on the sound. If a bass error response is something you can’t notice, or it occurs so infrequently that it rarely infringes on your enjoyment of the sound, then big whoop. I haven’t used measurements in my set up. Is there some bass node somewhere that would show up in measurements? No doubt. Does it regularly stand out in some deleterious way? Nope. I’ve heard many of my test tracks (which include bass torture tests for tightness/depth etc) on systems that have some correction for room response (e.g. numerous times with the Kii Audio 3 speakers) and the bass I hear at home is similarly smooth. (I did at one point have subwoofers and room correction for the bass - it wasn't much smoother to my ears than what I'd achieved without the correction). And declaring any system that wasn’t arrived at with measurements and room correction to be "lousy system" is a subjective opinion - nobody need take your subjective opinion as the basis for what they want in their own system, or in place of their own goals or judgement. I suppose it’s quite possible if you listened to my system at some point you might hear a room interaction that could have been fixed, and then declare it "lousy" by those standards. But by the standards I seek it’s wonderful, and by the standards of what my guests experience when listening - joy and astonishment, I’ve had people moved to tears - well, if that’s "lousy" I’ll take "lousy." ;-) Cheers. |
It’s amazing that you don’t know. Here’s the quote, one last time: FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. What do you think Feynman means by that, Rodman? How might we fool ourselves? And what is he indicating in saying "and you are the easiest person to fool?" What steps, would this suggest in a method of empirical inquiry? What variables might he be referencing? Are you aware of the long scientific literature on the subject that would bear on this question in terms of how human beings think? And what steps science often takes to minimize that variable? Feynman wants us to learn from experience....but it is a *specific type of carefully controlled experience.* The type that separates scientifically gained knowledge from, say, dowsing, or astrology, or religion, or new age healing crystals etc. "Try It For Yourself" does not capture the specific rigor of the scientific method. I’ve given you all the pieces, I’m sure you can put it together in to answering what Feynman meant (and thus how your previous post had ignored Feynman’s warning).
|
And yet you posted this as relevant to the thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2582812 And told us you revered Feynman! Look, I tried to engage you on Feynman and the relevance of the scientific method, but it’s clear now you can’t answer the question I posed. If you want to just continue only answering with insults...you do you. I’m out.
|
What is that link supposed to prove? That poster, Triliza, was responding to a technically dubious claim made for USB cables. He rightly pointed out there is lots of nonsense in regard to expensive cables, for instance as an example for digital transmission, there will be no visible difference between a properly spec'd cheap HDMI cable or a $1,000 HDMI cable. He is correct. He simply asked for some more reliable, rigorous evidence for a company's claim than had been provided, since that would help distinguish truthful claims from snake oil claims. That's all perfectly reasonable. And it was not, btw, an instance of calling anything snake oil JUST because it was expensive. It has to do with the CLAIMS FOR THE PRODUCT, whether the claims are B.S. or not. If they are not, as Amir said, then of course anyone can spend whatever he wants, but it's good to at least know what you are actually getting.
|
That’s literally NOT what Feynman said. He wasn’t saying "doubt others" and "trust yourself. His point was very specifically about YOU...the person with the hypothesis/experimenter. Try actually addressing SPECIFICALLY what Feynman said in that quote: FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself Why would that be the first principle? What are ways we can fool ourselves, mahgister? and you are the easiest person to fool. Why is Feynman so concerned to point out that YOU are the easiest person to fool (that is, fooling ourself)? WHY are we the easiest person to fool? What do you think Feynman means by that, and why it is so important to account for it in our method?
|
Amir came in to a thread in which there were already plenty of personal attacks on him and disparagement of his forum. He was very measured given how many other people could react. You seem to ge ignoring the amount of ad hominem and insults sent at Amir, as if HE is the egoist insulting people. Don't forget to look in your own backyard before casting stones, IMO.
|
That's not the same and you know it. You know very well that "snake oil" is a reference to products that do not do what they are claimed to do. That TacT Amir owned did what it claims to do: perform audible corrections to the sound. That something breaks doesn't make it "snake oil." That's just a disingenuous attempt at some "gotcha." Seriously...and you guys are up Amir's butt for the style of HIS posts?
|
You are all over the place. First you said someone was calling "it all" snake oil, when that person had only said he wanted to see good evidence for a dubious claim, to distinguish it from snake oil. It wasn’t "everything expensive is snake oil" Now you’ve pirouetted to complain that Amir didn’t recommend a $1,000 USB cable due to it’s high price??? Well of course not! He’d just finished showing it’s performance was indistinguishable from a cheap generic USB cable! Why WOULD he turn around and recommend people pay $1,000 for a cable that promises better fidelity, but doesn’t deliver it???
|
No, you wrote in utterly vague circles, never landing on his actual point. His point clearly had to do with what separates the scientific endeavour from everyday level inferences. When Fynman says "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." That is clearly a warning about the influence of human BIAS in distorting and guidling our conclusions. "You are the easist person to fool" is a reference to how easy it is for us to filter explanations and evidence to fit our desires or biases. In fact, we are easy to fool through various pitfalls in thought, even when we are trying to not be biased. When YOU are the one doing the testing YOUR actions and interpretations will have a blind spot of your own bias. He admonishes us therefore The first principle is that you must not fool yourself," which means we have to incorporate guardrails against fooling ourslef in to our methods of inquiry. This is so obvious it's just hard to believe folks like you and rodman can't just state what he meant. Since our biases form such an obvious, first problem in interpreting results, this is why there are various methods of mitigating the influence of bias in scientific testing. It's why for instance many therapeutic trials are done blind, double and even triple blinded. It's why you want to have a hypothesis that is testable by other parties, looking to prove your hypothesis wrong, themselves using safeguards against their own bias effects. This has OBVIOUS implications for testing audio claims. If for instance sighted bias is a known confounding variable - a prime way of FOOLING YOURSELF - then Feynman's admonishment clearly indicates you should find a way to rule out that way of FOOLING YOURSELF. Job ONE of the approach he is advocating! This is why most of the scientific level of research on human perception in general, and much that is available on the perception of audio gear (e.g. the research often cited by Floyd Toole) is done with controls for those variables so the FOOLING YOURSELF part is mitigated as much as possible. Of course neither you nor anyone else no this forum needs to do scientific-level rigorous research in order to enjoy the hobby or buy whatever you want. But if someone is invoking Feynman in a thread that clearly entails the relevance of science to audio, then at least get what he was saying. You can ignore it...but at least understand it.
|
No, when Amir pointed out the Tact was not snake oil, textbychoice implied it was as Amir spent "$15K on an audio toy that ended up being useless.'" That is an utterly disingenuous spin on Amir's situation with the Tact. It wasn't snake oil, it worked for it's purpose. Years after owning it, it became bricked by new firmware (hardly unheard of with computer devices). Something that actually did what it technically claimed to do, worked, but then got broken in a mishap, then simply isn't what "snake oil" means. It's just cheap attempts at "you do it too, nyah, nyah" stuff..
Hardly. Amir and I have clashed occasionally on his forum, I'm sometimes seen as a "subjectivist in sheep's clothing" on the ASR forum :-) And did you miss my critique of one of Amir's statements in this very thread? https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2582798 I'm not on sides per se - on ASR I will both critique Agon forums and defend them. I'll critique subjective reviews and also defend them. I'll critique claims on ASR but also defend those I find defensible. I'm not on a team. I'm just trying to call 'em as I see 'em. The reason I jump in to a thread like this isn't because I think Amir and ASR is above criticism. As Amir keeps pointing out, he gets criticism all the time on ASR. It's just that sound criticism in threads like these are mixed in with SO much b.s., strawmen, ad hominem. It really is a bad show for Audiogon forums unfortunately. And it's not "just because of Amir showing up with an ego!" I agree with Amir: all the varieties of "but you have a big ego" are ad hominem: address his arguments, his evidence. Is he correct, and therefor giving helpful information to audiophiles, or not? The replies to him have been generally terribly weak on rebutting substance. (Which is why I find myself often on ASR these days over Agon. I come to Agon to engage in subjective talk, which I really enjoy).
|
Great. So it's not a snake oil product. And yet you'd quoted Amir saying it wasn't a snake oil product and implied it may as well have been. That's the sneaky part I was getting at. As to Amir's views on crossover parts - he's either right or wrong. You don't decide this by continually calling him arrogant. He walks the walk - puts up objective evidence for his claims. Anyone is welcome to do likewise in debating any of his claims. As for room treatment, again...you can take his claims to task...or not. But all the stuff about "ego" is a sideshow, and one only concentrates on that if they don't have a substantive argument against the claims. I believe Amir linked to an ASR thread in which his arguments about room treatment are being critiqued in various ways, by people adducing technical claims, measured evidence etc. So, maybe read on it, make up your own mind. My own room has forms of room treatment, and I enjoy experimenting with it to achieve various goals.
|
That's not true. Sure many at ASR roll their eyes at the extreme high end gear prices. But generally the term "snake oil" is used on ASR to refer to products that don't do what they claim to do, not "just because it's expensive." I think you are mixing up the fact someone may occasionally use the term "snake oil" while talking about very expensive gear. But it's not "because it's an expensive system." It's when people are paying lots of money on the belief that is getting them the "better sound" promised by a product. For instance someone referenced the million dollar Estelon based system at Axpona and used the term "snake oil" but that was in pointing out things like the $330,000 cost of the cabling! It's not "snake oil just because it's expensive." It's snake oil "because they are charging people huge prices on the basis of claiming audibly superior performance" over cheaper cable, and many at ASR are technically proficient enough to explain why the claims are nonsense (and point out how they are virtually never actually demonstrated in any rigorous manner, either by measurements or controlled listening tests...it's all about the usual audiophile anecdotes). |
I’m hardly unaware of the use of room treatment. I work in pro audio. Post production sound. I work out of purpose built mixing studios that cost millions of dollars, some of which goes to the acoustic design/treatments in the room. I had a professional acoustician help design my own room, and so it contains various room treatments, as I indicated. So when you write this: What youre saying is based on one guy, who has no experience in any of those fields knows better and they are misinformed? I don’t know what you mean. I’m not basing everything I believe on Amir or "saying" room treatments don’t work. I have a general idea of the concepts involved, but I’m not an engineer, or scientist or acoustician, therefore I stay in my lane and watch the technical claims go back and forth. Like I said, Amir provides references to back up his arguments, says he is simply pointing to what the best information we have seems to indicate, and why. If someone wants to challenge it...bring an A game, with robust evidence. There are numerous challenges to Amir’s argument over on ASR. (So no, it’s very far from a hive-minded cult leader thing). |
You are simply wrong. You are part of the problem in spreading misinformation like that. I have over 5,000 posts on ASR. How many do you have in terms of actual familiarity with day to day content? I know how the term "snake oil" is is typically used there - it is usually used to denote bogus or dubious claims made for a product. And yes there is much disparagement there about audiophile companies charging high prices FOR BOGUS or unsupported claims. That's the point - with snake oil you aren't getting the performance you are led to believe you were getting in paying all that extra money over cheaper alternatives. Anyone can see you are wrong by going to ASR, search "snake oil." You will see it normally used just as I've described. Stop spreading misinformation, and then maybe Amir won't have to spend his time showing up to correct it. |
Please stop with the cheap attempts to pigeonhole rather than produce intelligent arguments. I’ve been an Agon forum member years before I ever joined ASR. I’m a member of all types of forums, Steve Hoffman, AVScience forum, What’s Best forum, long time Audio Asylum member, etc. I’ve been discussing gear here in a "subjective" context for many years but also anyone who knows me knows I have defended the relevance of measurements and science to audio claims as well. Well before I joined ASR. So it’s hardly like I’ve been sent to hijack a thread. (Where of course "hi-jack" in your terms would mean "not letting us produce any b.s. and insults we want, without pushback").
Again...facile insults in place of actually trying to understand what someone has said. Not once, ever, in this thread or anywhere else have I even implied "Amir is always right, everyone else is wrong." I’ve been explicit that isn’t the case! Did you still miss my critique IN THIS VERY THREAD of Amir’s post in this very which I argued was too dogmatic? I critique Amir on his site, so do plenty of ASR members. Your lazily throwing around labels like "cult" is not helping your credibility. Instead you are feeding in to stereotypes about people on this site - stereotypes about not having strong evidence against Amir’s claims, and so resorting to empty insults instead. Fortunately that doesn’t represent most on this site, but you seem bent on exemplifying this behavior. Once again, I’m not saying "Amir is always right" but rather, if he’s pointing to empirical/measurable evidence for his claims, it’s best to up your game from insults and assertions to bringing strong evidence against his case. And I’m just pointing out b.s. characterizations of a forum I know well, when I see them in this thread. For instance:
Both you guys claimed ASR routinely declares claims/gear "snake oil" simply based on high prices, and that is flatly wrong. I’ve argued that is NOT "typical" of how people apply the term on ASR. As I said, a search for "snake oil" on ASR will demonstrate my claim to be true. And somethingsomethingaudio searched, found an ASR thread discussing what snake oil means, and completely ignored that it demonstrated he was wrong and I was correct: that vast majority of replies - making it "typical" - put snake oil as some version of a product "not doing what the product claims it can do," not mere "high price." somethingsomethingaudio had to ignore all that and hunt and peck for one example where he *thought* contradicted this. But that he had to choose that out of all the other posts, just shows I was right about what is the "typical" view on ASR. And it didn’t even turn out to support his point, as Amir pointed out. So, yeah, you guys are spouting some real nonsense about ASR, and you are being called on it. Characterizing this as "hi-jacking" is weak tea when you are caught being lazy or disingenuous in your claims.
|
Amir made a point that audiophiles driven to do things like that cable lifter seem more indicative of cult-like thinking than those that appeal to more objective evidence - offering data for critical scrutiny and debate by others - such as he posted. You could rebut his point, but of course using the word "trolling" is always easier, isn’t it?
|
https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2582823
That's what happens when a bias causes you to ignore stuff that isn't supporting your current interpretation. I mentioned it more than once after posting. |
Yep. There’s also a streak of anti-expertise too. "How DARE someone deign to tell me something as if it’s just a fact! Like Who Made You The Lord Of What’s True??!!" The Golden Ear approach is attractive because it allows non-experts to always feel like they can trump experts, to always have a trump card. "Yeah, well mr "trained in the relevant field" expert... you and all your theory, measurements and evidence? Since my experience contradicts your "knowledge" it just shows what you don’t know. Our Ears Don’t Lie!" It’s an inherently anti-expertise stance, (particularly popular at this time) and so someone who actually knows more about the relevant technology, who actually has expertise they lack...and..stating things as facts? It can’t be that he knows what he’s talking about. That just has to be someone on their high horse that needs to be knocked down a peg. This thread is full of this sort of turf-protection (not to mention not a little dunning-kruger syndrome...)
|
Again, I’m thankful to rodman99999 for providing the longer quotes from Feynman which serve so well to support the point I’d been making (as well as Amir). Let’s take this section: FEYNMAN: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.
I think a nice example of how this can work is the infamous Opera Experiment that purported to detect faster-than-light neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly The team of physicists upon finding the anomoly in their results knew how momentous it would be, and so they checked and double checked their findilngs looking for any way things could have gone wrong. They re-ran the experiment, getting the same results, and when months of doing everything they could to find errors was finished, the announced the results. However, being good scientists they understood the extraordinary nature of the results and presented it to other scientists saying basically "Look, we got these unexpected results. We’ve done everything we can to trace possible biases, influences or technical issues in our experiment...but we are presenting the results so you can double check our work, and hopefully replicate the results." Various possible flaws were suggested, and then the Opera scientists later...just as Feynman would council - reported some possible flaws in their experiment they’d discovered. Further investigation confirmed the flaws and that combined with others failing to replicate the results, dis-confirmed the initial "discovery." Just as science should work - for either disconfirmation or confirmation. Along those lines, in a much more modest level, I’ve tried to hew to these general principles when I’ve wanted to be more sure or rigorous about my conclusions. For example I was curious about my Benchmark SS preamp I’d just bought vs my CJ tube preamp, in which the sonic differences seemed pretty obvious. Well...most here would say "of course they’d be obvious." However, having done a variety of blind testing over the years - AC cables, video cables, DACs/CDPs, music servers - I’m familiar with how "obvious" sonic differences can feel under the influence of sighted bias - e.g., when you know what it is you are listening to. I’ve had "obvious" sonic differences vanish when I wasn’t allowed to know which was which. It’s very educational. It was entirely possible that I could be perceiving a sonic difference because of my perception being swayed by those wonderful "warm, glowing tubes...of course it’s going to sound different!" So, again, as Feynman would advise: the first rule is not to fool yourself as you are the easiest person to fool. And since I know sighted bias is a big variable, I attempted a blind test to reduce the possibility of "fooling myself." I took various other steps to reduce "fooling myself" - ensuring there wasn’t a way I could tell which preamp was being switched to, ensuring the switching was randomized, trying to ensure the levels were matched so as to account for loudness bias, etc. When I did my best...once again in concert with what Feynman would advise...I presented the results for other people to critique: As Feynman advised, I made sure to add as much detail about my method as I could, INCLUDING areas where I thought flaws could arise. And then I answered every question, I could about my method, took some suggestions to double check certain aspects and looked at how others assessed the results. It wasn’t a scientific-level of rigor, but I think it was in the spirit of the scientific mindset/approach in the sense of all the above. So I think I get fairly close to walking-the-walk in such instances with some of my own testing. I wonder if rodman or others can show any of their audio tests havea similar level of steps put in place to "not fool yourself" as well as presenting the results looking for others to critique? This, btw, is also generally what Amir does. He presents his results with plenty of detail about his METHOD and RESULTS so there is plenty of information given on which people can critique the method or results. It's not just "I put this in my system and I heard X, trust me!" It's "here, YOU can look for yourself at my DATA to see if I'm wrong." He presents it to the more general public on his youtube channel, and in the ASR forum in which he knows there are plenty of technically informed people who can help catch problems. And this is what goes on at ASR all the time. |
No. If you are going to comment on a "too long post" maybe read it first. Did you even see what I wrote about how the Opera experiment scenario exemplified much of Feynman’s advice? It's much richer than just "blind experiment." I’m not running experiments on fundamental physics. But as I said, when it comes to my own tests and I want to be more cautious, I adopt methods that align with Feynman’s cautions about "fooling yourself" (and like I showed, presenting my method and data to others for critique). You either can’t admit how this fits well with Feynman’s words...or you just don’t understand Feynman (or the scientific method). You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.
|
There would be nothing wrong or inconsistent with that, and it would be consistent with a scientific mindset. Often enough observation of a phenomenon comes first, then we try to explain it more rigorously with other empirical evidence, hypothesis testing, measurements etc. Anyone could reliably observe that certain reptiles, e.g. chameleons, could change their color well before we understood and quantified the phenomenon. What counts as an observation that requires such inquiry will necessarily interact with our current body of (tentative, but reliable) knowledge. If it contradicts well known and reliable fields of knowledge then you don't have to pay much attention to claims that would undermine that theory, unless they had very strong levels of reliable observation behind them - e.g. someone claims to have seen a Perpetual Motion Machine in his friend's garage isn't going to count as an observation that requires rigorous inquiry. But, for instance, if it turned out people were reliably able to detect sonic differences between A and B, in well controlled tests, where this is unexpected on current theory, then yes that becomes a reliable observation you'd want to explain. And then seek perhaps evidence to support a hypothesis as to what is objectively happening, e.g. try to find relevant measurements. In other words: there is nothing in principle wrong with reporting hearing a sonic difference that one has not measured (or been able to measure as of yet). This is why Amir has been pretty consistent in often emphasizing the relevance of listening. (But...under conditions controlling for variables, when seeking higher confidence levels).
|
So you need Amir to admit he's wrong in order to accept his arguments? How many people in this thread have admitted to being wrong? He's either right or wrong, based on his arguments. It's possible everyone else is wrong. I mean, a geologist could show up in a flat earth forum and, yes, he'd be right and everyone else would be wrong. So that's neither here nor there, in principle. So you can't just complain about that, you have to anty up and make your own case against his.
I disagree. Far from "ignoring" hard hitting questions, he's done a pretty amazing job of answering people, and providing much more substantiation for his claims in his answers than anyone else in the thread. I'm not saying Amir is perfect or some objective Deity. I'm just observing the quality of the arguments here, and Amir is providing the higher quality arguments thus far.
|
