I Just Know It's BS ... But I Have't Tried It Yet

I do see both sides of this issue. I agree that equipment design and execution is a science and engineering based discipline. I do not, generally speaking, respond well to metaphysical snake oil approaches. Yet, the human emotional element, our response to what we hear, is far from an exact, predictable science. I will take my 300B SET amps every time over my previous solid state amps, and I don't give two toots what the specs may be. I think that "If you haven't heard it, you don't have a fully informed opinion" is not a bad principle.

The real problem here, in my opinion, is the arrogant, dismissive attitudes of some posters (on any side of any issue). There are a few around here with an inexcusable lack of any semblance of social skills.

There are people on this forum, for whom I have the utmost respect, that I will occasionally disagree with. I can disagree completely with them and maintain that high level of respect. It would never occur to me to think less of my good friend Schubert because he does not share my high regard for Stravinsky and Mahler.

One could wish that a few folks would finally learn to play nice in the sand box.

Mapman, I think you missed my point on the sandbox. There are social skills that should be learned at an early age and not forgotten or abandoned when one matures. I understand the world is not a sandbox, and believe me, I can play hardball with the best of them when necessary. But I take no pleasure in doing so, nor do I derive my sense of self worth by belittling others. This is a hobby. IF the AG forum becomes a frustration or irritation, I don't need it. And, there is absolutely no reason to allow it to become so. This actually can be a "sandbox" in which we interact, learn, teach, socialize and have fun--or not.

I spent my entire adult life in science and engineering. I did see and experience first hand how things work. On rare occasions, I saw chemical reactions proceed in ways that seemed to make absolutely no sense based on the laws of chemistry and physics. No doubt, the explanation was there, but it eluded even my most brilliant (world class) colleagues and consultant professors. My point is that there is a place for empiricism. Especially amongst those of us that are far from world class EEs or physicists.

Mapman, what you say is correct. In many respects, a movement away from statistics and toward first principle understanding and modeling provided a better level of certainty with respect to outcome. However, in early development proceeding with interim manufacture with minimal understanding is quite common. In industries where the attrition rate of developmental products is quite high, it does not make sense to spend that much money until it is clear a product is going to go to market. In my industry, a lack of understanding at a mechanistic level does not represent a potential risk to the customer.

Not only are the stakes lower in audio, but the ability and resources of the average Audiogon poster, be they skeptic or innocent gullible fool, does not permit that level of analysis. I've never seen the sort of thing Sabai is complaining about addressed via a first principles argument. It usually runs more along the lines of you're a stupid idiot, na na na na na na.

I know I won't spend my time pursuing that level of understanding in audio.

Even if such an argument were presented, it does not address the far more unpredictable human response. Assuming the tweak produces even a marginal difference in sound, that difference could be objectively either "better" or "worse," which may or may not correlate to a listener's subjective response to that difference.

I think Jedinite's comment is a good one. Some of these products could have some scientific basis, but if they are marketed behind metaphysical mumbo jumbo, I'm probably not going to bite.