Ridiculous assertions that someone is being ripped off or conned
How many times has this scenario played out here? Someone purchases product X, and tries it in their system. They report positive results, that it works as advertised, that they got their money’s worth, that they are happy with the purchase. Then someone, usually having zero experience with the product, replies with something like: “No, you’ve got it all wrong! You’re being ripped off! You’re being conned!
Does anyone else understand how ridiculous and absurd these kinds of assertions are?! The consumer who actually put up their own money and took the time to evaluate the product in their own home/system reports it works as advertised, they are happy with it, that they got their money’s worth. Then someone else claims they were ripped off?!
Imagine an agency investigating consumer fraud getting a complaint like this: “My neighbor is being ripped off!” “No, no, he thinks it’s great, does everything he expected it to. He’s very happy with it, but I just know he’s being conned!” Do you seriously think they’re going to open any kind of investigation into it?
You can disagree with what someone says about the effectiveness of a product all you want, but to say they have been defrauded, when they report the exact opposite, is patently ridiculous.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. This hobby is subjective. Opinions are just that. Your own ears are the arbitrator.
The Internet is an area where people can exchange opinions. Some people use shield of anonymity to respond in ways that they would probably moderate if they were sitting next to you in a bar stool. Should we censor it because someone feelings get hurt? Especially when that person can ignore those that criticize his opinion and can freely interact with others that take him seriously? IMO this would lead to sterility of content and eviscerate the site.
How could you being not scam if you purchase gear and plug them in the wall thinking that all is good, looking at the price sheet and waiting for the next upgrade?
How could you be scam if you learn how to embed any piece of gear, with no costly "tweaks", but with a method of listenings experiments and low cost devices?
When all is well done upgrades become not superfluous but way less attractive...This is the SIGN of success...
Anything can be a scam or a useful piece, it is relative of what you will do with it...
There is no fine line separating COMPLETELY beautiful and ugly faces....
I can change the sound of any room with a straw well located , is it a scam?
Yes I see this before. I also see where small group guys get stiffie over products and fall in love like bunch of teen girls and nonstop defend product and tell people that don’t like it that it must not be broke in or have wrong cable or vibration not right etc. soon you find they all sell and forget about product like old hag getting rid handbag. These guy need attention to be right more than logical. Lot of idiot here because they sit on bottom all day.
^That^ is nicely done.
It’s pure psychology.
Suppose someone just shelled out $6000 for a 100 gram can of rhino horn powder because he has a firm belief in it’s aphrodisiac powers. He’ll be happy with the purchase.
Others, who never tried rhino horn powder themselves, may warn him he’s being scammed. And yes, he may think that annoying because he’s perfectly happy with his purchase. And maybe it even worked, that’s the power of our mind. And if it didn’t, he’ll probably never admit it ... he’ll still write raving reviews.
How bad is it that some rational thinking people doubt the use of rhino horn powder because it’s totally unclear if and how it works and it has never been scientifically proven?
I know, I know ... even if things can not be scientifically proven or can be measured, we still can hear differences in audio ’quality’.
Just thinking about the Rhino ’orn is doing the trick.
But Mrs say, "Go play with cable, leave me lone" 😘
I wish i could had written your post, but i did not wrote it, and could not anyway to say it better than you....
There are two separate issues here. First, several of the comments conflate disrespectful and insulting comments with demands that personal observations be supported with scientific data and theory. There is never a reason to be rude in your response to a member's reported experience with a product, whatever you may think of that product. It's reasonable to ask for more information, but to deny the validity of the observation is unacceptable.
Second, many of the comments demanding evidence beyond that offered by the original post are based on fallacious understandings of the scientific enterprise. Underlying many of the comments from the naysayers is the assumption that only things that are well understood are valid scientifically. This simply is not true. Scientific inquiry often begins with anomalous observations, outcomes that are not understood. In these cases, the scientific enterprise is optimized when we strive to find the causal path that explains heretofore mystifying observations, not when we dismiss the observations as invalid. The tendency among the "technocrats" and "scientists" in these discussions to dismiss anomalous observations only serves to constrain scientific progress. Better to accept, evaluate and dismiss after detailed analysis 10 faulty observations than to dismiss without consideration one valid observation. That is, our understanding progresses when we open our minds to possibilities we can't imagine, not when we dismiss out of hand observations of which we don't approve.
hce1: both excellent points. Insulting comments regarding someone else's expressed opinion are not constructive, and just plain rude. If I've ever been guilty of that, I apologize. And secondly, again yes: science begins with hypotheses to explain some observable datum, and proceeds to favor the hypothesis that best corresponds with further empirical evidence. "Revolutions" in science, as Kuhn shows, happen when some observation is anomalous, and can't be explained by the reigning paradigm. In other words: science makes real progress only when an observation is made that can't be scientifically explained. So the commitment many audiophiles have to acoustic phenomena that "can't be measured" may, in the end, advance the science of acoustics.
There are two separate issues here. First, several of the comments conflate disrespectful and insulting comments with demands that personal observations be supported with scientific data and theory. There is never a reason to be rude in your response to a member's reported experience with a product, whatever you may think of that product. It's reasonable to ask for more information, but to deny the validity of the observation is unacceptable.
Second, many of the comments demanding evidence beyond that offered by the original post are based on fallacious understandings of the scientific enterprise. Underlying many of the comments from the naysayers is the assumption that only things that are well understood are valid scientifically. This simply is not true. Scientific inquiry often begins with anomalous observations, outcomes that are not understood. In these cases, the scientific enterprise is optimized when we strive to find the causal path that explains heretofore mystifying observations, not when we dismiss the observations as invalid. The tendency among the "technocrats" and "scientists" in these discussions to dismiss anomalous observations only serves to constrain scientific progress. Better to accept, evaluate and dismiss after detailed analysis 10 faulty observations than to dismiss without consideration one valid observation. That is, our understanding progresses when we open our minds to possibilities we can't imagine, not when we dismiss out of hand observations of which we don't approve.
Real audiophiles have close friends that occasionally get together to have the music.......play on, and arouse areas of their brain that they wish could last for eternity.
Screw the narcissistic, bourgeoise...it defines a class of humanity that has none.
after Everything else is paid for, and the emergency account is full, I'll try some of the tweaks mentioned / bashed / promoted in this (and other) thread(s). only if i can return it. why not ? nobody will know as i won't mention it on a forum.
Canuck audio forum cable forum rules end up being effective in this sort of way:
The premise, is that area of the fourm is for threads that talk about tweaks, cables, the efficacy of mods and tweaks, what they should sound like, or not sound like. It does not preclude talking about the idea of discovery work in why they work the way they do. it does not preclude discussing the potentials in science and engineering and the discovery work in why they appear to work they way they do.
What is forbidden, is to interrupt such discussions about such product, devices, ideas and/or musing on it all. It is forbidden to interrupt and call it all lies, and snake oil, hogwash, unreal,and so on.
One is forbidden to ARGUE that it is all garbage. That it is all unscientific.
One can discuss the efficacy of such thing and investigate it’s origins.
One can’t denigrate and attack it’s basis for being or it’s exploration in a negative way.
That’s it. nothing more.
If there is a discussion of any type of that nature going on, and the negativity was not invited, then it can’t get into the conversation.
If the topic INVITES the discussion of it’s basis or reality, in science, THEN the discussion of such - is on. but importantly, not in a ngetive way that says the premise is unreal.
Where lets say, I heard what I heard. The naysayer cannot, even by sly wording, via gaming their wording - argue agaisnt the hearing of it. I heard what I heard. the end. what all that means is fair game if the duscssion of it is invited. but the heard thing was heard. That -----is not posible to dispute.
And no, they don’t have to announce that they don’t want the negative input. Negative input is forbidden unless specifically asked for.
Oh yes, hatred against tweaks and cables, etc, starting such thread in the cable and tweaks forum area -is forbidden. If one want to to do that, they can go and do that in some other forum area.
~~~~~~~~~~
The result, is that no one talks about how good or bad cables are, how good or bad tweaks are, how such things sound, and so on. No one bothers, as they already know the stuff is real and it works. it works well, or or works poorly (for the individual, etc). it is a good deal a bargain... or it is a poor choice? and results vary, for people and their audio systems. this is all expected and is all known things, for the people who think and do such, concerning their own audio systems.
But, importantly, IF the subjectively heard sonic results of experimentation, is raised (I hear this, etc).. no one is allowed to INTERFERE in the conversation. No one is allowed to inject any negative takes into the conversation.
If they want to do that, they have to go to OTHER forum areas to do that. they can create a thread where they burn flags and effigies of the horrible tweak and cable using/discussing people.
The people who use tweaks and cables, etc.. where they understand it subjectively or even scientifically... they won’t interfere or get involved, for the most part. they know they are dealing with projections and Karen complexes (some are even visibly frothing!), much of it executed or framed in a VERY poorly misunderstood idea of what science is. Haters, talk amongst yourselves, is the result. No. One. Cares.
The result is peace, bliss, silence. Cable and tweak dissent and hatred disappears from the forum, almost entirely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is all ends up saying:
If one is worried that all that cable and tweak stuff is going to take over the given forum, well, simply... it does not happen. It just doesn’t. that boogeyman does not exist. It’s a projecting Karen twist of the mind.
What does exist, though... is the outsized hatred based response to tweaks and cables, etc.
That reactionary insanity..when it is disallowed from interrupting discussions, it is found to be what the tweaker and cable believers know it to be --an emotionally based animal response that is totally out of control. That the cable hater doth protest too much. And that is the part that has to be told off and cooled off, blocked off.
And the result, is peace for all, in this subject area only, of course. There are plenty of other things to react blindly about, for everybody....
"Meaning.. threads where people discuss tweaks, or mods or cables and so on, if a naysayer posts there, and interrupts the discussion, in any way, they get their posts deleted. And...if the given naysayer can’t hold their tongue, after said deletion-ish warnings..... they will, rapidly, via any repeats in behavior, find themselves banned from the forum. They have to grow up, or get lost."
OK so I start a thread talking about the stupidity of $60,000 speaker cables and their unprovable science and benefit to cost ratio. Since I started the thread does that mean if you jump in there with your unscientific harrassment of my position what you advocate can and should be applied to you?
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who want to censor all opinions other than their own, which of course are the only correct and valid ones. Talk about narrow minded and insecure this sure fits that bill.
I understand the valid points that are made in the above posts about necessary moderation and censorship...
But the less censorship there is the better it is IN THE LONG TERM...
I dont like some forum where all people are tailored on the same "technological" implicit closed minds views...
Audio is too complex " adult" matter to be censored...Like Politics....We can censor children around a table though...
I dont like to be consider a children to be moderate... Extremist troll will die anyway in any serious discussion or will be relegated in his trench...
Audiogon is good like it is, tolerant to all....
Asking censorship of troubled and troubling people is not a good idea save in very extreme case only....
In seeking a "better" version of musical truth from their systems, there are some who are willing to try and/or buy items and/or different set-ups. There are those that, for whatever reason, seem threatened by the very existence of said items/set-ups and insist that the person reporting their experiences of what they heard cannot possibly be correct.
The majority of the naysayers haven't tried what the reporter/poster has, nor do they have a comparable system in a comparable room or, more importantly, don't have the reporter/poster's exact hearing and audio experience. To claim that the very act of trying something (paid for or not) different automatically makes the observations invalid due to bias is ludicrous. Even if you are a professional reviewer who doesn't have to pay there are still expectations, but expectations are not always bias.
So we are left with a process where a person tries a tweak, new piece of equipment, etc and in trying to share their experience and maybe even validate it a little, gets jumped on as somehow lying, being an unqualified observer etc. It is at this point where a differing opinion becomes an attack that the line is crossed, and that's where a moderator should feel free to silence the antagonist for the good of the forum.
The thing is, I am invested in this forum. I am familiar with the characters, and greatly appreciate the contribution of many members, even some that I disagree with😉
You are thinking of another contributor who quoted that, I forget who. While the quote may have some merit depending on the circumstances, it is not one that I subscribe to when questioning what I consider worthy of being questioned.
It can get tricky, especially if the *is* an appeal to science, like that used in microwave ovens, for example. But in those circumstances those familiar with the technology and maths can step in and audit, as happened recently.
Canuck audio tames it by having a cable and tweak area for threads. Where any counter to the idea that such things are functional (in attempt or in analysis), is not tolerated.
Meaning.. threads where people discuss tweaks, or mods or cables and so on, if a naysayer posts there, and interrupts the discussion, in any way, they get their posts deleted. And...if the given naysayer can’t hold their tongue, after said deletion-ish warnings..... they will, rapidly, via any repeats in behavior, find themselves banned from the forum. They have to grow up, or get lost."
I really like this idea! Maybe I'll start a thread about doing something like this on audiogon forums.
"Canuck audio tames it by having a cable and tweak area for threads. Where any counter to the idea that such things are functional (in attempt or in analysis), is not tolerated.
Meaning.. threads where people discuss tweaks, or mods or cables and so on, if a naysayer posts there, and interrupts the discussion, in any way, they get their posts deleted. And...if the given naysayer can’t hold their tongue, after said deletion-ish warnings..... they will, rapidly, via any repeats in behavior, find themselves banned from the forum. They have to grow up, or get lost."
I really like this idea! Maybe I'll start a thread about doing something like this on audiogon forums.
But we are not professionals. We are enthusiasts rather.
Perhaps that is all the more reason for certain ethical practices to be agreed upon.
To my knowledge there is no international outfit that will offer guidence, so we must self regulate with a healthy apreciation of skepicism without fear of being labelled flat earthers or deniers.
I've invested unusual amount of time and energy on this thread for my norm. I'd like to end it with a single quote from Mark Twain. The interpretation is entirely up to each.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
I will listen to Mr. Twain's advice and leave here in peace.
MY string of experiments with no cost devices mainly around acoustic now, is related to pure ORTHODOXICAL science by Helmhotz and the other UNORTHODOX devices (ionizers and S. G. and others ) i used were also even if less spectacular in their effect very audible through my already treated room...
A STRING of continuous improvements for one year or more could not be a "placebo"...
A placebo is a valid explanation for an unstable perceptive situation...Not in acoustic where experiments could be continuously designed to falsify the first impression...Or the simplest "blind test" could be used with repetition or by accident...
It is clear that some "snake oil" product exist, but way less than more people think...Snake oil product is not separated by valid product by a STRAIGHT PERFECT line... Here is my diminushing return laws illustrated by my "drawing".. Observe the bias zone, with negative unconscious or positive learned biases, is a circle whose perimeter is related to the audiophile knowlewdge and to the gear product refine technology history itself and thirdly to the embeddings experimental control on our own hearing ability and on the way the gear is embedded rightfully or not......
This means that our capacity to perceive an upgrade and classify his real value is function of our own audiophile history in progress and our own increasing ability to perceive and is related also to the real process and history of improvements in some technology ( amplifier dac speakers)...
What is not VISIBLE on this schema is the huge action of the room acoustic....The point and sphere diameter in the center of the bias zone of diminishing return schema will then vary greatly now by a third factors the acoustical settings of the room , the electrical noise floor control of the house, and the mechanical vibratory embeddings of the gear itself...
Then do you see now where is the moving DECEPTIVE " center point" corresponding to the diminishing returns so called "law" ?
It FLUCTUATES completely for each of us even if it certainly exist...We generally are unable to control it because we dont understand nor sometimes control our own audition history neither "the plus or minus" of new gear technology, without saying a word about the 3 embeddings controls which could greatly contribute to fix for a time this unfixable point or very difficult to relatively fix and estimate...
Then this point of diminishing return is a good metaphor for a bad situation worse than we can imagine...
Audio is the way to figure out for ourself where we are in this audiophile dynamical scale map...
Rainbow dont grow legs,and dont walks to eat you and they will never do»-Groucho Marx🌈
The Whiff of Butt Hurt and lack of moral fibre In not Whining Or running , cliperty clop cliperty clop , to the moderators makes me want to void my stomach ...
If you are going to gush over how a rock plonked on your kit , a blob of 'Something black and sticky' or a Miracle Fuse has changed the trajectory of your whole World
DO expect robust scrutiny of what you are claiming, to expect otherwise is frankly Naive.
Of course everyone has an opinion, and they should be, and are, allowed to express it on an open forum (within the boundaries of the rules set by the forum owner). What some (purposefully?) fail to acknowledge is that at some point "expressing your opinion" crosses over into intolerance and bullying of those with differing opinions. We could argue about where that point is, but most of us know it when we see it. The question is, should we tolerate/ignore/not speak up about that kind of behavior? If we do nothing, there are real consequences for the forum community we enjoy and benefit from.
Placebo effect.. shouldn’t if work both ways? If you believe it would work then it may appear working. So if you believe it won’t work then it may appear not working. I don’t think OP, in the other thread, ever forcefully said you should get it. He just wanted to share his experience with other members. He even specified that if you don’t believe it then it is not for you so stay away. If his saying perks your interest then you investigate it yourself. I don’t see any burden on OP to scientifically prove anything when he was truthful about his experience. He is not running a magazine or trying to sell you something. If the subject doesn’t interest you just move on. Is it so difficult to do? You don’t have to be a crusader, trying to save the world when the other side does not want to be saved, in fact, is perfectly content.
This discussion overlaps with the many about "objective" vs. "subjective" criteria, and is at the heart of the very existence of this forum, this website, and magazines that review equipment. "The bottom line" is the bottom line: most good stereo equipment is expensive and most audiophiles have limited budgets. (Let me add that "expensive" should be understood to include supposedly "free" tweaks, like those Mahgister employs, that have "costs" in terms of visual aesthetics, or WAF.)
When we want to make an improvement to our systems, we hope to spend our money wisely. To do that, we seek advice. The review magazines offer that advice with the aid of "science": not just observation, but quantified observation, done in controlled circumstances, aided by devices that measure what is being claimed. But we all know that measurements don't tell the whole story, so the magazine reviewers also add qualitative accounts of their listening experience with the equipment under revfiew: a "subjective" account. Such accounts have weight ("objectivity") to the extent that these reviewers spend a great deal of time listening critically to a lot of expensive equipment, and so are ideally positioned to evaluate what they're hearing with some insight.
The OP's apparent desire to silence anyone who refuses to believe a subjective acount that is neither supported with measurements nor convincingly supported by any other kind of evidence would appear to want this forum reduced to a playground show-and-tell fest. Speaking for myself, I expect more; I want this forum to provide well-informed opinions that are well-expressed and, when controversial for any reason, well-defended. Why? I've already explained: I have a limited audio budget, and I'd like advice about how to spend it wisely.
So it's not a matter of civility, or politics, or science denial, or conspiracy mongering. It's purely a matter of persuasion, in whatever form you can offer it.
For what its worth, I'm also an oenophile: I taste, and even make, wine with a group of friends. I often wonder if there is there any real objectivity in wine tasting. But then, I remember an early James Bond film in which 007 is offered a glass of French "claret" and correctly names the vineyard and the vintage after a single sip. There are people who can do that pretty reliably. So, yes, there is objectivity in wine tasting. But it's very difficult to tune one's pallette sufficiently in order to offer more than one's "mere opinion."
From this forum, I want more than mere opinion. If you like product X, try to do more here than to merely enthuse about it. WHY do you like it? What does it actually do? How does it do that, if you know, or even can speculate? In short: convince me that I'm likely to like product X as well. My money is at stake, and I would rather spend it wisely.
Of course, if you're persuasive, you may convince me to buy some snake oil. That, too, is OK; I'm not easy to convince, and snake oil may have healing properties—the old placebo effect at the very least. Most of us here are mature enough (that is, OLD enough, with enough experience in memory) to know that placebos can be highly effective. I'd even be inclined to defend the view that all "value" is a form of the placebo effect. But skeptics need to be convinced. So: convince me. Is that too much to ask?
Suppose someone just shelled out $6000 for a 100 gram can of rhino horn powder because he has a firm belief in it’s aphrodisiac powers. He’ll be happy with the purchase.
Others, who never tried rhino horn powder themselves, may warn him he’s being scammed. And yes, he may think that annoying because he’s perfectly happy with his purchase. And maybe it even worked, that’s the power of our mind. And if it didn’t, he’ll probably never admit it ... he’ll still write raving reviews.
How bad is it that some rational thinking people doubt the use of rhino horn powder because it’s totally unclear if and how it works and it has never been scientifically proven?
I know, I know ... even if things can not be scientifically proven or can be measured, we still can hear differences in audio ’quality’.
Tommylion, wonderful. I am sure there are things you can do with your room that will make an improvement. For starts get yourself a good measurement system like this one below and have a look at what your system is actually doing. It will also point out where you can make improvements. If there are issues you can not fix with room treatments you might start getting involved with DSP. There are many great processors now for reasonable money.
noromance said: "I like Geoff and miss him on the forum. Hope he's well. However this article is out there. Maybe he's a genius and knows things we don't. Or not."
I think many in this group tend to split hairs on trying to improve their system. I think it would be very beneficial to use the knowledge in this group and discuss what is the next step to improve their system. For example, do I buy better speakers, buy better speaker wires, better amplifier, better streamer, etc. I am at that point right now. Another question is who do you believe. The one thing I have discovered is there are many people who simply do not know what they are talking about. It would be fun to have discussions on this. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in this group.
"Tommylion, do yourself a favor and save up your money for a good set of speakers. You’ll get a lot more bang for yur money."
I have a good set of speakers, thank you very much. In fact they are some of the best I have heard, and have received many very positive reviews over the years. Why do you arrogantly assume that I don’t?
I have said which speakers I have in previous posts, if you care to investigate. I am purposefully not saying here, so this doesn’t turn into a discussion about speakers.
But we are rapidly approaching the point where ’opting out’ of the conflict that is encountered... where the insanity of such projections in weakness of mental capacity, hearing capacity, reasoning capacity and civility in relations... where those projections in/of violence -are being a detriment to the forum and it’s intent. It’s tearing the place apart.
At that point, if the forum is valued by the members, at all...one has to stop turning the other cheek.. and make it clear, that this poorly reasoned position (and continual projection) of ’hatred and violence’ toward others who are working to advance audio...that this insanity - has to be countered.
Its interesting how many of the bad actors try to justify "poor manners" It is apparent to me that the board of education did not meet the seat of learning with many of them. They were one in the same with the little child who would scream and holler the whole time they were in the dept store, because their mama would not allow them to pull things from the shelf. They received participation awards for being on a team though they never learned to be a team player. They have an over inflated sense of importance. @jerryg123even told MC that he would not think badly of him as though MC’s whole life goal is to please his master @jerryg123. of course if MC pushes back on this assertion, ole jerryg will go crying to mama (mods) to remove the bad man’s insensitive post. I speak from experience.his supposed superiority shines like a flashing light. But he is not alone in his superiority complex. There are many others who believe it their duty to save mankind from poor decisions which is any decision which they disagree. They call on science * logic . But when disagreement comes, they cannot back up a thing, because science nor logic will prove them right. These things are just authority figures for them to use to bring the peasants into submission to their will. They can never win the argument based on their beliefs because thir argument is indefensible.Science is observation. You cannot observe what you never heard or experienced.
the same child who alarms & troubles an entire store with his/her screaming will not hesitate to do the same as a grown man/woman on a forum, or anywhere else. The difference now is that correction is not probable.
That fact that a system appears to sound better after an inconsequential change is explained fully by the way we process sensory input. That "improvement" is not durable so like a rat pressing a button to get a treat the behavior repeats continully.
The people who make audiophile garbage are obviously quite aware of this based on the marketing they conjure up in an attempt to provide a rational explanation for a sonic benefit. They are knowingly taking advantage of people who are either unaware of this sensory trait or unwilling to accept it's reality.
Looking at it from another angle, money changing hands is always good for the economy and it generates taxes, just like cigarette smoking and gasoline consumption.
Tommylion, do yourself a favor and save up your money for a good set of speakers. You'll get a lot more bang for yur money.
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.
