Relativity which has held up amazingly well so far despite the most rigorous testing may one day get partially refuted. But that won't make it snake oil. Nor if the same happens to Quantum mechanics.
Science is an actual discipline without which we couldn't have these exchanges let alone listen to recorded music. Sure it isn't always unbiased, not with big $$$$$$$ and political interference at work, but some of the nonsense audiophiles are subjected to would be laughed at and instantly disproved in any undergrad faculty.
Snake oil salesmen (cables, amps, DACs, Hi-Res purveyors, non-pro music press etc) know fully well that the claims they imply are false, unlike the shamans who may have honestly lead the way into experimentation.
Even the late Peter W Belt never claimed his products were better, (how could they be?). He claimed he merely presented them as an alternative way to listen, at a cost. Nothing wrong with that, but for most of us here I guess, not much right either.
It's also worth bearing in mind that when it comes to audio it's one thing to say something is better technically and quite another to say that we can hear it. For example, I know that 320kbps mp3 must be better than 192kbps mp3 but I can't easily hear it.
On the other hand I can easily identify the 1987, 2009 and 2018 versions of the Beatles White album (even when level matched).
So the next time an ad or a review, one backed by science, catches our attention it might be worth asking ourselves do we really want to pay for an expensive theoretical improvements that no human can hear?
Science is an actual discipline without which we couldn't have these exchanges let alone listen to recorded music. Sure it isn't always unbiased, not with big $$$$$$$ and political interference at work, but some of the nonsense audiophiles are subjected to would be laughed at and instantly disproved in any undergrad faculty.
Snake oil salesmen (cables, amps, DACs, Hi-Res purveyors, non-pro music press etc) know fully well that the claims they imply are false, unlike the shamans who may have honestly lead the way into experimentation.
Even the late Peter W Belt never claimed his products were better, (how could they be?). He claimed he merely presented them as an alternative way to listen, at a cost. Nothing wrong with that, but for most of us here I guess, not much right either.
It's also worth bearing in mind that when it comes to audio it's one thing to say something is better technically and quite another to say that we can hear it. For example, I know that 320kbps mp3 must be better than 192kbps mp3 but I can't easily hear it.
On the other hand I can easily identify the 1987, 2009 and 2018 versions of the Beatles White album (even when level matched).
So the next time an ad or a review, one backed by science, catches our attention it might be worth asking ourselves do we really want to pay for an expensive theoretical improvements that no human can hear?