Talk but not walk?

Hey, Moops, did you forget to take your smart pills again? 

Mapman
Been doing just that all morning.
Pandora on random play on "2000,s Rock radio" right now
Not the best sq but its free!
I stream it on tv then digital toslink into my Lyngdorf2170.
Works ok although compared to Tidal it is noticeably worse.

@mapman timely advice. You can tweak all you want but you're much better off playing some music. 

Rockin' here in the UK with the Doors. God, I love this band! Even more when the sun is shining.

@cd318
Hold on there!
You live in the UK?
Sun is shining??
Did it make the national news???
I escaped the UK about 18 years ago and never looked back once...lol.

The Doors. Who I quoted this morning at 8:40 on this very thread.  Coincidence? You decide. 😬

Its "The Twilight Zone"

😱😱😱

glupson.

I'm back and my answer will be separated in to two posts.

About the diffusor.  As I probably linked to in the post you saw, I bought this one:

https://www.acousticgeometry.com/products/curve-diffusor-crosstown-birch/

I ordered it in a coffee bean fabric color that actually looks quite nice.

It does not noticeably attract dust and if it does, it doesn't "show" dust at all.  It looks like a sturdy fabric that will last a long time, and look new for a long time.  Besides, vertical surfaces tend not to accumulate dust anything like horizontal surfaces anyway.  So, dust is the very last concern I have with this thing.

I haven't had occasion to clean it and can't imagine it's going to be necessary in any acute way in the future.  But if anything gets on it, a little dust ball or whatever, it easily brushes off with the hand.

I did not want to introduce any new permanently affixed room treatment if I could help it.  The size of this diffusor makes it perfect for my purposes.  I don't mount it on anything, I simply lean it against the area of sidewall near the speaker that I wish.  It's very easy to lift in and out of the room - I store it in my office/source component room and it hides out of the way nicely.  

I wasn't totally happy with the diffusor in the classic "first reflection" position - though that is probably due to the fact it had to be closer than ideal to the speaker.  But I ended up finding a happy spot just beside to the rear of my speaker that seems to add a bit of snap and focus especially to central images. 

I'd give these things a thumbs up as something easy to play with in terms of acoustic treatments. 

glupson,

Reply Pt 2:

I have to admit I looked up your other posts and got an idea or two. It seems that you genuinely have something against those presenting things without full usual scientific research methods. I applaud you for your relentlessness and think you are wasting time and energy on a losing battle.

I can understand how you could get that impression given much of what I’ve written in this thread, and perhaps in the "fuses" thread.

Yes I would argue that science is the Gold Standard of empirical inquiry, the most "epistemologically responsible" method we have, for getting reliable knowledge about experience. It takes the widest view, all our foibles, as seriously as possible in it’s method.

However, there to be noticed is the fact I added caveats numerous times (especially in the fuses thread). Nobody can "do science" on everything they experience, or on everything we buy. That’s just not practical...and often even desirable.

At the same time, it makes no sense to take results from a LESS reliable method of inquiry (e.g. purely subjective impressions) to overturn knowledge derived by our most reliable method. This is why, for instance, it’s not reasonable to replace scientifically-evidenced medical treatments with, say, New Age magical treatment, no matter how grandiose the claims are for their effectiveness. Because new age nostrums tend to be claims based on a really unreliable inference structure and method.

For the same reason when some high end audio tweak is suggested based on a dubious explanation, and it’s effectiveness vetted by the standard subjective method (which can "substantiate" virtually anything people can imagine), then it’s consistent to be skeptical and wait for better evidence.

So what I try to do is scale my confidence - in what I believe and what I would claim to others - with the quality of the evidence I have available.

So if someone is talking about a standard acoustic treatment - a diffuser, bass trap - or talking about the effects of re-positioning a speaker etc - I have no prima facie reason to be skeptical. That these can have audible effects is a well documented and understood phenomenon.

But if someone starts claiming that a tie wrap on a cap alters the sound in some obvious way, I’m going to want to see an explanation that actually makes sense, that for instance people who design caps would endorse, as a starter. And even better if the audible effects were shown under controlled conditions (e.g. controlling for listener bias, etc).

As for my own claims, again, I do my best to scale them with known phenomena and with the quality of the evidence for those phenomena.

I’ll happily talk about the different sounds between speakers...because there is no controversy that speakers sound different.

I’ll talk about, say, what I like about my older Conrad Johnson or Eico tube amps. Because it does not seem controversial, even among "objectivist" nit-picking EEs, that tube amps can in many conditions alter the sound. (Although they can also, I understand, be deliberately engineered to sound identical to an SS amp).

Have I blind tested between my CJ amps and the SS amps I’ve owned?
No. And so I would make any claim about them somewhat modest. I would not simply rule out that it is some level of listener bias I have towards thinking my CJ amps sound the way they do. But, again, there are some technical reasons that suggest it’s plausible I hear what I do.
(And the Eico HF-81, for instance as measured by stereophile, suggests it would be much like a type of tone control in it’s interaction with certain speakers - and I’ve found I really enjoy this effect as I’ve used it with speakers of various types).

I’ve had tweaks before in my system that I didn’t blind test but *seemed* to make a difference. I kept them in for a while, but would have made no claims on their behalf.

Just last night I was about to put up an old "tweak box" for sale and I put it in my system to check that it was working (the SCE Harmonic Recovery Device). It sure as hell sounded like I heard the sound change, and could describe it. So what would my attitude be to this?

I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."

But what I WOULDN’T do based on my experience is make any strong CLAIM as to this unit’s effects - translating my subjective impression in to some objective claim it was actually altering the signal audibly (it actually does add a bit of gain, technically, but I’m talking if level matched). I wouldn’t claim that MY EARS are so golden and my perception so incorrigible, that this is all I need to declare the claims of the SCE box to be true, and that even if blind tests showed otherwise...MY EARS ARE STILL RIGHT!

And worse, I personally feel I could never, in good conscience, SELL lots of the items in high end without being able to produce objectively verifiable results of the effects, and hopefully vet via listening tests that have good controls.

For instance, given the amazing claims for how super expensive AC cables alter the sound of a system, I’d really want to be able to back up that claim. It wouldn’t be enough to even just show that, say, the cable cleaned up a bit of the AC signal going through it. If the claim is that this goes on to ALTER the sound that comes out of a system, then I’d want to verify this - for instance by measuring any changes to a signal coming out of a DAC, CD player or whatever, with the stock cable vs my super-duper cable. And I’d also, perhaps, want to measure the output at the speaker (if I’m claiming my cable does the things many companies and audiophiles claim for high end AC cables - better frequency response, dynamics, tighter/deeper bass, etc - much of that should be measurable).

If you read my long thread documenting my efforts to re-build my flimsy equipment rack and create a shelf for my new turntable that would control vibrations, you will see how I tried to get *some* level of objective confirmation for the effects of various materials, and scaled my claims to the evidence I had.  As I said, though I went to great lengths to build my "resonance-controlled" stand, I wouldn't make any claims for it's ultimate effect on the sound without having a better method of vetting those claims.

This is btw, one reason why, when I was reviewing for a while, I would not review high end audio cables (though I’ve been sent a number to listen to, and have had access to many through the years, to check out). I could not in good conscience recommend a cable based solely on my subjective impressions. I may be just fooling myself (and it turned out I WAS fooling myself when I blind tested some) and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for someone possibly wasting their money on a product that doesn’t do what it claims to do, based on what I would write. And I didn’t want to bother blind testing every cable - I wouldn’t be sent any if that was going to be my gig. (I wonder why....and why Stereophile doesn’t even bother measuring AC cables etc....)

So that’s an outline of my general thinking and approach. I often feel like an intruder in high end audio. I have always loved the many creative products. But my rational side often struggles with the excesses and magical thinking part of the hobby.

prof,

Thanks for explanation. I have no advance thoughts where to place it, but simply to try to see if anything changes. Frankly, I will not go into thinking why it changes (all those theoretical things that got chewed up on this thread), but just trial and error until I get something more interesting to do. Inefficient to the maximum. I hope that will also give me credibility as a Walker. I try a tune/tweak and I am in. If it does nothing to the sound, damage is relatively low. I did try another tweak today, though. I lifted speaker cables. Sound did not seem to change so I put them back down soon, after I finished vacuuming the floor. In case you try it, too, please report your findings to this fierce community.

mapman,

Walkman! Now you are really talking.

geoffkait,

You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care.

It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine.

prof,

I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."

This is called level-headed mature approach. At least, I would like to think that it is as it is exactly the way I do things.

glupson,

One last bit.

You talked about the idea that confronting dubious high end audio claims, in public, is essentially a losing proposition.

I disagree.

I think it's always valuable to present, and defend if necessary, an alternative view.  Insofar as skepticism about a claim has good grounds, then this can be important and useful input for other people.  Yes, many people may have taken a stance on something, having dug in their heels or having sunk costs in terms of a business.

But there are always a lot of people watching as well who can be informed.

My own views were heavily influenced early on by debates (and not only in high end audio).  So I paid attention to the quality of arguments when "objectivists" used to square off with "subjectivists" over various high end audio claims.   And I'm very happy I did.  I feel I've saved quite a bit of money, and time, and neuroticism, by concluding (even if tentatively until better evidence comes along) that many high end tweaks aren't worth my money and time.  And my own experience using blind testing has helped me here and there.

So for instance, just recently I demoed a pair of speakers.  The proprietor of the store, a nice, amiable gentleman, was a truly "classic audiophile" in terms of his thinking on many issues.  I needed to bring CDs, not a drive or thumb drive of burned music, because, well "we just aren't there yet with ripping music to drives and streaming.  It's just not doing any nice pair of speakers justice to play such sources."
And he had a super expensive CD transport and DAC, expensive interconnects, speaker cables, he "de-magnatized" all my CDs so they would sound better, used special damper on the CDs...you name it, he checked the "everything makes a difference" box (including talk of ethernet cables).

Now, none of this made any impression on me because...I've been there, done that, I understand the quality of evidence he is basing his beliefs upon.

And, wouldn't you know it, despite ALL of that talk, all of the steps he went through - INCREDIBLY expensive steps - to ensure the best sound possible...what I heard didn't really hold a candle to what I hear back home on my system. I have basic interconnects, basic beldon speaker cable, my CDs ripped to a cheap little usb drive streamed via a cheap raspberry pi sever.  And when I played back the same tracks at home, I heard every damned bit of "reverb trails" and "tonal purity" in my system (in fact, better, because it's a better speaker and better room acoustics).

IF I were some susceptible newbie, a salesman like that could - completely honestly from his own point of view - persuade me to spend ungodly sums of money on the steps and tweaks he believes necessary to get good digital sound.    I am very happy to be informed enough to realize I don't need to follow in his footsteps.

A lot of audiophiles have often commented "I don't WANT X to make a difference, but my ears tell me it does, which is why I spend the money and effort on it."  (For instance, AC cables or other tweaks).  I've heard that so many times, as if wanting it not to make a difference means, if they "heard" a difference it must be real.  And that's a naive understanding of how our perception works.  

But for anyone who thinks like this, if they are spending, or about to spend lots of time and money on a tweak,  I'd expect they would actually want to know if that tweak actually alters the sound of the system, in reality.   If someone really would rather not spend money on a false claim, then seeing the case for being skeptical can be quite enlightening or useful.

If you for instance take a look at the length many of the Michael Green "Tuners" go to, it's really quite something to behold.  Components taken apart, strewn between speakers, everything carefully arrange on special wood blocks etc.  Now, If that's what someone gets a kick out of doing...I would never want to say "don't do it."  Hey, everyone likes to have a hobby.

BUT...for anyone who really cares about not wasting their time and money on something that is only in their imagination - and I tend to doubt that many would choose to have the rather unsightly splaying of components and wires in their room if they didn't think it was improving their sound -  for those people seeing a skeptical case presented that they may be doing just that, can actually be beneficial.

But, one's subjective experience is something most people find really hard to question.  And when you combine the strength of the subjective "this makes a great difference!" with the various levels of satisfaction people get from tweaking their system, there's often not a lot of motivation to challenge their own beliefs.

glupson
geoffkait,

You especially can’t please the folks who don’t actually use tweaks and who don’t really care.
It may be, at least partially, due to the fact that those who do not use tweaks and do not care are already content which translates into pleased. No need to try hard to please them, they are just fine.

I see. You mean like contented cows? 🐄 you must be here strictly for the abuse. 😬

geoffkait,

I will admit that I was deciding if to post that last thing or not and then I decided to do it just to see what you will come up with as a response. Yawn. I did not expect it would lead to any kind of discussion. I was hoping for something more innovative. Could you do us all a favor, when being predictable at least keep it interesting and do not forget some manners. Your last post was missing either.

Gk if I may be so bold, you should consider upgrading to the Grado sr8Oe from your sr60e to go with the super tweaked Walkman.   The extra $20 probably won't kill you.  Don't be a cheapskate!  I have a pair of sr80e.  They are a great audio bargain for sure.   

mapman,

Your recommendations are not only bold, but running at the speed of photons. What is wrong with Koss Porta Pro?

prof,

I agree with your views on most of these things, although I would still have a softer approach to whole problem, but what I meant by stating you are wasting time and energy is discussing it around here. I saw a few who tried to present some arguments, but it is, for one reason or another, mostly not a discussion. To me, at least, it looks like two circles which are close but never touch, bringing frustration to both. On the other hand, you are right that casual observers who have not firmly committed to either side can learn about different views and make their own opinion. For those, your time and energy expenditure is actually valuable. However, I doubt you will ever win the argument with those who you are, in fact, arguing with.

prof wrote,

”But for anyone who thinks like this, if they are spending, or about to spend lots of time and money on a tweak, I’d expect they would actually want to know if that tweak actually alters the sound of the system, in reality. If someone really would rather not spend money on a false claim, then seeing the case for being skeptical can be quite enlightening or useful.

If you for instance take a look at the length many of the Michael Green "Tuners" go to, it’s really quite something to behold. Components taken apart, strewn between speakers, everything carefully arrange on special wood blocks etc. Now, If that’s what someone gets a kick out of doing...I would never want to say "don’t do it." Hey, everyone likes to have a hobby.

BUT...for anyone who really cares about not wasting their time and money on something that is only in their imagination - and I tend to doubt that many would choose to have the rather unsightly splaying of components and wires in their room if they didn’t think it was improving their sound - for those people seeing a skeptical case presented that they may be doing just that, can actually be beneficial.”

>>>Surely you must realize your latest volley of dismissive anti tweak jibber jabber has no relationship to honest debate or even supports your initial whinings that the claims of sound improvement are unprovable or deceptive or whatever. Now it appears you have chosen some sort of weird attack on the nature of Tuning, e. g., wasting their time, components taken apart, carefully arrange everything on special wooden blocks, unsightly splaying of components and wires, etc. I understand you don’t wish to walk the walk. You are obviously a rank beginner with a grudge. Could do do us a favor and refrain from trying to talk the talk? You never want to say “don’t do it?” Huh? Are you crazy. That’s exactly what you’re saying. Hel-loo! Fake! Fake! Fake!

Moops, I don’t need SR-80s where I’m going. I’m going back! Back to the Future! As the bumper sticker on the back of the extra wide load 18 wheeler going up the long mountain road said, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. I reckon you’re at least two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. Fake! Fake! Fake!

glupson
prof,

I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."

This is called level-headed mature approach. At least, I would like to think that it is as it is exactly the way I do things.

>>>>It goes without saying any dedicated pseudo skeptic should keep a Blind Test in his arsenal of tweakaphobic rhetoric. Nice move! And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both of you actually did them. Lots of laughs! It’s always heart warming to see pseudo skeptics nurture each other. 👨‍❤️‍👨

glupson
mapman,

Walkman! Now you are really talking.

>>>>I not only talk the talk and walk the walk. I also walk the Walkman. Walkman is for those who walk the walk, not those who only talk the talk - actually not really talk so much, more like jibber jabber. 🤡

The entire history of tweaking has achieved nothing but lead all and sundry who followed down blind alleys where they were effectively blinded by pseudo science and often mugged of not inconsiderable amounts of money.

Spiking has been perhaps the most idiotic of all tweaks. Instead of reducing resonance issues it often exacerbates them.

Real progress involves technological or more likely engineering advances. Unfortunately these are few and far between because market forces rule with an iron hand.

Exactly how far you can tweak a mediocre product and keep it cost effective is a question for the manufacturer to consider. Instead it's often seen as an opportunity for snakelike charlatans to climb on board of the get-rich-quick bandwagon at the expense of mislead enthusiasts.

Thankfully this forum still has members who are freely willing to share their often not inconsiderable knowledge and experience. 

I am guessing the sun is NOT shining right now......

⛅⚡☔

So if certain members share their experiences that say certain tweaks do work for them in their system to their ears you would discount them as having been "mugged" by some get rich quick bandits?

What? Whoa! Spikes don’t work? Where did you ever hear that? Spikes might just be the most reliable of all the major food groups. The reason they don’t exacerbate vibrations is straightforward, too, so nobody will be offended or get their knickers in a bunch. There’s much less surface area at the tip of the spike for vibrations to go up, and the spike acts as a mechanical diode, allowing vibrations to escape downwards. Case solved. The only variables left to consider are geometry and material. 

geoff,

I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully. If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.

When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!

prof
geoff,

I suggest that you’ll have a much better chance to engage someone in actual dialogue if you sloooow down and read more carefully.

>>>>I’m a speed reader. I also have excellent comprehension.

If necessary, I suggest running your forefinger slowly beneath each line of text so that you don’t miss anything.

>>>>Oh, a wise guy!

When you understand someone’s point before replying, you are less likely to waste your and anyone else’s time creating the phalanxes of frothing strawmen that you rage against. And, who knows, we could maybe actually have a discussion!

>>>>>I acknowledge you’re the master of frothing Strawmen, professor. I thought we were having a discussion. What have we been having?

@prof  Your experience at the dealers is one that is shared by more than a few of us.

You take time off work, and may travel a considerable distance (100k in my case, don't laugh but UK is not the US) to get to listen to pair of speakers that you know must be great. They were designed by a legend in the industry, they've been reviewed well in the press and the dealer is a very nice guy. You really want to like them and they should sound great but they don't because you can hear slight but definite coarseness where the tweeter crosses over to the bass. So disappointment follows.

As you said, if you were a newbie you might not hear it if you've abandoned a critical mindset. Then you've either got to do the return journey or put up with the issue. You could even try tweaking and waste more time and money. Whichever path you pursue more disappointment will surely follow you. 

I imagine that for most people audio is but one way to pursue relaxation (sometimes stimulation). Stress free as far as possible. As much fun as possible. And for me as much tonal density as possible!

At some point we want to stop chasing magic and get off the roundabout to smell the flowers. Hi-Fi can be like a marriage, enjoy what you have but it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to look occasionally! 

cd318
The entire history of tweaking has achieved nothing but lead all and sundry who followed down blind alleys where they were effectively blinded by pseudo science and often mugged of not inconsiderable amounts of money.

>>>Whoa! What! OMG! Sounds like someone’s system wasn’t resolving enough.

If people believed in too much instead of too little they would generally be much better off.
- PT Barnum

Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?

geoffkait,

"Walkman is for those who walk the walk, not those who only talk the talk..."

As you just declared me a person who walks the walk, could you please take it into consideration if you ever think of implying the opposite.

And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if both of you actually did them.

I am not sure if you would be surprised that, for a very simple reason, I have never done a blind test of anything. At least in relation to audio.

Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?

Only geoff knows for sure, but you can bet you can feed it to horses. ;[)

jf47t,

Welcome. Your first post happens to be in a thread that has really been a bit weird. Most of them are not this way.

I cannot comment about MGA speakers, but believe that they may have values that some would appreciate. If I ever hear them, I will know.

It is hard to know how many people here have been aware of Michael Green's prior work and credentials, but it really should not matter as he, in his original post, said he was not asking any for credentials. So, credentials meant nothing. Only straight answers did. Unfortunately, more than one poster was dissatisfied with what they considered as Michael's lack of straightforwardness in this thread. I personally cannot say he did not try to answer/explain my questions, but some other posters were less lucky. In fact, despite my disagreement with his statements (maybe not the best word, but close to what I mean), we had reasonably cordial and productive interaction after a while.

I think that uberwaltz, in his post on 05-17-2018 10:14pm, nicely summarized the whole thread issues.

Hello jf47t,

It’s nice to hear you are really happy with MG speakers. I’d love to hear a pair as they sound really interesting.

My take on this thread is that there was a real engineer on this forum and some of you did everything in your power to chase him away.

No, simply to get some straight answers to questions that shouldn’t have been that hard.

Michael was encouraging members here to do their homework before speaking about topics that effect other listeners decisions.

1. Some of us have done our own homework, and bring some of that experience to Michael’s claims.

2. Is it not part of doing homework, and simply thinking critically, to ask Michael about the basis for some of his claims? That’s what some of us, like myself, were doing. When the claim arose that untying capacitors "freed" the sound, I was simply asking for the explanations for this, and how it was tested. Isn’t that reasonable? If I tell you that planting pennies in your garden will make your flowers grow faster, do you run out and to this first thing - especially when the concept doesn’t even make sense to you?

Or would you first want to ask "what’s the basis for that claim? How do pennies cause flowers to grow faster and how did you test that idea?"

Before we spend time on an activity, doesn’t it make sense to first determine whether it seems worth one’s time?

Some of you appeared to get upset because Michael is a straight shooter and doesn’t waste time or allow his time to be wasted.

I presume you didn’t read a lot of the thread then?

The main problem is that Michael did NOT appear to be a straight shooter in this thread. He was very evasive - and for seemingly no good reason. That’s what numerous people have commented on.

I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?)

I always thought that was a virtue, but not here.

Agree 100 percent. That’s why it was so odd to see MG brush off so many questions and calls for clarification.

I do hope that his future threads are more engaging even with those people who may have some questions about his claims and methods.
Of course, if he wants to stay strictly preaching to the choir, he has his own forum.

Cheers.

glupson
Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?

>>>>>Yes, someone does. 🙄

“Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.

In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]

In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded):
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...

Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]”

- cheers, your humble scribe

prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?

>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!

@glupson What is wrong with the Koss Porta Pro?

Nothing! I've yet to hear any headphone that sounds more vivid, more alive in the mids. If ever a product deserved it's classic status it's the Portal Pro's.

The discontinued Jays v-Jays were also brilliant in a similar way.

Michaelgreenaudio: Yes there are recordings where the highs and lows have been rolled off, thus some would say it’s a bad recording by being poorly produced, engineered etc.  I don’t care how your system or room is tuned,you can’t get back something that was never there to begin with.  Classical, some rock, a lot of Country and most Jazz recordings are very well produced.  I think “bad recordings” are due to a variety of reasons. The record companies just want to get the product out there to make the money and with a lot of todays younger listeners, they think they’re listening to their iPods, etc, so why put out a very well produced recording, if most listeners of that genre don’t have the equipment to hear the difference.  This goes back for decades-not just recently.  Some artists demand or do the productions themselves, to insure the sound is quality. Kudos to them.

@geoffkait , Prof states- "I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials..." and you twist that into some kind of desperate ploy of someone whom is grasping at straws (or is it strawmen?) The dying last gasp of a pseudo skeptic. As to your rebuttal of his quote, he did nothing of the sort. He simply stated he did not know what MG's engineering credentials are. I don’t recall anywhere on this thread where prof demanded to see MG’s engineering credentials, nor did the prof offer up any engineering credentials of his own. Although I did not go back and reread all rebuttals, I am fully prepared to admit I am incorrect if presented with evidence to the contrary.

No, actually he doubted Michael’s engineering credentials, as if credentials mean something. Can’t you read? Here is the original post, try again. You’re the one twisting his comments to be something innocent. But the point is that credentials are irrelevant. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?

A good question to ask before we get embroiled in the highly contentious business of home experimentation might be, 'What, if anything other than a monumental waste of money and time has the entire history of tweaking achieved?' Walk the walk indeed.

Apart from taking care in buying and careful setting up, is there anything more we the consumers need to concern ourselves with? Interconnects (?), loudspeaker cables (??), contact enhancers (??), mains conditioners, magic pens (???), fuses (?????), cable supports (??????) etc.

Serious, highly qualified and experienced engineers, never mind the proverbial man on the street would laugh at some of the lunacy perpetuated in the pursuit of good sound.

Surely it's the job of the designer to research and develop the product in preparation to delivering it to the market.
It's a gross conceit to believe that we can do a better job than the designer and then get angry when people disagree with us!

Instead we might be best advised to first learn exactly what we are looking for and only then to seek it out by listening.
Know thyself my friend.

Imagine my embarrassment, I just looked down at my Grado headphones and what did I see? SR 80. Wow! No wonder they sound so good! 

@ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it. But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?

CD318.
Just one very recent example of a "tweak" as you call it in my system.

Used Wireworld eclipse 6 xlr interconnects from my phono stage to my integrated and it sounded awful, just thin, grating and lifeless compared to the single ended RCA interconnect of Nordost Red Dawn I had been using, and Nordost have a rep for being thin sounding so go figure.
It was that bad I was convinced the cables were faulty or the xlr inputs/outputs were.
Nope it was just the timbre of that cable did not match my system. Swapped the Wireworld for a cheap pair of Audioquest and the sq was worlds apart even though the RCA Nordost still sound a little better to my ears.
But according to some this should never have happened?
Interconnects are inconsequential tweaks?
I KNOW that is not the case!

thecarpathian
@ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it.

>>>>No, actually that wasn’t my premise. My presume was that credentials don’t matter. My comment I’ll show you mine if you show me yours was a joke. Obviously I already realize prof doesn’t have the (engineering) credentials he insuinuating Michael doesn’t have. Follow?

thecarpathian
But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?

>>>>>Credentials are irrelevant because someone with credentials doesn’t automatically win the argument. Also, someone with better credentials than someone else doesn’t automatically win the argument. Even a PhD in blah blah blah cannot claim he wins all the arguments even when the subject is his specialty, blah blah blah. Capish?

Experience does NOT equal credentials, at least how prof was using the term credentials. In terms of experience obviously Michael has a boatload. That’s why one often sees engineering job listings with the caveat, “x years of experience can be substituted for y degree” Experience -or the lack thereof - is kind of what actually what Michael was deriding when he used the word fake. Follow?

So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.

Of course, if anyone reads the "definition" of pseudo skeptic he can see that my arguments actually fit right in with the definition of a "True" skeptic:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual.

And that’s what I’ve done: refrained from making any absolute claims that a tweak doesn’t work, but instead have asked for the evidence.

My reply to glupson summarizing my position, on this very page, falls right in line with the above concept of "True skepticism." You can see the caution and tentative nature of what I myself would claim, and how I apply that same caution and "provisional" conclusions to other people’s claims - scaling my confidence with the nature of the claim and the quality of the evidence.

And everything I’ve written has been careful to stay within those bounds.Never have I said "X tweak CAN NOT make a difference." Instead, I have simply asked for the evidence. And where appropriate, explained why I have some grounds for skepticism.

People who think in a blinkered biased fashion often only see an argument for skepticism as "A dogmatic denial of the claim" when in fact, of course, it is not at all. It is simply giving a reason why you are asking for better evidence than has been provided (e.g. if you make a claim that either does not seem to make technical sense, or that goes against some of my and other people’s own experience, these are reasons to withhold belief and ask for better evidence than someone’s "say so."). To express skepticism isn’t to say "Your claim is false" but to point out "you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to accept that claim, for these reasons..."

But you can’t really argue this to someone absolutely set on one way of thinking, or whose claims are threatened by "True Skepticism."

And I wouldn’t expect geoff to "get it" if after all this time it hasn’t sunk in. But geoff’s never ending stream of gaffs can sometimes be handy to point out various fallacies and bad arguments, so we have him to thank for that ;-)