mapman
"In some cases, like many expensive esoteric tweaks, there is little or no empirical information offered by anyone, including vendors. Why should people try that?"
>>>>>Frankly, who cares? That’s obviously a page taken from some pseudo skeptic’s manifesto, you know, like the ones you see on just about every thread on this forum. The entire statement is a Strawman argument anyway - “many,” “expensive,” “esoteric,” “little or no empirical information,” “by anyone,” “including vendors.” Obviously written by a tweakaphobe and an anti-audiophile.
“Why should people try it?” Try it, don’t try it. Who cares?
|
I try to report here on Audiogon using my ears. It would be nice if we all do this. Less speculation - yes, fine. But often it is impossible. We dont have the same recordings,.systems, etc. Informed "guessing" from Audiogon members - even if they have not heard my system - has been very helpful for me.
|
michaelgreenaudio I see a lot on here where people will call a recording "bad" ... they say their system is revealing instead of saying their system can’t play that recording. It’s like they can’t take responsibility for their sound. Empirically speaking, if a recording doesn’t sound good that’s an indication that the recording and system are out of tune with each other, and there’s a need to put them in tune. Oh no, that’s completely mistaken. "Empirical" means based on observation - as opposed to based on theory. What you’re talking about here is theory. If a recording sounds bad on my system, that’s empirical, based on my listening (observation). There are many bad - even very bad - recordings. That alone is hardly an indication that these audio systems need "tuning." |
@cleeds
No, I still believe that you are confusing hypothesis with theory. A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an
unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific
theory. If the data does not support the
hypothesis, either more data is required or the hypothesis is deemed
false.
As previously mentioned, a scientific
theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a
large body of empirical data and is accepted by the majority of scientists
within that area of study
I believe that @michaelgreenaudio choice
of the word theory is misleading. I believe
what he meant to say is a lot of people are hypothesizing or using an educated
guess and attempting to pass it off as a scientific theory without providing
the prerequisite empirical evidence.
BTW, Facts are simple, basic
observations that have been shown to be true and are one of the four major concepts in science. The other three being hypotheses, theories
and laws.
|
"In some cases, like many expensive esoteric tweaks, there is little or no empirical information offered by anyone, including vendors. Why should people try that?" Hi Mapman If I was a client not the vendor, I wouldn’t trust most of HEA. HEA should be further along in their listening, and how to get there, than they are. It’s not just the tweaks, it’s big time with the components and speakers. Once a listener finds the path of progression, making the system respond isn’t that hard. What is hard is listening to all the hype and half baked theories. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
Hi Nonoise Yep, we have a no trolling policy on our forum and to be honest people would look pretty foolish trolling TuneLand. TuneLand is 100% empirical. There's a few examples on here that happen a lot on HEA forums that don't happen on ours and others, and sometimes I wonder why folks haven't yet got past them. here's a biggie I see a lot on here where people will call a recording "bad" (I'm not talking about performers) and they say their system is revealing instead of saying their system can't play that recording. It's like they can't take responsibility for their sound. Empirically speaking, if a recording doesn't sound good that's an indication that the recording and system are out of tune with each other, and there's a need to put them in tune. It surprises me that folks don't get that many times. In fact I'm interested to hear folks response to that on this thread, and maybe I can even convince some of our guys to respond. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
In some cases, like many expensive esoteric tweaks, there is little or no empirical information offered by anyone, including vendors. Why should people try that? I get it that those offered free or discounted product to try will be more inclined. I’ve even done that on occasion. Everyone is free to make their own choices for their own reasons and offer their own "opinions". They should not feel threatened by other contradictory viewpoints. Unless they are trying to sell something....
|
Some of us here have been asking the very same questions you bring up only to have it thrown back in our faces. Its the first thing we ask of them: have you tried it?. Simply relating what we hear infuriates some to the point they will do anything to derail the conversation, e.g., bringing up their credentials, their expertise, trying their best to dominate the person and/or conversation, and anything to steer it off into the weeds in order to avoid never trying it, or walking the walk, as you say.
Simply circling back and asking them to try it can make some all the more obnoxious and condescending. They hold it as a grudge and wait to pounce at the opportunity, bringing all their baggage with them.
I've stated before that I've a sneaking suspicion that most of these arguments aren't about the product being debated, but a need of sorts in those individuals to fill some void in their souls. Something latent is driving them to manifest their ire at those who are willing to simply try something by circumventing the norms that they adhere to. It's more a character trait (flaw) than anything else.
Mind you, I'm only speaking of the uglier of those who respond that way and not everyone who holds a contrary point of view.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I think most folks on a site like this who are serious about getting good sound listen carefully to everything, read up on things, and their room at home is the only "real empirical testing ground" available. Once the tests are successful and meet their goals then they stop. Until their goals maybe change again...
Weird Science? |
brf
scientific theory is an in-depth
explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical
data. If we have an observed phenomenon in which is supported by large body of empirical
data, why do you feel the need for more validation? Perhaps you are confusing
hypothesis with theory? No, I'm not confused at all. When data and scientific theory conflict, sometimes more data is needed. Science is not infallible. "Scientific theory" is just that: a theory. Perhaps you are confusing theory with fact? |
There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their
claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd,
but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post
@cleeds, scientific theory is an in-depth
explanation of the observed phenomenon supported by a large body of empirical
data. If we have an observed phenomenon in which is supported by large body of empirical
data, why do you feel the need for more validation? Perhaps you are confusing
hypothesis with theory?
|
Reminds me of the 3 men renting a $30.00 room, each payed $10.00, clerk gave bellhop $5.00 to return, he kept $2.00 and gave each man $1.00 making their outlay $9.00 each. 9X3=$27.00+$2.00 that the bellhop kept =$29.00. Sometimes things just don’t add up. Your ears are the real test.
|
michaelgreenaudio It’s not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don’t we see this happen? It’s actually very tricky to set up and conduct a truly scientific listening test. Perhaps it’s become a trivial undertaking for you, but conducting a valid test is not as easy as it might appear to the casual observer. That makes it easy for such a person to dismiss an audiophile’s experience with a wave of the hand and the instruction to "prove it in a blind test." There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd, but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post. Then there are those who believe that no listening test can possibly be scientific. While I don’t agree with them, I do think that most audiophiles have little use for scientific, blind testing. It tends to be a tedious, cumbersome and time-consuming endeavor and - when the test is complete - often fails to prove much. I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege. As for the myths: The world is filled with myths, and audio is not unique in the regard. |
In some instances,
knowing the theory allows one to make an informed prediction as to the
outcome. There are certain laws in physical
science that cannot be avoided.
|
