What is wrong with Audiophiles?

Bookmark this page.

Appeal to Authority

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy in general to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]

Appeals to authorities[edit]

Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,[5] with some holding that it is a strong argument[6][7][8] which "has a legitimate force",[9] and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy[10][11][4][12] where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided".[13]

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.[2][3]

Use in science[edit]

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[14][15][16] as authority has no place in science.[15][17][18] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[19]

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[24][25][22] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[21][26] Even textbooks[21] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[26] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[27]

Appeal to non-authorities[edit]

Fallacious arguments from authority are also frequently the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.[31] An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his actual expertise was physics.

OK, let’s get down to brass tacks. Much of what has been said by the “non-believers” is pseudo skeptical nonsense. Yes, there were some truisms and facts thrown in for good measure to throw off those who might be sitting on the fence. I mean, let’s call it what it is and not beat around the bush. So, what exactly is pseudo-skepticism, you ask. 

Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) 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 pseudo-skeptics 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]

atdavid
Engineering does not make the claim that the tiny number is swamped by the large number in audio.

Psychoacoustics makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Neuroscience makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Neurophysics makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Engineering uses the work of those fields, and their research to define the parameters for the products, methods, and concepts that they develop. If you have an issue, it is with the above fields, not engineering.

You may (sic) grand statements about "this is not the way the ear works", but perhaps you can back that up with some research from psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and/or neurophysics and show how "engineering" is not properly using these principles as it relates to audio?

>>>>I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears that atdavid is actually the Grand Wazoo of Appeals to Authority. This is all just a continuing saga of atdavid vs people who don’t understand.

atdavid
I have added many things to this forum, but you seem to gravitate towards tweaks, not things that are likely to make a significant difference in your sound, like truly addressing the acoustics in your environment.

>>>>>That’s beautiful! The perfect Strawman argument. Kudos!

Well, it looks like that well of witty remarks finally went dry. 

He’s probably English. 

glupson2,936 posts11-18-2019 6:39pm

"The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway."

Where does infrared light get stored after being absorbed by whatever color that absorbs it?
>>>>I’m still thinking about the question. 🤔

I know somebody who has the $650,000 Wilson speakers and $100,000 Caliburn Continuum turntable. Am I jealous or angry? You’re darn tootin’ I am! 🤬

atdavid
I don’t mean "audiophilia" evidence, I mean evidence that would show up under any level of scrutiny .... i.e. some blind testing. I don’t care if you keep in the system 30 second, 30 minutes, or 30 days ...1 ... just one test that can pass for anything that would be considered "evidence" in a normal world that that $70,000 cable can perform noticeably better than one that costs 1/10 or even 1/100th the price.

Here is the thing .... you won’t be able to provide it. You will provide all sorts of ad-hoc evidence, specious claims, etc. but not one real "test". Not one. So you can use all the superlatives, and adjectives, and flowery language that you want, but it does not make you right as you won’t be able to provide proper test results. That is not my issue, that is yours.

>>>>Geez Louise, talk about having your mind already made up. That is eerily similar to the standard Cargo Cult challenge, “It won’t pass a controlled double blind test!” 

It was probably one of those things where you had to be there. 🤗

Quick message to glubson. Somebody’s trying to horn in your territory! 

Yes, it does sound familiar. Too familiar. That list looks like it comes from the Wikipedia page for “How to spot a Cargo Cultist?”

The trouble with the OP’s rant is he folds those who use Green Markers in with those who use or might cover $70,000 cables. He’s obviously just another disgruntled tweakaphobe and anti-audiophile. Is it just me or is it getting crazier out there? Besides, at the shows everything is acceptable. The cable manufacturers are invited to the show, nobody has to pay for $70,000 cables. Hel-loo!

Uh, oh, the Cargo Cult is growing. Speaking of bleating you’ve been following the wrong sheep 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑🚶🏻‍♂️The hat’s real cool looking. 🙄

You are incorrect. The CD laser actually appears red 🚨 to the naked eye 👁 as a safety feature. So, obviously there must be RED light in the laser spectrum. Which means, now follow me here, the wavelength of the laser spectrum must be well below 700 which is where visible red starts. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude the lower portion of the CD laser bandwidth extends down to 650 nm. That’s why I say the laser bandwidth is around 650-850 nm. And that is also why I say most of the scattered light is invisible. The cheap little laser and photodetector are not monochromatic, all of which fits perfectly into the proposition I stated.

The other obvious reason we know there is visible red in the scattered laser light is because the color green or turquoise (cyan) absorbs the color red, and that’s why a green marker around the outer edge improves the sound and why coloring the CD tray turquoise improves the sound. It absorbs red light. The color wheel applies to visible 👀 light only. As I said BLACK anywhere on the CD hurts the sound. It can be easily demonstrated experimentally.

But don’t let me stop you, I always enjoy hearing from Cargo Cultists to see what kind of ridiculous things they come up with. 🤗

Not sure I agree with your detective work, Teo. for one thing Red Book CD Standard was developed by Philips AND SONY. It became the International standard for CDs in 1987.

Standard[edit]

The Red Book specifies the physical parameters and properties of the CD, the optical "stylus" parameters, deviations and error rate, modulation system (eight-to-fourteen modulation, EFM) and error correction facility (cross-interleaved Reed–Solomon coding, CIRC), and the eight subcode channels. These parameters are common to all compact discs and used by all logical formats, such as CD-ROM. The standard also specifies the form of digital audio encoding: 2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz. Although rarely used, the specification allows for discs to be mastered with a form of emphasis.

The first edition of the Red Book was released in 1980 by Philips and Sony;[1][2] it was adopted by the Digital Audio Disc Committee and ratified by the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 100, as an International Standard in 1987 with the reference IEC 60908.[3] The second edition of IEC 60908 was published in 1999[4] and it cancels and replaces the first edition, amendment 1 (1992) and the corrigendum to amendment 1. The IEC 60908 however does not contain all the information for extensions that is available in the Red Book, such as the details for CD-Text, CD+G and CD+EG.[5][6]

Enter your text ...

Boxer, black should never (rpt never) be used on CDs except for the inner edge. The color black on the outer edge hurts the sound. The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway. Also, the color black should not be used for the label side where it also hurts the sound. Unfortunately, some CDs have a black label. And the colors used in the graphics of CD labels affect the sound because they influence the scattered light. The color Black should always be used for the inner edge. As fate would have it no colors, including black, can affect the invisible infrared scattered light which, as I mentioned is 75% of the scattered laser light. The bandwidth of the CD laser is around 650-850 nm. Nominal wavelength 780 nm. Colors only affect light in the visible portion of the spectrum. A color’s complementary color absorbs that color. So, Turquoise (Cyan) absorbs Red, for example. 

So what be done? As it turns out I used to have a product up until the beginning of the year called DARK MATTER a CD label spray that absorbs invisible infrared scattered light. Then, Dark Matter in conjunction with Green/Turquoise marker for the outer CD edge and my Codename Turquoise masking for the CD tray surface provided a very effective means of reducing scattered laser light. Earlier this year I introduced New Dark Matter that replaced (1) Dark Matter, (2) coloring the CD and (3) covering the CD tray. NOTE: I still use the color BLACK on the inner edge since that particular application of black is not related to light absorption.

New Dark Matter is a set of ultra thin plastic squares that are attached to the upper portion of the CD tray using ultra thin double-sided adhesive squares. Thus NDM is exposed to the scattered laser light during play. Since NDM absorbs light of ALL wavelengths it absorbs the infrared as well as the visible scattered light. NDM can be used for SACD, DVD and Blu Ray discs since it absorbs scattered light of all wavelengths.

yuvalg9 OP
I have an Audiophile neighbor in the building where I live. I offered him to borrow a CD of an Israeli singer that I admire. How is the quality of the recording, he asked. "average", I answered. "No, I can’t listen to average recordings", he replied. I call that "Audiophilia neurosis".

>>>>I offered a friend a glass of $10 wine 🍷 and he replied, “I can’t drink cheap wine, only wine that costs $100.” I call that wine-tasters’ neurosis.

boxer1+1 Teo
BTW, I "paint" the edges of my cd’s green. Costs almost nothing (I use a magic marker) & increases clarity.

I’ve oft mentioned the Green marker only addresses part of the problem. Only about 25% of the scattered light is visible red 🚨  light. The rest is invisible infrared. That’s because the CD Laser wavelength is 780 nm, infrared. So, you can see the advantage of something that can absorb ALL of the scattered light including infrared, no?