Well, many issues. The pursuit after uber-expensive interconnects, speaker cables, power conditioners, power cables can be rediculous. Not to mention Audiophiles who paint the outer sides of their CD's with a green marker. A few days ago I visited a local hi-fi exhibition in Israel. Two of the most impressive rooms where the YG Acoustics with an all NAGRA amplification and the Focal room. The speaker cables in the first room cost $70,000. That was also the cost of the speaker cable in the Focal room. One could buy a BMW or a Merc AMG or a Porsche for that much money. Does this make sense to you? And, lest I forget, 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".
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]
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 validinductiveargument.[2][3]
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 Saganwrote 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 zoologistTheophilus Painterdeclared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs ofchromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[24][25][22] despite subsequent counts totaling thecorrect numberof 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]
Fallacious arguments fromauthorityare 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 citingAlbert Einsteinas 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 psiresult 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.
In some asylum of the past it was common to encounter in the white corridors some insane man perfectly logical and sometimes a kind of scientist, speaking to some foolish patients unable even to think orderly about something...It is my impression of this thread....
Perhaps am I the more foolish amongst all the customers of the place, if I myself think of me that I am the doctor in charge of the asylum ? I will be silent now, perhaps I am the doctor in charge after all ? Or only a fool reading soul of other fools...
In this short parabola of mine, each of us we are actors and we plays all and each part like actors, forgetting if we are this person. or this one, or the doctor in charge, or a spectator... Being wise we discover that we are all that at least once...My best to all without distinction...
Of course. Like I said. He had mastered the art of forum writing. Most of this stuff he has it ready to copy/ paste. Like those phrases the “techs” use at overseas support / call centers
Hey @andy2 ... my suggestion is to stop this. You cannot win with this guy. He is a full time, professional, forum writer, master debater.... excuse me, I meant “consultant” 😬😂
There are cloths that are considered acoustically transparent. Buried in emails from years ago is what Harman supposedly used for their blind speaker testing. Lighting the listener area more, and the speaker area less reduces visible shielding requirements.
Harman showed, that being able to see the speaker will impact our subjective listening impressions. I guess the question is, does the visual bias last? The attractive sports car gets "old" when it spends too much time in the shop. The attractive "date", gets tiring when the personality is not there.
... I never demand "scientific" tests, only tests exclusively with your ears.
What gives you the authority to make demands of anyone here, and then subject them to insult when they decline? Why do you act so indignant, so righteous, so entitled?
Since there are those who insist on science, I’ve learned that the eyes and ears both are important for the brain to process "sound". When the eyes are closed, there are certain processing within the brain will get turned off as well and therefore the brain will not be able fully process the sound with just the ears alone.
Based on that, blind tests are in themselves not valid. But of course, what does blind tests have anything to do with logic lols. I’d like to see how one can weasel oneself out of this conundrum :-)
It's like comparing two different chefs, but one is not allowed to use salt and sugar.
That is because you have low reading comprehension and/or a mental block that doesn’t let you admit the things you often say are patently wrong ... And here is what I mean by the "clique". They can’t bring anything to the table, so they cast ad-hominems, strawmans, and deflections.
This "clique" that you deride has been in existence for more than two decades. You arrived here less than a month ago and seem interested in nothing but argument and insult. We’ve seen this before. In one post you proclaim that you have nothing to sell, then later you claim you’re an industry consultant. You repeatedly demand that others perform scientific, double-blind listening tests to accommodate your sensibilities, but then expect us to accept your proclamations as Absolute Truth. Beware the audio guru. It’s pretty easy to see your charade. Have a nice day.
By far the majority of our impressions of imaging and sound-stage are the speaker/room interaction (within limits of the recording), so if you don’t have that right, no $ value of electronics is going to fix it.
I am very pleased by this observation because that is the result I gain with all my homemade experiments(tweaks)… My room treatment all in all cost me around 100 dollars in materials of diverse densities including the many dozen metal buckets of the dollar store...And guess what ? With this price I gained holographic imaging, and soundstage from my speakers in regular distance listening and near field listening also...
For all people without big money, you can afford hi-fi, with wise choices in electronics but last and not least room homemade treatment if you trust your own ears...My best to all...
And here is what I mean by the "clique". They can't bring anything to the table, so they cast ad-hominems, strawmans, and deflections.
geoffkaity, if my post was an appeal to authority, then so was Teo's. What was it? Engineering does not make claims about human performance, those claims all come from other fields. You saying that is a Strawman Argument. As opposed to refuting what I say, you make a deflection that looks like you are refuting my argument, but you are just building a house of stray.
I must say, you are taking the topic of this post, what is wrong with audiophiles to heart, complete will illustration of the behaviour that is wrong.
The basic premise of your post is
dishonest since I rarely (almost never) post in discussions about
specific equipment pieces, so if you are making comments about me, then
you are making them about threads You enter where the comments you
suggest don't even really make much sense to expect from me.
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.
atdavid404 posts11-19-2019 11:52amI prefer my anonymity here, as I do consulting work in the industry, (but sell no products in this industry). My insurance (likely yours too) also specifically recommended against it. It was your choice to show off your system. I have no such need for validation or confirmation. It would change not one iota the validity of what I post (or don't post). If you need a point of reference, when we last did our basement reno, I installed a dedicated theater/listening room. In addition to the basic room construction costs, there is about $8-10K of materials for acoustic treatment, emphasis on materials, as most of the acoustics are built into the structure, which looks better, and gives you better value as you are not buying finished products. All the acoustics was planned as part of the project so it was optimized, though we did some tweaking before locking down the finishing.
Outstanding! and I mean it. That's certainly the right way to do it.
As for the insurance part, since you are in industry in consulting capacity, I agree with you, gotta be careful. I am not an industry participant, just a hobbyist, so there is no such thing as insurance for me.
Are you sure you are not Ethan Winer?
By far the majority of our impressions of imaging and sound-stage are the speaker/room interaction (within limits of the recording), so if you don't have that right, no $ value of electronics is going to fix it.
Agreed. Again. Kudos to you that have the means and the cash to do what you did. I make due with what I have. Maybe one day I buy a new house, and build a dedicated listening rooms with all bells and whistles.
Apparently we may have a genius in here. He's not only an engineer, but also a neurologist, an expert in human psychology especially in the field of
psychoacoustics
, and his knowledge spans the entire sum of the cybersphere, and in fact he may even have an encyclopedic knowledge of all things since the beginning of time.
The only way to combat such a superhuman is if "copy and paste" can be all banned :-)
Are you purposely ignoring the substance of what I wrote? I am happy for you that you enjoy other people's comments. Adding mine or not adding mine is not going to impact your enjoyment. I will keep choosing what I want or don't want to contribute. The basic premise of your post is dishonest since I rarely (almost never) post in discussions about specific equipment pieces, so if you are making comments about me, then you are making them about threads You enter where the comments you suggest don't even really make much sense to expect from me. That pretty much means your post is a troll post.
I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a
long stream of unqualified comments ... There is no value in yet another comment.
Again,
sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your
amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others'
listening experiences, even if you insist they are "unqualified" and
have "no value." That's just something that - sooner or later - you'll
have to accept about this group.
I prefer my anonymity here, as I do consulting work in the industry, (but sell no products in this industry). My insurance (likely yours too) also specifically recommended against it. It was your choice to show off your system. I have no such need for validation or confirmation. It would change not one iota the validity of what I post (or don't post). If you need a point of reference, when we last did our basement reno, I installed a dedicated theater/listening room. In addition to the basic room construction costs, there is about $8-10K of materials for acoustic treatment, emphasis on materials, as most of the acoustics are built into the structure, which looks better, and gives you better value as you are not buying finished products. All the acoustics was planned as part of the project so it was optimized, though we did some tweaking before locking down the finishing. By far the majority of our impressions of imaging and sound-stage are the speaker/room interaction (within limits of the recording), so if you don't have that right, no $ value of electronics is going to fix it.
I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a
long stream of unqualified comments ... There is no value in yet another comment.
Again, sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your
amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others'
listening experiences, even if you insist they are "unqualified" and have "no value." That's just something that - sooner or later - you'll have to accept about this group.
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 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?
teo_audio1,243 posts11-19-2019 11:04am Where engineering analysis makes the
judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in
the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.
This
method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works
or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and
assumed meaning of it is not correct.
I -- repeat -- I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a long stream of unqualified comments, hence why I -- repeat -- I, don’t jump in on every thread about component X to offer my opinion. I don’t see the value in it, and it is My choice whether I will post or not. That is why I restrict my comment to supportable statements about more general topics in audio. There is no value in yet another comment. Do we really need another comment saying "B&W 80x is too bright!" or "no it’s not!". However, pointing out that some speaker makers consciously design a very wide emission pattern, and that if you find those speakers too bright, it is a room/speaker interaction issues, does have value. That is a post I made.
cleeds2,557 posts11-19-2019 10:42am Sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others’ listening experiences, even in the absence of definitive conclusions, and even in the absence of the scientific listening tests you keep asking others to conduct for you.
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!
Both are correct, but one needs to address the point that the ear only hears the peak and micro transients in the positive side of the waveform and then aggregates them together, in a very time and timing sensitive manner..and this is where the musics lives and is heard by the ear.
So tweaks address this area as just as well (qualitatively) as equipment or rooms or acoustics address this area.
If we apply engineering weighting to the signal analysis, we find that the changes from tweaks might be 0.1-0.05% of the signal, maybe more, maybe less.
But the engineering weighting has that all backward as compared to how the ear analyses the signal. That extra bit is heard on the top ...as the sum is heard -- not the change/difference that is separated out via engineering analysis.
Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.
This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct.
IF we applied the analysis to just the peak positives of the waveform, as a set ...and ignored the other 90% of the signal, just like the ear does..... then the changes might easily equal double digits of change.
Uh, oh, the Cargo Cult is growing. Speaking of bleating you’ve been following the wrong sheep 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑🚶🏻♂️The hat’s real cool looking. 🙄
Almost every time I see a ’Garmin’ GPS unit, I adopt the pose and walk the walk and say the line, in the correct tone and voice, of course: "Fred Garvin...Male..."
Kinda the same as a ’punch buggies - no paybacks’, thing, but totally different.... (the original post addressed his avatar which is of Dan Akyrod when he was on SNL. Oddly enough, I'm in the same town as Dan. Oh, the stories we townies can tell....)
... 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.
Whether the change to the sound of a system is "significant" or not is purely subjective, so it isn't clear what your point is here. As to tweaks, they are not mutually exclusive; you can make acoustic improvements as you also make tweaks.
... Almost every post here
"recommending" something becomes 50/50 for and against, so adding one
more "I heard this thing, in a room I am not familiar with, with
equipment I am not familiar with, and I liked/disliked it" is not going
to add any value here.
Sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others' listening experiences, even in the absence of definitive conclusions, and even in the absence of the scientific listening tests you keep asking others to conduct for you.
I am also not 12 years old, so I don’t play this "mine is bigger than yours" game. Grow up. How about writing posts here that show that you have any useful knowledge that makes your posts at all relevant, instead of just using ad-hominems to attack others.
I was simply asking you a question. And I have yet to hear an answer. What exactly are you teaching me?
And when / how did I ever launch any ad-hominems attack to you? Perhaps you should look at the mirror:
I will continually make fun of the shoe-box you have for a dedicated listening room
So again, I’ll say: show me your room? Mine is posted here, for all to see, good or bad. How about you?
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!
I saw your amplifier, at least one that to me looks exactly like yours, at a recent show. Its looks exude confidence, for sure. How often do you, in real life, have to use the screen on the front? It looks like it would attract fingerprints like crazy. Otherwise, very nice.
Thanks.
What show was that? In New York, or DC? Let me know which one, and I can tell you exactly what it was.
Honestly, I have only used the touch screen early when I got it, to set things up. In the normal course of use, I simply use the remote control.
atdavid397 posts11-19-2019 8:58amIf you believe that Thyname maybe you need to hang around less threads about things that don't help your sound and more threads about things that do. That or stop being dishonest.
Not sure I understand your statement. And not sure why you dodging my repeated questions. So let's try again:
What is your system? What do you recommend? As a good teacher you make yourself to be, what are your recommendations (pick any components, speakers, amp, DAC, you name it)? Do you have anything to add to Audio forums other than what is snake oil?
Cleeds,
I have lost count of the number of time audiophile friends have made
claims and I added a blind aspect and the claim dissolved. Just for you,
I will start writing them down and posting them here
Great! Please be sure to provide all of the details of your scientific tests, including the test protocol, DUT, number of subjects and trials, venue and associated equipment. The noisy minority here that is interested in such tests might find your work interesting.
How about you doing the same instead of assuming you have Superhuman hearing?
I've made no assumption or claim to "Superhuman hearing." Ever. The fact is just the opposite: I think the average listener can readily hear whatever I hear. As for your persistent requests that I conduct scientifically valid, double-blind listening tests to suit your sensibilities: I've never conducted or organized such tests. They are a tricky undertaking fraught with potential for error. (That's why I ask that you include details on whatever testing you conduct.) Nor is this a particularly good forum to visit to request such tests, because this is a hobbyist's group, not a scientific forum. I have been a subject in a number of such blind tests, however. They are really tedious! The results are sometimes surprising, both for test subjects and test organizers.
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.
