why do we argue?

Less emphasis on wisdom, more on experience.

To this day I can't understand why an enthusiastic post by someone with first hand knowledge of an upgrade has to be quizzed about his experience and provide "proof" of any kind.

In my case, whenever I post about something improving my system,it's just that, an observation of something that improved my system.

Then it's up to who ever is curious to check it out.

The act of which may or may not lead to the same conclusion that the OP posted.

People for the most part want to share positive experiences.
They don't spout the praises of things that can damage you or your gear.If they did I would understand the backlash.

So I just never could understand why some folks seem to find it their mission in life to bring rain down on the parade.

And almost always,those same individuals have no experience with the practise or device in question.

Somehow they have the "voodoo" that can spot the voodoo without even knowing much about what's going on.

Perhaps it's a jaded mind set.

Maybe they were burned years ago, and did buy snake oil.

It is out there, but to some folks it's the magic remedy and makes them happy.

What's the point in spoiling that?

If you've tried it and it didn't work in your system I would much rather hear about that then just a generalization like " I just know it can't make a difference".

I would think that all those who demand pure scientific evidence about upgrades in this hobby, should first take the empirical approach.
Do the experiment yourself and then draw your conclusion.

So am I trying to provoke an argument here?

That's not my intention.

I want less bickering and more appreciation for the folks who try things and are brave enough to come forward inspite of the attacks that will come their way.

Unwarranted and unjustified attacks, most often in packs of like minded folks on a mission to clean up the hobby rid us of snake oil and get back to the basics that "it's all about the music" and nothing else.

Well if you want just the music, then go see live events.
But even there you will be dealing with electronics and wires and who knows what kind of behind the scenes snake oil.

I've gotten to a point where I am very pleased with the fruits of my labour.My system sounds great, inspite of or because of the overpriced snake oil products and practises that I use.

Had I never been exposed to such, I doubt my system would sound so good.
Although I can't provide scientific proof thereof, I do have a number of friends who would back me up on my results.

I also have to thank the few audio mentors that helped me along the way.They weren't reluctant to share some of their findings and tips about improving my sound.
Positive, not negative re-inforcement.
If your ears like what you hear, then you're on the right track.
I can't find anything to argue about that.
This grasshopper learned much.

And the most important lesson I have learned in this journey is that exposure to as many different systems at all price points is a key to understanding what it takes to make you satisfied.

If you never know that there is better than good enough,you'll be like the person who only reads part way through a novel.
Never knowing how great the book is, because you've never gone far enough to find out.

I started in this hobby a long time ago,before it became fashionable to knock everything that costs more than what you can find at the pawn shop.

Back when audiophiles all had the same common denominator, the desire to improve the sound of the music they were listening to.

I would hazard a guess that the escalating cost of the gear created this divide.

But really, do we need to argue about the small cost upgrades that we can all afford?

When the talking(argument) is cut short by the mods, we are left with a North and South Korea type of situation.

Which is why I feel it's constructive to keep threads alive and not shut them down.

Sometimes they morph,but there is always something to be learned,grains of wisdom from the collective whole of those who participate and to me that's a good thing.

We need disargreement as a species to stay alive.
Where would we be if we all toed the party line?

We most likely would still be living in caves if it wasn't for the few brave fools who decided to venture out from the safety and sureness and comfort of their caves.

Fast forward and mankind discovers that it will not fall off the face of the earth the nearer he gets to the horizon.
So much for the established science and wisdom of the day.

I am not anti science.

I just feel that we haven't learned everything yet that there is to be learned,so I keep my mind open.

Others feel that something like the HiFi fuse has to be explained to them , that there has to be scientific proof to validate the claims.
They would never have ventured out onto the high seas or out of their caves.
All that they need to know is all that they have learned so far, and there's nothing left to discover.
More of the closed mindset if you will.

One understands he has much to learn, the other feels he knows all he needs to know.

Those who have the need to learn and discover will tend towards aftermarket tweaks, those who have done it all know it all will avoid such like the plague.

I remember Auntie Enid quite well,I discovered that there is a right and wrong way in power cord orientation.
Some folks laughed at her.
As I've mentioned,Aczel got me interested in the effect fuses have on our components.
My take was that if the fuse degraded the sound in a speaker, then it could have the same impact wherever it is used.

A very simple and easy experiment for me to do with my Maggies and my old Amber 70 amp of the day.

An experiment that anyone can do to this day if they are careful.

But only the folks who are curious will ever know what a fuse can do to the sonics while it protects our gear.

The others' beliefs will not be altered, they will not try the fuse or other tweaks.Hardwired into them is everything they have ever learned, and that's all they need.

They say their gear is not flawed and mine must have been, hence the reason why I noticed an improvement.

Yet they will swap tubes,and replace the odd resistor or capacitor out of neccesity or for sonics.
Those have become acceptable audio practises that both types of audiophiles engage in.

So the frustrating part for me,a person who understands that everything plays a part in what we hear,is not understanding why the fuse isn't included in the list of acceptable audio practises.

To me, there is nothing to argue about or debate about if only one side has ever experienced that which is in question.

The only thing that is a certainty is that one side tried it, and one side didn't.

Which would be a one sided argument if ever there was one.

Unsound, I love it!

You have every right to hate "it",but the "it" I was refering to was your comment.

I think you missed the point or perhaps I did.

I thought your remark was a great bit of comedic writing.

As this one is?

Ok, it's another day.

So when did the thread turn ugly? Which I guess it has, despite my optimism that the first diatribe was meant in jest.

It starts with "who the hell are you-"and the pace is picked up by another poster with "stop it".

Then "mother" or should I say Robert Young came in( as I mentioned, there's always one)to call a truce on Father's day.

So, true to form we have the ganging up and the peacemaker that I mentioned about.

But we still haven't found out why we are arguing?

No one has been able to voice their reasons for wanting to end the thread have they?

Those two individuals are not being forced to read,so they can "stop it" simply by not reading and not responding.
They are in complete control.They can switch channels or turn off the TV.

Perhaps that's not enough.

Until they explain why, we are stiil in the dark about "why do we argue?"

Arguing for the sake of argiung is a term I've heard before.

But to have a debate or argument you need two specific but differing points that are based on personal experience,or well established fact(insert science).

My point is that it is only argument for arguments sake, when one party cannot back himself up with either personal experience(with a tweak, ie)or can't provide scientific proof either in favour of or not in favour of the item being debated. Prove to me scientifically that an upscale fuse, i.e., has no effect. Don't always expect me to provide proof that it does.Fair enough?

I've done my job, I've tried it and stated my experience, although I have no scientific prof to back it up.I am at least half way there.

The other fellow hasn't done anything but express an opinion,and an opinion that is not based on personal experience or backed up by scientific fact.He may make references to scientific experiments or quote the results of double blind listening tests,but they are seldom specific to what is being debated, and again he has not participated in those tests, so again,still handicapped.

I demagnetize my cd's and lp's and have demonstrated the before and after effects, and everyone who has experienced it at my home has been in agreement that the sound was improved.No one asked for me to prove it to them scientifically.They heard the same things I heard.
I once posted this ,in the hope that others might try it and enjoy improved listening.

Sceptics who were not present to those demos came out of the wood work and gave a multitude of reasons why demagging can't work.
I can speak from experience that it was a power play.
Riddicule and sophmoric humour were last resorts as they usually are when one side starts to get the upper hand.

The topic doesn't matter anymore, it's all about who wins.
Who gets to be proclaimed the Wise One and who is made out to be the Dummy.Only a Dummy would believe that you can demagnetize a vinyl LP.
Instead of leaving it alone, or at least trying it for themselves, those folks decided that it was a subject that needed to be scrutinized and sanitized.
We don't need no more snake oil claims.

You'd of thought I suggested standing in a pool of water while playing with the power cords was the tweak, or some other type of mayhem.

This is when there's nothing to be learned, there's no sharing of knowledge and the thread is no use to anyone except the two protagonists and those folks in the crowd watching the fight taking one side or the other.

I have nothing against two or more folks freely expressing their opinions, but before you start to argue, please experience it for yourself and then post your take on it.

If your experience is different from mine I won't be able to argue with that.



So it's not really a two sided argument if one side is handicapped from the beginning.

My intial reaction was that it was joking.

But,I've elicited similar responses that weren't as jovial , hence my second thoughts.

I agree, much can be learned from threads that at times can get a bit hostile.

If you go back to my intial post, I am in favour of heated debates and opposed to censorship and thread closings.

And as I stated, there's always something to be learned if you are open minded.

Lucky for us, not all of the wisdom of the ages was lost in the great book burnings.

And the folks doing the book burnings were just looking out for our best interests as well.Or so they said.

Well thanks one and all,all responses,whether they sided with me or or not are valued and again my thanks to the person who thanked the mods for aloowing this to continue.

I tend to type slower than I think so my appologies if my message isn't clear.

What I hope to now make clear is what my intentions were in the first place.

Not completely manipulative,but I did feel that this would push the right buttons and in and of itself would prove that it only takes a bit of prodding to stir up some conflicting views that would later result in arguments.

In short, using the word "argue",sets the tone for what will surely follow or so I hypothesized.

I believe I was right.I knew this would lead to arguments,which like brush fires eventually evolve into all out wildfires that destroy everything in their path.

I wasn't trolling, but I also predict that some will call it that.
Most likely the folks who were disturbed by this thread.

But what I truly did hope this thread would do, was to try and bring some sort of self awakening or enlightenment to the folks who continually bash the high end, expensive gear and tweaks and seem to be the ones who ignite the intial flame that eventually takes out the forest.

What can they gain by being the naysayer?

I believe Bryon has elaborated on that issue quite elequently, and my thanks to all the others who did their share of soul searching when I started this thread.

We are a hobby of diverse individuals , with different skill sets and levels of education,but we do have one common denominator, the joy we get from listening to recorded music.

Why some folks are dead set against accepting things that others say ( with hands on experience)can improve sound quality has been something that I've tried to find an explanation for.

I can understand if finances are an issue,but why kill the messanger if an audio mag reviews a $100,000 speaker now and then?

Isn't it nice to know that someone got the chance to listen and evaluate it?
Believe him or not, be a skeptik, call it a paid for review,make an issue out of the fact that there is a full page add for the product,but at least you have something to read and perhaps get a bit more insite into the product than what you find in the advertisement specs.

But again, for some, the specs are all you need.
Everything else is rubbish and the ears are not to be trusted.

So it goes,in countless forums and letters to the editor.

The great debate or argument rages on, like that wildfire, it's grown over the years, to the point where I fear there are more of "them" than "me".

BY that, I mean, more folks who are interested in proving something can't work, then there are folks who can say they do.
More likely afraid to post that something does work for fear of riddicule from the naysayers.

Again, we've learned from Bryon that there are several reasons for this type of behaviour from the naysayers.

Which in turn solicited some more controversy.

I don't think I"ll be around to see the day when the great divide is no longer with us.

There will always be two sides,the ones who are in the playing field and those on the sidelines.

But time has a funny way of changing things.

I've seen tip toes,vibration control, and more widespead acceptance of power conditioning becoming less fringe and more mainstream over the years.

Perhaps some of the more contentious items kicked about will also become just as acceptable.

What I fail to understand is the misconstrued perception that only fools spend big bucks on audio systems and only do so for bragging rights.

It couldn't be furthter from the truth.

If you really feel it's all about the music, you would understand .

I read the thread Bryon.

But I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back to promoting better sound rather than trashing it.

Pos feedback had a nice article which ties in with this thread and they published my reply to Why I am a Subjectivist in their letters column.

Spending money on things which some of us use to improve our systems has mostly been looked at with scorn and scepticism by more and more "audiophiles"( I use the term loosely).

That some are now starting to respond to these scatthing remarks and riddicule is long overdue.

Music is the reason for getting involved in this hobby, the equipment is a means to enjoy the music.I am also a muscian.

I always felt that it was the wise thing to do to use whatever funds were available to increase the level of performance of the system and in turn increase the enjoyment level.

I never felt it was about bragging rights,I was spending money on items that worked for my ears.
If they work for other ears that's great, but the only way to know is if you go out and try the things that are being described.

Everyone's perception of an audio breakthrough are different.
I've stated before,my take on an improvemnt in my system may not be noticeable to others or in other systems.

But what I do know is that it does make my system sound better to my ears and I trust them, because I listen to the music with my ears and my ears only.

But then doesn't everyone?

So,it also seems that finances are another reason people get angry and like to argue.

Over priced gear, out of the reach of normal wage earners,is a reason many have turned their back on audio and condemn those who do make high end purchases.

Look at the flack the mags get if they rave about any gear that costs in the five figure range or higher.
That angers some folks so much that they cancel their subscriptions.

Yet there are always plenty of reviews of new low price gear that performs far better than most of the "vintage" gear they've spent the same money on.
All they need to do is read the "specs" and they would see that most modern speakers have better specs than old ones.
Amazing, the spec people should be the ones who own all new gear, yet they mostly don't.

That over priced, rip off high end gear doesn't sit very long on the Gon pages does it?
It's good stuff again if bought at pawn shop prices.

Something tells me those magazine reviews of high end gear can come in handy afterall.

So to all the folks who cancel their subscriptions because of reviews of high priced gear, thanks.

There'll be fewer folks in the know when those nice mono blocks come up for sale used.

What I find ironic is that the objectionists,or the folks who demand scientific proof ,never indulge in the true spirit of science.

Which would have to be the experiemnt.

The proof can only be determined if the item under scrutiny has gone under the knife as it were, and an "experiment" is performed to either validate or discredit the findings of the original theory.

This is the basics of science.
Yet the objectionists refuse to experiment or in our case, try the tweak that is in question.

The onus is always on the person who reports that a tweak made an imporovemnt to"their" system to provide some kind of proof to the "others" who are sceptical.

Isn't this a bit one sided?

Why shouldn't the onus be on the objectionist to scientifically prove why the tweak in question shouldn't work?
Ah, but then he would have to try the tweak himself, wouldn't he?

And this is what they most always refuse to do.

To try the tweak would seem like caving in,like finding enough merit in the claim to involve them with the very folks they wish to distance themselves from.

They wouldn't waste their time or money doing any such thing,because they don't believe in "fairy dust", yet they do nothing to disprove it's existance.

It's arrogance, plain and simple.
They are the smart ones, those who believe in the fairy dust are dimwitted.

And the argument continues.

One side tries something and states that it made his system sound better.

The other side, does not try the item and states that it can't do what the other person said it does, and continues to try and discourage anyonelse from trying the item.

"Smart people don't fall for snake oil, it sounds like snake oil to me because I don't understand it, don't know much about it, and have never nor will ever try it."
"I just know it won't work."Are a couple of examples of close minded thinking that we've all seen in other threads which turn into arguments.

Another spin in another age was, "if God intended man to fly ,he would have given us wings".

So I ask, prove to me that what I may have raved about is in fact nothing but snake oil?
But, how can you do that by not trying it?

This is the one sided argument I referred to earlier on in this thread.

That someone, who wasn't privy to the "experiment" in my home on my system, can make a statement that something like demagging an LP can't make an improvement is someone who MS. Goodwin would call close minded.

Keeping an open mind and gaining some experience with tweaks that have worked and those that haven't gives someone more insight than the person who has the closed mind and tries nothing that is out of his comfort zone.

Seeing both sides of the coin and not just one side is seeing the big picture.

I remember thinking that I would never like the sound of an SET low power amp, because the specs are nothing at all like that of the high powered solid state amps that I was familiar with.

All it took was to try one out in a suitable system and I realized how wrong one can be when they close their mind to all the variables we have when it comes to reproducing music in our homes.

But I would never argue that an SET type system is the best there is either, or that cones are better than stats, tubes better than solid state, vinyl better than cd.

I could tell you what I prefer, and I have every right to, because I've actually tried the stuff.

Cheap tweaks are always the best.

A lot of the things I do, are DIY versions of costly tweaks that I can't afford.

I like Blu Tac, I have a lot of applications for it.
Here's a tweak that's cheap and although there's no night and day improvemnt, I like to wrap some of it around my IC, and power cords.A bit of the stuff can make those expensive power snakes fit more snuggly into their electrical sockets and most likel damps out some external vibrations.

But I also used to think that my DIY racks and platforms were all that was needed.They were cheap,they worked, but not as good as I had thought.
The inclusion of a Grand Prix audio rack is now icing on the cake.

But had I not been open minded to at least go the DIY route and attempt to control vibrations, I would stll be using the cheap 30 year old stock Target rack that so many of us feel is all we need.

IMOP you have to do the heavy lifting if you're going to find out what works and what doesn't.
The emphasis on "you".