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". |
07-05-12: Almarg
Early on in this thread (in my post of 6-11-12) I referred to how easy it is for extraneous variables to produce misleading results when it comes to assessing audio products and tweaks, especially when lengthy breakin periods are required for the assessments. IMO that is one reason that reports of counter-intuitive and technically inexplicable results should be questioned. I agree. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy. But so is a certain amount of open-mindedness. The trick is to balance the two, which isnt easy. I will say, Al, you always strike me as achieving a good balance between the skepticism and open-mindedness. I tend to oscillate between the two extremes. As a result, I experiment with a lot of tweaks, only to conclude that many of them don't do much of anything. Which brings me to
my perception has been that there is a tendency for those who experiment extensively with tweaks, fuses, cables, power cords, etc. to disproportionately focus their experiments on choices that are at the upper end of the price range they can afford. Their experiments will result in a choice that works well for them, and that experience will be reported. That will in turn inspire others to try out the same or similar products, with good results in many cases. The end result being that a self-reinforcing belief system evolves. This is a fair comment, IMO. Looking back at my list of tweaks, I would say that there is very little correlation between price and performance, at least in my system. Ive been starting to sense that for some time, which is why I no longer buy $2K interconnects or $1K power cables. And lately Ive been having fun experimenting with DIY tweaks, some of which have a fantastic price/performance ratio, like these
--DIY anti-diffraction felt surrounds for tweeters --DIY shielding, both internal and external --DIY crossovers The materials for felt surrounds is dirt cheap, around $25. The materials for DIY shielding can be a bit more expensive than that, but still nowhere near the cost of some of the tweaks sold by manufacturers. And although crossover parts can be very expensive, you dont have to spend a fortune to get a big improvement in SQ. The point is that I agree with you, Al, that some people (myself included) spend too much on tweaks, and that the money could be used to buy better equipment, DIY alternatives, or dinner with your wife. As far as the self-reinforcing belief system surrounding the world of tweaks, I like to imagine that my periodic fits of skepticism purge my brain of hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, chicanery, and other forms of nonsense. But that itself may be a self-reinforcing belief system. :-) Bryon |
Al,
I like and agree with your first point. Externalities are always at play whether intended or not. To do something in a tightly controlled environment can negate its results in the real world where variables exist. With so much in play, in so many systems, what is claimed to work (benefit) has to be repeatable, to some degree.
I also agree with your 2nd assessment and Mapmans, if that's possible. Broad applications are general in nature and degrees of improvement will vary from system to system. They would still hold true, to some degree.
And your question as to whether some less expensive alternative exists, if the principle is the same but the ingredients are of lesser quality, then the benefit can escape scrutiny given the smaller nature of improvement. It could be chalked up to imagination.
(there, I said it) :-)
There has to be a cost/improvement relationship point at which the benefit justifies the tweak. It could be why some hear a bigger improvement from Furutech fuses compared to HiFi Tuning fuses. I wouldn't know since that's beyond my pay grade (which further backs up your point).
All the best,
Nonoise |
07-05-12: Bryoncunningham
But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science....
Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not.
Great points once again, Bryon, IMO. Re the first point, I think it is worth noting that the scientific progress you refer to occurs in part as a result of experimentation in which meticulous and disciplined efforts are made to eliminate the possibility that the results may be the consequence of unrecognized extraneous variables. And the results are then further confirmed by peer review, independent experimental corroboration, etc. Early on in this thread (in my post of 6-11-12) I referred to how easy it is for extraneous variables to produce misleading results when it comes to assessing audio products and tweaks, especially when lengthy breakin periods are required for the assessments. IMO that is one reason that reports of counter-intuitive and technically inexplicable results should be questioned. In a civil as opposed to argumentative manner, of course :-) Another reason, btw, being to discuss the system dependencies that may be involved, and the likelihood that the results will be applicable to other systems. 07-05-12: Mapman
The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value. I'm not sure that is as true in audio as it is in most other fields of endeavor. For one thing, my perception has been that there is a tendency for those who experiment extensively with tweaks, fuses, cables, power cords, etc. to disproportionately focus their experiments on choices that are at the upper end of the price range they can afford. Their experiments will result in a choice that works well for them, and that experience will be reported. That will in turn inspire others to try out the same or similar products, with good results in many cases. The end result being that a self-reinforcing belief system evolves. But given that the mechanisms by which many of these products provide sonic benefits are often speculative or not understood at all, at least in a way that makes sense when analyzed quantitatively, how do we know that similarly extensive experimentation focused on choices at much lower price points would not have yielded comparably good results, and better value? Best regards, -- Al |
|
We argue because the alternative of pulling out a 45 and silencing the other party does not go down well with friends and family, whether ours or the former annoyance. |
It would be interesting to see where our military falls on this issue. Having a simplified guidance system (thanks kid!) would make it easier to hit their target(s).
Our military (Pentagon & DOD) already buys into global warming as do all the major insurers and underwriters and have contingency plans to deal with it. They looked at the science and sidestepped the hype.
If they start hitting things more accurately, on a continuous basis, more power to the kid. :-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
Michael Berry's comment got the Newton/boy genius thing right. A good bit of hype to boost the substance in that story....
The devil is always in the details. Abstract models are always much easier to get right reliably than detailed ones. That's one reason why Newton's and other aged cornerstone principles like it stick. They are teh most reliable models to apply generally but do not account for many additional factors that exist in reality that others factor in as well over time depending on the need/application. The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value. THe more esoteric things (fancy fuses?), eh, maybe not so much. |
|
07-04-12: Almarg
Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible... the phrase "discoverable by science"...does not mean "has been discovered by science." This is a point worth expanding upon. The difference between "discovered" and "discoverable" reflects two different views of science. The first view is that science is... 1. Static. 2. Reductionistic. 3. Dogmatic. The second view is that science is... 1. Revisable. 2. Expansible. 3. Provisional. There is truth in both views, insofar as older scientists tend to be more entrenched in their views than younger ones, a point made famously in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The entrenchment of *some* scientists can give the impression that science is static, reductionistic, and dogmatic. But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science. This is evident throughout the history of physics, which was repeatedly transformed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg to the host of scientists working on Unified Field Theory. This is just one of many examples of how science is revisable, expansible, and provisional. The revisability, expansibility, and provisionality of science is relevant to debates between Objectivists and Subjectivists. Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not. Bryon |
07-04-12: Lacee
What I find ironic is that the Objectivists, or the folks who demand scientific proof, never indulge in the true spirit of science.
Which would have to be the experiment...
Yet the Objectivists refuse to experiment or in our case, try the tweak that is in question. While there are certainly Objectivists who fit this description, I will point out that I am an Objectivist about the majority of audio topics, and here is a list of tweaks I've tried... Custom crossovers (Mundorf caps, Mills resistors, etc.) Custom power supplies Custom internal wiring Custom internal shielding Cryo'd Romex SS impedance buffer Tube impedance buffer Ultra low noise op amps Reclocker Interconnects costing more than $2K 4 different power conditioners (2 Shunyata, 2 PS Audio) 4 different AC outlets (Shunyata, Synergistic, Maestro, PS Audio) 3 different outlet covers (nylon, aluminum, non-magnetic steel) WBT Nextgen connectors 2 Audiocom Superclocks TI Shield RCA/XLR caps ERS cloth AC noise harvesters Ferrites Various viscoelastic damping compounds Outriggers Anti-diffraction felt surrounds 3 different audiophiles fuses (Hifi Tuning, Isoclean, Furutech) Sand traps Maple platforms Gingko platforms Black Diamond Racing platforms Brass damping weights Brass cones, spikes EVS Ground enhancers Progold Ayre Acoustics glide tone Copper sleeves for power cords ...and that's off the top of my head. So there are at least some Objectivists who are willing to experiment with tweaks, even highly controversial ones. I mean, 3 different outlet covers? That should demonstrate my willingness to try nearly ANYTHING. As I mentioned at the end of my last post, being an Objectivist doesn't necessarily mean that you're a Skeptic. It's true that many Skeptics attempt to JUSTIFY their skepticism on the basis of Objectivism. That may give the impression that Objectivism and Skepticism are the same thing, but they are not. If you want an example of an audiophile who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, I am it. If you want an example of a real person who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, then Nonoise has already provided it: Scientists working at the frontiers of scientific research. Scientists are almost universally Objectivists, but the pioneering scientists are almost never Skeptics. If pioneering scientists were Skeptics, they would not labor for 10 years to build a 27 kilometer tunnel designed to search for an elusive particle that remained undiscovered for over 40 years after its initial prediction. If they were Skeptics, they would have long ago said, "To Hell with it, Higgs was an idiot, and we have plenty of bosons as it is." Some scientists did say that, and it now appears they were wrong. Thankfully for us, there were more Believers than Skeptics. Bryon |
Categories aside, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, once something is heard, and appreciated, and/or moves you, we all become subjectivists, don't we? :-)
The objectivist might say, after hearing, that the result confirms the data without needing to verify it. I say they are overlooking the fact that the data IS not needed if the result confirms on an auditory and emotional level (here comes that placebo argument).
We don't have to know the measurements, or how it works. Our ears tell us it does and, if good, our emotions respond sympathetically.
Let someone else test all they want, after the fact.
We do this all the time with all manner of equipment that have already been established and never give it a second thought. We swap out X for Y and it gets better or worse. Now, something wicked this way comes, and all bets are off?
Just try it for yourself
None of what I just said matters if the objectivist refuses to listen.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Boggs? Did I say boggs instead of Higgs boson?
(hiGGS+BOson=boggs)
Another example of unlicensed poetic license.
I should type slower.
All the best,
Nonoise |
One is not likely to invest time and money in something they do not believe in.
People believe in many things that I may not. I have no problem with that. However, I will reserve the right to believe what I will for whatever reason I chose in return.
If someone believes in something, it should not matter if another does or not.
Most arguments of merit will catch on over time but there will always be those who believe otherwise.
Not sure what the problem is? If you know something works, why care what someone else thinks? Just state the facts and see what happens. |
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. |
It's quite the discipline to analyze a situation before speaking as well as Bryon and Al do. Weigh the facts, consider the angles, draw insight, analyze still more, and compare before posting. This has all been like a min-classroom in critical thinking and I feel better for it.
I like to think I have feet in both camps, depending on the topic. As one physicist at CERN jokingly said about the boggs particle they found, " It's more like that godd*mned particle than the god particle". Something was there, all the time. It just took a whole lot of patience and effort to find it.
I feel the same about this hobby (within reason).
All the best,
Nonoise |
That was a succinct clarification of the technically correct usage of Objectivist & Subjectivist Bryon. Your education is evident. When I used the terms in reference to audio "personalities," they referenced the differences between the two encampments. As you say, Objectivists believe independent, objective attributes verifiable by science are the sole determinant of why any given piece of audio gear sounds the way it does. We need a better term than Subjectivist for those who have take more nuanced or less rigid views of audio reality. As to your point #7, it's not so much that I think "whatever facts exist need not be discoverable by science" as that I'm willing to consider that science (in its current state of development) can't explain/define all the parameters that affect why something sounds the way it does. Admittedly, the rational part of my brain rebels at this. After all, many/most electrical engineers believe why a device sounds the way it does can be explained by an electrical circuit's characteristics of current, voltage, impedance, resistance, etc. People get argumentative when concepts like skin effect, eddy currents, conductivity of different metals, etc. (whose abilities to audibly affect a circuit are non-verfiable) are brought into the discussion. As your points 8,9, & 10 demonstrate, there can be different thresholds of verification or understanding before any given individual is willing to concede something is "real." |
A great analysis, Bryon, as usual! I think that one especially good insight, among several that were contained in your post, is: Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. Can an AC outlet affect sound quality? For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge
6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.
7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible. Ms. Goodwin herself stated in the article that "The problems I encounter with many objectivists on the internet has to do with their mindset, they are closed-minded to anything sounding different if it cannot be measured." Which leads me to emphasize your careful use of the phrase "discoverable by science," and to note that that does not mean "has been discovered by science." Best, -- Al |
As Al has already pointed out, Goodwins article is a transparent case of strawmanning, i.e. misrepresenting your opponent and then attacking that misrepresentation. Goodwins Objectivist is a gross distortion of the views of actual Objectivists, both in the world of audio and in the real world. Goodwins characterization of Objectivism also reveals a nearly complete lack of understanding of the use of that term in both philosophy and science, which is this
1. An Objectivist about X believes in OBJECTIVE FACTS about X.
where
2. An objective fact is a fact that is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. So, for example, an Objectivist about chemistry believes that the facts of chemistry are independent of persons. An Objectivist about biology believes that the facts of biology are independent of persons. And so on. In this sense, nearly ALL scientists are Objectivists. The one significant exception are physicists who question Objectivism on the grounds of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. But even the breakdown of Objectivism at the lowest levels of microphysics does not cast doubt on the validity of Objectivism at higher levels of science, i.e. macrophysics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, neuroscience, etc.. Objectivism is not only the prevailing view of scientific facts, it is arguably the SINE QUA NON of science. The contrast to all this is Subjectivism
3. A Subjectivist about X does NOT believe in objective facts about X. So, for example, a Subjectivist about morality does not believe in objective facts about morality. A Subjectivist about art does not believe in objective facts about art. IMO, the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism in the world of audio is very similar
4. An Objectivist about audio topic X believes in objective facts about topic X. 5. A Subjectivist about audio topic X does not believe in objective facts about topic X. With that in mind, nearly all audiophiles are BOTH Objectivist and Subjectivists, as Mapman pointed out. If the topic is How much harmonic distortion does this amplifier have? then nearly all audiophiles are Objectivists. That is, they believe that there is an objective fact about the quantity of an amplifiers harmonic distortion. If, on the other hand, the topic is Who is the best blues musician of all time? then nearly all audiophiles are Subjectivists. That is, they do NOT believe that there is an objective fact about who is the best blues musician. Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. Can an AC outlet affect sound quality? For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge
6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. 7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. In other words, for topics for which there are no definitive answers, audiophiles tend to split along the lines of HOW MUCH CAN BE KNOWN BY SCIENCE. The opposing views are then labelled Objectivism and Subjectivism. One last thing... As Goodwin's article illustrates, Objectivism is often falsely equated with other views: 8. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Skepticism, i.e. a default ATTITUDE OF DOUBT. Some Objectivists are Skeptics, some are not. 9. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Verificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE. Some Objectivists are Verificationists, some are not. 10. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Justificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is PROVEN WITH CERTAINTY. Some Objectivists are Justificationists, some are not. As I hope is obvious by now, Goodwins depiction of Objectivism is not only uncharitable, it is reductionistic, naïve, and facile. Objectivism is a view of far greater complexity, depth, and nuance than she presents, and probably than she understands. Bryon |
Nonoise,
Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it. |
Al,
Great point you make about the black and white nature of the sides. There is an admitted bias to the article but in defense of the author, she made it clear which side she is on and how she feels about it.
Mapman,
We all have our Jekyll and Hyde counterparts but to have it under such control as to be merely dismissive instead of violent is commendable, indeed. :-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
From the concluding paragraph of the article at the link NoNoise provided: In my opinion if one believes in this phony so-called science all one needs is MP3s played on the cheapest mini-system one can find and 14 cent a foot 20 gauge speaker wire as these scientists in their quest to destroy high-end audio have proved with their AB and ABX double-blind testing protocols that everything under the sun statistically sounds the same. For example in the concluding comments of both the Stereo Review Amp and CD player tests they state that audio equipment should not be purchased based on sound quality because any differences are all imagined but by features, build quality and reliability. This is destructive bull of the worst type, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that objectivists unrealistic belief's are absurd. Somehow I don't think that there are too many high end audiophiles who fit the author's characterization of the objectivist part of the spectrum, whether they believe in magic tweaks or not. It's easy to make a case against those who do not share your views if you allow for only two possible positions, both of them extremist. Regards, -- Al |
Of course that writer labels himself a subjectivist and then proceeds to paint objectionists as the bad guys. Who'd a thunk it?
I think I am both at the same time. There is good mapman, the subjectivist who believes ALMOST anything within reason is possible and evil mapman who refuses to cross certain lines because he decides they are just not very important. |
|
Lacee and Mapman - Good thoughts, and I thank you for sharing them. The link in my last post was intended to make a simple point, a point I've made on this thread and others: One of the most common causes of arguments is bullying.
bc |
"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."
That is true and I doubt anyone would disagree.
But, the hard part is the decision making process. Which things to try and in what order of priority? That is where things get tricky! Especially since not the same things work in every case. Making an educated decision requires facts. Once one has the needed facts, a decision can be made. Individual findings will vary. Arguments may ensue. The facts will generally almost always tend to come out better over time though assuming the stakeholders in the argument STICK TO THE FACTS. Its all good unless things turn personal for whatever reason. The best way to avoid that is to always STICK TO THE FACTS and make clear what is known or not and to what degree of certainty. A lot of "facts" that result in arguments tend to occur in shades of grey. What is true in one case may not be true in the next. YEt, is was true at least once most likely. But no one in their right mind will bank on something just because someone they do not know or know if they can trust says so. Yoo know you cannot trust anyone who insists that a single occurence of something is enough to prove it exists (I will not name names....). |
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. |
Well, I guess if it boils down to two choices when someone says something that does not sound right:
1) ignore it
2) argue the point
I suppose if we all chose to not argue ever, the world would be a much different place? Better or worse? Hard to say. But I tend to think people do what they are wired to do for a reason that may not always be immediately apparent except perhaps to some higher power, so I guess I will just chose to use the term debate rather than argument and call it a day. |
|
So, the moral of the story is even crazy people can be right occasionally? |
That which constitutes the ability to claim scientific proof requires rigorous methodology, expensive test equipment and likely more money and time that most of us would rather spend listening. Speculation is largely free, other than caloric burn and it's associated expenses. Where facts are scarce, mysticism will prevail. I will use the facts to enhance the mystical experience, especially when it comes to music. That said, if you want to wear a necklace of ferrite beads go for it. I might make such a necklace if you assert its benefits vociferously, but I won't be paying big money for the privilege. |
|
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 .
|
Actually for me because I type so much slower than I think and respond, the Internet filters what I would expound on in person. :-) |
I have read all the above posts with my usual erudite precision. I can only hope that in retrospect, you have all come to recognize, each and every one of you, that you're wrong - especially that 99% chimp part. I mean, maybe you guys but certainly not me - no way - I went to college and everything. |
On an aside, I would like to thank the moderators who let us discuss, deliberate, argue, vent and let us go our way.
There are other sites where this kind of 'talk' is 'verbotten, nein, nein, nein' less enlightenment ensues.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I kind of like the fact that on the Internet, people are more apt to say what they mean and tell you what they think of you than they might in person. It can be a double edged sword when things head south but a useful tool for self improvement that might not be available otherwise. |
"I've been called all sorts of stuff by folks that would never have done it in person both because if we discussed in person we could both better communicate and also the obvious smack in the mouth."
Yep. A "Smack in the mouth" web app could be a huge seller if effective! I bet there is one out there somewhere. Might help negate some of the unique advantages of electronic social networking done right though. |
consider the medium of argument. the internet has no feedbacks built in from the person you are talking withs posture, ability to counter point immediately and last but not least the elimination of a smack in the mouth. We can say anything and let whatever frustrations out with complete safety. Not seeing your discussion partner has a significant impact. I've been called all sorts of stuff by folks that would never have done it in person both because if we discussed in person we could both better communicate and also the obvious smack in the mouth. |
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. |
Thank you, Dan, for your apology. You are a gentleman. I too apologize-- for my first post yesterday. I hope there are no hard feelings.
The upside: We've provided a good demonstration of how to avert an argument. No small feat on a topic like this one!
Bryon |
I have been making this observation for years re other related subjects/discussions and it should be made again: 77 (!) responses to the OP, and not ONCE, not a single time is the word "music" mentioned.
We get very personal about our music. That is a good thing, and is a testament to the power of music. While IMO some put too much emphasis on the technical aspects of the hobby, the connection to the music is inevitable since without it there is no way to talk about the tweaks and all their (sometimes) questionable effects. Nobody likes to hear that someone else is hearing something in our music that we aren't or can't. So, it is a very human response to get defensive and argue at the proposition. |
Bryon, I apologize if I gave the impression of calling you out. |
I saw this coming.
Oh, the power of suggestion.:-) |
Actually, Dan wrote:
"Why do people want to get philosophical in a hobby forum? :-) "
Note the smiley face. I know I missed it at first.
Actually, I find our Chimp-like DNA (this is a scientific fact I believe the # I have read is 95%+ similar) a much more compelling topic than why we argue. Possibly even more entertaining as well! :> |
We could always argue about whether cables make a sonic difference or whether tubes or transistors are better, right? And at the root of every one of those threads is a more basic question - the one Lacee raised- about group behavior that applies to a lot of the spirited debate as well as the mud-slinging that goes on here and on almost every internet chat board. And there are a lot of interesting questions relating to the "philosophy" of home music reproduction that transcend the "is X product better than Y product" types of questions. I'm good with all of it. |
06-20-12: Dan_ed
You guys are proving my point. There is not even a subject to this thread, and yet you want to argue when someone doesn't react the way you want. Sorry to argue the point, Dan, but that's not what happened. In fact, that's the OPPOSITE of what happened. Here's what happened... 1. Lacee asked a serious and philosophical question in the OP on 6/10. 2. I gave a serious and philosophical answer on 6/11, and another one on 6/18. 3. On 6/19, you asked, "Why do people want to get philosophical in a hobby forum?" 4. Today, you said, "It is funny to watch how some get so serious, and others don't." Those comments amount to saying, "I don't like posts that are serious or philosophical." So the person telling other people how they should react is, in fact, you. I've read a lot of your posts, Dan, and you seem like a well informed and reasonable guy. I would invite you to consider that some people enjoy being philosophical from time to time, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. To my mind, the world could use more reflection, not less. Bryon |
:-) I'm just going to pull out Meaning of Life and get all the answers. |
No, I am not arguing even though that is the subject and we haven't figured out why!
I would never argue about why do we argue. That is twice as bad, possibly even 4X worse on a log scale!
Still craving that banana though.... |
Just as arguments are another form of communication, being 'funny' can be another form of being serious, serious being thoughtful, careful and deliberate and funny being just another way of getting your view across without the associated cost of being serious.
Or something like that.
All the best,
Nonoise |
