“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
There is nothing wrong with investing in loudspeakers, whether finding new approaches to making them or paying for refinement, but over the decades, we have tried lots of speaker approaches, like: ION, Manger, and I am sure, several other approaches. However, there has always been a problem with these approaches that discourages further incorporation in the vast majority of audio systems. They are still around, but only in exotic speakers.
Me.
Therein lies the problem. Too many people want to talk about stuff, so few actually want to investigate. Looking into some of this stuff will lead you to a deeper understanding of it, and may even change your beliefs. It's a fun hobby, right?
But of course we know: "An Audiophile loves no sound better than his own voice."
Me.
Therein lies the problem. Too many people want to talk about stuff, so few actually want to investigate. Looking into some of this stuff will lead you to a deeper understanding of it, and may even change your beliefs. It's a fun hobby, right?
But of course we know: "An Audiophile loves no sound better than his own voice."
I think of it like this..
1.) Someone makes a claim for which there is no evidence.
2.) I ask them if they've found new evidence, or tried to use any of the available tools to find some.
3.) I'm asked to use the tool instead.
Sure, it's a fun hobby, but when we're talking about some of this stuff, aptly named "snake oil" for the purposes of this thread, I find myself concerned at the general aversion some people have to what should be generally acceptable scientific data. Instead of accepting it and moving on to other things that might actually, I dunno, be beneficial to the hobby in general, they instead fall over themselves to cough up absolutely laughable anecdotal nonsense and cast aspersions on testing methods.
It would be a lot more fun if people stopped believing ridiculous things.
My mind is perpetually open, otherwise, I wouldn't ask for evidence, I'd just say these things under my breath and close the thread.
But I don't...I'll cling to these types of threads until the bitter end. The only thing I really, really wish for is a genuine debate, but we can't seem to get past the not insignificant stumbling block that is bridging the gap between anecdotal opinion and actual reliable data.
So, here we are. A perfectly open mind who thinks (based on evidence) that interconnects, mains cables, jars of rocks and special sprays represent the pinnacle of wasted time and money.
Change my mind with evidence, I triple dog dare anyone, and I'll eat my shoe and post the video on youtube.
There is a serious difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. We can supply the 'evidence' just from listening experience, 'proof' is MUCH HARDER most of the time. Much of the 'proof' appears to lie in the physics of a part, not so much the 'engineering' and physicists of the usual kind prefer to ignore such 'proofs' as it could damage their reputation just to try to 'prove' something about cables, etc. This is the norm.
Yes, there is. What you're calling "evidence" is a "claim." "Evidence" is something else entirely.
But that's what separates reality from hucksterism.
Proof isn't that hard, all you need to do is be able to identify the device without being able to see whether or not it's connected with your eyes, which shouldn't be a problem at all. The only problems that arise do so because of anxiety on the part of the claimant.
If you don't like ABX testing, the next avenue of recourse is to come up with a test that you like, which doesn't rely 100% on the words that come out of your mouth and 0% on what's actually coming out of the speakers, something that should be relatively easy, considering we're swimming in more engineers and doctors around here than webmd.
If you don't like ABX testing, the next avenue of recourse is to come up with a test that you like, which doesn't rely 100% on the words that come out of your mouth and 0% on what's actually coming out of the speakers, something that should be relatively easy, considering we're swimming in more engineers and doctors around here than webmd.
OK, I think if it like this:
- You make claims that a tool can easily do something
- Someone says "Its not so easy, the tool isn't perfect"
- You claim again that it's easy
- Someone asks you to give it a try
- You refuse to try because you can't be bothered
No hard feelings Dr. Dyna, but that's just as much a cop-out as anything else.
It is the ocean you swim in. It's an ocean where "claims" are the same as "evidence," where "trust your ears" means "peek," where ridiculous pronouncements by gurus must not be challenged, where data may be safely ignored in favor of the storytelling, and where the fashion machine must be constantly fed.
High end audio as an industry is hopelessly corrupt, and that's why it has shrunk to a tiny niche serving a shrinking and dying population. Whether you have convinced yourself of the nonsense or know better but say it anyway is something only you can know.
OK, I think if it like this:
- You make claims that a tool can easily do something
- Someone says "Its not so easy, the tool isn't perfect"
- You claim again that it's easy
- Someone asks you to give it a try
- You refuse to try because you can't be bothered
No hard feelings Dr. Dyna, but that's just as much a cop-out as anything else.
Care to yell at me?
I've tried it a number of times.
OK, I think if it like this:
- You make claims that a tool can easily do something
- Someone says "Its not so easy, the tool isn't perfect"
- You claim again that it's easy
- Someone asks you to give it a try
- You refuse to try because you can't be bothered
No hard feelings Dr. Dyna, but that's just as much a cop-out as anything else.
Oh, no hard feelings at all, and I apologize if anything I say sounds like I'm being too nasty...it's a personal habit.
My point was, the tool can be used. Whether it's easy or not is irrelevant in this context. If the tool has issues, what I'd ask people to think is "Well, he's really trying to make it easier for us to prove, so he's genuinely interested."
Instead, we'll go on for a hundred paragraphs spanning dozens of posts attacking the tool because it has some minor usability issues, while glossing over the very real fact that in mentioning it, I'm actually honestly interested when someone (who is of reputable opinion, generally) claims they hear differences in things for which there should be no scientific or physical reason why, and in many cases, is demonstrably not true.
I have absolutely no reason to use the tool, as the most expensive cable I own (anymore) is some stranded ofc 12 awg with speakon ends. If someone wants to loan me a set of Kimber Pearls or something, then we might get somewhere, but does anybody really want me to upload a null test file comparing a cables-for-less RCA interconnect with a Radio Shack interconnect?
I could easily say the same thing to you, but as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't even try. I used to be in the same boat, I had nearly $1000 worth of Kimber interconnects and speaker wire at one point, I thought the Aragon amps sounded better than my Acurus one...hell, I even had a favorite brand of air core coils and it had nothing to do with build quality.
Then, something amazing happened. Somewhere around 1994-1995 right around when the internet started becoming fairly popular, suddenly this wealth of information opened up and I was able to read things that weren't just the product of marketing, or out of a salesman's mouth.
So yeah, I know it's hard to not hand-wave at me because everyone "knows what they know" ...but you really do yourself a disservice if you would rather nit-pick about software or use ad-hominem attacks, like trash talking my speakers / equipment / ears.
The simple fact of the matter is these types of claims have been being made for decades upon decades, and to remain willfully ignorant of facts, or even worse, so sure of your position that you pass off personal feelings as facts, is a fairly severe intellectual crime, considering the nearly unending supply of actual information and factual data available to anyone willing to type a word into a search box.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.