Audiophoolery?
- Thread starter MrMark
- Start date
- Status
Only hoping to lighten the mood of the thread a little is all. Glad you checked the link. :yes:
"Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing."
Oscar Wilde
Strength in numbers, by which the hero sadly succumbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw
whoaru99
Epic Member
I did, in one case, and the Benchmark DAC 1 was sent back because of it.
Going in, it was more to do with insight into the process for reasons that you elude to (people talk the talk but don't walk the walk) but, none the less, the results were convincing enough for me.
Last edited:
robgmn
Super Member
I'm not here to save the world, but I was one of the gullible at one point.
Please do not be angry with me when I convince your elderly parents that they need a new roof and scam them out of a $5,000 deposit.
I'll convince them that the huge tarp I put over their existing roof is INDEED an improvement and all the rage.
As long as I succeed with the lie and they are pleased with their purchase, all is good.
Right?
Please do not be angry with me when I convince your elderly parents that they need a new roof and scam them out of a $5,000 deposit.
I'll convince them that the huge tarp I put over their existing roof is INDEED an improvement and all the rage.
As long as I succeed with the lie and they are pleased with their purchase, all is good.
Right?
sebrof
Super Member
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
I'll say one thing for you, you do know how to enter a room and stir things up, and continue to stir things up. I'm not going to bring up the T word, but you sure come off as one. You put folks down for not being flexible in their thinking to agree with you, but where is your flexibility?
Amazing,
Jim
I just knew I should have avoided this thread! :^(
rcspkramp
Super Member
Moreover, where is the documentation supporting the sweeping statements and assertions?
sebrof
Super Member
I believe it is argued that since science suggests certain things cannot be audible, the onus of proof is on the tweeker.
Hence the 'round and 'round. There is no proof either way. If there were we'd all be over in the "Cats on Audio Gear" thread...So be careful what you wish for
rcspkramp
Super Member
My point is, if you're going to go all scientific in here, you had better be armed with some proof. Proof of all kinds. Example. There are claims that cable manufacturers are just out to get your money. Well any company in business is out to get your money. Buyer beware. But,and it's a big but, document a company that formed with a mission statement that reads: "We are in business just to bilk audiophiles out of their hard-earned money." Can anyone prove this as fact?
The problem of the onus of proof being on the tweaker, is that the tweaker often isn't trying to prove anything to anybody else. They're just having fun in their hobby, and then along comes the cavalry to save them from that good time. Search around for threads demanding that others try cable risers or whatever. You'll have a hard time finding any of them, because the idea that people are forcing this on others is just part of a logical fallacy on the part of people like Rob used to paint a picture of the people that they think they're superior to. It's a straw man argument- putting up a false bogey man and knocking it down to prove a point that wasn't ever asked to be proven. It's like the oft-mentioned $400 wooden knob tweak. Who has ever seen one? Who has used one? Anybody around here? And who cares if they did? It is THEIR stereo. Not yours. And it is JUST A STEREO. It is supposed to be fun, but what is fun about this?
robgmn
Super Member
I apologize to those who think a person should have X number of posts before they can join a debate. Ill try to stick more to the threads that cannot be debated (though the conversation is not nearly as fun).
Hopefully I will soon be able to post pics of a receiver that I'm trying to buy (the first one I bought when I was a teen).
The thread will probably last 5 posts (not much to say about a picture of a receiver, is there?).
There is a TON of documentation that supports my "sweeping statements and assertions".
The documentation exists as a result of the scientific testing principles used.
It's how things are proven.
I have yet to see documentation that proves magic exists.
Declare the earth is flat, and you WILL be proven wrong (even if you band together with a huge group of people who believe the same thing. They ARE out there.).
You will not be able to prove your statement.
As I said, I'll believe ANY magic tweak exists when it can be PROVEN that it does something real.
I'll join the camp!
Why can't the believers (moreso the promoters who are making the money) EVER provide validation other than "it works because I said it does?"
robgmn
Super Member
I suppose you've never seen an ad for a B.S. product in an audio mag?
You've never had someone knock on your door to convert you to their way of thinking?
Never had a salesman claim that x device is better than y simply because his commission was higher on the y device?
Heck there are people on this thread that ARE promoting the use of magic as a valid way to improve the sound of a system.
It's just that when it comes to brass tacks, none of them can ever seem to prove it.
(Mr Pig has liquid filled fuses in his DAC that sound better than the regular ones. He stated DBT was not a valid test method, then offered to prove he could hear the difference by performing his own DBT. Huh?).
To those who prefer things not be discussed and that music just be listened to: Please do so. And enjoy the heck out of it! It's what you like.
I find discussion and debate to be a great way to learn things and share ideas and a great way to keep my mind alive.
Is it OK if I do both (listen to systems AND discuss/debate them)?
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I think you're only error is thinking that we or anyone who disagrees with you are "elderly parents".
There was a thread on those liquid fuses, and some were shared with others, one of whom compared them in a rudimentary blind test (and they passed IIRC). You say its magic but I doubt you've read a scientific stuffy on them. What you have is an assumption, which is not scientific at all, despite the claim being, on the face, beyond the norm of what would be expected. Yet you just say 'the documentation is out there'. You seem to have a limited understanding of the type of debate that you are accusing others of not participating in. What you are in fact doing, if you want to bring logic into this, is shifting the burden of proof. Actually, it is YOU who are making the claim, that all of these things are BS, therefor it is you who have to prove your point. They may be- but nobody is demanding that there be a conclusion except yourself. So the onus is on you.
Also nobody is professing that 'magic' is the reason for any of this. That is another whole in your logic. This would be an ad hominem attack. You are just trying to discredit what you disagree with derogatory terms when in fact, those who use some of this stuff simply believe that changes are being made for which our current set of measurements aren't indicating. For example, I have a few different RCA cables that I use to tilt the sound of a system brighter or darker, to use subjective terms. I don't think its magic at all. All cable don't measure the same for basic parameters. And it works reliably every time, for me. I'm not trying to get you to use these cables, so I could care less what you think of it. Try some Nordost Blue Heaven in a system that is already a bit fatiguing. I'd think that you'd want to remove them after a few minutes because the problem would have gotten worse. The change is not always positive.
As for ads, we see on average a few thousands of ads a day. We remember 1-2 with any accuracy. I'm not worried what somebody says in an ad- I know what I can and can't here and what I do and don't want to invest in. It's typically not 'tweaky' stuff but I don't care that its out there. And those ads pay for content in magazines that I enjoy reading. I believe people are smart enough to make their own choices. And I believe that you are closed minded enough to make absolutely zero choices for me. Too many things have surprised me to make a hard stance on any of this.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
I am no longer going to be nice about this. Quite simply you are a troll, and not as stupid as you appear. I will state this once again, I have never in one of my posts said that DBT is not a valid test. All I asked was, as a supporter of DBT do you use the test personally? Yet you choose to twist words and lie. From post # 54
A question if you don't mind. I ask this to people who are advocates of DBT testing, it is interesting to know the results. Did you use DBT testing to buy every component in your audio system? Is this a philosophy you actively practice? If so, can you tell us how you accomplished this, and to what means you chose your perspective candidates. Also how did you know you made the best purchase? What was your control or reference component?
I have yet to meet an advocate of DBT testing who actually practices it, you would be the first. Hope this is the case.
Another point about DBT discussions are how good is the control system? How non intrusive to the sound that the switching gear is. High quality switching systems are quite expensive, and it is a serious impediment to performing a proper DBT test. For the record, I believe the test does have value, but in my mind it is not the end all to an evaluation of audio gear.
Now there is your proof. Quit lying and distorting what others have said. But then again, as others have said, it appears you are a troll whose intent is to create disharmony.
Since you want to refer to the liquid fuse passage. Here it is again, and my opinion regarding tweaks.
Yes I also do agree that tweaks, set up, or even matching dissimilar components..ie..synergy....are appropriate fixes for a poorly designed piece of equipment. But what SOME of them do is shade the sound of a system in one direction or another, and provides some tune-ability to the end user. Some footers and isolation devices do this, and there is good solid science to back up how they effect a system.
But for the most part your list brings up the hilarious audio tweaks, and while they may have some following, I suspect that very few of them have large followings. But I have no interest in going through the whole list again, its a topic that makes the rounds here at AK.
But for what its worth, I have been using several sets of liquid filled fuses. So that should give you a good belly laugh, and discount whatever I have experienced in this hobby. So feel free to chuckle away.
Point out where you see that I believe in magic and sorcery. It isn't there. What you are is a liar and a twister of words. Plain and simple.
Mister Pig
rcspkramp
Super Member
Too many things have surprised me to make a hard stance on any of this.
__________________
John, words to live by in this hobby. If I've learned anything in this business/hobby, it's not to have pre-conceived notions. Too often gear that I knew to be sub-standard proved itself to be excellent and, conversely, gear that I had assumed was terrific turned out to be no better than dog meat.
__________________
John, words to live by in this hobby. If I've learned anything in this business/hobby, it's not to have pre-conceived notions. Too often gear that I knew to be sub-standard proved itself to be excellent and, conversely, gear that I had assumed was terrific turned out to be no better than dog meat.
- Status
