Believers VS. nonbelievers???? GEEzzzzz


Curious how certain products elicit praise from one body and "I can't believe you fall for that snake oil..." from others.
I have a hard time believing some of the stuff (the WORST example is the "Tice Clock" from the early 90's, that you just had to have in the same room!!!)but in general, some of the protesters are ranting on "general priciples" and never tried the stuff/thing in question...(I myself was in that category on power cords till I tried one) and even if they did, it may not have been effective on thier particular system, but just what was needed on someone elses.
==============================================
What I am trying to say in a half formed way is that an honest concern about a product and trying to help guide other away from the "stupid mods" is a difficult path to walk. And since we are all experts and know all there is to know about "audiophilia" maybe we could be more modest in damning stuff others think is worth doing. Rather consider that it may be a path of exploration we choose not to follow now. To say "I haven't explored that but I don't think it's worth trying" vs "you are crazy to think that works and a fool for trying it." is a BIG gap.
Any comments?????
elizabeth
If all of the CD's and CD ROMs manufactured were totally green, the reflective surface would be significantly reduced, and the ability of the laser to accurately pick up, would be diminished. Another example would be a solid colored filter on the lens of a camera reducing the efficiency of the films ability to record light. Solid green would make no sense, especially when the jitter reduction provided by a small amount of green on the edges of CD's is already debated. In other words, most systems would be much worse with the totally green treatment than what is the standard reflective color.
Detlof: I'm trying to draw a distinction between two assertions:
1."I like the sound of vinyl better than CDs."
2 "Vinyl is better than CD because..."
You're right--I cannot know what you hear, nor can I know what it is you want to hear or think you ought to hear. Now, as long as you're sticking to statements like #1, that's fine. But once you start trying to explain what you hear in more universal terms, you're playing on your opponents' home turf. Some posts in this and related threads seem to suggest that science has failed because the poster prefers the distinctive sound of an earlier technology. But science isn't trying to satisfy your preference because it can't--it doesn't know what that preference is, and each of us has different preferences. That said, many products are engineered to appeal to audiophiles with particular preferences, and you and I and everybody else buys them for exactly that reason--we like the sound. Nothing wrong with that. So why do people feel the need to justify their purchasing decisions by trashing science?
You're quite the literalist, aren't you, Albert? Fine then, since you seem to need it spelled out for you, why don't all CD-ROMs come with green rims? Why doesn't CompUSA carry green pens? We do you believe everything some salesman tells you? (For the record, I once heard a demonstration of the green pen effect, and yes, the CD sounded different after treatment. I can think of several possible explanations for that, however, and none of them would make me go out and pay $15 for a $1.29 marker.)
Jostler, all points well taken, I could not agree with you more. Its an interesting question you pose at the end of your post. Let me venture a guess: Many audiophiles have no scientific training. As I tried to point out somewhere else, they are passionately on to something, which they deeply percieve but actually often know little about. They could try science, but that seems so cut and dried, so far removed from what moves them. It also takes a lot of effort. Science would always cut them down to size, which hurts, because its sonic nirvana they are after. I may sound ironic, but I am not, because its wonderful to be inspired and to be on a quest. I have nothing against that, as you probably know, because to be on a "trip" may well have a value of its own, but it sure ain't science and it will never be. You are right of course that these people are believers, but the mistake which is often being made, is the fact, that this belief does not necessarily have to be merely subjective, but psychologically objective in that sense, that it can grab a lot of people all over the place all the time, where the form and contents of this phenomena seem strangely alike in those inspired. Now what for these people is psychologically REAL, in our culture has the stigma of being subjective, its sort of "only" psychological, so how can it stand up in the "real world" of facts and figures. They don't see sufficiently, that they are in a psychological state, which is real in its own right, which they can share with others and enjoy. Unfortunatedly, and this is where the nonsense starts, this is not enough for many of them: Who wants to be merely "subjective". They are not in actual fact, but unfortunatedly, they think they are, so they venture into "their opponents hometurf", as you so aptly put it... and get torn to pieces. No wonder, they thrash science as a consequence, get ridiculed in turn and ad nauseam, ad nauseam, ad nauseam... the carussel keeps on turning ....I feel, it should take a point of view outside the fray, to try to grasp what is actually going on here. This question has fascinated me for years, also in other fields outside of audio. Do you mind if I say that I enjoy talking to you, because it helps me (subjectively (-; ) to clarify my thoughts?
Asking why all CD's and CD ROMs don't come with green rims is like asking why LP manufacturers never properly cleaned and treated their products prior to shipping. There would certainly be an audible difference, but in what percentage of the pubic would it be perceived or appreciated? Most companies that manufacturer such goods delight in saving even a half a cent in production. This multiplied by hundreds of millions of copies comes out to be significant. Quality of reproduction has never been the goal of music producing companies, it the cash that is the bottom line. As far as the green pen being overpriced at $15.00, yes if probably is. In fact there were several discussions on line at one time, listing the proper color green pen produced for artists available at office supply stores. They were only about a dollar or so, and were supposed to produce the same results. Why then did I choose to pay the additional $12.00? Because the pen designed for audio was formulated so it could be reversed. The green could be removed with warm soapy water, returning the CD to it's original state, unharmed. If the office supply version damaged even one CD, that had to be replaced, the savings would evaporate. Now last, why would you want to do this treatment? My guess is that you would not, as you seem to be more concerned with the philosophy and science of why this does or does not work, as opposed to looking for ways to improve on our very flawed music producing systems. I defend your right to believe as you do, but do not understand why you are so opposed to something that could help, for so little investment. I guess it boils down to the passion and interest level in the whole thing.