1. Home
  2. tech-talk
  3. 982616232

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
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Jostler, an interesting and well reasoned point. Could you give us the source(s) for your "no difference" statement. Not that I doubt you, but I want to read and find out for myself.
479058's avatar
479058
105 posts
 
Detlof: I'm afraid I can't give you a source for that. (I'm not a freakin' research library, ya know.) I don't know what the mean time between error correction failures is, but it's a pretty rare occurrence (otherwise you'd be hearing all sorts of ugly sounds every time you played a CD), which suggests that green pens are solving a non-existent problem.
479058's avatar
479058
105 posts
 
Katharina: People who "think outside the box" are essential to the advancement of science. But only if their thinking doesn't take us over the same ground we traversed decades ago. One cannot contribute to scientific advancement if one remains willfully ignorant of the current state of the science. You don't have to (and shouldn't) accept current scientific understanding as final and definitive, but how can you be skeptical of it if you don't even know what it is? And too many audiophiles don't.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6
1,071 posts
 
Oh that was so informative and helpful Jostler. Thank-you for you scientific conclusions.
katharina
56 posts
 
Hello Jostler3, I see your point, but can't you see mine, that, even without "scientific understanding" I'll be skeptical of the opinion of those, who will dismiss as merely psychological or delusional, what I and others hear in difference say, in cables or SS amps? I don't need to study science, to sooner or later see a dogmatist streak in that form of a priori dismissal. I find that unfortunate, because that way, all arguments, sooner than not, get deadlocked with dogmatists here and illusionists there. I think, Detlof is right, we should try to put our "empirical data" much more to the test. Wouldn't the bigger audiophile societies be a right place to offer a platform for this kind of research? Or ist that terribly naive?
More to discover