why do we argue?


I suppose it's human nature?

Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.

Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.

So why should the audio "family" be any different?

Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.

But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?

If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.

No one is making you.

Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.

Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.

You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.

There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.

But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.

It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!

It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.

Get the gist?

I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.

Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.

I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.

Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?

So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.

The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.

But is it?

If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?

Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.

It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.

At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.

I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
lacee
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
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
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
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
Bryon,

This may be an example of "entrenched Objectivism":
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11920006-16-year-olds-equations-set-off-buzz-over-325-year-old-physics-puzzler.

It seems to have set off a firestorm as to the intent of the teenager and the relevance of his discovery. Apparently there are some big egos in the field of science.

All the best,
Nonoise