A challenge to the "measurement" camp

B4, the only thing g that matters? Because you say? The only thing that matters is how it affects the sound, period. Other than the sound, why are we in this hobby. If you hear a difference worth spending the money on, then do it. If you don’t, then don’t. It completely does away with any need for measurements that in the end obviously don’t cover all the bases of why people do hear differences, and for sure isn’t going to tell you if person A is going g to like it, or person B won’t. Any more than you can measure music and tell who will like which. Measurements are good for what they do, but it’s when people try to misapply them that things get wonky. I can’t tell you how many times theories on black holes has changed over the years. And I bet will again. 

Nowadays there are some people that cannot even recognize that some set of measurements are vouched to stay non linear, because these measurements are made in a particular audio system with interacting many parts and many dimensions which imply the multiple simultaneous particular and unique embeddings of the audio system in some particular house(mechanical,electrical,and acoustical embeddings) where a change in input are in no linear relations to the change in output...

The end results for the ears being the only irrefutable proof or experience because no set of measures can tell all the story in advance...


An experiment:

If i put a piece of quartz or a piece of shungite on the central electrical panel of the house or on the transformer of an amplifier, where is the set of measures that will tell you the differences between these 2 operations at these 2 different locations and why?

My ears has told me the end results, if you want to know it, you must realize the experiment.... Even if no audio manual describe this experiment, it is a possible experiment with an end result....

Just a clue: there will not only be a variable audible effect in quality,( variable relatively to each house and each audio system) but it will be different for the quartz and the shungite, but the quartz will work the same in the 2 locations and the shungite too, confirming their own particular different power to increase or decrease the S.Q. end results for the ears...

By the way i dont sell nor buy anything, all i made are my own homemade experiments....What is the essence of my 2 last years experiments is not the purchase of a bunch of costly ready made tweaks, it is a systematic method between experiments and listening with only cheap materials and homemade simple device....

And for those ignoring the placebo methodology, an incremental, step by step positive increase in audio S.Q. extending in time with many experiments is no more a placebo, then it must be an hallucination.... But if you say that, then all audio experience is pure hallucination and even the concept of sound quality or S.Q. is a snake oil concept, and audio engineer dont need their ears no more now, only oscilloscope, db meter etc...



By the way i want to debunk the myth that Hi-Fi experience is linearly linked to the big money invested in the new electronic design component around the block....

I dont say that cables or new refined electronic design dont do a big difference, i only say the essential is not buying disparate costly tweaks, or costly cables, or costly electronic components; the essential is listening and learning how to embed in his 3 dimensions ANY audio system at any price, to make it able to work at his optimal potential....

I want to debunk the "upgrading" urge and myth as solution to audio problem and experience....

:)

My best....

First and last audiophile law:

 Before upgrading something, embed rightfully anything.....

...its just "periodical knowledge" but it should/might give pause..

A proponent of scientific perspectivism would say that because scientists put together models and theories of a phenomenon for specific purposes, and because none of those models or theories can capture all of the details of the phenomenon at once, each one is necessarily partial. A pluralist philosopher of science would say we should use all these perspectives to put together theories about the biological world that are patchwork in a way, but all the better for it.

This sounds a lot like the case of the microbiome—but these views are much more far-reaching. Scientists make models and representations of the world when they make their theories, and arguably, the inability to capture everything at once applies in many if not all scientific fields. “We believe that it is time to move beyond metaphors, and we propose a scientifically pluralist approach that focuses on characterizing fundamental biological properties of microbiomes such as heritability, transmission mode, rates of dispersal rates, and strength of local selection,” Morar and Bohannan write. “Such an approach will allow us to break out of the confines of narrow conceptual frameworks, and to guide the exploration of our complexity as chimeric beings.”

The fact that there still isn’t one “best” metaphor for grasping the microbiome might tell us something much deeper about the world—that perhaps the most promising approach to understanding it is to play with a variety of perspectives, prizing none over the others.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-is-the-human-microbiome-exactly?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Mr. speedbump6

I not only say so, I proved it also sounds so and it works.
Look at my thread How to select a good Speaker Cable
and see Mr. keppertup’s report of his experience with adding a #0 awg cable to the one he DIY in 2018, also following my advice, and judge. On the 2018 thread there were many who went his way and tried it out. All were very happy with results.

However, you may stick to your way of thinking and adopted some snake oil philosophy, that will cost you way more and not help at all.