There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.
I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.
A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.
These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
But overall her post is well taken. As many here may remember, I make my own speakers. I have enough measurement gear here to tell me exactly what the components are doing through the design and development phase, right up to the point I put them on a stand. But my tools don’t buy speakers. I do. Therefore I spend money which my experience, not my tools, say is worthwhile. I encourage others to do the same.
This is also the path to personal satisfaction and cost savings. Once you let go of guru's and money being at all indicative of how much musical satisfaction a product will offer, you can be an amazing audiophile on the cheap! :)
What I find interesting is how many times I’ve seen a poster come here, looking for a guru, because (as an example) they’ve tried power cable A and B and don’t know which one sounds better, so they need to come here and ask someone. Our very culture encourages us to disbelieve our own senses. If you can’t tell a difference between A and B, assuming equal reliability and safety, for goodness sakes, buy the cheaper one!
On a related note: Talking tech is a whole lot of fun, but again, it’s the experience that matters. Silk vs. ceramic dome’s, Class A vs. Class D, fun to talk about, but let’s not get caught up in it. In the end, it’s what you hear and see that should make the sale. Not the Gallium Cyanide (or whatever) transistors were just used by brand X.
There is one thing I am religious about though: Every audiophile should build their own speaker at least once in their hobby life. It is a transforming experience and our hobby will be better for it. Ready to assemble kits are inexpensive and easy to make.
It’s true! Fixing new problems like ground loops, bad drivers, "does my amp need to be repaired" or "why is my remote not working" type of questions all benefit from those who have gone before.
I think the idea of a "guru" in this thread are those who promise to have a grasp on absolute truths of value, performance and experience. Those privileged to claim what is and is not hi-fi.
Goodness knows I’ve had to rely on others for all sorts of issues. :)
Excuse me for saying so but there’s a fine line between blasphemy and just being silly. And between a blasphemer and a pseudo skeptic. Pseu-pseu-pseudio! 🕺
Can an atheist blaspheme, if there’s no God in their universe? Just asking(no one else is staying on topic either.....well- not everyone, to avoid absolutes, that is)!
Can an atheist blaspheme, if there’s no God in their universe? Just asking(no one else is staying on topic either.....well- not everyone, to avoid absolutes, that is)!
Technically, yes. Blasphemy isn't about what you believe, but what you say or do. That's why it is so dangerous to those who hold power using religion as a claim to legitimacy.
Though there are some cases where police have had to enforce religious laws only upon the faithful, but not on others.
Guys (and gals) please don't make this into measurement vs. listening. That's not the OP's topic.
Supertweak, get off it, man. This thread is not here for you to rant. We're sorry if Geoff hurt your feelings, but...c'mon. Let's talk audio, not troll wars.
As for me... I try only to offer advice from my personal experience with music & audio; No absolutes or pronouncements or "truths", just what I've learned from experience and what works for me. I hope that some people find my posts helpful in achieving better sound and enjoying it.
Since we've touched on science & Buddhism, here's an anecdote told by the Dalai Lama...
Traditional Buddhism teaches that the moon is lit from within. As a young boy, the Dalai Lama was very interested in astronomy and had his own telescope. It quickly become clear to him that the moon's light was not from within, but reflected from the sun. His conclusion?
"When Buddhism is wrong, Buddhism must change."
Science is constantly changing as we make new discoveries, and it's refreshing to hear someone say that religion should be just as flexible. Unless you literally 'know everything' your beliefs and opinions should be too.
Since we’ve touched on science & Buddhism, here’s an anecdote told by the Dalai Lama...
Traditional Buddhism teaches that the moon is lit from within. As a young boy, the Dalai Lama was very interested in astronomy and had his own telescope. It quickly become clear to him that the moon’s light was not from within, but reflected from the sun. His conclusion?
"When Buddhism is wrong, Buddhism must change."
Science is constantly changing as we make new discoveries, and it’s refreshing to hear someone say that religion should be just as flexible. Unless you literally ’know everything’ your beliefs and opinions should be too.
>>>I’m not sure I agree with your detective work inasmuch as Science is not really constantly changing. Science is becoming more and more a description of reality which is different from constantly changing. Science is extremely conservative and only changes very slowly and methodically. Theoretically science should change less and less quickly. Hyperbolically you could say. Name one new discovery. Religion, on the other hand, seems to change for political or self-serving reasons.
Wow. Last time I listened to music it was because I like music and it’s fun and nourishing of the soul. The pursuit of great or perfect sound, the hobby of playing with toys and don’t fool yourself expensive audio equipment are toys, for boys; is a massive waste of money and time. Wasting money is fine, it’s like Doritos, they’ll always make more. Time is finite. Think that when your time is done you’ll be happy to have wasted so much of it on this foolish hobby or would you want some of it back to listen to music, cuddle with your dog, love your loved ones?
Well, you know how it is. If you can’t fart in a crowded elevator and observe the pained attempts at normalcy, then what fun would life be?
Anyway, it can be like that. Some value normalcy over acts of open noticing of the silliness of some of the frameworks of this thing we are in, and so called space we occupy.
Fitting in and dancing the square dance of life with everyone else creates enough cohesion and stability to notice.... but too much cohesion creates a sameness that is pretty well synonymous with death.
In there somewhere is this lurching thing we call humanity, it moves like a drunken car slamming off the road barrier on one side, over to the other. If it were stable, that would just be another form of death.
Sameness is sameness in any context an it is dangerous to the growth and continuance of intelligence, but too much chaos breaks down the frameworks which intelligence attempts to create itself in.
So who’s to say in the end? Some human, or human organization... with a limited view? I don’t think so....
The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First: If I do this, what will happen? And second: Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value...of good?
Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question, any question, philosophical or other, which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment, is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.
I claim that whether you want something to happen or not: what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens, in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone?
@erik_squires - That’s much harder to get away with, climbing to altitude in a crowded Cessna 182(especially, on a hot day). I’ve found, looking at the pilot, and simply saying, "DAMN!", works well though.
@teo_audio- A couple pages back, you posted some comments that can be boiled down to(unless I’m mistaken), NEVER STOP LEARNING. Here’s a book that might interest you(et al), being very inspirational, in that regard: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 The above(regarding Science/religion) was quoted(verbatum) from it’s pages. Also: "It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely."(Though it’s been decades, since these words were written, to my knowledge, they still hold true.) His thought continues:
"That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth."
the OP speaks very wise words. I'll never forget the incident about 10 years ago, a self-proclaimed guru was proclaiming how great his McIntosh amp sounded. yes, it did sound good. but it didn't sound $5000 good. it actually didn't image or soundstage as well as some $500 single ended pentode systems I've heard and owned in the past. I said so and was reprimanded and warned on the website, because he was the moderator. so I put up a video of my own system playing tapes in my 14' x 28' living room, on YouTube. the videos got noticed on the site, and praised the moderator then banned me, and also reported my video to YouTube for copyright infringement, because I played a few vintage rock tapes on it- and the video was silenced by YouTube. all this because the cheap $500 system could run with and image/soundstage better, than his high dollar McIntosh setup, and he did it because he was peddling the stuff. not to say McIntosh isn't really good- but stifling and stymying information to monetary gain, is really bad. I've seen this phenom again and again, on various message boards.
So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone?
If you'd said there was consistency between a moral view and scientific information I would have agreed.
But when you say a consistency between *religious* morality and scientific information I would disagree. Religious morality tends to incorporate historical and ontological claims that can conflict with scientific information. (Not to mention, the general conflict between faith, or religious knowledge and science itself...)
But that's a discussion for another type of forum....:-)
@prof - Had you bothered to read the follow-up post(then again, perhaps you did and it didn’t register), those words were a verbatim quote, from a very well regarded physicist, Nobel laureate and lecturer’s book. That’s why I postscripted the statement with, "Sound familiar to anyone?" In case you’re unable to find that post and the reference: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 Perhaps your audio guru can help you with your situational awareness. Happy listening!
Thanks. I admit I read your post pretty fast, saw the "sounds familiar" and just assumed you were referencing something else. I didn’t see your follow up post.
Nonetheless I presume in either case your quoting it meant you agreed with the quote. (A reasonable assumption...?)
Feynman was, of course, awesome. An incredibly sharp intellect and a great teacher. But even the sharpest intellects can go fuzzy outside their field, especially on religion, as I think Feynman does here (having read the expanded version). He identifies the conflicts I alluded to, but then goes a bit non-committal and mushy on whether the conflicts can be removed, even suggesting at some points they can be.
I would argue that’s wrong - there’s going to be a conflict. Certainly in the case of the classic revealed religions and accepting science and the scientific method. And Feynman was trying to keep the God Of Religions in view in his argument. As for deistic arguments with more modest scope, some of those involve teleological arguments that conflict with science, others are metaphysical/ontological arguments that are at least supposed to be "outside science" but even some of those teeter on the edge. Metaphysical/ontological arguments are fun to discuss too. (I’m a bit of a philosophy geek, no expert but I enjoy this stuff - I get all geeked when the subjects turn to ethics, free will, science, religion, epistemology etc. So your post caught my eye. It looks like you have an interest too).
But...this ain’t the place. Too bad there’s no "lounge" around here. :-)
@supertweak - perhaps share this pearl of wisdom with your MENSA compatriots: When you find yourself in a hole (especially one of your own making), the first order of business is to *stop digging*. Acting the part of a petulant child hardly helps your position.
@prof- As I mentioned before(while venting), " Whatever piques my interest: I’ll watch, listen, taste, touch, or smell it for myself, thank you." It seems, I’m not alone and find myself in good company(on and off, over the centuries). ie: https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/max-planck-on-god/ (albeit, only a list of, "Christian" scientists AND- not that I particularly agree with their individual theologies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology It’s harder to tell, what(exactly) the many Jewish scientists(especially the plethora of physicists), have actually believed. I Do know it’s VERY hard, to separate a Jew, from their religion(.2% of the world’s population/22.5% of awarded Nobels- DISPORPORTIONATE?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_scientists Thankfully, The Manhattan Project had a few AND(very possibly), Heisenberg sabotaged the Nazi’s atomic aspirations. Indeed: too bad there’s no lounge.
BTW: The topic of religion was introduced on the very first page, ninth response(and- popped up on others), so- non est mea culpa(OK, so I fed into it....shoot me)! No more from me in this thread(regarding religion), SO- save the flames and back to audio, "GURUS".
I’m not sure I get why religion is mentioned in the same sentence, breath or thread with audio, even with outrageous or preposterous audiophile tweaks. Because there’s no proof for religious beliefs. Oh, I suppose you could say there is evidence for God but even that’s a stretch. But for audio it’s a different story since there is empirical proof or evidence regarding every single one of things that give skeptics ❤️ 🔥. From Mpingo discs to directionality of wire to contact enhancers to Green Pen to things that go bump in the night like, you know, Silver 🌈 Foil and Message labels. The really disturbing stuff. 😩
Everything can be dubious on forums, as we’re missing 90% of the actual proper communication in words vs actual physical presence. Even in the full presence communications, things can go pear shaped.
So I tend to put little true weight into written posts on forums, for whatever such is worth. Which can be akin to just 10%. Sorta. Kinda.
Our problems begin when our mind and bodies pick up the 10% that is communicated and make up the other 90%. We fill in with something coming from ourselves. Just like the monkey trying to suss out what is rustling in the tall grass on the edge of the clearing, in the Savannah. We must know and be wholly decisive, or we die. It’s a critical fundamental function of projection into the minor bits of data witnessed. It’s the core primary filters of mind and body that we have inherited and exist through.
It’s what we’re designed to do, and unless aware of it, we will tend to do that.
The dominoes of logic that might fall from that sort of observation... is that forums can be a greater mirror of self ~for all others to see~ than just about any other form of human communication that has ever been invented.
Thus, can what I’m typing now be the true shape, direction, meaning and intent that is in my mind right now?
Not even close. Barely in the same building. And it’s the best the written word can do.
To add, due to human emotions and the 90% individual personal fill in, being non-provocative is the best way to get the thought to remain in the equation for the reader.
But, without provocation, in some way, overall, people’s minds --- die on the vine. (see earlier bit about human mental growth from the given scientific article on human cranial evolution) (see the documentary ’century of the self’ to understand why, with the article in mind, how the west, specifically the USA, has been in a forced mental march ..into a massive mental downturn... into retardation for at least the past 50 years)
Problem is, having a position at all, and talking, or rather writing about it on a forum... is a guaranteed disaster in some fashion...as someone, somewhere, somehow.. will fill in and take offense. And that person will take their 100%, miss 90% of their mindset and true wide ranging intent simple due to the scenario of writing itself as a limited hangout in open reflection.... hit ’send’ on their reply...and then the reader can take that 10% they grok...and get all messed up about that...
That last post smacks a little bit, not quite hitting the nail on the head, though, of the thinking behind the Peter Belt stuff and also the Anomalies Research program out of Princeton, and their Mind Lamp. Mind over Matter, Extra Sensory Perception, the influence of ordinary objects and materials and colors on the perception of sound and vision. They’re all related. The Men Who Stare at Goats. No goats, no glory. 🐐
Which is why I’ve always said (connection to my prior post) that in order to get an engineering degree or masters or doctorate, people should be required to take at least two basic psychology courses and apply them.
Otherwise any instances on reality in science that emit from them as proclamations nailed to the science church door...are likely to be corrupted by their own inadequacies in their projections.
And if they don’t even know, at all... the vehicle that colors and filters them in every breath, the undercurrent of everything they are and do...then they can be dangerous. Plain and simply --dangerous.
The more elevated their scientific message, the more dangerously off kilter it can be, if they don’t even know what the hell they are. Which covers most people in the sciences. They are in the sciences as the humanities don’t fit them, for the very larger part.. A very dangerous scenario, in some cases and in overall directions in science.
But, I just insulted someone, and said... they don’t know themselves. Even if the remark is true ~and it is~, people will take insult.
As for knowing yourself, knowing the sound of the ego thing of the body making words in your own head, really does not cut it. That’s ground zero for that first step of a long journey.
The things I’m talking about, the unspeakable, as it were, are not taught in Psychology class. If they were taught in Psychology class at least you would be able to put a name to them. In a sense they’re not even psychological in the everyday sense of the word. Not a trick, as it were, like subliminal advertising. Or a mind game. Something deeper. More insidious. But I’ve said too much.
@teo_audio - I can’t help but reply. Based on you post, the principles, discoveries and the very scientific process itself, would have to be thrown out, or- considered, "dangerous", because the following believed in a supreme being(though, as previously noted, I don’t necessarily agree with their theology). I’ve made it easy on anyone that’s actually interested in learning where some of the foundational doctrines, regarding Physics, Atomic Theory, Electrical Theory, electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, etc(and even the vacuum tube), originated(I can’t help but think/hope you’re out there). Just click on the names, if you don’t recognize them, and/or their contributions to SCIENCE, in their various fields:
In my line of work, I rely on experts not junk science. When a speaker designer tells me speaker specs are meaningless, I believe him. When an engineer who design DACs tell me to use an aftermarket Ethernet cable, I trust him. When members, who are self-proclaimed experts, give unqualified and untested opinions, I question their credentials.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
