Did they remove their own posts as another means to incite and scramble back into the woodwork?
Beware the audio guru
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.
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.
186 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Then there is graduate of the Cheech & Chong University: kosst_amojan"In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold"." This guy really thinks, ponders, and theorizes at a level few of us ever attain without some magic "potion" to heighten our reasoning, logic, and powers of observation! |
| Post removed |
Um, what was the question? Or, was there even one in the first place, or was this yet another wordvomitorium thread? Let me put it another way; there are times when reading threads like this I feel like I'm bouncing around in a washing machine concocted by Jonathan Swift. Of course you need to be referee and gatekeeper to your own sense of reality. Where in the world is it mandated that we have to be sheeple? |
| Post removed |
As an audio guru, I'd like to listen to kinds of Audible audiobooks and common music files. The problem is that Audible files can't be played on my mp3 players. Fortunately I got the DRM audible book converter, it helps me great to convert all my Audible files to MP3 files. Now I can enjoy all my Audiobook files quickly without any problems when I am on my commute between home and office. |
Dave, I always keep in mind the nature of the speaker set up when I audition speakers - both in terms of the room, speaker position, amps. I am pretty good at getting he gist of a speaker in a demo. I generally prefer my CJ premier 12 amps to any solid state amps I’ve heard, I know the qualities they tend to impart to a speaker so I’m pretty good at mapping that on to what I’m hearing even when the demo is using other amps. Yes you can massage the sound of speakers via dialing in set up/amplification, but generally speaking a speaker’s character or voice carries through it all (at least through competent system set up). If found if a speaker has an “IT FACTOR” (for me) I’ll notice it in almost any set up, and further refine it at home. I’m sure I could nudge the Revel sound further to my liking (and they were quite good!) but their voice didn’t have the IT factor that grabbed me in any way, to compel me to further effort. I’ve heard a number of the Revel floor standars in different set ups. They all had that Revel sound - to me, extremely competent but never compelled me to want to spin Tune after tune. Whereas for instance I’ve heard Quad ESL 57s, or Harbeth speakers (and many others) in tons of different rooms and types of amplification and I’ve never experienced that ho-hum feeling. They always sound compelling to me. Same goes for Thiel, MBL, some Audio Physic models, and other brands that, while set up conditions certainly affect their sound - they have a particular presentation that comes through and keeps me wanting to hear more. What would be really interesting to me would be trying the blind test at Harmon. Given Tool’s work, statistically I’d be likely to choose the Revels in a blind test (unless those other designs get close enough to the design criteria identified as desirable). So I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if that happened. Then I’d have to wonder what to do with those results. Do I go with what I chose in the blind test? Or with what I perceive as more compelling in my sighted tests? It would be fun to find out. (I’d have no problem sticking with my sighted test preferences for various reasons). |
Prof Floyd Toole is an engineers engineer and that is certain. However a common point made is why do all major speaker companies products which are competently designed, still sound different? The answer is simple there is tunning for flat frequency response and then there is the deliberate adding or subtracting of frequncies and designs to tune the product to what the designer or design team is trying to accheive. A Harbeth sounds different than an ATC, a Vandersteen sounds different then a Magico, which sounds different than a Rockport, or Wilson. Each design team has a specific criteria to what "sounds good" to that team and those values echo the design materials and technologies that are being pursued by the respective company. As per liking or not liking a particualar product that will also come down to tunning and matching of gear to augment the products strengths and ameliorate that products difficencies. A good example of this is with the Elac Adante’s a well designed speaker that can sound good or bad depending on what gear is matched with them. Our approach is to try different combinations of electronics, sources and cables with a given set of speakers to tailor the sound to what we like. If you look at pictures of our sound rooms we don’t have a single system setup we have a room full of different dacs, amplifiers, so we can find the combination that works for our clients. We found the Adantes to have a slightly peaky top end and a slightly hollow midrange, so we match them with a wamer amp which is a little fat in the midrange and with a smooth top end, such as Naim or a tube amp or a hybrid tube/solid state amp. Too many audiophiles and dealers don’t see the folly of not working this way, and for this reason many stores have bad sounding demos because they were too lazy to experiement trying to work out what is required, and sometimes that means bringing in a new line of electronics or sources or whatever to make that louspeaker line pop. We had the exact same experience with the Paradigm Personas and the Polymer audio research line, both very detailed, uber high resolution designs, we tried, Chord, Thrax, Electrcompaniet, Devialet, Conrad Johnson, Manley Labs, until we found the T+A electronics which sounded dramatically better on both of those reference class loudspeakers than the other lines did. Same with the digital we tried Esoteric, EMM Labs, Aqua Hifi, and then Light Harmonic the Davinci beat all the other front ends by a considerable margin, with the Aqua a good second. Long story short to create magic in a high end system requires the careful matching of all the parts to bring out what you want to create. So in the case of the Revels two things might be occuring, one you just don’t like the design choices made by the design team, or two, when you heard them, the ancellory equipment was not working in the way you like to tune the speakers to sound the way you would like them to sound. Just food for audiophile thought. Dave and Troy Audio Doctor NJ |
fleschler, Good points. On one hand I think someone who truly has reached a level of expertise and who has contributed to our knowledge - for instance about audio - deserves recognition and respect. On the other hand, as you mention, the expert’s aims, criteria or subjective asssesment may not align perfectly with our own. It reminds me of some interaction I’ve had with Floyd Tool who is about as close to an audio guru as there may be in terms of his work in audio and listener perception. I have huge respect for his work. He’s determined so much about how to predict listener preferences in loudspeaker design. And yet I am left puzzling when I listen to a speaker line like Revel, designed using all the techniques Tool has handed them; Why don’t I like those speakers more? I mean, they certainly sound massively competent, yet they fail to grab me in ways many other speaker lines have which were not constructed via Tool’s research. In no way does my own preference amount to a repudiation of Tool’s work, but it is a reminder to me that no matter how much compelling theory and experiment may support a product, there are still variables - particularly with speakers - that means theory won’t replace personal auditions. |
I am not an audio guru. Even my engineer friend is not a guru, although usually correct, he is constantly learning new technology to apply to his products. I don't think anyone is an audio guru I can trust 100%. Plus, the guru's hearing maybe different from mine, so his/her perception of sound can be very different (and choice of music can be extremely different). Same thing in food taste. A master chef produces food that maybe on a high innovative level but not to everyone's taste. |
^^^^^ Wise words from B Russel. Doubt is an essential part of both critical thinking and open mindedness. You have to be able to at least entertain doubt about your own position in order to alter it when better information comes olong. That’s why a form of procedural doubt is built into the scientific method, and it’s why it features so heavily in philosophy. I just wish I saw more of this among high end audio hobbiests, but in the more subjective world of high end enthusiasts, doubt tends to be incorrectly percieved as close mindedness of not outright negative dogmatism. And even suggesting doubt about the perception reported by others is rallied against: who are YOU to tell me my ears aren’t hearing what they hear!” Among many audiophiles, their own perception is inviolate, it is the undoubted bedrock upon which any inference stands. “If you can’t measure what I say I’m hearing, the problem is in the science of the measuring, certainly not in my own perception!” Again, a little more humility and doubt in ones own inferences and perception is not a bad thing. And this applies to anyone, including and especially those who would be seen as “gurus.” |
@frogman - re your observation #2, I think it underscores that all the gear fiddling is a hobby for its own sake and may be related to better sound reproduction in a "test" setting, but is not necessarily connected to the enjoyment of music. In fact, the two pursuits (gear and music) may sometimes be at odds: for example, believing a tweak makes a system quieter, and thus correlates to improved performance. Often, I’ve found the opposite to be true- the deadening of components against electrical and mechanical interference often robs the system of musical life. But, I say that in passing as one of several experiences I’ve had over the years, and hardly an "absolute" given the infinite number of variables in various systems. (I’m not anti-tweak, but do find that one has to consider the cumulative changes that are wrought by multiple tweaks in a system- we add one to another and don’t often judge their impact standing alone). As I have aged, I’ve become less interested in gear for gear-sake and more interested in listening for enjoyment. They are two related but not congruent pursuits. The equipment is merely the vehicle to transport you, rather than an end unto itself. (Though I totally understand the interest and obsession with gear- it is fun in its own right, but to come back to your observation #2, not necessarily connected to music). |
I say that prof is a noru (not a guru) and of no interest to me. He doesn't elicit any information I can use to analyze anything. Just a lot of wind. I'll stick to reading teo for information. I'm no guru, I just write about my own experiences experimenting with tweaks and my own equipment. I have heard dozens of high end systems to compare sound with. If it sounds like music, it doesn't have to be a high end system, just pleasant. If it is high end, it better sound like enjoyable music or something's wrong with the room, equipment or symbiotic relationship of the equipment. |
Some interesting reading here and thanks to all for the commentary. However, I’m not entirely sure what much of it really means or is truly useful in our individual pursuit of better audio. Clearly, there are different ways to approach this hobby and different personal reasons for our involvement in it. I read the entire thread and two things stand out for me; and this observation is meant only as a reflection of my personal approach to the hobby: 1. “Be your own guru” - Elizabeth 2. One OP and 165 responses. How many times does the word “music” appear? One (!). |
Don’t take this the wrong way but I find all that talk of “how hearing works” from the neuroscience point of view, the sound waves interacting with the ear and the brain actually quite mundane. The work by Rupert Sheldrake, by contrast, in behavior of animals and other living things, how memory works and Mind-Matter interaction and related topics, is not only more interesting but more relevant to the audio hobby. Not to mention the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research PEAR group. And the work of Peter Belt specifically with the perception of sound. In other words, I think it’s a serious mistake to reduce perception, including the perception of hearing to a physical level, no matter how you wish to describe that physical level. “The acoustic waves impinge on inner ear and the neurons transmit the information to the brain.” Give me a break! I think it’s an indication just how conservative audiophiles really are. |
As well, we’re always getting into new points of understanding, every day. This just in... in the neuroscience of Human hearing. Science marches on: http://kavliprize.org/prizes-and-laureates/prizes/2018-kavli-prize-neuroscience It’s difficult to be a guru when the ground keeps changing. |
teo_audio, I am admittedly opening a can of worms that I may not actually have time to follow up on (due to work), but just some comments: teo_audio wrote: Objectivity is a state of mind in a purely subjective reality. Everything in this place runs through a subjectivity fundamental filter. Well that certainly goes against much of the standard philosophical conceptions of "Objective" and begs the question against arguments for an objective reality. Typically, philosophically speaking, "Objective" refers to mind-independant facts - that is states of affairs/relationships and/or ontological entities that exist regardless of anyone’s (and any Mind’s) perception, beliefs, emotions or opinions about the matter. So, for instance, the moon existed before anyone was around to have an opinion on whether the moon exists or not, and it’s existence doesn’t change with anyone’s opinion that it doesn’t exist. Your first statement at least seems to imply that the fact "everything" runs through our subjectivity, that therefore all existence is "subjective" not objective. But that would be a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow; there may be objective aspects of reality that we are perceiving via our first person subjectivity. That is, after all, why we can talk about false beliefs and their consequences. Someone can believe all he wants that water will have the same properties as gas when poured in to his car’s gas tank. But his belief doesn’t alter reality and this is why we can easily predict: he won’t be getting anywhere in his car on that belief. Same would go for anyone believing he will remain floating in the air should he jump off a balcony. That there is a reality independent of his beliefs explains and predicts why his beliefs can’t accurately predict what is going to happen; whereas we can. Objectivity is merely and agreed upon individually derived mindset. Objectivity only exists in your mind. It’s a convention. A concept. A projection. Nothing more. Again, this appears to be conflating concepts. That objectivity is an agreed upon concept or description - a convention - does not logically entail that the thing it is *meant to describe* doesn’t exist. The labelling of certain snakes as venemous, or the divisions between reptiles and mammals are "conventions" in terms of their use, but that doesn’t mean that what they are meant to refer to doesn’t exist. Similarly, if philosophers say "Objective reality is that which does not depend on a beliefs and opinions in order to exist" then they can explore if such aspects of reality fit that description. And it does seem to be the case. You can ask questions like "if this aspect of reality does not change based on a human belief about it, what consequences does this imply?" Well, it implies that if you can take beliefs that make alternative claims about the nature of X, and show how they do not change X - that the consequences stay the same as if X did not change based on someone’s belief. And this suggests we can have "true" (more accurate) beliefs vs "false" beliefs. You can say "IF this aspect of reality is as I think it is, objectively, then we should see X if we do Y..." The fact that such hypotheses often enough fail shows that this is not some sort of circular reasoning that admits of no falsification. Anyone who thinks objectivity is a real thing, really needs to get back to psych 101 class and get mentally slapped about and around for quite a while, until they let go of that fundamental logic error. :) Anyone who thinks objective reality isn’t a "real thing" is invited to jump off a balcony on their opinion they won’t fall to the ground. ;-) Finally, this other one:
Does that not also imply the converse: that the same aspect of people’s cognition that can lead them to "blind" themselves to their own rash inferences? For instance "I’ve been told cables sound different - or I have heard difference in some cables before - therefore there’s going to be and is a difference between these new cables"? (And so this can lead to assuming and even perceiving differences - as their beliefs alter their perception - were none exist). Surely all the mental heuristics that lead to biases operate in both (many) directions, right? Therefore it leaves us asking: What method can we use to determine whether a sonic change is due to an illusion generated via bias we have inherently or picked up through experience, or whether those differences come from truly audible differences? The differences have real world consequences. Cheers,(And like I said, I’m not sure I can go much further interacting on this one). |
I rather preferred the, "No goats, no glory", which(based on the flick) I found hilarious(KUDOS, Geoff). Sometimes I feel as though I’m stuck on the Antelope Freeway, being forced to listen to 24 hours of the Barney and Friends theme song, wishing for an All Weather Climate Control, when reading these....whatevers. Then again, no one compels me to visit(save the invitations, not to). Back to audio, or the other side of the record? Have fun! |
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. |
@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:
|
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. |
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. |
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. 🐐 |
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... And the ping pong goes on and on... |
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. 😩 |
@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. |