2. tech-talk
  3. 1339342082

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
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
06-12-12: Photon46
As a long time reader and poster to this forum, I have the impression that a large proportion of the most contentious arguments evolve out of two beliefs:

#1. Why things sound the way they do can be explained through current knowledge of science and differences that are real can be measured.

#2. Double blind testing is the sword that cuts through delusion.
I completely agree with this, Photon. I expressed the same thing a different way in the Verificationism thread, where I said...
Verificationism is a major ideological division on Audiogon, particularly on topics relating to cables, power accessories, and miscellaneous tweaks. Verificationists argue that, if a statement about cable x, power outlet y, or tweak z cannot be verified, then the statement is not valid. Anti-verificationists argue that, if they themselves hear a difference between item x and item y, then that is sufficient to make statements about those items valid.
What I called 'Verificationism' you are calling Objectivism, but our meanings are very close.
06-12-12: Photon46
Maybe the objectivist vs. subjectivist view of audio reality is a philosophical microcosm reflecting our respective world views?... Discussions that cut to the core of our sense of self and world view provoke passionate debate. It takes great humility to accept that someone with a radically different world view may nonetheless have a valid viewpoint.
Again, completely agree. A good illustration is the Neutrality thread, which has 396 posts of passionate debate between Objectivists and Subjectivists. After a few dozen posts, it became clear that the dividing lines of the debate went much deeper than audio. The conflicting viewpoints reflected two fundamentally different ways of looking at truth and knowledge. And you're exactly right that accepting the validity of other people's point of view requires great humility.

Bryon
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
No, it isn't. Bumbling twits. ;-)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,525 posts
 
"accepting the validity of other people's point of view requires great humility."

Agreed. Humility is a virtue!

One thing I have learned over the years is that often the most valuable insights come from those who look at thing from a totally different perspective than I. It's a key to self improvement, something that we all can always benefit from.
lacee OP
811 posts
 
When the talking(argument) is cut short by the mods, we are left with a North and South Korea type of situation.

Which is why I feel it's constructive to keep threads alive and not shut them down.

Sometimes they morph,but there is always something to be learned,grains of wisdom from the collective whole of those who participate and to me that's a good thing.

We need disargreement as a species to stay alive.
Where would we be if we all toed the party line?

We most likely would still be living in caves if it wasn't for the few brave fools who decided to venture out from the safety and sureness and comfort of their caves.

Fast forward and mankind discovers that it will not fall off the face of the earth the nearer he gets to the horizon.
So much for the established science and wisdom of the day.

I am not anti science.

I just feel that we haven't learned everything yet that there is to be learned,so I keep my mind open.

Others feel that something like the HiFi fuse has to be explained to them , that there has to be scientific proof to validate the claims.
They would never have ventured out onto the high seas or out of their caves.
All that they need to know is all that they have learned so far, and there's nothing left to discover.
More of the closed mindset if you will.

One understands he has much to learn, the other feels he knows all he needs to know.

Those who have the need to learn and discover will tend towards aftermarket tweaks, those who have done it all know it all will avoid such like the plague.

I remember Auntie Enid quite well,I discovered that there is a right and wrong way in power cord orientation.
Some folks laughed at her.
As I've mentioned,Aczel got me interested in the effect fuses have on our components.
My take was that if the fuse degraded the sound in a speaker, then it could have the same impact wherever it is used.

A very simple and easy experiment for me to do with my Maggies and my old Amber 70 amp of the day.

An experiment that anyone can do to this day if they are careful.

But only the folks who are curious will ever know what a fuse can do to the sonics while it protects our gear.

The others' beliefs will not be altered, they will not try the fuse or other tweaks.Hardwired into them is everything they have ever learned, and that's all they need.

They say their gear is not flawed and mine must have been, hence the reason why I noticed an improvement.

Yet they will swap tubes,and replace the odd resistor or capacitor out of neccesity or for sonics.
Those have become acceptable audio practises that both types of audiophiles engage in.

So the frustrating part for me,a person who understands that everything plays a part in what we hear,is not understanding why the fuse isn't included in the list of acceptable audio practises.

To me, there is nothing to argue about or debate about if only one side has ever experienced that which is in question.

The only thing that is a certainty is that one side tried it, and one side didn't.

Which would be a one sided argument if ever there was one.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,525 posts
 
"Others feel that something like the HiFi fuse has to be explained to them , that there has to be scientific proof to validate the claims."

At the risk of further fuse related controversy, not proof but it never hurts to be able to identify something quantitative to substantiate claims. That's what science is all about.

I think many in the fuse thread were in consensus that lack of scientific evidence much less proof does not mean that something is not possible. It just makes it less likely perhaps. Its best to be as educated as possible and then decide yourself when something matters to you.
More to discover