What I find ironic is that the objectionists,or the folks who demand scientific proof ,never indulge in the true spirit of science.
Which would have to be the experiemnt.
The proof can only be determined if the item under scrutiny has gone under the knife as it were, and an "experiment" is performed to either validate or discredit the findings of the original theory.
This is the basics of science.
Yet the objectionists refuse to experiment or in our case, try the tweak that is in question.
The onus is always on the person who reports that a tweak made an imporovemnt to"their" system to provide some kind of proof to the "others" who are sceptical.
Isn't this a bit one sided?
Why shouldn't the onus be on the objectionist to scientifically prove why the tweak in question shouldn't work?
Ah, but then he would have to try the tweak himself, wouldn't he?
And this is what they most always refuse to do.
To try the tweak would seem like caving in,like finding enough merit in the claim to involve them with the very folks they wish to distance themselves from.
They wouldn't waste their time or money doing any such thing,because they don't believe in "fairy dust", yet they do nothing to disprove it's existance.
It's arrogance, plain and simple.
They are the smart ones, those who believe in the fairy dust are dimwitted.
And the argument continues.
One side tries something and states that it made his system sound better.
The other side, does not try the item and states that it can't do what the other person said it does, and continues to try and discourage anyonelse from trying the item.
"Smart people don't fall for snake oil, it sounds like snake oil to me because I don't understand it, don't know much about it, and have never nor will ever try it."
"I just know it won't work."Are a couple of examples of close minded thinking that we've all seen in other threads which turn into arguments.
Another spin in another age was, "if God intended man to fly ,he would have given us wings".
So I ask, prove to me that what I may have raved about is in fact nothing but snake oil?
But, how can you do that by not trying it?
This is the one sided argument I referred to earlier on in this thread.
That someone, who wasn't privy to the "experiment" in my home on my system, can make a statement that something like demagging an LP can't make an improvement is someone who MS. Goodwin would call close minded.
Keeping an open mind and gaining some experience with tweaks that have worked and those that haven't gives someone more insight than the person who has the closed mind and tries nothing that is out of his comfort zone.
Seeing both sides of the coin and not just one side is seeing the big picture.
I remember thinking that I would never like the sound of an SET low power amp, because the specs are nothing at all like that of the high powered solid state amps that I was familiar with.
All it took was to try one out in a suitable system and I realized how wrong one can be when they close their mind to all the variables we have when it comes to reproducing music in our homes.
But I would never argue that an SET type system is the best there is either, or that cones are better than stats, tubes better than solid state, vinyl better than cd.
I could tell you what I prefer, and I have every right to, because I've actually tried the stuff.
