Are you a Verificationist about audio?


A Verificationist about audio believes that...

A statement about audio is valid ONLY IF it can be verified, and it can be verified ONLY IF there is some finite, repeatable, public procedure for determining whether it is true or false.

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.

Are you a Verificationist about audio?
bryoncunningham
No and the notion that this is a major division amongst audio hobbyists appears untrue. I have no instrument to measure this claim.
The only measuring devices I use are an SPL meter but not for the purposes of verifying a loudspeaker's claimed sensitivity, and very infrequently a multimeter. I am a wishful -someday I'll get around to learning it- DIYer.
Long ago, when I was young, if an amplifier passed a sine wave and a square wave at a certain power over a certain frequency range, it was declared to be better than the job required, since obviously one could not hear distortion below say 1 or 2 %. Speaker wire was zip cord and interconnect was well......wire (and men were men and electricity was just electricity).
Hi Bryon,

Interesting question. In my case I would say that the answer is neither "yes" nor "no."

Assessing the validity of the kinds of statements you refer to, as I see it, is a matter of making reasoned judgments, taking into account the science that is involved, one's own listening experience and experiments, and anecdotal evidence that is offered by others.

The anecdotal evidence part of it in turn obviously requires considerable filtering, to a degree that varies depending on:

1)How broad the consensus seems to be about the particular tweak or other matter. Which is NOT to say that broadly held beliefs will always be correct.
2)Its degree of apparent absurdity.
3)The thoroughness and degree of discipline that seems to have gone into the reported assessments. Particularly the degree of care that seems to have gone into making sure that what is reported as having been heard is attributed to the right variable.

I am a verificationist to the extent that I believe that reason, common sense, scientific understanding, careful experimentation, and disciplined methodology are an essential part of achieving optimal results.

I am also a verificationist to the extent that I reject the notion some seem to have that there is no finite limit to the degree of absurdity of a tweak beyond which it is legitimate to reject the tweak without trying it.

I am a non-verificationist to the extent I believe that known science, and scientific methodology, cannot explain and verify all of our audio-related perceptions, and also to the extent that I recognize that the finite limit I referred to above is a wide one.

If that all sounds to some like a non-answer, my feeling is that like most things in life, audio involves making judgments and educated guesses involving shades of gray and matters of degree, not choices between black and white or yes and no.

Best regards,
-- Al
I'm a "verificationist" insofar as the humans making the verifications are infallible.
I will tend to take much more seriously a well reasoned explanation backed by solid science - meaning that I will accept some well supported manufacturer's claims.

When something makes absolutely no sense at all - then my philosophy is why waste any time verifying it. If it is real then very soon a proper scientific theory and experimental evidence will emerge. If it is audiphoolery then the outlandish claims (lies) will just get bigger and bigger - totally saturated in ridiculous hyperbole.

Life is too short to play the fool spending one's time testing foolish outlandish unsupported unverified anecdotal claims. Human's are very unreliable in their observations and recollections - just ask a lawyer who works in court or ask a doctor about the well known "placebo effect".

I'd rather spend that time exploring new music, investing in meaningful improvements to the system, or following other hobbies, family time etc.