Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

Science comes after observation. Observation is the origin point.

If the science ends up nullifying the observation and the observation persists, then the science may be wrong, ie, not sufficient to discern or negotiate the given situation. Science is a servant, a tool, a methodology, it is not an arbiter of reality.

The danger is that fallible humans tend to put dogma into science when science has nothing to do with dogma or projection of dogma.

If one finds themselves running in circles, then it is a problem of an incomplete question. As question and answer are a mirror of one another. Premise comes after observation and before science. Discipline of the mind remains integral to all.

Engineers and the vast majority of scientists are almost never (99.95% +) trained in the psychological and physiological aspects of mind, nor are they multi-disciplinarians, for the most part. The engineer is the most behind the eight ball in this scenario at hand. Realization, or discipline of mind - is key, here.

This complex question requires many disciplines to be discerned and fully negotiated in order to solve it. It is no simple question.

Otherwise the resolution of it would be in the record and all of us would have moved on and be wasting our time with some other misunderstood issue.

teo_audio wrote,

"Engineers and the vast majority of scientists are almost never (99.95% +) trained in the psychological and physiological aspects of mind, nor are they multi-disciplinarians, for the most part. The engineer is the most behind the eight ball in this scenario at hand. Realization, or discipline of mind - is key, here."

>>>>>Not sure what you’re getting at. First of all, when I went to school engineers were required to take at least one course in psychology. Also, we all know by now there can be some "psychological issues" involved with audio, like expectation bias and placebo effect but these psychological issues can be *controlled* with careful testing so I think their influence might be overblown. But everything is not as it seems in this great hobby. Not by a long shot. Queue scary music.

There is a whole undiscovered universe of what is more properly called "mind-matter interaction" involved in the hobby that was the realm of Peter Belt (RIP) and PWB Electonics for many years, at least 30. Silver Rainbow Foil and the Red X Pen being excellent examples of this category of audiophile product. As well as my Clever Little Clock. There are quite a few of these audiophile products that go BUMP in the night. But iit might be a mistake to say mind-matter interaction is "psychological" as that word is frequently used in the pejorative sense. I’d opine that the fields of human evolution, biology and sensory perception are probably more appropriate to this phenomenon. It is not a trick of the mind, some sort of subliminal marketing ploy or a cheap parlor trick. It’s an automatic involuntary (subconscious) response to external stimuli. We don’t need ALL engineers and scientists to be trained in psychological aspects of audio, we only need one or two. I’m not trying to set the world on fire. I’m just trying to start a flame in a few hearts.

Isn't it odd that the majority of posts are about the things that have the least sonic signature: electronics and cables (not to mention fuses, grrrr...), and far less about what matters more: speakers and, above all, the room. Room interaction does not even have its own category. Why?

Once some folks STOP ridiculing others over electronics, after market cables and fuses who are BTW simply sharing their experiences then we can focus on room treatments which I agree is very important and often overlooked in grand scheme of things.

You do like shouting, don't you?