Snake oil, fraud, confirmation bias


It is becoming increasingly apparent that many threads about legitimate topics devolve into one or more of the contributors here making claims of snake oil, fraud, or confirmation bias thereby derailing the conversation beyond the valid and relevant thread topic and this is getting ridiculous. For anyone here who honestly holds the position that there is snake oil and fraud in the world of Music Reproduction Systems I challenge them to prove their claims in court it should be an easy task based on the claims they make here in Audiogon  AND they will make a fortune because in the US once proven they can file a class action suit and profit enormously from the efforts of others to deceive. These people regularly claim that "there is no evidence" that things such as cables or fuses make a difference when in actual fact Audiogon is filled with evidence that these things make very real differences in Music Reproduction Systems of course those who claim fraud reject that evidence as "confirmation bias" but in absence of any documentation from them they are only repeating the claim they have made so many times that has been refuted many times here by those who have demonstrated to there satisfaction that they make a difference.   I think in actual truth the real fraudsters here are those that repeatedly make these claims of snake oil and fraud and often they have no experience to back up there claims they simply say the claims are impossible!
clearthink
Oy. I certainly don’t believe science has completed its mission of creating a perfect model and understanding of the physical universe. It never will. But that doesn’t mean I believe in ghosts.

Electronically reproduced music is, in the end, a moving magnet that pushes air. If a tweak back up the reproduction chain doesn’t affect the movement of the magnet, it doesn’t affect the movement of the air, and it is thus not affecting the sound of the music. Anyone who believes otherwise is basically thinking the equivalent of believing a volcanic eruption is the sign of an angry deity.

Because science is imperfect and we won’t have more sensitive measuring instruments until we do, I will make some allowances that maybe some "snake oil" audio tweaks may actually affect sound quality in ways that are too nuanced or minute to be measured now but will be able to be measured in our sci-fi future. And then I will make an allowance that maybe the brain is sensitive enough to pick up what instruments can’t. Although that still doesn’t justify the dramatic results some folks report. But still, the desirability of the level of impact relative to the goal of achieving perfection is a subjective one, so I won’t say that a .000001% improvement isn’t a worthy goal if someone thinks it is.

But many of these tweaks simply go against common sense. It is theoretically possible that a power cable would be of lesser quality, or contain a defect that renders it less capable of conducting current than, the power cables in your wall. But to me that clearly can be fixed by remedying that defect and rendering the power cable to be of consistent quality with what is in the wall. But that’s not a $500 fix with fancy colors and giant connectors. It’s a $5 fix, with maybe a little workmanship involved. Otherwise it is just bling. The only way a power cable that goes beyond fixing a defect could affect audio quality would be if it goes much farther than one meter - it would need to go all the way to the pole, or the power substation, etc.

Let’s pose a hypothetical: let’s go to the sci-fi world where we are sure that measuring instruments are confidently as sensitive and capable as human hearing at measuring an audio signal emitting from the moving magnets (we may be there already, but I want this premise clear as part of the hypothetical). In that scenario, if the measuring instrument detected no difference when a fancy fuse is reversed in direction, would the pro-tweaker crowd still hold to the everything-is-subjective-and-if-I-hear-a-difference-then-there-is-one axiom?

I won’t hide the ball on my own belief. I do accept that there is a level of poor accessories that are effectively defective. 20 gauge speaker cable on a long run. Very cheap interconnects that diminish conductivity under torque. Unshielded or improperly grounded cables when shielding or grounding are required to eliminate interference of some sort. So then there is a level of problem solving to eliminate these "defects" and that includes after-market products. But those are $5-$100 items, not all of this super expensive, visually stunning but scientifically non-distinct products.

It’s bling. Enjoy it if you want to - I’d love to have some of that stuff just because it looks cool. But once you’ve gone to the level of eliminating defects, you’ve gone as far as you can with this stuff from the standpoint of affecting the movement of those magnets. There is a magical, mystical quality to music. But that doesn’t move the reproduction of music beyond the reach of science and engineering.
I find it interesting that the OP can ignore his own thread, but can’t ignore the naysayers.  
Knowledge is defined as a consensus of collective observations. That said, there will be apparent anomalies within said observations. While there are laws of physics that are considered to be absolute, they themselves have been turned upside down upon occasion. One example as discussed (loosely) here relates to system synergies. While there are certain generally agreed upon "laws" of music reproduction, thinking they are found in every audio system everywhere in the same fashion is ludicrous.

One "proof" of this would be that certain speakers give different results in different systems - or even two (or more) owners of the exact same systems may hear said speakers differently from the other. In another, some hold that tube based gear reacts differently with other components than solid state gear does and that within the tube based gear universe, certain tubes give different audible results than others. Yet no one credible shouts snake oil at these observations.

In conclusion, we all hear music differently, due to age, experiences, quality of equipment, etc etc. For someone to make a blanket statement that someone cannot possibly hear what they hear in their system without hearing the system themselves before and after, and certainly not having the exact same ears, aural experiences etc, is laughable. A comparison would be someone claiming I couldn’t possibly have the flavor profile I experience drinking a particular wine essentially because their interpretation of it differs. Someone with more experience than myself would necessarily have different viewpoints of high end systems or expensive wines than I. Consensus might hold that their observations are more or less valid than mine. Because no two humans have exactly the same sensory apparatus, combined with differing experiences, declaring absolute right and wrong is impossible - everything is relative.
@ethiessen1  Nice try.  I made the same argument here earlier only to be informed by the naysayers that experiential happenings are irrelevant and silly if the phenomenon can't be measured or affirmed by science.


This is not necessarily my view but it presents an interesting point of view which adds to this discussion. The whole thing is about the authors view on snake oil - so quite relevant and on topic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4