2. misc-audio
  3. 136079-8469

Beware the audio guru

There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.

I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.

A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.

These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Ag insider logo xs@2xcleeds
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,792 posts
 

In the name of historical accuracy.....J. Gordon Holt was never a "subjectivist guru". He performed test bench measurements on all the products he reviewed, starting in his time at High Fidelity Magazine before starting Stereophile, where he continued his measuring. JGH is rightfully credited with inventing subjective reviewing, but he did so without abandoning bench tests. If a product tests well but sounds poor, you're measuring the wrong things.

Peter Aczel DID start out as a subjectivist, until he had his epiphany, after which he was a pure objectivist. Peter Moncrieff (correct spelling) is more of a subjectivist than an objectivist, imo. And Harry Pearson was a pure subjectivist, being almost completely technically ignorant, unfortunately.

tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,911 posts
 
on this difficult sad day I am blessed to be able to enjoy it

peace

phomchick's avatar
phomchick
209 posts
 
I think the Yanni/Laurel thing, as silly as it may have been, taught us that many of us hear differently from others.

I don’t think that is true. I experimented with different speakers and headphones and am now certain that the biggest factor in hearing Yanni or Laurel is the fidelity of the device you are listening on. The result is based on frequency response. I’m betting that 99% of people would hear the same thing if they listened to the same sound reproduction device.
It actually is a teachable moment for audiophiles, but it teaches something about reality not subjectivity.
trelja
3,223 posts
 
@cleeds, thank you for initiating this thread.  I agree with so very much of your sentiment.

Personally, I found the creepy stalker and his $25K challenge both ridiculous and disgusting, and lamented the several here who engaged him as giving a forum to someone utterly undeserving.

Like me Peter Aczel lived just north and west of Philadelphia.  No one could tell from the black and white of his writings in the newsletter and online that he literally suffered severe and substantial hearing loss.  By that I mean, he could not participate in typical conversation with another human being.  Peter would normally try to appear as scratching his scalp just around the ear as he formed a cup with his hand, as he asked folks to repeat themselves, and still much / most got lost. I'd like to know if anyone who interacted with him continued holding his opinion on audio or anything that involved sound as relevant.

One final thing, as some Buddhist ideas have surfaced, I want to balance this thread, and say that there are some on the other side just as wrong, bull-headed, anti-social, and foul the waters to the same degree.  Hopefully, we can respect each other, and support those who embrace certain technologies and ideas as well as those who don't
supertweak
90 posts
 
People who state things that are highly subjective are not really hoping or expecting everyone to just take thier every word as gospel truth,(or at least lets hope thats the case).Often its just as innocent as sitting on the couch with someone and hearing something and mentioning it to the other person, silently expecting a corroborative response or the opposite.The natural world, (soundwaves included) is way way more complex than our technology of measuring is,so subjective should definitely be the priority and perhaps backed up by measurements when they are sophisticated enough to concur.When dealing with electronics we are always dealing with flow of electrons and even molecules and atoms.I read a while ago the fact, that one drop of water has more molecules than the number of grains of sand on all the world's beaches combined.With unimaginably small minuteness like that, electrons molecules etc.is there anyone who actually thinks that anyone in audio has measuring devices that tell it all? A lot of very experienced designers will tell you that measurements and how something actually sounds is often nill.Or even the opposite.I think our state of the art in measuring and our understanding of it still has many miles to go in 2018.The world is a lot more complex that many people comprehend.The next time you can't hear an FM broadcast until you stand up in a certain spot or have to extend your leg up in the air and hold it, just think of that.

More to discover