Talk but not walk?

geoffkait,

Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?

I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.

I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone's listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.

There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone's tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.

It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable. However, I got an impression that the difference is always for better. I am not talking about echo in the room and positioning the speakers, but more about those things that get argued about a lot (let’s say, demagnetizing CDs, lifting cables from the ground on a certain wood blocks, etc.). Is there a way that lifting cables on birch instead of oak blocks would make sound worse, whatever that "worse" may mean? It somehow does not come across as a possibility.

glupson
geoffkait,

Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.

I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone’s listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.

There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone’s tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.

>>>>Have it your way. You want something to be something other than what is. Haven’t you ever heard of fluffing? You don’t have to have a real lab with people in white smocks running around with white socks and calculators. Are you so removed that you never heard of Herbies Audio Lab? Or Jena Labs? Or Marigo Audio Labs. Those examples as fate would have it are essentially one man operations. I could call my company Machina Dynamica Labs. Capish? A lab, even an “empirical lab” or theoretical physics lab” is whatever you want it to be, whatever works for you. I suspect this discussion, if I can be so bold, is kind of a mind game for you. Which is kind of what MG was getting at in his OP. You know, with the fakes and everything.

glupson,

It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable.

That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject.

As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position.

One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not."

Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I'm very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system.   So it's not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference.  But I also realize this is also when I'm most likely to fool myself that there is a difference.

Quick interrupt! There has never been a single audiophile tweak that was ever proved to be a fake or a hoax. Of course it all depends. Some pills make you bigger, some pills make you small, the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all. Much of the confusion over tweaks and backlash and oddball results actually stem from operator error. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭