2. misc-audio
  3. 152361-102681

Is There any Consensus at all amongst Audiophiles?

I remember once reading somewhere that theories in science don't necessarily disprove and succeed each other - merely that when proponents of less popular theories die they often take their theory with them.

So even in science there is no absolute right or wrong, merely an accepted consensus which can change from day to day. Much like the butter or margarine debate which has seen both sides on top at one time or another. Sometimes even old forgotten theories eg Flat Earth, can attempt a comeback!

However this lack of consensus only applies to cutting edge science. It does not mean that the vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge is held in contention. Indeed there have been no major upheavals in scientific thought for almost one hundred years. 

And that despite the rise of the internet age.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see whether there is any consensus at all in the world of domestic audio playback. Very little, if the past few years of this forum are anything to go by. Professional audio on the other hand doesn't seem to have the time or stomach for this kind of endless navel gazing. 

But still, there must be some consensus in domestic aydio - there must be. Otherwise we're all doomed to die endlessly disagreeing with each other. Perhaps it might be easier to get the ball rolling if we can all state what we actually believe in. Perhaps.

I'd like to start by saying that err... this isn't easy. Hmm.. how about me saying that increased bandwidth (20Hz-20kHz) is a good thing?

Surely we can all agree with that, can't we?

What else is there?

Loudspeakers have a greater performance impact on the delivered sound than other components. Even more than other transducers like headphones and cartridges.

How about adding that this is because loudspeakers exhibit over a thousand times more distortion than the rest of the audio chain added up together?

Instead of constantly bickering, which we also enjoy, it might be of some interest to see what we actually believe in.

This might be more difficult than knocking other opinions (and less fun) but who knows, it might even make us consider different opinions, if not quite abandon our own.




cd318
cd318 OP
2,636 posts
 
@nonoise , are we human or are we cats?

@maghister, "And also some evident fact: an amplifier costing 10,000 is probably better than my vintage very good Sansui..."

I agree with what you say about individual experience. Your comment above ('probably better') shows just how difficult it is to establish any definites. 

@boxer12, agreed. Surely we all like music?

@erik_squires , totally agree.

@flatbackground, not sure about that. I think his arguments do have merit. I just wish he'd pull his punches a bit more.

@douglas_schroeder , I have read Blink and don't see what it adds to the work of Freud. Sure Siggy's writings go in and out of fashion but the acid test of his analysis of the workings of the unconscious mind is currently moving along almost hand in hand with the ongoing development of fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology. Whew!

@andrewkelly, do you mean "AlI Want is You"?

@bpoletti , you're probably right. Perspective matters.

@richopp, in extreme cases yes.
A dead room can almost kill the life/energy out of any sound. But on the other hand too much life (echo) has its own issues.

So yes, the room matters.







onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,353 posts
 
I remember once reading somewhere that theories in science don't necessarily disprove and succeed each other - merely that when proponents of less popular theories die they often take their theory with them.

So even in science there is no absolute right or wrong, merely an accepted consensus which can change from day to day. Much like the butter or margarine debate which has seen both sides on top at one time or another. Sometimes even old forgotten theories eg Flat Earth, can attempt a comeback!

However this lack of consensus only applies to cutting edge science. It does not mean that the vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge is held in contention. Indeed there have been no major upheavals in scientific thought for almost one hundred years.
This is just uninformed scientific nihilism.  In the last 25 years humans have confirmed the existence of exoplanets, discovered the universe is expanded at an increasing rate of speed, measured gravity waves from colliding neutron stars (which also confirmed the genesis of many heavy elements) and discovered that super massive black holes are at the center of nearly all galaxies.  And that's just a few of the scientific discoveries from astronomy.

There's more happening between human beings than figuring out what power cord to use.
winnardt
174 posts
 
As several others have noted, you seem to have sabotaged the main point of your post by including the statement that there have been no major upheavals in scientific thought for almost one hundred years. To a scientist such as myself, this is just a frightfully ignorant statement. Here are a few of the more important ideas: Big Bang Theory and accelerating expansion of the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background, the age of the universe, missing mass and energy (dark matter and dark energy), exoplanets, plate tectonics, Quantum mechanics and the structure of atoms, quarks, Superconductivity, DNA (which conclusively proves evolution), and vaccines (which have saved millions of lives). 
atdavid
736 posts
 
You remember some of this statement, but the devil is in the details.


The statement was more along the lines of scientific advancement does not always happen because a new theory is so obviously better, but that those who hold on, often viciously, to "old" theories, eventually die.

It was not a statement about whether the old theory was right or wrong, the statement accepted that the new one was correct, it was that old ideas often literally have to die, because the proponents who hold old to them, their life's work, often respected scientists, refuse to accept they were wrong (and what that would mean).

Flat Earth is not a theory, and barely a hypothesis, but perhaps a good example. The Greeks showed the earth was round in about 2,000 BC. Look how long it took some powerful organizations to accept that it really was round, and even longer to accept it was not the center of the universe, even though the evidence was clear to those that understood it.


I remember once reading somewhere that theories in science don't necessarily disprove and succeed each other - merely that when proponents of less popular theories die they often take their theory with them.

So even in science there is no absolute right or wrong, merely an accepted consensus which can change from day to day. Much like the butter or margarine debate which has seen both sides on top at one time or another. Sometimes even old forgotten theories eg Flat Earth, can attempt a comeback!

berner99
217 posts
 

The comment that the original poster was referring to was said by nobel prize winning physicist Max Plank who said something to the effect that one never convinces people of new ideas, it is just that people against the new ideas die out and newer people in the field take them for granted (as being true).  If you want a medical/science example of that look up the story of bacteria (H pylori) as the cause of stomach ulcers.  Basically no one would believe him until he infected himself with the bacteria and gave himself an ulcer. People (physicians/scientists included) are attached to their ideas, and medicine is full of such examples.  All you have to do is look at discussions on power cables/interconnects--whatever truth in that area is, people are VERY attached to their beliefs and unlikely to change easily.

More to discover