Audiophile Priorities and Recent Topics

The controversy around priorities and putting topics like cables and floating the cables on little feet etc in their proper context with corollary importance (or lack thereof) and to what degree complexity lends itself to obfuscation rather than understanding reminds me of a scandal from the 1990s that occurred in the upper echelons of cultural theory.

Alan Sokal, a professor at NYU and London’s University College, submitted an article to “Social Text”, an academic journal of postmodern cultural theory (that I also happened to read myself from time to time). His submission was meant to test the journal’s intellectual rigor, and to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies - whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Frederick Jameson and Andrew Ross - would publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if it sounded good and if it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions."

The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the journal’s spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars” issue. It proposed that “quantum gravity” is a social and linguistic construct. Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine “Lingua Franca” that the article was a hoax.

The “Sokal Affair” - as it came to be known - caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of “Social Text”; and whether “Social Text” had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.

At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.

Needless to say, peer review and the analytical discipline that accompanies it is nowhere near to being A Thing in audio. Is it any wonder that audiophiles rarely agree on much?

My peer reviewed post re quantum entanglement was deleted by the mod. Now, Most people don’t think of Jack Daniels as an accomplished Quantum physicist, but in our household he is chair of the Dept.

Who would sit on this audio peer review board, and what form would this analytical analysis take? I don't think audiophiles will ever accept any appointed or elected audio peer review board in the near future. There is so little commonality between individual systems, highly likely each system is totally unique on this earth. And then there is my individuality to account for, I may interpret what I hear differently than some expert.  I highly doubt mass audiophile agreement to some audio board's determination of some instrument measured and/or double blind or some other iteration of so called objective listening tests that rates audio equipment in hierachy of sound quality.
There may be a day when acceptance of some instrument measured audio sound performance hierarchy will be accepted by the masses. I'm sure some  outliers will continue to decide for themselves, at least until the audio police confiscate their equipment or place the outliers in audio reformatories where accepted norms of sound quality are inculcated.
I think most of us are quite content to freely build our own audio systems and interpret it's sonic performance based on our individual perceptions. And so, argument in the audio realm really not need take place if the above subjectivity kept in mind. Self appointed judges who'd be more than happy to sit on these peer boards would love to send me to audio re-education camps.

perhaps the board will advise polyamory with planers, ribbons, cones, and even flaming plasma

while playing Joan of Arc.

perhaps the board will advise polyamory with planers, ribbons, cones, and even flaming plasma

while playing Joan of Arc.

Did you mean Jeanne d’Arc?  And if so, have you tried replacing the light bulb?