2. misc-audio
  3. 170711-84906

Adding a “safe haven” forum for discussion of tweaks?

I think we can all agree that threads about tweaks like fuses, stones, mats, power conditioners etc. stir up all kinds of controversy, conflict and ill will.

 

Short of banning discussion of these controversial topics, is there another solution to this problem?

 

I got this idea from teo_audio’s comments about a solution implemented at Canuck audio on another thread:

 

“Canuck audio tames it by having a cable and tweak area for threads. Where any counter to the idea that such things are functional (in attempt or in analysis), is not tolerated.

 

Meaning.. threads where people discuss tweaks, or mods or cables and so on, if a naysayer posts there, and interrupts the discussion, in any way, they get their posts deleted. And...if the given naysayer can’t hold their tongue, after said deletion-ish warnings..... they will, rapidly, via any repeats in behavior, find themselves banned from the forum. They have to grow up, or get lost.”

 

You may not like parts of his description, but I think the idea has real merit.

 

I propose a new “safe haven” sub-forum, with some special rules, for the discussion of tweaks. These rules would ONLY apply to this specific sub-forum, the current rules would continue as they are in all other areas.

 

The special rules would be along these lines:

 

Posts that categorically deny the possibility of tweaks having any effect or value are not allowed.

 

Posts proclaiming tweaks to be “scams” “cons” etc. are not allowed.

 

Posts that directly state, or imply, that another poster is lying, are not allowed.

 

Posts that make absolute negative statements like “Science proves it can’t work.” are not allowed.

 

Posts demanding measurements, controlled listening tests etc. are not allowed.

 

Posts that express skepticism (without making absolute negative statements), ask tough questions, or request more information are welcome.

 

Of course, some who hold the above opinions may object, but they would still be able to express those opinions in all other parts of the forum, just like they always have.

 

What do you think?

tommylion
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 

sometimes, it takes a long time for proofs and data for a given noted phenomena to come along to ’scientifically’ explain it. this does not mean the thing was wrong or it was a bunch of hooey from charlatans. Especially when the hearing of the phenomena is consistent, across years and years of anecdotal observation and experimentation.

Like this very recent point in science that has just been announced in the world of the physics of sound. It is the last new post (of this time and date) of this thread linked.

 

incompetence in the sciences is sometimes (even... many times) expressed in the realm of negative proofing. where if the proofs don't appear now or easily, then the science backs out of the observation and calls the observation bunk.

When, in reality, in science 'observation is king'. It's the place where science starts, it starts with the observation. it is not the aim of science to debunk observation, it is the job of good science to flesh out some theories, testable ones, in the face of consistent observation.

 

the weaker mind, the less capable mind (the peter principle alive and well in the sciences).. falls back on negative proofing, book learning and not much else. To use the texts of known things to debunk the new observation. Which is fine, if handled correctly.. but that cannot work in the face of new observed unknowns that are persistent. Debunking persistent observations via text learning is not science, via outright dismissal of the observation -is the enforcement of dogma. There are important lessons here.

 

yuviarora's avatar
yuviarora
537 posts
 

When, in reality, in science ’observation is king’. It’s the place where science starts, it starts with the observation. it is not the aim of science to debunk observation, it is the job of good science to flesh out some theories, testable ones, in the face of consistent observation.

I agree 100%, science is never settled, it is always in flux, and the second you claim that you know it all, especially at the expense of observation, it is no longer science, it has become religion.

The Cult of Science is the antithesis of the scientific mind, and it’s process.

The irony is extremely thick.

mceljo
1,357 posts
 

If it's any consolation, I consider myself to be a fairly open minded skeptic.  Open minded in that I am willing to consider that some things that others claim to hear just might be a reality in a system that surpasses the capability of my own.  Last night I put two very budget friendly power cables in my system just to satisfy my own curiosity.  To my surprise and delight, they made a significant improvement in my system that was far more than I could have expected.  I'm still not sure what I believe about power cables when it comes to one being better than another, but I've at least demonstrated to myself that they can make a significant improvement.  In my case I was two W Audio cables that are available on Amazon for under $40 each.  One is on my Pathos Classic One MkIII amplifier and the other is on my Maverick Audio TubeMagic D2 DAC.  The difference was obvious using my other source, so I know the power cord on the amplifier made a difference, it'll take more time to form an informed opinion on the other.

mikem
260 posts
 

@larry5729 

Been on forums for decades, I was a moderator for Audio asylum for the first couple of years back in the late 90’s.  
Best to learn how to read between the lines and to ignore some posts, then it is to complain about it..  

Many of these people have invested lots of money and time into their systems and think they have all the answers. There is a lot of good information and entertaining conversations at times. Best to just deal with it as it will never change. Just think of it as a bunch of colorful characters bursting at the seams to spread their knowledge. Enjoy the forum and the hobby, most of all.. the music.

larry5729's avatar
larry5729
1,008 posts
 

I think if someone is a soothsayer or attacks someone with a cute sarcastic statement they need to support themselves with facts.  I think people need to express themselves and at times disagree with them.  They can be polite and also realize there are novices in this group that joined this group to learn.  If we lose this, we will lose the spirit of this discussion group.

More to discover