Civility

[wgscott]

I cynically thought it was a free advertisement.

 

Maybe it was actually a paid advertisement.

[wgscott]

The problem is that some of these vendors cross the line from hype into the realm of consumer fraud. This is most unambiguously identifiable when they make silly claims about basic physics that any high school student could identify as BS. Although I didn't personally call them out on it, I would have if I had seen it first. This has nothing to to with incivility.

[wgscott]

Nobody has asked the manufacturer to supply an explanation for why their cable might sound better. (Knowing from my own experience how things can go wrong from imperfect soldering, I personally would be more than satisfied with a claim of high quality control.) These are claims the manufacturers make, simply to bamboozle people.

 

I do agree it is best not to hijack someone else's thread to draw attention to this stuff.

 

I've been posting some of the more humorous examples on my CA blog, eg:

 

Quantum Mechanics and Burn-In - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

 

Quantum-mechanical tunneling and cables - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

 

Also, in the case of Zu speakers, I am not questioning that they don't sound good. I am even thinking of buying some. But their explanation is total BS (and actually put me off an impulse-purchase).

[wgscott]

My own comment was just one sentence of snark, so I won't attempt to defend it. However, let's look closely at what was actually said by the first responder:

 

Magnetic conduction? How would that work without a changing magnetic field? I call bullshit on this one after reading the technology page on their home page.

 

Sounds much like the usual scams about cables using the skin effect (at audio frequencies - lol) etc.

 

This is very clearly directed at the material posted on the manufacturer's home page, not at the original poster. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is a completely valid expression of an opinion related to the topic introduced by the original poster. Perhaps the word "bullshit" should have been hyphenated, but apart from that, I don't understand what could possibly offend anyone.

 

Lest there have been any remaining confusion, we also have this:

 

Oh, I think we have a misunderstanding here. I'm calling bullshit on the pseudo-scientific (and completely non-sensical) claimed effects behind this cable.

[wgscott]

Accusations of incivility are a great way to suppress discussion of matters which may very well be of general concern, but do little else, ironically, to add to the civility of discourse.

[wgscott]

“Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”

 

 

― Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

[wgscott]

Ok, let's consider a different example: Apple OS X tweaking. Although I know a lot less about audio than most folks here, I have spent a lot of time with OS X, so I thought instead of arguing about whether tweaking OS X was necessary or even a good idea, I focused on trying to help others to do what they wanted to do with OS X tweaks, made a few shell scripts, blog posts, and so on.

 

I guess that is civilized.

 

I've now gotten a a bit of a reputation as someone who advocates tweaking OS X for music playback. I don't.

 

The only things I have turned of in 10.8.2 is time machine (because I want to back up manually) and notifications (which irritate me for reasons that have nothing to do with sound quality). I haven't even turned off spotlight or the md processes or iPod mounting.

 

Many of the tweaks are harmless as well as useless, and some (like turning of disk journaling) are in my opinion a very bad idea, and some, like turning off spotlight, are inconvenient and mess with the updating process. These tweaks can be confusing and off-putting, especially for people new to OS X or computer music playback, and are simply unnecessary.

 

One could make a good argument that, ultimately, the more civilized thing to do would be to point out to newcomers that tweaking OS X for audio is basically bull-shit. With a hyphen.

[wgscott]

The point is to start a thread to discuss it rather than derail something an OP has started.

 

Then why not just say that, and forgo the lecture on how we ought to behave?

[wgscott]

Another one for the ignore list.

[wgscott]

@Paul: sshhh -- you will ruin my reputation.

 

@souptin:

 

[wgscott]

Instead of "objectivists" and "subjectivists," may I suggest we adopt the more neutral terms "skeptics" and "believers", or maybe even "rationalists" and "irrationalists"?

[wgscott]

Further to Priaptor's comments below...if I am quite convinced that a recent installation of a $1000 Nordost interconnect is audibly superior to the $300 brand it replaced but the inference from some of of you is that this is akin to astrology or Ouija boards.

I work in structural engineering and recently attended a seminar given by a very gifted Prof who freely admitted that we cannot truly model the load path huge seismic forces may take as they run though a complexed connection, further stating that we must, simply, define a load path and the building will find it...a shocking and disturbingly candid statement. (and poorly paraphased)

Crude parallel but I suspect the science is just trying to keep up with these issues.

 

I can't speak for others, but my only point is that you don't have to invoke magical explanations or claim quantum mechanical mysticism to explain these things, and those that do (in their product advertisements) are very likely trying to hide or obscure something, or are BS'ing you.

 

Physicists can't analytically (exactly) solve equations describing three or more interacting bodies. This doesn't entail that we can't understand the trajectory of the moon orbiting the earth orbiting the sun orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

[wgscott]

I'll take that as an endorsement.

[wgscott]

Oh geez!

 

Not well said.

[wgscott]

I don't really care what individuals say, but vendors who deliberately use deceptive advertising that invokes fraudulent justifications based on science are a different story. In that case, it becomes a matter of integrity and intellectual self-defense. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, we have an obligation to state the truth and expose lies.

[wgscott]

Don't worry. Hardly any American south of the Canadian border has any idea who he is.

[wgscott]

That is simply not true. Goes to show why this whole "famous quotes" business is rather superficial. ...

 

Famous perhaps in the church of the believers, but I had to look it up in Wikipedia:

 

Edwin Hubbell Chapin (December 29, 1814 – 1880) was an American preacher and editor of the Christian Leader

 

How odd.

 

Are we to equate those who call themselves subjectivists with Christianity? Maybe so. They seem to share some things in common, like assumed moral superiority, belief in the palpably absurd and in imaginary entities, and a huge persecution complex.

[wgscott]

I didn't produce the quote that appeals to some obscure Christian theologian.

[wgscott]

This one:

 

"Skepticism has never founded empires, established principals, or changed the world's heart. The great doers in history have always been people of faith." -Edwin Hubbel Chapin

[wgscott]

Publius!

[wgscott]

Yeah, I miss him and Owen.

[wgscott]

I thought "Bogart" was to hang onto something but not use it, like Humphrey Bogart always holding that cigarette in Casablanca but not smoking it.

[wgscott]

There are of course many other interesting digital audio technology forums on the net. The part of CA that I will probably miss, and that I think is reasonably unique right now, is the series of postings of objective spectrum and dynamic range measurements of hi-res downloads - the reason I came to CA in the first place. So many thanks for that valuable resource, and I hope it continues and grows!

 

Well, I for one think this place would be the poorer for your absence. I guess, however, we have the answer to the question I posted at the year's beginning: Are "objectivists" unwelcome? - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

[wgscott]

Too bad it has a rather high degree of verisimilitude.

[wgscott]

I think Julf's assessment, though a bit harsh, is essentially correct.