God and the Audiophiles

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Bill, if you meant what you said (hard to tell with you sometimes) a little unfair and maybe shows your prejudices. On what evidence do you base your claim that creationists=audio subjectivists?

 

 

Well actually it seems like Audio Objectivist - Flat Earthers are actually closer to Creationists than we thought....

 

[PeterSt]

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive and taking this too personally,

 

I think I read all of your posts so far, and I saw this coming. Really.

You try harder than this forum deserves, these days. Consider wasting your time. Try to see through that your posts make sense, while the responses to it do not. But by now I am heavily biased ...

 

Peter

[alfe]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17145[/ATTACH]

 

Funny hearing device:)

[Paul R]

Don't you have a finer brush? Your broad strokes don't include me in the picture and I feel left out... :-/

 

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive and taking this too personally, but your disclaimer doesn't hide that within your response to me may be another problem in this field. It seems you see 2 teams, and that I'm not on yours. You therefore relegate me to the other team and already know all about me. You don't.

 

FYI, I AM on a crusade, but NOT the one you think. I have no intention of converting any masses; I can't anyway. I AM absolutely sure of what I know, but unlike so many, that includes knowing my knowledge has limits. I embrace those limits not as acceptance of my ignorance, but to set goals for improvement. "militant monk from another forum"? I've posted exactly 22 posts in audio forums ever. All in February. 19 here.

 

If anyone disputes my facts, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. When everyone agrees with me, we might all be crazy. But when I admit I'm wrong, I'm happy because I'm certain I've learned something.

 

You can pull out your disclaimer and say "not that this is you", but I'm responding to your answer to me.

 

1. You are way too sensitive. As you surmised, I purposely left you out of any generalization in the reply, and used language that should clearly have tipped you off that was true. It is possible you are a non Native English speaker, or from a different culture, so there may be reasons you missed that.

 

2. I personally do not care what your purpose on the system is, as long as you do not direct your crusade, whatever it may be, against me or intend harm to the system. Generally people who try to hide their purpose, as you seem to be attempting to do, have an ulterior motive. Often they are selling something. If your motive turns out to be in opposition to the management policies, the management will deal with you. I believe the management encourages discussions that further the enjoyment of our shared hobby in audio. If your purpose conflicts with that, then free advice, rexamine your purpose.

 

3. If you are attempting to say you are a scientist and have decoded the secrets of the universe- good luck with that. There are more people reading this with degrees in wildly varying areas than on almost any other forum I have ever encountered. This is a highly skeptical bunch.

 

4. If you view yourself as a militant monk, you have my sympathy.

 

5. If your intent is to pick a fight with me, good luck with that too. There are far too many other interesting things, even just involved with audio, to do or talk about. For example the topic of this thread.

 

Paul

[Cycleman]

I have much to say here, but not much time. So the short version: I am a committed agnostic.

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

 

Which makes me more secular than not. And yet the history of humanity is bursting with religion and god (or gods), so to dismiss that out of hand seems short-sighted.

 

So, when it comes to audio, I am both subjective and objective. That is, what I hear is what matters, since it's only going to be my experience. And yet objective tests of the equipment can be useful information pointing me to components I might want to try.

 

I find that both nature and nurture to be equally true, too.

 

We are a mix, or at least I am.

 

This extends to all of my life. Finding a way to find comfort in all of its uncertainty.

 

Dave, who likes to believe it's no accident that god in reverse is dog and "dog food lid" backwards is...

[Paul R]

With respect, I don't see any tie between such disparate topics as God and audiophilia or any need for one. There is no reason why agnostics and atheists can't love and appreciate music every bit as much as the most fervent religious believer. IMO, the fundamental question regarding religion is, "Did God create man or did man create God?" I don't see how the deeply personal answer to that question has anything to do with our hobby. Accordingly, I will refrain from expressing my opinion regarding your equating "most Audiophiles with the Reformation". However, if your expressed belief works for you, that's fine.

 

Gee Allan- holding much of a grudge there? If I said the sun came up in the east, you would argue about it just because I said it. And being you, you can argue with a stone. I think upon occasion, the stone would lose when arrayed against you too.

 

It is true that people in audio are fighting an entrenched mindset, more than one mindset in fact. There are many parallels to religion in there. Not the least is that because this is a passionate hobby for a lot of us, it always boils down to what we think, individually, about what we hear. Again individually.

 

It would be a shame if you can't step aside from your hard feelings and offer the thoughts your fine mind has to offer on the subject. No matter what you think, it would probably be interesting. Last time I will comment back to you with personal content. Just wanted you to know I have seen your comnents directed to me here and elsewhere, and generally do not reply to them, out of respect. Does not mean I agree with you about myself, or other subjects.

[alfe]

1. You are way too sensitive. As you surmised, I purposely left you out of any generalization in the reply, and used language that should clearly have tipped you off that was true. It is possible you are a non Native English speaker, or from a different culture, so there may be reasons you missed that.

 

2. I personally do not care what your purpose on the system is, as long as you do not direct your crusade, whatever it may be, against me or intend harm to the system. Generally people who try to hide their purpose, as you seem to be attempting to do, have an ulterior motive. Often they are selling something. If your motive turns out to be in opposition to the management policies, the management will deal with you. I believe the management encourages discussions that further the enjoyment of our shared hobby in audio. If your purpose conflicts with that, then free advice, rexamine your purpose.

 

3. If you are attempting to say you are a scientist and have decoded the secrets of the universe- good luck with that. There are more people reading this with degrees in wildly varying areas than on almost any other forum I have ever encountered. This is a highly skeptical bunch.

 

4. If you view yourself as a militant monk, you have my sympathy.

 

5. If your intent is to pick a fight with me, good luck with that too. There are far too many other interesting things, even just involved with audio, to do or talk about. For example the topic of this thread.

 

Paul

 

 

 

That's a warm welcome for a newbie:)

[Paul R]

That's a warm welcome for a newbie:)

 

Snort- picking a fight in this subject area is non sane. I rather like the way the topic forced me to reexamine my thinking a bit. Might not have changed my thinking much, but quite enjoyable to see how other people think. I would like to see more.

 

[Jabs1542]

First: I consider myself a scientist (actually I am an Engineer) and would like to believe in objectivity. However I think that we do not have a solid enough understanding to measure what is important. When someone can measure sound stage, image focus, and other nuances we can hear then we will have some objective data to deal with. Until then I will be comfortable trusting my personal preferences in a subjective manner.

 

The four armed subjective audiophile god. In one of the left hands you see cash. Probably from the sale of hires recordings, magic cables and simple belief in the ineffable qualities of music. Only by turning inward to create your own self referential judgment is true peace possible. And cash, you will need some cash.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17142[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Second: So what's with the dagger in the right hand?

[SoundAndMotion]

1. You are way too sensitive...

Granted. But, native speaker from CA,USA, living abroad now. You too can misunderstand my text. See 4.

2. I personally do not care what your purpose on the system is, ...

I'll tell you anyway. My purpose on this system is to have fun chatting about stuff I like, including music, electronics- esp. audio, and science. My crusade, only peripherally related to CA, comes from the huge distrust society has for science. I find it dangerous and although blame can be distributed, I believe scientists need to communicate better with the public. I have no ulterior motive: no disruptive, profit, or otherwise sinister motive.

3. If you are attempting to say you are a scientist..

No need to attempt, but I won't use my degrees as a reverse ad hominem to bolster what I say. I want my words to speak for themselves.

4. If you view yourself as a militant monk, you have my sympathy.

Now you've misunderstood me. I felt (overly sensitive!) you were classifying me as one of the "militant monks from another forum". I wanted to point out I'm not. I'm new to all forums and I'm not a militant monk.

5. If your intent is to pick a fight with me,

No, sorry. See 1. I thought you were picking a fight with me by dismissing me as "one of them". See 1.

 

Peace? I'll follow PeterSt's advice and take a chill pill... I already PMed him, saying I felt bad, cuz you almost always seem so nice and laid back in your other posts...

[mwheelerk]

From a song "I believe what I believe and it makes me what I am"

[orgel]

So what's with the dagger in the right hand?

 

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be an arrow. Since I always find the attributes of Hindu deities confusing, I won't speculate on the symbolism, but feel free to research Saraswati for extra credit.

 

This isn't precisely on topic, but Paul R's comments about passion in our wonderful, wacky hobby brought to mind something I've been thinking about on and off: It seems like a number of folks here can get really worked up about the impact of plain vs. fancy digital cables, whether DSD sounds better than PCM or vice versa, the virtues of linear power supplies, and other esoterica, but (and maybe I'm not reading the right threads) no one seems to get quite as worked up about, say, why Hummel sucks but Haydn doesn't, whether Lee Morgan was a better player than Freddie Hubbard, or mods vs. rockers. IOW, we're passionate (generally in a disagreeable way) about electronics, file formats, and information theory, but music? Not so much. What's up with that?

 

—David

[esldude]

 

Second: So what's with the dagger in the right hand?

 

I was hoping someone would ask. It is for plucking out the eyes of un-believers so all their listening will be blind.

[esldude]

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be an arrow. Since I always find the attributes of Hindu deities confusing, I won't speculate on the symbolism, but feel free to research Saraswati for extra credit.

 

This isn't precisely on topic, but Paul R's comments about passion in our wonderful, wacky hobby brought to mind something I've been thinking about on and off: It seems like a number of folks here can get really worked up about the impact of plain vs. fancy digital cables, whether DSD sounds better than PCM or vice versa, the virtues of linear power supplies, and other esoterica, but (and maybe I'm not reading the right threads) no one seems to get quite as worked up about, say, why Hummel sucks but Haydn doesn't, whether Lee Morgan was a better player than Freddie Hubbard, or mods vs. rockers. IOW, we're passionate (generally in a disagreeable way) about electronics, file formats, and information theory, but music? Not so much. What's up with that?

 

—David

 

How can I get passionately disagreeable with your choice in music? It is a preference, a taste, and such things can't be argued with any defininitive reference. You like country, it makes me ill. You like opera, I can only hope it ends soon. If we both like opera we might discuss various performances of it or something. For me to passionately decree my extreme distaste for it and you to explain what a philistine I am not to understand its subtle, encompassing beauty really would be a pitiful discussion.

[esldude]

Well actually it seems like Audio Objectivist - Flat Earthers are actually closer to Creationists than we thought....

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17148[/ATTACH]

 

Yes the curious idea objectivists are flat earthers. Yet if referenced to all other areas of life it is the subjectivists who are the flat earthers. A bit of long standing audiophile propaganda behind that I do believe. Flat eathers believer in all these unseen forces and didn't want to investigate out of fear of revealing the unknown. Sounds like subjectivists audiophiles to me.

[Musicophile]

I have much to say here, but not much time. So the short version: I am a committed agnostic.

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

 

Which makes me more secular than not. And yet the history of humanity is bursting with religion and god (or gods), so to dismiss that out of hand seems short-sighted.

 

So, when it comes to audio, I am both subjective and objective. That is, what I hear is what matters, since it's only going to be my experience. And yet objective tests of the equipment can be useful information pointing me to components I might want to try.

 

I find that both nature and nurture to be equally true, too.

 

We are a mix, or at least I am.

 

This extends to all of my life. Finding a way to find comfort in all of its uncertainty.

 

Dave, who likes to believe it's no accident that god in reverse is dog and "dog food lid" backwards is...

+1.

 

Musicophile (who in spite of having a cat at home finally also has a dog avatar)

[Musicophile]

How can I get passionately disagreeable with your choice in music? It is a preference, a taste, and such things can't be argued with any defininitive reference. You like country, it makes me ill. You like opera, I can only hope it ends soon. If we both like opera we might discuss various performances of it or something. For me to passionately decree my extreme distaste for it and you to explain what a philistine I am not to understand its subtle, encompassing beauty really would be a pitiful discussion.

Slightly disagree.

 

If two people don't like the same genre, indeed, there is no much to discuss about.

 

It get's interesting when there is sufficient overlap, and then you can endlessly discuss nuances, think Karajan vs. Bernstein, historically informed vs. traditional classical symphony playing, or indeed as quoted above Hubbard vs. Morgan (unfortunately, in my mind, both are outstanding, so not much to argue in this particular case).

[Paul R]

Eh - Peace brother. I was not trying to be mean, just very precisely clear in my points. I think I already welcomed you at least once, but welcome again.

 

I do look forward to reading your thread. Not saying I will agree with all of it, but it sure will make interesting reading & discussion, I think.

 

By the way, the point on #3 was not portraying yourself as a Scientist, but as a Scientist "with all the answers."

 

Apologies if that was not clear.

 

Many folks here do think of themselves as scientists, engineers, or as other kinds of professionals who are hard to fool. And fortunately, we do have some lawyers here who use their skills (often!) to smooth over misunderstandings. I wish I had their talents.

 

 

 

Granted. But, native speaker from CA,USA, living abroad now. You too can misunderstand my text. See 4.

 

I'll tell you anyway. My purpose on this system is to have fun chatting about stuff I like, including music, electronics- esp. audio, and science. My crusade, only peripherally related to CA, comes from the huge distrust society has for science. I find it dangerous and although blame can be distributed, I believe scientists need to communicate better with the public. I have no ulterior motive: no disruptive, profit, or otherwise sinister motive.

 

No need to attempt, but I won't use my degrees as a reverse ad hominem to bolster what I say. I want my words to speak for themselves.

 

Now you've misunderstood me. I felt (overly sensitive!) you were classifying me as one of the "militant monks from another forum". I wanted to point out I'm not. I'm new to all forums and I'm not a militant monk.

 

No, sorry. See 1. I thought you were picking a fight with me by dismissing me as "one of them". See 1.

 

Peace? I'll follow PeterSt's advice and take a chill pill... I already PMed him, saying I felt bad, cuz you almost always seem so nice and laid back in your other posts...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’ve always assumed that disagreements would be a part of our hobby.

 

The benefits (or lack thereof) of using double blind testing, “audiophile” USB cables, Ethernet cables, and countless tweaks only scratch the surface of the contentious topics we constantly debate.

 

What has been surprising to me, and ComputerAudiophile has generally been one of the more civilized sites, is the tremendous emotion, upset, and even apparent anger that has accompanied some of these disagreements.

 

I understand how reasonable people can disagree, but why would seemingly rational people become so emotional over these issues?

 

My theory is that these debates are about far more than audio products and methods. They’re about God, faith, and religion and that the more secular the audiophile the more likely he is to require science to validate our hobby. Why? Because in religion there’s a belief in something intangible, whether that’s God, a revelation, or a miracle. There’s also a belief by some (myself included) that not everything we ascertain can be measured.

 

Similarly, there are those of us (again, myself included) who believe that even without double blind testing, measurements, or even a good explanation for what we hear, we can still determine sonic differences in our systems as we compare cables, amps, software, etc. In short, we have faith in what we've experienced.

 

For a variety of reasons, I believe those kinds of audio assertions can drive the religious atheist, agnostic, or non-believer crazy. The notion that not everything we perceive can be evaluated scientifically seems to challenge the very foundation of how the sceptic evaluates the world around him. He’ll argue that either you can quantify your experience or you shouldn't be talking about it.

 

I believe that for some audiophile sceptics, agreeing that something unmeasurable can still be experienced would be a big step in the direction of acknowledging that an invisible and unmeasurable God could exist, miracles could take place, or that religions can be credible institutions.

 

Ideally, I’d prefer not to debate double blind tests, cables, and the like.

 

My only question is, what do people think about my theory as to why some audiophile debates can become so heated? And if there are other theories, I’d love to read them.

 

Joel

Very interesting Joel. Thanks for posting your thoughts and question.

[Paul R]

I have much to say here, but not much time. So the short version: I am a committed agnostic.

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

 

Very definition of faith isn't it? Accepting/Believing what you cannot see or prove because [fill-in-the-blank-reason] is important to you?

 

Faith seems to be pretty central to humans, as we always have to have faith in something. That can be other people, measurements, listening, or any mix of those and thousands of other things. Without some measure of faith, I think we lose our sanity.

 

Which is one reason why people react so passionately to having their personal experiences challenged. They are taking on faith that their personal experience was true, at least for them, and going on to base other decisions on those experiences. Faith.

 

Being agnostic requires a kind of faith too you know.

 

 

Which makes me more secular than not. And yet the history of humanity is bursting with religion and god (or gods), so to dismiss that out of hand seems short-sighted.

 

So, when it comes to audio, I am both subjective and objective. That is, what I hear is what matters, since it's only going to be my experience. And yet objective tests of the equipment can be useful information pointing me to components I might want to try.

 

To me, this seems to be a sane and reasonable path to follow. If you ever read the history of the reformation, I think you would draw some parallels to the current audiophile world. There are schisms and multiple reformation movements always going on. But fortunately, there has been no 30 years war. Nor any audiophile equivalent of the Council of Trent. So the parallels are only roughly parallel, and of course, Audio is a Hobby.

 

I doubt we will see anything as serious as the Ninety-Five Theses. Or any of the multitude of other reasons brought up during the Reformation, the Radical Reformation, or the Counter-Reformation.

 

Wonderful subject for anyone interested in history though. Especially when you get around to Gustavus Adolphus. Thank whatever powers that be that Gustav II Adolf showed up on the scene. Wonder who would fit that bill in the modern audiophile world?

 

I find that both nature and nurture to be equally true, too.

 

We are a mix, or at least I am.

 

This extends to all of my life. Finding a way to find comfort in all of its uncertainty.

 

Dave, who likes to believe it's no accident that god in reverse is dog and "dog food lid" backwards is...

 

Yep.

 

-Paul

[wgscott]

Bill, if you meant what you said (hard to tell with you sometimes) a little unfair and maybe shows your prejudices.

 

I do mean what I said, but phrased it in such a way as to mirror the prejudices contained in the formulation contrived by the OP, as a rhetorical device to point out how transparently self-serving the 'analysis' was.

 

On what evidence do you base your claim that creationists=audio subjectivists?

 

None. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make!

 

You have maybe one or two posters here that have indicated beliefs like that. Peoples belief sets are often much more complex than that, and often aren't consistent in a simplistic manner from one area to the next. For instance, there are religious conservatives who are socially liberal about lots of issues.

 

I think you'd find it difficult to find someone who rejects creationism more than me. But I certainly don't accept that the hard core objectivist camp has it all correct, and that the subjectivist camp has it all wrong.

 

The one thing I am being totally serious about is that I think the idea that we can perceive things that are intrinsically unmeasurable or cannot be detected or tested by any "objective" means has a religious (or less prejudicially, metaphysical) whiff to it.

[wgscott]

I have much to say here, but not much time. So the short version: I am a committed agnostic.

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

 

 

I used to claim to be an agnostic for similar reasons, until a few people convinced me it was a cop-out. Briefly, my position was falsely predicated upon the assumption that there is a reciprocity between the belief "there is a deity" and the belief "there is no deity." This is very similar, logically, to the two assertions "Cable A makes an audible difference" and "Cable A does not make an audible difference."

 

My assumption that the two assertions are somehow logically equivalent, however, is false. In each case, the second statement is the "null hypothesis," and requires the fewest number of arbitrary assumptions. In addition, it is very clear how the null hypothesis can be refuted (just provide one counter-example).

 

The atheist position is a lack of belief -- it is the null hypothesis. It isn't a question of being sure it is right, but rather, being able to state under what conditions one would accept it is wrong.

[esldude]

I used to claim to be an agnostic for similar reasons, until a few people convinced me it was a cop-out. Briefly, my position was falsely predicated upon the assumption that there is a reciprocity between the belief "there is a deity" and the belief "there is no deity." This is very similar, logically, to the two assertions "Cable A makes an audible difference" and "Cable A does not make an audible difference."

 

My assumption that the two assertions are somehow logically equivalent, however, is false. In each case, the second statement is the "null hypothesis," and requires the fewest number of arbitrary assumptions. In addition, it is very clear how the null hypothesis can be refuted (just provide one counter-example).

 

The atheist position is a lack of belief -- it is the null hypothesis. It isn't a question of being sure it is right, but rather, being able to state under what conditions one would accept it is wrong.

 

Your post is far TOO LOGICAL. Keep up the good work.

[wgscott]

Well actually it seems like Audio Objectivist - Flat Earthers are actually closer to Creationists than we thought....

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17148[/ATTACH]

 

You left out the apostrophe in "Objectivists" when you disingenuously altered the cartoon to be more ideologically serviceable to your agenda.

[Skeptic]

Yes the curious idea objectivists are flat earthers. Yet if referenced to all other areas of life it is the subjectivists who are the flat earthers. A bit of long standing audiophile propaganda behind that I do believe. Flat eathers believer in all these unseen forces and didn't want to investigate out of fear of revealing the unknown. Sounds like subjectivists audiophiles to me.

It's a common opinion that I have seen on audiophile forums - comparing skeptics to "flat earthers".

No, just because I don't believe in your homeopathic bits or absurd tweaks that don't pass muster if you even have the most basic technical understanding of a subject, does not make me a dogmatic fool.

 

The burden of proof lies with the people making incredible claims that go against accepted science/research or even more basic fundamentals like how computers work.

It's not my job to refute the absurd notion that files with identical CRCs could possibly sound different.

If you are going to make such claims you need to prove it. And that's not offering to let me listen to your system if I happen to be visiting your hemisphere of the world.

And saying that several people have heard your system and agree with you - well maybe they were just being nice. Or maybe there is something extremely specific to your system that is causing this to happen. Which is - again - not an indicator that your system is "ultra resolving" - it is more likely that there is something wrong that is causing an audible difference.

If it was a common issue and easily repeatable, you wouldn't have much difficulty producing valid evidence.

 

It is possible to set up a test where different audio cables do make an audible difference.

The problem is that these tests have to be set up in a specific way that is, essentially, broken.

When you fix the underlying fault, suddenly there are no differences between audio cables again.

 

It is possible to set up a test which does in fact result in an audible difference when you play a 192kHz track instead of a 44.1kHz track, despite human hearing only extending up to 20kHz - because you can have high frequency signals that increase the level of distortion within the audio band.

You'll hear a difference, but it does not make the "high res" track better.

 

And I am fine with people that want to go all-out and eliminate as much RF noise as possible from their system, whether that's introducing power conditioning, linear power supplies etc. At least on a theoretical level you could be improving the noise level inside your electronics.

And sure, if RF signals end up getting sent to your amplifier, then it is possible that it could result in an audible effect within the standard audible range. But this is - once again - a fault. Not something which most audio systems suffer from.

Just because you can set up a specific test where it can be an issue, does not mean that it is an issue all the time.

And that's the problem - the people selling them, or the people that have bought into it, are dogmatic in their approach. Your system can't possibly sound good if you haven't spent thousands on linear power supplies to replace the perfectly suitable switching power supplies in your computer/DAC/whatever else.

 

 

Now if there is peer-reviewed research that suddenly turns things on their heads and actually yes some of the things audiophiles are convinced work actually do something positive. Well then I am prepared to listen.

But if it actually works then it should not be difficult to test and provide that proof.

 

Sometimes I wonder how many audiophiles even sat through a high-school science class to learn how experiments are supposed to be run.

 

Faith seems to be pretty central to humans, as we always have to have faith in something. That can be other people, measurements, listening, or any mix of those and thousands of other things. Without some measure of faith, I think we lose our sanity.

Science is not faith-based.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how science works if you believe that to be the case.