Jump to content
IGNORED

God and the Audiophiles


joelha

Recommended Posts

But if you ignore religion and replace it with the idea of faith vs. proof vs. agnosticism, how do you see the roles for audiophiles?

 

I will try to be smart, but it really is my perspective of daily life :

 

Faith : Working for two years in a row on a design, "hoping" it will work out, which you'll only know after these two years.

Proof : That you don't only like the result because it took two years to accomplish the product.

Agnosticism : Sell it for high $ while you knew it didn't work out to begin with.

 

Since the latter is not entirely correct, it would require a fourth phenomenon; The one that makes you listen to the high $ system for many years while not really being satisfied but since you spent that money anyway ... Possibly Ignorance is suitable.

Real life example (not my own) which I saw happen more than once : house move. All sounds like sh*t in the new house. Move back to the old house ? out of the question. Better be agnostic about it and start a new hobby. ;)

 

 

This was not completely on the subject, but is from the perspective of an audiophile who tries his best as possible to improve on sound on behalf of others - the $ being crazy some times - which makes it a necessity to succeed. The faith needed is almost religious, I'd say ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
Oh, just saw this. I see no problem with people adhering to reason but also having faith. A scientist (regardless of titles, you, PeterSt, have the need to know the truth about audio, like a scientist) can put faith where reason can't go, and not let faith replace reason.

 

Haha, and I didn't read this before I posted my last post. So in perfect agreement here, I'd say.

 

One thing to be sure : As how I interpret "faith", ... this is the trust that all will be OK without being able to prove in advance it really will. And yes, I'm afraid (??) that when something goes wrong in life, "we" still have faith that all was for a good reason (when being religious).

Not me so much, but that doesn't make me right. D*mn, now Respect is also part of it ?

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Maybe this is also part of the game :

 

If my hearing is OK I can have faith in turning up the volume once again without getting complaints from the family.

If my hearing is not OK (which happens) then I am anxious to demo the system to an auditioner. So no matter I know that all should be fine because yesterday it was, I have "no faith" at all in such a situation. The proof is lacking ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
I will try to be smart, but it really is my perspective of daily life :

 

Faith : Working for two years in a row on a design, "hoping" it will work out, which you'll only know after these two years.

Proof : That you don't only like the result because it took two years to accomplish the product.

Agnosticism : Sell it for high $ while you knew it didn't work out to begin with.

 

Since the latter is not entirely correct, it would require a fourth phenomenon; The one that makes you listen to the high $ system for many years while not really being satisfied but since you spent that money anyway ... Possibly Ignorance is suitable.

Real life example (not my own) which I saw happen more than once : house move. All sounds like sh*t in the new house. Move back to the old house ? out of the question. Better be agnostic about it and start a new hobby. ;)

 

This was not completely on the subject, but is from the perspective of an audiophile who tries his best as possible to improve on sound on behalf of others - the $ being crazy some times - which makes it a necessity to succeed. The faith needed is almost religious, I'd say ...

 

I know you are trying to give examples of Faith, Proof and Agnosticism, but it's the fourth phenomenon I don't understand. Why would anyone listen to any system for many years while not really being satisfied, have they never heard of money-back guarantees? In my experience 30 days is plenty of time to discover if I like something or not, I have returned more equipment and accessories than I have purchased in my lifetime. Do some people value a dollar so little that they are too lazy to return that which they do not like? Very bizarre!! Of course, since I have always been a member of the lower income class I cannot afford to keep that which I do not like.

 

I have never owned a house, but I have changed apartments, mostly to live closer to a new job, but really I hate to move and have done so only when absolutely necessary. I do a clap-test to check the acoustics and make sure there is an sonically acceptable place to put two floor standing speakers or I say no dice. In my wildest dreams I could never afford a house, but if I ever bought a condo I would have to hear my audio system in it first, so I don't understand the last part either.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

And another way around (from a few posts back) :

 

I can work on this design for all this time, because I have the proof that all the components - and used in their combination - will work in the whole. Still I will have no single proof at all that the whole works out (hey, this is audio), and this is how faith comes in. Without the latter no new system will be there. But without the former (the theoretical proof) also no new system will be there; would be a bit silly to start working on it in that case. So no Blind faith.

 

I know from myself that the most crucial part of anything I start (for life) is about the decision "can this work ?". If it's a Yes, then it WILL work (I'll just do it, regardless of time needed). But the decision about the "can this work" is almost a religious one. A feeling. Hunches. Not enough information/data but with what I have at hand, make the big decision.

A religion in itself.

 

Meanwhile I slowly changed the for this thread intended meaning of Religion, I think. Now it's not mutually exclusive with science any more.

blabla

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
I know you are trying to give examples of Faith, Proof and Agnosticism, but it's the fourth phenomenon I don't understand. Why would anyone listen to any system for many years while not really being satisfied, have they never heard of money-back guarantees? In my experience 30 days is plenty of time to discover if I like something or not, I have returned more equipment and accessories than I have purchased in my lifetime. Do some people value a dollar so little that they are too lazy to return that which they do not like? Very bizarre!! Of course, since I have always been a member of the lower income class I cannot afford to keep that which I do not like.

 

Hi there Teresa,

 

Well, you give the answer almost yourself, when my own move house example is thus incorporated :

 

I have never owned a house, but I have changed apartments, mostly to live closer to a new job, but really I hate to move and have done so only when absolutely necessary. I do a clap-test to check the acoustics and make sure there is an sonically acceptable place to put two floor standing speakers or I say no dice. In my wildest dreams I could never afford a house, but if I ever bought a condo I would have to hear my audio system in it first, so I don't understand the last part either.

 

This is not only about acoustical subjects, but electrical just the same; how noisy the net may be, how the whole lot in the house itself may not work out and for 100% sure : how just all WILL be different.

And you know, without notice we easily spent 10 years on improvements in the old house. A ground wire here, a special footer there, and in the new house this all WILL be different.

 

Add Hope to the list ?

Regards,

Peter

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
There is nothing more. At least until someone goes and discovers that not only is there more to this universe than we think, there may be an infinite number of universes. Just as vast, just as infinite.

 

I really wonder how that can work, mathematically.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
I really wonder how that can work, mathematically.

 

Infinity is a REALLY BIG number :)

Analog: Koetsu Rosewood > VPI Aries 3 w/SDS > EAR 834P > EAR 834L: Audiodesk cleaner

Digital Fun: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (JRMC) SOtM USB > Lynx Hilo > EAR 834L

Digital Serious: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (HQPlayer) Ethernet > SMS-100 NAA > Lampi DSD L4 G5 > EAR 834L

Digital Disc: Oppo BDP 95 > EAR 834L

Output: EAR 834L > Xilica XP4080 DSP > Odessey Stratos Mono Extreme > Legacy Aeris

Phones: EAR 834L > Little Dot Mk ii > Senheiser HD 800

Link to comment
I am not a scientist. I am friends with a few but the term pseudoscientist is getting thrown around a lot here. So what exactly defines a pseudoscientist?

 

I am afraid I might have inadvertantly had a hand in starting that. (sigh)

 

I am not sure what anyone means by psuedoscientist, unless it it is someone falsly claiming credentials or competence not theirs. Even then, they might be a scientist, just a poor one. Or a person with a criminal mindset committing fraud. Or an otherwise rartional scientist might have a blind spot about some subject.

 

Psuedoscience, on the other hand is sprouted by any number of people for any number of reasons. It is probably mostly garnered from movies or the Internet. Covers every subject you can imagine.

 

From kidnappers in flying saucers to $30,000 speaker cables. The sprouters often feel quite scientific and on the side of truth and justice while sprouting the purest crap imaginable.

 

Some religions fit neatly into this mold as well. You too, can meet up with the vile overlord of the Universe. Just sign the credit card receipt and we can get started...

 

But a scientist sprouting pseudoscience? That is a very very rare thing in my experience. A scientist being wrong, or at least partly incorrect? Everyday occurrence, hazard of the job. Rolls off them like water from a duck.

 

Also, upon occassion, a true scientist can feel put upon or harassed, and react in a very human manner with a bit of anger. Which is why to me, we have to have faith in people. Nobody is perfect, though some would dispute that in their own cases. :)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
You certainly seem the one rather than presenting an argument stooping to use stereotypical debate halting terms like 'flat earther'. You also seem to have a habit of turning such terms around backwards as a criticism, while actually supplying no alternatives. Pretty much a naysayer, without presenting the better method.

And your better alternative is???????????????????????

 

Flat earther is a fitting criticism of those seeking to justify their beliefs or practices with spurious, false or unproven measurements and misrepresenting the process as objective legitimate scientific method. A better alternative ? 1) Stop persiting in the aforementioned practices, it doesnt help, it hinders. 2) Give up your crusade of trying to convince people what you think they can't hear (with others quick to add sarcastic ridicule). 3) Try listening to the music instead.If you are really interested in verifiable "alternatives" to listening to the music then 4) get yourself a large chunk of funding and a research team that knows what they are doing.If you can't do "4" go back to "1" and "2".

 

politics-brown-gordon_brown-chancellor_of_the_exchequer-economics-economic_forecasts-rjo0738_low.jpg?raw=1

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
I am not a scientist. I am friends with a few but the term pseudoscientist is getting thrown around a lot here. So what exactly defines a pseudoscientist?

 

pseudo = false (not genuine, sham)

pseudoscience = false science

 

a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

 

a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science

 

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

 

a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

 

A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method

according to wgscott a pseudoscientist is "anyone who disagrees with Audiophile Neuroscience", ergo = wgscott

 

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
Flat earther is a fitting criticism of those seeking to justify their beliefs or practices with spurious, false or unproven measurements and misrepresenting the process as objective legitimate scientific method. A better alternative ? 1) Stop persiting in the aforementioned practices, it doesnt help, it hinders. 2) Give up your crusade of trying to convince people what you think they can't hear (with others quick to add sarcastic ridicule). 3) Try listening to the music instead.If you are really interested in verifiable "alternatives" to listening to the music then 4) get yourself a large chunk of funding and a research team that knows what they are doing.If you can't do "4" go back to "1" and "2".

 

politics-brown-gordon_brown-chancellor_of_the_exchequer-economics-economic_forecasts-rjo0738_low.jpg?raw=1

 

With AUDACITY it's possible to do 4:)

 


Link to comment

My point, as you are well aware, is that you use it as a term of dismissal, rather than addressing the content of the argument you oppose, in quite the same way you admit to using the comically ironic term "flat-earther". This is rather similar to how people on the right use the words "communist" and "class war" to avoid having to address any genuine grievances raised with regard to social inequality. When that failed with me, you resort to libeling me as a "racist" (nationality ≠ race).

 

These are dishonest debating tactics you deploy against people who you for some reason perceive are on a different side or are somehow your enemy.

 

Do you honestly not have anything better to do with your time?

Link to comment
Like if you or others want to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences, then show me the quality measures of that test's performance. I keep on asking but I don't get the references, just the same unsubstantiated reliance on music ABX DBT tests. I mean surely you wouldn't use a non calibrated non validated tool in your work would you ? That would be pseudoscience...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method".

 

I think if you search everything I have posted here, you will find as many instances where I have "want[ed] to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences" exactly as many times as i have posted racist comments.

 

That number, to avoid any ambiguity, is absolutely zero.

 

Why do you need to make all this stuff up? Have you no sense of honesty?

Link to comment

Pseudoscience ? well, that would be something like me a couple of years ago introducing explicit means to influence the D/A converter - via software.

Today I myself am a lot further on this, but still not all is clear.

 

I could try to say that I feel myself being scientifically operating, which, however, I would never admit for real because there's no real goal in it. Maybe we audiophiles have the pretension that it *is* a real goal, but it's just a stupid hobby of course.

 

That's all,

Pseudo Peter

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
Pseudoscience ? well, that would be something like me a couple of years ago introducing explicit means to influence the D/A converter - via software.

Today I myself am a lot further on this, but still not all is clear.

 

I could try to say that I feel myself being scientifically operating, which, however, I would never admit for real because there's no real goal in it. Maybe we audiophiles have the pretension that it *is* a real goal, but it's just a stupid hobby of course.

 

That's all,

Pseudo Peter

 

I do not think that would fit your case Peter. You just started investigating with a known goal. That's more engineering than anything else.

 

Psuedoscience would be if you claimed your software/hardware was superior because some aliens taught you a secret method or something.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Looks like the "objectivist-atheists" and the "agnostic-neithers" are tied for first! What's it mean?

Very few votes though.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/god-and-audiophiles-companion-poll-23587/

 

Those seem to be the two most self-consistent positions to my mind, but as you point out, the votes are few, so it isn't terribly meaningful.

 

OTOH, 37% of respondents self-identified as atheist; 7% of the US population does.

Link to comment

you are so right, joelha. audiophile debates are surely related to god, faith and religion*.

hope you do not mind much if one also asserts that audio debates are also about the fundamental inequality in the distribution of global wealth amongst the haves and have-nots.

theory is that the haves have high-end hi-fi gear. clearly, they can hear more than the have-nots who do not have what the haves have so they cannot hear what the haves hear. and so, the have-nots are not happy because they have not heard what the haves have hear. and, the haves are unhappy because they do not want to hear what the have-nots cannot hear. unsurprisingly then, the haves rave on and the have-nots rant on... understandably, rather emotionally, here.

in fact, there are capitalist subjectivist and communist objectivist camps in audiophilia.

some claim that the ultimate objective of a fringe cult of capitalist subjectivists is to sell $10k cables today so that they can sell $100k cables tomorrow. something to do with someone always having to have a bigger cigar and all that.

some surmise that the primary aim of a cell of communist audiophiles is to crash the high-end audiophile market so that everyone can afford to acquire, then measure, before listening to esoteric systems... preferably together, though not necessarily naked (or shaven).

there is also a belief by some (myself included) that not everything can be measured... such as how far an audiophile is willing to go to justify his doctrine.

but, as you said, we must have faith in what we experience. and to have faith means to believe that not every audiophile in this civilised forum is an audio-fool.

cheers.

btw, is this CA the computer audiophile site or CA the *christian audiophile site? if it is the latter, please accept humble apologies for this embarrassing post.

Link to comment
you are so right, joelha. audiophile debates are surely related to god, faith and religion*.

hope you do not mind much if one also asserts that audio debates are also about the fundamental inequality in the distribution of global wealth amongst the haves and have-nots.

theory is that the haves have high-end hi-fi gear. clearly, they can hear more than the have-nots who do not have what the haves have so they cannot hear what the haves hear. and so, the have-nots are not happy because they have not heard what the haves have hear. and, the haves are unhappy because they do not want to hear what the have-nots cannot hear. unsurprisingly then, the haves rave on and the have-nots rant on... understandably, rather emotionally, here.

in fact, there are capitalist subjectivist and communist objectivist camps in audiophilia.

some claim that the ultimate objective of a fringe cult of capitalist subjectivists is to sell $10k cables today so that they can sell $100k cables tomorrow. something to do with someone always having to have a bigger cigar and all that.

some surmise that the primary aim of a cell of communist audiophiles is to crash the high-end audiophile market so that everyone can afford to acquire, then measure, before listening to esoteric systems... preferably together, though not necessarily naked (or shaven).

there is also a belief by some (myself included) that not everything can be measured... such as how far an audiophile is willing to go to justify his doctrine.

but, as you said, we must have faith in what we experience. and to have faith means to believe that not every audiophile in this civilised forum is an audio-fool.

cheers.

btw, is this CA the computer audiophile site or CA the *christian audiophile site? if it is the latter, please accept humble apologies for this embarrassing post.

 

So to make it clear what you say is:

Class A the have ones are in haven

Class D the have nots are in hell so they think they know the hot stuff better than the others.

And as good christians class A should let class D criticise what they don't have.

:)

 


Link to comment
I am afraid I might have inadvertantly had a hand in starting that. (sigh)

 

I am not sure what anyone means by psuedoscientist, unless it it is someone falsly claiming credentials or competence not theirs. Even then, they might be a scientist, just a poor one. Or a person with a criminal mindset committing fraud. Or an otherwise rartional scientist might have a blind spot about some subject.

 

Psuedoscience, on the other hand is sprouted by any number of people for any number of reasons. It is probably mostly garnered from movies or the Internet. Covers every subject you can imagine.

 

From kidnappers in flying saucers to $30,000 speaker cables. The sprouters often feel quite scientific and on the side of truth and justice while sprouting the purest crap imaginable.

 

Some religions fit neatly into this mold as well. You too, can meet up with the vile overlord of the Universe. Just sign the credit card receipt and we can get started...

 

But a scientist sprouting pseudoscience? That is a very very rare thing in my experience. A scientist being wrong, or at least partly incorrect? Everyday occurrence, hazard of the job. Rolls off them like water from a duck.

 

Also, upon occassion, a true scientist can feel put upon or harassed, and react in a very human manner with a bit of anger. Which is why to me, we have to have faith in people. Nobody is perfect, though some would dispute that in their own cases. :)

 

Paul, no worries. I was a bit disingenuous in asking the question. I have my opinion on what constitutes a pseudoscientist but because the term has been utilized significantly on CA I wanted to hear viewpoints from individuals on both sides of the debate in this thread. It will help me in the future with a better understanding of where the primary posters in these debates are coming from. In my mind without looking up the formal definition it could mean:

 

1. An individual whom does basic research into a subject and presents themselves as a legitimate scientist in order to further a goal\agenda

 

2. An individual who is a scientist but is on the opposite side of a debate and is used as a tactic by the opposing debater to undermine that individual's credibility.

 

As a few posters have stated its generally not a positive term with which to label someone which fits my concept of the term......

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place". George Bernard Shaw.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...