Pass out stockings filled with USB cables, hand them 50 cent coins and then go BOOOO! They'll leave the room happier and satisfied.How perfect was that quote Ray!
In the end what can you do about a room full of grow men that still believe in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and The Boogie Man?
How perfect was that quote Ray!
In the end what can you do about a room full of grow men that still believe in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and The Boogie Man?
Does that not make them "deniers" then? In the former case you have a special (religious) term for a person who holds a view you don't approve of - ironically juxtaposed against a reference to assaults on science..! In the second, you will generously allow people the freedom to hold any view they like - about audio. But if you're so concerned that holding the wrong views on the climate has practical consequences, what if these audiophiles hold the common belief that Class A amps sound better, and should be left switched on burning 400W for 24 hours a day?When one looks at the assaults on science, climate change deniers...
...Since I don't buy the idea that there is any meaningful concern over audiophiles causing any real harm by having whatever beliefs they may have, I still suspect this particular fight is more about ego than anything else.
Crazy ideas exist because the 'scientific crowd' can't get their act together; the latter is proven to me every time I have to listen to mediocre, or appalling SQ when I go to some event, or place where 'pro' or engineered sound is happening - if cars were made as badly as sound systems often come across, public transport would have won decades ago ...
In the arena of audio reproduction it has nothing to do incorrectness of argument - the poor consumer just wants to listen to great sound, as he probably heard at some special moment from an unknown system. And he struggles to get it! He puts together an "audio science approved" rig ... and it doesn't push the emotional buttons, like he gets from some setups he comes across - why is it so hard to get the type of sound I want, he's thinking ... so, he starts chasing "magic solutions" to make things better ...No, this is a complete logical fallacy -- poor execution of audio engineering doesn't disprove audio science any more than medical malpractice disproves medical science.
I suspect that 100 years ago, a modern audio system would be very well understood. They tried their best to get a linear system with the technology available; modern technology has now delivered it. Nothing has fundamentally changed. They would even understand stereo:Audio science is not "wrong" - it just doesn't have the full picture under control ... just like our understanding of how the universe works: the thinking 100 years ago by the main scientists of the day was the best picture to date, back then - ummm, since that time ...
Clément Ader demonstrated the first two-channel audio system in Paris in 1881
What they don't understand, to this day, are what audible artifacts are critical to subjectively pleasing, satisfying playback - and which aren't. 60 years ago they had a good handle on what was necessary, found largely by trial and error - and that clarity was lost as movements in technology marched on. Digital playback was a disaster for many for decades - "digital sounding" was a perjorative for how many years, slowly now fading ...I suspect that 100 years ago, a modern audio system would be very well understood. They tried their best to get a linear system with the technology available; modern technology has now delivered it. Nothing has fundamentally changed. They would even understand stereo:
I like the guy that said, "we're from Hollywood, this is theater, its all theater.Fair amount of it happens in your backyard in Miami! Check out this great piece by Morley Safer of 60 minutes:
Now here's a guy with a eye for real art.Wish I could find his original piece on youtube....
I kind of like the philosophy that says "it's better to be nice than to be right, unless it's about how to land the airplane." I think it's well worth while to explore, discuss and even debate ideas and idologies in audio. I don't think it's worth while to sling mud at each other over differences in opinions or beliefs about audio. The stakes simply are not worth it. Not a whole lot is really at stake."The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important." - Albert J. Nock
Doesn't need to be ridicule. Several times when investigated it was found bringing facts to the attention of people actually increases the intensity to which they believe wrongly. Or that debating misinformation with the truth increases the belief in the misinformation. Still you don't help anything by doing nothing. A better approach is hard to come by as people are very rarely convinced to change opinion via debate or even results.
JGH unintentionally (and apparently to his regret in the end) constructed a platform that said technical knowledge was insufficient and only thru subjectively experienced phenomena can we adequately describe audio gear. I don't think he intended that design be based upon subjectivity, but only description of the results. Not a big surprise that increased the potential audience well beyond that of High Fidelity and similar magazines. Various aspects of this experience became semi-codified along familiar lines like one sees with oenophiles. People believe what they hear and from a community of like minded people feel confident they have authority and credentials to disagree with anyone just based upon local personal experience. Everyone has this human tendency. Likewise the tendency for humans to have highly biased perceptual experiences while feeling no bias is involved. JGH didn't intend to throw out the science or technical understanding. It was more along the lines that simple specsmanship was missing something. He opened Pandora's box of subjectivity however.
He was an artist of the highest level at self promotion and showmanship. And he was kind of surprisingly transparent about that fact. I was never a fan. He had reasonable talents as a commercial artist but his greatest achievement was advancements in the art of hype.Rejected comic-book artist?
View attachment 9798
I thought his(& assistants)work was 'cute' but trivial. I guess he struck it lucky.
Does that not make them "deniers" then?
In the former case you have a special (religious) term for a person who holds a view you don't approve of - ironically juxtaposed against a reference to assaults on science..! In the second, you will generously allow people the freedom to hold any view they like - about audio. But if you're so concerned that holding the wrong views on the climate has practical consequences, what if these audiophiles hold the common belief that Class A amps sound better, and should be left switched on burning 400W for 24 hours a day?
This works if your in a arena that runs on mutual respect and is about exploring ideas rather than imposing ‘selfs’ .I kind of like the philosophy that says "it's better to be nice than to be right, unless it's about how to land the airplane." I think it's well worth while to explore, discuss and even debate ideas and idologies in audio. I don't think it's worth while to sling mud at each other over differences in opinions or beliefs about audio. The stakes simply are not worth it. Not a whole lot is really at stake.
That's why sometimes a good hard smack upside the head works better than anything.Have a look around ( out the window, on the tv , on the Internet) umm...
I kind of like the philosophy that says "it's better to be nice than to be right, unless it's about how to land the airplane." I think it's well worth while to explore, discuss and even debate ideas and idologies in audio. I don't think it's worth while to sling mud at each other over differences in opinions or beliefs about audio. The stakes simply are not worth it. Not a whole lot is really at stake.
I don't drinkIsn't that what your local bar is for? Cheers.