taking the liberty to post when i find some time (and no, i'am way to busy for drug experiments...)
Audiophiles have the same motivation like wine "connoisseurs" who pay 300$ for a bottle of wine
OK, but I'm still wondering how the whales fit in to all of this.
So right. I recently got into an exchange on an audiophile forum in which wild claims were being made and and no data was being offered to support them. They had, of course, all kinds of reasons why blind testing was problematic, all based on personal speculation all including conditions of the testing that need not exist...strawman arguments. But when I asked, simply, all other things being equal what is the advantage of SEEING during listening? How coud NOT SEEING diminish an otherwise identical listening session; how, in fact could it not be more objective, there was no answer. It got very quiet.The answer, of course, is they don't want their fantasies to be disproven.Tim
The reliance on personal preference is more of an apology for audiophilia than a front-line argument, and I don't think it's that common. I'm not even sure people actually believe that when they say it.
That is, the righteousness to which audiophiles ascribe their beliefs reflects their belief that what they are experiencing stems from an objective reality. Thus, you have people like Robert Harley dismissing Meyer/Moran out of hand (or even engineers like Massenberg) simply because it contradicts personal, subjective, sighted experience. If it really boiled down to personal preference, audio would be a 100% relativist and they likely wouldn't be engaging in such arguments in the first place.
You wind up with people that will start shrieking at you the moment you mention that you require proof. This happens if you question someone's religion too. They start piling the tinder around the stakes and patting their pockets to see who has matches.
A note on science. Very few people actually believe "science is wrong". (No, that's not what you said, but it deserves clarification). Most righteous people (and I'm not limiting this statement to audiophiles here) believe that science, like reality, is on their side. When a discrepancy occurs, of course, it's about all those people who claim to be scientists but actually don't know what they are talking about. Hence, the belief that the AES has done nothing productive for the advancement of audio quality since the 1960s, that it is populated by shills and corporate interests, etc.
Quote from: tiptoe on 07 August, 2009, 10:31:44 AMYou wind up with people that will start shrieking at you the moment you mention that you require proof. This happens if you question someone's religion too. They start piling the tinder around the stakes and patting their pockets to see who has matches.Although I broadly agree with you I am going to take issue on this point. Audiophiles believe things about the physical world that are both measurable and contradict established scientific knowledge. Traditional religions generally ask for belief in matters that are not measurable and have no conflict with established scientific knowledge.
I can agree with that for fuzzy, New Agey religions, but I don't see how resurrection and male human parthenogenesis don't contradict fully science. Then you have something really out of left field like transubstantiation... shall I go on?
I was also gonna mention miracles as a general thing, BTW. Those do contradict science, and science may not strictly disprove an omnipotent and benevolent god (you can always ascribe some Mysterious Grand Purpose Your Little Mind Can't Understand), but it does give us plenty of information that doesn't jibe with that assumption at all.
Do you think resurrection and virgin birth of a male human is not disprovable by science?
Quote from: andy o on 08 August, 2009, 02:59:13 PMDo you think resurrection and virgin birth of a male human is not disprovable by science?Try disproving it using the scientific method.
My real gripe is that people use the word "religion" fantastically imprecisely. When they say "religion" they normally mean American, biblical-literalist, Protestant Christianity.
Quote from: shakey_snake on 22 April, 2009, 12:30:32 AM"Audiophiles" are not evil, rather they are harmless. They are harmless because they are ignorant. The problem is that when ignorance has enough money, it creates an industry that is apathetic to progressing, because that industry can get rich by simply exploiting ignorance.Very true. I bet all of these productshttp://www.ilikejam.org/blog/audio/audiophile.htmlare in his cube.
"Audiophiles" are not evil, rather they are harmless. They are harmless because they are ignorant. The problem is that when ignorance has enough money, it creates an industry that is apathetic to progressing, because that industry can get rich by simply exploiting ignorance.