Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Fool's Gold (Read 40349 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fool's Gold

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Thought this might make for a nice little scientific chew toy.

The person responding as "Frank" appears to be the person behind Toxic Cables.

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/

Disappointing. I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles. This is the only one, but the article is kind of interesting. In the comments though, audiotruth is disappointing. His handling of standard subjectivist arguments (I know what I hear. You science-y people don't know everything) was weak, B- at best, and when Frank baited him, his answers *do* sound as though he is a cable competitor of Frank (clearly the Toxic guy). Rather than respond intelligently to all, he just sounds like he's bashing his competition (C- for answers to Frank).

Fool's Gold

Reply #2 –
> I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles

Sounds quite clickbaity to me, to be honest.

Fool's Gold

Reply #3 –
Hah I find this brilliant, especially the comment section!

First, the typical feelie ("I feel it's true so it must be true") gets all upset and spouts typical fallacious nonsense which includes the occasional anti-scientific statement and then Toxic Cables 'Frank' is putting his foot down that physics (conductivity of alloys) must have changed in the last decades, so the article is invalid - without providing any sources or any evidence to back up his claims!

Audiophile equipment manufacturers like that should be called out on their dishonesty, their BS claims and flat out lies.


And the article also shows nicely how such audiophile manufacturers do not advance the hobby but retard it and even make huge technological steps backwards, while making a living conning money out of people like 'Nigel'.
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #4 –
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Thought this might make for a nice little scientific chew toy.

The person responding as "Frank" appears to be the person behind Toxic Cables.

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/

Disappointing. I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles. This is the only one, but the article is kind of interesting. In the comments though, audiotruth is disappointing. His handling of standard subjectivist arguments (I know what I hear. You science-y people don't know everything) was weak, B- at best, and when Frank baited him, his answers *do* sound as though he is a cable competitor of Frank (clearly the Toxic guy). Rather than respond intelligently to all, he just sounds like he's bashing his competition (C- for answers to Frank).


You're free to post and show how it's done. 

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #5 –
I skipped the article and went straight to the laughs section.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Fool's Gold

Reply #6 –
Quote from: dhromed on
> I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles

Sounds quite clickbaity to me, to be honest.


Does Wordpress pay bloggers for clicks? I had a blog on there back in 2007 when the Obama "birther" thing was in full rage and don't recall any such plan.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Thought this might make for a nice little scientific chew toy.

The person responding as "Frank" appears to be the person behind Toxic Cables.

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/

Disappointing. I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles. This is the only one, but the article is kind of interesting. In the comments though, audiotruth is disappointing. His handling of standard subjectivist arguments (I know what I hear. You science-y people don't know everything) was weak, B- at best, and when Frank baited him, his answers *do* sound as though he is a cable competitor of Frank (clearly the Toxic guy). Rather than respond intelligently to all, he just sounds like he's bashing his competition (C- for answers to Frank).


You're free to post and show how it's done. 

se

Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.

Fool's Gold

Reply #8 –
[/quote]
Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.
[/quote]

You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.

And as I've long argued, the people you're referring to shouldn't be called "subjectivists." They're not. They're what I call "pseudo objectivists." A true subjectivist would never attempt to assert that their subjective perceptions are due entirely to actual audible difference. A true subjectivist only cares about their subjective experience and never tries to pass it off as anything more than that.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.

I went back to the blog to find a couple of quotes to post here, but really his tone in all his responses to beautox and Nigel doesn't win any points for convincing someone who disagrees. He doesn't have to be nice for me or anyone, if he doesn't want to. But if he wants to convince anyone, not just preach to the choir, a respectful tone is needed.

Fool's Gold

Reply #10 –
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.


So, you're critiquing the optics of *comments*.  So tiresome.

Did *you* start to question the substance of the argument in the *article*, because the tone of the comment replies disappoints you?  Did you become 'unconvinced'?

- If so I would posit that the problem could be the delicacy of your sensibilities, and not with the substance of the argument. 

- If not, then are you just worried that the gentle reader might be confused because the blogger is doing it wrong?  If that's the case, and if it's 'easy', then go ahead and post there to show how to do it right.

Fool's Gold

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
And as I've long argued, the people you're referring to shouldn't be called "subjectivists." They're not. They're what I call "pseudo objectivists." A true subjectivist would never attempt to assert that their subjective perceptions are due entirely to actual audible difference. A true subjectivist only cares about their subjective experience and never tries to pass it off as anything more than that.

You mean "pseudo subjectivist" if you define a "subjectivist" that way.

General tenets of the audiophile subjectivist position would be:
- subjective impressions that one arrived at in biased listening 'tests' always trump data gathered in controlled listening tests or measurements
- there are hidden magical properties in audio components that we cannot measure
- if someone asks for an explanation then simply pick a random phenomenon in physics that is remotely related and exaggerate, distort or blow it out of proportion until it seems to fit the question
- N people all heard the same so they cannot err
- the right feelings are enough evidence to even make outlandish claims come true
- a true upgrade always causes an audible improvement - human hearing is unlimited
...

And this leads to the nonsense spread by some of the audiophile manufacturers, as dealt with in above article. And the nonsense in magazines. And the nonsense in forums.


I never understood the label "objectivist". It makes no sense. Is an "objectivist" audiophile someone who likes audio but does not listen to it?
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #12 –
Quote from: krabapple on
So, you're critiquing the optics of *comments*.  So tiresome.

Did *you* start to question the substance of the argument in the *article*, because the tone of the comment replies disappoints you?  Did you become 'unconvinced'?

- If so I would posit that the problem could be the delicacy of your sensibilities, and not with the substance of the argument. 

- If not, then are you just worried that the gentle reader might be confused because the blogger is doing it wrong?  If that's the case, and if it's 'easy', then go ahead and post there to show how to do it right.

LOL. Wow, I shouldn't have posted in this thread. Sorry.
My history in this thread: OP links a blog article and specifically calls out the comments section. I read it all. I give my 2cents (obviously overpriced ;-)
Since I have a personal bias against ad hominem attacks and uncivil discourse in either direction (subj->obj; obj->subj), I pointed that out. The only take-home message I got was the interesting graph of the conductivity of silver when alloyed with gold. Otherwise, no convincing or unconvincing on my part. I have no interest in showing anyone how to do it. I'll just point out that civil behavior works best IMO.
I'm curious - did I say something offensive with my 2 cents? Did you like the article or comments? I didn't. But I suppose I should just drop this topic.

Fool's Gold

Reply #13 –
Quote from: xnor on
You mean "pseudo subjectivist" if you define a "subjectivist" that way.


I think "pseudo objectivist" is more apt. While they will often call themselves subjectivists, everything else that comes out of their mouth is stated as if it were objective, but is never substantiated with any objective evidence.

But whether you want to call them, they are decidedly not true subjectivists. Their vanity and ego is simply not content with that.

Quote
General tenets of the audiophile subjectivist position would be:
- subjective impressions that one arrived at in biased listening 'tests' always trump data gathered in controlled listening tests or measurements
- there are hidden magical properties in audio components that we cannot measure
- if someone asks for an explanation then simply pick a random phenomenon in physics that is remotely related and exaggerate, distort or blow it out of proportion until it seems to fit the question
- N people all heard the same so they cannot err
- the right feelings are enough evidence to even make outlandish claims come true
- a true upgrade always causes an audible improvement - human hearing is unlimited
...

And this leads to the nonsense spread by some of the audiophile manufacturers, as dealt with in above article.


That's a very good summary. May I steal it? 


Quote
I never understood the label "objectivist". It makes no sense. Is an "objectivist" audiophile someone who likes audio but does not listen to it?


I think it depends on context. I'm with Pirsig on this and see no reason why the two cannot peacefully coexist.

When I want to get at the truth of something simply for the sake of my own knowledge and understanding, I wear the objective hat. When I simply want the pleasure and enjoyment of listening to music, I wear the subjective hat.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #14 –
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.

I went back to the blog to find a couple of quotes to post here, but really his tone in all his responses to beautox and Nigel doesn't win any points for convincing someone who disagrees. He doesn't have to be nice for me or anyone, if he doesn't want to. But if he wants to convince anyone, not just preach to the choir, a respectful tone is needed.


Convincing someone who disagrees with what? Yeah, things got a bit scrappy in the replies. But that was on issues that had nothing to do with the article itself, and yeah, I can't disagree that it would have been better to have not allowed that distraction to have crept in.

What I found hilarious was that the only "defense" against the article was the empty assertion that it was just a "bunch of made up garbage." The irony was downright painful.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #16 –
"Audiotruth" seems to have been a name applied to a line of AudioQuest products at one time, but that's probably just a coincidence.

Fool's Gold

Reply #17 –
Maybe regular cables would work better if the Talisman demagnetizer or custom capacitors or fuses where used.

Fool's Gold

Reply #18 –
Quote from: ron spencer on
Maybe regular cables would work better if the Talisman demagnetizer or custom capacitors or fuses where used.


Hehehe.

I think whe whole "cable debate" is secondary (or even tertiary). The main thrust of the article seemed to be about lying. And the owner of Toxic Cables when he had a chance to respond, just doubled down on that lie. It's not a matter of a cable manufacturer saying they use a silver and gold alloy and state or imply that this will result in better sound. You can argue that until the cows come home.

Rather, when a customer expressed concern about the possible effect on the conductivity using such an alloy (this customer was of the belief that conductivity was pretty much "everything"), he was assured by Toxic Cables that even when alloyed with 1% gold, that the conductivity of the alloy was still higher than copper.

I don't have it at my fingertips, but you can Google some of the text in the quote and find the original post on HeadFi to see it in its original context.

The only defense Toxic Cables offered was to say that the article was just made up garbage.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #19 –
on the other hand from the pictures I've seen, there might be real actual snake oil on toxic cables.
that's something really unique.

Fool's Gold

Reply #20 –
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Disappointing. I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles. This is the only one, but the article is kind of interesting. In the comments though, audiotruth is disappointing. His handling of standard subjectivist arguments (I know what I hear. You science-y people don't know everything) was weak, B- at best, and when Frank baited him, his answers *do* sound as though he is a cable competitor of Frank (clearly the Toxic guy). Rather than respond intelligently to all, he just sounds like he's bashing his competition (C- for answers to Frank).

I'm largely in agreement with this, though I don't think he was too unreasonably harsh. But if indeed Frank is right in thinking that audiotruth is from a company that makes $300 cables, as audiotruth's own replies appear to indicate, I would say he's likely guilty of the same thing. Exactly how do you stay in business selling $300 cables without making ridiculous audiophile-baiting claims? How do you even sell them if you're honest? And if he's from AudioQuest, well, they have stuff that ranges from overpriced to obscenely overpriced to disgustingly overpriced and contradictory to the spirit of the article/blog post and its author's pseudonym.

Fool's Gold

Reply #21 –
Quote from: _if on
I'm largely in agreement with this, though I don't think he was too unreasonably harsh. But if indeed Frank is right in thinking that audiotruth is from a company that makes $300 cables, as audiotruth's own replies appear to indicate, I would say he's likely guilty of the same thing. Exactly how do you stay in business selling $300 cables without making ridiculous audiophile-baiting claims? How do you even sell them if you're honest? And if he's from AudioQuest, well, they have stuff that ranges from overpriced to obscenely overpriced to disgustingly overpriced and contradictory to the spirit of the article/blog post and its author's pseudonym.


The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:

http://theaudioguild.com

If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.

se


Fool's Gold

Reply #22 –
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff  i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.

But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.

Although the comparison is ridiculous (sorry se) it's a bit like selling expensive watches. You don't need to tell your customers that your watches are more precise than others (whether that's actually the case is another story) because that's not what the customer is looking for primarily anyway.
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #23 –
Quote from: xnor on
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff  i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.

But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.

Although the comparison is ridiculous (sorry se) it's a bit like selling expensive watches. You don't need to tell your customers that your watches are more precise than others (whether that's actually the case is another story) because that's not what the customer is looking for primarily anyway.


Thank you for the kind words, xnor.

I have been discussing audio in online forums such as this for about 30 years. And during that 30 years I have been consistent in being critical of the outlandish claims made in this industry.

And no need to apologize for the comparison. When it comes to the pleasure and enjoyment of listening to reproduced music, I am simply not a utilitarian. I want more than just a list of specs and features. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Each choise is valid and just depends on the particular individual.

What I design I design first and foremost for myself. I don't do anything "for the market." That's why I only sell just one model of headphone cable, one model of interconnect cable and one model of loudspeaker cable. I allow for some color and materials options on them, but that's it.