Jump to content

Audio myths and misconceptions


Guest Simonon

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Nigel said:

 

Thinking more about this reference library, I now suggest the articles can be submitted by anyone, i.e you, me or someone who has heard the difference a power cable can make. The select people (still yet undefined, undetermined) simply review and either publish (OK!) or return to submitter ("you need to clarify what you mean by 'confabulation' ")

I agree with the direction you are going, but still don't see why we would not just use the existing resources that already do all this, i.e. wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The problem that doesn't need fixing, is that there are tons of fantastic info in Stereonet, clouded by tripe, BS and incorrect conclusions. It has always narked me that a newbie comes on and asks a question and occasionally gets rubbish or BS for a response.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Nigel said:

The problem that doesn't need fixing, is that there are tons of fantastic info in Stereonet, clouded by tripe, BS and incorrect conclusions. It has always narked me that a newbie comes on and asks a question and occasionally gets rubbish or BS for a response.   

It is always open to others to offer a correction to what they consider to be rubbish/BS.  Or at least to offer an "alternative view for consideration".

 

I'm not sure there really is "tons of fantastic info" on SNA that couldn't be found with a google search.

 

If a person really wants to find out about such things as "amplifier damping factor", "audio jitter",  or "aftermarket power cords", they can search the net.  There are many articles available to peruse, some of them very well written. 

 

And a range of views can be found from "these things in practice are of little concern" to "these things are critical and you must address them with specialist gear".

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
18 hours ago, LHC said:

Here is a recent example. 

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/can-you-hear-a-noise-in-this-gif-of-electricity-transmission-tower-jumping/news-story/4d45f395fcd3c1da85de4229037f9752

 

The 'absolute truth' is that the GIF produces no sound, or one could simply switch off the PC/laptop sound devices and there are no sound waves to be heard. The relative truth though is that some people can 'hear' a sound in their head, while others cannot. Whether that 'head sound' exists depends on the individual. The question though is it worth debating if such sound exits? Surely once people understood this phenomena, there is nothing left to debate. 

I don't hear anything, but I feel it in the pit of my stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more we are invested in something the greater our justification. There have been studies on the followers of doomsday cults. When the predicted end of the world passed the followers with the most invested had even higher regard for their leader, while others on the fringe might have been able to see the falacy of the cult and left.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

By the way, my suggested poll of a few posts back was not intended necessarily to have only one correct or approved answer for each question. I was very much interested in what the prevailing opinions might be (regardless of my own views on what answers would be closest to "correct").

 

 

Perhaps not the most correct but the most popular.

2 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I think the suggestions have some merit but is there really a problem that needs fixing with the current setup ?

IMO, nope!

1 hour ago, Nigel said:

The problem that doesn't need fixing, is that there are tons of fantastic info in Stereonet, clouded by tripe, BS and incorrect conclusions. It has always narked me that a newbie comes on and asks a question and occasionally gets rubbish or BS for a response.   

Yes I agree and I feel your pain, but somethings can just be let go even if they are more important than politics or r...

You know fool+m...

Like my kids, they know it all and I'm just stupid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

As I read @LHC's definition of absolute truth, there is no requirement for it to correspond to reality. All that matters is that everyone believes it 

That's also the definition of mass delusion. So, if the definition of absolute truth and the definition of mass delusion are the same, audio myths are all absolute truths.

 

:na:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rocky500 said:

This is just my view but I am all for having a separate section that the Experts can post in if that helps keep them out of the other sections a bit more and they can all post great info that people can read if they want to.

I love reading what they say, but in the end it can be too much info for what I am looking for out of this hobby.

Here's a much better idea: have a separate section that is the only place that sighted subjective reviews and subjective comments can be made. We can call it The Great Illusion.

:angel:

 

Stick it right down the bottom of the Forums list, under the non-audio heading.

 

After all, it's going to be full of posts like "Component X sounds Fantastic, changed my world" mixed in with "Same Component X sounds Crap, ruined my hifi". Then they can go at each other hammer and tongs. And it's in the right place under the non-audio heading, because there won't be any useful audio information there. Get it?

 

You can hang out there Rocky because it is easy reading, like Mills and Boon stirred in a pot with Harry Potter movies. I might make an occasional appearance as Voldemort.

:popcorn:

 

Any subjective reviews and subjective comments made anywhere else can be reported and dealt with harshly.

 

There I fixed it. LOL

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2017 at 3:44 PM, Newman said:

Here's a much better idea: have a separate section that is the only place that sighted subjective reviews and subjective comments can be made. We can call it The Great Illusion.

:angel:

 

Stick it right down the bottom of the Forums list, under the non-audio heading.

 

After all, it's going to be full of posts like "Component X sounds Fantastic, changed my world" mixed in with "Same Component X sounds Crap, ruined my hifi". Then they can go at each other hammer and tongs. And it's in the right place under the non-audio heading, because there won't be any useful audio information there. Get it?

 

You can hang out there Rocky because it is easy reading, like Mills and Boon stirred in a pot with Harry Potter movies. I might make an occasional appearance as Voldemort.

:popcorn:

 

Any subjective reviews and subjective comments made anywhere else can be reported and dealt with harshly.

 

There I fixed it. LOL

That is quite clever and made me smile. :)

 

Edited by rocky500
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Simonon
 
I am really pleased I left this thread, even if this post is technically regarded as further participation
 
*shuffles off shaking head in disbelief*
But this precious princess misses your input [emoji23]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Muon N'
3 hours ago, two fold said:

The more we are invested in something the greater our justification. There have been studies on the followers of doomsday cults. When the predicted end of the world passed the followers with the most invested had even higher regard for their leader, while others on the fringe might have been able to see the falacy of the cult and left.

 

image06.jpg.f57e7222e711490b461a71382edda04b.jpg

 

:cool:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Newman said:

Hang on Frank. Which part of the statement, "Changing the $5 power cable for the $5k power cable does not improve the quality of the sound waves in any audible way" is mere personal opinion, and not a fact?

 

Which part of it is just someone digging heels in, and not a fact?

 

And which part of the opposing statement, "Oh yes it does, I heard it with my own ears" is anything other than someone mis-attributing non-sonic psychological factors for changes in sound waves?

 

Also, if moving a topic to the Great Audio Debate forum isn't disrespectful, why is this audio forum not listed with all the other audio forums, but shunted to the bottom of the forum list in the non-audio section, at the bottom of that section? Pretty clear to me.

What someone states they hear is their opinion. So if someone says they hear a difference then that is also a fact. There are people on SNA who have technical backgrounds who say they hear differences changing components (incl. cables) both sighted and blind.

The measurement and human response to stimuli discussion hasn’t yet been finalised. Human behaviour, brain patterns emotional responses invisible to standard measurement techniques (comments made by ESS CTO)   are now being monitored by MRI brain scanning. 

Principle Engineer at Belden (Advanced Product Research and Development, Premise Wire.) discusses / published why cables make a difference and it is audible.  

The understanding of the human reaction to audio stimulation is on-going. 

So I disagree with your opinions you call facts. 

IMO the location of the thread is appropriate. If you feel disrespected - ah well, not everyone can be happy all the time. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LHC said:

Published articles are not necessarily absolute truth. However they (especially the peer-reviewed ones) encompass our knowledge base, rightly or wrongly, and should be treated as such. 

What a load of BS this is...

Especially in the world of academia...

Where the quantity of what you have published...

Has become more important than the quality of said article...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



This thread is just disintegrating into an egotistical shoot out and nobody benefits.  Every body is right from their own perspective and at the same there is no correct answer.  Any wonder that some content on Stereonet is not taken seriously in outside audio hifi circles as has already been suggested in at least one post in this thread.  I wonder how the discussion would go if we were all in room together face to face discussing some of what is being said in some recent posts.  I wouldn't be surprised if the tenor of the discussion was more collaborative and conciliatory.  After all don't we all have the same objectives?   To learn and benefit from the experience of others.

John

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rob181 said:

What a load of BS this is...

Especially in the world of academia...

Where the quantity of what you have published...

Has become more important than the quality of said article...

 

 

You are correct that there has been an emphasis on quantity of publication, but that does not make what I said BS. People who ignore the bulk of the published literature will have severe credibility problem. You are taking an extreme and over-generalised view of academia rather than a balanced and reasonable position. Again, that may be credible in animal science, but it is certainly not true in other fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

I don't hear anything, but I feel it in the pit of my stomach.

 

It is still a form of mental association with what you see. It is an interesting phenomenon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Simonon
1 hour ago, Assisi said:
This thread is just disintegrating into an egotistical shoot out and nobody benefits.  Every body is right from their own perspective and at the same there is no correct answer.  Any wonder that some content on Stereonet is not taken seriously in outside audio hifi circles as has already been suggested in at least one post in this thread.  I wonder how the discussion would go if we were all in room together face to face discussing some of what is being said in some recent posts.  I wouldn't be surprised if the tenor of the discussion was more collaborative and conciliatory.  After all don't we all have the same objectives?   To learn and benefit from the experience of others.
John

I have to agree with John here and we all need to take a breathe. As I have mentioned in numerous posts certain subjects in the world of audio are deeply devisive but that does not mean you cannot post an opinion, the art is in how you do it. Be respectful of others opinions and always be happy to be proven wrong. Remember we are here to learn from each other.
This brings me to an interesting topic that I have written about recently and am interested in opinions.
" How much influence do you think our imagination" has on our perception of a sonic improvement in our system with the aquisition of a new piece of equipment.
Please see some of my recent posts in regards to this subject.
Human imagination is one of our most powerful attributes and the reason why we are blessed with music, art and amazing inventions like your entire Hifi system. Remember every device humans have ever invented was once a concept in its invertors imagination. You cannot deny its existence and sheer power especially in sighted listening tests when making a change to your system. I have heard many deeply polarised opinions in both camps ( power cables for example but this can be anything mentioned in this thread) I am not interested in who thinks they are right or wrong.
I am interested in opinions in regards to the power of our imagination and its influence on our perceptions and beliefs in the world of audio.
Note I have mine which I have shared with you all.

Edited by Simonon
spelling errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
11 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

You are correct that there has been an emphasis on quantity of publication, but that does not make what I said BS. People who ignore the bulk of the published literature will have severe credibility problem. You are taking an extreme and over-generalised view of academia rather than a balanced and reasonable position. Again, that may be credible in animal science, but it is certainly not true in other fields. 

Because of the quantity of what gets published, a few things happen:

  • where it gets published becomes more important
  • people use a small quantity of what is available in their area, and often use that which they agree with (a bit like social media in that respect)
  • the most cited articles rise to the top, regardless of quality

 

Peer reviewed publication is very much about the work being credible, not about being "right". Understand that, and you're OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top