[JackD201]

Not just here but every single audio forum. It always ends up with "To each his own" or "It's all about the music" or as dear Wilma used to say "Trust your ears".

Why? Probably because it's the darned truth. 

Over the years though the myths I've seen debunked are the ones that claim certain things DO NOT make a difference rather than the myths that things DO.

The scientific method begins with observation. To discard something observed as impossible just because existing test methods can't explain it yet is, well.....poor science. 

[James Romeyn]

Similar topics, and similar ego's pushing opinions as facts.  When that happens, someone will always be there to debate the other side of the equation.  Its a never-ending cycle, even when someone actually gets proven wrong. 

92"?  Awesome!

My brother in law Gil Hernandez is living with us.  He was at The Last Waltz in the upper balcony at Winterland.  He plays congas and harmonica, timbales, percussion expert...played with Elvin Bishop's Lucky Strike Band (Berkeley), Cold Blood, and Dave Garibaldi of Tower of Power, Merle Saunders, George Smith (harmonica player for Big Mama May Thornton)...Armondo Perazza (percussionist with Mongo Santa Maria, Cal Tjader and more), Commander Cody at The Cadillac in Princeton IL, Chapito Aries from Santana, Pete Escovido (the uncle of Shelia Escovido who played with Prince), and more.  Gil's on the right in this video at our house yesterday http://www.facebook.com/search/?flt=1&q=kevin+kula&o=2048&sid=1157192213.381103305..1#!/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1157192213

My cousin Belia Leon dated Jorge Santana back in the day.   

I plan to get Gil on video doing subscription lessons on my website if I can get several other major items checked off. 

The movie waits for now.

[DanTheMan]

The scientific method begins with observation. To discard something observed as impossible just because existing test methods can't explain it yet is, well.....poor science.

The science takes observation into account.

Dr. Toole's book would be sooo valuable for the audiophiles if they'd just read it.  The whole thing.

Dan

[TONEPUB]

Dr. Toole's book would be sooo valuable for the audiophiles if they's just read it.  The whole thing.

Dan

Isn't Dr. Tooles employer, Harman International the guys that just stuck an Oppo player inside a different chassis and charged five times as much for it?

He does make an excellent point about the room/speaker interface though.

[Nuance]

Dr. Toole is retired from Harman, now. 

[DanTheMan]

Isn't Dr. Tooles employer, Harman International the guys that just stuck an Oppo player inside a different chassis and charged five times as much for it?

I'm not sure.   Wouldn't surprise me.  If you wonder how that happens, blame the bean counters or who ever makes that decision.  I'm sure you know that, but some may read that sentence and think it's a good point against science and Dr. Toole's contributions to it.  I don't think you, TONEPUB, wanted to argue the man (unless it is pertinent--not an issue here) based on the company that employed him for part of his career.

It takes 522 pages for him to talk about that point (room speaker interaction), and a couple other points of interest to the audiophile and HT enthusiast.   Still not complete, but I know of no better references to get people started on thinking about what's important. 

Dan

[Nuance]

I agree DanTheMan.  I hope, right now, Dr. Toole is writing a second book which will pick off right where Sound Reproduction left off.  Of course, I still have to finish the first one (550 pages if you count the index - wow). 

[WGH]

I gathered the 8 papers by Dr. Toole that have been available online and put them in one location.
The papers discuss loudspeakers, rooms, sub-woofers, and speaker placement.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=58304.0

Wayne

[eclein]

Hey Thanks Wayne!!!!

[rollo]

  I've been in this hobby now for over 40 years. Have seen and heard it all. Yes there is hype, over pricing, marketing ploys, etc.
  Everything makes a difference. It depends on what difference it made for YOUR system. There are no "better" components just different. now if the difference is more to your liking than that should be enough. Do we but gear reading specs or to we listen to it in our systems.
  why do some need the science to explain what they do or do not hear ? Whatever the reason wether it be in my mind, mood, it does not matter because the end result is what WE perceive or hear. Thats it.
  Stop trying to figure out why and just listen. It is your money your opinion your taste that matters not what someone else is telling you. Try as many different cables, gear, footers as you like. Then "YOU" and you only can decide what is right for YOU.


charles

[dwk]

In my view, the major 'myth' I see boils down to an unstated assumption among many/most audiophiles

- a change in subjective experience is always accompanied by an objective change in the system

This causes problems in both directions
- if one experiences a different subjective impression of a system, it must be because something objective/external has changed
- if one wants to improve the subjective experience from a given system, you must change something external/objective  [or the related point which would be something like "it's always possible to improve the subjective experience through objective change"]

Now, it obviously is the case that making objective changes can and does change the experience, but focusing solely on this IMHO dramatically understates the internal/psychological aspects of the hobby to the detriment of actual musical enjoyment.  In fact, the wisest path towards greater musical enjoyment may well be to stop being so neurotic about the gear in the first place and actually make it 'all about the music'.  Easier said than done, of course.

[James Romeyn]

  I've been in this hobby now for over 40 years. Have seen and heard it all. Yes there is hype, over pricing, marketing ploys, etc.
  Everything makes a difference. It depends on what difference it made for YOUR system. There are no "better" components just different. now if the difference is more to your liking than that should be enough. Do we but gear reading specs or to we listen to it in our systems.
  why do some need the science to explain what they do or do not hear ? Whatever the reason wether it be in my mind, mood, it does not matter because the end result is what WE perceive or hear. Thats it.
  Stop trying to figure out why and just listen. It is your money your opinion your taste that matters not what someone else is telling you. Try as many different cables, gear, footers as you like. Then "YOU" and you only can decide what is right for YOU.


charles

I go back and forth regarding the statement above, as I suspect do many reading this with an open mind and not stuck in any particular viewpoint (in other words those not attached to any preconceived presuppositions...my understanding is all science is based on presuppositions and all presuppositions are eventually based on something unproven and unprovable).

But I usually end up agreeing with the statement above.  A person with an Asian-sourced philosophy might call it Feng Shui...in the end it doesn't matter if it's better in every "objective" or "scientific" standard if you don't like it or want it.  Ask anyone in marketing.  Almost all purchases are made at an emotional level.  It's just comical to me, to read of the science based crowd implying it's best to remove that, as if it could be. 

Why, for instance, would a science-based reveiwer even have the audacity to get into the cosmetic effect of any product?  As if he has some science based reasons to back up his 100% subjective view piont?  If that's all he has, 100% subjective viewpoints regarding cosmetics (I mean whether it's good or bad), to be consistent, do they not need to just ignore all that?  I'm probably wrong, just typing what comes to mind on this.

I generally appreciate and enjoy the growing influence of the science-based crowd here.     

[eclein]

As a former well traveled and road worn drummer, I enjoyed reading the good Dr's paper, explains why I have a hard time balancing my system...too many years of crashing cymbals and loud monitor mixes has fried the hearing in my left ear a bit, was wondering why it all sounded better if I moved over a foot to the left!!

[DanTheMan]

I gathered the 8 papers by Dr. Toole that have been available online and put them in one location.
The papers discuss loudspeakers, rooms, sub-woofers, and speaker placement.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=58304.0

Wayne

Thanks Wayne!  Excellent!

Dan

[James Romeyn]

Dan
Below link in your signature
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

I read all or most of the blog, which had definite value.  But "dishonesty" IIRC implies or directly means real or attempted intentional fraud.  The word seems more inflammatory than accurate, considering the context in which it is used.  IMO it minimizes the author's position rather than increases it. 

In his defense, everyone's just trying to make a living, and clicks on his website are related to an increase in his personal income, and that may be the reason he chose what seems to be a more inflammatory word rather than one more consistent and "honest" to his point. 

[Nuance]

"Dishonesty" also means:

Main Entry: dis·hon·es·ty
Pronunciation: (primarystress)dis-primarystressän-schwa-stemacron
Function: noun
: lack of honesty : the quality of being dishonest

I doubt Dr. Olive meant it as anything other than that. 

http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=dishonesty

[DanTheMan]

I think people try to argue against the man vs. his research and the research he sites.  It's a logical fallacy.   It could just be that he got his Ph.D. because he was obsessed with the science b/c of music and now wants to share his understanding for others with similar obsession--or he had some ulterior motive.  I don't care to think about it.  Neither would make his research or the research he sights less valid.  If I put a turd in a fancy sealed box on a table and placed a $1,000 price tag on it and convinced you you'll get everything you paid for, would I be dishonest?  I believe my turd is worth $1,000.  So I guess that depends on perspective.   I hope for most of you, I would be considered dishonest.

Dan

[toobluvr]

 
If I put a turd in a fancy sealed box on a table and placed a $1,000 price tag on it and convinced you you'll get everything you paid for, would I be dishonest?  I believe my turd is worth $1,000.  So I guess that depends on perspective.   I hope for most of you, I would be considered dishonest.
Dan

I would consider you an audio cable shyster....err, manufacturer!   

[James Romeyn]

"Dishonesty" also means:

Main Entry: dis·hon·es·ty
Pronunciation: (primarystress)dis-primarystressän-schwa-stemacron
Function: noun
: lack of honesty : the quality of being dishonest

I doubt Dr. Olive meant it as anything other than that. 

http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=dishonesty

Your link above is below in quotes:

"One entry found for dishonesty.  Main Entry:   dis·hon·es·ty
 Pronunciation:   ()dis-än--st
 Function:   noun
 : lack of honesty  : the quality of being dishonest"

Forgive me, really, but I was under the impression, with all due respect to MW, that a definition including the word is generally to be avoided and inferior to one that does not include the word.  I personally deem the above to be quite inferior to the one below, which is more complete and finishes off the phrase above with my understanding on the same line and number for the definition:   


Below is unedited:
 dis·hon·es·ty   /dɪsˈɒnəsti/ [dis-on-uh-stee]       –noun,plural-ties. 1.lack  of honesty; a disposition to lie, cheat, or steal.  2.a  dishonest act; fraud.
 
These words games grow old fast.  The article was about blind speaker comparisons vs. sited.  Where/how does fraud accurately and correctly apply to sited speaker auditions?  I'm assuming you fully agree with the author's choice of word and fully disagree with my point, which is fine.  IMO the word was intentionally inflammatory to get clicks to insure his income or a plain bad choice or possibly flat out dishonest on his part to prop up a point he fully knows is weak. 

[James Romeyn]

I think people try to argue against the man vs. his research and the research he sites.  It's a logical fallacy.   It could just be that he got his Ph.D. because he was obsessed with the science b/c of music and now wants to share his understanding for others with similar obsession--or he had some ulterior motive.  I don't care to think about it.  Neither would make his research or the research he sights less valid.  If I put a turd in a fancy sealed box on a table and placed a $1,000 price tag on it and convinced you you'll get everything you paid for, would I be dishonest?  I believe my turd is worth $1,000.  So I guess that depends on perspective.   I hope for most of you, I would be considered dishonest.

Dan

This has turned the silly corner.  If the above is to be considered an analogy for something included in the link I posted, I don't get it at all.  I detect something consistent with my original point about the PhD's choice of the word "dishonest", meaning that science-types get just as inflammatory as anyone saying $2k/ft cable will make you see god.  They're both similarly wrong and to be avoided.  I certainly think wires are way too costly in some  or many cases.  I've been around this for decades and the differences between too costly wires and the above analogy are below addressing.  The tendency of science types to see themselves as saviors of the unsuspecting public's money is some type of quasi-clinical savior complex.