It’s interesting that none of the big tweakers have commented on this thread. Maybe it’s the word “shaman?”
It could be that you started the thread with such a reasonable tone/proposal that it was off-putting to folks on the fanatical side (in either direction) of the topic.
1 Like
My stars. If you are not a native English speaker, I need to go back to class and pay attention next time! 
1 Like
That comment has to be taken in the context of my post.
My basic premise was that hifi might be a mixture of both art and science. Your point about irrational behaviour appears to support this. I was just suggesting one way the “shaman” and the “physicist” in the original post could be reconciled.
It’s not science that takes the fun out of hifi, but the intolerance on the part of some over zealous advocates of what is purported to be a scientific approach.
My two cents is that it is intolerance on both sides. The objectivists and the tweakers seem predisposed to jump down each others’ throats at the mere suggestion by the other of their approach.
I can understand this to a certain degree. The post about the $2000 Euro network switch came up again on the forum and the marketing content for that piece of gear was absurd, hard not to want to shout at. I mean it literally says that it undoes damage done to the media stream at the streaming provider’s end. Total 
*
I just think the first response can be respectful. If people jump back into their old confrontational ways, then have at it, I guess.
*Yeah it’s a water buffalo. There wasn’t a bull emoji…
The use of the word “shaman” is interesting. A lot of shamans were proto-scientists, much as many alchemists were proto-scientists. They proposed theories to explain the world, based on observations and, yes, beliefs. Lots of animism, not just supernatural beings. They looked for confirmation of their theories, and re-thought them when they didn’t prove out.
My guess is that some shamans could construct a consistent explanation for most phenomena proposed by a physicist, but entirely within the set of theories grounded in the shamanistic belief system. And vice-versa for some physicists.
A number of the misconceptions in the audiophile space can be traced to older traditions and practices in that same domain, rooted in a world before computation, where analog circuitry controlled everything and the purity of that signal was the most important thing in the world. We see this kind of lagging indicator in every sphere of human endeavor, because people are generally slow both to recognize change, and to accept it.
3 Likes
Interesting, thank you Bill. And so even shamen are open to use of rationality to construct a reasonable theoretical model of their observations, even if the elements don’t have a scientific basis.
It would be nice of some of the serious tweak-believers would participate in this dialog!
By all means carry on debunking dodgy claims by manufacturers’ marketing departments. That is a worthy endeavour.
Thanks for the advice on that. I just found a good use for that feature.
So I should change the title of this thread to “the Shaman has learned to mute the physicist.”
1 Like
It’s all good and well to (try to) define states of mind and thinking processes, but there is another problem with believer vs rationalist discussions, namely the complexity of hifi chains.
I define two kinds of complexity here.
The first is the complexity of individual components. The knowledge most of us have about any given component is of a general nature. A DAC uses one or more processing chips to convert a digital stream to an analog output. We have little knowledge of the actual layout of the circuitry, what the signal path is like, whether the signal path is different for each separate input, etc. An amplifier can either take an analog input and just amplify the line in signal or it can take an analog input, run it through an ADC, do some signal processing (like room adjustment) and then run it through it’s own internal DAC again. Speaker efficiency, design and whatnot…
The second is the interaction of all these complex components. Are the amp and the speakers well matched? Does everyone in the discussion use a comparable system? Even with identical systems, do they use the same inputs and outputs for their components (e.g. when an amp has discrete signal paths for each input)?
The variables are many. And while each variable may not cause a big difference, the sum of these differences can add up to a noticeable difference in SQ. More so when you take into account the one component that actually has a clear and (as far as I’m aware of) undisputed individual sound: the speaker setup.
BTW, this is the part of the chain that - on this forum at least - is given virtually no attention in discussions about SQ and the influence of components and interlinks on SQ.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but I am not sure it really affects the debate regarding tweaks not supported by science. Except that I think it probably does increase mis-attribution of the cause of changes in sound, and I suppose it probably increases confusion around the application of scientific and engineering principles generally.
The real hostility I observe is the duel between “My ears are all the evidence I need” and “But there is no science to support a difference in sound/please provide some actual measurements as evidence.”
For example, there is a thread entitled “Do Power Cables Make a Difference in Sound Quality” and one post was essentially “I don’t need you to require proof from me, I have the right to like my power cables.” But the question is “do they make a difference?” not “do you love your power cables?” so the appeal to measurements and evidence seemed reasonable.
I don’t think this is because folks are unaware of this point. I just think it has to do with this being a forum for audio software and so the digital side gets more focus. That said, power cables could be an analog or a digital question.
I think the disconnect is even more foundational than that. What I generally see is “My ears are all the evidence I need” and “Ears are unreliable. Can you at least try a blind test?”.
Measurements would be fantastic, but let’s be honest — If someone could reliably and convincingly distinguish between two different power cables in a blind test, their demonstration would advance the discussion even in the absence of measurements or a plausible theory on how.
One is left wondering why this has never happened in all the years this debate has entertained us.
I was attempting to highlight just that as a contributing factor to mutual misunderstanding, James.
This will of course be reinforced by this:
Though I am not sure if “my ears are all the evidence I need” is a point of view that has to be taken seriously or even respected.
It’s a non sequitur, after all.
Well, look at it this way. What if a tweak measured, scientifically, as a substantial improvement, but you could not hear any difference. Would you spend for that tweak? It’s scientifically established, but you cannot hear an improvement. Point being, an audible difference is at least PART of the necessary equation.
It’s an excellent feature that cuts down on unwanted noise. Works better than even upgraded power cords… 
Can you provide measurements of your satisfaction with this feature 
Actually it works 100 percent! Select the “problem component” and hit ignore. You can select the feature for a day, a week, however you’d like. No more noise… 
Now all that’s missing is the ability to group components 
1 Like
Money!!!
So I take it that you have never, ever read an equipment review in one the various high end audio magazines/web sites?